Question 2: To what extent do you agree with the proposed spatial strategy policy? Please provide comments to support your answer.
No answer given
No answer given
Water Lane is not a good location
That is all fine as long as sites do not impinge on local village communities as the number of people on a given site should not overwhelm the local community.
That is all fine as long as sites do not impinge on local village communities as the number of people on a given site should not overwhelm the local community.
No answer given
The proposed vision and objectives of the DPD are strongly supported. The alternative, namely failing to meet the reasonably forecast needs will result in unauthorised developments taking place across the Borough. This would therefore frustrate members of the gypsy and traveller communities and cause high levels of frustration amongst nearby residents. Land to meet the needs of these communities therefore has to be provided. The Council’s proposed spatial strategy is supported. The needs of the gypsy and traveller communities are spread throughout the Borough and therefore sites need to be provided in appropriate locations.
I disagree as I bI strongly object to the proposed spatial strategy for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation. The allocation of 529 pitches and 7 plots, including non-allocated sites in rural service centres, larger villages, and countryside, will overconcentrate development in sensitive areas, fundamentally altering the character of established communities and landscapes. The strategy fails to demonstrate that local infrastructure—roads, schools, healthcare, and utilities—can cope with the additional demand, particularly in rural locations where capacity is already limited. Permitting development across garden settlements and countryside raises serious concerns about harm to landscape, biodiversity, and residential amenity, with no clear evidence of mitigation. Furthermore, the approach to non-allocated sites and broad locations lacks robust, transparent criteria for sustainability and accessibility, creating uncertainty and risk of inappropriate site selection. This plan does not adequately safeguard environmental quality or community cohesion and should be revised to prioritise infrastructure capacity, environmental protection, and clear, evidence-based site selection.elive there is a large risk the countryside will become ruined,
Larger villages have limited infrastructure, so would be unable to cope with an influx of additional residents.
The map is illegible. There is no mention of sites such as C4S (008) - what category is this under? and also to note, there appears to be an 'unspecified' number of caravan pitches for this site, what does that actually mean? A large number of pitches and associated traffic will have a negative impact on this small, already over trafficked village.
No answer given
The site C4S-017 "The Brishings" does not meet the criteria as set out in the councils Spatial Strategy Policy for the following reasons: - Site Suitability and Accessibility: The spatial strategy does not clearly explain how the location will provide reasonable access to key services, schools, health car, employment and public transport compared with alternative sites nearer established settlements. Allocations should prioritise locations where occupants can realistically access everyday facilities without undue reliance on private vehicles, in line with the spatial strategy's sustainability aims. The evidence provided so far does not demonstrate this. - Landscape and Character Impact: The draft plan discusses meeting needs while protecting the boroughs environment and countryside character, but there is insufficient site-specific assessment of landscape sensitivity, visual impact, or cumulative harm in this rural setting. Allocating a site like The Brishings risks disproportionate change to local rural character. - Lack of clear justification compared to alternatives: The spatial strategy does not explain why this site should be preferred over other candidate sites, or how reasonable alternatives were considered against objective criteria such as sustainability, accessibility and environmental protection. There are significant transport issues in the area surrounding "The Brishings" No suitable access is available to the site that would allow for large vehicles to maneuver without causing traffic issues. The site is served by Leeds Road on one side, and Green Lane on the other. Green Lane does not allow access due to the limited width of the road, using this lane to access the site from either end would not give you the required space to safely maneuver large vehicles without causing significant safety concerns. Leeds Road is a fast moving road, there have been a large number of serious collisions at various points along this road, including near to "The Brishings" I request that the council remove The Brishings from the list of potential allocations as use of this site does not meet the goal of the strategy with regards sustainability, accessibility, landscape impact or infrastructure capacity. The draft spatial strategy does not adequately address the findings of the Councils own Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study, which identifies rural areas like those near The Brishings as highly sensitive to change and in need of conservation and reinforcement. Allocating this land undermines the strategy's objective to protect countryside character.
Dear Alison, I am writing to formally raise my objections to the following sites currently under consideration by the Council as part of the Call for Sites exercise for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation. Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge I am concerned that the Council has not specified the number of pitches being proposed for this site. Regardless of scale, The Lodge is accessed via a very narrow country lane, which would be wholly unsuitable for development of this nature. In addition, there are strong local concerns that development would have a detrimental impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape. The site also contains several important oak trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, which could be negatively affected by any development. Policy C4S (017) – The Brishings This site is extremely unpopular with local residents, to the extent that a petition has been organised in opposition. It is important that the Council gives due weight to the strength of local opinion when making planning decisions. Having recently purchased a house in [...] had I know about the proposal I would never have purchased the house. [...] The proposed development for the travellers site has purposefully been withheld from anyone purchasing in Lilk meadow which is dishonest, I know none of the residents in the new Lilk meadow development would have bought their house had they know about this proposal. Furthermore, as with The Lodge on Green Lane, access to this site is via a single-track country lane. This road would be entirely incapable of accommodating the level of traffic that a development of approximately 20 pitches would generate. I trust these concerns will be carefully considered as part of the ongoing assessment of sites. I look forward to your response
Larger villages do not have the infrastructure to support an influx of transient residents. There are limited services for the non-travelling communities in these areas and they do not offer the support needed by the travelling community.
Bearsted is such a nice village, this plan will destroy the community, lower the value of all our homes and make the area unsafe…
Bearsted is not the area to home travellers. This is a lovely safe community of which now the entire community are panicking about their idyllic lives being turned upside down. The housing market has stopped (i know as i am on the market) , people are looking to leave because of what is being proposed and others no longer want to relocate into an area they once fought over coming to for schools, community feel and green spaces. Water lane does not have the infrastructure to home them, its a dangerous road, others have lost lives recently on similar roads on Thurnham road and numerous previous plans have been rejected because of this. This should not be approved for the safety of all.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
I find the whole spatial strategy to be floored and in the favour of parties that do not fit into communities and that do not want to intergrate with local communities
Maidstone already has a much higher proportion of traveller communities within its boundaries than other areas of the UK. using this basis to calculate future requirements is inappropriate and is putting more pressure on the already significant pressure of housing in the local plan and ruining the rural nature of our area. The figures should be recalculated downwards to reflect current national figures rather than the unstatistic spike of Maidstone district.
The spatial strategy is unsound and fails to properly consider local constraints, particularly in Bearsted area. It applies a broad, top-down approach that ignores existing traffic congestion, limited infrastructure and pressure on local services, all of which make further development in this area unsustainable. The policies do not demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been fully explored or that development is being directed to the most suitable and accessible locations. As a result, the strategy risks disproportionate and unjustified harm to the character, environment and quality of life in Bearsted. Significant revision is required.
No answer given
It is important that new allocated sites are not situated immediately adjacent to existing settled communities. This would cause fear, resentment, disharmony, mistrust and deep concern amongst the existing settled communities. It would also cause their house values to fall which is completely unacceptable.m
I strongly disagree to the proposal of the C4S(017) The Brishings location as a proposed site. This will have major impacts on the surrounding area which is already struggling with road usage (there would be no safe access road to the site), impact on utilities, lack of local public transport. The use of this location will impact the historical nature of the village, impact to nature from light pollution, increased flooding risks, wasted aquacultural use of the land, impact to the wildlife that live on the land (foxes, badgers, bats, owls and birds of pray to name a few).
No answer given
The local area is already choking due to over development. Infrastructure and roads are not fit for purpose. Agricultural land is being used for development or for solar farms, not for food production. House building provides immediate employment but does not make provision for long term employment needs.
The KDNL team is supportive of much of the spatial strategy of this DPD, however we consider that the proposed spatial strategy does not accord with the statutory duty on the Council contained in the LURA Act 2023 that, in carrying out its plan making functions, it must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Kent Downs and High Weald National Landscapes. We therefore request that paragraph 79 be amended. While it is the case that "The countryside has an intrinsic rural character and beauty that should be conserved and protected for its own sake" significant areas of the countryside within the borough fall within National Landscapes where national policy is clear 'great weight' should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty and where the scale and extent of development should be limited. This should be clearly set out here.
Whilst it is noted within this policy that the preferred location for pitches is in the southern rural part of the borough, great care must be taken not to over-intensify the additional number of pitches allocated, as this could potentially cause tensions within the G&T communities, and create too much competition within the traditional areas of employment. Whilst I accept that the assessment of the need for future pitches has been established in conjunction with the existing G&T community, it is acknowledged elsewhere in this document that Maidstone Borough has one of the highest concentrations of gypsies and travellers when compared to the overall number of residents, and the percentage per 1000 head of population is significantly higher than other parts of the UK. This situation could well lead to tensions and competition for employment previously mentioned which would be detrimental to the G&T community going forwards.
Larger villages such as Hollingbourne should be exempt from consideration for GTTP allocated plots and subsequent ‘windfall’ plots at later phases of this consultation. Lack of Facilities and Amenities - Hollingbourne has no village hall, no shop, no post office, no doctor, no dentist and no secondary school provision in the village. There is already limited scope for access to Hollingbourne Primary School for the settled community. Both this and the schools in the surrounding area will be oversubscribed in the next 4 years with the increase in planning for the settled population in these villages. Schools with large GTTP intake often see a reduction of the quality of education for the children of the settled residents. This due to lack of regular attendance and higher rates of non-attendance of the GTTP community. Hollingbourne Primary School has an intake of 15 children per year: the higher the proportion of GTTP children in a year’s cohort, the more significant the disruption in the school and the greater the negative impact on the educational outcomes for all children in that cohort. Protection of Heritage -There is a high prevalence of listed buildings Grade I, Grade II* and Grade III and three conservation areas close to some of the proposed sites. We should do everything to preserve the historic heritage of the area to attract travel and tourism and its economic benefits. Including GTTP pitches in the vicinity of these heritage sites will have a negative impact. Protection of the Natural Environment – Eyhorne St is the gateway to the Kent Downs AONB and has wonderful Kentish landscapes with diverse wildlife, flora and fauna. We should be minimising development on green belt, farmland and woodlands in the area. Roads such as Greenway Court Road, Hospital Lane and Greenway Lane are notorious hotspots for fly-tipping. MBC would need to demonstrate how this would be mitigated were the current and additional GTTP pitches approved. 400 metres is an insufficient radius and will have a negative impact on the settled community especially those on the outskirts of a larger village such as Eyhorne St. Any plan needs to demonstrate how it will minimise anti-social behaviour and rural crimes such as fly-tipping that often occur along rural roads. With regard to access to facilities and services, GTTP communities located 400m away from the larger village will still drive through the village to access facilities that are not provided in the village itself, adding to the already overburdened rural road network e.g. Eyhorne St, Greenway Court Road, Greenway Lane. Locating the pitches in places with greater access to facilities and on a road network that has the capacity to support the increase in the movements of large vehicles associated with a travelling community would be a better proposal.