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.
C4S(008) As we live on XXXXX, we are extremely concerned on the effect that this proposed site would have on us directly. •The increase in large vehicles/ travelling show people (HGV's) on single track country lanes. There is already is a problem with horse boxes/trailers from Cobham Maner stables, on water lane and surrounding roads. •The environmental impact with possible increase on rubbish/ fly tipping and the visual impact on the North Kent Downs (AONB). •Unfortunately, historically with this kind of site comes an increase with anti social behaviour.
I strongly disagree with the proposed vision and objectives of the Gypsy Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan as they relate to the Bearsted area. The vision is fundamentally flawed in that it applies a generic, borough wide approach without properly recognising the severe and well documented constrains of Bearsted. The objectives fail to demonstrate any meaningful understanding of the village’s limited infrastructure, rural character, environmental sensitivity and already stretched local services. As such, the vision is neither realistic nor deliverable in this location. Bearsted experiences existing and persistent issues with traffic congestion, highway safety and inadequate public transport. Any additional development arising from this plan would exacerbate these problems, directly conflicting with the plan’s stated aim of promoting sustainable and well integrated communities. The absence of credible evidence showing how these impacts would be mitigated undermines the ligimiaacy of the objective as they apply to this area. Furthermore, the plan does not provide a transparent or convincing justification for why Bearsted area should be considered a suitable location when alternative e areas with better infrastructure and capacity may exist. This raises serious concerns about the fairness and soundness of the site selection process. Concentrating development pressure on a village such as Bearsted is unjustified and disproportionate. The proposed vision also fails to safeguard the character and identity of Bearsted, which is a key consideration in planning policy. Development that conflicts with the established scale and setting of the village would icause rreversible harm to the local environment and to residents’ quality of life, directly contradicting the stated objectives of the balanced and sustainable development.
I am writing in order to register a formal objection to the proposed allocation of land on Water Lane, Bearsted, for the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople development plan document (DPD). As a local resident within Bearsted, overlooking this land and proposed site. I have taken into consideration, the national planning policy framework (NPPF) as well as the Maidstone Borough Council’s duty, under the planning and compulsory purchase act (200). Whilst I appreciate and understand the council’s duty, to consider and deliver suitable sites for all persons and communities, including the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling show people community. Any site for consideration should be made considering Suitability, Safety, Environmental impact, Sustainability and the impact on the area, infrastructure and local residents. I am extremely concerned about the aforementioned consideration and location for the proposed site and the risks associated with this. Please kindly take my below comments and objections into serious consideration. 1. Road & Access Requirement - Risks of such a small country lane. Water lane is a small, single country lane, which does not allow passing vehicles and does not have any pedestrian side paths nor footpaths. This poses a serious risk to walkers and pedestrians. This risk was (very sadly) proven when in recent years, a couple and their dog were hit by a car and killed in a nearby (and wider) country lane in Bearsted (Thurnham Lane, in December 2024). There are next to no passing areas for vehicles or pedestrians. Encouraging more residents and their (much larger than normal) vehicles into that road and surrounding area, will be highly dangerous. It would cause damage to the trees and wildlife in the area. The site access itself would pose risks of entering or coming and going in vehicles or on foot. All access would be via this road, with no alternative. 2. Road Flooding – The road itself is frequently flooded, posing a risk to further flooding, water and sewage leaks down into the Bearsted village. All road and access considerations, should be taken alongside NPPF paragraph 110, which requires safe and suitable access for ALL users and not give rise to unacceptable highway safety impacts. I do not foresee any viable highway safety mitigation strategy for this issue. 3. Lighting – There is no lighting in Water Lane, creating even more danger, including all above listed dangers. 4. Population increase and negative impact to rural life and surrounding area – The village of Bearsted already has a population larger than it was intended. In terms of the infrastructure, the traffic flow problems in the village and surrounding areas. Parking spaces, local services such as shops, restaurants, doctor and dental surgeries and school places. Continually adding to such a small and limited infrastructure will place a heavy burden on the village and it will therefore be unpleasant to reside here, losing it’s rural character and quiet countryside. The constant movement of vehicles and equipment for travelling showpeople is extreme in comparison to the rural setting and access/village. 5. I moved to Bearsted for its character and charm as a small village. The desirability of the village and the value of my home will negatively be impacted by this site. It will be visible from my home, that I spent my entire life savings and taxes on. A site should be found elsewhere, where there are better amenities, safe access without serious risks, and infrastructure potential, or closer to a larger town or less rural area. 6. The site itself raises many concerns, regarding how the council will ensure the site is fit for the numbers there in terms of the surrounding area and infrastructure. It is unclear how the housing numbers are to be limited and checked and policed correctly and with what frequency. There is a lack of clarity surrounding whether these homes would contribute to and pay council tax such that all other residents do/ There is no confirmation that rubbish collection will be made and maintained, as per normal housing in the area. 7. Noise disturbance in rural areas - No due consideration has been given to noise levels. Issues on previous sites have not been dealt with effectively, and it has been proven that the local (and limited number of overworked) authorities fear entering the sites and attempting to enforce the law. Bearsted is a safe village, which is why I moved here from London. The safety of the village, businesses, homes and residents is paramount firstly, when making any considerations such as these. 8. Wildlife and the environment may be negatively impacted. Such as the trees, hedgerows and animals and creatures that currently live there in peace. The site will be visible from the North Downs, which is an Area of Natural Beauty. These natural rural areas need to be kept as they are, in order to preserve the countryside and environment we all choose to live in.
C4S (008) This application should be revoked straight away The traffic situation is terrible, the area of the site and roads is always flooded and I cannot use my local services now. A very bad idea
Please see response to the above consultation from Broomfield and Kingswood Parish Council who wish to object to the siting of a development along Chartway Street/Pitt Road. C4S-019 – see map below. Formal Objection to Proposed Traveller Site Expansion Proposal: Development of 58 additional traveller pitches on a site within an area already containing approximately 35 existing pitches Introduction We wish to formally object to the above for the development of 58 additional traveller pitches. The proposed expansion would result in an excessive concentration of traveller accommodation within a single locality and is contrary to both national and local planning policy. The proposal would place disproportionate pressure on local infrastructure, harm highway safety, undermine community cohesion, and conflict with Maidstone Borough Council’s adopted and emerging spatial strategy for traveller site provision. Grounds for Objection 1. Overconcentration of Traveller Sites The proposal would introduce 58 additional pitches into an area that already accommodates approximately 35 traveller pitches, resulting in an unacceptably high concentration of sites within one locality. The National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) seeks to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of traveller sites across local authority areas and explicitly cautions against developments that place a disproportionate burden on a single community. The scale of this proposal would undermine community cohesion and is inconsistent with the PPTS requirement for balanced and sustainable provision. 2. Pressure on Local Infrastructure and Services The cumulative impact of the existing and proposed pitches would place significant strain on local infrastructure, including: Schools and early-years provision Healthcare services Utilities and drainage networks There is no clear evidence that existing services have sufficient capacity to accommodate this level of growth. Planning policy requires that new development be supported by adequate and deliverable infrastructure, which has not been satisfactorily demonstrated in this case. 3. Highway Safety and Traffic Impact The local road network is unsuited to the level of traffic likely to be generated by a development of this scale. Traveller sites typically involve: Increased vehicle movements Larger vehicles, including caravans and service vehicles These factors raise serious concerns regarding congestion, road safety, and the suitability of site access arrangements. National planning policy requires that developments provide safe and suitable access for all users, a requirement that has not been adequately addressed. 4. Environmental Impact and Residential Amenity The proposal raises concerns regarding: Increased noise and light pollution Loss of open space and rural character Potential harm to biodiversity corridors and wildlife habitats The PPTS requires that traveller sites protect local amenity and the environment. The cumulative environmental impacts associated with this proposal would be detrimental to the character and quality of the area. 5. Conflict with Maidstone Local Plan and Traveller DPD Maidstone Borough Council’s Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD) sets out a clear spatial strategy aimed at meeting accommodation needs through a distributed and balanced approach across the borough. While the Local Plan identifies a need for additional traveller pitches, it does not support their concentration in a single location. The proposed development directly conflicts with the DPD’s objectives, which are informed by public consultation and updated evidence and seek to promote: Sustainable site allocation Integrated coexistence with settled communities Avoidance of overconcentration 6. Landscape Impact and Character of the Area The scale of the proposed development is disproportionate to the rural or semi-rural character of the surrounding area. Policy C of the PPTS requires that traveller sites in rural areas respect the scale and character of their surroundings. This proposal fails to do so and would result in unacceptable visual and landscape harm. 7. Land Suitability and Safety Constraints If the site is subject to flood risk, land contamination, or other physical constraints, this represents a material planning objection. Development on unsuitable or hazardous land would be contrary to national planning policy and good planning practice. Additional Context: Maidstone Traveller Site Provision Maidstone Borough Council has demonstrated a proactive and balanced approach to traveller accommodation through: Plans for a new 15-pitch public traveller site with dedicated amenity blocks Site selection criteria prioritising proximity to schools, healthcare, and village infrastructure Recognition of cultural needs, including paddock space for horses A spatial strategy that distributes pitches across multiple locations, including Boughton Monchelsea, Coxheath, Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst, Stockbury, and others This approach explicitly seeks to avoid overconcentration and to balance traveller accommodation needs with the protection of local communities and the environment. Site-Specific Considerations: C4S-019 Site C4S-019 is identified within the DPD as a potential allocation intended to contribute to borough-wide provision, not to justify excessive concentration in one area. There are already 10 traveller pitches immediately to the east of the site, exacerbating concerns about cumulative impact and overdevelopment. A high-pressure gas distribution main runs along the western boundary of C4S-019, presenting significant safety and development constraints. National planning policy and health and safety guidance require appropriate stand off distances from hazardous infrastructure, which appear compromised by this proposal. These factors further strengthen objections relating to safety, land suitability, and conflict with the council’s carefully considered spatial strategy. Conclusion In conclusion, this proposal fails to comply with both national and local planning policy. It represents an excessive and unjustified concentration of traveller pitches, places undue strain on local infrastructure and services, poses highway and safety risks, and would cause unacceptable harm to the character and amenity of the area. The Maidstone Local Plan and the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD clearly promote a balanced, sustainable, and distributed approach to traveller site provision. This application fundamentally conflicts with those objectives. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the development for Chartway Street/Pitt Road be refused.
I wish to provide feedback as part of your consultation process on the Water Lane, Bearsted proposal. I am a local Bearsted resident with experience and understanding of Gypsy and Traveller issues, both historic and the practical aspects of present day living. I believe this proposed location is not suitable for the proposed purpose and I object to the proposal in the strongest terms. Location and sustainability, Residential Amenities the impact on Landscape rural character would be massive. There literally isn’t any infrastructure for the existing population with insufficient local schools, dentists and doctors, this development would make matters significantly worse and would not be sustainable. Highways and access , road safety, visibility, congestion are again already issues with the narrow roads throughout Bearsted, the majority of which are single file due to parked cars. Depending on the Gypsy and Travellers activities, if they engage in pony and trap driving or racing the risk to others is significant. I have experienced this in Headcorn and Horsmenden and it is extremely dangerous. Cumulative impact on local services and infrastructure especially the Impact on the Green would be massive and hugely impactive on the local community. Many children's sport activities, monthly fair and cricket/ summer events could be significantly impacted to the detriment of the existing community Please do not allow this application to go ahead
Site C4S017 The Brishings. Site access via Green Lane is impossible. It's a single track passing grade listed buildings and established farm land. Environment pollution. Increased traffic, including heavy arctics carrying machinery will increase pollution, flooding , damage to habitat, loss of character, increased noise pollution, damage to flora and fauna. Risk of increased crime, antisocial behaviour and culture clash.
Proposal for the bridging’s site is unsafe on several previously proven points as well as close proximity to existing residential properties and has poor access.
Objection to Policy C4S(008) – XXXXX behalf of XXXXX of XXXXX, please find below a detailed objection to the proposed allocation of land at The Lodge for a Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocation reference C4S(008). As well as residing at XXXXX, the objector XXXXX. A strong objection is raised to the allocation on a number of grounds, these objections are considered against the national planning guidance provided both by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and by the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (December 2024) (PPTS). In considering this matter strong regard must be given to the approach to all development required by the NPPF. The NPPF requires all new development to achieve sustainable development in terms of three overarching objectives; economic, social and environmental. Against these requirements the site should not be regarded as a sustainable location and the submitted draft site allocation is considered to have a number of significant deficiencies against each of these objectives. In terms of the economic objective, it is not considered that this land is in the right place to support the kind of growth required. Secondly, the site is considered to fail to provide the appropriate level of suitable access to the services and facilities required to support the allocation and thirdly the environmental impact of developing this site to meet the requirements of the proposed allocation would result in significant harm to the natural resources of the area. In terms of national guidance set out in the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (December 2024) (PPTS) it is a requirement of site provision that the local planning authority is required to both enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure; and to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local environment. Assessing the allocation against these requirements it is considered that the site fails to adequately achieve these requirements. Furthermore, alongside the NPPF, the PPTS also requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure that traveller sites are sustainable, economically, socially and environmentally. In addressing this matter the PPTS further requires that the policies put forward by the Local Planning Authority achieve the following: a) promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community; b) promote, in collaboration with commissioners of health services, access to appropriate health services; c) ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis; d) provide a settled base that reduces both the need for long-distance travelling and possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampment; e) provide for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development; f) avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services; g) do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans; and h) reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles (whereby some travellers live and work from the same location thereby omitting many travel to work journeys) can contribute to sustainability. In addition, 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. Considering the draft allocation C4S (008) against this national guidance it is clear that the allocation has a number of significant deficiencies. Firstly, in terms of accessing the site at The Lodge is accessible solely form Water Lane, this is a narrow single carriageway unclassified road. It provides no direct access to public transport. Along its length is significant evidence of damage to verges, banks and hedges as a result of cars overrunning the edge of the carriage way. The provision of residential accommodation on this site would significantly increase the number of vehicles using Water Lane, which in turn would significantly increase the amount of environmental damage being caused by vehicles. The road is also restricted to the south by a tunnel under the railway that limits the size and height of vehicles that can reasonably access the site from the direction of Bearsted, which would be the likely direction for arriving and departing the site. Water Lane is also restricted to a lesser extent by railway and motorway bridges to the north. Access is not therefore regarded as suitable for intensified residential use, including for a significant increase in commercial vehicles and private vehicle movements that the allocation would inevitably cause. The access via Water Lane is not suitable for moving touring caravans in and out of the site let alone larger static caravans which would need to be delivered and replaced from time to time. Water Lane to the south would be the recognised route for future residents to be able to access services and facilities and to link with the wider road network suitable for access further afield. In addition to its width, the roadway offers no refuge for pedestrians. It is also unlit, which would increase the risk to pedestrians, at night and whilst using the tunnel. The route is not safe for children for walking to and from school. The nearest services accessible via this route would be in the centre of Bearsted, near the Green. This is a distance of over 1200 metres, far in excess of the generally accepted 800 m walking distance up to which it would reasonably be expected that a person would be willing and able to walk as set out in the Active Travel England Standing Advice Note: Active Travel and Sustainable Development June 2024. Specific facilities are the following distances from the site as identified by Google Maps; • The Oak on the Green PH – 1.12 km / 16 min walk • Holy Cross Church – 1.6 km / 23 min walk • Shops at The Parade, The Green – 1.3 km / 19 min walk • Railway Station 1.6 km / 21 min walk • Thurnham C of E School 2.25 km / 33 min walk • Roseacre Junior School 2.2km / 32 min walk As a result of both the nature of Water Lane and the distances involved in reaching basic everyday local facilities it is highly likely that future residential would be dissuaded from walking and would be wholly reliant on private vehicles to access any services. On this basis alone the site should be regarded as unsustainable for further development. As already stated above Water Lane is not suitable for increased vehicle movements. In terms of access into the site, vehicular access is presently provided along a driveway shared with Bridge Farm. However, it is proposed in the site submission that a new access is provided to serve the allocation at the northernmost part of the submitted site. Firstly, the landowner does not have control over the land fronting the highway to either side of the proposed new access point and would not therefore be able to provide the appropriate visibility splays required on the road in either direction. Water Lane is subject to the national speed limit road and it would be expected that the new access to serve the site would be provided with visibility splays suitable for 60 mph. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it is possible to provide the necessary visibility-splays in either direction or that the land required to achieve their provision is within in the site promoter’s control. Secondly, the new site access road is shown as running along the northern boundary. This northern boundary has already been subject to significant removal of boundary planting, and as a result this has opened up views into the site from the north. The allocation does not include land further to the north of the site boundary along which the access would be formed that could be used to provide viable screening of the access road or the site itself. The width of the corridor to serve the site would not contain sufficient space for the both the access track and the landscaping required to soften its visual impact. It should be noted that land to the north is within the National Landscape. The impact of the new access road would be to provide a stark, unscreened and intrusive feature detracting from the visual quality of the surrounding landscape. The proposed site immediately adjoins two areas of woodland subject to Tree Preservation Order No.14 of 2017. These areas cover the woodland hedge fronting Water Lane to the south of the site access and the tress adjacent to the railway to the immediately south of the main body of the proposed site. In addition, there are three individually identified oak trees subject to the same TPO immediately adjacent to the north side of the site access. Two of these are on this objector’s land. All three trees would have to be retained and would significantly restrict the safe use of the proposed site access which is currently an occasional field access. The works to form the access including its visibility splays, would therefore be directly in conflict with the protection of these protected trees as well as the other hedging and trees fronting Water Lane. In addition the close siting of caravans to the trees alongside the railway embankment would inevitably lead to conflict with the proposed occupation of caravans and result in pressure for further felling to occur. The impact of the new entrance, its associated visibility splays, the new roadway to the rear of the site, plus the proposed siting of an undetermined number of caravans will all have significant impact on the visual character of the area. No landscape impact assessment has been undertaken to demonstrate that the proposed site would have an acceptable visual impact including on views out of the National Landscape. Therefore, a detailed landscape visual impact assessment must be provided to demonstrate that the site is acceptable in landscape terms before it can be considered further for allocation. In addition, no assessment has been provided to demonstrate that the siting of residential caravans on this land, would not be adversely impacted by noise from either the railway that immediately abuts the allocation or motorway to the north. It is essential to ensure that as an allocated site the future occupiers would not be adversely impacted by noise, this would represent a further breach of both the social and environmental requirements for achieving sustainable development and result in significant ongoing harm to the amenity of future residents. It should be noted that whereas new built development can be constructed with varying levels of sound insulation, this is less likely to be possible to achieve within a caravan. No indication of the number of intended pitches is provided within the landowner’s submission. In this respect it is not clear whether the allocation would dominate the surrounding settled community, particularly the occupiers of Bridge Farm, and other properties in the immediate area. But on the basis there are only two houses, it is anticipated that the allocation would result in the proposal dominating the surrounding settled community. Any allocation would need to be accompanied by significant screen planting to limit visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. Even then no assessment has been provided to demonstrate that the extent and form of screen planting required to ensure the visual impact of the allocation was not going to be detrimental to the surrounding area and what this would subsequently mean in terms of the number of traveller pitches that could be provided. The allocation cannot therefore be considered without greater consideration of the number of pitches and how their visual impact would be ameliorated. In terms of services, the site submission suggests all services are provided to the site, however this is not the case. The site is not on mains drainage, existing drainage is to a private closed system which would need to be replaced. The local drainage is such that a soakaway system would not be feasible for the scale of development likely and only connection to mains drainage would likely provide a satisfactory foul water drainage solution in this location. No assessment of the ability to provide safe and effective foul water drainage has been provided in support of the proposed allocation. The site does not have mains gas supply. There is a main gas pipeline near to the site, but this does not facilitate domestic supply to the local area. Electricity is supplied to the two nearby houses via the overhead line from Barty Farm. In order to facilitate more intensive residential use the electricity supply would need to be significantly upgraded, this could not be achieved via the existing supply route and would require a new electricity supply to be provided underground along the length of Water Lane. It is therefore apparent that the allocation lacks the level of provision of the services required to ensure its delivery. No utilities report has been provided in support of the allocation. It has not therefore been demonstrated that the existing local services can accommodate or be reasonably upgraded to accommodate the scale of development expected. The provision of the necessary services would require significant infrastructure investment. It has not been demonstrated that these can be provided without prohibitive cost and it is therefore apparent that it has not been demonstrated whether the site is viable. If the site is not viable it cannot therefore be reasonably be expected to be deliverable. On this basis without further evidence to support its delivery the allocation is clearly unsound. Water Lane as its name suggests is subject to regular surface water flooding during heavy rainfall. The government flood mapping identifies Water Lane at risk of surface water flooding from a point close to the south of the proposed site entrance its entire length to the junction with Roundwell. Reference to the flood mapping indicates that there is a 3.3% / 1 in 30 chance of flooding each year. The extent of flooding in Water Lane can be seen in the photographs below. The surface water run-off from the Downs makes this road generally unsuitable for pedestrian access when it is raining and regularly unpassable to pedestrians when there has been heavy rain as indicated in the pictures. photos Water Lane in flood The area of the allocation identified for the siting of caravans is also at risk of surface water flooding, although the risk identified is lower, at 0.1% / 1 in 1000 chance of flooding per year, however despite this lower level of risk there is still clearly a surface water drainage issue affecting the area where the caravans would be intended to be sited and which the provision of hard surfacing to facilitate this would exacerbate. It would be wholly inappropriate to site caravans within this area as the occupants would face poor ground conditions which would detract from their amenity and overall quality of life. In terms of overall delivery, it is questioned whether the site is genuinely available for the form of development being put forward. It is understood that the landowner has unsuccessfully tried to pursue speculative development on the site, they have also attempted to dispose of the land to others XXXXX. It is of concern that putting the land forward as a G&T allocation is a further attempt to encourage local residents to support other forms of redevelopment or encourage its sale. As a consequence of the matters which have been set out in the comments above it is clear that the allocation C4S(008) is unsound. The submission that the council is assessing lacks the necessary evidence to allow the council to consider whether the site is acceptable in terms of ecology and trees, drainage, flooding, highway matters or landscape visual impact. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate the site can be adequately serviced or is viable. On this basis it cannot be held that the allocation is sound or that it would have reasonable chance of contributing towards the provision of G&T pitches. It is held that the allocation will cause significant harm to the amenity and character of the surrounding area and result in a highly unsustainable form of development. For these reasons the allocation should not be taken any further forward and should be removed from the DPD.
Previously specifically commented on Site C4S(017) on Question 5.
I strongly disagree to the proposal of the C4S(017) The Brishings location as a proposed site. This will have major impacts on the surrounding area which is already struggling with road usage (there would be no safe access road to the site), impact on utilities, lack of local public transport. The use of this location will impact the historical nature of the village, impact to nature from light pollution, increased flooding risks, wasted aquacultural use of the land, impact to the wildlife that live on the land (foxes, badgers, bats, owls and birds of pray to name a few).
I strongly disagree to the proposal of the C4S(017) The Brishings location as a proposed site. This will have major impacts on the surrounding area which is already struggling with road usage (there would be no safe access road to the site), impact on utilities, lack of local public transport. The use of this location will impact the historical nature of the village, impact to nature from light pollution, increased flooding risks, wasted aquacultural use of the land, impact to the wildlife that live on the land (foxes, badgers, bats, owls and birds of pray to name a few).
I strongly disagree to the proposal of the C4S(017) The Brishings location as a proposed site. This will have major impacts on the surrounding area which is already struggling with road usage (there would be no safe access road to the site), impact on utilities, lack of local public transport. The use of this location will impact the historical nature of the village, impact to nature from light pollution, increased flooding risks, wasted aquacultural use of the land, impact to the wildlife that live on the land (foxes, badgers, bats, owls and birds of pray to name a few).
See my comment under the previous heading. Access. Access has to be via Green Lane which is currently unsuitable for HGV or large lorries because of it’s width. Similar access restrictions have applied to previous applications for planning permission all of which have been rejected not just on the grounds of access but because the site in “unsustainable”. None of the policies consider the impact of a Travelling Community on the current residents of Langley village. The additional of a travelling Community will greatly increase the amount of traffic using the local roads which are already heavily loaded as are other essential services such as waters and electricity supplies. The Brishings site would need considerable development if it is to be used as the council intends, not the least of which is, utility services, roads, landscaping and hardstanding/foundations. Such work would impact badly on the following: Langley Village. Langley village is predominantly village of single and 2 story building surrounded by agricultural and wooded area. The introduction of multiple mobile homes and/or temporary caravan sites would not be in keeping with the rest of the village and ruin the character of the rural village setting. Roads. The current road structure surrounding the site is either very busy (Leeds Rd) or extremely narrow |(Green Lane). During development there would be considerable disruption to Langley residents and a considerably increased risk of accident at the junctions Green Lane/Leeds Rd, Green Lane/Heath Rd and Heath Rd/Leeds Rd. Furthermore, the linking road, Shepherds Way, between Green Lane and Heath Rd, is frequently restricted in width by parked vehicles and terminates in at a junction with restricted visibility making is particularly dangerous for exiting traffic. Utilities. Currently, electricity services are prone to interruption on a fairly regular basis, albeit for relatively short periods. However, should those supplies be further loaded, the expectation can only be more interruption for possibly longer periods. The impact of addition water and gas usage plus additional waste water disposal should be considered. Flood risk. Any additional “Run-off” water from a new build site will only exacerbate any potential problem of surface water flooding in the surrounding area. Leeds Road has flooded in the past in the dip between Green lane and Heath road. With the effects of global warming producing more intense rainfall, the flood risk for Langley Village as a whole, will increase. Developing the Brishings site will only increase that risk. Previous Planning Applications. In the past there have been 4 previous applications/re-applications to develop the Brishings site; they have all been rejected. They have all been rejected on the following grounds “Unsustainable location as existing settlement has very few services”. Local Surgery Since 2016 there has been constant development of large housing estates along the A274 within the vicinity of Langley. Namely: Ragstone Fields, The Nurseries, The Rosewood Estate (800 Houses with only a small proportion completed), Bicknor Wood and Warmlake Orchard. There are just 2 local surgeries serving these estates: the Wallis Surgery in the Parkwood estate and Orchard surgery in Langley. All doctor’s surgeries are under extreme pressure and addition resident in Langley may not easily be able to register locally in view of the extremely large and growing numbers already registered. The reasons given for repeatedly rejecting the Brishings site development will not have changed and would therefore apply equally to any development for use as a site of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show-people. Given the foregoing comments/objections I believe the site should be removed from further consideration under the Regulation 18a Development Plan Document.
The Brishings This site is not safe and accessible (breaching 96b) It is sandwiched between a quiet lane and the busy Leeds Road B2163. There would be no high quality public space (contravening 96c) and the land is a piece of agricultural land that should be safeguarded. This has, I believe, been left dormant creating a ‘brownfield appearance’ as the landowner has repeatedly applied for planning permission. All of which has been rejected. The Bishings is a large site in a semi rural location. This would dominate the settled community (breaking Policy C Planning Policy for Traveller Sites). The site has potential to ghettoise and enclave a community because of its position within Langley Heath, which would contradict Policy H 26d form Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The village has limited community facilities (breach of 97a). There are no local shops within the village. Another area developed would NOT enhance the sustainability of communities nor the established residential environments. There is no school within Langley itself and many of the local schools do not have sufficient spaces to admit pupils, especially siblings. Because of the poor local transport links, this would increase the traffic further. The roads are gridlocked now; already the Leeds Road, Sutton Road and Willington Street struggle to cope with the increased developments that have already been established. The site would contravene 97b as this would absolutely not improve the health, social or cultural well being for either the established residents or Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showpeople. This proposed site will place further undue pressure on the medical facilities, already at crisis point for both Langley and Sutton Valence surgeries as there would be limited or no access to appropriate health services. The site is also within a flood risk area. In Policy C (g) it is stated ‘do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding, given the particular vulnerability of caravans’. This would also affect the welfare of animals in regards to exercise space and access to dry pasture. By developing a piece of agricultural land that will to a certain extent naturally drain, the potential for increased flooding and damage to established buildings and grade 2 listed properties within Green Lane and Langley Heath is huge.
I am writing to object to the proposed “Traveller Site” on Water Lane, Bearsted. This is a narrow country road which is not wide enough to accommodate large vehicles such as caravans and static homes, and the trailers to transport them. The entrance to The Lodge only has partial road visibility and would be a safety risk for vehicles entering and leaving the site. The ensuing traffic would not be welcome in such an area whilst the peaceful nature of this road, used by both walkers and cyclists, would be destroyed. We have already endured a dreadful tragedy when my Neighbours were killed by a dangerous driver on Thurnham Lane almost two years ago. The area currently has a severe lack of dentists, GP surgeries are bursting at the seams and schools are full. I cannot imagine schools welcoming traveller children following a timetable of their own and flitting in and out of classes, causing disruption to all. What means are in place to collect the rubbish that a site such as this would generate? This is a calm and orderly area of farming and I would very much like to see it remain as such.
Hello, my name is Charlotte and I'm a resident of Bearsted, and have been for 15+ years now. I am writing to you to object to the proposed site for Gypsies/travellers and showpeople. Firstly, this plan would result in degradation of our beautiful, healthy english countryside: regardless of your claims to maintain biodiversity, the introduction of development and a human populace to a thriving wildlife community would ineviteably wreak havoc on the natural ecosystems. This, to me and many other residents, is a huge concern as we all value our rural land, usually MORE than we value the busy urban areas. Maintenance of our rural areas is crucial for local mental health, providing places for local dog walking, exercise in the community, and allowing our natural world to thrive. I believe as our local form of government, you have a duty to preserve the welfare of the residents and nature in Bearsted. This does not prioritise these two categories. Secondly, the proposal for this site rightly raises concerns about the difference in cultural values, and the potential for mis-use by unintended groups. I and many others have never raised unauthorised settlements as being a significant problem in Bearsted, and I believe that the introduction of a Gypsy/Traveller site would actually only attract non-existing persons rather than accommodate existing ones. The authorisation of such community settlements should be entirely privatised and individual to the group- essentially, licensed. Additionally, the cultural differences between groups and differences in attitudes will likely create conflict in the community, and could indicate an increase in anti-social or even criminal behaviour, should the site begin to be used by people that you do not intend for. I hope that you will take my consideration into account. As a resident of Bearsted I believe it is a lovely place to live and direly needs protecting as a safe, beautiful, and rural area of Kent. Thank you.
Hello, I write as a Bearsted resident having viewed the consultation document in respect of the above. Whilst the site off Water Lane may be suitable I would point that the access is far from being suitable.Water Lane at this point is a narrow county lane and you would have large towed caravans trying to share the road with Horseboxes( both towed and vans) going to and from the riding stables at the top of the lane. In addition the lane is also used by horse riders and regularly floods at its junction with The Street in the winter months.
I would like to raise my concerns with the planning application for the Maidstone Borough council Gypsy & Traveller Plan at the lodge, water lane. My concerns are that Bearsted village has suffered from heavy traffic congestion that’s continuously increasing due to the residential growth in the area over the past few years, We have seen continuous congestion problems due to continuous motorway closures That seems to force traffic through the village. This has become an environmental issue and a safety concern for the local community in my opinion! I don’t think that another residential development will be a benefit as this would increase traffic, especially the possibility of show people using large goods vehicles entering and leaving the village as this would be there main route which could raise concerns on safety issues and environmental concerns! The street is unsuitable for large goods vehicles and towing vehicles etc. My other concern is the infrastructure / local schools and General practitioners are already overwhelmed with the growing number of new developments in and around the Bearsted area. I believe that the infrastructure would not cope with more developments or more residents in this area. In the past few years we have already had a two large new developments that have been completed adding to the overwhelming population. I also believe this may cause a noise nuisance to the two local residential homes as they are located within close proximity of water lane. I also believe that this would impact the rural character of the landscape in this area. I strongly object to this planning Application due to all the points raised.
Please find my concerns regarding the possible use of the above area as a Travellers and Gypsy site. The proposal is accessed from a very narrow un light rural road that is used extensively by walkers during the summer months to visit an AONB on the north downs. The danger to walkers and car drivers is obviously to be avoided. The northern end of Waterlane enters the Pilgrims way another route extensively used by pedestrians and cyclists with many blind corners. The Southern end of Waterlane is a busy thoroughfare from the village centre to the A20 Ashford road. 2 Carehomes are sited very close to this exit with constant traffic in and out. Local schools and Doctors/ Dentists are also overloaded without the dangers of children having to negotiate narrow roads at all times of day and night. Secondary schools would require transport which currently is very limited both to the East and West of the village. I believe that this proposed site is totally unsuitable for such a use and should be discounted for further consideration.
I am writing as a resident of XXXXX, Thurnham to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed plans to establish a travelers’ settlement near our community. I would like to be clear that my concerns are not rooted in prejudice toward any group of people. Rather, they relate to the suitability of the proposed location and the potential impact on an already established residential area. Many residents in our neighbourhood are worried about the strain this development may place on local infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare services, and waste management, which are already under significant pressure. There are also concerns regarding traffic safety, environmental impact, and the effect on property values and the overall character of the area. At present, it is unclear how these issues will be mitigated or whether sufficient consultation with local residents has taken place before progressing with these plans. I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider the proposed location and to engage in further meaningful consultation with residents before moving forward. Exploring alternative sites that are better suited, or providing clearer information and assurances about how impacts will be managed, would go a long way toward addressing community concerns. I appreciate the Council’s responsibility to meet housing and accommodation needs in a fair and lawful manner, and I hope that a solution can be found that balances these obligations with the wellbeing of existing residents. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I look forward to your response.
I submit a formal objection to the proposed allocation of The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted within the emerging Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD, having regard to the tests of soundness, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). While acknowledging the Council’s statutory duty to make provision, this site fails fundamental tests of suitability, safety, sustainability and policy compliance. Highway Safety and Emergency Access Access relies solely on Water Lane, a narrow single-track rural lane with no footways, poor visibility and sub-standard geometry. The scale and nature of vehicle movements associated with Travelling Showpeople use conflicts with NPPF paragraph 110, which requires safe and suitable access for all users. Emergency vehicle access would be severely constrained, contrary to NPPF paragraphs 92 and 130, which require development to create safe and secure environments and to function effectively for emergency services. Isolated and Unsafe Location The site is physically isolated between a motorway and active railway lines, creating an enclosed and unsuitable residential environment. This raises serious concerns for resident safety, wellbeing, noise and air quality, conflicting with NPPF paragraph 135 (high standard of amenity) and paragraph 8 (social sustainability). Unsustainable Development The site is remote from services and public transport, resulting in complete reliance on private vehicles. This directly conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 8, 105 and 110, which seek to promote sustainable patterns of development and reduce car dependency. Landscape and Countryside Harm The proposal would introduce an intensive, operational use into open countryside, causing material harm to rural character, contrary to local countryside protection policies and NPPF paragraph 174, which safeguards the intrinsic character of the countryside. Flooding and Drainage Constraints Known surface water and drainage issues along Water Lane raise concerns regarding flood risk and runoff, conflicting with NPPF paragraphs 159–167. No robust evidence demonstrates that these constraints can be mitigated. Failure of the Tests of Soundness The allocation is not justified, not effective, and not consistent with national policy, as required by NPPF paragraph 35. Severe access constraints undermine deliverability, and reasonable alternative sites with safer access appear to exist. Conclusion This objection is not to the principle of provision, but to the unsuitability of this site. For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane is removed from the emerging DPD.
I wish to formally object to the proposed Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted. Kent. Water Lane is a narrow, poorly maintained rural road with no street lighting. It is unsuitable for increased traffic and does not provide safe access for residents, visitors, or emergency services. The proposal therefore fails to meet Maidstone Borough Council’s highway safety and access requirements for Traveller sites. The lane is also subject to surface water flooding. The application provides no clear evidence that flood risk has been adequately assessed or mitigated, contrary to national planning policy and the Maidstone Local Plan. Development in such circumstances is neither safe nor sustainable. The location is fundamentally unsustainable. National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and local policy require sites to be located near existing settlements with access to services and facilities. Water Lane is remote, lacks public transport, and would place additional pressure on already overstretched schools, healthcare services, and the local road network. The proposal would also harm the character of the area through increased noise, lighting, and air pollution, adversely affecting nearby residents and the rural environment. The surrounding area supports wildlife and local habitats, yet no sufficient ecological assessment or mitigation has been demonstrated. Finally, there is no clear evidence that essential infrastructure, including drainage, water supply, and sanitation, can be delivered sustainably to the site, as required by Maidstone planning policy. For all of these reasons, the proposal conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, the Maidstone Local Plan Review (March 2024), and the emerging Traveller DPD. I respectfully request that the Council refuses this application.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted, Kent. My objection is based on multiple planning, environmental, and sustainability concerns, supported by both national and local policy. 1. Unsuitability and Condition of Water Lane – Non‑Compliance with Access Requirements Water Lane is narrow, poorly maintained, and lacks street lighting. This makes it unsafe for additional vehicle movements, particularly larger vehicles and emergency services. The absence of street lighting also creates high safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, especially at night. The proposal fails to meet the access and highway safety standards set out in Maidstone’s emerging Traveller policy framework. 2. Flood Risk – Non‑Compliance with Sustainability and Safety Requirements Parts of Water Lane are prone to surface water flooding, which poses risks to both the proposed residents and the wider community. National planning policy and Maidstone Local Plan require that development in flood-prone areas must demonstrate that it will not increase flood risk elsewhere and must incorporate appropriate mitigation measures. There is no evidence that the applicant has addressed these flood risk issues, making the proposal unsustainable and unsafe. 3. Lack of Sustainability and Inconsistent Planning Decisions National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states that sites should be sustainable and not place undue pressure on local services or infrastructure. Maidstone’s Local Plan and emerging Traveller DPD similarly emphasise locating sites close to existing settlements with access to key services. Water Lane is a rural, poorly-serviced road; approving a site here would be inconsistent with previous planning decisions and national/local sustainability policies. 4. Pressure on Local Services and Facilities Local schools, GP surgeries, dentists, and roads are already operating near capacity. A new development would exacerbate pressure on these services, particularly as the site is remote and lacks access to public transport, increasing reliance on private vehicles. This contradicts the Council’s requirements for sustainable location and accessibility of Traveller sites. 5. Environmental Concerns: Noise, Light, and Air Pollution The proposed site would increase noise, light, and air pollution in a currently quiet rural area, adversely affecting the quality of life for nearby residents and the natural environment. This is contrary to the principles of sustainable development in both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Maidstone’s Local Plan, which require development to protect residential amenity and local environmental quality. 6. Impact on Wildlife and Local Ecology The area around Water Lane supports a variety of local wildlife. The proposal could lead to habitat loss, disturbance to protected species, and broader ecological impacts, which conflicts with the NPPF’s requirement to protect biodiversity and prevent harm to wildlife habitats. No evidence has been provided to show that environmental impacts would be mitigated. 7. Inadequate Local Infrastructure There is no evidence that essential infrastructure—such as electricity, water, drainage, and sanitation—can be sustainably provided to the site. Maidstone policy requires that new Traveller sites must demonstrate deliverable and sustainable infrastructure solutions. The absence of this makes the proposal contrary to both local and national policy. 8. Wider Policy Context Maidstone Borough Council’s Local Plan Review (March 2024) and emerging Traveller DPD emphasise: Meeting accommodation needs sustainably; Protecting the environment and biodiversity; Ensuring sites are accessible and safely serviced; Avoiding flood risk and harm to local communities. This proposal fails to satisfy any of these criteria. Conclusion For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Council refuses this application, as it: Fails to provide safe and adequate highway access, especially given the lack of street lighting; Is located in a flood-prone area without mitigation; Increases noise, light, and air pollution, harming residents and the environment; Threatens local wildlife and biodiversity; Places unsustainable pressure on already stretched local services and infrastructure; Is inconsistent with national planning policy (PPTS, NPPF) and Maidstone Local Plan/Traveller DPD criteria. Thank you for considering my comments. I urge the Council to refuse this application to uphold sound planning and environmental principles.
I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site in Bearsted / Thurnham - Site Ref: C4S (008). While I appreciate the need for inclusive planning, I believe this proposal will have significant negative impacts on our community and local environment. My concerns are outlined below: Highways and Road Safety The proposed site is located in a rural area accessed by narrow country roads with existing bottlenecks, poor visibility, and limited passing points. Increased traffic will exacerbate congestion and create serious safety risks for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Furthermore, access to local motorways is already constrained, and additional vehicle movements will worsen these issues. Impact on Rural Character and Visual Amenity The countryside setting is valued for its natural beauty and rural character. Introducing temporary dwellings will create an unsightly visual impact, eroding the landscape’s appeal. There is also a real risk of accumulated man-made waste and general uncleanliness, which would further degrade the area’s aesthetic and environmental quality. Environmental and Wildlife Concerns The development will disturb local wildlife habitats, hedgerows, and drainage systems. Increased human activity will negatively affect biodiversity and could lead to long-term ecological damage in an area that should be preserved for future generations. Residential Amenity Local residents will suffer reduced privacy and increased noise pollution due to the influx of people in a quiet countryside setting. Additional artificial lighting will disrupt both the rural character and local wildlife, impacting nocturnal species and the wellbeing of nearby households. Pressure on Local Infrastructure and Services Our local infrastructure is already under severe strain. Doctors surgeries and healthcare services face extreme waiting times, and this proposal will place further pressure on these essential services, reducing access for existing residents. Increased Risk of Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour There is a legitimate concern that the proposed development could lead to an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour, placing additional strain on local policing and law enforcement resources. This is a material consideration under planning law, as it directly affects community safety and cohesion. The Council must assess these risks thoroughly before determining the application. In light of these concerns, I strongly urge the council to reject this proposal and seek alternative solutions that do not compromise road safety, environmental integrity, or community wellbeing. Please confirm that my objection will be formally recorded and considered as part of the planning process.
I am writing to formally object to the proposal for a Gypsy, Traveller and travelling showpeople site at The Brishings, Green Lane, Langley Heath, Maidstone. As a regular visitor to my daughter in XXXXX this proposed development would have a massive negative impact on the character of the neighbourhood, local infrastructure, and the quality of life for residents. The perceived or real concerns from media reports where these sites have been allowed would cause huge anxiety and mental trauma to the locals both in their homes and around the area particularly after dark. Langley Heath is not in an area identified as suitable for growth regarding new residential development under the council’s spatial strategy in the recently adopted MBC Local Plan Review 2021-2038. It is located beyond any settlement boundary and is therefore in the countryside. The site is therefore contrary to policy LPRSS1 of the MBCLPR. The MBCLPR 2021-2038 includes policies to protect and enhance the character of the countryside and prevent inappropriate development that would harm the landscape. This proposal would be incompatible with the spacious rural character of the area and be contrary to policies LPRSP9, LPRSP15 and LPRQD4. These policies, amongst other things, require development to “respond positively to, and where possible, enhance the local distinctiveness and character of the area and avoid significant harm to the landscape”. The proposal has no explicit mention of balancing Traveller needs with the rights and quality of life of existing communities, which undermines the fairness and inclusivity the plan claims to promote. My specific concerns are as follows: 1. Impact on Local Infrastructure: The current local infrastructure, lack of schools, shops, healthcare, waste management and extremely limited public transport services would not be able to tolerate any new influx of residents. It is currently impossible to register at the local medical practice because it is already at full capacity. The addition of new sites will also place further strain on the electricity and water and sewage supplies. We already suffer from multiple power cuts so any more demand on the system must adversely affect it. I have seen no evidence that adequate measures have been considered to address any of these issues. This would all be contrary to the Aims and Policy SS1 of the MBC Local Plan (2017), contrary to the MBC Local Plan Review (March 2024) policies LPRSS1, LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRHOU1 and the NPPF (2023) and the Sustainability Aims of the National Planning Framework (2023) 2. Environmental and Aesthetic Impact: There is concern regarding the removal of green spaces and trees, which could impact the flooding issues in the area. In addition the proposal would introduce an uncharacteristic residential development to the immediate area which would be highly visible from the surrounding roads and negatively impact the rural character of Langley Heath. Your own reply to planning application 14/0545 refuses permission as it would “result in significant harm to the rural character of the area while compromising the function for the southern anti coalescence belt, ENV32”. 3. Impact on Local Traffic, Access and Parking: The proposed development would increase traffic on Green Lane, which is only a single track lane with no designated passing places and with a dangerous junction at the western end. The local roads, particularly Green Lane are wholly unsuitable for the large lorry towed caravans that the travellers tend to have and who also require wide access areas. It would also increase traffic volumes in the surrounding area including Leeds Road which is already unsuitable for the volume of traffic using it daily. Five Wents cross roads is a serious gridlock and could not cope with even more traffic as proven when the Loose Rd was recently closed. 4. Impact on Local Housing The proposal will negatively affect the visual appeal of this rural area and almost certainly reduce property values, indeed it may trap residents because they are unable to sell. We understand that property values are not a material planning consideration but that needs to be reviewed because of the real affect on residents mental health and material well being. The Old Farmhouse and Ye Old Cottage form an historical group of listed Grade 2 buildings which are part of an isolated cluster of dwellings immediately adjacent to the site. Your rejection of planning 14/0545 quotes that new buildings would “adversly effect the setting of the listed buildings and are contrary to NPPF 2012 relating to the need to safeguard the character and setting of designated heritage assets”. Your own heritage officers are very aware of maintaining the historical environment. There is also a row of six victorian cottages opposite the site which would be adversly affected. Developing this site would severely weaken the identity, character and setting of all these buildings. The development of this site would be higher than some of the existing houses. This is a significant concern as it could substantially reduce the privacy and enjoyment of these homes. 5.Noise and Disruption: The construction process and subsequent increase in the number of people living in the area will likely cause noise, disruption and pollution which could degrade the overall quality of life in the area. Real or perceived reports of anti social behaviour, crime, and fly tipping associated with these sites need to be taken into account. The travelling community have their own ways and traditions which they wish to freely adhere to and placing them on top of other communities is going to cause conflict and unrest for all parties concerned. The only sensible solution is to seek a location where the gipsy travelling community can live freely and are able to continue with their traditions and desired ways of living, this being somewhere away from already established living communities. This I believe would be a shared feeling by all parties concerned. In conclusion, for a site that has previously been deemed unsuitable by a council multiple times for residential development, it is contradictory, to say the least, that it should be considered for approval in any subsequent proposal made by that very same council. In light of the above points, I respectfully request that the council refuse this as a suitable site. Thank you for considering my views.
I submit this representation to formally object to the proposed allocation of Site C4S (008) within the Gypsy & Traveller Development Plan Document (DPD). While acknowledging the Council’s obligation to identify deliverable sites under the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS), it is my firm view that this allocation is unsound when assessed against the tests set out in NPPF paragraph 35, and is inconsistent with national, county, and local policy. The site is unsustainably located, remote from services and poorly served by public transport, contrary to NPPF paragraphs 8, 11 and 105, PPTS paragraph 25, and Maidstone Local Plan Policy SP17. The development would therefore be inherently car dependent. From a highway’s perspective, the local road network is substandard and unsuitable to accommodate additional traffic. The proposal fails to meet Kent County Council Development and Access Planning Guidance and Manual for Streets standards. Increased vehicle movements would materially harm highway safety, contrary to NPPF paragraph 111. This aligns with Kent County Council’s standard refusal reason relating to unsafe access and unacceptable highway impact. The proposal would also result in unacceptable harm to countryside character and landscape quality, contrary to NPPF paragraph 174 and Local Plan Policy DM30. Ecological harm may arise through the loss of hedgerows and habitat fragmentation, conflicting with NPPF paragraphs 174 and 180 and Local Plan Policy DM37. Residential amenity would be harmed through loss of privacy, increased noise, light pollution, and general disturbance, contrary to Local Plan Policy DM1. Finally, the cumulative impact of this allocation has not been adequately assessed. Additional pressure on highways, services and utilities undermines the effectiveness and deliverability of the plan, contrary to NPPF paragraphs 20 and 26. For these reasons, Site C4S (008) fails the tests of soundness and should be removed from the Gypsy & Traveller DPD.
I wish to strongly object to this proposed development. The village of Bearsted and its surrounding areas is consistently bombarded with planning developments which the local residents must contend with. The village does not have (nor do residents want!) the infrastructure to cope with the no doubt significant increase in through traffic that this site will cause. There is only one road going through the village and is overly congested already. This is not to mention the lack of school places and doctor’s appointments that the village already has. The AONB is continually being encroached upon and this will do so further. It is an unacceptable proposal and I trust it will be disregarded.
Formal Objection: Proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site at Water Lane I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on land off Water Lane, Bearsted. This objection is based exclusively on material planning considerations, referencing the Maidstone Borough Local Plan, the Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The development would constitute an unsustainable and harmful form of growth due to unsafe access, unacceptable highway implications, landscape degradation, and environmental harm—particularly given its proximity to the Kent Downs National Landscape. 1. Inadequate Access and Highway Safety Risks Water Lane is a narrow rural route with restricted visibility, limited width, and sections functioning as single-track. It lacks footways, safe passing points, and provision for pedestrians, cyclists, or equestrians. A permanent Gypsy and Traveller site would significantly intensify use, introducing: Larger vehicles such as caravans and towing units Increased daily traffic movements Service and emergency vehicle requirements This would materially increase highway safety risks. The proposal conflicts with: Local Plan Policy DM1 (safe and sustainable development) Policy DM23 (residential amenity and safety) NPPF Paragraphs 111 & 115 (safe and suitable access for all users) Given the physical constraints of Water Lane and surrounding rural roads, the site cannot be made safe through design or mitigation. 2. Harm to Countryside and Kent Downs National Landscape The site sits within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape, a nationally protected area. Permanent structures, hardstanding, lighting, and domestic activity would cause: Visual intrusion Loss of rural character Erosion of tranquillity and scenic beauty This breaches: Policy DM10 (conserve and enhance landscape character) Policy SP17 (protect countryside character) NPPF Paragraph 180 (great weight to conserving National Landscapes) The proposal fails to demonstrate any ability to conserve or enhance this sensitive setting. 3. Environmental Impact and Protected Trees The site contains mature Oak trees under Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), which are vital for biodiversity and landscape character. Development near their root zones risks: Irreversible damage to protected trees Loss of biodiversity Disruption of ecological networks This contravenes: Policy DM3 (protect natural environment and habitats) Policy DM10 (retain landscape features) NPPF Paragraphs 174 & 180 (avoid harm to irreplaceable assets) No evidence has been provided to show these trees and habitats can be safeguarded. 4. Conflict with Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan The Neighbourhood Plan prioritises: Preserving rural character and landscape Respecting narrow rural lanes Preventing highway danger and landscape harm The proposal undermines these objectives by increasing traffic on unsuitable roads and urbanising a sensitive countryside location. 5. Non-Compliance with NPPF The scheme fails to meet core NPPF principles by: Lacking safe access (Paragraphs 111 & 115) Damaging a protected landscape (Paragraph 180) Threatening biodiversity and heritage trees (Paragraphs 174 & 180) Representing unsustainable development overall Access constraints alone render the site unviable, regardless of accommodation need. 6. Limited Weight of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD The DPD is not adopted and therefore carries minimal weight. It cannot override clear and demonstrable harm or justify development on an unsuitable site. In summary, the application should be refused due to: Unsafe and inadequate access Highway safety risks Harm to Kent Downs National Landscape Threats to protected trees and biodiversity Conflicts with Local and Neighbourhood Plans Failure to comply with NPPF This proposal represents unsustainable development in an inappropriate location and should be rejected. Yours sincerely,
Gypsy & Traveller DPD consultation C4S (008) – Objection to proposal The purpose of this letter is to object to the proposal for a Gypsy & Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted (Thurnham), ME14 3LT. We are regular visitors to our family who live at XXXXX and we know the area well. In our view the following points are very important in supporting a Council decision to refuse the above proposal in Water Lane. In fact any development would inevitably have a considerable detrimental impact on the whole village given the points below. • Basic services (mains drainage and gas) are not available in this area. • Water Lane is a single lane country road with few passing points, no footpaths, and no street lighting. • A great deal of surface water collects on Water Lane often resulting in flooding at the junction with Roundwell Road. • Water Lane is currently used by walkers and horse riders regularly. Any additional development would hugely increase traffic and directly affect the safety of these users. • Visibility from the proposed access on Water Lane would be very poor adding to the above safety issues. • Tree Preservation Order trees are also located at the proposed entrance to the site causing further visibility problems. • This area is the habitat for a variety of wildlife – we have seen owls and bats and this development would impact their existence here.