Question 6: To what extent do you agree with the potential site allocation policies? Please provide comments to support your answer, quoting specific policy reference/site name wherever possible.
I write to formally object to the above planning application C4S (008) for a traveller site in this rural location. This proposal represents an inappropriate form of development that fails fundamentally on grounds of sustainability, highway safety, environmental protection, and impact upon both the landscape character and existing residential amenity. The cumulative burden upon already strained rural infrastructure renders this application unacceptable in planning terms. --- 1. Location and Sustainability This proposal is fundamentally unsustainable in locational terms and directly contradicts the core planning principles of directing development to suitable, accessible locations. The site lies in an isolated rural location, remote from essential services, employment opportunities, healthcare facilities, and educational establishments. Future occupants would be entirely dependent upon private motor vehicles for every aspect of daily life, directly undermining objectives to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainable transport patterns. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises that new development should be located where it can optimise the use of sustainable transport modes and reduce the need to travel. This site achieves neither objective. The nearest primary school lies a considerable distance away, whilst secondary education, GP surgeries, and meaningful employment opportunities are beyond realistic walking or cycling distance. Furthermore, the absence of footpaths, street lighting, and public transport connectivity renders this location inherently car-dependent and potentially isolating for non-driving residents, including children and elderly persons. This represents a form of social exclusion that no responsible planning authority should facilitate. The sequential test principle requires that development should be directed to the most sustainable locations first. No evidence has been presented demonstrating that more suitable, accessible sites closer to existing settlements have been properly considered or are unavailable. --- 2. Highways and Access The highway safety implications of this proposal are severe and constitute an independent ground for refusal. Substandard Access Arrangements The proposed access point onto the rural lane is wholly inadequate. The visibility splays fall significantly short of the required standards for a road with this speed limit and traffic character. The applicant's transport statement fails to demonstrate that safe vehicular egress and ingress can be achieved without compromising highway safety for all road users. Inadequate Road Infrastructure The rural lanes serving this site were never designed or constructed to accommodate the intensity of vehicular movements that would result from this development. These narrow, unlit roads lack footways, have blind bends, and feature high hedgerows that severely restrict forward visibility. The daily traffic generation, including larger vehicles such as caravans, mobile homes, and commercial vehicles, would create dangerous conflicts with existing agricultural traffic, school transport, and recreational users. Cumulative Traffic Impact The traffic assessment significantly underestimates the realistic vehicle movements. Experience demonstrates that traveller sites generate substantial traffic flows from multiple caravans, visiting vehicles, and commercial activities. The cumulative effect upon the rural road network would be unacceptable. Pedestrian Safety The complete absence of pedestrian infrastructure between the site and the nearest settlement creates an inherently dangerous situation. Any residents attempting to walk or cycle, particularly children accessing schools, would be forced to use narrow roads with no verges, no lighting, and vehicles travelling at unsafe speeds. This represents an unacceptable risk to vulnerable road users. The Highway Authority's guidelines for safe access have not been satisfied, and no technical solution has been proposed that could adequately mitigate these fundamental safety concerns. --- 3. Landscape Impact This proposal would cause demonstrable and irreversible harm to a valued rural landscape. Landscape Character The site lies within an area characterised by undulating agricultural fields, traditional hedgerow boundaries, and scattered farmsteads that create a distinctly rural, pastoral character. The introduction of a traveller site, with its associated hardstanding, residential caravans, touring caravans, utility blocks, and domestic paraphernalia, would represent an entirely alien and incongruous form of development fundamentally at odds with this established landscape character. Visual Impact From multiple public vantage points, including well-used public footpaths and minor roads, the development would be highly visible and visually intrusive. The applicant's landscape assessment understates the harm by focusing on winter views whilst ignoring the reality that deciduous screening provides minimal mitigation during significant periods. Caravans, by their nature, are large, reflective structures that cannot be successfully assimilated into a rural landscape setting. Loss of Openness The development would erode the essential openness and rural tranquillity that defines this area's special character. The precedent established by permitting such development would fundamentally alter the relationship between built form and countryside, encouraging further incremental urbanisation of the rural landscape. Inadequate Mitigation Proposed landscaping measures are insufficient and would take many years, potentially decades, to achieve any meaningful screening effect, during which time the visual harm would persist unmitigated. Even at maturity, landscaping cannot disguise the essential character change resulting from residential occupation of previously open countryside. --- 4. Environment and Ecology The application fails to adequately assess or mitigate the significant environmental and ecological harm that would result from this development. Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Biodiversity Net Gain The proposal fails to demonstrate biodiversity net gain as now required. The inevitable hardstanding, lighting, and human activity would degrade the ecological value of the site substantially. The applicant's assertion that landscaping would compensate is unsupported by proper ecological assessment and ignores the significant time lag before any ecological benefits could accrue. Water Environment Inadequate information has been provided regarding foul and surface water drainage. The proposal for septic tanks or package treatment plants in this location, with its particular soil and groundwater characteristics, risks contamination of watercourses and groundwater. Surface water run-off from extensive hardstanding areas would exacerbate existing drainage issues in the surrounding area. Light Pollution The introduction of residential lighting, security lighting, and vehicle movements in this dark rural location would cause light pollution harmful to nocturnal wildlife and would erode the tranquil, dark sky character valued by existing residents and visitors. Air Quality The inevitable increase in vehicle movements on narrow rural lanes would degrade local air quality through increased emissions in an area currently characterised by clean rural air. --- 5. Residential Amenity This development would cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenity currently enjoyed by occupants of nearby properties. Noise and Disturbance Traveller sites, by their nature, generate significant noise and activity. This includes vehicle movements throughout the day and evening, reversing alarms from large vehicles, generators, domestic activities conducted outdoors, and social gatherings. In this quiet rural setting, where existing noise levels are dominated by natural sounds and occasional agricultural activity, the acoustic intrusion would be profound and would fundamentally alter the sound environment. The nearest residential properties lie in close proximity to the proposed site boundary. These residents currently enjoy peaceful rural amenity. The proposed development would introduce constant residential activity, comings and goings, and associated noise that would be particularly intrusive during evening hours and weekends when residents most value tranquillity. Light Pollution Security lighting, domestic lighting from multiple caravans, and vehicle headlights would create significant light spillage affecting neighbouring properties that currently benefit from dark rural conditions. This would harm residential amenity, particularly during winter months when lighting is used extensively. Odour and Air Quality The proposed method of sewage disposal, combined with domestic activities and vehicle emissions from increased traffic, would potentially create odour issues affecting neighbouring properties. Sense of Encroachment Beyond specific measurable impacts, the psychological effect of introducing an intensive residential development in what was previously open countryside would cause real harm to the amenity and quality of life of existing residents who chose to live in this rural location precisely for its undeveloped character. --- 6. Cumulative Impact on Infrastructure The cumulative burden this development would place upon already strained rural infrastructure is unacceptable and has been wholly inadequately assessed. Healthcare The nearest GP surgery is already well subscribed and not accepting new patients from certain postcodes. Emergency services would face increased response times to this remote location, and the lack of mobile phone coverage in areas of the site creates additional risks for residents requiring urgent medical attention. Utilities Infrastructure The application provides inadequate detail regarding utilities provision. The electricity network in this rural area has limited capacity, and connection costs would be substantial. Water supply and pressure may be inadequate to serve the development without network reinforcement. Foul drainage relies upon non-mains solutions that are inherently less sustainable and present environmental risks. Waste Management Collection of waste and recyclables from this remote location would place additional demands upon council services, with collection vehicles forced to navigate unsuitable rural lanes. The likely accumulation of waste materials and vehicles on-site, a common feature of traveller sites, would create environmental health concerns that the local authority would struggle to regulate effectively. Social Services and Community Infrastructure Rural community infrastructure, including community centres, libraries, and social services, already operates with limited resources spread across wide geographic areas. Additional demand from this development would further strain these services without any corresponding contribution to their funding or provision. Cumulative Development Pressure Approval of this application would create an undesirable precedent for further similar development. Once one traveller site is permitted in open countryside, the logical basis for refusing subsequent applications is substantially weakened. The cumulative effect of multiple such developments would fundamentally alter the character of the rural area and place impossible burdens upon infrastructure never designed to support dispersed rural residential development of this intensity. --- Conclusion This application represents inappropriate development in an unsustainable location that fails comprehensively across multiple planning considerations. It should be refused firmly and unequivocally. The harm to highway safety alone warrants refusal. When combined with the landscape damage, environmental degradation, harm to residential amenity, and infrastructure impacts, the case against this development becomes overwhelming. No amount of planning obligation or condition could adequately mitigate the fundamental unsuitability of this location for the proposed development. The public interest demands that our precious rural landscapes, already under intense development pressure, are protected from inappropriate incursions of this nature. I urge the planning committee to refuse this application and to uphold the planning policies designed to protect our countryside and existing communities from precisely this type of harmful development.
I am writing to raise my concerns with regard to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site at The lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted. This Proposal is totally unacceptable for this site due to a number of reasons, Bearsted is a quiet village that has grown and grown and is now at it's limits, the roads around Water Lane could not cope with this site, with regards to; Access to shops, schools and transport, which are already stretched Road safety and congestion, this is a very narrow road and right in the center of the village Noise levels, light pollution and privacy to the residences near by It will add pressure on the local services and local infrastructure The environmental impact, to wildlife and hedgerows, there are several oak trees. And will alter the rural character and visual aspect. Please say NO to this proposed site. Thank you.
There are very few villages that would welcome such a group of people for reasons that are obvious and contentious. But there are many reasons why this site is not acceptable. The village has already seen enough growth over the years and it is almost impossible to travel through it without congestion. Particularly when there are incidents on the M20 when the village becomes gridlocked. Congestion increases the risk to safety and damage to personal property. The village has accepted its share of new homes and social housing which has already resulted in many displays of antisocial behaviour - rubbish being thrown over fences, unruly teenagers, mopeds pulling wheelies to name but a few. Perhaps the most obvious is that the infrastructure is just not capable of taking the type of vehicles that this cohort will drive. Water Lane is a popular choice for ramblers, dog walkers and horse riders as an avenue to the North Downs. We are all very well aware of the tragedy which happened recently in Thurnham Lane.
I’m writing to formally object to the proposed traveller site at Water Lane, Bearsted. I fully understand the need for a site for families from these cultures to have access to, but Water Lane is inappropriate for so many reasons. Firstly, this is a narrow country lane in a rural location surrounded by farmland where saloon sized cars struggle to pass in places. This lane is inaccessible for large vehicles such as caravans/mobile homes and lorry’s. In addition, there are no footpaths so safety of pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists and other road users would be severely compromised by the additional traffic a site like this would elicit. Very sadly a couple lost their lives in 2024 on a similar road that runs parallel with Water Lane. The thought of something similar happening on Water Lane due to an inconsiderate and irresponsible decision to agree to this site, is both abhorrent and completely avoidable. The road at times is impassable due to severe flooding resulting from poor drainage which is well documented over many years. Further dwellings would place further strain on an already compromised drainage system and the infrastructure is simply not present. The village is often congested especially if there is an incident on the M20 and also due to additional housing and associated traffic that has occurred in the past 10 years. Excessive permissions have been granted for new building that without additional infrastructure ie road maintenance and GP surgeries, has adversely affected village inhabitants. The addition of a site such as this would further compromise the health not only the new inhabitants but also existing members of the Bearsted village community, as GP surgeries are closed to new applicants. Meeting the needs of underserved communities and reducing Health inequalities are a priority as part of the 10 year plan. A traveller site on Water Lane would be prohibitive to health care access for all of the reasons mentioned above.
I write to formally object to the proposed allocation of Site C4S-008 within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD) at Regulation 18c stage. This objection is made solely on planning grounds and relates to the suitability of the site, not to the principle of providing accommodation for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople communities. Conflict with the Spatial Strategy and Sustainable Development Objectives The allocation of Site C4S-008 conflicts with the spatial strategy of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017), particularly: Policy SP1 (Sustainable Development Locations) Policy SP5 (Transport and Accessibility) Site C4S-008 is located in a poorly connected rural location, remote from essential services such as shops, healthcare, education facilities, and regular public transport. As a result, future occupiers would be heavily reliant on private vehicles for everyday activities. This approach is inconsistent with Policy SP1, which directs development to locations that reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable patterns of development, and Policy SP5, which seeks to minimise reliance on the private car. Unsuitable Highway Access and Transport Impacts The site is accessed via narrow rural lanes that are sub-standard in width and alignment and lack footways, street lighting, and adequate visibility. The proposed allocation conflicts with: Policy DM21 (Transport and Parking) Policy SP5 (Transport and Accessibility) The road network serving Site C4S-008 is unsuitable for the regular movement of: Caravans and towing vehicles Service and refuse vehicles Emergency vehicles The allocation raises unresolved concerns regarding highway safety, pedestrian and cyclist safety, and the ability of emergency services to safely access the site. No convincing evidence has been provided to demonstrate that these constraints can be adequately mitigated. Harm to Countryside Character and Landscape Site C4S-008 lies within a predominantly rural area, where development is subject to strict control. The proposed allocation conflicts with: Policy SP17 (Countryside) Policy DM1 (Principles of Good Design) The scale and nature of the proposed use would introduce a form of development that is urbanising in character, resulting in: Loss of rural openness Visual harm to the surrounding landscape Erosion of the established countryside character This would undermine the objectives of Policy SP17, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, and Policy DM1, which requires development to respond positively to local character and landscape context. Impact on Residential Amenity The proximity of Site C4S-008 to existing residential properties gives rise to legitimate amenity concerns. The allocation is contrary to: Policy DM1 (Principles of Good Design) In particular, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that potential impacts arising from noise, activity levels, lighting, and general disturbance could be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated, as required by Policy DM1. Infrastructure Capacity and Deliverability Concerns The allocation of Site C4S-008 is not supported by robust evidence demonstrating that necessary infrastructure can be delivered in a timely and effective manner, contrary to: Policy ID1 (Infrastructure Delivery) There is insufficient clarity regarding: Local road capacity and mitigation Utility and drainage provision Waste collection and servicing arrangements In the absence of confirmed infrastructure solutions, the allocation of this site is premature and risks creating an unsustainable form of development. Inadequate Site Selection Justification It is unclear how Site C4S-008 has been assessed as suitable when it performs poorly against key site selection criteria, particularly in relation to sustainability, accessibility, landscape impact, and infrastructure capacity. The Council has not demonstrated that: A clear sequential approach has been applied; or Less constrained and more sustainable sites closer to existing settlements have been prioritised. This undermines the soundness of the proposed allocation. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, Site C4S-008 is not consistent with the Maidstone Borough Local Plan, nor with the stated objectives of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD. The allocation of Site C4S-008 would result in an unsustainable, poorly located, and harmful form of development. I therefore respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council: Removes Site C4S-008 from the draft DPD prior to Regulation 19; and Reconsiders alternative sites that better accord with the spatial strategy, sustainability objectives, and countryside protection policies of the Local Plan.
Formal Objection to Proposed Development – C4s (008) I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at [site location], which is in close proximity to my home. My objection is based on material planning grounds, as follows: 1. Unsuitable Location The proposed site is wholly inappropriate for this type of development due to its proximity to established residential properties. The scale and nature of the proposal would significantly alter the character of the area, which is currently [rural / semi-rural / low-density residential]. 2. Highway Safety and Access Concerns Local roads are narrow, poorly lit, and already under pressure. Increased vehicle movements—particularly larger vehicles—would create serious highway safety risks for residents, pedestrians, cyclists, and children. There is insufficient infrastructure to safely accommodate this level of traffic. 3. Pressure on Local Infrastructure and Services The local area does not have the capacity to support additional demand on services such as waste collection, drainage, schools, healthcare, and emergency access. No adequate evidence has been provided to demonstrate how this strain would be mitigated. 4. Environmental and Amenity Impact The proposal would result in unacceptable noise, visual intrusion, and loss of residential amenity. There are also concerns regarding waste management, drainage, and potential environmental harm, particularly if safeguards are not robustly enforced. 5. Conflict with Local Planning Policy The proposal appears to conflict with existing local and neighbourhood planning policies aimed at protecting residential amenity, countryside character, and sustainable development. Approval would set a concerning precedent for further unsuitable development in the area. 6. Lack of Community Consultation Residents directly affected by this proposal have not been meaningfully consulted. This has caused significant concern within the local community and undermines confidence in the planning process. I wish to make it clear that this objection is not based on who may occupy the site, but on the unsuitability of this location for the proposed use and the very real, evidenced impacts it would have on existing residents and the local environment. I respectfully request that this application be refused, or at the very least subjected to further scrutiny, consultation, and independent assessment before any decision is made.
We are regular visitors to our friends property close to the proposed site and we would like to provide feedback. We believe access would be extremely difficult and limited at the proposed site, the access is very rural and it regularly floods. Also we have concerns over road safety due to limited visibility, with increased traffic this would be a definite issue. Water lane is used locally for horse riders, walkers and dog walkers and is very narrow, and with no street lighting, footpaths or passing points and introducing more traffic would negatively impact road safety. As the area is very rural the access to services is very limited, with no gas or mains drainage. The rural nature of the area is also an important issue as it provides important habitats for local wildlife and the nature of the proposed site would massively impact on this in a negative way.
I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed Traveller site at Bearsted. While I fully recognise the importance of providing suitable and lawful accommodation for all communities, I strongly believe that this particular location is not appropriate and could have significant adverse implications for Bearsted as a quiet rural village. Bearsted has limited infrastructure and public services, including narrow road networks, restricted public transport, and already stretched local amenities such as healthcare and schooling. The introduction of a development of this nature risks placing additional strain on facilities that are not designed to support increased demand. Traffic and highway safety are also a serious concern. Many roads in and around Bearsted are narrow, residential, and unsuited to larger or increased vehicle movements. This could pose safety risks to pedestrians, cyclists, and residents, particularly during peak times. Furthermore, Bearsted is valued for its rural character, historic setting, and peaceful environment. A development that is out of scale with the existing settlement risks altering the character of the village and negatively impacting the quality of life for residents who have chosen to live here because of its tranquillity. I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider this proposal and to explore alternative locations that are better suited in terms of infrastructure, accessibility, and capacity, and which align more appropriately with local planning policies. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I trust that these points will be given due weight as part of the decision-making process.
I am writing to strongly oppose the Potential Gypsy site in Bearsted. My wife runs her small independent business from the attached farm XXXXX and her income is vital to our survival as a family and with the proposal her clients have already hinted at not being happy or comfortable keeping their horses and equipements so close to the site. It also has a publoic footpath running through it which will become redundant and horse riders will be forced more onto the roads away from bridal ways as a result causing more issues with accidents and traffic which Bearsted being so over populated does not need. This will have a catrostaphic effect on her business and out lives as it will likely mean her shutting down her business if people leave so we ask that you reconsider where the site is proposed to be situated.
I am a resident of the village and wish to comment on the suitability of potential traveller site allocations in this location. The village is a small rural settlement with limited infrastructure and services. Site suitability should be assessed in relation to the settlement’s scale and capacity to accommodate additional development. Local roads are narrow and serve residential, agricultural, and service traffic. Any proposed site should be supported by evidence demonstrating that safe and suitable access can be achieved without adverse impacts. Local education and healthcare facilities have finite capacity. The potential cumulative impact of additional demand on these services should be assessed. The surrounding countryside contributes to the character and setting of the village. Landscape, visual, and environmental considerations should form a key part of the site assessment process. I acknowledge the council’s responsibility to plan for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation. However, site allocations should prioritise locations with appropriate infrastructure, accessibility, and sustainability credentials. Alternative locations should be considered where existing services, transport links, and infrastructure are better able to accommodate additional development. Summary and Objection Having regard to the above points, I object to the allocation of a traveller site at or near this village on the basis that the location has limited infrastructure capacity, constrained highway access, and sensitivity in terms of landscape and settlement character. In my view, insufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the site represents a sustainable or appropriate location when assessed against relevant planning policy criteria. I therefore request that the site is not allocated and that alternative locations, better suited to accommodating such development, are fully explored.
At the Full Council meeting of Tovil Parish Council, which took place on the 8th December 2025, it was requested for me to advise that as a Parish Council we do not have any sites available to put forward.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed plan for a Gypsy/Traveller site off Water Lane in Bearsted. My objections are based on several significant concerns: Firstly, Bearsted is already experiencing severe overcrowding, with roads that have remained unchanged for the last century. This infrastructure is not equipped to handle additional traffic. Secondly, the access route from Water Lane to Roundwell frequently floods, and the sight lines are inadequate for the increasing volume of traffic, which is becoming intolerable. Furthermore, the local schools and medical facilities are already under immense pressure and struggling to cope with the current demand. The addition of a new site will only exacerbate these issues. Lastly, areas such as Roseacre and Madginford are already heavily congested with cars during school drop-off and pick-up times, making them virtually impassable. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed development.
I would like to strongly object to the proposed Gypsy Travellers site in our beautiful village of Bearsted. Gypsy travellers are not welcome they segregate their homes and lives from the community everyone I have spoken too is horrified at the thought of these people living in our quiet rural setting. These gypsy travellers choose this way of life away in gated dwellings and do not conform to our standards of decency & morals. Therefore, I urge the local planners to oppose this rural site to be used by these gypsy travellers to live. The access road into the site is not fit for extra traffic also coming out of Water Lane onto Roundwell/ The Street is narrow especially for lorries and larger vehicles causing poor visibility and congestion. Our shops, schools and transport are already at full capacity. Also concerns regarding the environment regarding extra waste products and drainage issues adding to flooding issues which already apply. Plus, noise, lighting and privacy which is a cause concern. Bearsted is a small village which has grown over time, I feel Bearsted village cannot accommodated any more growth. I have lived in Bearsted since 1983 and have seen lots of changes but have always enjoyed the village way of life.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted. My primary concern relates to the significant impact the development would have on local traffic conditions. Water Lane already experiences considerable congestion, particularly during peak times. The road is narrow, frequently subject to delays, and is not designed to accommodate increased vehicle movements. In addition, Water Lane is prone to regular flooding, which further restricts safe access and already causes disruption to traffic flow. Introducing additional traffic associated with the proposed site would significantly exacerbate these existing problems, increasing the risk of delays, vehicle damage, and safety hazards for road users and pedestrians alike. In addition to traffic concerns, I believe the proposed site would be out of keeping with the character and setting of the surrounding area. Water Lane is part of a predominantly quiet residential community that is already under pressure from ongoing development. Introducing a site of this nature would place additional strain on local infrastructure and amenities, and would not represent a sympathetic or appropriate use of this location. While I recognise that Maidstone Borough Council must balance a range of housing needs and statutory obligations, I respectfully request that the Council reconsider this proposal and explore alternative locations that would have a lesser impact on highway safety, flood risk, local infrastructure, and the existing residential community. Thank you for taking the time to consider my objection.
Why should the financial gain of one individual be allowed to adversely affect an entire village? The Parish Council has consistently resisted residential development north of the railway line in our village, recognising that approval in this area would inevitably open the floodgates to further applications. Water Lane itself has no street lighting, no footpaths, and is prone to regular flooding, making it unsafe for pedestrians. We are all painfully aware of the tragic deaths of Sue and Tom Corkery on Thurnham Lane, which underline the very real dangers of inadequate infrastructure. The owner of The Lodge has, over several years, repeatedly attempted to achieve a sale price far in excess of the property’s realistic market value. Previous proposals for redevelopment of the site have been rejected by planning authorities. Now, as a final attempt to extract value from the land, it is being offered for use as a travellers’ site. Historically, local authorities have demonstrated a lack of effective enforcement when it comes to controlling the number of occupants on travellers’ sites, too often choosing to overlook breaches. While all communities deserve fair treatment, there are legitimate concerns regarding compliance, and I am deeply worried about the potential impact on the landscape, environment, and ecology of this site, which lies within an area of natural beauty. I am an estate agent with an office in the village, and we have already encountered reservations from prospective buyers who are reconsidering moving here due to the possibility of a travellers’ site on Water Lane. The effect on the local property market would be significant, damaging, and far-reaching. Finally, if this location were genuinely suitable for redevelopment, planning permission would not have been refused in the past. We are now faced with the prospect of a travellers’ site with an unknown number of residents and little clarity or control over its eventual size or scale. This uncertainty poses serious concerns for the safety, character, and future of our village.
C4S (017) OBJECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL FOR A GYPSY /TRAVELLER SITE AT THE BRISHINGS, GREEN LANE, LANGLEY HEATH, MAIDSTONE C4S(017) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THE COUNCIL’S SPATIAL STRATEGY FOCUSES MAJOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MAIN URBAN AREA, DESIGNATED RURAL SERVICE CENTRES AND LARGER VILLAGES. LANGLEY HEATH IS IN OPEN COUNTRYSIDE AND HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THESE STRATEGIC GROWTH AREAS. LANGLEY HEATH IS NOT IN AN AREA IDENTIFIED AS SUITABLE FOR GROWTH REGARDING NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE COUNCILS SPATIAL STRATEGY IN THE RECENTLY ADOPTED MBC LOCAL PLAN REVIEW 2021-2038. THE SITE IS LOCATED BEYOND ANY SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY AND IS THEREFORE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. IT IS THEREFORE CONTRARY TO POLICY LPRSS1 OF THE MBCLPR. THE PROPOSAL WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE RURAL CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE LOCAL AREA. THE ADOPTED MBCLPR 2021-2038 INCLUDES POLICIES TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRYSIDE AND PREVENT INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HARM THE LANDSCAPE. THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THEREFORE WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SPACIOUS RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND WOULD INDEED BE CONTRARY TO THE FOLLOWING POLICIES LPRSP9. LPRSP15. LPRQD4. THESE POLICIES AMONGST OTHER THINGS REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO “RESPOND POSITIVELY TO, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, ENHANCE THE LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND AVOID SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE LANDSCAPE”. THE PROPOSED SITE DOES NONE OF THESE. IN ADDITION, THIS PROPOSAL WOULD INTRODUCE UNCHARACTERISTIC RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO LANGLEY HEATH AND WOULD BE HIGHLY VISIBLE NOT ONLY FROM GREEN LANE BUT ALSO FROM THE B2163. CLOSELY LINKED TO THIS IS THE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE EFFECT THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE UPON TWO GRADE 2 LISTED PROPERTIES DIRECTLY ADJACENT AND OPPOSITE THE PROPOSE SITE. NAMELY, THE OLD FARMHOUSE (ADJACENT) AND THE OLD COTTAGE OPPOSITE). THERE IS ALSO AN ATTRACTIVE ROW OF SIX VICTORIAN COTTAGES, (GREEN LANE COTTAGES) BUILT IN 1879 DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THE PROPOSED SITE. ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES WOULD BE ADVERSLY AFFECTED, PARTICULARLY THE OLD FARMHOUSE, AS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD ERODE THE LARGE GAP AND VERDANT NATURE THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THE REAR GARDENS OF PROPERTIES IN ORCHARD CLOSE AND THAT OF THE OLD FARMHOUSE. THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SOUTH OF THE OLD FARMHOUSE OR MEADOW COTTAGE OPPOSITE, ONLY FIELDS ALMOST UP TO THE JUNCTION WITH THE A274. THESE FIELDS ARE USED FOR COMMERCIAL HORTICULTURE AND AS SUCH CONTINUES TO EMPHASIS THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. IN ADDITION, TO THE NORTH OF GREEN LANE COTTAGES, AND OPPOSITE THE PROPOSED SITE, IS ANOTHER FIELD ALSO USED FOR COMMERCIAL TREE CULTIVATION. THERE ARE ONLY THIRTEEN DWELLINGS IN GREEN LANE TO THE WEST AND SOUTH OF THE SITE, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM A MAP OF THE AREA, AND ARE TO SOME EXTENT QUITE SEPARATE TO THE REST OF THE VILLAGE. SHOULD THIS PROPOSAL BE GRANTED, THIS SEPERATION WOULD BE LOST AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL AND HARMFUL TO THE IDENTITY OF THIS UNIQUE COMMUNITY OF RESIDENTS AND MAY WELL NEGATIVELY AFFECT THEIR WELL BEING. ACCESS. A MAJOR CAUSE FOR CONCERN FOR THESE RESIDENTS IS THE PROPOSED ACCESS TO THE SITE IN THIS PART OF GREEN LANE. IT IS A NARROW COUNTRY LANE WHERE A NATIONAL SPEED LIMIT APPLIES AND WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE ROAD IS A SINGLE TRACK LANE. SEE F.2.21 POLICY C4S(017) THE BRISHINGS, THEREFORE, APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXACERBATE ROAD SAFETY ISSUES OWING TO A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ACCESSING GREEN LANE. FURTHER TO THESE ISSUES, THERE ARE UNDERSTANDABLE CONCERNS REGARDING NOT ONLY THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO THE AIR AND NOISE POLLUTION ASSOCIATED WITH IT. FACILITIES. LACK OF FACILITIES IN RELATION TO THE SITE ARE ALSO A CAUSE FOR CONCERN AND SHOULD PLAY A LARGE PART IN THE PROPOSAL BEING REJECTED. THERE ARE NO SCHOOLS AND NO SHOPS, THERE IS A DOCTORS SURGERY, ORCHARD MEDICAL PRACTISE APROX 0.5 MILES DISTANCE, HOWEVER WE HAVE LIVED IN LANGLEY HEATH IN EXCESS OF EIGHT YEARS AND HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO REGISTER THERE AS THEY ARE CONTINUALLY AT FULL CAPACITY. WE ATTEND SUTTON VALENCE GROUP PRACTICE SOME 1.8 MILES AWAY AND THIS IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO HEALTH OR WELL BEING. THERE IS A BUS STOP CLOSE TO THE SITE, BUT A JOURNEY INTO MAIDSTONE TOWN CENTRE FROM THIS STOP INVOLVES USING TWO BUSES. THE SERVICE ALSO HAS LIMITED FREQUENCY APROX TWO BUSES PER HOUR. ON THIS BASIS, OWING TO THE POOR ACCESS TO THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR DAILY LIFE, FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE WOULD BE RELIANT ON PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE USE TO TRAVEL FOR DAY TO DAY NEEDS. THIS WOULD THEREFORE BE CONTRARY TO AIMS OF POLICY SS1 OF THE MBC LOCAL PLAN (2017),. CONTRARY TO MBC LOCAL PLAN REVIEW (MARCH 2024) POLICIES LPRSS1. LPRSP9. LPRSP15. LPRHOU8 AND THE NPPF (2023) AND THE SUSTAINABILITY AIMS OF THE NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK (2023) LPRHOU8. SPECIFICALLY SETS OUT CERTAIN CRITERION WHERE APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SITE WILL BE GIVEN IF THE FOLLOWING IS MET. INLUDING THE FOLLOWING- LOCAL SERVICES, IN PARTICULAR SCHOOL, HEALTH AND SHOPPING FACILITIES ARE ACCESSABLE FROM THE SITE PREFERABLY ON FOOT, BY CYCLE OR ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT. THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE LANDSCAPE AND RURAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THE SITE CAN BE SAFELY ACCESSED FROM THE HIGHWAY BY ALL VEHICLES USING THE SITE ON A REGULAR BASIS. THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED THROUGH APPROPRIATE SURVEY AND A SCHEME FOR ANY NECESSARY MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES CONFIRMED. THEREFORE THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN LPRHOU8 LOSS OF HABITAT. LOSS OF HABITAT AND A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ECOLOGY OF THE SITE WOULD RESULT IF THIS PROPOSAL WENT AHEAD. LANGLEY HEATH IS VERY RURAL IN NATURE AND AS SUCH RESIDENTS HAVE THE BENEFIT OF WITNESSING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WILDLIFE BOTH ON THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA. THESE INCLUDE FOXES, HEDGEHOGS, RABBITS, PHEASANTS AND BIRDS OF ALL TYPES. IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE TO SEE BATS USING THE AREA FOR “COMMUTING AND FORAGING ROUTES” AT NIGHT. WE HAVE WITNESSED BADGER ACTIVITY IN THE AREA ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT KNOW IF ANY BADGER SETS ARE PRESENT OR IF ANY OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES HAVE THEIR HABITAT THERE. BUT, JUST THE LOSS OF THIS LAND FOR ORDINARY REGULAR WILDLIFE SHOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED HARMFUL, AS THE BIODIVERSITY WILL BE AFFECTED AND PLACE EXTRA PRESSURE ON OTHER POCKETS OF RURAL LAND. LINKED TO ABOVE POINT CONCERNING BATS, IS THAT THEIR COMMUTING AND FORAGING ROUTES ARE GREATLY AFFECTED BY LIGHT POLLUTION AND ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY INCREASE BOTH LIGHT AND NOISE POLLUTION. BOTH OF THESE ISSUES COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY WILDLIFE ASSOCIATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED SITE. THIS SECTION OF GREEN LANE IS A VERY LOW LIGHT POLLUTION AREA WITH ONLY ONE STREET LIGHT, AND ANY CHANGE TO THIS WOULD GREATLY AFFECT THE RESIDENTS ADJACENT TO AND OPPOSITE THE SITE. THE PROPOSED SITE IS LOCATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WILL BE VERY PROMINENT AND VISIBLE WITHIN THE VILLAGE AND IN OUR EXPERIENCE OF LIVING NEAR TO AND NEXT TO MANY OF THE GYPSY/TRAVELLING COMMUNITY, IS THAT THEY VALUE THEIR PRIVICY AND ARE OFTEN UNWILLING TO INTEGRATE WITH THE SETTLED COMMUNITY. IT WILL BE UNLIKELY THAT THE GYPSY/TRAVELLER COMMUNITY WILL WANT TO LIVE IN SUCH A VISIBLE POSITION AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RESIDENTS. OWING TO THIS, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT RATHER THAN RESULTING IN A COHESIVE ENVIRONMENT, THIS SITE MAY CAUSE DIVISION IN THE COMMUNITY ON BOTH SIDES, THEREBY IMPACTING EVERYONES HEALTH AND WELL BEING. PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE. WE WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE BY DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE. WHILE WE APPRECIATE EACH APPLICATION/PROPOSAL IS CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN MERIT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THIS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY/UNSUITABILITY OF THE SITE. IT IS NOTED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE BRISHINGS. MBC PLANNING REFs: 78/1659--- 90/0321---90/0322---14/0545---15/501183---16/505995. ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REFUSED FOR VARYING REASONS, BUT MOST OF WHICH ALIGN WITH THE OBJECTIONS LISTED ABOVE. WHY THEN IS THIS SITE EVEN BEING CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT? IN CONCLUSION, IF A SITE IS DETERMINED UNSUITABLE BY A COUNCIL FOR RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT, IT IS CONTRADICTORY, TO SAY THE LEAST, THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL IN ANY SUBSIQUENT PROPOSAL MADE BY THAT VERY SAME COUNCIL. THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO THE FOX GUARDING THE HENHOUSE!
I wish to submit my formal objection to the proposed allocation of site C4S (008) in Bearsted within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document currently under consultation. Having reviewed the Preferred Policies and Potential Sites document (Document 4), I am concerned that this site has been identified without sufficient regard to its compatibility with the surrounding area or its alignment with the Council’s wider planning strategy. 1. Inconsistency with the Maidstone Local Plan Review The Local Plan Review seeks to focus development in locations that are well connected to services and infrastructure. Site C4S (008) is not well served by public transport or local facilities, making it an unsustainable location that conflicts with the overall spatial strategy of the plan. 2. Impact on Residential Amenity The proposed allocation has the potential to adversely affect the amenity of nearby residents through increased traffic, activity, and noise. Given the proximity of the site to existing homes, these impacts should be given significant weight in assessing its suitability. 3. Environmental and Visual Impact The site currently contributes positively to the rural and semi-rural character of Bearsted. Development would result in the loss of open land and would have a lasting visual impact on the area, contrary to planning policies that seek to protect landscape character and the setting of settlements. 4. Lack of Robust Justification and Alternative Site Assessment While the Council is required under the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites to identify deliverable sites, the consultation documents do not clearly demonstrate why site C4S (008) has been selected over other potential sites that may perform better against sustainability, infrastructure, and landscape criteria. Conclusion I acknowledge the importance of meeting accommodation needs; however, this should not be achieved at the expense of sound planning principles. I do not consider site C4S (008) to be appropriate or justified and urge the Council to reconsider its inclusion in the DPD.
Approving this plan will be a betrayal of all the residence of Bearsted stand for. We all know that 20 standings turn into 50; 50 turn into 100. Et cetera Watch this space. Time for the council to stand up for the people who voted them in and who pay their wages and allowances. This proposal must be rejected out of hand.
Having read the report I have a number of comments and specific concerns: The report states: "Non-strategic Policies General site design and layout Policy TR8: General site design and layout Access, Parking and Storage Provide safe vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the site to the public highway; In the case of plots for travelling showpeople, adequate space should be provided for the storage and maintenance of equipment; Unless necessary for the use of a travelling showpeople site, no vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on site." Concerns: Water Lane has no pedestrian foot path, is not street lit and is already used by farm and equine vehicles. There are limited passable places and additional traffic would be unsafe. The proposed site therefore cannot provide the required safe access to a public highway. In addition, should a 3.5 tonne vehicle be necessary (as stated above) this would not be a suitable vehicle to travel on this narrow country lane. There is only one access to the proposed site which is via Water Lane and it is not suitable for heavy vehicles and is certainty not a safe road for pedestrians. The report states: "Other site facilities Where appropriate, consideration should be given to the suitable provision of land for communal children's play space and for paddocks, field shelters, secure tack rooms, manure disposal and other equine uses on or adjacent to sites. Also, provision of a central rubbish and recycling point that is easy for all residents to access, and that can be easily accessed by refuse collection vehicles." Clearly refuse removal is important and necessary. There have already been times of disruption where bins were not collected in the village due to lack of resources, so additional residents will further impact the service in place. Will residents of the proposed site be paying the same Council Tax as other residents to ensure a service can be provided for all residents? All residents in any village need to contribute towards the services provided for all. If there are to be additional residents, the current services cannot cope and equal contribution towards funding would only be right, proper and fair. The report states: "Highways access and parking Highway layout should be designed with consideration of the movement of touring caravans or the delivery of static caravans in mind. Sufficient space and turning/manoeuvring area should be created to allow residents to easily take caravans on and off their pitches. Highways should be wide enough that a large static caravan can be delivered by a large goods vehicle to all pitches. Walking access and accessible walkways should be provided. Sites should allow an area for parking of vehicles, including ones used for work." Specifically, the access to this site CANNOT provide movement of touring caravans, it cannot cope with delivery of static caravans and cannot accommodate large goods vehicles. There is no scope to provide safe accessible walkways from the site to a highway as the only access is via a small, winding, unlit country lane. In addition, the lane floods every time there is heavy rain. This has been the case for years, but the flooding has worsened since the development on Barty Farm. The water diverts to higher up the road and the flooding covers both sides of the road and the pedestrian footpath so it is totally unsuitable for pedestrians when flooded. IMPORTANTLY – there was a proposal to have a footpath from the Barty development into Water Lane but it was deemed unsafe access for pedestrians and was not approved by the council. With regards roads and traffic, the village already suffers when operation Brock or Stack is employed as traffic diverts through the village (even though signage tries to avoid this) and there are often traffic jams when the motorway is closed. Additional vehicles will only add to this problem. In addition to the points raised above my concerns are around: ~ Water Lane NOT providing the safe access required. ~ Strain on already under-resources services ~ The report does not tell us the number of people proposed to be located on The Lodge site off Water Lane ~ The report does not confirm if the residents of the site would be required to pay the same as other local residents for the same services ~ The village residents already find it difficult to get to see a GP and additional residents would further increase the strain on this service ~ The catchment area for primary schools has reduced so it is increasingly difficult to secure school places in the most local primary schools. If new residents require school places this will further increase the strain on the school offering locally. ~ The narrow country lane which is the sole access to the proposed site is already used by farm and equine vehicles. It is only a narrow country lane with minimal passing spaces, it is not street lit and large vehicles cannot pass each other. Essentially, I agree that everyone needs to be provided for. This said, the report comments that “Having no permanent accommodation can have adverse effects on quality of life”. The report lists provisions needed for this community of people and then in same sentence states that it is important “… to enable Gypsies…..to live a nomadic way of life should they wish” Either somebody wants to benefit from the provisions of a “static” life or they wish to live a nomadic life – surely one can’t live both.
1. We endorse and support the Bearsted and Thurnham Society’s comments relating to the unsuitability of Water Lane as access. Please treat this comment as repeating them. 2. Roundwell/The Street/Ware Street/Bearsted Road ("Bearsted Road") is signposted as being unsuitable for lorries, with signs being at the junction of the A20 and the roundabout at New Cut. UK law permits static caravans up to 20m long and 6.8m wide. Static caravans are transported on low loaders. If this road is unsuitable for ordinary lorries, then it must be unsuitable for low loaders, which are much larger than lorries, transporting static caravans. 3. Whilst it could be argued that Bearsted Road is wide enough to accommodate smaller low loaders, the reality is that it is physically impossible for them to get to and turn into Water Lane because of vehicles lawfully parked in Bearsted Road. The Maidstone Borough Council has formally designated lengths of the road as parking for residents who have no off-road parking and for people using local shops. It would be an unconscionable act of the Council to remove those parking facilities just to allow low loaders access to this site. 4. The cars parked in Bearsted Road also provide vital and necessary traffic calming which slows down vehicles going through the village. Preventing residents from parking would result in increased traffic speed through the village, increasing the danger and noise for residents. 5. The lanes from the north down Water Lane from Pilgrims Way cannot meet required standards of access to the site. Those lanes are not physically wide enough to allow passage of low loaders carrying static caravans. 6. We are also concerned that caravans on this site would result in overloading local services, particularly drainage.
I am writing to you as a resident of Bearsted and a dedicated member of this community to formally object to the proposed allocation of the site referenced above (C4S - 008) for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site. My family and I choose to live in Bearsted because of its unique character. It is a rare example of a British village that has retained its heritage and community cohesion without being overtaken by excessive commercialisation or sprawl. We view ourselves as custodians of this environment for future generations, including my own children. I believe this proposal is fundamentally flawed and would cause irreversible harm to the village for the following planning, environmental, and safety reasons: 1. Highway Safety and Access (Water Lane) The proposed access via Water Lane is entirely unsuitable for a development of this nature, particularly regarding the movement of large static caravans and towing vehicles. Inadequate Width: The lane is far too narrow to safely accommodate the transportation of mobile homes without causing obstruction or damage to the verges and hedgerows. Pedestrian Safety: Water Lane lacks footpaths and street lighting. Increasing traffic volume with large vehicles presents an unacceptable risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and local residents who use the lane. Dangerous Sight Lines: The visibility at the turning point for the proposed site is already poor. Introducing slow-moving, heavy vehicles entering and exiting the site will create a severe traffic hazard. 2. Environmental Impact and Landscape Character The site is situated in a sensitive location, backing onto the North Downs. Impact on AONB: The introduction of mobile homes, utility blocks, and associated paraphernalia would be visually intrusive and incongruous with the landscape, compromising the setting of the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs): The site contains or is bordered by mature oak trees protected by TPOs. The development, specifically the necessary hard surfacing and movement of heavy homes, poses a direct threat to the root protection areas of these trees. 3. Flooding and Drainage Water Lane is historically prone to flooding. The development of this site would require a significant increase in impermeable hard surfacing (concrete/tarmac) to support the caravans and vehicles. This will inevitably increase surface water runoff, exacerbating the existing flooding issues on the lane and potentially affecting neighbouring properties. 4. Sustainability and Scale There is a genuine concern regarding the intensification of use at this location. Historically, sites of this nature can be difficult to regulate in terms of the number of occupants and vehicles once established. Village Envelope: Approval of this site would represent an encroachment into the countryside, eroding the defined boundary of the village. Unsuitability of Location: Given the lack of safe pedestrian access to local amenities (schools, shops) due to the state of Water Lane, this location is unsustainable for new residents, forcing a reliance on private vehicles. I urge the Council to reject this proposal. It is contrary to the interests of highway safety, environmental preservation, and the protection of Bearsted’s distinct village character.
We strongly object to the proposed C4S (008) site. Traffic is already extremely busy through Bearsted therefore caravans driving through Ware Street which is already dangerous on the brow of the hill. Objection to more people using an already busy Bearsted surgery plus more people using the surrounding schools. With already house building going on in Bearsted and surrounding areas the above site adds more and more to a saturated area.
It is difficult to convey my alarm when news reached me of the location of this proposed Gypsy & Traveller site! The congestion here is already at capacity, with Bearsted’s narrow roads and country lanes, together with limited parking outside the handful of shops, both near Bearsted Station and near the few shops on the A20. Our facilities are currently already overstretched. In addition, two new estates, recently evolved, the large Barty Farm Estate and the more recent Roundwell & Crosskeys Housing development, have already put this small village under pressure with effect to all the points you have listed under “Planning Points You May Wish to Consider”. To add a THIRD SITE off Water Lane would be both unthinkable and untenable, with present circumstances in this village. I would, therefore, respectfully urge Maidstone Borough Council to reject this location for the Gypsy & Traveller Site Plan, here in Bearsted for all the reasons outlined above. I have lived in this quiet and peaceful village for 25 years and am fearful that the fine and gentile character of this place would be detrimentally and irreparably changed if this new planning initiative were to go ahead, here in Bearsted,
Hunton Parish Council would like to comment on the consultation as follows: On the map which shows existing sites and allocations, it appears to show two sites in Hunton which should not be classed as gypsy and traveller sites: North Folly Road / Foremans Barn Lane junction. A caravan was located here at one time, which was allowed when the residents of the caravan worked for the landowner. However, the caravan was removed when the residents died and the landowner has not permitted anyone further to live in a caravan on the land, so it should not be shown as a gypsy and traveller site. Little Clock House, George Street. I have attached a document which outlines the history of this site. Briefly, it was only ever supposed to be a temporary site for Mr John and Mrs Olive Lee, for as long as they remained on the site. John Lee has died and Olive Lee has not lived on the site for many years, so this should no longer be classed as a gypsy and traveller site. The Parish Council requests that these two sites are removed as gypsy and traveller sites.
As a long time Bearsted resident I am writing to express our huge concerns and opposition to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site proposed near Water Lane. My issues are as below: The proposed location is clearly unsuitable on both environmental and safety grounds and should be dismissed outright. This is an area designated as Outstanding Natural Beauty and multiple Traveller dwellings will impact that considerably along to high risk of trees with preservation orders being removed There’s no way any other type of building application would be approved for this location, so the same logic should apply here. A site of multiple dwellings will also increase the flood risk due to additional hard standing that will be added Above Above all, Water Lane is an extremely narrow and in no way suitable for excess vehicular access. It will create a dangerous accident black spot in its junction with the Street as the site lines are so poor, from both directions. As a final comment the impact to house prices in this traditional, charming Kentish village will be devastating and the implications to long term residents will be significant. Surely the planning department has some responsibility to those of us who have lived in and supported this village for many years? I hope my input goes some way to cause reflection and denial of planning permission on this clearly unsuitable location.
I am writing regarding the proposed site at Water Lane , Bearsted. I consider it unsuitable because: There are currently no services to the site nor are they easily obtainable. There is no suitable access to the site and the landowner does not control the proposed new access. It is next to a National Landscape area. House building was previously applied for on the site and the council turned it down so if it was not suitable for housing how can it be suitable for a gypsy and traveller site?
Formal Objection to the Proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site on Water Lane I wish to formally object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on land off Water Lane, Bearsted. This objection is made solely on material planning grounds, having regard to the Maidstone Borough Local Plan, the Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The proposal represents an unsustainable and harmful form of development due to unsafe access, unacceptable highway impacts, landscape harm, and environmental damage, particularly within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape. 1. Inadequate Site Access and Highway Safety Concerns Water Lane is a narrow rural country lane, with limited visibility, restricted width, and sections that operate effectively as single-track highway. The lane lacks footways, adequate passing places, and safe provision for pedestrians, cyclists, or equestrians. The intensification of use associated with a permanent residential Gypsy and Traveller site would introduce: Larger vehicles, including caravans and towing vehicles Increased daily vehicular movements Service and emergency vehicle access requirements This would result in a material increase in risk to highway safety. The proposal conflicts with: Maidstone Borough Local Plan Policy DM1 (Principles for Sustainable Development), which requires development to be safe, sustainable, and supported by adequate infrastructure Policy DM23 (Residential Amenity), where increased traffic and highway danger would adversely affect the amenity and safety of existing users NPPF Paragraphs 111 and 115, which require development to achieve safe and suitable access for all users Given the inherent physical constraints of Water Lane and the surrounding network of narrow rural lanes, the site cannot be made safe by design or mitigation, rendering it unsuitable for development. 2. Harm to the Countryside and Kent Downs National Landscape The site lies within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape, a nationally designated landscape afforded the highest level of protection. The proposed development would introduce permanent residential structures, hardstanding, lighting, fencing, and domestic activity into an open and sensitive rural landscape. This would result in: Significant visual intrusion Erosion of rural character Loss of tranquillity and scenic beauty This is contrary to: Maidstone Borough Local Plan Policy DM10 (Kent Downs National Landscape), which requires development to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and landscape character of the designation and its setting Policy SP17 (Countryside), which restricts development that harms the character of the countryside NPPF Paragraph 180, which affords great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes The proposal fails to demonstrate how it would conserve, let alone enhance, this sensitive landscape. 3. Environmental Harm and Protected Trees The site contains several mature Oak trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). These trees are prominent landscape features and provide important ecological and biodiversity value. Any development within or adjacent to their root protection areas risks: Irreversible harm to protected trees Loss of biodiversity Degradation of ecological networks This conflicts with: Maidstone Borough Local Plan Policy DM3 (Natural Environment), which seeks to protect biodiversity, habitats, and protected trees Policy DM10, where landscape features contributing to the Kent Downs’ character must be retained NPPF Paragraphs 174 and 180, which require development to avoid harm to irreplaceable environmental assets The proposal has failed to demonstrate that these protected trees and habitats can be safeguarded. 4. Conflict with the Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan The Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan places strong emphasis on: Protecting the rural setting and landscape character of the parish Ensuring development respects narrow rural lanes and traffic conditions Preventing development that would cause highway danger or landscape harm The proposal is clearly at odds with these objectives, as it would: Intensify traffic along unsuitable rural lanes Urbanise a sensitive countryside location Undermine the parish’s distinctive rural character As a made neighbourhood plan, its policies carry full statutory weight and must be given priority in decision-making. 5. Conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The proposal fails to meet the core planning principles of the NPPF by: Failing to provide safe and suitable access (Paragraphs 111 and 115) Causing harm to a protected landscape (Paragraph 180) Failing to protect biodiversity and heritage trees (Paragraphs 174 and 180) Representing unsustainable development when considered cumulatively Due to access and safety constraints alone, the site is not viable in planning terms, irrespective of accommodation need. 6. Limited Weight of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD The Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD) is currently not adopted and not legally formalised. It is an emergency or interim document and therefore carries very limited weight in accordance with planning law. A non-adopted and non-statutory plan cannot outweigh clear and demonstrable harm, nor justify development on a site that is fundamentally unsuitable due to highway, environmental, and landscape constraints. The proposed development should be refused because: Unsafe and inadequate access via Water Lane Unacceptable highway safety impacts Significant harm to the Kent Downs National Landscape Threats to protected Oak trees and wildlife Conflict with the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Conflict with the Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan Failure to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework In conclusion, the proposed development should be refused as it represents unsustainable development in an inappropriate location.
POLICY C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, Thurnham The Bearsted and Thurnham Society is aware that this site does not comply with policy, is therefore undeliverable and objects to its inclusion in the DPD on the grounds of highway safety and access. 1. Proposed Policy on Highway Safety and Access a. Policy TR8: General site design and layout - Access, Parking and Storage states at point “o” that there is a requirement to “Provide safe vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the site to the public highway.” (Emphasis added) b. Policy TR8: General site design and layout - Access, Parking and Storage states at point “142” that “Highway layout should be designed with consideration of the movement of touring caravans or the delivery of static caravans in mind. Sufficient space and turning/manoeuvring area should be created to allow residents to easily take caravans on and off their pitches. Highways should be wide enough that a large static caravan can be delivered by a large goods vehicle to all pitches.” (Emphasis added) 2. Highway Safety a. Running north from Roundwell, Bearsted, to the Pilgrims Way in Thurnham Water Lane is the second narrowest lane within the two parishes and in places the carriageway is only some 3.6 metres wide. i. The images in Appendix I of this document give a clear indication of the carriageway width. ii. Images 1 to 5 show Water Lane southbound between the proposed site and Roundwell. The green vehicle in these images is a Volkswagen Caddy which has a body width of 1.85 metres. iii. Image 6 shows the junction between Water Lane and Pilgrims Way. The vehicle in this image is a JCB Pothole Pro which is 2.5 metres wide. b. An application was submitted by the owners of The Lodge in 2024 (24/500444/TPOA ) to remove three protected oak trees to the north of the metalled access serving Bridge Farm and The Lodge on the grounds that they obscured the view when accessing Water Lane. i. There was one comment supporting the application and which contained the following- “I have been using the drive to access The Lodge regularly over the last 3 years. As a car driver it is particularly dangerous when exiting the drive as your vision to the right is severely impaired by the vegetation and trees.” ii. On the application form it was stated that- “The three trees obstruct the view from the driveway of Bridge Farm onto Water lane when pulling out into the road and make it extremely dangerous especially as the road has a 60mph limit. We have had several occasions of near misses.” iii. The application was refused and it is noted that only tree T3 is on land owned by the proposer of the site. iv. The three English Oak trees designated as T1, T2 and T3 are within tree preservation order TPO No. 14 of 2007. c. The site plan shown for Policy C4S (008), The Lodge, mirrors the HM Land Registry Title Plan for The Lodge (K564029). i. The Title Plan shows that the access onto Water Lane is adjacent to the protected Oak T3. ii. The available evidence indicates that this access was in use in 1990 but by 2003 was unavailable until at least 2022 as land to the east was covered in trees and shrubs. iii. This area had been cleared by June 2024 and therefore presumably the intended access for the proposal. iv. This is further evidenced by two applications submitted in 2025 to trim branches to T3 (25/500122/TPOA and 25/501294/TPOA) where it was stated that- “There is a large branch that over hangs the double gated entrance into K564029 from Water Lane and it restricts agricultural vehicles from entering without risk of damage to the tree or vehicles. There is also a long branch that enters the land which also restricts work in the corner.” And- “Further to our recent application that has been granted on T3 in K564029, we have realised that there is another branch protruding across the double gated entrance which will also restrict agricultural vehicles from entering without risk of damage to the tree or vehicles.” The Case Officer noted that the Oak tree is a prominent feature and is one of 3 TPO Oak trees in a line along Water Lane and that its contribution to public amenity was good as it was clearly visible to the public. This would clearly also apply to trees T2 and T1, located just to the north of tree T3. v. The site was originally put forward for consideration during the 2022 Call for Sites exercise where it was stated that- “Access is from Water Lane with a, titled right of way through Bridge Farm and formerly part of the same holding.” And- “A secondary route for access within The Lodge title is available to the north and to Water Lane.” Although potentially a civil matter the Bridge Farm trackway to the south only allows access to The Lodge and not to any additional development to the east. It sits some 13 metres from the dwelling at Bridge Farm and bisects the residential garden area. As it cannot be screened in any way its use by an unknown number of vehicles and pedestrians would have an intolerable impact on the residential amenity of the property and would be unacceptable in planning terms. vi. The “secondary route for access” referred to above is some 11 metres further to the north of the Bridge Farm trackway and therefore closer to the protected trees and the ancient hedgerow fronting Water Lane. As the applicant has acknowledged that the Bridge Farm access is dangerous then, by definition, this northern access is substantially more dangerous. Water Lane is subject to the national speed limit of 60mph. At a point 2.4 metres back from the edge of the highway clear sight lines of at least 215 metres are required in both directions. These sight lines cannot be achieved. The fact that the access was used occasionally some 30 years ago is not relevant with respect to this proposal. d. With regard to pedestrian safety there are no footpaths on either side of Water Lane over its entire 450 metre length between the site access and its junction with Roundwell. 3. Access a. Point 142 of Policy TR8 clearly states that “Highways should be wide enough that a large static caravan can be delivered by a large goods vehicle” (Emphasis added) b. When being transported static caravans require a minimum of 300mm clearance on either side when the carrier vehicle in on a straight road. c. Dimensions of static caravans are listed below, with their required clearance widths shown in red. i. Small static caravans typically measure between 8.5m to 9.8m long and 3m (3.6m) to 3.7m (4.3m) wide. ii. Medium static caravans typically measure between 10.7m to 11.6m long and 3.7m (4.3m) wide. iii. Large static caravans, as specified in the policy, start at 12.2m long and 4m (4.6m) wide. iv. The articulated lorries required to transport static caravans will normally be running between 4.4m to 4.7m high with an overall length of between 13m and 16.7m. v. Even the smallest static caravan is some 25% wider than a standard refuse freighter and this does not include the clearances required during transportation. vi. The images in Appendix I clearly indicate that Water Lane, with its narrow carriageway and overhanging trees, is not capable of taking the traffic required to deliver or remove the static units. 4. Conclusions a. This proposed site is unsuitable for the following reasonsi. Highway safety ii. Pedestrian safety iii. Access b. It should be removed from the draft DPD.
Policy C4S (008) - The Lodge I strongly disapprove of the above Namely the road access, and also the building which will take place.
I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development of a travellers’ site in Bearsted, as outlined in the recent planning notice. Bearsted is a small rural village with a distinctive character and limited infrastructure. The proposed site raises several serious concerns: Infrastructure and Access Local roads, particularly Water Lane, are narrow and unsuitable for increased traffic from larger vehicles. Additional pressure on water, waste disposal and emergency services would compromise safety and service provision for residents. Environmental and Landscape Impact Bearsted lies within an area of significant natural beauty and heritage. The proposed site would harm the rural landscape, disrupt wildlife habitats and conflict with policies designed to protect the countryside. Community Scale and Sustainability Bearsted’s population and facilities are modest. Introducing a site of this size would disproportionately alter the balance of our village and undermine the principles of sustainable rural development. Policy Compliance The proposal appears inconsistent with the Maidstone Local Plan and national planning guidance, which emphasise protecting rural character and locating developments where infrastructure can support them. Whilst we recognise the need for traveller accommodation, we believe it should be provided in locations with appropriate infrastructure and services, such as near major transport routes and larger settlements, not in a small rural village like Bearsted. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the council refuse this application.