This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Racism claim over day room plan


LINTON Parish Council has strenuously de- nied a claim of racism made by a senior planning committee member over an appli- cation involving a gypsy development. The parish council raised an objection to a proposal for a day room at a caravan site in FiveOak Stables, Stilebridge Lane, yet failed to send a representative to speak at the deter- mining planning committee meeting. The only explanation for the objection


was a statement in the agenda that said: “Linton Parish Council wishes to see this totally inappropriate development refused as we feel that it is an application to build a fixed dwelling, which is contrary to the ethics of the travelling community.” Cllr Clive English, a seasoned committee member, was highly critical of this com- ment. He said: “I hope Linton Parish Coun- cilhasaverygoodexcusefor notbeing here, because they have referred it to us without a valid planning ground and have given us a statement that is racist. “There may be some legitimate concerns,


but it would have helped had they shared them with us instead of making slurs about a community that I find offensive in the extreme.” Speaking after themeet-


ing, Cllr Clive Baxter, the chairman of Linton Parish Council, said: “In the context of planning law travellers have to demonstrate a nomadic way of life and we considered that a build- ing the size of what they were proposing – with a kitchen, dining room and everything bar a bedroom – looked like an attempt to create a dwelling sometime in the future. “We just thought that in planning terms


Cllr Clive English


would be horrified that anyone would think we would make a racist comment. We wouldbeverydisappointedifitwas viewed that way.” Regarding the parish council’s non-atten-


dance at the committee meeting, he added: “I had discussed this with Dennis Collins, our local borough councillor on the planning committee, and it was felt that if our reason for refusal was not considered valid then we would have had nothing else to add. “We didn’t want to waste planning com- mittee time by speaking for three minutes. We should have given our apologies.” Borough councillors also raised eyebrows


the ethos of the travelling community is to maintain a nomadic way of life and that this looked like the introduction of a permanent dwelling. “At no point did Linton Parish Council think we were making a racist comment.We


Extra caravans ‘adding to strain on infrastructure’


GYPSIES have been given per- mission to add sevenmore car- avans to a site in Headcorn. Maidstone Council’s plan-


ning committee granted retro- spective permission for the legal occupation of four static and three touring caravans in Greengates, located 1.6 miles north of Headcorn on the east side of Lenham Road. Headcorn Parish Council


had opposed the scheme on the grounds of overdevelop- ment in a rural area; not enough space to accommodate 17 horses; an unsustainable form of development and adding to the 15 traveller pitches along this section of Lenham Road so dominating the settled community. The council received sympa-


thy from some members of the committee, such as chairman Cllr Richard Lusty, who said: “Lenham Road in Headcorn is getting completely over-popu- lated. The parish council is ab- solutely right: the strain on infrastructure is becoming great and the primary school is actually full. “To increase by this amount


Extension bid FOUR additional caravans for gypsy use may be sta- tioned at Bramblewood Sta- bles, Pitt Road, Kingswood. Michelle Jacobi’s proposal


also requests the introduc- tion of four amenity blocks. Planning permission was originally granted for four caravans to be sited there in 1997. The planning application


to double the number of car- avans will be determined by Maidstone Council.


32 South


of caravans is a step too far.” However, he also noted that


the council did not have suffi- cient policies to rebuff such applications. Committee mem- ber Cllr Tony Harwood said the proposal was “innocuous” and the debate instead shifted to whether it was necessary to place a three-year temporary restriction, as recommended by planning officers. Cllr Ian Chittenden, a committee mem- ber, predicted: “In three years’ time we will not be able to re- fuse again.” The committee went with of-


ficers’ wishes and granted tem- porary permission, with seven members voting for, two against and three abstentions. Permanent planning permis-


sion was first granted in April 2006 for a single family on part of the site, but with a per- sonal restriction and limited to two caravans. The latest scheme allows for continued occupation by a dif- ferent gypsy family and to in- crease the number of permitted caravans to cater for the eight adults and four chil- dren who now live on the site.


Plan withdrawn A PROPOSAL for two gypsy families to remain living in two plots on land east of Water Lane, Headcorn has been withdrawn. Mr Mamey and Mr Brown


had applied for retrospective consent to site two mobile homes, two touring caravans and two utility rooms north of Hammerstream Paddock having initially moved there without planning permis- sion. The scheme has now been shelved.


The Meadows gypsy site is said to be harming the countryside


Gypsy site can stay for now, planners decide


THE borough’s largest private gypsysite–inLenhamRoad, Headcorn – is to remain in situ for at least another three years after its planning permission was renewed. An appeal inspector two years


ago granted temporary permis- sion for the siting of 10 mobile homes, 20 touring caravans and 10 utility blocks on land to the rear of The Meadows. Maidstone Council’s planning committee has now allowed the 10 gypsy families to remain, as there had been no material change in circumstances since the two-year consentwas given. When consent was first granted, the planning inspector admitted the development caused “severe harm” to the countryside. However, the in- spector decided this was out- weighed by personal need, a lack of alternative sites in the borough and inadequate gypsy policy guidance in Maidstone. The latter two issues have still


not been addressed, with the council yet to come up with al- ternative sites to meet the recog- nised demand for 183 pitches between 2011 and 2026. Cllr Stephen Paine, cabinet member for planning, said the council hoped to be going out to consultation on proposed new gypsy sites when the borough’s draft Core Strategy goes back out to consultation in September.


“The bottom line is that we


are not far enough forward in terms of development plan pol- icy or alternative sites,” plan- ning officer Peter Hockney said. “Rather than refuse the appli- cation due to severe harm caused, we should permit it for a temporary period to tie in with the forthcoming policy regime.” The committee agreed with


this approach. Cllr Tony Har- wood, a member of the commit- tee, said: “This is an interim position because of the policy landscape. This is one of those sites we are going to have to live with for a few years until we have a policy in place.” Headcorn Parish Council, rep- resented by Cllr John Russell, pointed out a recent study by Action for Communities in Rural Kent that stated the aver- age ratio between the gypsy and settled population is 0.4% in England, 0.6% in Kent and 3.2% in Headcorn. “It is reasonable to conclude


that Headcorn has a dispropor- tionate amount of sites,” he said. “In this part of Lenham Road, the gypsy sites dominate the settled community.” Some members said they had sympathy with the situation in Headcorn, but were compelled to vote unanimously in favour of a three-year temporary con- sent.


You can e-mail the Downs Mail — info@downsmail.co.uk


at the size of the day room – 4.2m tall, 11m long and 6.2m wide – but the committee granted planning permission as it was well screened by vegetation. Cllr Richard Lusty, chairman of the plan-


ning committee, said: “Here we have one family and a size I can’t comprehend.” However, the scheme was approved by six votes to two, with four abstentions.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48