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.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed planning application for a Gypsy and Traveller site located very close to Bearsted Village. My objection is based on the following: Highway Safety and Access The site is accessed via a very narrow country road that is wholly unsuitable for increased traffic, particularly larger vehicles such as caravans and service vehicles. The road lacks pavements and adequate passing places. Any increase in traffic would pose a significant risk to pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, and other road users, and is contrary to highway safety standards. Impact on Bearsted Village and Rural Character Bearsted is a well established village with a defined rural character. The proposed development would represent inappropriate development in this location and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. Sustainability of the Location The site is not in a sustainable location. It is poorly served by public transport and is not within reasonable walking distance of shops, schools, medical facilities, or other essential services. This would result in an over reliance on private vehicles, contrary to local and national planning policy promoting sustainable development. Precedent and Cumulative Impact Approval of this application could set an undesirable precedent for further inappropriate development along narrow rural lanes surrounding Bearsted, leading to cumulative harm to the countryside and local infrastructure. For the reasons outlined above, I request that this planning application be refused.
I would like to register a strong objection to the proposed siting of the Gypsy and Traveller camp in Water Lane, Bearsted on the basis hat the site under consideration is unsuitable for the proposed purpose of providing a site for use by Gypsies and Travellers. The primary reasons that I consider the site unsuitable are as follows;- Water lane is very narrow and has no pavements to provide safe access. The road is inherently dangerous to travel down due to the lack of any pavements and the blocking of pedestrian escape from road traffic due to hedging either side. Only recently two pedestrians were killed when they were hit by a car, for which the visibility by both the driver and pedestrians was obscured by the hedging. The local GP practice is heavily oversubscribed and struggles to provide the necessary services to existing residents, without increasing the numbers requiring attention. The width of the lane would prohibit safe movement of large vehicles and caravans / mobile homes to the site and if used the site would have to be very significantly opened up to be able gain access for such vehicles Development of the site with hardstandings and services provisions would be very disruptive to the village and surrounding areas. If concrete or other similar hardstandings were installed then this would increase the run off of water down the lane and exacerbate an already unwelcome and unsafe environment. If no hardstandings were incorporated then this would result in significant quantities of earth and mud being transferred onto the road when entering and exiting the site. This would create a real hazard for vehicles and pedestrians alike. If developed and opened up for entry the site would be very detrimental to the rural setting and view of the Downs, and the area of Outstanding Beauty. For the local community, which is already having to overcome unwelcome significant increases in traffic movements, this proposal would only make things much worse. We understand the need for such sites but it would be totally inappropriate to position such a facility at this location and spoil what is currently a rare piece of beautiful countryside.
Q6 – Policy TR5 (Accommodation on Non-Allocated Sites) Position • Agree if sites fully comply with sustainability criteria and are properly enforced. Additional Comment • None beyond agreement.
Formal objection to 15 pitch traveller site at The Meadow, ME17 3JB As a close neighbour to the above proposed traveller site I would like to object and attach my Formal Objection to this letter and email. Firstly, I would like to ask why you should think that it is necessary to add a further fifteen pitches to this area when the existing traveller sites in the area are half empty as follows: 1) The traveller site next to the Finches Caravan Site appears to have been extended to the size of a football pitch as shown on these two pictures: A) Picture of an extended site on land formerly belonging to Mr Schroeder and the Finches Caravan site with a substantial hard standing that I estimate to be the size of a football pitch with all the trees felled: (See Attached) B) A satellite image showing the caravan site before the site was extended into land formerly owned by Mr Schroeder at the Finches Caravan site: I must say that this is a pure estimate of what I think the traveller site has been extended by after I looked at the site that backs onto XXXX property to the west of the extended area and onto land formerly owned by Mr Schroeder and the camping site: (See attached) When you add the blue area that is a site approximately equivalent to a football pitch and more than adequate for the fifteen required traveller sites that the council is looking for. C) The existing traveller site that borders Chartway Street and Pitt Road to the east of the proposed Meadow site is actually half empty and can easily accommodate at least four more traveller pitches and should be added to the Council’s proposed list. 2) Secondly, I and my family have lived at XXXXX since 1987. When we moved here there were no gypsies or travellers anywhere nearby. It was only when Mr Schroeder bought the land now known as the Finches Caravan site which, at the time, included all the traveller sites shown above to the west of the caravan site that he sold that land to travellers in the nineties and attracted them to the area. When we purchased the house surrounded by fields the house was in Council Tax Band F. With the gypsies nearby we appealed Tax Band F and had it reduced to Tax Band E. If The Meadow site goes ahead and more travellers are in the area I am sure all the local houses will be reduced by at least one band because of the number of extra gypsy sites now in the local area that have been added since Mr Schroeder sold his land on Chartway Street circa thirty years ago. 3) I have to ask this question, why is it necessary for the council to encourage more gypsy traveller sites in this semi-rural area when a site can be built in a rural area that will not devalue local properties. Obviously, there would be a necessity for improved infrastructure which would be covered by the four million pounds being allocated to The Meadow site and recovered by the sale or rent charged to the occupiers. I am sure there would be land available for the project without decreasing the income for Maidstone Council on all the houses that will seek to have their property Tax Band’s reduced significantly.
The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence It is with regret that, due to the level of hostility surrounding this particular application, I have decided to withdraw it. I have never previously experienced such a degree of animosity directed towards myself and my family as a result of a planning application. Given the circumstances, I do not feel it is appropriate to continue at this time. Should the Council wish to approach me in the future with a constructive plan, I would be willing to consider a revised application that gives greater consideration to the local community and its concerns.
Headcorn Parish Council will confine its response on potential sites, to sites within Headcorn Parish itself. There are two proposed sites in Headcorn Parish: C4S (004) Acres Place for 6 pitches, with access from Lenham Road; and C4S (002) Land adj. to Shenley Corner for an unspecified number of pitches. C4S (002) Land adj. to Shenley Corner: Headcorn Parish Council considers that of the two sites in the Parish, the site C4S (002) Land adj. to Shenley Corner is the most suitable to be allocated. The site is close to the main road (A274) and a bus stop, allowing for the use of public transport to access local facilities, and would be close to a cluster of other developments on that crossroad, meaning its impact on the countryside and local wildlife would be more limited than elsewhere in the countryside. Depending on the details of the final proposal, Headcorn Parish Council is therefore minded to support this proposed site, providing: it is served by a single point of access onto the site (rather than multiple entrances), for safety reasons ideally not onto the A274 itself; sufficient traffic calming measures can be added to the A274 to make entrance onto the site safe; the identified flood risk can be managed in an effective way. Environment Agency flood mapping suggests that while the risk of flooding associated with this site is currently low (0.1% to 1%), the risk associated with parts of the site will increase to medium (1% to 3.3%) for the period 2036-2069; the proposals for site design, access and landscaping will conform with the requirements of Headcorn’s Neighbourhood Plan, as well as the Development Plan more broadly; and particularly if the allocated site is for a major development (of 10 or more homes), the site should ideally be Council run (as there appear to be fewer problems associated with Council run sites). C4S (004) Acres Place: Headcorn Parish Council notes that it is unclear if the 6 pitches associated with the proposed allocation C4S (004) Acres Place are in addition to, or instead of, the 8 pitches proposed as part of planning application 25/501709/FULL. In general, given its location, Headcorn Parish Council does not consider that C4S (004) would be a suitable allocation, if it is in addition to the planning application (ie for 14 pitches in total). However, a smaller allocation might be suitable, although to avoid potential conflicts, particularly with other gypsy and travellers within the immediate vicinity of C4S (004), Headcorn Parish Council considers that development on that site is only likely to be successful, if it is Council run. In addition, to be made acceptable, Headcorn Parish Council considers that the policy supporting development of the proposed site should include a requirement that: it is served by a single point of access onto the site (rather than multiple entrances); sufficient traffic calming measures can be provided on the Lenham Road to make entrance onto the site safe; and the proposals for site design, access and landscaping will conform with the requirements of Headcorn’s Neighbourhood Plan.
My clients, Horsecloud Ltd, are encouraged that Local Plan Officers have viewed The Lodge Water Lane site to have “potential” for a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople allocation. Clearly, the site with its configuration, has capacity to accommodate many units of varying sizes in the range of 150 – 500m², but at this stage, it is not possible to determine without purchaser interest and a critical consideration to provide what is needed in this location. It is fortunate that main services are on site or nearby, and the new development to the south of the railway line, giving a much-improved capacity for a connection main drainage. My clients are keen for the site to achieve allocation under Regulation 19.
We agree that accommodation on non-allocated sites should be very strictly governed by the Local Plan policies on G & T accommodation and protecting the countryside. The NPPF and the guidelines in the PPTS should be adhered to, which so far, in Ulcombe, have often been ignored. Screening has often been MBC's acceptable excuse to justify the blight of inappropriate development, even in LLVs, but screening does not remove the problem caused, especially in winter. We hope MBC will actually enforce its Local Plan G & T and countryside policies. We have had occasions in the past when both MBC and the Inspectorate have agreed G&T appeals because they did not accept that PPTS para 14 saying, “domination of the nearest settled community” should also mean the settled community in the same or adjacent postcodes, rather than just the centre of the village, which could be up to 2 miles away. We hope this adjustment will be made. We also hope that MBC will exclude sites with no right of way, because driving through private property to reach a landlocked field would be “unsafe access” (policy TR7 a).
I write to lodge a formal objection to the proposed allocation of land at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted, within the emerging Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD). I am a local resident of Bearsted and make this representation having regard to thestatutory tests of soundness, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the Council’s duties under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. While I fully acknowledge the Council’s statutory obligation to identify deliverable and suitable sites for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation, this specific site fails fundamental tests of suitability, safety, sustainability and policy compliance. 1. Failure to Meet Highway Safety and Access Requirements Water Lane is a narrow, single-track rural lane with: No pavements or pedestrian segregation Limited forward and side visibility Inadequate passing places Constant flooding issues Sub-standard geometry for large or articulated vehicles The proposal relies exclusively on access via Water Lane, contrary to NPPF paragraph 110, which requires development to ensure safe and suitable access for all users and not give rise to unacceptable highway safety impacts. The anticipated vehicle movements associated with Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople - including towing vehicles, articulated units, plant, generators, and seasonal convoys - are wholly incompatible with the physical constraints of this lane. This is not a hypothetical concern. A fatal collision occurred on nearby Thurnham Lane, a comparable rural road, resulting in the deaths of two local residents due to speed and road conditions. This tragic incident underscores the very real and foreseeable risks of intensifying traffic along such routes. In planning law, where severe highway safety impacts cannot be mitigated, refusal is mandatory. No credible mitigation strategy is presented that could make this access safe or policy-compliant. 2. Unsustainable Location Contrary to NPPF Principles The NPPF is clear that development must be located where it can be sustainably accessed by residents and service providers. This site: Is remote from essential services Is not served by public transport Requires reliance on private vehicles for all daily needs Is difficult for emergency services (and any obstruction caused by the site is likely to result in even greater difficulty) Is difficult for refuse services This directly conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 8 and 105, which seek to reduce reliance on private car journeys and promote sustainable patterns of development. A site that is entirely car-dependent, accessed via unsuitable rural lanes, cannot be considered sustainable. 3. Incompatibility with Rural Character and Landscape Harm The site lies within a sensitive rural setting on the edge of Bearsted, surrounded by open countryside and agricultural land. The intensity and operational nature of a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople site — including vehicle storage, equipment, hardstandings, lighting and activity — would cause material harm to landscape character, contrary to: Local plan countryside protection policies NPPF paragraph 174 (protecting intrinsic character of the countryside). The proposal would urbanise a rural landscape and represents a fundamental conflict in land use, not a sympathetic or proportionate form of development. Further, any alterations to the landscape to try and mitigate the unsustainable location (contrary to NPPF Principles) would fail due to the impact on the rural character and landscape. There are also several important Oak trees which have tree preservation orders. 4. Flooding, Drainage and Ground Condition Constraints It is well-documented locally that Water Lane suffers from surface water and drainage issues, particularly at its lower points. The introduction of: Hardstandings Heavy vehicle movements Residential occupation raises significant concerns regarding surface water runoff, soil compaction, and flood risk, contrary to NPPF paragraphs 159–167. No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that these constraints can be adequately mitigated and any mitigation is likely to fail due to the impact on the rural character and landscape. 5. Failure of the “Soundness” Tests For a DPD allocation to be found sound, it must be positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. This site fails on multiple counts: Not justified: reasonable alternatives with safer access appear available Not effective: severe access constraints render delivery questionable if not impossible Not consistent: with national policy: conflicts with NPPF safety and sustainability requirements The volume of local objections, including formal representations and the intervention of the local Member of Parliament, further evidences that this allocation lacks community acceptability and practical deliverability. 6. Charges Register in relation to the site I believe there may be a restriction over the proposed site (to the benefit of Barty Farm and its successors) that any owner of the land will ’not deposit any chemicals or noxious substances of any type whatsoever in the stream passing through the land’ (as referred). Conclusion This objection is not to the principle of provision, but to the unsuitability of this proposed site. The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted: Is unsafe Is unsustainable Is environmentally harmful Fails core planning tests I therefore respectfully request that Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted be removed from the emerging DPD and that the Council identifies alternative sites that meet access, safety and sustainability requirements. Such removal will avoid legal and local challenge further down the line and avoid a waste of taxpayers money.
I write this letter of objection on behalf of myself and wife Jacqueline and daughter Alison, as residents of XXXXX. I am sure that you will have multiple letters of objections from others, many of which will likely concentrate on Planning Policy matters. I will therefore attempt not to duplicate such letters although suspect that a good deal of that area will overlap points that I make. As I am not an expert on Policy or how it is implemented, and perhaps more importantly when the Council can disregard it, I will attempt to write this giving different viewpoints for your consideration. Our XXXX at above address is under 10m form the boundary of the proposed development as shown below i.e. the nearest XXXX to the proposed site, although other neighbours do have land that comes up to a few meters of the site e.g. those directly opposite in Pitt Road. Our XXXX is situated within the blue area, and the edge of the development is shown as red line below. The wider XXXX are extends to around 7 acres to the West of the site and borders almost the entire Westerly side of the site (red line). We have lived at the property for over 40 years so we are not people who have moved into the area and then seeking to complain about what we have found! Two-bedroom windows and several windows of a downstairs room directly overlook this site, and clearly the visual amenity will be severely affected, as well as likely noise (currently zero as has sheep). Please see attached We would also like to register that there is currently none of the following list of negative items affecting us from the area of the proposed development; 1. Noise (e.g., generators, shouting, vehicles). 2. Vibration (e.g., from heavy machinery or vehicles on the site). 3. Smell (e.g., waste, burning, sewage). 4. Fumes (e.g., from vehicle exhausts or machinery). 5. Smoke (e.g., from bonfires or stoves). 6. Artificial Lighting (e.g., floodlights shining into your home/garden at night). 7. Discharge of any solid or liquid substance onto your land. It is our belief that if the site is developed as per application, then one or more of the above will become a nuisance for not only ourselves but also other neighbours of the site, although suspect we are likely to be worst affected. Unfortunately it is not possible to make any Land Compensation Claim based on expectations, but this will surely be considered should we encounter any of the above, and will keep records as we encounter them. Again I suspect it is not a consideration for the Council, but we have taken advice on likely devaluation of our property and been told that it would likely wipe over £200k off its value. It will be small comfort that this should bring a rates reduction, and think it is fundamentally unfair that compensation for such loss of value is not going to be part of any development budget. It would however be wrong not to outline this now so that the Council can budget for possible future Land Compensation Claims after the event. Should he application be allowed in full or in part, then as residents of XXXX, we request that no pitch is allowed within 150m of our front door – we think a very reasonable request. 1. Overconcentration of Traveller Sites 1.1 The proposed development is next to a current Traveller site so will create a massive single area even though both will have different ownership. The proposed site is also 400m from another site and on the same road as at least one more. making at least 35 pitches already allowed. It is noteworthy that all these other pitches have been given with retrospective planning permission as these sorts of applications seem to not need to follow the process that everyone else is forced to abide by. With the proposed 30 pitches that can each house 4 people, this could be an additional 120 of a minority group living literally on our doorstep, not to mention potential for likely average of 1 car per two people, so potentially 60 vehicles frequenting the site even though the proposal is to attempt to restrict to 2 – this of course will be impossible to control. I suspect and hope these numbers do not become a reality, but even if half this number, then it would mean that travellers would outnumber the current residents of Pitt Road and nearby Chartway Street residents all put together The proposal would create a cluster of 50+ pitches, some with two units, most units we would expect to have multiple occupancy, and so clearly contrary to the PPTS requirement for fair and balanced distribution. There is also a conflict with DPD Policy GT1 and Local plan Policy SP17 as it undermines community cohesion, contrary to national planning objectives. The proposed addition in such a concentrated location will also inevitably disrupt the local balance. Sustainable community cohesion depends on proportionate, well distributed provision, and the proposed expansion is of a scale that will undermine the current balance. 2. Location The site in question lies outside any area that appears in the Borough Council’s Settlement Hierarchy (defined in Policy SS1), and as such should be treated as lying in open countryside. The hierarchy effectively "ranks" every town and village based on how sustainable it is (e.g. how many shops, schools, and doctors it has). For illustration this hierarchy is shown below; • County Town: Maidstone (The main urban area). • Rural Service Centres (RSCs): These are the main hubs. • Coxheath, Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst. • Larger Villages: • East Farleigh, Eyhorne Street (Hollingbourne), Sutton Valence, Yalding. • Smaller Villages: • Boughton Monchelsea, Boxley, Bredhurst, Chart Sutton, Detling, Grafty Green, Hunton, Kingswood, Laddingford, Langley, Leeds, Platt's Heath, Stockbury, Teston, Ulcombe, West Farleigh. • The Countryside: • Anywhere not listed above. This site clearly falls into the latter group and as such, I would ask the Council to take account of this and how the site then fits into other local Policy plans. It is clearly, to give just one example, "unsustainable" because it forces residents to drive for everything. 3. Schooling Local schools are all full, and as a Governor of the nearest school ( Sutton Valance Primary School –SVPS), I am well aware of educational difficulties to overcome with Traveller children. At every Governors meeting we have, there is at least a 15-minute discussion on attendance and the problems associated with the local traveller children simply not turning up. This causes stress to the teachers and Governors as all are judged on attendance records in both local and Ofsted inspections. Adding more travellers to the numbers, will simply make an intolerable attendance record even worse and cause unnecessary stress to all that have to manage it. Every minute Governors spend on attendance and suspension and exclusion discussions, also means one minute less spent on the health, wellbeing and education of the other 90+% of the children as time is always of the essence with meeting constraints of time that cannot be overridden (Governors are legally obliged to have a professional Clerk who is booked for a fixed time, and usually has hard cut-off to go to, or join, their next VC. This might seem petty point of detail but a reality of the real world we have to live in, and ironically those rules around school Governance are put in place by the Government or KCC. The reality is that the time I am spending writing this letter of objection and researching Policy etc, is time I am not spending on school matters which require my attention, so the application is having an effect on a local school before it is even considered! As the XXXX, around 800m from the proposed site along Chartway Street, we have around 300 employees. Several of these each year who live locally, have bene unable to get their children into SVPS as the places are filled by travellers children who then do not bother to turn up – this is causing in imbalance in the Community, and as a business it has side affects you are likely not considering. One such real example is that key members of staff regularly having to leave at inconvenient times (for the business) to collect their children at schools a lot further away – the employee is also losing paid employment time through leaving early. Again, anything that makes a bad situation even worse should only be allowed if there are overriding other advantages that outweigh such negatives.. 4. Local Infrastructure & Services 4.1 Local schools are full, and the nearest GP practice is not accepting new patients (in fact this Surgery in Sutton Valence is at present likely to be closed in the next 24 months as planning permission for it to move has been refused), and there is not a Dentist accepting NHS patients within 15+ miles 4.2 Planning policy requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure, which is not available in this location, and nothing is in the pipeline to improve it. (? Correct me if wrong) 4.3 Utilities and local services are already under pressure from existing Traveller sites in the immediate area – as I write this we have not had any water for over 20 hours for example. Although clearly I am not blaming that on Travellers, it is yet another example of how poor the local infrastructure is – just in the past 12 months, there have been 4 road closures along Chartway street to repair burst water pipes, 6 to repair leaking gas pipes and 3 to repair old BT cables that have passed their sell-by date. There is no mains drainage either, and almost no mobile telephone signal, and so finding a more unsuitable site would be difficult even with some effort. At XXXX we have had to cease BT Broadband and two landlines as BT cannot guarantee service, and at one stage our Broadband was down for over 6 months with BT unable to fix. BT told us that they have no spare lines to move us over to as the cabinet was full at the top of Pitt Road, and fibre not available. We have therefore had to put up a transmitter and receiver from Winterwood Farm further along Chartway street to piggyback on the Company fibre line at a cost of over £5,000 so that we do at least have a good internet signal and can use WIFI calling. 4.4 Local shops etc; The site is half hour walk to the nearest shop (which is even then only a garage shop – “Murco”) along Chartway Street, which has no pavement or street lighting. The nearest Post Office is around the same distance along the same road (Chartway Street) whilst the nearest “proper” shop (Aldi) is maybe an hours walk with no public transport from anywhere near the site in that direction. 4.5 As I write this, there has been no mains water since 5am yesterday morning, so already 36 hours and Southern water have said that it might be another 2 days before water supplies restored. Current map of area with no mains water shown below as at 14:54 11/1/26 – the proposed site is outlined in blue below; Please see attached 4.6 Sewage; Clearly there is no mains drainage in this location or down the entire length of Pitt Road which means a sewage treatment works would be required on the proposed site should the application be approved. Whilst I would hope that this was of adequate size and specification etc, I would suggest that in the event that the council were minded to approve the application, then it should rather install mains drainage down Pitt Road, and contribute via S106. 4.7 Surface water; The site has extremely poor drainage, and water runs off the ground very easily and in heavy rains this can go through the fence and through Summerwood Farm just XXXX on Pitt Road. I would like ot record that this is not an issue now as the volume and frequency s very low and manageable, but should any changes to the adjacent land lead to increased surface water run off, then this will lead to problems for us XXXX. Again we hope this does not lead to a Land Compensation Claim, but ask that if the application proceeds, that surface water retention is properly surveyed as part of any works. A borehole for surface water removal might be a good option, but land drains in this field I can confidently inform you wil not work as the ground has too high a clay content, and the previous occupier tried this with no success. 5. Highways 5.1 Access onto both Chartway Street and Pitt Road is problematic, although to be fair not a reason to refuse this application for this reason alone. Travellers children, and four in particular who are regularly abusive to anyone they encounter, and have been known to be physically violent, travel pretty much daily on pony drawn carts up and down this road. Several of them also go at speed up and down the road with no crash helmets on unregistered trail type motor bikes, or on quads. 5.2 In terms of the pony/horse drawn carts, this is already causing significant safety risks, with at least two incidents seen first-hand where the cart has turned over in the middle of the road with the children operating them not being able to sort out the mess without help from locals. If permission was to be given, then we would ask the Council to impose a restriction on the use of such pony and traps from the site. 6. Security and Local Police; 6.1 Whilst I accept that the 60 new people might not cause any new problems or more of the same problems, it is not unfair to assume that more people are likely to need more security and better Policing than is currently the case, The local Police has also unfortunately reached breaking point and unable to contain local crime, and we have direct experience of them not even bothering to turn up when a crime is actively in progress. The golf course opposite has also had issues with ‘local children’ steeling golf clubs etc and so the track record is not good. 6.2 Should the application be allowed, we ask that provision is made for a contribution to the local Police that can directly be used to improve security and presence in our area – see alter section on S106 agreement. 7. Loss of visual amenity for neighbours The loss of such amenity does not need any further description as obvious to all. Should he application be allowed, we would strongly lobby for evergreen trees to be planted along the complete boundary shown in red on the drawing above, and a planning condition that these be maintained at a height between 10 and 15m. Also, until such time as these trees have grown to a height of 10m, that a solid fence be erected along this boundary to a height of at least 4m to obscure the development from our land (XXXX) 8. The National Planning Policy Framework 8.1 This is the Government’s published position on planning matters, with the latest update in December 2024. Paragraph 135 states that Local Planning Authorities should consider the impact of new proposals on existing residents (amongst other considerations). Especially the guidance states that new proposals should be “sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting..”. 8.2 In the case of this particular site, I have lived at XXXX for over 40 years, and the site in question XXXX has always been farmed – for the earlier years by Johnny Borner of Rose Cottage who operated a farm contracting business as his main work, but also farmed this site, Since his death and the sale of the property, the ground has predominantly been used for sheep grazing i.e. used for the purposes of agriculture. 9. Conflict with Local Plan & Spatial Strategy 9.1 The Maidstone Traveller DPD seeks to distribute pitches across the borough, not concentrate them in one locality. DPD Policy GT1 9.2 The Local Plan identifies need but requires proportionate allocation, which this site does not provide. Spatial Strategy SS1 and Policy SP17 10. Other Policy Considerations; 10.1 Policy LPRSS1 states that it is a strategic imperative to protect the rural character of the Borough and that development will generally be confined to the settlements identified in the plan – note again that this site appears to be outside that area? 10.2 Policy LPRHOU8, deals with Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Accommodation. This states that permission would be granted for such uses if the following criteria are met: 10.3 local services, in particular school, health and shopping facilities are accessible from the site preferably on foot, by cycle or by public transport – clearly they are not! 10.4 the development would not result in significant harm to the landscape and rural character of the area – it is difficult to see how it could be argued that the landscape and character of the area would not be significantly harmed by such a development 10.5 Lastly in relation to whom this plan is meant to assist, often such occupation is not taken up by the traditional Gypsy or Travelling show people (whom for avoidance of doubt we have no issues with) but by those falling outside this definition. 10.6 Should this application proceed, then I would ask that the Council to improve the existing Due Diligence process in place so that the pitches are occupied only by those that have a proper right to do so. 11. High pressure gas distribution line 11.1 This runs diagonally across the plot, going under Pitt Road a few metres from the Summerwood entrance. I saw this pipe when it was installed and it is not as deep in places as the plans suggest, and if it were to be hit with say a JCB digging a hole on the site the explosion would be enormous. 11.2 The risk is viewed so high, that helicopters regularly patrol the line to check for unauthorised works above the pipe. Should the application proceed, then I would suggest that there is a ban on any construction equipment to be brought onto the site by occupants, such as JCB’s or mini-diggers as view this as a materially elevated risk compared to the site being left to the sheep. 11.3 I assume that the opinion of the relevant gas company has been sought before this application is considered? 12. Ecological; 12.1 This site is frequented by wildlife, specifically badgers and foxes. Whilst foxes are regarded as pests by some, at XXXX we welcome them as they actively keep down rodents around the house and horse stables adjacent to the house. The foxes the frequent XXXX all come to the property through the proposed site and so their habitat would be likely disrupted to the extent that they would suffer, and also we would likely suffer by not seeing them anymore. 12.2 In the case of Badgers, we have no feelings either way except it is nice to see thriving wildlife in the open countryside. and good to see their resurgence in the area, as 20 years ago it was rare to see one. There are several active badger sets along the Pitt Road curtilage of this proposed site and so would ask that the Council take due account of these and not do anything that would be detrimental to their continued use – this might be to consider not allowing any access to the site from Pit Road for example. 12.3 We specifically ask that should the application be approved, that the Ecological Surveyor appointed by the Council would contact us as we have local knowledge of the site and can show them the areas of concern – although the badger sets are obvious to anyone looking along the roadside just above Summerwood Farm on Pitt Road. 13. S106 agreement 13.1 S106 agreements are very common when local infrastructure is not suitable to support a proposed development. If any application fell into this category then it is this one. 13.2 Whilst it is clear the Council has an unfair bias on this in the sense that it would be negotiating with itself to pay money to improve infrastructure, I hope that it would look at this from an arm’s length objective given how clear it is that local infrastructure will not support this development. 13,2 Whilst a S106 is effectively the Council signing an Agreement with itself, there is no reason why some form of “unilateral undertaking” cannot form part of the condition of any permission should it be given, and effectively would give the same result. 13.3 I know firsthand that the local Primary School in is desperate need for funding for maintenance – current need is to spend £300,000+. Whilst I am not suggesting this level of contribution as clearly benefits others, this is required just to keep the school running, let alone expansion to accommodate increased numbers. A £50k contribution would not be unreasonable if the application would result in extra children needing schooling (as would inevitably be the case), as the school is currently full, and unfair for the assumption to be that other local children will be displaced. These places are needed even if the pupils don’t turn up for school it should be noted. 13.4 Specifically, I therefore request as part of this evaluation, that Kent County Council Education is consulted to calculate the precise yield of school-age children from the proposed pitches. The development should be required to pay the full standard contribution per pitch towards SVPS to mitigate the impact of increased pupil numbers, in accordance with the KCC Developer Contributions Guide. 13.5 As this is a public site, it is vital for public confidence that the applicant (the Council) is held to the exact same financial obligations regarding infrastructure contributions as any private developer would be. 13.6 Local doctor and dentists need ‘encouragement’ to take on new patients. In the case of the Doctors surgery, I am aware of planning application for a new surgery within the new build on the Sutton Road, and a conditional contribution to this could be made. A contribution of £1,000 per pitch would not be unreasonable to go towards local health care. 13.7 Local communications are poor to non-existent, so a contribution to a phone mast or access to 5G or Fibre would not be unreasonable. As site would house at least 25% of the people that would use it, suggest a 25% contribution of the cost. 13.8 Power cuts are notoriously often in this location, with around 8 per annum in the past 24 months. Supplier informs us that there is inadequate resilience in the network, so that if one section goes down, it is often not possible to loop the power back from another direction to minimise disruption, I suggest therefore that a contribution for electricity resilience is added to any S106. I have no idea of the cost, but ask that before any application is approved, that the Council seeks costings for the works needed. 13.9 As I write this at 1545 11/1/26, I have now received a message saying power is off which is impeding the ability of Southern Water to get the water back on. You really could not make this up, but this is what we live with on a week to week basis along Chartway Street! Please see attached 13.10 We know there are local problems through our experience at Winterwood as well, because we have been forced to install equipment to our Solar Panel system (at a cost of around £10k) so that if we produce more power than we use, that the excess power does not go back to the grid as it is not capable of taking it – at certain times we therefore have to turn off the panels which is crazy situation for the local areas to have got itself into. 13.11. Chartway Street is the main access for the proposed site, and this road is one of the worst roads in the area and is a decade overdue for resurfacing from A274 junction to at least the top of Pitt Road. There is also no pavement along its entire length. An agreement for this resurfacing to be done would be gratefully received by all residents as a good practical way to mitigate the Highways aspect of the development, should it be approved. 13.12 As otherwise stated herein, we believe that Pitt Road is totally unsuitable to have more traffic, and our suggested access is Chartway Street. Should this suggestion be rejected, and any entrance is allowed onto Pitt Road, then Pitt Road needs to be improved – at the very least resurfaced as parts of it have not been resurfaced for over 25 years, and the road is in a terrible state, with pot holes scattered along its length that reappear as fast as they are given a temporary repair. It is therefore suggested that the site owner contributes through S106 or unilateral undertaking, to resurface Pitt Road. The suggestion for a proportionate contribution is 5% of the cost of the works – or such % as calculated by KCC to be commensurate with the possible extra 60 cars that might use the road from any new entrance onto Pitt Road. 13.13 As directly evidenced form Southern water above, there is currently no water supply to area surrounding and including the proposed site. Whilst it might be argued this is negligence of Southern Water in terms of their own resilience, clearly there is no capacity for any more offtake as there is simply not enough water to go around if a few minor items go wrong at the same time. Whilst I am very reluctant to suggest that Southern Water be given a contribution to fix a problem of their own making, a contribution aimed to improve water resilience would be appropriate as part of a S106. 13.14 As further detailed above, there is no mains drainage down Pitt Road, and Chartway Street is uphill side of the site and so not possible for sewage to run uphill without pumping station which adds cost and risk when pumps fail etc. It is rather suggested that should the Council be minded ot accepted this stie within their plans, that they make a S106 contribution for mains drainage down Pitt Road in order to mitigate the risk of surface or foul water going onto neighbours property or running down Pitt Road. 13.15 We are aware that any contribution must comply with the following criteria, and we believe that the suggested amounts above, or actions suggested, fulfil these requirements; a) Necessary: It must be needed to make the development acceptable (e.g., there are 8 new kids, so the school needs 8 new desks and that fraction of a new classroom). b) Directly Related: e.g. The money must go to the specific school/surgery that the new residents will use, or spent on the roads used e.g. Chartway Street c) Proportionate: In previous example of the school, this is why a contribution of £300k for overdue maintenance would not be proportionate even though desperately needed by the school, but say £50k to make provision for the extra children likely to live on the site is a proportionate amount. 14. Conclusion Firstly an apology in advance if I have mis-referenced or misunderstood some of the Policy guidance refereed to. I am not a planning expert and therefore please disregard any such inaccuracies alone and still give full consideration to all other points raised. 14.1 This proposal conflicts with national policy (PPTS) and local policy (Local Plan & Traveller DPD). 14.2 It is inconsistent with Maidstone’s spatial strategy for balanced, sustainable Traveller site provision. 14.3 This site fails the criteria set out in Policy GT1 (or the new LPRSP10 in the Review and also LPRHOU8) regarding suitability. 14.4 It results in overconcentration, inadequate infrastructure support, environmental harm, and erosion of rural character. 14.5 Should the application be allowed, we request that all suggested conditions herein should be made part of any grant, including S106 agreement or some “unilateral undertaking” to effect the same proportional and considered contribution to local infrastructure. 15. For all these reasons, I respectfully request that you accept our objections.