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.
UNSUITABLE/DANGEROUS HIGHWAY & ACCESS TO SITE This site can only be accessed from Water Lane, which is a narrow country lane, only 3.6 metres wide for a lot of its length. From the South access to Water Lane from The Street/Roundwell, is a very tight corner junction and then runs under a narrow railway arch. From the North access to Water Lane is from Pilgrims Way. This junction is incredible tight and barely suitable for a small family car. Hence vehicular access, to the site, from either direction is severely restricted and totally UNSUITABLE FOR LARGER VEHICLES OR THOSE WITH TRAILERS. Access to/from the site itself, off Water Lane, is a very tight junction with extremely poor visibility. Additionally, Water Lane is notorious for flooding, resulting in an icy surface during winter months with the resultant risk to vehicles and/or pedestrians. UNSAFE ROAD FOR PEDESTRIANS Water lane has no footpaths. Pedestrians e.g. young people making their way to school, would be at a serious risk even from a car only driving in one direction. NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACT ON LANDSCAPE The site is overlooked by an AONB (The North Downs) The use of the area with random large vehicles, outdoor activities and various types of ‘unregulated’ accommodation would SEVERLEY DETRACT from the natural, historic beauty of the area. NEGATIVE EFFECT ON LOCAL ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGY There is no mention as to the availability of ‘fresh’ water to the site. More importantly, no mention of drainage or sanitation, nor proper facilities for regulated disposal of human waste. DISTRUCTION/FELLING OF TREES I understand that there are a number of long-established Oak trees on the potential site, which are covered by TPO’s. The felling of which would be a travesty and make a mockery of using TPO’s to protect nature and natural habitat.
I am a resident of Bearsted and would like to share feedback regarding my strong objection and serious concerns to this suggested proposal. This suggested site is absolutely not the right location for this purpose, for the following reasons. 1. Location, highways and access - this is a narrow poorly maintained country road, as part of a village setting, which regularly floods (aptly named water road - having poor drainage) and could not cope with any form of volume traffic from a new community dwelling area without significant costly infrastructure improvements and which would negatively affect the rural landscape. 2. Landscape impact - there would be an extremely negative effect on the rural character of the historic Bearsted village from this proposal, with nearby Grade I & II listed properties with signifiant conversation requirements that must be preserved for future generations. This is not just any rural countryside location, being close to the historic North Down way, the ancient and famous ‘pilgrims trail’ from London to Canterbury, it holds unique historic significance and should be preserved at all costs. 3. Local environment and ecology - there would certainly be an irreversible negative environmental impact on this location (such destruction of established trees, river ways, wildlife and ecology). There is already an issue in some local rural locations in this area with fly tipping, anti social behaviour and minor crime, which is coming from KCC budgets and indirectly from local tax payers to monitor and action. The local council funded village community warden post, only recently reinstated due to demand after being cut as a cost saving measure, can already attest to this. 4. Residential amenities - there is significant concern regarding the impact on local village amenities being able to cope with an additional instant community, including the excellent but solitary medical practice and limited local schooling places. I hope that my feedback, and the feedback of many others, will result in common sense prevailing and that more appropriate sites will be considered - such as brownfield locations within town environments, or industrial areas. On behalf of everyone who cares deeply about the legacy of Bearsted for future generations, please please do not destroy our much loved village with progressing this proposal - decisions taken now will irrevocably change the future of our village forever and cannot be undone.
As a resident of XXXX, I would like to write expressing my concerns at the above proposed development. Water Lane, as you must already be aware, is a very narrow country lane with high banks on either side near the bottom of the lane, and high hedgerows further up. The south side of the North Downs is an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, with many walkers, including pilgrims, cyclists and those on horseback using the lane. There is very little room for normal sized cars to pass people walking the lane, who need to step off the lane onto the verge. Cyclists and those on horseback have to find a passing place. The lane is often flooded, running with water like a river when it rains, and becomes very rutted with ice during cold spells. There is already marked erosion to the lane surfaces and edges and having further heavy vehicles using the lane would cause further damage to the lane and verges. Further heavy traffic would make it much more dangerous for walkers, cyclists and horse riders, as well as local residents in their vehicles. We must also remember the tragic accident a couple of years ago on the parallel Thurnham lane, when a car skidded on ice killing 2 people and a dog walking the lane. Drainage and sewage pollution are further concerns. As mentioned already the lane frequently floods under the motorway bridge, (where vehicles have been stranded), and at the bottom of the lane during rains. Thank you for consulting with residents and I would urge you to walk the lane yourselves to see the issues raised above.
I am writing to object and officially raise my complaint about the proposed gypsy site in Bearsted village, per the referenced. I wish to raise my objection on the grounds that the proposed plan does not fit the "rural character" of the village. The plan should be rejected on the grounds that this soes not fit with the current developments within the village. I would like to point out that I have had very minor amendments to my home rejected on the grounds that they were not in keeping with existing buildings within the area. While I wasn't happy with that decision, I understood the decision made. I can only ask for the same consideration to be made in rejecting this terrible proposed development and the extremely negative impact this will have on the village. Bearsted village has been named in national press as one of the top villages in the country. The proposed development is not in keeping with this vision and view and should be rejected without conditions.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site at Bearsted/Thurnham, as currently under consideration by Maidstone Borough Council. My objection is based on the following material planning considerations: **1. Inadequate and Unsafe Access** The proposed site is served by local roads that are narrow, rural in character, and already subject to congestion, particularly at peak times. These roads are not suitable for the increased volume and type of traffic associated with a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site, including larger vehicles and service traffic. The lack of safe and sensible access raises significant highway safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, and other road users, as well as for existing residents of Bearsted and Thurnham. The application does not demonstrate how these access constraints can be adequately mitigated. **2. Harm to Local Ecology and Landscape Character** The Bearsted/Thurnham area is recognised for its sensitive rural setting, ecological value, and proximity to areas of environmental importance. The proposed development would result in the loss of green space, increased disturbance to wildlife, and adverse impacts arising from noise, lighting, and general activity. These impacts would undermine local biodiversity and the character of the countryside. Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that ecological harm can be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated, contrary to both local and national planning policies aimed at protecting the natural environment. **3. Increased Pressure on Local Infrastructure and Services** Local infrastructure in the Bearsted and Thurnham area, including road networks, drainage, utilities, healthcare provision, and schools, is already under strain. The introduction of a new Gypsy and Traveller site would place additional pressure on these services without clear evidence that sufficient capacity exists or that appropriate improvements would be delivered alongside the development. The application fails to demonstrate how this additional demand would be sustainably accommodated. **Conclusion** Taken together, the inadequate access arrangements, the unacceptable impact on local ecology and countryside character, and the additional pressure on already stretched infrastructure render this proposal unsustainable. For these reasons, I respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council refuse planning permission for the proposed site at Bearsted/Thurnham.
i strongly object to the proposed gypsy site in water lane Bearsted This is green belt and has outstanding natural beauty and would have a terrible visual impact on the countyside also planning would not be allowed for other people there. This would cause traffic congestion from a country lane into a country village which would be dangerous and troublesome More congestion for schools, doctors surgeries roads more traffic through a small village Disruption of wildlife and hedgerows beautiful landscape ruined for everyone Noise pollution Light pollution in an area of outstanding natural beauty There must be brown field sites where this would be more appropriate I can’t understand why anyone would think this is acceptable and why this would be at all considered l.
We write as residents of Bearsted to oppose the plans to consider the site at The Lodge, Water Lane for a Traveller site. The owner of this property has already attempted to obtain permission for development of the site to the planning authority and has over the past few years been consistently rejected due to being an unsuitable site for development Why this site would then be suitable for the development of a traveller site has to be questioned. The access to the site is barely a single track off of Water Lane and the approach road - Water Lane already experiences significant traffic issues and is certainly not suitable for the amount of extra traffic this site would generate. As a horse owner and dog walker we already experience almost daily near misses with traffic on the country lanes that surround Bearsted and the introduction of a site in Water Lane will add to the traffic issues. Only recently were the tragic deaths of our neighbours who were walking along a neighbouring lane when they were killed by a speeding motorist. Water Lane frequently floods and is often impassable by motorists , not an ideal scenario for a large increase in residents In the lane. Bearsted is considered to be one of the most beautiful villages in Kent and people visiting the area bring with them income To local businesses. The introduction of a traveller site to the area would be detrimental to both residents and businesses in the area. There must be sites that are more suitable than this proposed one in Bearsted. We hope that those responsible for sourcing a suitable site will take note of the above views
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of land on Water Lane in the Bearsted/Thurnham area for a gypsy and travellers’ site. While I recognise the need for appropriate accommodation, I respectfully submit that the proposed location is fundamentally unsuitable for a site of any size due to a range of significant concerns that impact both public safety and the character of the local area. Access and Road Safety Water Lane is a narrow, rural country lane with limited visibility and restricted passing places. The road’s configuration already presents considerable hazards to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. A recent fatal accident further up the stretch of road, tragically involving two people and a dog, underscores the inherent dangers associated with its use. In addition, Water Lane is known to be prone to flooding, which further reduces visibility and increases the risk of accidents, especially during adverse weather conditions. The proposal to increase traffic along such a hazardous route would, in my view, significantly compromise the safety of all road users. Traffic and Congestion The existing road network in and around Bearsted and Thurnham already experiences notable congestion, particularly during peak hours and school runs. Water Lane and the surrounding roads are not designed to accommodate a substantial increase in vehicular movements. The introduction of a gypsy and travellers’ site would inevitably lead to more frequent and larger vehicles using these inadequate routes, exacerbating congestion and increasing the risk of further accidents. This would place additional strain on an already overburdened infrastructure. Environmental Impact The proposed site lies within a predominantly rural setting, valued for its scenic character and contribution to the local environment. Development of this nature would erode the rural identity of Bearsted and Thurnham, replacing open countryside with a more urbanised footprint. There is considerable concern regarding the potential loss of established hedgerows and habitats, which provide shelter and corridors for local wildlife. Additionally, the area’s known propensity for flooding raises questions about the adequacy of drainage, and any increase in impermeable surfaces could further exacerbate flood risks both on-site and to neighbouring properties. Residential Impact The tranquillity and amenity of current residents are also at risk. Increased vehicle movements and site activity would result in elevated noise levels that are inconsistent with the area’s rural character. The introduction of artificial lighting necessary for the site would further impact local residents by increasing light pollution, diminishing the quality of life and potentially disturbing nocturnal wildlife. Conclusion In summary, the proposed location for the allocation of land for a gypsy and travellers’ site at The Lodge, Water Lane is unsuitable on the grounds of road safety, existing congestion, environmental sensitivity, and residential amenity. I respectfully urge the planning authority to reconsider this proposal and instead seek more appropriate sites that do not present such substantial risks and negative impacts. Thank you for considering this objection. I would be grateful to receive confirmation of its receipt and to be kept informed of any further developments regarding this application.
I wish to comment on the above proposed site at The Lodge, Water lane, Bearsted ,Thurnham. I reside at XXXX, Thurnham which is within a close proximity to the site I provide my full details below but do not wish my name or address to be published. I object to the proposed site C4S (008) on the following grounds: Residential Amenity As a result the close proximity will have an adverse affect on the Gypsy and Traveller Community residents themselves residing there. They should not have to suffer noise and pollution as this would impact on an individuals health, in particular young children residing or visiting the location. There are other sites in more suitable locations that would avoid this risk to their health. Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights may be breached as an individual could be directly or seriously affected by noise or pollution. The proposed site is sandwiched in between and close to the M20 motorway and busy train line. Highways and Access The volume of Traffic will increase if the site is approved and road safety compromised. Water lane is a quiet country lane used by members of the public including myself as a pedestrian and on horseback. There has been a double fatality on Thurnham lane (which is similar to Water Lane and close by) whereby the driver was recently convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Landscape Impact The provision of dwellings and vehicles at this location will have a visual impact on my leisure time as detailed below I use the area as a public leisure amenity for countryside walks due to its location away from traffic and pollution. The location provides me visual benefits due to its rural character and as an open area as such as its unspoilt beauty enhances my wellbeing.
No answer given
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of land on Water Lane in the Bearsted/Thurnham area for a gypsy and travellers’ site. While I recognise the need for appropriate accommodation, I respectfully submit that the proposed location is fundamentally unsuitable for a site of any size due to a range of significant concerns that impact both public safety and the character of the local area. Access and Road Safety Water Lane is a narrow, rural country lane with limited visibility and restricted passing places. The road’s configuration already presents considerable hazards to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. A recent fatal accident further up the stretch of road, tragically involving two people and a dog, underscores the inherent dangers associated with its use. In addition, Water Lane is known to be prone to flooding, which further reduces visibility and increases the risk of accidents, especially during adverse weather conditions. The proposal to increase traffic along such a hazardous route would, in my view, significantly compromise the safety of all road users. Traffic and Congestion The existing road network in and around Bearsted and Thurnham already experiences notable congestion, particularly during peak hours and school runs. Water Lane and the surrounding roads are not designed to accommodate a substantial increase in vehicular movements. The introduction of a gypsy and travellers’ site would inevitably lead to more frequent and larger vehicles using these inadequate routes, exacerbating congestion and increasing the risk of further accidents. This would place additional strain on an already overburdened infrastructure. Environmental Impact The proposed site lies within a predominantly rural setting, valued for its scenic character and contribution to the local environment. Development of this nature would erode the rural identity of Bearsted and Thurnham, replacing open countryside with a more urbanised footprint. There is considerable concern regarding the potential loss of established hedgerows and habitats, which provide shelter and corridors for local wildlife. Additionally, the area’s known propensity for flooding raises questions about the adequacy of drainage, and any increase in impermeable surfaces could further exacerbate flood risks both on-site and to neighbouring properties. Residential Impact The tranquillity and amenity of current residents are also at risk. Increased vehicle movements and site activity would result in elevated noise levels that are inconsistent with the area’s rural character. The introduction of artificial lighting necessary for the site would further impact local residents by increasing light pollution, diminishing the quality of life and potentially disturbing nocturnal wildlife. Conclusion In summary, the proposed location for the allocation of land for a gypsy and travellers’ site at The Lodge, Water Lane is unsuitable on the grounds of road safety, existing congestion, environmental sensitivity, and residential amenity. I respectfully urge the planning authority to reconsider this proposal and instead seek more appropriate sites that do not present such substantial risks and negative impacts. Thank you for considering this objection. I would be grateful to receive confirmation of its receipt and to be kept informed of any further developments regarding this application.
I wish to register my formal objection to the proposed allocation of land on Water Lane, Bearsted/Thurnham, for use as a gypsy and traveller site. While I acknowledge the importance of providing suitable accommodation, I strongly believe that this particular location is wholly inappropriate due to serious concerns relating to safety, infrastructure, environmental impact, and residential amenity. Highway Safety and Access Water Lane is a narrow rural road with limited visibility, minimal passing opportunities, and no capacity for increased traffic. It is already hazardous for vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, and horse riders. The road has a documented history of serious accidents, including a recent fatal incident, which highlights the inherent dangers of the lane in its current form. Furthermore, the area is prone to flooding, which significantly worsens driving conditions and visibility. Any development that increases traffic, particularly larger or slower-moving vehicles, would pose an unacceptable risk to public safety. Traffic Pressure and Infrastructure Limitations The surrounding road network serving Bearsted and Thurnham is already under strain, particularly during peak commuting hours and school drop-off and pick-up times. Water Lane and its connecting routes are not designed to support additional traffic volumes. Introducing a permanent site would intensify congestion, increase wear on unsuitable roads, and heighten the likelihood of accidents, placing further pressure on an infrastructure that is already inadequate. Impact on the Rural Environment The proposed site sits within open countryside that contributes significantly to the rural character and visual amenity of the area. Development of this nature would result in the loss of countryside character and could involve the removal of hedgerows and green boundaries that support local wildlife. Given the area’s susceptibility to flooding, there are also serious concerns regarding drainage and water management. Increased hardstanding and surface run-off could worsen flood risk both on the site and for neighbouring land and properties. Effect on Local Residents Residents currently enjoy a quiet rural setting. The introduction of a site of this kind would inevitably lead to increased noise, vehicle movements, and activity throughout the day and night. Additional lighting would further disrupt the character of the area, increase light pollution, and potentially affect both residents and wildlife. These impacts would significantly diminish the quality of life for those living nearby. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, I believe the proposed allocation of land at Water Lane is unsuitable for a gypsy and traveller site. The combination of highway danger, inadequate infrastructure, environmental sensitivity, and negative impact on residential amenity makes this an inappropriate location. I respectfully request that the planning authority reconsiders this proposal and explores alternative sites that are safer and more sustainable. Thank you for taking the time to consider my objection. I would appreciate confirmation that this representation has been received and that I am kept informed of any future decisions regarding this proposal.
I am contacting you regarding Maidstone Borough Council proposed plan for a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people site. ( Site Ref: C45 (008) ) Water Lane is a very narrow country lane, with no footpath or street lighting making it unsafe for regular pedestrian use. It is already a very busy road when used by local people and is made significant worse is there are traffic issues on the A20 and M20 when a constant stream of traffic uses it as an alternative route along the Pilgrims Way. This can cause prolonged grid lock in Water Lane and the surrounding area. Development of this site will inevitably increase the number of vehicles regularly using Water Lane and can only exacerbate an already difficult situation. There are many natural springs that emerge from the fields alongside Water Lane which cause regular flooding as the volume of water accumulates towards Bearsted. In periods of cold weather this water freezes making the roads extremely treacherous and sometimes impassable. I am also concerned that there could be compliance issues when controlling the number of occupants on this site and the potential impact on the environment and landscape in an area of natural beauty that we are supposed to be protecting. Historically planning applications for Land North of the railway have consistently been refused by MBC and this leaves me wondering what has changed for you to be considering such a large development.
I am writing to formally object to the above planning application for a Travelling Showpeople site on land at Water Lane, Bearsted. While I fully acknowledge the Council’s duty to meet the accommodation needs of the Travelling Showpeople community, I believe this proposed site is wholly unsuitable for a number of compelling planning reasons, which I set out below. 1. Severe Highway Safety Concerns on an Unsuitable Rural Lane Water Lane is a narrow, single-track rural road with limited passing places, poor sight lines, and no footpaths. It is already used by agricultural vehicles, horse riders, cyclists, walkers, and local residents. The introduction of additional heavy goods vehicles, towing vehicles, low-loaders, caravans, and fairground equipment associated with Travelling Showpeople would dramatically increase the volume, size, and weight of traffic on a road that is manifestly incapable of accommodating it safely. Emergency service access would be severely compromised, and the risk to all road users — particularly vulnerable pedestrians and equestrians — would be unacceptable. A fatal accident occurred on the almost identical Thurnham Lane (less than 0.5 miles away) in 2024. Approving this application would significantly heighten the likelihood of further serious incidents. 2. Harm to the Character and Appearance of the Rural Landscape The site lies in open countryside on the edge of the Kent Downs National Landscape and forms part of the valued rural setting of Bearsted village. The proposed development, by its very nature, would introduce a significant amount of built form, hardstanding, lighting, storage of large vehicles and equipment, and associated domestic and commercial activity into an area currently characterised by agriculture and tranquility. Such development would cause substantial harm to the landscape and visual amenity of the area and would conflict with local and national policies that seek to protect the countryside from inappropriate development. Furthermore, the lower end of Water Lane is known to suffer from serious surface-water flooding and poor natural drainage. Creating the extensive hard surfacing and access tracks required for heavy vehicles would inevitably exacerbate runoff, increase flood risk elsewhere, and further urbanise the appearance of this rural lane. A number of vehicles have blocked the road where they have attempted to drive through the flooded water. 3. Unsustainable Pressure on Local Infrastructure and Services Bearsted and the surrounding villages are already experiencing considerable strain on schools, GP surgeries, and the local road network as a result of recent housing developments. The addition of a Travelling Showpeople site — with its potential for seasonal population increases and intensive vehicle movements — would place further unacceptable pressure on these limited facilities and on an already constrained rural road network. 4. Adverse Environmental and Residential Amenity Impacts The proposed site lacks adequate natural screening and is in close proximity to existing homes. The inevitable noise, light pollution, and general activity associated with the storage, maintenance, and movement of fairground equipment would seriously harm the amenity of neighbouring residents and the tranquility of this rural area. The development would also impact local wildlife and the wider ecological value of the countryside in this location. 5. Availability of More Suitable Alternative Sites Travelling Showpeople yards require excellent access to the strategic road network in order to minimise the impact of large, slow-moving vehicles on minor rural lanes. Water Lane manifestly fails to provide such access. It is reasonable to expect that a thorough and up-to-date sequential assessment of alternative sites — particularly those with direct or rapid access to the A20, M20, or M2 — has been carried out. I am not persuaded that this location represents the only, or indeed the least harmful, option available to meet identified need. For all of the above reasons — which relate solely to material planning considerations — I respectfully urge the Council to refuse this application. The proposed development is clearly inappropriate in this sensitive rural location, poses unacceptable risks to highway safety, and would cause significant harm to the character of the area and the amenity of local residents. Bearsted is a much-loved village whose rural setting and historic charm are highly valued by residents and visitors alike. This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with that character and with the sustainable planning of the area. Please confirm safe receipt of this objection and ensure it is placed before the planning committee when the application is determined.
I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed allocation of land on Water Lane in the Bearsted/Thurnham area for use as a gypsy and travellers’ site. While I acknowledge the importance of providing suitable accommodation, I believe this particular location is wholly inappropriate for development of this nature due to a number of serious concerns relating to safety, infrastructure, and the character of the surrounding area. Access and Road Safety Water Lane is a narrow rural road with poor visibility and very limited opportunities for passing. Its layout already poses significant risks to drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike. The seriousness of these risks was tragically highlighted by a recent fatal accident further along the lane involving two people and a dog. In addition, the road is susceptible to serve flooding, which further impairs visibility and also increases danger, particularly during periods of heavy rainfall/snow and ice when this melts. Any increase in traffic along this stretch would, in my view, materially worsen an already unsafe situation. Furthermore, Water Lane is in poor condition with potholes running the whole length of the route, an increase in traffic will only make this worse. Traffic and Congestion The wider road network serving Bearsted and Thurnham is already under considerable pressure, especially at peak times and during school drop-off and pick-up periods. Water Lane and the surrounding roads are not designed to accommodate increased traffic volumes, particularly larger vehicles. The establishment of a gypsy and travellers’ site would inevitably generate additional vehicle movements, intensifying congestion and heightening the likelihood of further accidents. This would place unacceptable strain on infrastructure that is already struggling to cope. In addition to this a number of houses whose boundary are adjacent to Water Lane are at risk of having their property taken by erosion already, this will only increase the chances with the increased volume of traffic taking away the soil and an increased risk of vehicles damaging the embankment and causing a land slide. This would be no small cost to put right and should such a landslide occur this will not only cause pain and misery to those directly involved but it would also mean that those who are wanting to use Water Lane would have to find alternative routes. Add to this that there is the railway line (Kent Downs line), any landslide involving this would be disastrous for a great many towns and villages that rely on this line that goes between Ashford and London. Environmental Impact The site is located within a largely rural landscape that is valued for its open character and environmental contribution. Development of this kind would undermine the rural identity of the area, replacing countryside with a more intrusive and urban form of land use. There are also significant concerns regarding the potential removal of established hedgerows and the loss of wildlife habitats they support. Given the area’s history of flooding, questions must also be raised about drainage capacity, as increased hard surfacing could worsen flood risk both on the site itself and for neighbouring land and properties. Impact on Residential Amenity The amenity and quality of life of existing residents would also be adversely affected. Increased traffic and site-related activity would lead to higher noise levels that are out of keeping with the quiet, rural nature of the area. Furthermore, the installation of artificial lighting would increase light pollution, affecting nearby homes and potentially disrupting local wildlife, particularly nocturnal species. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, I consider the proposed allocation of land at The Lodge, Water Lane for a gypsy and travellers’ site to be unsuitable. The issues relating to road safety, congestion, environmental sensitivity, and residential amenity are substantial and, in my opinion, cannot be adequately mitigated. I therefore urge the planning authority to reconsider this proposal and to explore alternative locations that do not give rise to such significant adverse impacts. Thank you for taking this objection into account. I would appreciate confirmation of receipt and would welcome being kept informed of any further progress or decisions relating to this proposal.
I am writing to formally register my objection to the above-mentioned planning application. I am a local resident and keep my horse at the neighbouring property to The Lodge, (Bridge Farm). I have several points that I wish to raise: 1. Drainage, Flood Risk, and Soil Composition. The application site sits on a heavy clay base, which has naturally poor infiltration rates. This leads to significant surface water runoff rather than absorption. Impact on Water Lane: This runoff directly contributes to the frequent flooding of Water Lane. The existing natural drainage is already at capacity; any increase in impermeable surfaces (such as hardstanding for caravans and utility blocks) will exacerbate the "run-off" effect, increasing the frequency and depth of flooding on a public highway. Policy Conflict: This violates national policies requiring developments to not increase flood risk elsewhere. 2. Highway Safety and Constraints. Water Lane is a narrow, rural lane characterised by a lack of formal passing places and uneven surface. Impasse and Hazard: The lane regularly becomes impassable due to flooding. During winter months, this standing water freezes, creating hazardous "black ice" conditions. Vulnerable Road Users: The lane is a vital route for pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders. The introduction of heavy vehicles (trailers and towing vehicles) onto a road that cannot physically accommodate two-way traffic poses a severe risk to these vulnerable users. The road has poor sight lines and is unsuitable for heavy amounts of traffic. It is already dangerous with the speeds that some vehicles do on this lane. Structural Suitability: The specific access to the land is narrow, winding, and unmade (unbound surface). It is physically unsuitable for the turning circles and weight of trailers and touring caravans, which would likely lead to vehicles becoming stuck or mounting verges, causing environmental damage. 3. Utility Capacity: Water Supply and Sewerage. The current infrastructure is fundamentally inadequate to support additional residential pitches. Water Pressure: The existing two properties already suffer from critically low flow rates and pressure. The system is currently at its limit; when one property utilises the supply, the other experiences a significant drop in service, as I have experienced personally while taking care of my horse. Adding further units will result in a total failure of the local water network's ability to provide a wholesome supply to existing residents. Non-Mains Drainage: I understand that the site is not connected to a mains sewer. Given the clay composition of the soil mentioned above, soakaways and septic tanks are likely to fail or cause contamination, as the ground cannot absorb the effluent. This poses a significant public health and environmental risk. 4. Sustainability and Infrastructure The site is in a remote location with poor access to public transport, schools, and medical facilities. This encourages over-reliance on private vehicles, contradicting sustainability goals. The proposal represents an encroachment into the open countryside, which would lead to the loss of natural habitat and detrimental "urban sprawl." There are many forms of wildlife including an owl population which would be put at risk. Lastly, the potential site has several important Oak trees which have tree preservation orders. For the reasons stated above, I believe this application should be re-considered. I kindly ask that I am updated with decisions on this matter.
GTTS DPD - Polocy C4S(008) The Lodge My husband and I are quite shocked at the above proposal. One wonders if this originated from a map exercise without going to see the actual site? In our view, having lived in XXXX, Bearsted for 42 years, Water Lane is most unsuitable for the type of traffic that would be used by the proposed people. They use large vehicles, large caravans and huge trailers for which Water Lane is totally unsuitable. It is a very narrow lane with no pavements and no passing bays. It is often used by horse riders from the riding school at the top of Water Lane many of which are thereby young and learners Water Lane is so named due to is propensity to flood in high rain and in our experience it actually flows out of Water Lane and across The Sreet, flowing onwards into the new building site off Cross Keys. The junction of Water Lane is in close proximity to that of Cross Keys and on a bend which is potentially dangerous in current usage. With large vehicles coming out of Water Lane the danger would be hightened. Even if their traffic went on up Water Lane north it would come out at The Pilgrims Way (an historic by way) which is wholly unsuitable for that volume of traffic and size of vehicle. Our limited knowledge of the type of site preferred by such a community is that they like to be off a main road where access is not restricted. We would recommend that this site be subject to further consideration and a more suitable one found.
I would like to express my concern/objection to the proposed site in Bearsted/Thurnham. My primary objection is on the grounds of cumulative impact. Having lived in the area for over 20 years (and being from Maidstone originally), I feel the area is completely overdeveloped. The roads are not coping with the volume of traffic generated from all the new builds and the infrastructure has not been put in place to facilitate that process. This is not just from the immediate area but also from the endless estates of housing along Church Road Othman and the Sutton Road which then use Willington Street and New Cut to access the M20 at Junction 7. This creates even more traffic through the village of Bearsted. The roads are in a constant state of disrepair and the utilities (gas/water mains particularly) seem to need ongoing repair causing further problems and endless road closures leading to considerable frustration and long journey times on local journeys. Combine this with the frequent use of Operation Brock which brings the area to a virtual standstill at times and I really do not feel that there is tolerance for any further development. The same extends to the local GP surgeries and how difficult it is to get an appointment, let alone NHS dentists and Hospital appointments. I feel too that any such site would have a detrimental effect on the rural look of the land and inevitably impact the local wildlife. I am by no means a drainage expert but the building work behind Barry House and on Crosskeys (which is a flood plain) in the village frequently causes flooding in Water Lane and The Street. How would this be with additional usage and habitation? I cannot believe it would be helpful. I worry too about the potential antisocial behaviour and lawlessness that goes with such sites and the impact on the local area.
Comments on MBC GTTS DPD -Policy C4S- The Lodge, Water Lane , Thurnham ME14 3LT by: Dr. Felicity Simpson Ph.D, XXXXX.I have continued to visit the ME 14 3LU area and friends from there have visited me, so I remain familiar with Water Lane and the surrounding countryside, 1. I wish to endorse strongly the comments on this application sent in from the Bearsted and Thurnham Society, concluding in section 4, that on the grounds of Highway Safety, Pedestrian Safety and Access the proposed development is inappripriate and should be removed from the Draft DPD. 2. 1. I wish to make an additional comment on Pedestrian Safety. As the B&TS pointed out in the submission that there is no footway along the length of Water Lane, nor any parallel footpath(s). Water Lane is a public road with no specially restricted speed limit, and is extremely dangerous in the southerly section from Roundwell to just before the entrance to The Lodge, as it is a "sunken lane" with no sideways escape. Yet the distance from the proposed site to facilities on The Green are within the walking capability of many adults and older children who may be encouraged to walk for a variety of reasons - exercise, money saving or just convenience. But that walk would be dangerous. 2.2. So when considering the safety of pedestrians accessing the public highway, there is the need to consider that Water Lane is not a destination road for its residents but only an access/egress to other main roads,. Therefore the safety of residents of the proposed site should be determined by access/egress to/from the Water Lane Junction at Roundwell and even at the Pilgrims Way. Similar comments would apply to bicycle users. 3.The comments must be considered in relation to the location of the site, as additional residential development in the countryside, which has no previous built development,,(brownfield) designation, and where no need for such development has been proven, would be contrary to the requirement to protect the rural aspect of The Kent Downs National Landscape. and enhance its biodiversity. 4. So I seek to reinforce the arguments advanced by the Bearsted and Thurnham Society that Policy C4S(008) The Lodge should be withdrawn from consideration of GTTS DPD on the grounds that it would be inappropriate development.
I am writing to voice both my concern and objection to the proposed site in Bearsted The area is currently overwhelmed already with traffic issues namely unable to cope with the volume of traffic from new developments over the last few years and the lack of infrastructure to cope with it. The outlying areas around Bearsted have generated extra traffic from new estates that have resulted in increased traffic through the village on top of which with constant closures of the M20 as a result of Brock or accidents already makes Bearsted roads barely able to cope. I gave lived in Bearsted for over 20 years and have witnessed the decay of village roads and the constant need to close or partially close various roads as a result of utilities needs. Our GP surgeries are overwhelmed already and struggle to cope with their client base. As I write this parts of Water Lane are yet again flooded and access to and from certain parts are denied. This is nothing new and has existed for years. I therefore reiterate my objection as a result of the above together with expected anti social behaviour that has tended to follow such developments.
C4S (008) We consider that generally, this is not a suitable area for further development, because of further impact on local services and congestion on local roads, particularly Water Lane and The Street.
I write to OBJECT in the strongest terms to the proposal for additional Gypsy Traveller Show People (GTSP) site in Water Lane, Bearsted for the following reasons: it is a totally inappropriate site for this use, especially for access and egress as Water Lane is a narrow country lane in a village setting. The increased volume of traffic and equipment, larger vehicles and longer towed trailer vehicles for show people and travellers is totally unsuitable for the logistics in this small country lane in the heart in the village of Bearsted Maidstone already has one of the highest number of GTSP sites in Kent and in the country so no more sites in this area are welcome by the residents and communities should this proposal go ahead, this will attract further expansion in the neighbouring fields (a windfall plot) which the facilities of small villages like Bearsted, Thurnham and Hollingbourne cannot accommodate surrounding country lanes in quiet areas (eg White Horse Woods, Cold Blow Lane etc) already attract uncontrolled fly tipping which could resemble (and is highly likely) similar to the site that was at Junction 5 in Aylesford where dumping was a common problem on the actual living land itself as well as the fly tipping in surrounding areas more GTSP activity in these small villages would change the amenity of village life and pubs, restaurants and would have a negative impact on Bearsted, Thurnham and Hollingbourne, with anti social behaviour a particular problem already experience in Maidstone, Rochester and other Kent towns. The village would not cope and it would have a detrimental effect educational establishments in Bearsted and Hollingbourne already have over subscribed schools and nurseries, and because GTSP children attend or not attend frequently, this would have a detrimental effect to the learning of existing students and the teaching in these schools (historically this can be proven with Detling Primary School which was closed! an expanding GTSP site would have a negative impact on travel and tourism in the area it would also have a hugely negative impact on the conservation areas and the AONB with proven disregard from the GTSP sites including TPOs and a negative impact on the beauty of the North Downs at the other end of Water Lane as is the heritage and nature of Show People to have large towed vehicles, this would be an absolute impossibility to pass through the single lanes in the village of Bearsted there will be increased demand on facilities already struggling to support the community, eg doctor, schools at the moment the existing accommodation is one home and residence with an abundance of wildlife, flora and fauna which would be non existent should plans for the GTSP site be allowed. There is not a single benefit to any resident in the village of Bearsted, Thurnham or Hollingbourne for a GTSP site. This will not enhance or improve the area and could have a hugely detrimental affect to living in any of the surrounding areas. Therefore I strongly object with every reason for MBC to discount this wholly inappropriate proposal. The community, residents, tourists and any future residents would be negatively affected for all the reasons shown above.
Re: Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show People Policy Public Consultation by Maidstone Borough Council. Whilst I believe that part of what makes Great Britain such a great place to live is the inclusivity we give to all, I am strongly opposed to the above site being given the go ahead, for the below reasons:- Limited site and access via Water Lane which is a very narrow country line. This lane comes out very close to our driveway, which, like many in Roundwell, has obscured visibility. Concerns around extra traffic coming out of Water Lane would mean possible accidents coming out of our driveway and more congestion around the village. Making a quant, quiet village becoming more of a busy town. Which would reduce house prices and make Bearsted a less desirable place to live. This could also result in the Maidstone Borough Council having to reduce council tax. The visual impact of the Kent Downs landscape would be affected and I believe there are several Oak trees with a preservation order which have been put in place for a reason. This could change the landscape of the village, which is why residents pay a premium to live here. Pressure on local services would be affected. Local Schools, hospitals and health support in the area would mean current residents would have longer waiting lists. Local GP's already busy and working hard would need to see even more patients. Local Schools already popular and oversubscribed would not be able to cope with additional children in the area. Concerns around drainage would be an issue as Water Lane, on a regular basis, floods and additional traffic coming in and out of the Lane would be affected with the current drainage in place. The village has a lovely variety of wildlife and hedgerows which make up this lovely place to live. Again this would be affected by the suggested planning permission above. I hope that Maidstone Council can consider my comments and that they would review the location for the Gypsy/Traveller area to somewhere more suitable than Bearsted.
I am writing to formally object to the proposal for a Gypsy, Traveller and travelling showpeople site at The Brishings, Green Lane, Langley Heath, Maidstone. As a resident in XXXX this proposed development would have a massive negative impact on the character of the neighbourhood, local infrastructure, and the quality of life for residents. The perceived or real concerns from media reports where these sites have been allowed would cause huge anxiety and mental trauma to the locals both in their homes and around the area particularly after dark. Langley Heath is not in an area identified as suitable for growth regarding new residential development under the council’s spatial strategy in the recently adopted MBC Local Plan Review 2021-2038. It is located beyond any settlement boundary and is therefore in the countryside. The site is therefore contrary to policy LPRSS1 of the MBCLPR. The MBCLPR 2021-2038 includes policies to protect and enhance the character of the countryside and prevent inappropriate development that would harm the landscape. This proposal would be incompatible with the spacious rural character of the area and be contrary to policies LPRSP9, LPRSP15 and LPRQD4. These policies, amongst other things, require development to “respond positively to, and where possible, enhance the local distinctiveness and character of the area and avoid significant harm to the landscape”. The proposal has no explicit mention of balancing Traveller needs with the rights and quality of life of existing communities, which undermines the fairness and inclusivity the plan claims to promote. My specific concerns are as follows: 1. Impact on Local Infrastructure: The current local infrastructure, lack of schools, shops, healthcare, waste management and extremely limited public transport services would not be able to tolerate any new influx of residents. It is currently impossible to register at the local medical practice because it is already at full capacity. The addition of new sites will also place further strain on the electricity, water and sewage supplies which are already struggling shown by the current water outage. We already suffer from multiple power cuts so any more demand on the system must adversely affect it. I have seen no evidence that adequate measures have been considered to address any of these issues. This would all be contrary to the Aims and Policy SS1 of the MBC Local Plan (2017), contrary to the MBC Local Plan Review (March 2024) policies LPRSS1, LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRHOU1 and the NPPF (2023) and the Sustainability Aims of the National Planning Framework (2023) 2. Environmental and Aesthetic Impact: There is concern regarding the removal of green spaces and trees, which could impact the flooding issues in the area. In addition, the proposal would introduce an uncharacteristic residential development to the immediate area which would be highly visible from the surrounding roads and negatively impact the rural character of Langley Heath. Your own reply to planning application 14/0545 refuses permission as it would “result in significant harm to the rural character of the area while compromising the function for the southern anti coalescence belt, ENV32”. 3. Impact on Local Traffic, Access and Parking: The proposed development would increase traffic on Green Lane, which is only a single-track lane with no designated passing places and with a dangerous junction at the western end. The local roads, particularly Green Lane are wholly unsuitable for the large lorry towed caravans that the travellers tend to have and who also require wide access areas. It would also increase traffic volumes in the surrounding area including Leeds Road which is already unsuitable for the volume of traffic using it daily. Five Wents cross roads is a serious gridlock and could not cope with even more traffic as proven when the Loose Rd was recently closed. The effects of increased traffic on Green Lane have been demonstrated in recent months whilst surrounding roads have been shut. Green Lane became unsuitable for use by residents to walk along due to the excess speed, trees were damaged due to large vehicles trying to use the unsuitable narrow road and extensive damage to the grass verges resulting in mud and stones causing dangerous conditions. 4. Impact on Local Housing The proposal will negatively affect the visual appeal of this rural area and almost certainly reduce property values; indeed, it may trap residents because they are unable to sell. We understand that property values are not a material planning consideration but that needs to be reviewed because of the real effect on residents’ mental health and material wellbeing. The Old Farmhouse and Ye Old Cottage form an historical group of listed Grade 2 buildings which are part of an isolated cluster of dwellings immediately adjacent to the site. Your rejection of planning 14/0545 quotes that new buildings would “adversely effect the setting of the listed buildings and are contrary to NPPF 2012 relating to the need to safeguard the character and setting of designated heritage assets”. Your own heritage officers are very aware of maintaining the historical environment. There is also a row of six Victorian cottages opposite the site which would be adversely affected. Developing this site would severely weaken the identity, character and setting of all these buildings. The development of this site would be higher than some of the existing houses. This is a significant concern as it could substantially reduce the privacy and enjoyment of these homes. 5.Noise and Disruption: The construction process and subsequent increase in the number of people living in the area will likely cause noise, disruption and pollution which could degrade the overall quality of life in the area. Real or perceived reports of anti-social behaviour, crime, and fly tipping associated with these sites need to be taken into account. The travelling community have their own ways and traditions which they wish to freely adhere to and placing them on top of other communities is going to cause conflict and unrest for all parties concerned. The only sensible solution is to seek a location where the gypsy travelling community can live freely and are able to continue with their traditions and desired ways of living, this being somewhere away from already established living communities. This I believe would be a shared feeling by all parties concerned. In conclusion, for a site that has previously been deemed unsuitable by a council multiple times for residential development, it is contradictory, to say the least, that it should be considered for approval in any subsequent proposal made by that very same council. In light of the above points, I respectfully request that the council refuse this as a suitable site.Thank you for considering my views.
Strongly disagree. There is a proposal to allocate an additional 20 pitches to the Rear of the Meadows on Lenham Road in Headcorn – a site in open countryside in an LLV. This is highly inappropriate to allocate yet more pitches to the sprawling, over-crowded, unregulated site, where foul wastewater disposal does not meet legislation. This site is associated with significant ongoing crime, disorder and abuse as reported to the March 2023 Planning Inquiry and has created fear and resentment. More recently there have been reports of child abuse. This site is not a place for the children, the old, sick, or vulnerable. This is not the type of G&T site we should be encouraging, let alone extending in 2026 and beyond. I strongly disagree with the additional pitches for Acres Place, opposite The Meadows. The cumulative impact of G&T sites along the Lenham Road, in open countryside in a LLV needs to be considered. This site has been (like the Meadows) unlawfully established based on retrospective applications following enforcement. They have, without permission, narrowed the highway, increasing road traffic dangers and have shown disrespect to legislation and planning policy. This is not the sort of site we should be establishing or expanding in 2026 or beyond.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed gypsy encampment development in Bearsted. I grew up in Bearsted, and my parents still live in the village. I therefore have a long-standing personal connection to the area and a strong interest in its future. Bearsted is a well-established village with limited infrastructure capacity, and further development of this nature risks placing additional strain on local services, roads, and amenities that are already under pressure. Kent already accommodates a disproportionately high number of gypsy and traveller sites compared with other local authorities in the UK. This proposal raises serious concerns about fairness and balance in regional planning, particularly when many other councils do not shoulder a comparable share of provision. Since moving to rural Kent and speaking with members of the local community, I am aware of widespread concern about the financial and social impact such sites can have on local taxpayers, including increased costs for site management, enforcement, and clean-up. These are legitimate concerns that should not be dismissed and must be properly addressed through transparent evidence and consultation. I am also concerned about the consultation process itself. I intended to submit my views via the public survey, which stated a closing date of 11 January 2026, only to discover that it had already closed. This has left residents like myself with no option but to raise objections by email, which undermines confidence in the accessibility and fairness of the process. I respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council reconsiders this proposal, fully reviews alternative locations, and ensures that the views of Bearsted residents are genuinely taken into account before any decision is made.
Please see below my objections to the proposed planning application regarding the above subject. 1. Introduction I am writing to object to the proposed development at Water Lane, Bearsted. The location is unsuitable for permanent Gypsy/Traveller pitches due to significant harm to the countryside, highway safety concerns, and conflict with established planning policies. ⸻ 2. Harm to the Countryside & Character of Water Lane The site lies within open countryside and contributes to the rural character of Water Lane. The proposal would result in: • Urbanisation of a green rural area • Visual intrusion due to hardstanding, vehicles, day rooms, and lighting • Loss of openness contrary to Local Plan countryside protection policies The proposed landscaping is insufficient to offset the permanent change to the rural landscape. ⸻ 3. Highway Safety Concerns Water Lane is a narrow rural road with: • No pavement for pedestrians • Existing pinch points and poor visibility • Already high traffic levels at peak times due to commuter routes and nearby school traffic The additional vehicle movements (cars, caravans, trailers) will increase danger for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, and other road users. This conflicts with NPPF Section 9 regarding safe and suitable access. ⸻ 4. Unsuitable Location / Poor Sustainability The site is not sustainable for residential use: • No safe pedestrian routes to Bearsted village or services • Limited access to shops, healthcare, and other everyday needs • Dependence on private vehicles • Poor access for emergency services due to road width and congestion This conflicts with both Local Plan sustainability objectives and PPTS guidance, which advises that Gypsy sites should not be in isolated rural locations away from services. ⸻ 5. Drainage & Flooding Risks Parts of Water Lane are known to experience surface-water flooding. Introducing: • Hardstanding • Impermeable surfaces • Additional foul drainage needs … increases the risk of run-off and potential pollution without adequate mitigation. ⸻ 6. Inadequate Infrastructure The local area already experiences pressure on: • School spaces • GP and healthcare capacity • Road network congestion • Rural utilities (water, waste, sewerage) The proposal would add to these pressures, and no clear mitigation has been provided. ⸻ 7. Precedent for Unplanned Development Approving this application would: • Set a precedent for incremental, unauthorised or speculative development along Water Lane • Undermine the strategic planning and site allocation approach set out in the Maidstone Local Plan ⸻ 8. Policy Conflicts The proposal conflicts with: • Local Plan Policy SP17 – protection of the countryside • DM15 / DM30 – design and protecting rural character • PPTS – suitability, sustainability, and environmental impact • NPPF – protecting valued landscapes and ensuring safe highway access The harm significantly outweighs the benefits. ⸻ 9. Conclusion For the reasons stated above – including harm to the countryside, road safety concerns, poor sustainability, drainage issues, and conflict with key planning policies – I strongly object to the proposal at Water Lane and request that the application is refused.
I write to formally object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site within the parish of Bearsted and Thurnham. This objection is based solely on material planning considerations and the proposal’s conflict with local and national planning policy. 1. Location and Sustainability Bearsted and Thurnham are rural villages with limited local services and facilities. The application site is poorly located in sustainability terms, with inadequate access to shops, schools, healthcare and employment opportunities. Public transport provision is limited, infrequent and unsuitable for meeting day-to-day needs. As a result, future occupiers would be heavily reliant on private vehicles, including larger vans and towing vehicles, which is contrary to the principles of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Maidstone Borough Local Plan policies which seek to direct development to accessible locations. 2. Highways and Access The local highway network consists of narrow rural roads which already experience congestion and safety issues, particularly at peak times. Visibility is restricted in places and many roads lack pavements, street lighting and safe crossing points. The proposed development would generate additional vehicle movements, including large vehicles, which would exacerbate existing highway safety concerns. The site access does not provide a safe or suitable point of access for the level and type of traffic generated, resulting in an increased risk to pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and other road users. 3. Landscape Impact and Rural Character The site lies within a sensitive rural landscape which contributes significantly to the character and setting of Bearsted and Thurnham. The introduction of caravans, hardstanding, fencing, lighting, parking and storage areas would result in the urbanisation of the countryside and cause lasting harm to the rural character of the area. This form of development would be visually intrusive and out of keeping with the surrounding landscape, conflicting with Maidstone Borough Local Plan policies that seek to protect the countryside from inappropriate development. 4. Environment and Ecology The site is bounded by hedgerows and open land which provide valuable habitat for wildlife. These features contribute to local biodiversity and act as wildlife corridors. The proposal risks habitat loss, disturbance and fragmentation through site clearance, increased activity and artificial lighting. In addition, the increase in hardstanding raises concerns regarding surface water drainage. Given existing drainage constraints in the area, the proposal could increase runoff and the risk of localised flooding, contrary to sustainable drainage principles. 5. Residential Amenity The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residents. Increased noise from vehicle movements, general site activity and external lighting would significantly alter the character of this quiet rural area. The scale and intensity of the use would also raise concerns regarding loss of privacy and increased disturbance, harming the quality of life of existing residents. 6. Cumulative Impact and Infrastructure Bearsted and Thurnham already face pressure on local infrastructure, including roads, schools, medical facilities and drainage systems. The introduction of a permanent residential site would place further strain on services that are not equipped to accommodate such development. The cumulative impact of this proposal, when combined with other development in the area, would lead to an unsustainable pattern of growth and further erosion of the villages’ rural character. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site represents inappropriate development in an unsustainable location. It would cause unacceptable harm to highway safety, landscape character, ecology, residential amenity and local infrastructure, and is therefore contrary to Maidstone Borough Council’s Local Plan and national planning policy. I respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council refuses this application.
I am putting in writing my objections to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site in Bearsted. The planned site has limited vehicular access via Water Lane which is a narrow country lane and is often flooded – it’s called Water Lane for that reason. In the Winter, this water turns to ice and slush and makes the road very dangerous. The visual impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape would be affected as this site is very rural and surrounded by farm and agricultural buildings only. The named site also has several important Oak trees which have tree preservation orders attached to them so these will need protecting at all costs not to mention the wildlife and nature that would be disturbed and eradicated if this proposal goes ahead. The development of a site like this will also put further stress on local amenities such as schools, doctors surgeries and the already gridlocked roads system is also a key factor to be taken into consideration. Previous planning applications for this site have been refused in the past and I’m hoping this proposal will be too as this site is just not suitable for any kind of residential development.
C4S (008) I wish to register a formal objection to the proposed conversion of the current property into a Traveller site. My concerns relate to issues of cumulative impact, local capacity, and proportionality, all of which are material planning considerations. 1. Disproportionate Concentration in Maidstone Borough According to data published by Maidstone Borough Council, the borough already has the highest Gypsy and Traveller population of any local authority area in England and Wales, with 1,009 usual residents identified. This equates to 5.74 Gypsy and Traveller residents per 1,000 population, compared with a national average of just 1.06 per 1,000. This demonstrates that Maidstone is already accommodating a significantly higher proportion of Traveller sites than most areas nationally. Approving further provision in this location risks creating an unbalanced distribution of sites, contrary to the principle of fair and sustainable dispersal across local authorities. 2. Cumulative Impact on Local Services and Infrastructure Given the already high concentration of sites in the borough, additional development of this nature may place further pressure on: Local road networks Health and education services Waste and utilities infrastructure Community support services Planning policy requires councils to consider whether an area is already hosting more than its fair share of a particular type of development. In this case, the cumulative impact is a legitimate concern. 3. Need for Strategic, Plan‑Led Provision National planning guidance emphasises that Traveller site provision should be plan‑led, ensuring that sites are allocated in sustainable, suitable locations with appropriate access to services. Ad‑hoc applications outside the plan‑making process risk undermining the borough’s strategic approach and may lead to clustering in areas already under pressure. Given Maidstone’s existing high provision, any further sites should be considered only through the Local Plan process, where need, distribution, and sustainability can be assessed comprehensively and required resources are already available. 4. Impact on Local Character and Land Use The proposed change of use from a single residence to a Traveller site represents a significant shift in land use. The impact on: Rural character Landscape setting Neighbouring amenity should be carefully weighed. Where an area is already accommodating a disproportionate number of similar developments, the cumulative effect on local character becomes a material planning concern. Conclusion This application must be assessed in the context of Maidstone’s already exceptionally high level of Traveller site provision. The borough is demonstrably exceeding national averages, and further intensification risks creating an unsustainable and inequitable concentration. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the planning authority refuse the application.