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 express my concern re the above proposal. Water Lane is a narrow and tortuous country lane which without major road works is unsuitable for any vehicle other than cars. Traffic density is low in keeping with its rural role. Historically it has received some use from horse riders from nearby premises and is popular with cyclists seeking quiet roads. In its present condition it is unsuitable to be negotiated to or from by trucks carrying mobile homes. Water Lane forms part of the Kent Downs and up to now visual changes have always been agriculturally led e.g in recent years vineyards have replaced cereals. Introducing living accommodations into this very agricultural environment is to be deprecated. The southerly approach to Water Lane is via Bearsted village and it is obvious that allowing mobile home transport through such an urban situation would be extremely unwelcome. The northern vehicular approach to Water Lane is even more untenable as being entirely rural and virtually unnavigable to all but motor cars. I am led to understand that the identified proposed site has on it TPO oak trees whose existence might be threatened. I would be grateful if you would include my comments in your consultation proceedings. I write as a Bearsted resident of 50 years standing during which time I have seen vast changes locally.
The KDNL team strongly objects to the proposed allocation of Site LPR (256) Stede Row Woodland, South of Pilgrims Way. This site lies within the Kent Downs National Landscape where national policy is clear that great weight should be given to the conserving and enhancing of its landscape and scenic beauty and where the scale and extent of development should be limited. The site is located in open countryside remote from any settlement and where National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (2024) is clear that sites should be very strictly limited. It is densely wooded and prominently and sensitively located on the scarp itself, with the Pilgrims Way running along its northern boundary. The KDNL Landscape Character Assessment for this LCA (Hollingbourne Scarp and Vale) identifies the important contribution made by the woodlands of the scarp here, as well as the thick hedges along the Pilgrims Way, to the landscape character, including to the treed backdrop of the springline villages, including Harrietsham, at the foot of the scarp. Development of this site would inevitably result in a serious loss of woodland, and of tranquillity, to this part of the escarpment of the Kent Downs and would seriously harm the landscape character and natural beauty of the National Landscape. We therefore request the removal of this site allocation. With regard to proposed allocations C4S (008) The Lodge, Water Lane, Thurnham, C4S (028) Oakland place, Greenway Lane, Harrietsham and C4S (030) Riverwood, Chegworth Lane, Harrietsham, all of which lie within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape, we request an additional site criterion, or an amendment to criteria c to require that boundary treatments, including entranceways, should be appropriate to the site's rural location and that brick walls and metal fencing should be avoided.
My comments relate only to proposed site allocation C4S(008) The Lodge. I know this location well and access is a big issue. The site has constraints regarding the existing access which currently runs through, and very close to the neighbouring property. If the access was moved to the north, sight lines would be very poor due to existing native hedgerows and protected mature oak trees, which prevent sufficient visibility to the north. There is insufficient width available for the manoeuvring of large vehicles, and therefore the access would not comply with the requirements detailed elsewhere in this document.The site is located within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape and therefore if the hedgerows or trees were removed it would cause harm to the character of the area. Water Lane is very narrow, with high banks on both sides at the southern end and a narrow railway bridge located on a bend in the road, which would be difficult for a static mobile home on a low loader vehicle to negotiate. Water Lane is frequently flooded at its southern end, is traversed by water flowing from adjacent fields and does not provide a safe route for vehicles or pedestrians. Children living on this site would not be able to safely walk to school, as the road has no footpath, no lighting, is frequently ice covered in winter months and has a 60 mph speed limit. There are few if any passing places for vehicles and this would create difficulty for access by both static and towed touring caravans, especially as the road is frequently used by horse boxes accessing Cobham Manor riding centre further up the road. I fully support the comments on the access made by the Bearsted and Thurnham Society. Furthermore, the area has numerous streams and underground aquifers, and therefore drainage and sewage from this site would need to be very carefully planned. I do not consider this site is suitable for inclusion for any pitches and ask that it be removed.
My concerns relate to Policy C4S (008) - The Lodge This is described as a "preferred site" in Figure 7.1 No indication is given of the number of pitches that this potential site might accommodate, and yet the Council states that planning permission "will be granted", without any reference to this aspect, let alone any consideration of the relevant Development Plan policies. This cannot be right. At the very least the Council is tying its hands in terms of any future application for planning permission on this site. It is indicated that access is to be via Water Lane. It would be totally inappropriate to use Water Lane in its current state for access to this site. It is narrow, there are footways between Roundwell and the site and there is regular flooding of the carriageway at the junction of Water Lane and Rounwell. When this occurs, not only does this make passage by vehicles hazardous, but also makes passage by pedestrians impossible.This lack of adequate drainage facilities should clearly weigh heavily against the proposed use of this site. Paragraph 142 states that "highways should be wide enough that a large static caravan can be delivered by a large goods vehicle......" and that "walkways should be provided". This is related to the layout within the site. These criteria cannot be met on Water Lane itself, and therefore it follows that the site cannot be provided with adequate access from the wider highway network via Water Lane. Paragraph 127 draws attention to the importance of considering the impact any proposed development of any non-allocated site on the landscape and rural character of the Borough's countryside, in the context of the wider objective of protecting its intrinsic character. There is no evidence in the document that any assessment from this point of view has taken place. The site in question forms part of the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape, where it is expected that proposed developments should demonstrate that they will enhance the quality of the landscape. Some effort should have been made to take this into account. Policy TR7 in dealing with accommodation on non-allocated sites, makes the point at "g" that sites should preferably be located in areas that are not inappropriate for ordinary "bricks and mortar" housing. I submit that this site would not be considered suitable or appropriate as a site for conventional housing, having regard to the deficiencies of access and to its rural location.
My comments relate to Policy C4S (008) The Lodge Thurnham. The site is described as a preferred site but there is no evidence of what assessments have been carried out with reference local and national policies relating to proposed GTTS sites. The policy states that planning permission WILL BE GRANTED but this is unacceptable prior to a planning application being submitted. The council appears to have already made up its mind. There is no indication of how many pitches will be placed on this site. I do not see how we are expected to comment without this information. In my opinion the site is unsuitable for many reasons. The site is situated between the M20 motorway and the local railway line. The high speed railway line is of course very close too as it runs behind the motorway. This site if approved will suffer from air and noise pollution for the traveller community and is therefore not suitable. The existing property on the site was of course there before both the M20 and high speed railway. Access to the site is to and from Water Lane, a narrow country lane with particular and serious safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists including children having to walk to school. There is no footpath or pavement along the lane in either direction. The lane is unlit making walking even more dangerous in the winter months. There is constant water run off from the fields - hence the name Water Lane. During heavy rain the road often floods under the motorway bridge and at the junction of water lane with Roundwell/The Street. There are times when it is impossible to drive through these floods let alone walk through the water. During icy periods the road becomes an ice rink and dangerous to drive along or cycle or walk along. These issues make the site unsuitable for accessing local amenities including shops, schools, GPs and transport links. There are no large shops within walking distance. The Sustainability Appraisal by Lupus Consulting refers to LPRSP10 and LPRHOU8. Para 1 (b) specifically states that Traveller sites in order to obtain planning permission should be able to access local services including schools, health and shopping facilities preferably on foot, by cycle or public transport. The length of Water Lane from the site to the main road poses serious safety concerns for Traveller families needing to access such services. A site of unknown numbers of pitches will put pressure on local services and infrastructure. Water lane is already overused by cars and other vehicles, horse boxes and HGVs, which have caused dangerous potholes and rutting down the side of the lane. The Council has difficulty adequately maintaining this lane to a safe standard and Increased traffic to and from the proposed site will exacerbate these problems causing more safety concerns. The site is within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape
The Brishings is in the middle of an unsustainable village ( planning has been refused on this site since 1988!) surrounded by housing, including two Grade 2 listed properties within 25m of the site. Green lane is a single track road. It is designated agricultural land.
Comments are general as we have no comments to make on specific allocations. TWBC agrees with the approach to achieving high quality accommodation which is sustainable and minimises the impact of new pitches on the environment and local infrastructure. The policy would benefit for including a site wide management plan for the new and/or additional pitches. This has not been incorporated in the site allocation policies. There is no mention of other infrastructure such as water or electricity provision in the allocation policies. The sites carried forward from the Local Plan Review would provide a total of 22 pitches. The sites put forward as part of the call for sites total 175 pitches with five sites submitted with an unspecified number of pitches. This could therefore provide enough pitches to meet the 5-year net need for 176 pitches but this needs to be clearly stated here. Unmet need and how it is met needs to be stated clearly for years 6 – 10 and 11 – 15.
As a local resident of Bearsted with many beautiful walks to enjoy, I have been made aware of yet another development that is intended for use this time by the Gypsy and Traveller population. We moved to the Bearsted area some years ago. The beauty of the area and the calm presentation was one of the main reasons for our move. We have, over the past few years been subject to housing developments that have made the area a 'a bottle neck' for traffic, so much so that I feel my home can only be likened to living on the hard shoulder of the M20. There is little to no infrastructure to support the current developments let alone another development that this time will cause a quieter area to now become over run with more traffic and taking away yet again a beautiful area enjoyed by local residents and walkers alike. I do have questions that I'm keen to have answered: Why have local Council not informed the residents of the intentions with reference to this new development? Why did it take the Resident's Association to inform local people, quite shocking really!! We pay council tax and surely to advise local residents of the plans is a matter courtesy and respect. Why are local Council keen to remove all areas of beauty within this area? An area that people move to for that reason and for a much better quality of life as currently with ongoing developments, areas are now merging and that's not what I want and many others feel the same way. What is the reason for the choice of this land? Another concern I have is devaluing houses. Bearsted has always commanded a higher price for homes. This has also been reflected in the care taken to preserve the local area making it a desirable village to live in and a place where people enjoy visiting so they too can enjoy what the village and local green areas have to offer, for walkers, picnickers, dog walkers. It saddens me to see areas being spoilt and residents who have lived here for many years now feeling they need to move away and not recovering the full value of their property. I have been in a position where planning permission was given to a property that has really impacted on my own property and has affected my emotional well-being due to natural light now being so obscured that I have to live my life in artificial light, that is neither healthy for emotional or physical health. I live with significant health issues and since KCC agreed the building to go ahead my health has further been affected. Please could you also advise why you think that the planning that is agreed is not considered more deeply by those who contest these actions or do people who live in the area count for nothing? If this is the case this too is shocking, especially as we pay Council Tax often at a higher rate that other areas.
Bearsted ( the village next to the plot on Water lane designated for gypsy and travellers ) is a lovely place with low crime rate and strong local community . Having the idea to set a plot for gypsy and travellers next to it is not good plan and it will have a negative impact on any aspects of the area . Following similar cases in different regions , after accommodating such a groups - the effect is : 1. drop of the real estate prices in the area 2. increase of antisocial behaviour 3. rise of crime rate Latest example is from 27.12.25 afternoon : there were 2 carriages with horses running into the pedestal area in Maidstone : on Week street with not following any safety rules in very busy time . We are really concerned about the wellbeing of the village ( especially Bearsted Green area ) if this goes ahead .
I wish to lodge a a formal objection to the proposed Gypsy, traveller and Travelling Showpeople plan at the Lodge Water Lane Bearsted/Thurnham. I feel the location is totally unsuitable for this site as it has limited access and is in a quiet rural setting and will affect the local residence. The site is totally out of character within the surrounding environment, landscape and wildlife let alone the cumulative impact on the local services and infrastructure. Road safety is already obstructed with no footpaths round the area, poor visibility and there’s always a lot of water on the road due to poor drainage. I’ve lived in Thurnham Lane for over 20 years and I know the location well so please do not spoil an area of natural beauty which is getting preciously small these days.
As you may know we are a well-established hotel that plays an active and positive role within our local community. Our priority has always been to provide a safe, welcoming, and respectful environment for our guests, staff, and neighbouring businesses. When considering our business, we are required to assess our ability to meet our duty of care, safeguarding obligations, insurance requirements, and the overall impact on other guests and the wider community. Based on previous experiences and operational assessments, we have identified that certain types of groups present significant challenges in relation to safety, emotional wellbeing of other guests, financial risk, and the effective management of our premises. In particular, we have found that we are not equipped to safely or appropriately accommodate large or non-standard group arrangements that fall outside our operating model. These situations have, in the past, resulted in heightened safeguarding concerns, disruption to other guests, and financial and operational pressures that we are unable to responsibly sustain. For these reasons, and in order to act in the best interests of all parties, we are unable to support the request and implementation of a ’Gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeople site’ at the requested location of Bearsted/Thurnhma (site ref 008) as we have determined it would negatively impact the safety, comfort, or wellbeing of our guests, staff, and community. This position is based solely on operational capability and risk assessment, and not on personal characteristics of any individual or group. We remain committed to working positively within our community and supporting inclusive outcomes wherever possible, while also ensuring that our hotel operates safely, fairly, and responsibly.
I write to object to the suitability of this proposed site and that it should not be taken any further and removed from the DPD proposed plan. XXXX own Bridge Farm, Water Lane, Thurnham, ME14 3LT and have kept their horses at the property for a number of years prior to their purchase. As regular visitor to their horses and now home I am very familiar with the proposed site, the surrounding area aswell as history and services of the properties. Water Lane is a busy narrow country lane with few passing points and throughout the year has a great deal of surface water running over it (which i understand runs off the surrounding land). There have been a number of times that I have visited when the road has been flooded where it meets the Roundwell aswell as north of the proposed site under the motorway bridge. As it is, Water Lane is used by many walkers, dog walkers and horse riders, and with the volume of traffic, especially when the road is covered in water this is quite dangerous to these users as there are no footpaths or street lights. Any sort of development would inevitably cause more traffic and therefore more risk and danger along the road. The Lodge accesses their property / land over a driveway owned XXXX / Bridge Farm. North of Bridge Farms entrance driveway, in very recent times the owners of The Lodge have removed bushes and trees from their land where it meets Water Lane. Joining Water Lane from the driveway in a car a great deal of care needs to be taken as visibility is limited given the trees/hedges that remain and the layout of the road itself. Reading the application made by the owners of the Lodge they are proposing to create a new entrance to their land from Water Lane which will be north of Bridge Farms existing entrance way. In 2024 the owners of The Lodge submitted an application to remove TPO'd trees from their land closest to Water Lane ( which was refused) stating that the "3 trees obstructed the view from Bridge Farms driveway when pulling onto the road" and making it "extremely dangerous" and a comment supporting this application stated "as a car driver it is particularly dangerous when exiting the drive as your vision is to the right is severely impaired by tree and vegetation". Given that the 3 TPO'd trees remain ( one on the Lodges land and the other 2 in another farmers field) along with the mature hedges on that farmers land and that the proposed access would be north of Bridge Farms existing access then visibility will be even more restricted and with the likely hood of larger / slower vehicles using the proposed access this would be even more dangerous and therefore unsuitable access. The sites application suggests that all services are available. I understand that The Lodge and Bridge Farm share the ownership of the pipe that supplies both properties with water and that given that this pipe is a small diameter and has to travel a considerable distance from the mains supply water pressure is extremely low and flows very slowly. Any additional users would further reduce this flow and therefore any new development would need to have its own water supply. There is no mains drainage to either Bridge Farm or The Lodge and I understand that connection to the mains would not be practical or possible given the location of the property. Neither property has a main gas supply. I understand XXXX enquiries to Gas suppliers that there is a mains gas pipeline nearby but this pipeline does not facilitate domestic supply in the local area. Bridge Farm has historically enjoyed the quiet unspoilt countryside close to The Downs with The Lodge, (a small 2 bedroomed bungalow) as its only neighbour. With The Lodges land on both Bridge Farms Northern and Eastern boundary any form of development would be a significant negative impact to Bridge Farm and the local countryside as it will bring additional homes, vehicles and people. On my visits I have seen many wild animals including buzzards, bats, and owls and any development will no doubt disturb these animals habitats. In summary I object to the inclusion of site C4S (008), The Lodge, Water Lane, ME14 3LT in the DPD plan as it is not a suitable location given : Water Lane is an unsuitable road Access would be dangerous and unsuitable. The sites services are unsuitable The negative impact any development would have on existing properties and the local countryside.
I wish to lodge our household’s strong objection to the above proposed site, off Bearsted’s Water Lane. We live in XXXX, Thurnham, probably the nearest properties to the proposed site as the crow flies and understandably have concerns that my wife Jacqueline and stepson Charles Woodward feel should be seriously considered. It goes without saying that a site such as this would impact all the following points negatively. We moved from within Bearsted to the Sycamores development because of its residential amenity, but living as close as we might to the proposed site would directly affect our privacy with the additional noise and light pollution and with the proposed location in a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, this would surely impact the landscape visually too, while also affecting the present rural character of the area? Bearsted’s Water Lane is already renowned for regular flooding at all times of the year, so any increased demands on drainage or hedgerow removal will affect local environment and ecology and wildlife. The change from the current one or two dwellings to a multi plot site will without question, create repercussions on highways and access with increased congestion, reduced road safety and poor visibility in the area which are regular rat runs when the M20 has issues (frequently with Operation Brock). All of this has a cumulative impact, adding further pressure on already stretched local schools, services and infrastructure. This location is simply neither suitable nor sustainable for a gypsy and traveller site. Having mentioned the above points, it would be Interesting to understand the expectation how such a site’s implementation would benefit or contribute to the local community? As a resident of Kent all my life and Bearsted for well over 30 years, having discussed this proposal with our neighbours, I think it only fair and balanced to share that all my neighbours sadly have only negative experiences of the Traveller Community, in light of and completely unlike (surely impartial?) Maidstone Borough Council’s Cabinet Member Tony Harwood’s somewhat rose tinted childhood view, which was permitted to be published in his Foreword in the Development Plan Document. I look forward to this application being refused. Thank you.
POLICY C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, Thurnham We, as local residents, write to express our concerns about the above proposed development plan on the basis that is does not comply with policy, is therefore undeliverable and we object to its inclusion in the DPD on the grounds of highway safety and access for the following reasons:- 1. Proposed Policy on Highway Safety and Access 2. Highway Safety a. 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. b. 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. c. 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 reasons- i. Highway safety ii. Pedestrian safety iii. Access b. It should be removed from the draft DPD. It would in our opinion be extremely dangerous to even consider this proposal and would urge Maidstone Borough Council to re-consider this application and indeed more suitable sites.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of a Gypsy and Traveller site on Water Lane. My objection is based on several material planning considerations, particularly highway safety, the unsuitability of the local infrastructure (including drainage provision), and the detrimental impact the proposal would have on the rural character of the area. Highway Safety and Access Water Lane is, at best, a single-track rural lane with very limited passing opportunities. There are no designated pedestrian footways, and verges are narrow with poor visibility in several locations. The lane is used by local residents, agricultural vehicles, walkers, cyclists, and horse riders. Any increase in traffic, particularly from larger vehicles, would significantly increase safety risks. The absence of pedestrian infrastructure makes the lane unsuitable for additional development-related traffic. Local Infrastructure and Drainage The proposed site does not have access to mains drainage. Reliance on alternative drainage solutions in this location raises serious concerns regarding capacity, long-term management, and the potential risk to the local environment and watercourses. The existing infrastructure in the area is limited and rural in nature, and is not designed to support additional residential development. Introducing such a use would place unacceptable pressure on infrastructure that is already constrained. Character of the Area and Landscape Impact Water Lane and its surroundings are defined by their open, rural character. The proposed development would introduce built form, hardstanding, and associated activity that would be out of keeping with the established character of the area. This would result in a harmful visual impact and an erosion of the rural landscape, contrary to the character and appearance of the countryside. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above—unsafe access, inadequate infrastructure including lack of mains drainage, and unacceptable harm to the rural character and landscape—I consider the proposed development to be unsuitable for this location and contrary to sound planning principles. I respectfully request that the council takes these concerns fully into account and refuses planning permission for this proposal.
I set out my concerns below in respect of the above, which relates to a possible Gypsy/Traveller site at Water Lane Bearsted:- 1. Water Lane is completely unsuitable for large cars or commercial vehicles of the type frequently used by gypsies and travellers, and certainly it is not suitable for towing caravans, either static or touring. The road is a very narrow, single track lane, with numerous hills and blind bends, making it extremely difficult for pedestrians or drivers to see any oncoming vehicles. There are no official passing places, and only a few muddy widenings which have been created by vehicles being forced off the road to allow oncoming vehicles to pass. There is no pavement and no lighting, making it already extremely dangerous for pedestrians in particular. This would become more so if traffic were to increase, which it inevitably would if consent for such a site were to be given. Such a site would also create an increase in pedestrians using the lane, including children of gypsy and traveller families, who would be at significant risk. Furthermore, the lane frequently runs with water, and in the winter it regularly floods to a considerable degree. I have often seen it completely flooded across the entire width at its junction with Roundwell, several inches, and sometimes more, deep. I last saw it flooded in this manner on 18th December 2025, when I happened to be driving past the junction. The lane is particularly dangerous in winter, because the surface water can turn to ice, leading to vehicles skidding out of control, or pedestrians falling, possibly into the path of vehicles, with potentially fatal results. Although I have lived in the Bearsted area for many years, and I walk daily, I have always avoided Water Lane, because I consider it too dangerous for pedestrians. 2. The junction at Water Lane into Roundwell is generally unsuitable especially for commercial vehicles or any type of trailer or towed vehicles. There is a considerable bend in Roundwell at the junction, making it very difficult for vehicles to pull out safely from Water Lane. 3.The site entrance itself does not provide sufficient space or site lines, safely to pull into and out of when towing caravans or trailers in particular. 4. Because of the difficulties with the lane, and the proposed access, it may prove difficult for emergency vehicles to attend the site. 4. I understand that the proposed site itself often suffers from flooding, making it unsuitable for occupation. Furthermore, as hard standing would have to be provided for the pitches, this would cause more water run off, increasing the risk of flooding. 5. The site can be seen from the Downs, which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The creation of numerous pitches, with their ancillary parking and other amenities would detract considerably from the visual amenity of this area.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed traveller site under planning application C4S(017) The Brishings, located at C4S(017) which is directly adjacent to XXXX Treetops, shepherds way, Langley ME173LJ. And Green lane listed properties. My objection is based on the following considerations: 1. Immediate Proximity and Impact on Residential Amenity XXXX is directly adjacent to the field identified for the proposed development. The scale and nature of the proposal would result in a significant and unacceptable impact on residential amenity through increased noise, activity, lighting, and loss of privacy. The development would fundamentally alter the quiet, rural character of the area and materially harm the enjoyment of my home. 2. Drainage, Water Runoff, and Flood Risk Running between the proposed site and my property is an existing shared runoff water gully, which carries surface water from the field and discharges into the public sewer. Any alteration to the field, including hardstanding, loss of vegetation, or changes in land use, will directly affect water flow and poses a clear risk of increased runoff impacting my property. The proposal must demonstrate how surface water will be managed. The introduction of septic tanks in close proximity to residential dwellings and an existing watercourse raises serious concerns regarding pollution, groundwater contamination, and sewer capacity. 3. Highway Safety and Access Constraints The proposed site is accessed via a single-lane road with poor visibility at junctions. The road is too narrow to accommodate two vehicles travelling in opposite directions, already experiences congestion, and has no pavements. Pedestrian safety would therefore be severely compromised. The road is demonstrably unsuitable for increased traffic levels, particularly larger vehicles such as caravans, service vehicles, and towing vehicles. There is no safe or practical access for such vehicles, and the proposal would significantly increase highway danger for residents and other road users. 4. Infrastructure and Services Local infrastructure, including drainage, water supply, and sewage systems, is not designed to support development of this nature or scale. Proposals of servicing the site prare not in keeping with the locality and would have to be proven and guaranteed to be sustainable or adequate. 5. Environmental Impact and Loss of Biodiversity The proposal would involve deforestation of the site, resulting in the loss of established trees, natural habitat, and protected local wildlife, including species known to be rare in the area. This represents a clear conflict with policies aimed at protecting biodiversity and the natural environment. 6. Light, Noise, and Rural Character The introduction of artificial lighting, increased activity, and vehicle movements would have a detrimental impact on the rural character of the area. Noise and light pollution ,would extend into neighbouring residential properties, including my own, and would be out of keeping with the existing environment. 7. Lack of Mitigation and Alternative Sites The application fails to demonstrate how the significant impacts outlined above would be adequately mitigated. It is also unclear whether less sensitive alternative sites have been properly considered, particularly those not immediately adjacent to existing homes. This objection is based solely on material planning considerations and not on the personal characteristics of any group. I respectfully request that Maidstone Council gives full weight to the concerns raised above when determining this application.
I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposal to allocate Site C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane as a potential Gypsy and Traveller site within the emerging Gypsy, Traveller & Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document. My objections are based solely on material planning considerations, as required by national and local planning policy. 1. Highway Safety and Unsuitable Access Water Lane is a narrow rural lane, with no footpaths, limited passing opportunities, and restricted visibility at several points. The lane already struggles with existing residential, agricultural, and service-vehicle traffic. From Woodland Grove, residents rely on Water Lane for safe access to local roads. The addition of a site generating larger vehicles (towing caravans, service vehicles, and day-to-day traffic) would significantly increase: conflict points, reversing movements, and risks to pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders. This conflicts with NPPF requirements for safe and suitable access and Maidstone’s own highways standards, which emphasise safe visibility splays and appropriate road widths. 2. Landscape and Rural Character Harm This location lies within a valued area of open countryside, forming part of the rural setting between Bearsted and Thurnham. Introducing hardstanding, utility buildings, lighting columns, fencing, and multiple pitches would fundamentally alter the: openness of the landscape, rural visual character, and tranquillity of the area. This is contrary to: Local Plan Policy SP17 – Countryside Protection, DM30 – Design and Local Character, and Parts of the NPPF emphasising rural landscape protection. 3. Impact on Protected Trees and Ecology The Lodge site includes significant, high-quality Oak trees, several understood to be subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). Development involving: new hardstanding, service trenches, parking areas, or new access works would almost certainly encroach on root protection areas and threaten these protected trees. Furthermore, Water Lane and the surrounding fields provide habitat for bats, birds, and other wildlife. The proposal risks loss of biodiversity, contrary to planning policy requiring ecological protection and measurable biodiversity net gain. 4. Unsustainable Location The site is not within reasonable walking distance of shops, schools, healthcare, or public transport. Water Lane has no footways, no lighting, and is unsafe for pedestrian travel to Bearsted village or the station. Residents would be forced to rely on private vehicles for all needs, which conflicts with: Local Plan sustainability objectives, and PPTS guidance, which asks councils to locate sites where residents can access services safely and sustainably. 5. Cumulative Impact on the Area The immediate Bearsted/Thurnham area has already seen significant development pressure. Adding a site here would compound: traffic congestion, pressure on primary schools and GP practices, and erosion of rural separation between communities. The cumulative impact has not been adequately assessed in the site’s consideration. 6. Conflict with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) The PPTS states that local authorities must ensure traveller sites: have safe access, are not located in areas of high landscape sensitivity, support good community relations, and avoid placing undue strain on local infrastructure. This site clearly fails on multiple PPTS tests, including safety, sustainability, and landscape compatibility. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council removes Site C4S (008) from further consideration in the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people DPD. This is an inappropriate and unsustainable location for any form of residential development, and the harm to highway safety, rural character, protected trees, and local sustainability is clear and significant.
I am writing to object to the proposed traveller site at Water Lane Bearsted. This beautiful and peaceful rural area of Bearsted would be affected detrimentally by the presence of a site if this kind. Apart from being an eye sore, the increased traffic would not be welcomed and a community of this kind would not contribute any benefit to the village of Bearsted. There have been recent unpleasant and violent incidents relating to the travelling community and unfortunately this has strengthened the argument against this proposal.
I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site located at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted (Thurnham), reference C4S (008). Water Lane is a narrow country lane used by walkers and horse riders daily. Increased traffic, particularly large vehicles transporting horses or caravans, increases the potential for a serious accident, similar to the one seen in Thurnham Lane in 2024 where 2 dog walker and their pets were killed after being hit by a car. Also, Water Lane regularly floods and in the winter is very icy, which causes further risks to users. The site is in an area of the Kent Downs and building structures will interfere with the visual impact of this landscape. There are also a number of important Oak trees on the potential site which are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. Owners of these protected trees must not carry out or permit damage to them. It is hard to see how the trees will remain unaffected by any development. In addition to the protected trees there is a wealth of wildlife in this area which would be adversely affected. The Bearsted & Thurnham area has seen 2 recent developments and it is hard to see how the local infrastructure can sustain further development One further point, quite rightly the council expect comments regarding the proposed development to be factual and not driven by an emotional response. However, Tony Harwood has written a foreword to the planning document which recalls his childhood and fond memories. Surely this is a breach of the council’s own regulations.
I wish to raise my objections to the above proposed site in Water Lane, Bearsted on the following grounds – The site lies within the Kent Downs AONB, which has already been identified as an area to be protected against development for its intrinsic beauty, character and flora/fauna. The site is located off Water Lane, which is a narrow single track lane in places, that as its name implies, suffers from being a water course in times of excessive rainfall and can cause severe problems with vehicular access. The Lane is wholly unsuitable for coping with additional significant traffic from future developments because of its lack of width, no pavements for walkers and very limited passing places for vehicles. The entrance to the proposed site from Water Lane would be via a narrow access road designed for single dwellings and would not be suitable to convey significant traffic from the site. In addition the junction of Water Lane with The Street is close to a dangerous bend and would present a greater potential for road accidents involving traffic leaving Bearsted & Water Lane. Bearsted Green is already a vehicular congestion point because of necessary local roadside parking and traffic from the M20/A20 using it as a cut-through and is easily exacerbated by any size of lorry seeking a short cut. Any future developments in Bearsted will only serve to make this situation worse. The proposed site would add additional pressure to the community’s basic services of schooling, primary medical care and dentistry, which are already unable to provide effective services for Bearsted residents.
I write to formally object to the inclusion of Site C4S (008), The Lodge, Water Lane, Thurnham, within the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document. I am a local resident of the Bearsted/Thurnham area within Maidstone Borough. My objection is founded on clear conflicts with national planning policy, the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021–2038, Kent County Council highway standards, and the statutory duty relating to the Kent Downs National Landscape (previously Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The allocation of this site would result in unacceptable harm to highway safety, the natural and historic environment, residential amenity, and local infrastructure. It is, therefore, neither suitable nor sustainable and should be rejected for the following reasons outlined below; Highway Safety and Site Access Water Lane is a narrow, single-track rural lane with a 60mph national speed limit with very limited passing places, substandard geometry, poor forward visibility, and only partial pedestrian footway. The road fails to meet basic highway safety expectations for intensified use. The proposed allocation would inevitably lead to increased vehicular movements, including towing vehicles, large vans, HGV-type vehicles and heavy machinery for the delivery and siting of static and touring caravans. In certain places along Water Lane the carriageway is only 3.6m wide thereby providing insufficient space and turning/manoeuvring area to permit residents to easily take caravans on and off the site. This is fundamentally incompatible with Kent County Council Highway Design Guide standards, which require developments to demonstrate safe and suitable access for all users. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 116 states that development should only be prevented on highway grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. In this case, the constraints of Water Lane mean that such an impact would be unavoidable. Highways standards require that highways should be wide enough that a large static caravan can be delivered by a large goods vehicle to all pitches. Furthermore, NPPF paragraph 115 requires that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Given the width constraints of Water Lane, the lack of footway, the presence of vulnerable road users, and the inability of the lane to safely accommodate increased traffic volumes or vehicle size, these requirements cannot be met. The seriousness of these concerns is reinforced by the tragic fatalities of Mr & Mrs Corkery that occurred on an adjacent and materially identical rural road less than 0.5 miles away, highlighting the very real and proven dangers of inadequate infrastructure in this area. To knowingly allocate a site that would intensify use of such roads would be irresponsible and contrary to the Council’s duty to promote highway safety. Trees, Landscape and Environmental Protection At the entrance to this site are three mature English Oak trees designated as T1, T2 and T3 protected by Tree Preservation Order No. 14 of 2007. Within the confines of this site are areas designated areas of Woodlands with TPOs designated W3 consisting of Common Ash, Willow, Sycamores, Poplars, English Oak, Field Maple and Hawthorn. These trees are a significant landscape feature and contribute materially to local character, biodiversity, and ecological resilience. Development of this site would place these protected trees at unacceptable risk, whether through direct loss, root protection area incursion, changes in ground levels, or compaction from vehicle movements and hardstanding. This directly conflicts with the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021-2038 LPRSP15, which requires the protection and enhancement of the natural environment, including trees subject to preservation orders. It is also inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 187, which requires development to protect and enhance valued landscapes and features. Kent Downs National Landscape (formerly AONB) Setting and Landscape Harm The site lies on the very edge of the Kent Downs National Landscape and forms part of its immediate rural setting. Under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Maidstone Borough Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape (previously AONB). Policy LPRSP4 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021–2038 gives great weight to conserving landscape character and scenic beauty when considering new settlements in AND around the Kent Downs National Landscape. The introduction of caravans, hardstanding, lighting, fencing, and associated infrastructure would cause substantial harm to the rural character of the area and the setting of the AONB. This is further reinforced by NPPF, which affords the highest status of protection to AONBs, whereby paragraph 20 requires that great weight be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. The proposed allocation fails this test and would result in lasting and unjustified landscape harm. Policies LPRSP9 (Development in the Countryside - Kent Downs National Landscape and its Setting) and LPRQD4 (Design Principles in the Countryside), seek to protect landscape character, public amenity, and enjoyment of the countryside. Most notably stipulating that; “ 6.140 The council has a statutory duty…including the great weight afforded in national policy to its conservation and enhancement. Within the National Landscape, the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2021 – 2026 provides a framework for conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. The council has adopted the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan and will support its implementation. Open countryside to the immediate south of the National Landscape forms a large extent of the setting for this designation. In Maidstone, this is a sensitive landscape that is coming under threat from inappropriate development and is viewed as a resource that requires conservation and enhancement where this supports the purposes of the National Landscape. 6.141 The council will ensure development proposals conserve and enhance the natural beauty, distinctive character, biodiversity and setting of the AONB, taking into account the economic and social well-being of the area… 6.142 New development in the National Landscape should demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the national policy… 6.143 The above considerations apply to the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape. The Management Plan state that the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape is the land outside the designated area which is visible from the National Landscape and from which the National Landscape can be seen… 6.144 The foreground of the National Landscape and the wider setting is taken to include the land which sits at and beyond the foot of the scarp slope of the North Downs and the wider views thereof…the setting of the Kent Downs AONB is ‘broadly speaking the land outside the designated area which is visible from the AONB…Having due regard to the purposes of the designation is part of the council’’s statutory duty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. National policy (NPPF and NPPG) states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Landscape. The duty is relevant to proposals outside the boundary of the National Landscape which may have an impact on the statutory purposes of the National Landscape…incompatibility with their surroundings…movement, reflectivity and colour are likely to affect impact…The Kent Downs AONB Management Plan advises that ‘where the qualities of the National Landscape which were instrumental in reasons for its designation are affected then the impacts should be given considerable weight in decisions. This particularly applies to views to and from the scarp of the North Downs’ ” Flooding and Drainage Constraints There are known and ongoing flooding issues at the southern end of Water Lane, demonstrating that the local drainage network is already under significant strain. Additional development on this site would increase surface water run-off through the introduction of hardstanding and intensified use, exacerbating existing problems as well as affecting highway safety. This conflicts with Issue 8 - Managing risk of flooding from all sources of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review Summary Document, which requires developments demonstrate appropriate drainage and ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. It also conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 170-172, which directs that development should not increase flood risk and should be steered away from areas with known drainage constraints. Infrastructure Capacity, Amenity and Character Infrastructure and local services in Bearsted and Thurnham are already under significant pressure, including roads, healthcare provision, education, and community facilities. The allocation of this site would add to these pressures without any identified or deliverable mitigation, contrary to the principles of sustainable development set out in NPPF paragraph 8. In addition, the likely increase in noise, activity, artificial lighting, and movements of larger vehicles would materially harm residential amenity and the tranquillity of the countryside. This conflicts with Policy LPRQD1 (Sustainable Design) of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021– 2038, which requires development protect the amenity of existing communities. It also evidently contravenes LPRQD4 (Design Principles in the Countryside), as it would indeed negatively impact on the appearance and character of the landscape. Policy LPRENV3: Caravan storage in the countryside would also be in contravention with such a concentration of sites within and around the Kent Downs National Landscape and it’s setting. Ecology, Protected Species and Public Rights of Way There is a well-established presence of bats within the wider area, and given the semi-rural nature of the site, the presence of mature trees (including three protected English Oaks), hedgerows, and suitable foraging and commuting corridors, there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being present. While it cannot be confirmed with certainty at this stage, the characteristics of the site and surrounding landscape indicate a realistic prospect of Great Crested Newts occurring within the vicinity. In accordance with the precautionary principle set out in NPPF paragraph 187, and Policies LPRSP14(a) (Natural Environment) and LPRSP15 (Principles of good design) of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021–2038, land should not be allocated where there is insufficient ecological evidence to demonstrate that protected species and their habitats would not be harmed or where impacts cannot be adequately mitigated. A public footpath runs along the eastern boundary of the proposed site and is regularly used by ramblers and dog walkers alike for public right of way providing access to the Kent Downs National Landscape. The introduction of a traveller site at this location, with associated activity, noise, lighting, fencing, and increased vehicle movements, would significantly detract from the rural character and tranquillity experienced along this route. This would materially harm the recreational value of the footpath and the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape, contrary to Policy LPRSP2. Principle of Gypsy and Traveller Provision I recognise and support the principle that Gypsy and Traveller families must be provided with suitable, safe, and deliverable sites in accordance with national and local policy. However, the existence of need does not override fundamental planning constraints, nor does it justify the allocation of sites that are demonstrably unsuitable. The Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021–2038 includes specific criteria-based policies for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation which require sites to be appropriately located, safe, and capable of being adequately serviced without causing unacceptable harm. In particular, it requires that sites: • Have safe and convenient access to the highway network and not result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety; • Be capable of accommodating the type and volume of traffic likely to be generated • Avoid areas subject to flooding or other environmental constraints; • Protect landscape character, the natural environment, and the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape; • Not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring communities; • Avoid packing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services and services. NPPF paragraph 11 requires that development be sustainable, and paragraph 36 stipulates plans are ‘sound’ if amongst other criteria, they are consistent with national policy. Allocating a site that is unsafe, environmentally harmful, and incapable of being adequately mitigated does not represent sound planning nor fair provision. Site C4S (008) clearly fails to meet these criteria. The severe access constraints, flood risk concerns, proximity to the Kent Downs National Landscape, presence of protected trees, and lack of infrastructure capacity render the site non-compliant with numerous local and national policies. Conclusion For the multitude of reasons set out above, Site C4S (008) is wholly unsuitable for allocation within the Gypsy and Traveller DPD. It conflicts directly with the NPPF, and is demonstrably noncompliant with the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021–2038, Kent Highway Standards, Tree Preservation Orders, and the Council’s statutory duty to protect the Kent Downs National Landscape. I therefore urge the Council, in the strongest possible terms, to remove this site from the DPD and crucially refuse its allocation.
Marden Parish Council has viewed the documents for the G&T consultation Cllrs note that a new site is being proposed in the document for Marden at Oakhurst. Although Cllrs agreed that MPC is in support of the principles laid down in the DPD they wished to ask the question whether the suggested site at Oakhurst, Stilebridge Lane, Marden was instead of the holiday caravan park (application 22/504241/FULL) or an additional site.
I wish to object to the proposed gypsy site off water lane in Bearsted Bearsted is a tiny village with no infrastructure to support additional people to use the facilities such as schools and GP surgeries
I write to you as a resident of Langley, Maidstone, to raise my deep concerns and objections regarding the proposed site for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople at The Bishings, an area of unspoilt green space, in fact the last area of unspoilt green space,within the boundary of Langley Heath, This proposed site is completely unsuitable for this use and contravenes section 8 of the NPPF (Promoting Healthy and Safer Communities). 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. The land has been left dormant and uncultivated in recent years whilst the landowner repeatedly applied for planning permission. All applications were, very sensibly, rejected. The Bishings is a large site in a semi rural location. Such a development as this would dominate the surrounding well established 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 very 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 public transport links, this, amongst other issues, would further increase traffic The roads are very often gridlocked now. 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. Developing this piece of agricultural land would inevitably worsen it's already imperfect drainage significantly increasing the potential for increased flooding and damage to established buildings (including gr grade 2 listed properties) within Green Lane as well as Orchard Close and Shepherds Way. Therefore development of The Bishings in general, but for this potential use in particular, is not sustainable and must be rejected. Finally in these times of great financial stringency I'm staggered that the Council has somehow found the funds to allocate £4,000,000 to this search for more sites, which will bring no benefit whatever to it's constituents but will saddle them with the burden of substantial maintenance and other costs going forward.
Formal Objection to Traveller Site Expansion DPD CONSULTATION The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB Proposal: Development of 15 additional traveller pitches adjacent to 35+ existing permitted pitches (20 Pitt Road, 4 Crossdrive, 11 Chartway Street) 1. Overconcentration of Traveller Sites The proposal would create a cluster exceeding 50 pitches, contrary to the PPTS requirement for fair and balanced distribution and conflicting with DPD Policy GT1 and Local Plan Policy SP17. This level of concentration places a disproportionate burden on one rural community and risks undermining the positive, long-established relations between existing Traveller families and settled residents. Sustainable community cohesion depends on proportionate, well-distributed provision, which this proposal does not achieve. 2. Strain on Local Infrastructure & Services Local schools are full, and the nearest GP practice is not accepting new patients. Planning policy requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure, which is not available in this location. Utilities and local services are already under pressure from existing Traveller sites in the immediate area, and further intensification would worsen this. 3. Highway Safety & Traffic Impact Chartway Street is heavily used by HGVs serving Winterwood, Griffins, Street Farm and Finches Caravan Park. Traveller children regularly use pony-drawn carts along this route, increasing vulnerability on an already hazardous road. Pitt Road is a single-track lane serving 20 pitches, 12 houses, a car dealership, a touring caravan park and holiday lets. It is also used as a rat-run to avoid congestion at Five Wents and Warmlake crossroads. The junction with Chartway Street sits on a blind bend where vehicles and children with horses must cross in front of oncoming traffic. Any increase in traffic would exacerbate existing dangers, contrary to NPPF paragraph 111 and Local Plan Policy DM1. 4. Environmental & Amenity Impacts The proposal would increase noise, lighting and general activity, harming local amenity (DM1, PPTS Policy H). The site forms part of a biodiversity corridor, and further development risks habitat fragmentation (DM3, NPPF Chapter 15). PPTS requires protection of the local environment and residential amenity, which this proposal fails to achieve. Planning Inspectors have consistently held that while property value itself is not a planning matter, the perceived impact of a development on the desirability and character of neighbouring homes is a legitimate material consideration where it relates to amenity and public confidence. Appeal decisions across England recognise that fear of harm and anticipated changes to neighbourhood character can carry weight even without quantified evidence. Given the proximity of The Meadow to existing dwellings, the potential for negative market perception should be acknowledged and assessed. 5. Conflict with Local Plan & Spatial Strategy The Maidstone Traveller DPD seeks to distribute pitches across the borough, not concentrate them in one locality (GT1). The proposal conflicts with the DPD's aims of balanced growth, sustainable development and integrated coexistence. The Local Plan identifies need but requires proportionate allocation in accordance with Spatial Strategy SS1 and Policy SP17, which this site does not provide. 6. Landscape & Rural Character The scale and density of the proposal are disproportionate to the rural/semirural setting, conflicting with Local Plan Policy DM30 and NPPF paragraph 174. PPTS Policy C requires rural sites to respect local character and scale — a requirement not met here. 7. Site-Specific Concerns: The Meadow (C4S019) There are already 10 permitted pitches immediately east of the site, intensifying overconcentration beyond what the DPD intends. A high-pressure gas distribution line runs along the western boundary, creating safety and development constraints under HSE PADHI guidance, PPTS Policy H and Local Plan Policy DM1. The cumulative impact of existing and proposed pitches would overwhelm local services, infrastructure and community cohesion. 8. Context from Maidstone Traveller Site Provision MBC's planned 15-pitch public site demonstrates the need for carefully selected, well-serviced locations near schools, healthcare and village facilities. The DPD identifies multiple potential allocation areas across the borough, emphasising distributed provision (GT1, PPTS Policy B). The council's strategy explicitly aims to avoid concentration and ensure sustainable, balanced accommodation. 9. Conclusion This proposal conflicts with national policy (PPTS), the Local Plan and the Traveller DPD. It results in overconcentration, inadequate infrastructure support, increased highway safety risks, environmental harm and erosion of rural character. It is inconsistent with Maidstone's spatial strategy for balanced, sustainable Traveller site provision. For these reasons I request that Maidstone Borough Council removes this site from the Traveller DPD / Local Plan allocations and considers more appropriate, sustainable and proportionate alternatives
The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB (C4S019) Proposal: 15 additional Traveller pitches adjacent to 35+ existing pitches (Pitt Road, Crossdrive, Chartway Street) The proposed allocation would create over 50 pitches in one small rural area, contrary to PPTS, DPD Policy GT1 and Local Plan SP17. This level of concentration places an unfair burden on the local community and risks undermining long-established positive relations between Traveller and settled residents. Infrastructure is already at capacity: local schools are full, the nearest GP is closed to new patients, and utilities are under pressure. Planning policy requires adequate infrastructure, which is not available here. Highway safety is a major concern. Chartway Street carries heavy HGV traffic, and Traveller children regularly use pony-drawn carts along this hazardous route. Pitt Road is a single-track lane used as a rat-run, with a blind-bend junction onto Chartway Street. Any increase in traffic would worsen existing dangers (NPPF 111, DM1). The proposal would harm amenity, biodiversity and rural character (DM1, DM3, DM30; PPTS Policies H & C). The site forms part of a biodiversity corridor, and further development risks fragmentation. Inspectors recognise that perceived harm to character and amenity is a legitimate material consideration. There are already 10 pitches immediately adjoining the site, and a high-pressure gas main runs along the western boundary, raising safety constraints under HSE PADHI and PPTS Policy H. The cumulative impact of existing and proposed pitches has not been assessed. The allocation conflicts with the borough’s spatial strategy, which seeks proportionate, well-distributed provision across multiple settlements. The DPD identifies several alternative areas capable of accommodating need more sustainably. Conclusion: The Meadow (C4S019) is inconsistent with national and local policy, and should be removed from the Traveller DPD / Local Plan allocations.
Formal Objection - Traveller DPD Consultation The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB (C4S019) Proposal: 15 additional Traveller pitches adjacent to 35+ existing pitches (Pitt Road, Crossdrive, Chartway Street) The proposed allocation would create over 50 pitches in one small rural area, contrary to PPTS, DPD Policy GT1 and Local Plan SP17. This level of concentration places an unfair burden on the local community and risks undermining long-established positive relations between Traveller and settled residents. Infrastructure is already at capacity: local schools are full, the nearest GP is closed to new patients, and utilities are under pressure. Planning policy requires adequate infrastructure, which is not available here. Highway safety is a major concern. Chartway Street carries heavy HGV traffic, and Traveller children regularly use pony-drawn carts along this hazardous route. Pitt Road is a single-track lane used as a rat-run, with a blind-bend junction onto Chartway Street. Any increase in traffic would worsen existing dangers (NPPF 111, DM1). The proposal would harm amenity, biodiversity and rural character (DM1, DM3, DM30; PPTS Policies H & C). The site forms part of a biodiversity corridor, and further development risks fragmentation. Inspectors recognise that perceived harm to character and amenity is a legitimate material consideration. There are already 10 pitches immediately adjoining the site, and a high-pressure gas main runs along the western boundary, raising safety constraints under HSE PADHI and PPTS Policy H. The cumulative impact of existing and proposed pitches has not been assessed. The allocation conflicts with the borough's spatial strategy, which seeks proportionate, well-distributed provision across multiple settlements. The DPD identifies several alternative areas capable of accommodating need more sustainably. Conclusion: The Meadow (C4S019) is inconsistent with national and local policy, and should be removed from the Traveller DPD / Local Plan allocations.
Formal Objection to Traveller Site Expansion The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB Proposal: Development of 15 additional traveller pitches adjacent to areas already containing 35+ permitted pitches (20 Pitt Road, 4 Crossdrive, 11 Chartway Street) 1. Overconcentration of Traveller Sites 1.1 The proposal would create a cluster of 50+ pitches, contrary to the PPTS requirement for fair and balanced distribution. Also conflicts with DPD Policy GT1 and Local Plan Policy SP17. 1.2 This level of concentration places a disproportionate burden on one rural community. 1.3 Overconcentration undermines community cohesion, contrary to national planning objectives. 1.4 The existing Traveller sites on Chartway Street, Pitt Road and Cross Drive form part of our community, and relations between residents and Traveller families are positive and well-established. However, the proposed addition of a further 15 pitches in such a concentrated location risks disrupting this balance. Sustainable community cohesion depends on proportionate, well-distributed provision, and the proposed expansion is of a scale that could undermine the harmony that presently exists. 2. Strain on Local Infrastructure & Services 2.1 Local schools are full, and the nearest GP practice is not accepting new patients. 2.2 Planning policy requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure, which is not available in this location. 2.3 Utilities and local services are already under pressure from existing traveller sites in the immediate area. 3. Highway Safety & Traffic Impact 3.1 Access roads are unsuitable for any increase in traffic volume. Chartway Street is heavily used by HGVs serving Winterwood, Griffins and Street Farm, large agricultural operations and Finches Caravan Park. Travellers' children daily travel on pony-drawn carts up and down this road, increasing vulnerability on an already hazardous route. 3.2 Pitt Road (single track) already serves 20 traveller pitches, 12 houses, a car dealership, and a touring caravan park plus holiday lets. Family expansion alone has and will see the number of pitches increase. 3.3 Pitt Road is used as a rat-run to avoid congestion at Five Wents and Warmlake crossroads, increasing traffic volumes, and is a shortcut to the Ridge Golf Course. 3.4 Collisions occur regularly, and children daily use pony/horse-drawn carts, creating significant safety risks. 3.5 Pitt Road joins Chartway Street on a blind bend. Vehicles, including children with horses, cross in front of oncoming traffic. Any increase in traffic would exacerbate the existing road danger. These impacts conflict with NPPF paragraph 111 and Local Plan Policy DM1, which require safe and suitable access for all users. 4. Environmental & Amenity Impacts Recipes 4.1 The proposal would increase noise, lighting, and general activity, harming local amenity. This conflicts with Local Plan Policy DM1 and PPTS Policy H. 4.2 The site contributes to biodiversity corridors; further development risks habitat fragmentation, contrary to Local Plan Policy DM3 and NPPF Chapter 15. 4.3 PPTS requires protection of the local environment and residential amenity, which this proposal fails to achieve. 4.4 Planning Inspectors have consistently held that while the monetary value of neighbouring properties is not a planning matter, the perceived impact of a development on the desirability, character, and marketability of nearby homes is a legitimate material consideration where it relates to residential amenity and public confidence. Appeal decisions across England recognise that fear of harm, perceived risk, and anticipated changes to neighbourhood character can carry weight in the planning balance even without quantified evidence. Given the close proximity of The Meadow to existing dwellings, the potential for negative market perception and associated amenity impacts should therefore be acknowledged and assessed as part of this application. 5. Conflict with Local Plan & Spatial Strategy 5.1 The Maidstone Traveller DPD seeks to distribute pitches across the borough, not concentrate them in one locality (DPD Policy GT1). 5.2 The proposal conflicts with the DPD's aims of balanced growth, sustainable development, and integrated coexistence. 5.3 The Local Plan identifies need but requires proportionate allocation, which this site does not provide (Spatial Strategy SS1 and Policy SP17). 6. Landscape & Rural Character 6.1 The scale and density of the proposal are disproportionate to the rural/semirural setting, contrary to Local Plan Policy DM30 (Landscape Character) and NPPF paragraph 174. 6.2 PPTS Policy C requires rural sites to respect local character and scale - this proposal does not. 7. Site-Specific Concerns: The Meadow (C4S019) 7.1 There are already 10 permitted pitches immediately east of the Meadow site, intensifying overconcentration beyond what the DPD intends. 7.2 A high-pressure gas distribution line runs along the western boundary, creating safety and development constraints (HSE PADHI guidance, PPTS Policy H and Local Plan Policy DM1). 7.3 National policy requires safe separation distances from hazardous infrastructure, which appear compromised. 7.4 The cumulative impact of existing and proposed pitches would overwhelm local services, infrastructure, and community cohesion.8. Context from Maidstone Traveller Site Provision 8.1 MBC's planned 15-pitch public site demonstrates the need for carefully selected, well-serviced locations near schools, healthcare, and village facilities. 8.2 The DPD identifies multiple potential allocation areas (Boughton Monchelsea, Coxheath, Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst, Stockbury, Sutton Valence, Langley), emphasising distributed provision in line with DPD Policy GT1 and PPTS Policy B. 8.3 The council's strategy explicitly aims to avoid concentration and ensure sustainable, balanced accommodation across the borough. 8.4 Site design policies include requirements for dayrooms, amenity blocks, and adequate space for horses, reflecting traveller cultural needs. 8.5 Public consultation on the DPD allows stakeholders to comment on suitability, impact, and alignment with the spatial strategy. 9. Conclusion 9.1 This proposal conflicts with national policy (PPTS) and local policy (Local Plan & Traveller DPD). 9.2 It results in overconcentration, inadequate infrastructure support, significant increase in highway safety risks, environmental harm, and erosion of rural character. 9.3 It is inconsistent with Maidstone's spatial strategy for balanced, sustainable traveller site provision. 9.4 For these reasons I request that Maidstone Borough Council removes this site from the Traveller DPD / Local Plan allocations and considers more appropriate, sustainable and proportionate alternatives.
I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted, the traveller and traveller show people development plan. While I recognise the need for the council to consider suitable accommodation for all communities, this particular location is highly unsuitable for several clear and evidence-based reasons outlined below. 1. Water Lane Is a Single-Track Country Road – Severe Highway Safety Risks Water Lane is a narrow single-track rural lane with limited passing places, poor visibility, and no pedestrian walkways. The additional traffic and the larger vehicles typically associated with travelling fair or circus families — including towing vehicles, caravans, and support vehicles — would significantly increase road safety risks along with damaging land. This lane already struggles to accommodate existing agricultural and local traffic. Emergency vehicle access would also be compromised. Furthermore, you are no doubt aware of the tragic fatality that occurred on an identical road, less than 0.5 miles away on Thurnham lane in 2024. Allowing this development would pose an even greater risk to pedestrians given the extra footfall and the large vehicles used to transport the show people’s equipment. In addition to the direct concerns noted on Water Lane, the access to Water Lane will be from Roundwell or The Street, neither of these roads will be able to support heavy vehicles moving to and from the site without posing a significant safety risk to the road users as well as walkers, cyclists and horse riders. 2. Inappropriate Development in a Rural Area The site sits within a peaceful part of Bearsted’s countryside and is surrounded by agricultural and residential land. The scale, nature, and activity level of a traveller site for traveller and circus groups is incompatible with the rural character of Water Lane and would cause a substantial change to the landscape. This appears contrary to local planning policies aimed at protecting Bearsted’s rural setting. You will also be aware of the flooding issues at the end of Water Lane which shows clear drainage issues. Should vehicles and homes be used, which given it is a showpeople development, would cause damage and heavy mud to the fields and the surrounding. If this was alleviated by making the plot accessible for such vehicles, this would not be in keeping with the rural setting if the village. 3. Impact on Local Infrastructure and Amenities Bearsted’s services — schools, healthcare, road network, and local facilities — are already under considerable pressure given recent developments. A site of this type, with seasonal influxes, could put additional strain on these limited local resources, particularly given the constrained access. 4. Environmental and Noise Concerns A development of this nature would inevitably introduce more noise, lighting, and general activity into a quiet rural environment. The lack of adequate screening or mitigation measures in the proposal raises concerns about the impact on wildlife, neighbouring properties, and the broader landscape. 5. Better-Suited Locations Should Be Considered A site for travelling circus families requires good access, strong transport links, and space for larger vehicles. Water Lane provides none of these. It is unclear whether a proper assessment of more suitable locations — such as better access to A roads, or established traveller transit areas — has been undertaken. But I feel there must be much more adequate locations to suit the needs of the traveller community. For the reasons outlined — serious road safety risks, conflict with rural land-use policies, environmental harm, and the strain on local infrastructure — I strongly urge the council to refuse this planning application. The proposed traveller site on Water Lane is unsuitable, unsafe, and inconsistent with planning principles that protect both the local community and the countryside around Bearsted. If any of the council members have any knowledge of the picturesque village Bearsted, they will know that a development such as this would not be in keeping with the village or be able to cope with the infrastructure needs of such development.