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.
Objection to Proposal for a Site in Water Lane, Bearsted Reference C4S (008) The Lodge We are writing to strongly object to the above site being allocated as a Gypsy/Traveller site on the following grounds: Maidstone Borough Council’s Spatial Strategy/Settlement This policy requires that new traveller sites are located in sustainable and appropriate locations within the Borough. For many good reasons the Water Lane site does not appear within the detailed site allocations list under the GT DPD. The allocation of a site at this location risks completely undermining the carefully considered planned approach to meeting accommodation need by distributing sites in a way which is not consistent with the overall settlement grading and sustainable distribution of services. Lack of evidence of suitability – site specific assessments missing or not yet demonstrated At present we cannot source the documentation (if published) regarding detailed site-specific assessments for Water Lane, Bearsted, for example flood risk, highway and traffic access, visual landscape impact, ecology/biodiversity. Without these documents the site’s suitability is unproven, but Water Lane regularly floods quite considerably to at least 50 metres into the lane and across into Roundwell and the new Roundwell Development. Without these technical appraisals the inclusion of this site is premature and would be contrary to principles of creditable planning doctrine and transparency. Risk of Environmental/Amenity harm (landscape, ecological, greenfield loss) The GT DPD make it quite clear that any site allocation must comply with non-strategic policies on general site design, layout, landscaping, biodiversity and climate change. This site on Water Lane currently proposed is greenfield land and development there would represent loss of open countryside/greenfield, with an immense impact on local landscape character, ecology, wildlife, habitats, drainage and local amenity. Without a proper Environmental Impact Assessment or at the very least an ecological and landscape assessment made fully public at this state, allocating the site is inconsistent with the council’s stated commitment to protecting the borough’s natural and build environment. Given that the site would immediately be subject to hard standing concrete all over the site, the water run-off into the lane would be exponential. Procedural Concern – allocating a site before proper review and before final plan submission The GT DPD indicates that this consultation is not the final Plan (Regulation 19) and that the evidence gathering (including assessments of potential sites) remains ongoing, but allocating Water Lane, Bearsted before the technical assessments are complete and before full public disclosure would prejudice the ability of residents and stakeholders to make informed comments and might severely limit their rights to object at a later date. This would undermine public confidence and undermine the transparency and fairness of the plan making process. Proximity to Barty Farm Social Housing The Barty Farm housing development has social housing on the east side of the estate, which abuts Water Lane. Would placing a Gypsy/Traveller site adjacent to the social housing be considered to be a well thought out inclusion? I assume that the local police Chief Constable will be included in the consultation and I would be interested to hear their concerns over this site, especially with the obvious extra strain that this has placed on the community. Infrastructure – doctors/dentists/school allocation With more than 13,000 residents of Bearsted, Thurnham, Hollingbourne, Downswood, Shepway and beyond already using just one doctor’s surgery, would it be sensible to add further pressure on this surgery? The same applies to local schools. As Thurnham and Roseacre schools would not be in the catchment area, where is the proposed school? In light of the above we respectfully request that the council remove Water Lane, Bearsted from the list of potential allocated sites in the GT DPD at this stage or at the very least defer any allocation pending the publication of full site-specific assessments on flood risk, highways, landscape/visual impact. Ecology, drainage/ground conditions, amenity etc and then conduct a further round of public consultation once those assessments are available. If the council decides to proceed with the allocation regardless of the above, we ask that the council commit in writing to ensure that no planning application will be accepted unless it is accompanied by full technical reports, including but not limited to flood risk, drainage, highways access, ecological and landscape impact. Robust landscaping and mitigation measures to protect the local environment, biodiversity and amenity should be carried out. A thorough and clear enforceable layout and design plan compliant with the design, layout and amenity standards set in Policy TR8 of the GT DPD should also be included. We reserve the right to comment further at Regulation 19 or on any future planning application, once more detailed information is made available.
Proposed Gypsy/Travellers Site We are severely opposed to the above going ahead at Water Lane. We moved to beautiful Bearsted around 4 years ago and this would destroy the peace, tranquility and beauty of this historic village. The public houses would be ruined and the area would go downhill. There is already flooding at Water Lane and any previous repairs and upgrades to drainage carried out do not appear to have made any difference. The Lane itself is very narrow and not suitable for large vehicles, caravans or rides as part of a travellers fun fair. Horsmenden Village suffers every year when the travelling community descend on its green for their annual festival. The pubs close down and have to barricade the windows due to the fights in the past, drinks etc. not being paid for. The travellers take over the entire village. They leave all their rubbish and waste behind all over the green with absolutely no respect for the residents, the area or the local businesses. The Council needs to find an alternative site. We are currently paying nearly £4000 a year in Council Tax for this to happen. We will fight this all the way.
I am writing to you to express my opinion on the proposed siting of Gypsy and circus travellers on land adjacent to Water Lane, Bearsted. I feel that Water Lane and the surrounding roads will not be adequate or appropriate to support the increased volume and type of vehicles that this community will inevitably use. As a property owner, I am interested to know how an instant and material population increase in this area will impact local public services such as access to medical services and availability of educational courses. Parking in the village is already challenging and any increase in population will only make this worse. I strongly object to this proposal.
I am writing to formally object to the inclusion of site reference C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane in the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD) currently out for consultation. While I appreciate the need for the Borough to meet accommodation requirements for all communities, I believe this specific site raises significant planning, environmental and safety concerns that make it unsuitable for allocation. My reasons for objecting are set out below: 1. Inadequate Highway Access The only access to The Lodge is via Water Lane, a narrow country lane not designed to accommodate frequent or large vehicle movements. The restricted width and rural character of Water Lane would lead to: Increased highway safety risks for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians; Difficulties for larger vehicles (including emergency vehicles, service vehicles and site-related traffic) to enter and exit safely; Greater potential for conflict and damage to the rural road structure. The limited access is a clear constraint on the suitability of this site for intensified residential use and raises substantial concerns under national and local planning policy regarding safe and suitable access. 2. Visual Impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape The proposed site lies within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape, an area recognised for its special scenic, cultural and environmental value. Development at The Lodge would: Detract from views across the landscape, eroding the character and openness which define the National Landscape; Set a precedent for further encroachment of development into sensitive rural and landscape areas; Be visually intrusive given the elevated and open nature of much of the surrounding countryside. Protecting designated landscapes from harmful visual impacts is a core planning consideration in both national policy and the emerging DPD. Development here would undermine those aims and be contrary to the statutory landscape protections afforded to the Kent Downs. 3. Impact on Protected Oak Trees It is my understanding that the site includes several mature Oak trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). These trees are important not only for their ecological value but also for their contribution to: Local biodiversity and habitat continuity; Ancient woodland character and landscape integrity; Community amenity and environmental quality. Allocating the site for development would risk damage or loss to these protected trees, particularly during site preparation and construction, and would compromise the long-term viability of protected woodland features. This would directly conflict with the Council’s own landscape and biodiversity protection policies. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, I request that site C4S (008) – The Lodge be removed from the emerging Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD and that alternative sites with fewer access constraints, lower landscape sensitivity, and no protected trees are considered to meet accommodation needs. I trust that the Council will give full and careful consideration to the significant concerns raised by local residents and other consultees in respect of this site. Thank you for taking my comments into account.
I am writing to object to the proposed traveller site in Water Lane for the following reasons: I have been a resident for 8 years and have seen a big change in the amount of traffic using the lanes nearby. It has increased considerably I would say in the last couple of years causing much congestion and further damage to the surfaces and verges of the roads. I think this is highly likely to satnavs rerouting people due to the amount of road closures we have had in the nearby vicinity and in turn these have become a popular short cut which previously nobody knew about. Adding into the equation the horses that are transported and exercised and many walkers, I feel it is only time an accident will happen. The speed some cars go through our country lanes is ridiculous. As you will be aware, a couple and the dog they were walking were killed on Thurnham Lane last year due to this reason. More cars will result in more collisions and potentially more deaths. Water Lane often gets flooded too so surely for this reason alone this wouldn't be a good location. We seem to have power cuts and water turned off more frequently than most people which in turn with more dwellings, would add to this problem. Add in the environmental factor, the location, pressure on schools, dentist and doctor's there must be other more suitable locations you could choose. Please carefully consider all the reasons above and apply common sense. I appreciate that you have to accommodate these sites somewhere but this in my opinion being a local resident is not the one.
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 the statutory 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 visibility Inadequate passing places Substandard 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. Conclusion This objection is not to the principle of provision, but to the unsuitability of this site. The Lodge, Water Lane: Is unsafe Is unsustainable Is environmentally harmful Fails core planning tests I therefore respectfully request that Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane be removed from the emerging DPD and that the Council identifies alternative sites that meet access, safety and sustainability requirements.
Objection to Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge I strongly object to the allocation of this site for the following material planning reasons: 1. Severe Highway Safety Risks and Inadequate Access (NPPF Para 110-111) The access to the site via Water Lane and the approach via Roundwell are fundamentally unsuitable for the proposed intensification of use. Constraint on Approach (Roundwell): The only access to Water Lane is via Roundwell. This road is heavily constrained by on-street residential parking, which effectively reduces the carriageway to a single lane for significant stretches. Traffic flow is already "stop-start," relying on vehicles waiting in gaps to let others pass. The introduction of wide towing vehicles (caravans) into this environment would be dangerous; they would struggle to navigate the narrowed space and would likely cause gridlock if they met oncoming traffic, as they cannot easily reverse or tuck into small gaps between parked cars. Inadequate Width of Water Lane: Beyond Roundwell, Water Lane itself is a narrow, rural single-track road with no passing places. It is significantly narrower than the 3.7m width recommended for caravan site access roads in Model Standards. Conflict with Towing Vehicles: The road width makes it impossible for a standard car and a towing vehicle (caravan) to pass safely without one vehicle reversing significant distances blindly on a public highway. Conflict with Vulnerable Users: There are no footpaths, verges, or street lighting on Water Lane. The lane is frequently used by pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders. Intensifying vehicular movements—particularly large towing vehicles—on this constrained lane would create an unacceptable conflict and risk to vulnerable road users, failing the NPPF requirement for "safe and suitable access." 2. Unsustainable Location The site is located in a rural position with poor access to local services (schools, shops, GP surgeries) by foot or public transport. Future residents would be entirely reliant on private motor vehicles for day-to-day needs. This contradicts the Council’s own sustainability objectives and national policy, which directs development to locations where the need to travel is minimised. 3. Impact on Rural Character and Amenity The proposed development would harm the rural character of the area. Water Lane is defined by its ancient banks and mature hedgerows. The physical works required to achieve safe visibility splays and access (such as removing hedgerows or widening the access) would have a detrimental visual impact on the street scene. Furthermore, the intensification of activity and vehicle movements in this quiet rural location would result in noise and disturbance that negatively impact the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. Conclusion: For these reasons, the site is unsuitable for allocation and should be removed from the Development Plan Document.
My objection is based on concerns about flood risk, ecological value, and harm to the natural environment that the proposed allocation does not adequately address. 1. Flooding and Drainage Concerns Although some preliminary information suggests that parts of the wider area lie mainly in Flood Zone 1 (low risk), there is evidence of surface water and drainage issues in this locality, based on past assessments of nearby land. This indicates there may be medium risk of surface water flooding and drainage challenges even where the site itself is not in a high-risk flood zone. Land in similar contexts has recorded previous incidents of surface water flooding, which raises questions about how a sizeable residential use would affect flood resilience and safety without detailed, site-specific information. 2. Potential Impacts on Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity The draft development plan requires ecological assessment and biodiversity net gain measures, but allocating The Brishings without clear evidence of current ecological value risks harm to habitats. Nearby site assessment forms indicate The Brishings lies within 2 km of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) and close to other sensitive green spaces. Habitat features such as grassland and woodland edge areas can be indicators of protected and priority species (e.g., breeding birds, reptiles, bats) and would need thorough survey work before confirming suitability. Maidstone Borough Council Allocating the site as a residential location without knowing how these habitats and species would be protected or enhanced risks irreversible damage to local biodiversity. Maidstone’s own biodiversity strategy highlights that many habitats and species in the borough are in decline, and conserving these is a priority for sustainable planning. 3. Wider Environmental and Landscape Issues Allocating The Brishings would embed permanent development in an area that forms part of the borough’s rural landscape setting. Even if not formally designated, countryside sites support natural drainage, wildlife movement, and landscape character, all of which can be harmed by unmanaged allocation and subsequent development. Combined with the above points, the policy as currently drafted does not demonstrate that The Brishings is suitable for permanent allocation without negative effects on flood resilience, nature conservation, and the rural environment. For these reasons, I object to the inclusion of The Brishings (Site C4S-017) in the potential site allocation policies. Allocating the site would risk increased flood pressures, harm to local flora and fauna, and loss of countryside character — outcomes that are inconsistent with responsible planning and environmental protection.
POLICY C4S (008) – THE LODGE The site cannot be accessed safely. Water Lane is a narrow country lane where two cars cannot pass each other and totally unsuitable for heavy goods traffic, caravans, show ground equipment being pulled on trailers etc.. After heavy rain torrents of water flow down Water Lane from the fields elevated to the north east causing regular flooding at the junction of The Street and Roundwell. Local drains can not cope and require frequent clearing by the council services. The site cannot be accessed safely by pedestrians or cyclists, they would have to walk along a single track unlit road. Local services such as schools and doctor surgeries are already over stretched. Local transport links are poor. XXXXX
Dear Alison, I am writing to formally raise my objections to the following sites currently under consideration by the Council as part of the Call for Sites exercise for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation. Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge I am concerned that the Council has not specified the number of pitches being proposed for this site. Regardless of scale, The Lodge is accessed via a very narrow country lane, which would be wholly unsuitable for development of this nature. In addition, there are strong local concerns that development would have a detrimental impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape. The site also contains several important oak trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders, which could be negatively affected by any development. Policy C4S (017) – The Brishings This site is extremely unpopular with local residents, to the extent that a petition has been organised in opposition. It is important that the Council gives due weight to the strength of local opinion when making planning decisions. Having recently purchased a house in [...] had I know about the proposal I would never have purchased the house. [...] The proposed development for the travellers site has purposefully been withheld from anyone purchasing in Lilk meadow which is dishonest, I know none of the residents in the new Lilk meadow development would have bought their house had they know about this proposal. Furthermore, as with The Lodge on Green Lane, access to this site is via a single-track country lane. This road would be entirely incapable of accommodating the level of traffic that a development of approximately 20 pitches would generate. I trust these concerns will be carefully considered as part of the ongoing assessment of sites. I look forward to your response
I am writing to register a firm objection to the proposed allocation at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted (Policy C4S (008)) within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD (Regulation 18c). This site is not suitable for allocation for the following planning reasons: Highways and Access: Water Lane is a narrow, unsafe rural road with insufficient capacity or visibility for additional traffic. Unsustainable Location: The site has poor access to services, facilities and public transport and is not a sustainable location for new development. Landscape and Visual Harm: The site lies in a sensitive rural setting forming part of the wider landscape of the Kent Downs National Landscape. Development would cause unacceptable visual impact. Protected Oak Trees and Hedgerows: The site contains several important mature oak trees (including TPO trees) and established hedgerows that are essential to local character and biodiversity. These constraints make the site fundamentally unsuitable for development. Wildlife and Ecology: The site and hedgerows support local wildlife. Development would result in ecological harm that cannot be adequately mitigated. Residential Amenity: The proposal would negatively affect neighbouring properties through noise, activity, lighting and loss of privacy. Drainage and Environmental Constraints: Surface water and drainage concerns further limit the suitability of the site. Cumulative Impact: The area has already experienced significant development pressure, and further impact on infrastructure and the environment would be unacceptable. For these reasons, the site cannot be considered appropriate or deliverable, and I strongly request that Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge is removed from the proposed site allocations at the next stage of the DPD.
I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed allocation of land off Water Lane, Thurnham/Bearsted for a Gypsy and Traveller site within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document . My objection is based entirely on planning grounds and the requirements of Policy TR4 of the Maidstone Local Plan. I am of course aware that all people are entitled to a safe environment for their housing, with access to amenities. However the location of this site is totally unsuitable for the families concerned as outlined below: Non-compliance with Policy TR4 – Site Not Suitable for Allocation Highways and Access – Water Lane Is Inherently Unsafe Water Lane is a single track/narrow country road and will be totally unsuitable for an increase in traffic, there is limited width for two-way traffic. This road is unsuitable for towing vehicles, caravans and larger vehicles associated with a fair/circus. At rare times, larger vehicles from the stables, situated further along Water Lane have caused great difficulties in passing and surface issues on the road due to their weight. This also significantly increases road safety risks, evidenced by the sad and unnecessary deaths of Tom and Sue Corkery in January last year when Scott Gunn drove at speed down Thurnham lane an identical lane that runs parallel to Water Lane. Water Lane is used by many local dog walkers and cyclists; this site would increase the risk of an accident occurring . The visibility is poor on Water Lane without any room for pedestrian pathways and is without street lighting which increases the danger to all concerned. Kent Highways’ own standards require safe, accessible routes for intensification of use — standards that cannot be met at this location without major (and unachievable) upgrades. This is a clear conflict with Local Plan transport policies and therefore TR4 Development in a rural area The site lies directly adjacent to the Kent Downs National Landscape (AONB) and forms part of its immediate rural setting. The proposed development would cause a substantial change to the local landscape and would cause visual and noise disturbance to the local landscape. Causing harm to the character of the countryside, contrary to local planning policies protecting local and rural settings. It is vitally important to protect the natural habitat of local wildlife and consider the impact to hedgerows. Water Lane is bordered by mature hedgerows, woodland, and wildlife corridors supporting: bat's, badgers and protected bird species. Any development risks habitat fragmentation and lighting disturbance. Without full ecological assessments, allocation would be premature and contrary to Local Plan biodiversity policies. This again breaches TR4 Flooding The area already suffers from significant drainage issues, particularly at the end of Water Lane, where water accumulates during periods of rainfall. In winter, this standing water frequently freezes, creating hazardous conditions in which Water Lane can become comparable to an ice rink. This provides clear evidence of inadequate drainage infrastructure. Any increase in traffic or residential development will exacerbate these problems. Additional runoff from new hard surfaces, combined with heavier use of the road, will intensify flooding and ice risks. Furthermore, mud and debris transferred onto the road by heavy vehicles will create further hazards, increasing the likelihood of accidents and causing avoidable damage to the local environment. Therefore the area has known drainage issues, including: slow-draining clay soils, surface water run-off during heavy rainfall, risk of overspill onto Water Lane. Hardstanding and caravan bases would worsen run-off and flood risk to neighbours and the highway. This contravenes Local Plan and NPPF flood-risk policies, and therefore TR4 Impact on Local Infrastructure and Amenities. Bearsted amenities and infrastructure are already under heavy strain due to the increase in developments. I am concerned that local schools, healthcare services, police, road networks and local facilities would not be able to take further strain. Furthermore, there would be no safe walking route to schools, shops, GPs, or bus stops and there would be a heavy reliance on private vehicle trips for daily needs which risks noise impact from vehicle movement. This is contrary to the NPPF, Local Plan policies on sustainable development, and incompatible with TR4. It would create overdevelopment and have an impact on the local community, therefore it cannot comply with TR4. For the reasons above — relating to TR4 non-compliance, highways safety, landscape harm, ecological risk, flood/drainage concerns, and overall unsustainability — I respectfully ask Maidstone Borough Council to reject the allocation of Water Lane as a Gypsy & Traveller site in the emerging Development Plan Document.
C4S 008 THE LODGE We write to strongly object to the above site being allocated as a gypsy/traveller site on the following material planning grounds. 1. Inconsistency with the council’s spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy. The GT DPD sets out a “Spatial Strategy” under Policy TR1 that requires new traveller sites are located in sustainable and appropriate locations within the Borough. The Water Lane Bearsted site does not appear within the detailed site allocations list under GT DPD. Seven locations have been identified in the GT DPD - Linton, Boughton Monchelsea, Coxheath, Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst, Stockbury. The Water Lane site is not part of this allocation. Bringing additional sites into the GT DPD at a later stage undermines the careful planning approach to meeting accommodation needs which may not be consistent with the overall settlement hierarchy and sustainable distribution of services. 2. Lack of evidence of suitability. There does not seem to be any site-specific documents or assessments for highways/traffic access, ecology/biodiversity impact, landscape impact and flooding risk. Water Lane is named for a reason - it floods to the point the lane becomes inaccessible by vehicles and pedestrians. It has been this way forever. No documents providing technical appraisals therefore makes the inclusion of this site speculative which is contrary to principles of good planning. 3. Risk of environment/amenity harm. The GT DPD State any site allocation must comply with non strategic policies on general site design, layout, landscaping, biodiversity and climate change. My understanding is that this site is on green belt land and the NPPF, PPTS 2015/23 No.16 states that “inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development”. Developing this site is potentially contrary to national policy. Other concerns include, but are not exhaustive, are impact on the designated Kent Downs National landscape, loss of open countryside, impact on local landscape, loss of wildlife habitats, current Tree Preservation Orders on magnificent oak trees, loss of green fields made over to hard standing creating environmental issues eg flooding and drainage and finally highways concerns. Water Lane by its very nature is a narrow lane and totally unsuited to development. Highways and Environmental Impact Statement Assessment should be undertaken and made public before proposed sites are potentially allocated. In addition the council states that it is committed to protecting the boroughs natural environments - again further inconsistency with policy. 4. Prematurity/Procedural concerns. Allocating before a proper review and before final submission prejudices residents to make informed comments and potentially limits their rights to object later. This undermines public confidence, transparency and fairness of the plan making process. 5. Impact on local infrastructure. Bearsted and Thurnham has 13,000+ residents. The pressure on local services such as Doctors and schools is beyond breaking point. Bearsted Medical Practice has patients who live in Hollingbourne, Harrietsham, Langley and Marden. Our local infrastructure is buckling under the strain. 6. The GT DPD mentions the travellers “historically” based background in the Maidstone borough suggests that in itself is reason enough to allow more site allocations. We challenge that need as many local residents have lived in the borough for many generations but their rights are not held in the same regard. Maidstone has the largest traveller sites in the country. Isn’t it time other boroughs shared this responsibility. In conclusion we request the Council removes Water Lane from the list of potential sites. If the Council is not mindful to do so then we ask that written commitment is provided that no planning applications are accepted without full technical reports on all the above points raised and Policy TR8 of the GT DPDin included. We also reserve the right to comment further on Regulation 19 or any future planning applications.
We are writing to strongly object to the above site being allocated as a Gypsy/Traveller site on the following grounds:- With more than 13,000 residents of Bearsted, Thurnham, Hollingbourne, Downswood, Harrietsham, Wormshill, Stockbury, Shepway and beyond already using just one doctor’s surgery, would it be sensible to add further pressure on this surgery? The same applies to local schools. As Thurnham and Roseacre schools would not be in the catchment area, where is the proposed school? In addition the area is currently grid locked with traffic, to get out of the area is time consuming and frustrating. We reserve the right to comment further at Regulation 19 or on any future planning application, once more detailed information is made available.
I have tried very hard to access the correct place to comment but keep going round in circles so this email will need to be forwarded appropriately Almost as if you dont want me to comment. Object to this proposal as my previous experience of bring in any proximity to one of these sites (when I lived in Harlow, Essex) was not good. Rather than being sited next to a quiet community such as Bearsted they should be sited close to a heavily urban centre. My reasons, based on previous experience, are that these people have little regard for the law and will need constant attendances at the site by police officers. They are quick to both verbal and physical abuse as this is part of their culture and lifestyle. As a group of people that regard themselves as beyond the law they do not contribute to society and yet expect society to support them. You can't have it both ways!
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of a Gypsy and Traveller site near my property. As a resident of this village looking out to this proposed location. I am deeply concerned about the significant negative impact this development would have on our community, the local environment, and the quality of life for long-standing residents who, like myself, have worked hard to live in this area. 1. Impact on the Village’s Social Cohesion and Character: Our village is a close-knit, high-tax paying community where residents have invested both financially and emotionally in maintaining the peaceful, residential atmosphere that makes this area so desirable. Many of us moved here specifically because of the quiet, stable environment, and the sense of security and community that defines this village. The introduction of a Gypsy and Traveller site would undermine these qualities and create divisions within the community. We work hard to live in this area, and our property investments reflect that. We should not be expected to accommodate a site that would drastically alter the character of the village and introduce challenges that we did not sign up for when choosing to live here. We are hardworking people who take pride in our homes and the community we are part of. This proposed development would undermine the very reasons many of us chose this village in the first place. 2. Concerns About the Village Green and Local Amenities: Currently, some members of the Gypsy and Traveller community already make use of horse and cart and bicycles around the village green, and this has become a growing concern. The sight of horses and carts tethered around the green, as well as cyclists riding at high speeds, creates an eyesore and a safety hazard. The village green is meant to be a space for all residents to enjoy, but these activities disrupt the peaceful environment that makes it a central part of village life. The introduction of a permanent site would undoubtedly increase these issues, making the village green an unsafe and unpleasant place to be. This would not only affect the aesthetic quality of the village but also the safety of children, the elderly, and other residents who enjoy the area. The disruptions caused by this activity are simply unacceptable for those of us who work hard to live in a safe and quiet environment. 3. Impact on Property Values and Financial Investment: Many of us have made significant financial investments in our homes, and the value of these properties is directly linked to the peaceful, residential nature of the village. The presence of a Gypsy and Traveller site near our homes would likely result in decreased property values. We have worked hard to live in a place that offers stability, security, and a family-friendly atmosphere. A permanent site in close proximity would diminish the attractiveness of the area to future buyers, and would lead to a reduction in property values leaving hardworking homeowners like myself with a diminished financial investment. 4. Strain on Local Infrastructure and Services: Our village already has limited infrastructure, and the addition of a Gypsy and Traveller site would put further strain on roads, public services, and utilities. The narrow, rural roads are not built to accommodate increased traffic, and the already stretched local amenities, such as schools and medical services, would be further burdened. We are already struggling with the demands of living in a small village with limited resources, and this proposed development would only exacerbate the situation. 5. The Principle of Mobility and Alternative Locations: It’s important to recognize that Gypsy and Traveller communities have historically led a nomadic lifestyle. Their needs are best met by temporary, flexible accommodations that allow for mobility, not by placing a permanent site in a village that already has an established, stable community. There are alternative locations that would be better suited to meeting the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community, without imposing significant negative effects on long-term residents who have worked hard to live in this area. 6. Potential for Social Tensions and Divisions: The introduction of a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site in the heart of our village could lead to social tensions. There are already significant cultural differences between some of the existing residents and the way of life proposed by this development, which could lead to misunderstanding, disruption, and potential conflict. The harmony and cohesion of the village would be at risk, and this could lead to a decline in overall community morale and quality of life. In conclusion, I strongly urge the planning committee to reconsider the proposed site for this development. The impact on our community, local infrastructure, property values, and the overall quality of life for hardworking residents is too significant to ignore. This is a village where we have all invested both financially and emotionally, and we should not be expected to bear the burden of a development that would change the very character of the area. Thank you for considering my objections. I trust the committee will give these concerns the serious attention they deserve when making their decision. I completely support our local MP Helen Whateley in opposing this site.
We are writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of land at Water Lane, Bearsted as a Gypsy/Traveller site within the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (GT DPD). I am copying in our local MBC councillor and constituency MP as they are taking an active interest in this matter. Our objections are based on the following material planning grounds: 1. Conflict with Maidstone Borough Council’s Spatial Strategy / Settlement Hierarchy The adopted spatial strategy requires new traveller accommodation to be located in sustainable, appropriate and sequentially justified locations. Water Lane does not appear within the GT DPD’s detailed site assessments or allocations, and its sudden inclusion risks undermining the strategic, evidence-based distribution of sites across the Borough. Allocating this site would be inconsistent with the settlement hierarchy and would not represent sustainable development as required by the Local Plan. 2. Absence of Essential Site-Specific Evidence There is currently no publicly available evidence demonstrating that Water Lane is suitable for development. Key technical documents—such as assessments of flood risk, highways/access, landscape impact, ecology/biodiversity, ground conditions and drainage—have not been provided. Water Lane is known locally to flood extensively, often for at least 50 metres along the lane and into Roundwell and the new Roundwell development. Without robust technical appraisals, the proposed allocation is premature, contrary to the principles of proper plan-making, and inconsistent with the transparency required for meaningful public consultation. 3. Environmental and Amenity Harm (Landscape, Ecology, Greenfield Loss) The GT DPD clearly states that any site must comply with policies on design, landscaping, biodiversity, ecology, climate resilience, and amenity protection. Water Lane is a greenfield site forming part of the open countryside. Development here would lead to: Loss of greenfield and countryside character Harm to landscape views and visual amenity Ecological and habitat disruption Increased surface water run-off and drainage problems, especially given the proposal’s extensive hardstanding No Environmental Impact Assessment, ecological survey or landscape appraisal has been provided. Allocation at this stage is therefore inconsistent with the Council’s environmental commitments and potentially harmful to the natural environment. 4. Premature Allocation and Procedural Fairness Concerns The Council has stated that this consultation is not the Regulation 19 (final) consultation and that evidence gathering is still ongoing. Allocating a site before its assessments are complete—and before residents have been able to consider technical reports—would prejudice public participation and undermine confidence in the fairness and transparency of the plan-making process. 5. Inadequate Local Infrastructure (Health, Education, Services) Bearsted, Thurnham, Hollingbourne, Downswood and surrounding areas—amounting to over 13,000 residents—are currently reliant on one GP surgery, already under significant pressure and with long waiting times. Allocating an additional site would place further strain on already overstretched health services. Local schools are also at or near capacity. As the site would lie outside the catchment of Thurnham and Roseacre schools, it is unclear where school places would be provided, and no evidence has been supplied to demonstrate that adequate educational provision exists. Request for Withdrawal or Deferral of the Allocation In light of the above points, we respectfully request that the Council: Remove Water Lane, Bearsted from the list of potential allocations at this stage, or At minimum, defer any allocation until full site-specific assessments (flood risk, drainage, highways, ecology, landscape, amenity, etc.) are completed and made publicly available, followed by a further round of consultation. Should the Council proceed with the allocation despite the significant concerns raised, we request a written commitment that no planning application will be validated unless it is accompanied by: Full technical assessments (flood risk, highways/access, drainage, ecological and landscape reports) Thorough mitigation measures to protect biodiversity, landscape character, and local amenity A detailed, enforceable layout and design plan compliant with Policy TR8 of the GT DPD Right to Comment Further We reserve the right to submit further comments at Regulation 19 stage or in response to any future planning application, once detailed evidence is provided.
I’m a homeowner and I’m very concerned at the proposed gypsy and traveller plan for Thurnham. My concerns include Limited site and highway access via Water Lane which is a narrow country lane. Concerned about road safety, visibility and congestion. Location & Sustainability - access to shops, schools and transport. Visual impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape - the rural character and visual impact will be hugely impacted in a negative way. The potential site has several important Oak trees which have tree preservation orders. Impact on wildlife, hedgerows and also drainage Concerned about the affects on residential amenity with privacy, noise and lighting Cumulative impact of pressure on local services and infrastructure Please take my concerns into consideration as I do not want this to happen.
I wish to object to the proposal of a travelers site off Water Lane in Bearsted. When other proposals have been put forward they have, I believe, been declined due to being unsustainable and in protected landscape. Therefore how could a Travelers Site be viewed as anything that would enhance the environment. Especially as we have seen on the local news the destruction and chaos that ensues during and after a travelers site is occupied and then vacated. Water Lane is a very narrow lane and floods a great deal (hence the name) and leads off from either the Pligrims Way (even narrower) and Ware Street which is less narrow, but very busy. An area of outstanding natural beauty would be destroyed and as it would be visible from the motorway not a great advert to say to people "Visit Maidstone". The local schools are already full and bearing in mind the recent building work that has taken place this would push the limits for the schools to bursting point - this including the doctors surgery which too is full. Everyone is entitled to a place to live and people choose Bearsted as it is very family focused, friendly, secure, safe and welcoming (that is what I have only ever encountered) and the introduction of a travelers site would drastically change this dynamic to the detriment of the entire community. I therefore wish to register my objection.
I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted. My main concern relates to the impact this development would have on local traffic conditions. Water Lane already suffers from regular congestion, particularly at peak times. The road is narrow and frequently experiences delays, making it poorly suited to accommodate any increase in vehicle movements. Additional traffic generated by this proposal would inevitably exacerbate existing problems, raise safety concerns, and place further pressure on a route that is already struggling to cope. I am also concerned that the proposed site is not appropriate for the character of the area. Water Lane and the surrounding neighbourhood are facing increasing development pressures, and the introduction of this site would add further strain to local infrastructure and services. This is a relatively quiet area, and many residents feel that the development would not sit comfortably within the existing environment or community. While I understand that Maidstone Borough Council has a duty to meet a range of housing needs, I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider this proposal and give consideration to alternative locations that would have a less detrimental impact on traffic, road safety, and the wellbeing of local residents. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I am writing to express my strong objections to the proposed Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople site allocation at Site Ref: C4S (008) - The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted (Thurnham), as part of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD). As a local resident, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this development could have on our community, environment, and infrastructure. My comments focus on planning-related matters, drawing from the consultation documents, local knowledge, and relevant national policy. While I recognise the need to address accommodation requirements for Gypsy, Traveller, and Travelling Showpeople communities in line with national policy, including the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS, December 2024), I believe this specific site is unsuitable for the reasons outlined below. Location & Sustainability The site is located in a rural area within the Kent Downs National Landscape, which is not sustainably positioned for development. Access to essential services such as shops, schools, and public transport is limited, requiring residents to rely heavily on private vehicles. This would promote car dependency and isolation from community facilities, contrary to NPPF paragraph 110, which states that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. Highways & Access Water Lane is a narrow, single-track country lane with poor visibility, particularly under the railway bridge at Roundwell/The Street. The lane is already challenging for local traffic, and introducing additional vehicles from a traveller site—potentially including caravans and larger vehicles—would exacerbate congestion and road safety issues. Even a modest allocation could generate traffic volumes that the lane is ill-equipped to handle, leading to unacceptable impacts on highway safety. This conflicts with NPPF paragraph 116, which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Landscape Impact The site lies within the protected Kent Downs National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). Development here would detrimentally alter its rural character and visual amenity, urbanising a natural setting. This would cause harm to an area afforded the highest status of protection, contrary to NPPF paragraph 182 (formerly 176 in previous versions), which requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Environment & Ecology The site contains several important Oak trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), which could be negatively impacted by construction and ongoing use, risking damage to roots or soil compaction. The area also supports local wildlife and hedgerows, with potential drainage issues leading to flooding or pollution. This would fail to protect and enhance the natural environment or achieve biodiversity net gain, as required under NPPF Chapter 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment). Residential Amenity Nearby residents would likely experience reduced privacy due to the site’s proximity to existing homes. Increased noise from traffic and activities on the site, along with potential lighting, could disturb the quiet rural ambiance, harming residential amenity without adequate mitigation. Cumulative Impact Combined with other proposed sites in the DPD, this allocation could place undue pressure on local services and infrastructure. The rural ward already faces challenges from overdevelopment, and adding this site risks overwhelming the area. I note that our local MP, Helen Whately, has raised similar concerns in her correspondence dated 10 December 2025, emphasising the need for the Council to account for local opinion and scale down unsuitable sites. In conclusion, the harms identified significantly outweigh the benefits of this allocation, particularly given the site’s location in a protected National Landscape and its unsustainable access arrangements. I urge the Council to remove Site Ref: C4S (008) from the DPD and explore alternative locations that better align with the NPPF and PPTS. I would appreciate confirmation that my comments have been received and will be considered in the plan’s preparation. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this consultation
I wish to comment on the above policy and to strongly object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site at the bottom of Water Lane. This site is unsuitable for a number of reasons. Local infrastructure is already under significant pressure, with overcrowded schools and oversubscribed GP surgeries, and the proposed development would exacerbate these issues. In addition, Water Lane is wholly unsuitable for the type and volume of vehicles associated with this development. The lane is extremely narrow, high-banked, and confined, making it impractical and unsafe for large vehicles. In particular, low-loader lorries required to deliver static homes would be unable to manoeuvre safely within the lane, and the ongoing movement of large caravans would have a major and detrimental impact. Water Lane lies within the historic Eyhorne Hundred, recorded in the Domesday Book (1086), and forms part of an ancient route network serving the area. It also has a number of natural springs arising along its route. Regular use by heavy and oversized vehicles would quickly lead to erosion, damage to the banks, and the permanent degradation of this historic way. For these reasons, I strongly believe that this site is inappropriate for the proposed use and urge the Council to reconsider.
We already have Traveller sites down Pitt road, Chartway Street and Water Lane Chegworth. We have had frequent incidents of low level crime to cars and houses and catapults used on animals and birds. I am forever reporting fly tipping in the local area and in the local woods. More Traveller sites will just exacerbate the situation.
As a resident of Bearsted I would like to express my strong opposition to the proposed site of Water Lane, Bearsted for a traveller site. Bearsted is already unrecognisable from the beautiful village I moved into just 18 years ago. It has been over developed and is in my opinion at breaking point. The roads are simply chaotic and there are already inadequate places at schools and gp surgeries. Water lane is a narrow country lane and surrounded by our last little bit of countryside. Access would be ridiculously inappropriate and such a site such as this would ruin the natural beauty of the area. Police and local authorities have previously lost all control and authority over similar sites and as such should not be positioned next to thriving, small communities such as Bearsted. I hope that you look at the proposition thoroughly and don’t just see it as a quick fix. It really is about time our local council stood up for the rights of the current residents of Bearsted and Thurnham. We are proud of our local tight knit community and want to protect it.
No answer given
As a resident of Bearsted who walks my child to school, cycles along these lanes, and cares deeply about the future of our village, I strongly object to the allocation of Site C4S (008). The proposal threatens the safety, character, and infrastructure of our community in ways that are unacceptable and unsound under planning policy. 1. A Clear and Present Danger to Safety As a parent who uses Water Lane regularly, I can attest to its unsuitability for increased traffic. It is a narrow, single-track lane without pavements, used by walkers, children, and cyclists daily. Introducing large showpeople vehicles—caravans, trucks, and seasonal convoys—would create an intolerable risk for pedestrians and other road users. The tragic recent collision on Thurnham Lane weighs heavily on our community and serves as a painful reminder of what’s at stake. This site clearly fails NPPF para 110, which requires safe and suitable access—something Water Lane cannot provide. 2. A Step Backward for Sustainability Our family, like many others, tries to live sustainably, but this isolated site would force total car dependency for every daily need. There is no public transport, no shop, no school within safe walking distance. That contradicts the very heart of NPPF paras 8 & 105, which aim to build sustainable communities—not isolated, car-dependent enclaves. 3. Harm to the Rural Character We Cherish One of the reasons we chose to live here is the beautiful countryside that defines Bearsted and Thurnham. This site lies at the heart of that landscape. Turning a rural field into a hardstanding for vehicles and industrial equipment would permanently scar the area, directly conflicting with NPPF para 174, which protects the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. 4. Ignoring Known Environmental Risks Anyone familiar with Water Lane knows it floods. I’ve seen it myself. Adding hard surfaces and more vehicles will only worsen runoff and drainage problems—risks that are not addressed in the proposal and which violate NPPF paras 159–167 on flood risk. A Personal Appeal This is not just about policy—it’s about people. Our lanes are already congested, our infrastructure strained. Adding a development that compromises safety, ignores sustainability, damages our landscape, and overlooks clear environmental risks would be a profound mistake. It fails the test of soundness: it’s unjustified, undeliverable, and inconsistent with the planning framework meant to protect communities like ours. I stand with the many local residents and our MP in opposing this site. Please listen to those who live here and reject Site C4S (008).
We are writing with regard to the above planning consultation and wish to express our objections to the 'Lodge site’, off Water Lane. Firstly, Water Lane being extremely narrow is not suitable for access to The Lodge. It already endures a large amount of traffic including several farm vehicles and is not suitable for any additional traffic. Also the site lines for access to the site are very poor, with a bend in the road before the entrance to the Lodge. Any vehicle entering or leaving the site onto this very narrow lane, with just one car width, would present a very dangerous situation for all, including of course pedestrians. XXXXX on to Water Lane and we know and see that many local residents like ourselves use the lane for a pleasant walk, so even more vehicles in the lane would present more traffic hazards. Plus any vehicles trying to pass each other will increase the erosion damage to the high banks either side of this narrow lane, especially after heavy rain fall, when Water Lane does become a river with flooding at the lower end! We note that several trees on the nearby approach drive to the site are protected. Also the site is overlooked from the Kent Downs by a designated area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Overall we feel the site is not suitable for the character of the area, which has already undergone increased pressure from the Barty Farm Housing and Roundwell developments, where the local infrastructure has already suffered. We appreciate the needs of MBC to endeavour to find a suitable site but we kindly request that they reject this proposal and consider a more suitable site that has easier, safer access and less impact on local residents.
I am a local resident living close to the proposed site at the Lodge in Water Lane, Bearsted (C4S (008). Please accept my objections to the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Development Plan Document (Regulation 18c). I strongly oppose these plans for The Lodge, Water Lane, C4S (008) based on many factors, including: limited access, road safety, local congestion, access to shops, schools & transport, highway access, impact to the environment, visual impact, potential impact on local property prices, impact to wildlife, hedgerows & drainage, increased noise & pressure on local services and infrastructure. **Summary of objections below** • Spatial strategy (TR1): overconcentration; no evidence of infrastructure capacity; environmental risks. • Policy to meet needs: lacks mandatory transport/social‑infrastructure tests; weak sustainability/accessibility safeguards. • Safeguarding permitted sites: weak enforcement/monitoring. • Allocating sites: vague suitability criteria; inadequate environmental safeguards; community safety risks. • Site‑specific: The Lodge – Policy C4S (008): infrastructure constraints on Water Lane; biodiversity/landscape risks; policing and cohesion concerns; potential impact on property values. • TR5 public sites: no mandatory impact assessments; vague delivery criteria. • TR6 rural exception sites: risk of overdevelopment; unenforceable environmental safeguards. • TR7 non‑allocated sites: weak compliance; cumulative impacts not controlled. • TR8 design & layout: no enforceable sustainability/BNG/SUDS standards; landscaping could urbanise rural areas. • TR9 dayrooms & amenity blocks: no clear size limits; sustainability measures not mandated. • Monitoring & review: indicators omit infrastructure/environmental outcomes and cumulative impacts; need independent audits and explicit review triggers. **Request:** Remove The Lodge (Policy C4S (008)) from the allocation list as I believe this location is unsuitable.
I am writing to you as i have grave concerns about the proposed Travellers Show people plan at Water lane and the impact it would have on wildlife.traffic congestion noise undue pressure on the local services crime rate vehicle theft anti social behaviour public safety litter environment landscape the vulnerable erdely I strongly object to these proposals and the impacted it would have on our quiet village
We are residents of XXXX Bearsted XXXX and write to object most strongly to the proposal to allow a gypsy site at “The Down” accessed from Water Lane. In the 44 years that we have lived here, Bearsted has seen numerous developments which have adversely affected its amenities and formerly village character. The doctors surgery in Bearsted is barely coping with its current patients while the new development at Lilk Meadow opposite us is not yet even half occupied. The traffic and its speed through Roundwell and the Street is already a danger to residents and horse riders and any further traffic from the narrow country lane which is Water Lane will only exacerbate the situation. Please do not add to the loss of countryside which used to be such an important part of Bearsted by allowing this proposed development.