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.
As a Bearsted resident of 30 years I feel I must object in the strongest terms to the proposed development referred to above. Bearsted is a small community with no real room or facilities for such a development. Location & Sustainability – Bearsted and surrounding area is not well served with shops, schools and transport anyway. An additional several hundred people would over burden the locality and significantly change the demographic. Highways & Access – already overburdened with traffic on the A20. Connecting roads are constantly closed for repair. The Pilgrims Way is becoming ruined with far too many vehicles attempting to use it as a rat run. A further development in the location suggested would nly serve to burden the smaller roads and lanes further which would present numerous health and safety issues to pedestrians, horse riders, cyclist etc who use such lanes on a weekly basis to enjoy weekend pursuits. Landscape Impact - A development such as this would ruin a beautiful area of countryside. This cannot be allowed to happen. Environment & Ecology – The area surrounding Bearsted is well maintained and naturally beautiful. A large site such as described for this proposal would only serve to deplete the natural beauty. Cumulative Impact – Overall this development would provide a negative impact on Bearsted and the surrounding area for the reasons referred to above and many others that I am sure will be better presented elsewhere. As a voice for the community, but I’m sure only one of many, please consider this development application in the light of all the negative impacts it will bring on the area and register my objection also on behalf of my wife, to the application
I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposal to create a gypsy and traveller site within the borough, and in close proximity to the village of Bearsted. My primary concern relates to traffic and environmental impact. Vehicles typically associated with travellers are often large HGV lorries and trucks, which are predominantly diesel powered. The introduction of these vehicles would inevitably lead to increased air and noise pollution, which would have a detrimental effect on the local environment and the health and wellbeing of residents. The road through Bearsted village/already experiences significant traffic pressure due to its use as a “rat run” by drivers travelling from the M20 towards the A20 and vice versa. This traffic frequently passes through narrow village roads that are not designed to accommodate high traffic volumes, let alone large commercial vehicles. Any further increase in traffic would exacerbate existing congestion, safety risks, and pollution levels. In addition, access to the proposed site is via a single-track road, which is wholly unsuitable for large vehicles such as HGVs. This raises serious concerns regarding road safety, damage to infrastructure, and the ability of emergency vehicles to gain access when required. The proposed development would result in a substantial increase in the local population, which risks destabilising the character of what is currently a quiet and tranquil village. The scale and nature of the proposal appear incompatible with the existing rural setting and infrastructure capacity. Finally I understand there is an existing “traveller” site off Water Lane in Bearsted and therefore another site within the same vicinity should not be a consideration. I respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council gives full consideration to these issues when assessing the proposal, particularly in relation to highway safety, environmental impact, and the suitability of the location.
I heavily object to the above proposed travellers site. Maidstone already has more travellers sites than any other Borough in the UK and we do NOT want any more. Water Lane has limited access as it is. It is a narrow country lane that floods continually and is not fit for caravans or funfair rides to be transported up and down. There has already been two building developments in the Bearsted Green vicinity with the possibility of more to come. Too much strain will be placed on our GP services, schools etc. Bearsted Green is a beautiful historic village and should be preserved. My objections lay firmly with other Bearsted residents who object. I will fight this all the way.
As a resident of Bearsted and Thurnham, I’m formally opposing the planning request to have a Gypsy & Traveller site on Water Lane. My view is based on a number of factors: - Lack of supporting services in Bearsted. The doctors surgery here is already currently oversubscribed. They would not be able to support additional residents. There aren’t any available NHS dentists in the area. - How will you provide maternity services to those on the site? Are the council aware and happy that those using the site, would need to travel to Pembury for maternity care, as there’s no longer a delivery ward at Maidstone hospital. - Schools are oversubscribed. The nursery care here is oversubscribed with prices being paid way above the national average. How will the council support those with children living on site? - Bearsted is often used as a “rat run” for those wishing to take a detour when the M20 is congested. Have the council considered the traffic and the risk to those using the travellers site? - Water Lane often floods due to very poor drainage. Have the council considered the ability to build on this land, the impact on the drainage systems and living conditions for those living on the site? My belief is that our small, congested, busy village, isn’t suitable for a traveller site due to all of the reasons above.
I object to the proposed Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people DPD for the following reasons. According to your planning document Maidstone Borough has the highest traveller population by local authority across England and Wales. Maidstone traveller community comprised 5.74% of the population, and could actually be higher owing to the reluctance of the traveller community to disclose their ethnicity, against the national average of 1.06% Given the the disparity between the current traveller population in Maidstone borough and the national average there is a strong argument that Maidstone is already providing significantly more sites per head of population than other local authorities and the argument to provide an even greater proportion is weak as well as being unfair to the settled population. According to your report the proposed increase in the provision of sites is based on 350 verbal interviews with members of the traveller community and along with seeking to predict demand to 2040. This amounts to little more than crystal ball gazing and not to be relied on in any meaningful way to predict future demand. Turing to the proposed site at Water Lane (Ref. C4S (008) I object to the use of this site for the following reasons. The site is some distance from local amenities for example, Roseacre School is a 30 minute walk from the site. The site is within the North Downs National Landscape the visual impact of the site would be harmful to the character of this nationally important landscape. The site contains oak trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order which is the official recognition of their importance to amenity and contribution to the character of the protected landscape. The sad reality is that the proposed development is fundamentally at odds with the preservation of these trees. Water Lane is a narrow single carriageway country lane unsuited to increased traffic levels and particularly commercial vehicle traffic that is associated with traveller sites.
I am writing, I'm sure like many other Bearsted and Thurnham residents, to strongly object to the site proposal. I live at XXXXX and for the past 5 -7 years I've seen first hand how the road infrastructure around water lane and the broader Bearsted village, just cannot cope with any further developments and is at breaking point. It is getting very dangerous. With the heavy increase in traffic around this area, my wife and two of my neighbours have all been hit by cars and vans, as so many are using the road with the heavy increase in traffic in and around the village. I also seen horses nearly get hit by drivers on water lane. Many aspects of water lane are single lane traffic and when two or more cars try to pass it can often create complete chaos and gridlock. It doesn't feel a month goes by without an accident/incident on the water lane/cold blow lane stretch of road. The traffic can often get so bad on coldblow lane and water lane that I've considered moving myself. As it can be so bad sometimes that you cannot get back up water lane and the hill to get back to my actual house! We've had Barty Farm, we've had Cross Keys in recent years, relatively large developments, putting at least 150+ more houses in the area with zero changes to road infrastructure or local services. Bearsted and Thurnham cannot cope with more development. School spaces, doctor appointments are more and more impossible to come by as no further provisions or growth in infrastructure has been developed in parallel. In addition to this our utility infrastructure already seems like it needs huge upgrades. We suffer from power and water outages constantly and consistently. The last 10 days we've had 2x 14 hour power outages; my fear is that adding more and more houses without significant improvements to infrastructure will just contribute to more problems and issues. What's more, this site proposal is on the edge of the downs that is designated as an AONB space; where the ecology needs preserving and protecting, so am surprised this is even being considered. There must be so many more suitable areas. It seems illogical to just build and allow more and more cars and houses to ruin and pollute our village any further.
We wish to object to the construction of the proposed Gypsy and Traveler site In Water Lane in Bearsted. 1. Water lane is a single track country road with few passing areas. This road is not suitable for heavy construction lorry’s to be going up and down and would cause problems for any passing traffic. 2. We have now regular flooding at the the bottom of Water Lane where it meets the Street .So with further construction going on this will put further pressure on the drainage system and local infrastructure. 3. We must consider the impact it would have on local amenities , schools , doctors and public transport. 4. The proposed site is in the countryside and would have a visual impact on the area. 5. We should also consider the effect on the wildlife in the area and the destruction to mature tree and plants in that area.
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 XXXXX had I know about the proposal I would never have purchased the house. I believe there to be a conflict of interest as the person trying to sell this land for this plan also works as the sales person for Connels estate agents who were the agents selling the houses on the XXXXX development. The proposed development for the travellers site has purposefully been withheld from anyone purchasing in XXXXX which is dishonest, I know none of the residents in the new XXXXX 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 am writing to formally raise a matter of serious concern regarding your operations in Bearsted, specifically the conduct of your sales representative, Sarah Smith, and her involvement in the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site at Lodge Farm, Water Lane. It has now become widely known within the Roundwell Park community that Ms. Smith has a direct personal interest in this proposal. Residents are aware that in 2022 she submitted her own land at Lodge Farm for consideration as a development site. This information has circulated extensively within the local community and has caused significant alarm. Residents, including myself, find it wholly unacceptable that Ms. Smith is actively selling properties at your Roundwell Park development—located less than a mile from Lodge Farm—while simultaneously promoting a private site proposal that is widely expected to adversely affect local property values and buyer confidence. This represents a clear, serious, and unmanaged conflict of interest. At best, this demonstrates a failure of disclosure; at worst, it raises concerns of deliberate misrepresentation by omission. As Maidstone Borough Council has increased transparency around its site selection process, awareness of the Lodge Farm proposal has grown substantially across Bearsted. This has resulted in widespread opposition, with a significant number of formal objections now being lodged. In addition to the above, it has also come to my attention that Ms. Smith has disclosed personal and confidential information about my household and our circumstances relating to the purchase of our property to neighbouring residents. This disclosure was made without consent and constitutes a clear breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). I consider this matter extremely serious and intend to pursue it formally. I must also make it clear that we would never have purchased this property had we been made aware—either directly or indirectly—of the intended plans for the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site at Lodge Farm, Water Lane. The absence of this material information at the point of sale has caused significant distress and financial concern. This situation presents a substantial commercial and reputational risk to your business, including but not limited to: Adoption Timeline: Council documentation indicates that the plan could reach formal adoption by early summer 2027. Market and Valuation Impact: Once adopted, the site will be formally recorded within local land searches, meaning all future conveyancing in Bearsted will flag this proposal. Legal and Ethical Exposure: The apparent conflict of interest, combined with the alleged misuse of personal data, raises serious questions regarding compliance, governance, and professional standards. Given the seriousness of these matters, I expect a clear response outlining how you intend to address: The conflict of interest created by Ms. Smith’s dual role; The alleged breach of data protection legislation; and The failure to disclose material information that directly influenced our decision to purchase. I look forward to your prompt response and clarification of the actions you intend to take.
I am a permanent Bearsted resident I write to oppose the above proposed development in my area. Application Reference: POLICY C4S (008) – THE LODGE Site: Land at Water Lane, Bearsted Proposal: Gypsy/Traveller pitches including caravans, day rooms, and associated works 1. Introduction I am writing to object to the proposed development at Water Lane, Bearsted. The location is unsuitable for permanent Gypsy/Traveller pitches due to significant harm to the countryside, highway safety concerns, and conflict with established planning policies. 2. Harm to the Countryside & Character of Water Lane The site lies within open countryside and contributes to the rural character of Water Lane. The proposal would result in: • Urbanisation of a green rural area • Visual intrusion due to hardstanding, vehicles, day rooms, and lighting • Loss of openness contrary to Local Plan countryside protection policies The proposed landscaping is insufficient to offset the permanent change to the rural landscape. 3. Highway Safety Concerns Water Lane is a narrow rural road with: • No pavement for pedestrians • Existing pinch points and poor visibility • Already high traffic levels at peak times due to commuter routes and nearby school traffic The additional vehicle movements (cars, caravans, trailers) will increase danger for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, and other road users. This conflicts with NPPF Section 9 regarding safe and suitable access. 4. Unsuitable Location / Poor Sustainability The site is not sustainable for residential use: • No safe pedestrian routes to Bearsted village or services • Limited access to shops, healthcare, and other everyday needs • Dependence on private vehicles • Poor access for emergency services due to road width and congestion This conflicts with both Local Plan sustainability objectives and PPTS guidance, which advises that Gypsy sites should not be in isolated rural locations away from services. 5. Drainage & Flooding Risks Parts of Water Lane are known to experience surface-water flooding. Introducing: • Hardstanding • Impermeable surfaces • Additional foul drainage needs … increases the risk of run-off and potential pollution without adequate mitigation. 6. Inadequate Infrastructure The local area already experiences pressure on: • School spaces • GP and healthcare capacity • Road network congestion • Rural utilities (water, waste, sewerage) The proposal would add to these pressures, and no clear mitigation has been provided. 7. Precedent for Unplanned Development Approving this application would: • Set a precedent for incremental, unauthorised or speculative development along Water Lane • Undermine the strategic planning and site allocation approach set out in the Maidstone Local Plan 8. Policy Conflicts The proposal conflicts with: • Local Plan Policy SP17 – protection of the countryside • DM15 / DM30 – design and protecting rural character • PPTS – suitability, sustainability, and environmental impact • NPPF – protecting valued landscapes and ensuring safe highway access The harm significantly outweighs the benefits. 9. Conclusion For the reasons stated above – including harm to the countryside, road safety concerns, poor sustainability, drainage issues, and conflict with key planning policies – I strongly object to the proposal at Water Lane and request that the application is refused.
I am writing to voice my concerns over the new plans to introduce a Traveller Site on the outskirts of Bearsted. This is a historic village that has a unique community feel that has been in existence for hundreds of years. My firm belief is that the strategy around various planning applications for Bearsted and other areas should be to maintain and protect villages with unique character dotted around Maidstone as they are what gives the county it’s charm, attracts tourists and is something to be proud of. Introduction of traveller sites, excessive house building and so forth seems unnecessary when there must be so many other available options. Here are some of my primary concerns. The area is becoming overcrowded and with recent housing developments down Barty Way and Roundwell, schools, roads and other such infrastructure is really at breaking point. The are shown is accessed via the village by small country lanes and this does not seem suitable for caravan convoys and larger equipment associated with travelling show people. The area suggested is one of great natural beauty that harbours so many of our local wildlife species and I fear this, along with dwindling hedgerows, will be irreversible impacted. The local pubs and restaurants, particularly the Oak on the Green and Fish on The Green, have become a focal point for much of the county to come and enjoy. There is a unique atmosphere in these places and this could be damaged. There is a genuine concern amongst that this would bring antisocial behaviour. Already the pool area at Tudor Park Hotel on the A20 becomes a no-go area in the summer when the Traveller Communities take over, behaving aggressively. I don’t think these concerns should be taken lightly. I would like to re-iterate my thoughts over strategy. Is the planning team looking to preserve the unique heritage and feel of some of Kents best spots or destroy it? It seems to me that in an area of outstanding natural beauty, where we have tree preservation orders in multiple areas and things like door colours and “in keeping” materials must be used, we are so blasey about other planning considerations that could have equally or worse consequences for the area.
I am expressing my objection to the suggested land allocation at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted, as detailed in the draft Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD). As a resident of Thurnham, my comments are based on the criteria for plan soundness, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the Council's responsibilities under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. While I acknowledge the Council's legal duty to find appropriate and available sites for Gypsy, Traveller, and Travelling Showpeople lodging, this particular location does not pass essential criteria for appropriateness, safety, sustainability, or adherence to current policy. 1. Non-Compliance with Road Safety and Accessibility Standards Water Lane is a restricted, single-carriageway country road characterised by: Absence of footpaths or separate pedestrian zones Poor sightlines ahead Insufficient official pull-in areas Dimensions that are unsuitable for large or special vehicles The plan depends entirely on using Water Lane for site entry, which contradicts NPPF paragraph 110. This policy demands that new developments provide secure and adequate access for all users and must not cause unacceptable highway dangers. The volume and type of traffic expected from Travelling Showpeople—such as towing vehicles, heavy goods vehicles, machinery, power units, and periodic large-scale movements—are fundamentally mismatched with the physical limitations of this road. This risk is proven; a fatal accident involving two residents recently happened on a similar lane in Bearsted, which highlights the serious and predictable consequences of increasing vehicle flow on these roads. Under planning legislation, developments that cause major, unresolvable highway safety problems must be refused. There is no viable solution proposed to bring this access point up to safe, policy-compliant standards. 2. Location is Unsustainable, Violating NPPF Guidelines The NPPF mandates that new sites should be placed in areas that allow residents and service providers sustainable access. This location possesses the following drawbacks: Significant distance from crucial local amenities Lack of public transportation links Complete necessity of using personal vehicles for all routine journeys Water Lane lacks street lighting and is completely hazardous for walking, even during working hours in winter. This situation is in direct opposition to NPPF paragraphs 8 and 105, whose objectives are to diminish the dependence on car travel and foster development aligned with sustainability goals. A location that necessitates full car dependency and is accessed via inadequate country roads cannot be deemed environmentally sound or sustainable. 3. Conflict with Rural Aesthetics and Negative Impact on Landscape The proposed area is situated in a delicate, rural environment bordering Bearsted, bordered by fields and open land. The level of activity and operational requirements of a Travelling Showpeople pitch—such as the storage of vehicles, machinery, the construction of hard surfaces, illumination, and constant movement—would substantially detract from the intrinsic character of the landscape, contravening: Policies in the Local Plan are dedicated to protecting the countryside NPPF paragraph 174 (which requires safeguarding the inherent qualities of rural areas) This development would effectively turn a rural setting into an urbanised one, constituting a severe clash of land use rather than a balanced or suitable form of construction. 4. Constraints Related to Flooding, Ground Conditions, and Water Runoff Local knowledge confirms that Water Lane experiences problems with surface water and inadequate drainage, particularly in the lower-lying sections. Introducing the following elements: Permanent paved surfaces Movement of heavy vehicles Full-time residential use creates serious worries about increased water runoff, soil compression, and overall flood hazard, conflicting with NPPF paragraphs 159–167. Insufficient documentation has been provided to show that these known issues can be effectively managed or overcome. 5. Does Not Pass the Required "Soundness" Examination For any DPD allocation to be approved as sound, it must demonstrate positive preparation, justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy. This proposed site falls short in several areas: Lacks Justification: Other sensible options that offer safer entry points seem to exist. Ineffective: Serious constraints on access make its practical implementation doubtful. Inconsistent with National Policy: It violates the NPPF's rules concerning safety and sustainable development. The large number of local residents registering formal complaints, including involvement from the local Member of Parliament, further confirms that this specific allocation lacks public acceptance and feasibility. My opposition is not to the requirement for accommodation but to the fundamental inappropriateness of this particular plot. The Lodge, Water Lane is demonstrably: Hazardous Unsustainable Detrimental to the environment Deficient against key planning criteria I therefore formally ask that Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, be withdrawn from the draft DPD and that the Council instead commit to finding alternative locations that truly satisfy safety, accessibility, and sustainability requirements. Kindly confirm that this objection has been received and please ensure I receive updates on all subsequent phases of the DPD review process.
POLICY C4S (017) – THE BRISHINGS I strongly disagree with allowing this site to be used for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling showpeople site for the following reasons: It does not meet the criteria which states that the site must be accessible by foot/cycle/public transport to school/health and shopping facilities, there is no school or shops in Langley Heath and the only GP surgery in Langley Heath is full and not taking on any more patients (the site with 20 plots could have around 80 patients to accommodate (at 4 people per pitch). The criteria states that the site proposal must be appropriate to the size of the nearest settled community. The nearest settled community is the hamlet on Green Lane, where there is a handful of historic houses. The historic character and separate identity of this hamlet would be lost and the gypsy site would be detrimental to this hamlet and Policy C of the Government Policy paper for Traveller Sites states that any site should not dominate the nearest settled community, which if The Brishings is used for a traveller site it would dominate the nearest settled community. The criteria states that the site should be safely accessed to and from the highway by all vehicles using the site, including emergency services and maintenance vehicles. Your policy states that planning permission will only be granted for the Brishings site if the site can be accessed via Green Lane. Green Lane is a small rural lane with a turning onto Heath Road, this turning and the lane is unsuitable in size for large vehicles required for the initial redevelopment of the site, including the placement of the "homes" themselves, on-going maintenance and for the number of vehicles that the site will generate, around approx 40 (2 vehicles per pitch minimum). The other approach roads into Green Lane from the village is also too small for any of these vehicles. In places Green Lane is less than 8 ft wide at times in it's length. Green Lane would not be suitable for widening due to the situation of historic houses and ancient trees lining the road. When there is a local diversion HGVs have tried to use Green Lane and get stuck and due to the village roads being unsuitable for larger vehicles the local village bus has had to be re-routed and the school bus has been stopped altogether due to access problems and incidents. The criteria states that there should not be any issues with flooding, on the Brishings there is a water course, which has flooded into neighbouring houses on Shepherd's Way, which is adjacent to the site, adding development to the plot of land at the Brishings will only add to the flooding issues as by developing the land you will be taking away the natural soakaway element of the land itself and adding concrete bases for 20 plus pitches. The criteria states references rural exception sites , but Government policy for Traveller Sites states that rural exception sites can only be used to address the needs of the local traveller community who are current residents or who have existing family or an employment connection, also this states that rural exception sites cannot be used for mixed use, ie homes and business. Langley Heath does not have an existing community of travellers who need to move. The criteria refers to crime, there is already a problem with rural crime in Langley Heath, some of which is committed by the travelling communities who live in other local villages, despite being reported, nothing is done to address this problem and by using The Brishings as a permanent traveller site this would only make the crime problem worse. The land itself has been classified as grading no2, so important to the biodiversity of the local area, by adding the pitches you will be downgrading the land and affecting the biodiversity of the land. Land in category no 2 should not be used for development and the Brishings site has had many planning applications on it over the years, all of which have been refused and now The Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan 2021 - 2038 states that Langley Heath is not identified in the local plan with reference to new housing, which is supported by the government policy in Planning Policy for traveller sites (PPTS) and the National Planning Policy Framework, this policy states that planning permission for traveller sites must be determined with the Local Plan. (Section 38 (1)of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.) Government Policy states that when considering traveller sites you must consider sustainability, environmental protection, protect the Green belt, protect the local amenity and the environment and whilst facilitating the traditional life of travellers, whilst also respecting the interests of the settled community, in summary, taking all the above points into account, land at the Brishings fails to meet the policys/criterias used as guidance when considering the permanent Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling showpeoples sites.
I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Plan at the Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted (Thurnham). The location is totally unsuitable due its limited access in a quiet rural setting which will have a detrimental effect on the residential community. The site is totally out of character in the surrounding environment, landscape and wildlife, let alone the cumulative impact on local services and infrastructure. Road safety is already obstructed with no footpaths around the area, poor visibility and there is always a lot of water on the road due to its poor drainage. I live In Thurnham Lane so l do know the location well so please do not spoil an area of natural beauty which is getting preciously smaller these days.
I’d like to air some serious reservations for the go ahead of this site. I live on XXXX, having moved from Ulcombe 5 years ago which is notorious for gypsy sites. The reason I moved is because we got burgled twice, both times taking valuable equipment from our barn. Our home was fairly secluded and would have been difficult to have targeted unless someone had a good knowledge of the area and maybe seen my van/trailer going to & fro. We went to the police and they said it was happening frequently around the area & although mentioning no names they expected the travellers. So with this in mind why would we want a traveller site infecting this very lovely community?? I have bought another property at the foot of XXXX and built a barn to house some equipment. Why should I now need to lay in bed hoping that I don’t get targeted again, the police btw didn’t apprehend anybody and would probably not be troubled by any future incident as is common nowadays. Also do you not think we have enough traveller sites in & around Maidstone?? More than anyone else in Kent I’m led to believe and along with the mass social housing that’s being built in the town centre, I can’t believe these plans are in the table. I will oppose any such plan vehemently, along with the parish council.
I am very concerned by the proposal to build a travellers site in Water Lane Bearsted. The road from Kim’s roundabout to the Ashford road through Bearsted (Bearsted Road, Ware Street etc) already has too much traffic. Adding further traffic of large vehicles will only cause more problems. The new estate has been built opposite Water Lane adding more traffic. This has also caused more parking on the road. Water Lane is not an easy road to use, with only a few passing areas and if the traffic comes along the Pilgrims Way and down Water Lane this will be even worse. I consider this to be a very poor location choice and request the council to reject the idea.
C4S – 008 – The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted, I object to this site being included in the GT&TS Plan. I have serious concerns about the safety of pedestrians along this stretch of road. Vehicle and pedestrian access to this site would involve travel along Water Lane. Water Lane is predominantly a single-track road with no formal pedestrian pavements / footways. The 300 metre section of carriageway between the proposed site entrance and Roundwell / The Street has poor visibility for both motorists and pedestrians, is susceptible to flooding throughout the year and surface icing in the winter months. There are 2 specific areas where these issues are particularly dangerous: The stretch of Water Lane leading to / from under the railway bridge. This area often floods resulting in pedestrians having to walk in the middle of the lane to pass the area. Unfortunately, at this point, there is poor visibility for motorists travelling down Thurnham Lane and pedestrians are unable to hear warning of oncoming traffic if there is a train approaching or passing on the railway line above. The junction of Water Lane with Roundwell / The Street. This area often floods leaving standing water across the majority of the junction forcing pedestrians to walk in the middle of the carriageway on a blind bend for motorists turning into Water Lane from Roundwell / The Street. As a local resident and dog walker I no longer use Water Lane as a pedestrian, having encountered too many ‘near misses’ with traffic. This decision was compounded by the tragic consequences of the fatal collision between a car and dog walkers on Thurnham lane, (alternative access route to Pilgrims Way / North Downs), from Bearsted village in 2024. Inclusion of this site in the Plan would significantly increase the risk to pedestrians on Water Lane and the additional traffic generated by the proposed site would also increase the risk to other road users; cyclists, horse riders, and dog walkers. For the above reason, I request that Maidstone Borough Council remove Site C4S 008 from the consultation. See attached screenshot of a photo of the Junction of Water Lane and The Street, taken this afternoon – 18 hours after yesterday’s rainfall, please. The picture shows the remnants of the flooding at the bottom Water Lane – last night and earlier today, the standing water covered the whole junction and over halfway across The Street. During the winter months the standing water and surface water further up the slope, at the bottom of Water Lane, often freeze and this stretch becomes a sheet of ice and is impassible on foot, and treacherous in a vehicle.
Maidstone council Gypsy & Traveller Plan Bearsted/Thurnham Site Ref: C4S(008) I object to the above proposed site for the following reasons Limited site and highway access via Water Lane which is a very narrow lane It will have a negative visual impact on the Kent Downs landscape The proposed site has several oak trees which have presevation orders on them.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of site C4S (008) in Bearsted within the emerging Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD). Having reviewed the consultation documents (Document 4) alongside the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review and relevant national planning policy, I do not consider that this site represents a suitable or sustainable location when assessed against the objectives of the wider development plan. 1. Conflict with Spatial Strategy and Sustainable Development Principles The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) places strong emphasis on directing development to sustainable locations that reduce reliance on the private car and make effective use of existing infrastructure. In addition, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) requires local authorities to ensure sites are located in sustainable locations with reasonable access to services. Site C4S (008) is poorly located in relation to key services, employment opportunities, and public transport. The location would result in a high level of car dependency, which conflicts with the sustainability objectives of both national policy and the Maidstone Local Plan Review. 2. Highway Safety and Access Constraints Water Lane as well as Thurnham Lane and the surrounding local road network are already constrained and experience traffic pressure. The roads are narrow, with limited capacity to safely accommodate increased vehicle movements, particularly larger vehicles. This raises legitimate highway safety concerns that are not adequately addressed through the site's inclusion in the plan. 3. Pressure on Local Infrastructure Local infrastructure in and around Bearsted, including schools, healthcare provision, drainage, and transport networks, is already operating close to capacity. The allocation of site C4S (008) does not demonstrate how the additional demand arising from this development would be mitigated, which is contrary to sound plan-making principles. 4. Harm to Character, Landscape, and Rural Setting The site forms part of the rural setting of Bearsted and contributes to its established character. Development of this nature would introduce an urbanising influence that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Local Plan objectives that seek to protect the countryside and rural settlement patterns. While I recognise the Council's obligation to meet accommodation needs in accordance with the PPTS, this must be achieved through appropriately located and sustainable sites. In my view, site C4S (008) fails to meet these requirements and has not been sufficiently justified when compared to alternative locations. I therefore respectfully request that site C4S (008) be removed from the proposed allocations within the DPD.
I would like to oppose the plans for the above site going ahead in Water Lane, Bearsted. I visit friends at both ends of the Lane and feel that it is very unsuitable for such a proposal. This is already a relatively tricky area for walkers and horse riders and drivers being that it is a one lane narrow road with no lighting. To add lots more traffic and comings and goings I think would make the area much busier and therefore less accessible for people who want to enjoy the lane for walking. It would also be detrimental to the general peace of the area to make it so much busier. It is also my understanding that there is a Tree Preservation Order in place on a tree in the grounds which is obviously an important issue to take into account. Please can the above reasons and those of the residents be taken in to consideration and a more suitable area be found for this site.
I wish to raise my concerns re site reference CT45 (008)The Lodge. I have great concerns regarding the possibility of the above site in Water Lane Bearsted to be used as a site for Gypsy,Traveller &Travelling Show People as abase. These are 1). This is an area of outstanding natural beauty and prime agricultural land. It should be kept as such.The public footpaths across this area give the residents such joy and the fact it is farmed is also a big bonus when you consider our farmland is gradually being taken for housing.We need every bit to provide crops, milk, meat etc to stay as self sufficient as we can. 2)Access.- Water Lane is a very narrow lane with a railway bridge.This lane gets its name from the fact water flows down it in large quantities when it rains causing flooding especially at its junction with the Street.Not only is this lane narrow but the roads through the old village of Bearsted are as well. Especially from Sutton Street through the Street and onwards to Ware Street and Bearsted rd.Much of it is just one lane as residents have to park their cars on the road outside their homes .It gets very difficult to transverse especially when tractors, haulage Lorrie’s delivering to various sites, lost lorry drivers, even coaches etc have to use it.It is totally unsuitable for Travellers large fairground vehicles including their caravans.Goodness knows what they would do the road surface which seems to be very fragile 3)The calmative impact on local schools, Doctors, ( it’s hard enough already to see an Dr in person)infrastructure etc. 4) The environment and ecology of the area. There are several important oak trees which have preservation orders on the property which need to be upheld. We have a lot of wild life in the area, foxes, badgers, hedgehogs, owls , hares and numerous species of birds they need safe habitats. What about sanitation on the site, waste disposal, etc. 5) What effect will it have on local house prices. This just a such an inappropriate location for the gypsy and travelling communities which I fear will cause much anguish amongst residents and make the former unwelcomed especially as their culture is very different.
I am writing to register my comments and strong objection to the proposed gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeople development plan, particularly for the proposed site on Water Lane, Thurnham. I have attempted to comment online but your webpages are so confusing and difficult to navigate, that I am writing to you via direct email and trust that you include my comments in your assessment. 1. Harm to Landscape Character and Rural Setting Water Lane sits within high-quality, unspoilt countryside, valued for its mature trees, hedgerows, and rural tranquillity. The permanent introduction of hardstanding, day rooms, caravans, fencing, and lighting would cause an unacceptable and irreversible intrusion into this sensitive landscape. The proposal is contrary to planning policies aimed at protecting rural character and preventing further urbanisation of our fast reducing countryside. 2. Inadequate, Unsafe, and Overburdened Road Access Water Lane is a narrow country lane with no pavements, limited passing places, and restricted visibility. It is used daily by walkers, dog-owners, cyclists, and horse riders. Over recent years, significant new housing development in the surrounding area has already increased traffic to levels that these rural roads cannot safely support. The addition of vehicles associated with a permanent traveller site—cars, caravans, towing vehicles, and service vehicles—would greatly exacerbate existing safety issues. It is important to note that both Water Lane and nearby Thurnham Lane have a history of accidents and near-misses involving vehicles and pedestrians. Last year, a widely reported tragic road incident on Thurnham Lane resulted in the deaths of two pedestrians and their dog, caused by a speeding vehicle on a narrow rural road. This demonstrates the very real and serious danger these lanes already pose, even without additional traffic pressure. Approving a development that increases traffic in this area would heighten the risk of further accidents, and it fails to provide the “safe and suitable access for all users” required by the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. Unsustainable Pressure on Utilities and Local Services Recent housing growth in Thurnham and Bearsted has placed considerable strain on local infrastructure. The proposed site provides no clear evidence that the existing utilities—water supply, drainage, sewage capacity, or waste collection—can accommodate additional, permanent residential demands. This rural area lacks the robust service infrastructure needed for further development. Adding a permanent residential site here would therefore be unsustainable and potentially harmful to both local residents and the environment. 4. Fundamentally Unsustainable Location The site’s isolation means that residents would be entirely reliant on private vehicles for all essential needs. There are no safe walking routes, no footpaths, and no public transport connections. This conflicts directly with national and local policy requirements for sustainable development and for locating new residential uses where adequate services and transport connections exist. 5. Cumulative Impact and Precedent The area has undergone considerable development in recent years, and the cumulative impact is already evident in increased traffic, reduced road safety, pressure on utilities, and visible erosion of rural character. Allowing this development would further intensify these problems and set a negative precedent for additional development in the countryside. Conclusion For all the reasons above, the proposed permanent traveller site at Water Lane, Thurnham should be refused. It would result in: Increased danger to pedestrians and other road users on already hazardous rural lanes Unsustainable pressure on local roads, utilities, and services Significant harm to valued rural landscape and character A location that is not sustainable under national or local planning policy Cumulative negative impacts on the local community and countryside Thank you for considering my comments and objection to the proposal.
I moved out of London to get away from people like this. Where are they going to schools, Maidstone hospital already over subscribed. Transport system, the roads already over blocked. My main question are they paying council tax. i have to pay 333 a month. What are they going to be paying into the system. I want to know. They will be robbing everything our shops over our fences. And the poor old people wont be able to sleep at night. They will be wondering around looking our for what they can get for nothing. Translators are we paying for those too. Enough is enough. And those poor people who have bought properties and thought they had something nice and invested their money and now they have a gypseys on their doorsteps. wow you know not what you do!!!!!!!! Its so unfair......How Much are you getting for this. Who is paying you. I just want to know they all have jobs, no translators needed they are paying tax, council tax up to my 333. They have private health care and can afford private schooling.
1. Housing The proposal has been submitted for the siting of 20 caravans. It is unclear from the documentation whether this number includes touring caravans or if such caravans would be additional. Each caravan is expected to be accompanied by associated structures and domestic items, such as day rooms. Whether the total is limited to 20 or potentially increases to 40 caravans, the overall scale of the development is regarded as excessive. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government dated December 2024 under Policy C clearly states that, “when assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community”. The site is located beyond any settlement boundary and is therefore within the countryside as defined in the MBC Local Plan Policy LPRSS1 which seeks to focus any residential development within rural service centres to larger/smaller villages, however this does not include Langley Heath where this site is located and is therefore deemed as not a sustainable location. 2. Transport and Accessibility Transport The proposed site is located to the south of Langley village, lying outside the designated village envelope as specified in the Local Plan 2024. The village itself lacks essential day-to-day amenities, notably having no schools or shops within its boundaries. Employment opportunities in the immediate area are also limited, further highlighting the absence of necessary infrastructure. Regarding educational facilities, the nearest primary school is approximately 1.5 miles away, situated in Leeds. Langley Park Primary Academy is also within reach, though it is located 2.0 miles from the proposed site. Given these distances, it is improbable that parents would choose to walk with their children to school. Instead, it is highly likely that the preferred mode of transport would be by car. Public transport provision in Langley Heath is limited to a modest bus service, specifically the number 13 route connecting Hollingbourne and Maidstone. This service runs only five or six times in each direction on weekdays and does not operate at all on weekends or public holidays, making it an unreliable option for daily commuting. A more frequent bus service, the number 12, serves routes to and from Tenterden and Maidstone. However, accessing this service requires walking 10–15 minutes to bus stops on the A274 Sutton Road. Part of this journey is along unlit roads without pavements, which presents further accessibility challenges, especially for families and individuals without private vehicles. Considering the infrequency of the available bus services, it is unlikely that future residents would rely on public transport for shopping or accessing everyday convenience items. Instead, it is expected that they would travel by car to meet these needs. Therefore, future occupants of the proposed development would almost certainly be heavily dependent on private vehicles for their daily activities and requirements. Accessibility According to Local Plan Review Policy LPRHOU8, it is a requirement that the site must be safely accessible to and from the highway for all vehicles that will regularly use the site. This policy is intended to ensure that access arrangements are suitable and do not pose risks to residents or road users. Green Lane, which would serve as the primary access route, is a narrow single-track road. It measures no more than 2 metres in width and is bordered by mature trees and hedgerows along its entire length. The road features tight, angular bends and, crucially, does not have any pavements, making it potentially hazardous for both vehicles and pedestrians. Signage along Green Lane already indicates significant restrictions: there are notices stating ‘Not Suitable for HGVs’ and width restriction signs of ‘2 metres (6ft 6 inches)’ positioned at key junctions, including A274 Sutton Road/Horseshoes Lane, Leeds Road/Heath Road, and Horseshoes Lane/Leeds Road. Additionally, access from Leeds Road into Green Lane is marked as ‘access only’ and involves negotiating a particularly tight 90° turn. Research indicates that low loaders, which are commonly used to transport caravans, have substantial dimensions. The main bed (low part) length for standard low loaders typically ranges from 5.5 to 7.5 metres, but specialist caravan trailers can be extended up to approximately 17.8 metres (58 feet) in length. The width of these vehicles is usually between 2.74 and 2.90 metres (8 feet 2 inches to 9 feet 6 inches), with some requiring special permits if wider than certain thresholds. Loads exceeding approximately 3.66 metres (12 feet) in width in the UK necessitate special notification, and may also require police or local authority escorts. • Bed Length: Standard low loaders used for caravan transport range from about 5.5 metres (18 feet) to 7.5 metres (24 feet) in length, with specialist trailers extendable up to approximately 17.8 metres. • Width: Standard low loaders are typically 2.74 metres to 2.90 metres wide (8 feet 2 inches to 9 feet 6 inches), but can be wider with special permits. Loads wider than 3.66 metres (12 feet) require special arrangements, such as police or local authority clearance and escorts. Further, standard touring caravans are generally between 7 feet 4 inches and 7 feet 6 inches wide, while extra wide caravans can reach approximately 8 feet in width. Given these vehicle and load dimensions in comparison with the road’s width restrictions and physical characteristics, it is evident that safe and practical access to and from Green Lane for the types of vehicles required to deliver and move caravans is not achievable. Community and Crime Langley Heath is a modestly sized residential area, home to 993 individuals according to the 2021 Census. The community is generally regarded as peaceful, with recorded crime rates remaining low. There is currently no substantial evidence to suggest that Langley Heath suffers from elevated levels of anti-social behaviour or related disturbances. Specific Concerns Despite the overall safety and tranquillity of the locality, some issues have been noted. Reports have emerged regarding dangerous pony and trap driving within the area, the use of catapults against property, and instances of verbal abuse allegedly originating from residents of nearby gypsy properties. It is important to emphasise that these observations do not presuppose future behavioural trends; rather, they are presented as matters of current concern. Lack of Community Facilities Langley Heath is notable for its absence of local amenities and community resources. The lack of such facilities means there are limited opportunities available to engage residents or offer constructive distractions. This deficiency is a relevant factor to consider when evaluating the potential impact of any proposed developments, particularly with respect to community cohesion and safety. Health and Accessibility Access to Healthcare Langley Heath is currently served by the Orchard Doctor’s Surgery located on Horseshoes Lane. It is understood that this surgery is already operating at or very close to its maximum capacity for accepting new patients. This situation is likely to be exacerbated in the near future, as there remain over 500 new homes to be delivered as part of the Rosewood Housing Development on Sutton Road, all of which fall within the Langley boundary and would place additional pressure on existing healthcare provision. Community Integration and Site Layout The introduction of a development comprising over 20 caravans on the site raises concerns regarding the nature and extent of hard landscaping and boundary treatments, such as high walls or fences. There is a risk that such features could create a sense of physical and social separation, giving the impression that the site and its residents are intentionally segregated from the wider community. Economy Local Economic Context Langley Heath presently exhibits a marked lack of economic vitality. The area does not benefit from any retail outlets, shops, or commercial businesses that might otherwise generate local income or offer employment opportunities to residents. The absence of such economic infrastructure means there are limited prospects for job creation within the immediate vicinity, and residents must look beyond Langley Heath for both work and access to goods and services. Natural Resources Agricultural Land Quality and Site Boundaries The site in question encompasses approximately 1.84 hectares of high-quality agricultural land situated to the south-west of Langley Heath. According to a design and access statement previously submitted in support of a housing planning application (reference 16/505995/OUT), this land has been classified as Grade 2 agricultural land. Grade 2 land is recognised as being within the “best and most versatile” category. Consequently, the proposed development is in direct conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, paragraph 187), as well as with Policies LPRSP9 and LPRSP14(A) of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan, adopted in 2024. The boundaries of the site are defined by Green Lane to the west and Leeds Road (B2163) to the east. Along the south-western edge of the site, a hedge is present, beyond which further agricultural land extends. Light Pollution Although Green Lane hamlet cannot be described as an area of entirely dark skies, existing public lighting within the vicinity is extremely limited. Currently, the hamlet itself is illuminated by only a single streetlight, while Shepherds Way, which is located nearby, is served by merely two streetlights. The proposed introduction of over 20 residential caravans would substantially increase the level of artificial lighting within this locality. Such a concentration of new dwellings would inevitably result in significant light pollution, which would be detrimental to the immediate environment and the wider area. Flooding Risk Although the proposed development site itself is not located within a designated Flood Risk area, it is important to note that the primary access roads serving the site, namely Green Lane and Shepherds Way, lie within Flood Risk Zone 2. There is documented evidence of flooding originating from the proposed site, with water flowing into properties along Shepherds Way. Surface water runoff from the site is observable, typically draining overland from the south-east towards the north-west, particularly in the vicinity of the proposed entrance. This drainage pattern indicates a potential risk for future flooding, both for the access routes and adjacent residential properties. Cultural Heritage Immediately to the south-east of the site lies a small hamlet focused around Green Lane. Nearly opposite the application site is ‘Ye Olde Cottage’, a Grade II Listed Building dating from the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. The listing describes the property as a timber-framed house with brick noggin, a plain tile roof, and distinct features such as broadly spaced studding, arch-bracing, and an irregular arrangement of casement windows. The building also has a central boarded door and lean-to addition, with the interior not inspected. Directly opposite ‘Ye Old Cottage’ is ‘The Old Farmhouse’, another Grade II Listed Building. This eighteenth-century farmhouse has undergone later alterations, with chequered red and grey brick to the front and sides, a plain tile roof, and a lobby entry plan. Notable features include a hipped roof, brick ridge stack, irregular fenestration, and a rear wing added at a later date. The farmhouse is included in the listing for its group value. On the opposite side of Green Lane, facing the application site, are Green Lane Cottages. This attractive terrace of brick-built cottages is believed to date from 1879. ‘Green Lane Cottages’, ‘Ye Old Cottage’ and ‘The Old Farmhouse’ together form the historic core of the hamlet, giving it a distinctive character and identity that is separate from the surrounding area of Langley Heath. If permission for the proposed site is granted, the historic character and distinct identity of this hamlet would be compromised. Such erosion would be severely detrimental to an important heritage asset. This concern was central to the refusal of previous planning applications MA/14/0545 (Outline application for 50 retirement bungalows) and MA/15/501183 (Outline application for 40 retirement bungalows), which were declined for the following reasons: • The development would be unsustainable and would harm the function of the anti-coalescence belt. • The development would appear as isolated and inward looking, and would subsequently have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area. • The development would have an adverse impact upon the setting of the nearby listed buildings. The Parish Council considers it essential to retain the separate identity of the Green Lane hamlet and to prevent future merging with the built-up area of Langley Heath. Landscape Importance of Maintaining Settlement Separation The Parish Council regards it as very important to retain the separate identity of the Green Lane hamlet and to prevent future coalescence with the rest of the built-up area of Langley Heath. Landscape Character and Biodiversity Value The Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment, prepared for the Borough Council by Jacobs consultants in 2012, identifies the appeal site as falling within the ‘Langley Fruit Plateau’. Under the heading of Biodiversity, the Fruit Plateau is described as follows: “There are some areas of unmanaged grassland and deciduous trees along the field margins and near to properties. The areas of grassland, agricultural land and especially field margins may provide suitable habitat for reptile species. Hedgerow boundaries may support breeding birds and community/foraging bats and reptiles. Continuous hedgerows provide good wildlife corridors for commuting reptile and mammal species. This habitat is considered important to biodiversity due to its lack of urban development, large size and that it exhibits features typical of Kentish farmland.” The report’s ‘Summary of Actions’ includes the recommendation to: ‘conserve tall hedgerows, poplar shelter belts and reinforce small copses’. The Parish Council recognises that the site contains important hedgerows within the Parish. It seeks to secure both the preservation and, where possible, the enhancement of the site in its current underdeveloped condition, given its value not only as a key landscape feature for the village but also for its vital contribution to local biodiversity. Landscape Assessment and Mitigation HO3-207 The Brishings Green Lane is covered on page 185 of the Maidstone Landscape Capacity Study: Site Assessments January 2015 and its mitigation measures were also included in an email from the Maidstone Borough Council Landscape Officer, relating to the failed planning application 16/505995, which provides further assessment: “There are no protected trees on, or immediately adjacent to, the site. There are however, hedgerows/hedgerow trees on the northern and eastern boundaries which may be considered important under the Hedgerow Regulations and an area of significant woodland to the south of the site…. In landscape terms the site falls within the Langley Heath Undulating Farmlands landscape character area (LCA 30) and in terms of the Landscape Capacity Study: Site Assessments, the site is considered to have moderate landscape capacity to accommodate housing. The mitigation guidelines for this site are as follows: • Retain and respect the narrow, rural character of Green Lane • Retain an area of undeveloped land around the original hamlet along Green Lane and maintain physical separation between this and recent development to the north • Redefine settlement edge and create sensitive urban/rural interface • Respect the setting of the listed buildings. Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that this site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons: 1. Unsustainable Location The site is situated in a location that is not sustainable for the purposes proposed. Its setting does not support the essential requirements for sustainable development, making it an inappropriate choice. 2. Poor Accessibility for Caravans Access to Green Lane is inadequate for caravans, whether permanent or touring. The present road infrastructure does not allow for safe or practical entry or exit for such vehicles. 3. Reliance on Private Motor Vehicles The site lacks sustainable transport options for daily use. As a result, residents would be dependent on private cars, which is contrary to sustainable transport principles. 4. Lack of Facilities within Walking Distance There are no essential facilities located within walking distance of the site. This absence would significantly impact the convenience and quality of life for future occupants. 5. No Scope to Enhance Local Facilities The development would not provide opportunities to improve or expand existing local facilities, thus failing to offer any tangible benefit to the surrounding community. 6. High Agricultural Value of the Land The site comprises land of significant agricultural value. Protection of high-quality agricultural land is vital, and its development would result in the permanent loss of this important resource. 7. Rich Biodiversity The area supports considerable biodiversity. Development would threaten the habitats and species present, undermining biodiversity conservation efforts. 8. Potential Harm to Heritage Assets The site’s development would cause substantial harm to nearby heritage assets, adversely affecting their setting and significance. 9. Preserving the Separation between Green Lane and Langley Heath It is essential to maintain the physical separation between Green Lane and Langley Heath. Development at this location would lead to the coalescence of these areas, eroding their distinct identities, which would be contrary to the Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment 2015.
I am writing to express my objection to the above planning proposal. My main objection is regarding ‘Highways and Access’ and ‘Cumulative Impact’ The development uses Water Lane. This is a single carriageway road. This road is already so busy, that to drive from Bearsted to Pilgrims Way often requires up to 6-8 reversing manoeuvres with very little space to manouvre. Unfortunately, we have already twice had our vehicles damaged by these manoeuvres. Even more traffic on this road will make driving here intolerable. I would like you not to approve this application.
We would like to oppose the above proposed planning for this site at Water Lane Bearsted (The Lodge), the reason behind our objections are as follows: 1.Bearsted is a quite village, with rural character already being changed, due to the volumes of speeding traffic using the village as a cut through. 2.Putting increased pressure on the local services and infrastructure. 3. Threatening local widlife in this particular area of Bearsted. 4. Depositing of rubbish from the sites activities. 5. Potential of damage to existing oak trees which are likely to to be damaged/removed, which are subject to preservation orders. 6. Increased noise and disturbance to the village and unrulely behaviours. 7. General distruction of the peace and tranquility of the village. Having lived in the village for more than 30 years, this we feel, will be the start of the distruction of a once pleasant place to live. I hope you will take all the above comments into account.
The Brishings C4S (017) This site is completely unsuitable due to location , a single track narrow lane with listed properties , limited access , no pedestrian access , very limited resources including lack of public transport, no local shops , job opportunities, lack of gp and school places . Lack of privacy and would be catastrophic to local biodiversity due to local farming orchards. The proposed site is also on a flood plan is surrounded by properties and would dominate the area . Langley heath has been identified as a non sustainable village and area in the government local plan .
The Brishings Green lane site C4S(017) is absolutely appalling. The lane is 8ft wide and is not accessible for large vehicles let alone static caravans or showground Lorrie’s they will simply not fit down the lane. The community in the lane consists of 10 properties and you are suggesting 20 plots . This legally is not aloud due to domination of culture and population . The area has no infrastructure- no local shops no businesses and no jobs .There are no places in the doctors and schools . Langley heath has been identified as a non sustainable village and area in the government local plan . So why on earth is this site even being considered. It is an outrage and should be removed immediately.
POLICY C4S (008) – THE LODGE Strongly disagree - water lane is not fit for purpose, these are country lanes and would pose a danger to life with excess traffic. Also there has been tragic deaths on Thurnham lane, water lane is no different. The village would not cope with the additional traffic. Impacting residents and resident livelihood. This could effect local house prices. Antisocial behaviour concerns. Wildlife impact- more pollution.
I am writing to appeal against the proposed decision to put a Gypsy, traveller and travelling show people DPD site in Water Lane, Bearsted. I strongly oppose this application. Water Lane is a very narrow single country lane totally unsuitable for caravans and travelling vehicles. In winter it is tricky to drive a car up there let alone larger/wider vehicles. The village of Bearsted is a very picturesque area and there would be a detrimental visual impact if the travellers set up a camp here. The village does not need to become any busier.
I wish to object to The Lodge being designated for Traveller/Show people/ gypsy pitches. My objections are as follows: 1) Unspecified number of pitches. 2) The access is not safe or suitable as Water Lane is a narrow lane. the sight lines are poor in both directions with a 60mph limit. There is no development in this countryside area. the visual amenity of the AONB will be affected by this proposal. i urge you to not designate this site for this use.