Question 6: To what extent do you agree with the potential site allocation policies? Please provide comments to support your answer, quoting specific policy reference/site name wherever possible.
No answer given
POLICY C4S (025) – FORSTAL FARM BARN - extremely excessive allocation at this site. Local services and infrastructure already unable to cope , significantly worsen recently with significant new house building around this area. The suggested level of additional pitches will undoubtedly impact other established communities and individuals around the area. Area is becoming quite populated and not suitable for further large development. Bus service 89 which would be closest to site can’t currently serve coxhealth residents due to already sig number of parked cars on Stocklett lane. Too populated already. If a bus can’t get down stocklett lane how will a caravan ?
I think for each Pitch that has been previously passed for a family, it should be allowed to extend the number of mobile homes for each chid as they get older and need their own housing arrangements. If the family’s pitch has already been passed, and there is room to add for existing direct family member (children) already registered at the address, this should be an easy passable application. It would still be the same address and would save the need for the council to find an alternative if there is already room on the family land.
The lodge Water lane has poor vehicular access from a very narrow, single track country lane. There are limited passing places on this narrow twisting section of lane
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted. My primary concern is the significant impact this development would have on local traffic. Water Lane already experiences heavy congestion at the best of times, especially during peak hours. The road is narrow, frequently backed up, and not well suited to additional vehicle movements. Increasing traffic flow along this stretch would likely worsen delays, create safety issues, and place further strain on an already overburdened route. In addition to the traffic concerns, I believe the proposed site is not suitable for the character and setting of this particular area. Water Lane and the surrounding neighbourhood are already under pressure from increasing development, and introducing a site of this nature would place additional stress on local infrastructure and amenities. This is a quiet residential community, and many residents feel that this development would not be an appropriate or harmonious fit for the location. I appreciate that Maidstone Borough Council must consider a range of needs and obligations, but I respectfully request that the Council reconsider this proposal and explore alternative, more suitable locations that would have less impact on traffic, safety, and local residents. Thank you for taking the time to consider my objection.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of site C45-008 (Water Lane, Bearsted) for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site under the current Maidstone Borough Council public consultation. 1. Impact on Highway Safety and Traffic Flow Water Lane is a narrow rural road with limited passing points and already experiences congestion, particularly at school pickup/drop-off times and during peak commuting periods. The visibility at junctions along the lane is poor, and the road infrastructure is not suitable for increased vehicle movements. Additional traffic would significantly increase safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and existing residents. 2. Unsuitability of the Location The proposed site sits on land that forms part of the rural setting of Bearsted. It is not well served by safe pedestrian routes, street lighting, or public transport links. As such, the location does not meet the requirements for sustainable development as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 3. Environmental and Landscape Impact The area has a distinct rural character that contributes to the setting of Bearsted and Thurnham. Development on this site would negatively affect the landscape, local biodiversity, and the transition between the built environment and open countryside. Any development here risks undermining the conservation and character of the surrounding area. 4. Pressure on Local Services and Infrastructure Bearsted’s local schools, healthcare services, and community facilities already operate at or near capacity. This site would place further pressure on these services, particularly given the limited ability for expansion within the village. 5. Flooding and Drainage Concerns Parts of Water Lane and surrounding land are known to experience surface-water drainage issues during periods of heavy rainfall. The proposed development risks exacerbating these problems unless major infrastructure works are undertaken—something not described within the proposal. 6. Inconsistency with Local Planning Policies The proposal appears to conflict with several Maidstone Borough Council planning policies, including those relating to: • The preservation of rural character • Sustainable development locations • Proper access via safe and suitable highways Conclusion For the reasons above, I request that Maidstone Borough Council reject the allocation of site C45-008. Bearsted is a closely knit community with a strong rural identity, and the proposed development is inappropriate for this location in terms of access, sustainability, landscape impact, and infrastructure capacity.
I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed allocation of Site C45-008, Water Lane, Bearsted, for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site. After reviewing the proposal and assessing the location against relevant planning policy, I believe the site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons: 1. Highway Safety and Inadequate Access Water Lane is a narrow rural road with limited passing places and constrained visibility at junctions. The lane already experiences congestion during school hours and peak times. The increased vehicle movements generated by the proposed site would significantly heighten the risk of accidents for pedestrians, cyclists, and road users. The access conditions fall well below what would normally be expected for safe and sustainable development. 2. Unsustainable Location The site is isolated from key services and has poor access to public transport. There are no continuous, safe pedestrian routes or adequate street lighting. Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), sustainable development requires safe and suitable access for all users—criteria this site does not meet. 3. Harm to Rural Character and Landscape This land forms part of Bearsted’s rural edge, contributing to the area’s openness and landscape quality. Development here would erode the distinctive character of Bearsted and Thurnham, contrary to local and national policies that protect countryside settings and prevent urban sprawl. 4. Pressure on Local Services and Infrastructure Local healthcare, schools, and community facilities are already operating near capacity. Additional demand generated by this development would place further strain on essential services, with limited opportunities for expansion within the village. 5. Flood Risk and Drainage Issues Water Lane and adjacent fields have known surface-water drainage problems during periods of heavy rainfall. Unless major drainage works are undertaken, development will likely worsen these issues, creating risks both for future occupants and nearby properties. 6. Inadequate Emergency Access Due to the narrow carriageway, tight bends, and restricted turning space, Water Lane does not readily accommodate emergency service vehicles. Kent Fire & Rescue Service access standards are unlikely to be met without significant reconfiguration of the road network. 7. Overdevelopment of a Rural Site The scale and nature of the proposed development represents an over-intensification of land within a rural context. It would substantially alter the openness of the countryside and conflict with policies designed to safeguard rural character. 8. Uncertain Utilities Provision There is no clear evidence that the site can be safely and sustainably connected to essential services including sewerage, water, electricity, and waste management. Development without confirmed infrastructure presents environmental and public health risks. 9. Heritage and Conservation Impacts Bearsted and Thurnham contain conservation areas and heritage assets whose settings rely heavily on surrounding open countryside. Developing this site would undermine the rural landscape that contributes to their significance and historic character. 10. Noise, Light, and Visual Intrusion Additional activity on the site—vehicle movements, lighting columns, and noise—would negatively affect the amenity and tranquillity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. 11. Precedent for Further Development Granting this allocation may set a precedent for subsequent development along Water Lane and surrounding countryside. The cumulative impact would further erode the rural boundary and be contrary to the principles of controlled, plan-led growth. 12. Concerns About Site Selection and Assessment It is unclear whether all alternative sites were assessed consistently or whether full environmental, landscape, and transport assessments were conducted for C45-008. A site with so many constraints may indicate that the assessment process requires further scrutiny to ensure transparency and fairness. Conclusion For these reasons—spanning road safety, sustainability, landscape impact, infrastructure pressure, drainage concerns, emergency access, and policy consistency—I strongly object to the allocation of Site C45-008. The site is fundamentally unsuitable for development and presents multiple risks to the surrounding community, environment, and rural character of Bearsted. I respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council remove this site from consideration.
I d like to register our disapproval at the suggestion of the above planning proposal. I ve lived in Bearsted for 27 years and watched its expansion. We have new houses using The Street/Ware Street which is a single track road completely unsuitable for the amount of traffic already using it. Schools and Doctors surgeries are full. Roseacre Junior School, once an outstanding rated school is now dropping down the table. I wake up every morning and regularly find a queue of traffic outside my house due to the amount of traffic trying to navigate the local roads. I don’t believe Water Lane is the correct location for this site and wish to firmly register our disapproval of this proposal.
The Brishings is not a suitable location. It has already been rejected for house building due to inadequate access, flooding and lack of local amenities. Access is mentioned via Green Lane. Green Lane is very narrow and totally unsuitable for access for all but small car.
I am writing to formally register my strong objection to the above-referenced planning application for the development of a new traveller site at the bottom of Water Lane, Bearsted. I object to this proposal on multiple planning grounds, which include, but are not limited to, highway safety, infrastructure capacity, environmental damage, and the severe, irreversible impact on the residential amenity and intrinsic character of our village. 1. Highway Safety and Traffic Concerns The location at the bottom of Water Lane is fundamentally unsuitable for the proposed development due to the significant increase in traffic it will generate. • Road Narrowness: Water Lane is a local, rural/village road, which is often narrow, lacking sufficient pavements in sections, and was not designed to accommodate the high volume and size of vehicles associated with a traveller site (e.g., caravans, larger vehicles, and frequent domestic vehicle movements). • Increased Danger: The inevitable increase in vehicular movements, particularly turning and maneuvering onto or off Water Lane, presents a serious hazard for pedestrians, cyclists, and existing residents, significantly compromising highway safety. • Lack of Visibility: The location itself, at the 'bottom' of the lane, may suffer from poor visibility or sightlines, exacerbating the risks posed by increased traffic. 2. Infrastructure Strain on a Local Village Bearsted is a small, established village community with finite infrastructure resources. The addition of a new, high-density residential use will place an unacceptable strain on already stretched local services: • Schools and Health Services: Local primary schools and GP surgeries are already at or near capacity. This development would place undue pressure on these essential community services, detrimental to existing and new residents alike. • Drainage and Flooding: Given the mention of the site being at the 'bottom' of Water Lane, there is a legitimate concern regarding surface water run-off and potential drainage or flood issues, which the existing infrastructure may not be able to manage, impacting surrounding properties. 3. Detrimental Impact on Local Character and Residential Amenity The proposal will cause significant and demonstrable harm to the character of Bearsted and fundamentally disturb the peace and amenity currently enjoyed by local residents: • Loss of Village Character: The proposed site will result in the undesirable and inappropriate urbanisation of a currently undeveloped or low-intensity area. This permanent change is contrary to the established, tranquil, semi-rural character of Bearsted. • Disturbance of Peace (Noise and Light): The development will introduce unacceptable levels of noise and light pollution, significantly disturbing the existing peace of this small, local village. This is a crucial factor in residential amenity, and the proposal represents a loss of quiet enjoyment for surrounding properties. • Visual Impact: The development, including caravans, ancillary structures, and associated paraphernalia, will constitute a jarring and harmful visual intrusion into the landscape, contrary to local planning policies designed to protect the visual amenity of the area. In summary, the application fails to meet key planning requirements regarding highway safety and is demonstrably unsustainable in terms of its impact on local infrastructure and community cohesion. I strongly urge the Council to take these substantial concerns into consideration and refuse planning permission for application on the grounds that it represents an inappropriate and harmful development that would cause unacceptable and irreversible damage to the character and residential amenity of Bearsted.
Submitted by Residents of Bearsted & Thurnham We, the undersigned residents of Bearsted, Thurnham, and the surrounding community, hereby submit this petition to formally object to the proposed allocation of Site C45-008 (Water Lane) as a Gypsy and Traveller site within the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan Review. After carefully considering the proposal and its likely impacts, we conclude that this site is fundamentally unsuitable and should be removed from consideration. ⸻ Grounds for Objection 1. Highway Safety Risks Water Lane is a narrow rural road with very limited passing points, poor visibility, and frequent congestion. Additional vehicle movements would significantly increase danger for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. 2. Unsustainable and Isolated Location The site has no safe pedestrian pathways, insufficient lighting, and poor public transport access. It does not meet National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) criteria for sustainable development. 3. Harm to Rural Character and Landscape Developing this site would compromise the openness and rural setting of Bearsted and Thurnham, conflicts with policies aimed at protecting countryside character. 4. Strain on Local Services Local schools, GP surgeries, and community services are at or near capacity. Additional demand would place further pressure on already stretched facilities. 5. Flooding and Drainage Concerns The area has a known history of surface-water drainage issues. Development would likely worsen these conditions without significant infrastructure works. 6. Insufficient Emergency Access The narrow, winding nature of Water Lane makes emergency vehicle access difficult and potentially unsafe. 7. Overdevelopment of a Rural Site The proposed scale represents an over-intensification inconsistent with the rural surroundings and risks setting an unwelcome precedent for future countryside development. 8. Unclear Provision of Utilities There is no clear evidence that essential utilities and waste management can be delivered sustainably on this site. 9. Impact on Heritage and Conservation Areas The rural landscape contributes to the setting of nearby conservation areas and heritage assets, which this development would harm. 10. Noise, Light, and Visual Intrusion The proposal would introduce noise, lighting, and visual impacts detrimental to nearby residents and the tranquillity of the area. 11. Concerns Over Site Assessment Process Given the volume of concerns identified, residents question the robustness and consistency of the site selection and scoring process. ⸻ Petition Statement We, the undersigned, oppose the allocation of Site C45-008, Water Lane, as a Traveller site and urge Maidstone Borough Council to remove the site from the Local Plan Review. We believe the site is unsuitable due to its location, access constraints, environmental impacts, and conflict with planning policy.
I am writing to formally object to the above planning application. My objection is based solely on planning considerations that I believe warrant careful review by the council. 1. Highway Safety and Traffic Impact The proposed access point is very narrow where visibility is limited and traffic volumes are high. Additional vehicle movements especially larger vehicles could significantly increase accident risk. 2. Environmental and Landscape Impact The proposed site is near flood zone, Development here would negatively affect the local landscape character and conflict with existing environmental policies. 3. Drainage, Flooding or Utilities Concerns There are existing issues in this area with [flooding, surface water drainage, sewer capacity, water pressure, etc.]. Increasing the number of hardstanding areas and adding utility demand may exacerbate these problems. 4. Inadequate Local Infrastructure Local services—including schools, GP surgeries, public transport, or waste services—are already under significant pressure. This location may not be suitable for additional residential development due to limited capacity. 5. Noise, Light, and General Amenity Impact The proposal may lead to increases in noise, lighting, and general activity that could impact nearby residents. The site is very close to [homes, footpaths, wildlife areas, etc.], and the separation distance may be insufficient to protect residential amenity. I respectfully request that the council refuse this application based on the concerns outlined above.
I am writing to object to the proposed Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople site being considered off Water Lane in Bearsted. My objections are based on material planning grounds, as outlined below. 1. Unsuitability of Water Lane for increased or large vehicle traffic Water Lane is a narrow, semi-rural lane with limited width, tight bends, and minimal pedestrian refuge. Even with current traffic levels, it is often difficult for two cars to pass safely. Introducing caravans, towing vehicles, and regular additional movements would create a serious safety hazard. Water Lane is simply not designed to support the level or type of vehicle traffic that a site of this nature would generate. This is further exacerbated by the fact that Mallings Drive is a residential area located immediately adjacent to the proposed access point. Increased traffic on Water Lane would directly affect the safety, noise levels, and general amenity of residents on both roads. 2. Existing traffic congestion and diversion issues Bearsted already experiences significant congestion, especially during incidents or closures on the M20 or M2. When this occurs, the village becomes an informal diversion route, and articulated lorries frequently travel through Water Lane and The Street, causing gridlock and dangerous conditions for residents. Any development that increases traffic pressure — especially with slow-moving or large vehicles such as caravans — is wholly unsuitable in an area with an already fragile traffic flow. 3. Overstretched local services Local infrastructure in Bearsted is under considerable pressure: GP surgeries are oversubscribed Schools are at or above capacity Parking and road capacity are already limited The proposed site provides no evidence that additional demand can be accommodated, nor that infrastructure improvements will be delivered to mitigate the impact. This is a material planning concern based on service capacity. 4. Harm to residential amenity for properties on Mallings Drive and surrounding roads The proximity of the proposed site to existing housing — including properties on Mallings Drive, Water Lane, and nearby cul-de-sacs — would directly affect residents through: Increased noise Additional traffic movements Loss of privacy Intrusion into what is currently a quiet, stable residential environment These are all valid and recognised planning grounds for objection. Additionally, the presence of a development so close to high-value residential properties is likely to result in a loss of amenity and desirability, which will inevitably impact property values. While property value cannot be the primary planning consideration, the reasons behind the devaluation — amenity loss and increased disturbance — are valid. 5. Landscape and character impact Water Lane forms part of the rural edge of Bearsted, contributing to the village’s historic and semi-rural character. The introduction of a site here would: Visually intrude on the open character of the area Intensify land use in a location that currently provides a buffer between residential areas and countryside Erode the village’s traditional layout and setting This conflicts with landscape and character protection policies in the adopted Local Plan. 6. Site appears to fail multiple suitability criteria According to Maidstone Borough Council’s own site assessment criteria for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, the proposed location raises concerns regarding: Safe vehicular access (fails due to narrow, unsuitable road infrastructure) Impact on existing residential communities (fails due to extreme proximity to Mallings Drive homes) Local service capacity (fails due to overstretched infrastructure) Landscape and character compatibility (fails due to rural edge setting) Given the number of significant failures against these criteria, the site is demonstrably unsuitable. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully urge the Council to remove the Water Lane location from the list of preferred sites in the Development Plan Document.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of a traveler site at Water Lane Bearsted. My Objection is based strictly on planning, infrastructure and public safety concerns that I believe make this location unsuitable for any development requiring regular vehicle access. (1) Inadequate Road Infrastructure The access road " WATER LANE" leading to the proposed site consists of narrow single track lanes that are already under strain. These roads are not designed to accommodate larger vehicles or long towable units such as Caravans which can be up to 7m long plus the vehicle towing it, Passing places are limited, visibility is poor in several locations, and there is no capacity for widening without significant landscape disruption. 2. Traffic Safety Risks. Any increase in traffic particularly involving larger vehicles would heighten the risk to the existing road users. Pedestrians, cyclists and local residents are already experiencing limited space and poor sightline along these lanes. introducing higher volumes of traffic would substantially increase the likelihood of accidents. 3. Impact on Road Embankments and Surrounding Landscape. The Road Embankments along sections of the access route are already showing signs of erosion and deterioration. Additional traffic, especially heavier or longer vehicles, would accelerate the damage. Ongoing erosion could compromise the stability of the road and require costly remedial works. 4. Unsuitability of the Rural Setting for Intensive Vehicle Use. The surrounding area is a rural environment with limited infrastructure and no safe walking routes or footpaths. increasing vehicle numbers would further reduce safety for the pedestrians and negatively affect the character of the area. These are the reasons I believe the proposed location is inappropriate and poses significant safety and infrastructure challenges. I respectfully request the Council reconsider the suitability of this site and explore alternative locations that can safely accommodate the necessary access requirements
I am writing to you to formally object to the proposed traveller's site on Water Lane, Bearsted. My main reason for protesting is the impact it would have on the traffic in this part of the village. It can already get congested and can be dangerous. Our car was written off 2 years ago with someone trying to swerve round a car going too fast out of the Lane. This is a small village community and we've already had 3 new housing estates built here, causing pressure on facilities and traffic through the village . We are aware that Councils are required to look for suitable sites for travelling people, but this site is totally unsuitable for the reasons stated. We would be most obliged if you would consider our objection.
Regarding the proposed development of Lodge Farm, Water Lane Thurnham as a Travellers and Show People site , I would like to formally register my objections , based on the following facts:- Water Lane is virtually a single track country lane, with very few passing places, the nature of this development would obviously mean an increase in 4x4 vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks, already the Lane is used as a short cut by delivery drivers and local drivers plus local farming and agricultural equipment and local horse boxes and trailers. It is also frequented by horse riders, cyclists, and dog walkers, tragically less than 2 years ago , there was a fatal accident on Thurnham Lane which resulted in the death of a very popular local couple and their dog , sadly this could be repeated on Water Lane. . Water Lane is a ‘sunken’ lane so is prone to frequent flooding , especially under the railway bridge . If this development was to go ahead , it would put more strain on local infrastructures which are already under pressure from increasing over development . To sum up ,this is residential community , and as I resident for over 55 years I feel this would not be appropriate for this area .
I have been passed a copy of the above consultation and note that there are two potential sites near Kingswood. We already have at least five similar sites very close to the village and would urge planners to take community balance into account. The answer is not to keep adding to the location os similar sites. I notice that one of the potential sites is in Lenham Road Kingswood, and the site is situated within in a row of detached houses, as such I feel that the site would be completely out of character with the existing housing environment and in my opinion an unsuitable location I hope you are able to register my comments.
Policy ref C4S(017) refers to Community and Crime Your report says that it will have a minor negative impact on community and crime. Looking at the number of bungalows in Langley heath, I think it’s justified to assume that there are a lot of elderly residents in the village, I for one (being over 70) would feel uncomfortable with a major influx of younger people (I’m assuming there aren’t many retirement caravans) so there will be likely to be a sudden influx of young people who have nothing to do except cause trouble. There aren’t enough schools and transport to support the pupils in the area let alone with a further influx of children Health and Wellbeing If I had known when I moved in (6 years ago) how dire doctors services in the are in the area I would maybe have chosen a different area. 6 years down the line, many more houses have and are still being built but no sign of extra doctor services. At least traditional housebuilders promise doctor services on their sites (even if they don’t deliver). How will they ever be seen by a doctor Economy I can’t see how you feel that the site will have minor positive effect on the economy, I assume the costs of buying the land, building the caravans, carrying out road changes, extra refuse collection etc will fall to council tax payers which will drastically reduce ability to spend money in the area therefore having a major NEGATIVE impact on the local economy Air quality How can you say that there will be no change to air quality At best, there will be a minimum of 20 vehicles for the residents and possibly more for their children Also, there will be a massive decrease in air quality because of the travellers’ vehicles which I assume will be environmentally UNFRIENDLY diesel lorries exacerbated by the need to tow trailers Flooding I understand the brishings has had planning refused in the past with one of the problems being flooding. I assume that the field soaks up some of the flood water compared to concrete standing I also believe any new access to the field will create more flooding on to heath road causing transport problems Climate change I assume the field is capable of growing crops as there are lots of farms nearby, Surely Pouring concrete bases and adding tarmac must have an adverse effect on the climate I hope you will consider these points
I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted, the traveller and traveller show people development plan. While I recognise the need for the council to consider suitable accommodation for all communities, this particular location is highly unsuitable for several clear and evidence-based reasons outlined below. 1. Water Lane Is a Single-Track Country Road – Severe Highway Safety Risks Water Lane is a narrow single-track rural lane with limited passing places, poor visibility, and no pedestrian walkways. The additional traffic and the larger vehicles typically associated with travelling fair or circus families — including towing vehicles, caravans, and support vehicles — would significantly increase road safety risks along with damaging land. This lane already struggles to accommodate existing agricultural and local traffic. Emergency vehicle access would also be compromised. Furthermore, you are no doubt aware of the tragic fatality that occurred on a identical road, less than 0.5 miles away on Thurnham lane in 2024. Allowing this development would pose an even greater risk to pedestrians given the extra footfall and the large vehicles used to transport the showpeoples equipment. Furthermore, there is a riding school situated at the top of Water Lane. Horses along with young riders use this single track lane multiple times daily. 2. Inappropriate Development in a Rural Area The site sits within a peaceful part of Bearsted’s countryside and is surrounded by agricultural and residential land. The scale, nature, and activity level of a traveller site for traveller and circus groups is incompatible with the rural character of Water Lane and would cause a substantial change to the landscape. This appears contrary to local planning policies aimed at protecting Bearsted’s rural setting. You will also be aware of the flooding issues at the end of Water Lane which shows clear drainage issues. Should vehicles and homes be used, which given it is a showpeople development, would cause damage and heavy mud to the fields and the surrounding. If this was alleviate by making the plot accessible for such vehicles, this would not be in keeping with the rural setting if the village. 3. Impact on Local Infrastructure and Amenities Bearsted’s services — schools, healthcare, road network, and local facilities — are already under considerable pressure given recent developments. A site of this type, with seasonal influxes, could put additional strain on these limited local resources, particularly given the constrained access. 4. Environmental and Noise Concerns A development of this nature would inevitably introduce more noise, lighting, and general activity into a quiet rural environment. The lack of adequate screening or mitigation measures in the proposal raises concerns about the impact on wildlife, neighbouring properties, and the broader landscape. 5. Better-Suited Locations Should Be Considered A site for travelling circus families requires good access, strong transport links, and space for larger vehicles. Water Lane provides none of these. It is unclear whether a proper assessment of more suitable locations — such as better access to A roads, or established traveller transit areas — has been undertaken. But i feel there must be much more adequate locations to suit the needs of the traveler community. For the reasons outlined — serious road safety risks, conflict with rural land-use policies, environmental harm, and the strain on local infrastructure — I strongly urge the council to refuse this planning application. The proposed traveller site on Water Lane is unsuitable, unsafe, and inconsistent with planning principles that protect both the local community and the countryside around Bearsted. If any of the council members have any knowledge of the picturesque village Bearsted, they will know that a development such as this would not be in keeping with the village or be able to cope with the infrastructure needs of such development.
I have recently been made aware of a planning application for a gypsy/ traveller/development site on Water Lane, Bearsted. Apart from the serious concerns of raising crime, antisocial behaviour, fly tipping increased. It will significantly reduce house prices in the immediate area. Bearsted is a lovely village which should stay that way. This plan will reduce the quality of life for the entire area. It will make the area unsafe for all existing families and children. Water lane is completely unsuitable for caravans or any large vehicles to travel On. This is a huge concern, it is already regularly closed for maintenance. It is a small lane which cannot withstand anymore through traffic. It is barely coping with the existing traffic. I urge the planning committee to consider the serious and detrimental impact this site will have on the local Community.
I am writing to object to the proposed site for the Gypsy and Traveller site in Water Lane Bearsted. This development would cause extra problems on the local traffic and the roads are all narrow and not wide enough for 2 cars to pass each other and quite big lorries as well. Also there is water that comes out of the fields beyond the 2 bridges up Water Lane which has caused quite bad flooding and mud from time to time and this has had to be cleaned up from time to time and flooding happens every time there is heavy rain at the bottom of Water Lane so these are not good things if we are going to have extra traffic. On top of this some people have been killed on Thurnham Lane due to the speed some people drive down that way so if we have even more traffic it could get even more dangerous and this also could affect the horse riding from Cobham Manor at the top of Water Lane and these days all the lanes in the area are busy during peak periods. Water Lane has already come under pressure for development and a site like this would put extra stress on the local infrastructure and amenities and I think this development would not be appropriate for the location. I appreciate that MBC has to find suitable places to accommodate Gypsy and Traveller sites but I am hoping that the Council reconsiders these proposals and explore more suitable locations that would have less impact on local traffic and residents safety. Thank you for taking time to consider my objections.
The details of the site at Shenley Corner were submitted on behalf of my client in response to the Council’s previous Call for Sites back in February 2022. The decision of the Council to now propose it as an allocation is therefore welcomed. Indeed, I look forward on behalf of my client to working closely with the Council in order to deliver this site for its proposed use.
Objection to Potential Site Allocation – Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge I strongly disagree with the proposed allocation of The Lodge (Policy C4S (008)) for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. My objections are based on the following planning-related and community concerns: Infrastructure Capacity: Water Lane and surrounding roads are narrow and already congested. Local infrastructure (roads, schools, healthcare, utilities) cannot cope with additional demand from new pitches. Environmental Impact: The site risks harm to local biodiversity and landscape character. While a Phase 1 habitat survey is mentioned, mitigation measures are unclear and insufficient. Community Safety: Increased population density could place additional strain on local policing resources, raising concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour. Overdevelopment: The area is already under pressure from population growth. Further development will exacerbate congestion and reduce quality of life. Property Values: Introducing a large permanent site in this location could negatively impact house prices and devalue existing homes, affecting long-term community stability. Policy Weakness: Criteria for site suitability and enforcement are vague. There is no guarantee that landscaping or habitat mitigation will be properly implemented or maintained. Recommendation: Remove The Lodge from the allocation list or require a full infrastructure and environmental impact assessment, with clear safeguards and compliance monitoring before any approval.
This is my email to oppose the plans to give the travelling community a site on water lane. I have lived in Bearsted for 10 years now. The view from the back of my property looks directly at water lane. Aside from not wanting that beautiful view distorted by a traveller site I also worry for the local pubs and businesses. Please make my (and many other residents in Bearsted’s feelings known) WE DO NOT WANT A SITE ON WATER LANE. Or anywhere els in our beautiful village.
Good afternoon, I hope this email finds you well. As someone who lives in bearsted, I’m extremely concerned about water lane being a potential placement for a gypsy site. I cannot express enough the concern and worry of every person who lives in Thurnham, Detling, Hollingbourne and anywhere else round the area. We’ve had multiple bad experiences with gypsies and travellers in the past. From smashing down locals fences, trespassing on their land, even cause trouble in our local pubs. I’m not profiling or judging, but it is a known fact that in this area, nothing good can come from having a gypsy site down the road.
I can only speak to two potential sites in the local vicinity POLICY C4S (003) – WOOD VIEW FARM I believe an application was already submitted previously for a site here and was rejected by the local parish council. Has this now changed? The crossroads where Ulcombe Hill meets Lenham Rd is an accident hot spot and would be potentially hazardous, should residents of a proposed site wish to utilise a horse and cart for travel and enter Lenham Rd. This would be dangerous for both drivers and residents of the site. However MBC could also reduce speed limit into Kingswood village to 20 mph to aid this. POLICY C4S (019) – THE MEADOW At this site during the COVID pandemic I witnessed those living on part of the proposed site utilising the quiet roads to run their sewage pipe across Pitt Lane to dump the waste of the entire site into the woods opposite, rather than remove it professionally at cost. During a national pandemic. I believe this goes firmly against the principles laid out by MBC in creating these sites and should not be expanded on if this is what more residents would bring to the local area.
I would like to raise my objections to the following sites that the Council is considering as part of its Call for Sites exercise for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople. POLICY C4S (008) – THE LODGE I am concerned that the Council does not specify how many pitches it is considering for this site. That said, the Lodge is accessed via a very narrow country lane which would not be suitable for a site of any size. I also share local concerns that it will have a detrimental impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape and could negatively impact several important Oak trees on the site which have tree preservation orders. POLICY C4S (017) – THE BRISHINGS This site is so unpopular locally that residents have drawn up a petition against it. It is important that the council takes into account the strength of local opinion when making planning decisions. Also, like the Lodge on Green Lane this is a one-track country lane which again would be totally unable to cope with the volume of traffic 20 pitches would generate. POLICY C4S (019) – THE MEADOW I am concerned that the DPD does not specify how many pitches would be allocated to this site and the local road network will not be able to manage many more car movements. It is quite a large site with the potential to expand beyond its road capacity – which could be a problem in the future. POLICY C4S (028) – OAKLAND PLACE, POLICY C4S (003) – WOOD VIEW FARM, POLICY LPR (256) – STEDE ROW WOODLAND, SOUTH OF PILGRIMS WAY and POLICY C4S (004) – ACRES PLACE There is too much development in the pipeline for Harrietsham, Lenham and North Downs for one rural ward to take. On the grounds of overdevelopment, I object to these sites unless they are significantly scaled down. I am aware that Maidstone already has one of the highest Gypsy/Traveller populations in the country and the Government is requiring the Council to provide more sites – and I will be taking this up with Ministers. I would be grateful if you could pass my comments onto the Council’s decision makers so they can take them into account when they prepare the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document.
C4S (008) This site has 'non specified' number of plots. as already outlined and highlighted in the previous question. The use of this proposed site CANNOT be agreed to without further details, Bearsted is a small, quiet and unique village which has already been extensively and over expanded. The stretch of road through the village - Ware Street/The Street/Roundwell - has become a dangerously busy, over trafficked cut through to the motoway, To bring the currently quiet Water Lane into increased usage will definitely have a negative impact on this small village, with the proposed site very close in proximity to the main village conservation area.
I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted, the traveller and traveller show people development plan. While I recognise the need for the council to consider suitable accommodation for all communities, this particular location is highly unsuitable for several clear and evidence-based reasons outlined below. 1. Water Lane Is a Single-Track Country Road – Severe Highway Safety Risks Water Lane is a narrow single-track rural lane with limited passing places, poor visibility, and no pedestrian walkways. The additional traffic and the larger vehicles typically associated with travelling fair or circus families — including towing vehicles, caravans, and support vehicles — would significantly increase road safety risks along with damaging land. This lane already struggles to accommodate existing agricultural and local traffic. Emergency vehicle access would also be compromised. Furthermore, you are no doubt aware of the tragic fatality that occurred on a identical road, less than 0.5 miles away on Thurnham lane in 2024. Allowing this development would pose an even greater risk to pedestrians given the extra footfall and the large vehicles used to transport the show peoples equipment. 2. Inappropriate Development in a Rural Area The site sits within a peaceful part of Bearsted’s countryside and is surrounded by agricultural and residential land. The scale, nature, and activity level of a traveller site for traveller and circus groups is incompatible with the rural character of Water Lane and would cause a substantial change to the landscape. This appears contrary to local planning policies aimed at protecting Bearsted’s rural setting. You will also be aware of the flooding issues at the end of Water Lane which shows clear drainage issues. Should vehicles and homes be used, which given it is a showpeople development, would cause damage and heavy mud to the fields and the surrounding. If this was alleviate by making the plot accessible for such vehicles, this would not be in keeping with the rural setting if the village. 3. Impact on Local Infrastructure and Amenities Bearsted’s services — schools, healthcare, road network, and local facilities — are already under considerable pressure given recent developments. A site of this type, with seasonal influxes, could put additional strain on these limited local resources, particularly given the constrained access. 4. Environmental and Noise Concerns A development of this nature would inevitably introduce more noise, lighting, and general activity into a quiet rural environment. The lack of adequate screening or mitigation measures in the proposal raises concerns about the impact on wildlife, neighbouring properties, and the broader landscape. 5. Better-Suited Locations Should Be Considered A site for travelling circus families requires good access, strong transport links, and space for larger vehicles. Water Lane provides none of these. It is unclear whether a proper assessment of more suitable locations — such as better access to A roads, or established traveller transit areas — has been undertaken. But i feel there must be much more adequate locations to suit the needs of the travelercommunity. For the reasons outlined — serious road safety risks, conflict with rural land-use policies, environmental harm, and the strain on local infrastructure — I strongly urge the council to refuse this planning application. The proposed traveller site on Water Lane is unsuitable, unsafe, and inconsistent with planning principles that protect both the local community and the countryside around Bearsted. If any of the council members have any knowledge of the picturesque village Bearsted, they will know that a development such as this would not be in keeping with the village or be able to cope with the infrastructure needs of such development. Thank you for taking my objection into account. Please confirm receipt of this letter.
Policy C4S (008) The Lodge - This site is inappropriate for the following reasons: 1. Access via Water Lane (the only access) is very narrow with very few opportunities to pass other vehicles and goes under a low bridge. 2. The entrance to the lane often floods after high rainfall. 3. Horses and dog walkers often frequent the road and higher volumes of traffic will make it more dangerous. 4. The site will cause harm to the natural beauty of the Kent Downs Natural Landscape.