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 am writing to formally object to the proposed development of a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people site on Water Lane, Bearsted. My concerns are based on planning considerations and the potential impact on the local community and environment. 1. Location Suitability The proposed site is situated on a narrow rural lane, that is unsuitable for increased traffic and large vehicles. Water Lane lacks adequate infrastructure to support such development, it is a single track road, has no footpath and no street lighting. 2. Access to Services The site is remote from essential services such as shops, schools, healthcare, and public transport. This isolation will create significant challenges for residents and increase reliance on private vehicles. 3. Highways and Road Safety Water Lane is a narrow country road with limited visibility and passing points. Increased traffic will lead to further congestion and pose serious safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and other road users. 4. Landscape and Rural Character The development would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenity of Bearsted and the Kent Downs National Landscape. The open countryside setting is a key feature of the area, and this proposal would erode its landscape quality. 5. Environmental and Ecological Impact The site contains hedgerows and wildlife habitats that could be disrupted. Drainage concerns also arise, as the land may not be suitable for the required infrastructure without harming the local ecology. The site has several important oak trees, which have preservation orders and the area is prone to flooding. 6. Cumulative Impact Bearsted already faces pressure on local services and infrastructure. Adding this development would exacerbate these issues, placing a further strain on schools, healthcare, and utilities. 7. Previous Planning History This site was submitted to the earlier call for sites for housing. It was not carried forward into the local plan due to its unsustainable location and inadequate access. If the site has already been found as an unsuitable location for housing it follows that it must also be an unsuitable location for gypsies and travellers. 8. Alternative With two new Garden Villages proposed at Lidsing and Heathlands there is a unique opportunity to allocate land for gypsies and travellers which would be conveniently served by all the new facilities required within these garden villages. To conclude, I urge the planning authority to reject this proposal on the grounds of location unsuitability, highway safety, environmental harm, and negative impact on residential amenity and local infrastructure.
Proposed Site in Bearsted/Thurnham Site Ref: C4S (008) We write in response to the above proposed site and would like to raise our concerns. Access to the proposed site is on Water Lane - so named as a combination of natural underground springs and water running off the North Downs has long made this hazardous - particularly during the winter months when the water freezes and makes it icy. Thurnham Lane (that runs parallel) has similar issues and two pedestrians and their dog were killed whilst walking on 20th January 2024 and is well documented. There are no footpaths for proposed residents to access this site safely thus encouraging the use of more vehicles. Water Lane itself is a narrow country lane, making it difficult to negotiate and joins the Pilgrims Way, a single track road. The lanes become far more dangerous when Operation Brock is in place as they are used as ‘rat runs’. The lane is not serviced by public transport and walking to bus stops, the train station, doctors, shops etc would be considered dangerous due to the lack of footpaths.
Formal Objection to Proposed Development on The Brishings, Green Lane, Langley for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Site. I am writing to formally object to the proposed plan to include The Brishings, into the development plan as a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling show people site. The Brishings is a two hectare site of agricultural greenfield land, which has always been a significant feature in the community's rural landscape, providing agricultural and environmental value. It is located opposite the village's oldest properties - a row of cottages dating back over a hundred years and two large listed farmhouses, all of which support the aesthetics of the village, providing a sense of history and character to Langley village. My objections are detailed below: Environmental and Agricultural impact as defined in Section 44 of the Environment Act The proposal to use greenfield land is in opposition with the Local and National Planning policy which outlines that greenfield land should not be developed on other than in exceptional circumstances. Consideration needs to be given to the Prevention Principle to prevent any environmental harm to the area including environmental damage and biodiversity loss and the removal of green spaces. The Brishings is a greenfield site, historically, and currently used for agricultural purposes. It additionally provides habitat and food sources for wildlife, including amongst other wildlife, Barn Owls. Any loss of natural habitat will have an impact on the biodiversity of the area, and the local ecosystem's natural balance, is likely to be equally impacted, becoming less resilient and leading to significant and long-term consequences for the local area. Increased use of resources, such as energy and water, will further damage the natural environment, given the field is subject to flooding. Any change to the use of The Brishings will significantly harm the current landscape and rural character of the area, which is in contradiction to Policy DM15 of the Local Plan. The proposal is incompatible with the local character of the area, and current land use. Impact on infrastructure and resources There would be a significant impact on the current infrastructure of a small village. There are no existing utilities, and a single track rural lane, without any footpaths, runs parallel to The Brishings, providing no suitable access to the site. Any development on this site would have a significant impact on the Langley Heath community based on how the development fits within the character of the local area including architectural style and scale, which would not be in keeping with the historic and listed buildings within the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. Any development would cause a significant loss of privacy overlooking neighbouring properties and dominating the existing surrounding properties due to the layout and density of buildings. There will be increased noise pollution through increased noise levels from the proposed development which will disrupt the local community. The Leeds Road, parallel on the opposite side of The Brishings would not provide safe access due to the current traffic levels and speed of vehicles. Any increase in traffic would have a significant impact on the already congested and busy Leeds Road, and on the local community, which is outlined in Policy DM15 iii. Proposed planning would not meet the safety standards of providing safe and easy access to and from the highway. I am concerned that the increased traffic congestion would pose a safety hazard for pedestrians and cyclists due to the development. The site would not comply with the criteria of Policy DM15 of the Local Plan in respect of local amenities, as there are not any schools or local shops in the village. Health and shopping facilities are not accessible, other than by means of transport. The local GP does not have any capacity to take on new patients. Any development of The Brishings would have a significant impact on local services. I am therefore in opposition to the inclusion of The Brishings in the Development Plan for Gypsy Traveller development. I would respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council remove The Brishings from consideration in the Development Plan for Gypsy Traveller development, not only to preserve this greenfield site, but to preserve the community's long term interests in maintaining the rural integrity of the village.
I write in response to the invitation to submit comments in respect of the above. I have several concerns, which are set out below. They centre on safety, environmental and infrastructure. The site is accessed by a country lane, unsuitable for use by significant volumes of traffic and/ or pedestrians. The lane has several blind bends and is very narrow. Its dangers were dreadfully demonstrated by the recent deaths of two residents, who were hit and killed by a car while out walking on Thurnham Lane, a nearby lane of the same type. For reference, Thurnham Lane is wider than Water Lane. Water Lane suffers regular, significant flooding. The run off from the North Downs reaches down through the lane and builds up at the junction with Roundwell. Any additional development further up the lane, with the requirement for hard standing will add to the rainwater load and impeded traffic both on the lane itself, as well as in Roundwell. The stream that eventually drains this build up, runs south into Lilk Meadow and already struggles to cope with the flow of water. Additional volumes will add to the problem and may threaten the houses built recently at the Roundwell Park development on the adjacent land The site will be visible from the North Downs, an AONB. The type of structures and the vehicles on site will damage the AONB designation. The vehicles that will need to be moved along the Lane will be very large and cumbersome, such as static caravans. This will create dangers for other users as this process will take up substantially all of the road width. The perils of such an issue as this are already obvious, given my comments in (1) above.
Formal Objection to Traveller Site Expansion The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB Proposal: Development of 15 additional traveller pitches adjacent to areas salread 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 short cut 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 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. 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/semi-rural setting. 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 (C4S-019) 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 respectfully request you accept my objections
I wish to object to the Plan to Open a Permanent Halting Site. I base my Objection on the basis that Water Lane is a narrow country Lane that leads to The Historic Pilgrims Way on The North Downs. This is a roadway has accommodated horses and walkers for hundreds of years and is currently being used on the same basis! The roadway is not suitable for large vehicles and increased volume of traffic. Please be aware of what happened on Thurnham Lane in recent times,where 2 lives were lost! We need to keep people safe on our roads, whether that be driving, cycling,walking or riding a horse!
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople site on Water Lane, Bearsted. My objections are based on the following planning considerations and the potential impact on the local community and environment. Location Water Lane (the proposed site) is a narrow rural lane, with minimal passing points. All year round it is wet due to surface drainage run off creating hazardous conditions and in winter months, when the water freezes, it is a very dangerous road to navigate. All of the above demonstrates that Water Lane is unsuitable for increased traffic and large vehicles - this would not only create traffic issues but an increased potential for road accidents. The road is used frequently by walkers, horse riders and cyclists, increasing traffic, particularly large vehicles that may struggle to stop quickly, puts local residents at serious risk. National statistics clearly demonstrate that at least 60% of deaths in road traffic accidents take place on country roads, by deliberately increasing traffic on a road not designed to take both the increased volume and size of vehicles, approval would be directly increasing the safety risk for local road users. Local / Rural Character The development would have a significant detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenity of the Kent Downs Landscape. The fields, trees and countryside are part of what makes the area a place of tranquility, this would interrupt the landscape in a very obvious and direct manner. Given how the planning department have fought to protect this landscape from minor developments such as extensions to property, decking, outbuildings etc, I find it incredulous that such a development could even be considered. Environmental Impact The site contains hedgerows and wildlife habitats that will be disrupted if the proposed development is allowed. As stated earlier, Water Lane suffers from significant surface run off challenges which indicates that the land is not suitable for development. Drainage would be a problem and could cause contamination in water ways and even into the local area. The site also has several important Oak trees, which have TPOs - again the planning department have previously ensured that these trees remain protected and development amongst such trees is prohibited. I would question what makes this suddenly acceptable given Maidstone Councils stand on planning decisions previously. Local Resident Impact Residents of Bearsted would experience a loss of privacy, increased noise, increased traffic, strain on local services (Schools, Doctors), and light pollution. These factors would significantly affect the quality of life for existing households. In summary, Bearsted is known for its character and peaceful environment. This proposal fundamentally changes the nature of the community and village. It will increase traffic, put strain on services and fundamentally shift planning decisions as this will set a dangerous precedent of what will be allowed to be developed in the future. I urge the planning authority to reject this proposal and thank-you for considering the above points.
Reference: Sites submitted by landowners. 'The Brishings', Green Lane, Langley Kent (Otherwise known as land to the east of Green Lane, Langley in previous applications.) Reference No. C4S-017. I wish to comment on the above consultation with specific reference to the site included in the consultation mentioned above. I will comment on the consultation process under a separate communication using the on-line questionnaire. At a recent Langley village community meeting attended by around 100 residents, information regarding the consultation was discussed and the consensus was that residents view was to request that Maidstone Borough Council remove the above site from the list of possible sites as being unsuitable for this application. Below I give the reasons I believe this site is unsuitable for use as a site for use as suggested for travellers & traveling show people and using the criteria included in your consultation documentation. History of rejected planning applications Previous planning applications for development of this land have been rejected for similar reasons and I see no reason why this consultation show determine any different conclusion. The most recent planning application within the parish for a single property, namely 24/500116/FULL only last year was rejected by Maidstone Borough Council Planning and also at appeal by The Planning Inspectorate should give you sufficient confidence to withdraw this land as unsuitable for inclusion in your list of sites. Key phases in the Inspectorate letter for refusal are that 'Langley Heath is not a 'defined settlement' and it does not have the facilities and services you would expect in a sustainable location, for example a school or convenience store' & that further development of the village area is not included within the MBC Local Plan. This refers to the settlement of Langley Heath covering the land east of Green Lane the owner seeks to call the brishings. MBC Planners in their appeal documentation made further detailed comments regarding the nature of the settlement known as Langley Heath which should be studied in detail by yourselves to offer you guidance in removing this site from your list as an unsuitable site. For your reference previous failed applications for this land in the years 2014,2015,2016: 14/0545, 15/501183/OUT, 16/505995/OUT available for reference in MBC Planning Portal. Previous applications for years prior to this are not available on this portal, but should be referenced as evidence of consistency in MBC planners approach to the speculative nature of applications for this land. Local Services The site is in located in "Langley Heath' which is geographically separate from the traditional village centred on either side of the A274 Sutton Road. There are no services whatsoever within this part of the village, with the exception of a single GP oversubscribed Doctor's surgery as noted in a recent planning refusal by MBC planners. There are no primary schools within 3 kilometres nor secondary schools within 5 kilometres. The nearest supermarket (in Langley Park, being in the parish of Boughton Monchelsea NOT Langley) is 30 minutes and3.08 Kilometres walk from the site. There are no businesses, employers nor employment prospects within the village. Transport links Bus services operated by Nuventure within this part of the village are limited to 5 days per week and dos not operate at weekends nor bank holidays. The main bus route via the A274 Sutton Road is well in excess of 800 metres distance from the site a walk of nearly 10 minutes. Access to this site is extremely problematic. Green Lane having been rejected as a suitable access due to the width and access to Leeds Road from the south and via Shepherds Way and Heath Road and past planning applications as well as Leeds Road being unsuitable on safety grounds. Landscape features/ Character The land is high quality grade 2 agricultural land and historically within my lifetime, been used to grow soft fruit and vegetables. Adjacent fields are currently under high intensity productive agricultural use operated by a highly respected nursery grower of ornamental trees, bushes and speciality roses selling nationally and in international markets. The site straddles two entirely separate communities one of a historical isolated hamlet previously associated with Sutton Valance and a more modern main community of Langley Heath. Responses to previous planning applications by the local authority have identified this and emphasised the importance of maintaining the nature of isolated hamlet being outside the village boundary, containing three historically significant grade two listed sites amongst the domiciles (Ye Old Cottage & The Old Farm House both in Green Lane and Red Pit Barn adjacent to the east of the land on Leeds Road.) The nature of the village overall is a 'rural dormitory village' with residents either living in the village and working elsewhere or in retirement. Overall, over 50% of residents are retired and in the proposed site boundary, over 90% are retired with quite a number of single vulnerable adults in this category. On the timescale of this consultation and decision-making process, the majority of properties surrounding the proposed site will in their 70's and a large proportion in classed as vulnerable in their 80's. The cumulative effect of the offered site to locate 20 caravans would be to destroy the rural nature of the area, dominate the immediate area, coalesce a rurally isolated historical hamlet located in Green Lane and completely change its setting. The Site & Landscape Characteristics It is incorrect for the landowner to say that the site is flat. This is not the case. The land drops way from the south west to north east by around 5 metres and generally north to south by a similar amount. It is to be determined whether power water & sewage is available on site not existing as stated by the landowner. Green Lane has restricted water & sewage capacity as it was laid down in Victorian times. The site is bounded to the north by a stream fed from springs within the field as well as from Kingwood & Abbey woods eventually leading into Langley Lochs and then into the Len & Medway. This stream does flood back from culverts into the field during periods of high rainfall and flooding into the B2163 Leeds Road has been recorded and documented by a resident of Leeds Road in a consultation into a previously refused planning application for this site. (Planning application 15/501183/OUT Young 24/3/15) of an episode of flooding onLeeds Road (2014/15) in exactly the same area as the proposed access to the application. Whatever the numbers say, the photographic evidence from a now retired MBC councillor shows clearly this is an area at risk of flooding. The site is bounded on all sides by existing rural style properties which would not be suitable for the proposed utilisation of the site. The result being that travellers would be 'hemmed in' by existing properties. In discussion with local authority Community Wardens and PCSO's who have significant experience in dealing with travellers & traveling show-people explained that they have their own community and have no desire to integrate into other communities, thus endeavouring to locate a site of this nature within an existing community would not be a suitable scheme. Any attempt to manipulate a change in this would demonstrate an attempt by MBC at social engineering which I believe in this case is beyond their remit. Site Access, access to primary road networks The current agricultural field originally had one access which was at the south west corner of the field in Green Lane, this has been changed by the landowner to further down the lane. Green Lane is a single-track lane with no passing places and no footpaths and is an unrestricted speed limit only suitable for domestic traffic. The only other accesses in the lane are for residential vehicle and foot access on the road with no footpath. The access to this land from Green Lane in previous applications has been rejected as unsuitable being narrow single track with no passing places and restricted access to the lane from each end. Access from the south end of Green Lane is narrow with very poor sight lines and has a very poor safety record with one fatality in recent times. Similarly, the only other access to Leeds Road being via Shepherds Way having permanent resident on street parking, then into Heath Road to a cross roads locally known as 'The Four Wents'. This crossroads has a very poor road safety record with collisions reported regularly, the most recent being a local authority recycling lorry ending up in a residents garden. In a previous application, consideration has been made for vehicle and pedestrian access from creating a new access into the B2163 Leeds Road. There are no footpaths and no land facility to add a footpath on the site side of Leeds Road and traffic movements make it hazardous to exit as a pedestrian from the site. Vehicle access would also hazardous due to speed and volume of traffic and especially sight lines (highlighted in detail a previous objection to a planning application) in both directions making access and egress from any created access to be an accident blackspot. Sites of this nature carry additional hazards with LPG gas containers, lightweight structures and storage of show equipment giving a higher-than-normal hazard risk of fire. Access to the site via Green Lane for emergency vehicles will be problematical due to the nature of the access streets and lanes bounding the site. Overdevelopment of village Langley & Langley Heath is a rural village with a significant agricultural heritage and over the years developed as a dormitory location for older generations. To sustain the agricultural activity, significant investment has been made by farmers to make their businesses sustainable. To this end, a number of caravan sites have been established to house workers, these now number around 450 caravans in two areas around the parish within 1 kilometre of the proposed site (owners Chambers Oakdene & Charlton Rumwood Farm.) To addfurther temporary buildings to a new site, would over run the village in that in excess of 50% of accommodation in or adjacent to the parish would be temporary homes completely dominating the nature of the village. In conclusion access to this proposed site in any form with any mitigation would make it totally unsuitable for the suggested application for the reasons stated above especially on the basis of road access and pedestrian safety and should be removed from consideration as one of the sites submitted in this consultation exercise.
We write to formally comment on the draft Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document, with particular reference to draft allocation Policy C4S(008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted. We write to formally object to the inclusion of The Lodge site as a proposed allocation and that its application is withdrawn. Our concerns principally focus on the following issues: 1. Highway safety – the inability for the site to be served by a safe vehicular access owing to significantly constrained visibility and no available mitigation. 2. Sustainability – the inability for occupiers of the site to safely access local facilities by any sustainable means 3. Landscape impact – the inability for the site to accommodate the development proposed whilst conserving and enhancing the nearby Kent Downs National Landscape , being a prominent site within its setting 4. Deliverability – in the absence of a safe, deliverable access, the site fails the deliverability test and cannot be relied upon to make any contribution towards the Borough’s gypsy & traveller needs. We now deal with each issue in more detail in turn below. 1. Highway Safety XXXX the adjacent Bridge Farm. We also own the existing access and driveway from Water Lane which serves both Bridge Farm and The Lodge. Whilst The Lodge have a right of access across this driveway, this would not extend to any additional development at The Lodge site. Access to their land is detailed in their deeds as being via our driveway on our easterly boundary or, closer to Water Lane through a gate from our driveway on our northern boundary (as shown in the picture below). It is for this reason, we assume, that the site has been promoted based on a separate access to the north of the existing access, as that would be the only lawful physical means of accessing the site as a gypsy & traveller site. Whilst there is an historic field gate at this point onto Water Lane, this does not comprise an existing formal access point and until very recently, has been heavily overgrown and unusable (see Google Streetview images below) and was not used by the previous owners of The Lodge. Access gate to The Lodges land from Bridge Farms driveway on Bridge Farms northern boundary (closest to Water Lane) August 2021 - please see attached image August 2012 - please see attached image April 2009 - please see attached image] As the above illustrates, the proposed access has not historically been used to access the property in any meaningful way and therefore any assessment of the site as a potential allocation must reasonably be on the basis that a new access is required to be formed onto Water Lane, a narrow and undulating country lane subject to the national speed limit. Having reviewed the available information and evidence base, it does not appear that any meaningful highways assessment of the proposed access has been carried out by either the site promoter/owner, Maidstone Borough Council as the Local Planning Authority, or Kent County Council in their capacity as the Highways Authority. In contrast, we have engaged with a qualified highways engineer who has advised on and helped produce the attached access plan, which has been produced and verified by on-site survey measurements. When considering the potential access and its suitability and safety, the following constraints must be acknowledged and borne in mind. - Ownership – the land in the ownership and control of The Lodge at this location is limited to a small stretch of frontage onto the highway, immediately north of the existing established access and driveway (which cannot lawfully be used to serve a gypsy traveller site and is outside the promoters’ ownership and control). Therefore, any assessment of the access and available visibility must only consider potential visibility splays which cross land in the promoter’s control or is public highway. This severely limits available visibility at this location. - Trees and Tree Preservation Orders – to the immediate north of the existing and historic field gate at this location lies a mature tree which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (no. 14 of 2007). This constrains the achievable visibility even further. It is also noteworthy that the trees to the south of the Bridge Farm access along the Water Lane frontage are also subject to a group TPO (see image below showing TPOs to north and south of the proposed access taken from MBCs online mapping). Please see attached image The supporting SLAA document does acknowledge the presence of these TPOs, but states “Amber - 4 TPOs to be considered through detailed assessment”. It is therefore evident that despite proposing an allocation, the impact of these TPOs has not been assessed in any detail to date. Subject to planning, any access to the public highway would need approval from KCC highways likely via a vehicle crossover application. KCC guidance state that they will not support the removal of a tree to support a vehicle crossover application and all trees within 15m of where a dropped kerb is needed are to be considered as part of any application. KCC will also not accept any construction works within the root protection area of the tree, irrespective of any TPO. Please see attached image It is therefore clear that the existing trees represent a significant constraint and have not been given due consideration by the Council to date in their assessment of the site. The SLAA document acknowledges in its appraisal of the site that KCC as the local Highways Authority are yet to assess the site and will do so prior to Regulation 19. It is concerning that sites are being proposed by the Council at this Regulation 18c stage without their input given access and highway safety are such fundamental issues that go to the heart of suitability and deliverability. We urge the Council to engage with KCC Highways and provide them with the detail of this representation to assist in their own appraisal of the site and the proposed access. - Speed Limit – at this location, Water Lane is subject to the national speed limit. No speed survey data has been provided by the site promoters that we are aware of and in the absence of this, the correct approach would be to design the access and the visibility splay requirements on the basis of 60mph. - Surface Water Flooding – Water Lane (as the name would suggest) is subject to regular surface water flooding, which adds yet further hazards to highway safety and users of the road. This is confirmed by the Environment Agency surface water mapping (see extract below). Please see attached These flood events are also often extreme as illustrated by the photographs below, placing any additional occupants at The Lodge at heightened risk, whilst the provision of a new access point onto the Lane would also likely serve to only increase the existing flood risk. Please see attached image With all of the above constraints in mind, we refer to the accompanying access plan. This demonstrates that the best achievable visibility splay at the junction is a mere 2.4 x 14m to the north, and 2.4 x 29.5m to the south. Both fall significantly and alarmingly short of the applicable Manual for Streets standards for the 60mph speed limit and would be the case even if the protected tree was disregarded (which it can’t be). Using the visibility calculation set out in Manual For Streets, a visibility splay of 14m equates to a design speed of 12mph. Experience indicates that traffic is travelling considerably in excess of this speed when approaching from the north an a such would not be acceptable. Based on onsite observations we would suggest that the 85%ile speed would likely between 30 and 40mph which would equate to visibility splays of between 43 and 82m. As demonstrated on the drawing it has been demonstrated that these visibility splays could not be provided with land either within public highway or land under their control. Given the above and enclosed, it is unequivocally clear and unarguable that the proposed access is unsafe and falls significantly short of the applicable design standards prescribed by Manual for Streets. Allocation of this site would thus be in direct contravention of NPPF paragraph 116, given that there would be an unacceptable impact on highways safety. There is no evidence currently before the Council that could possibly suggest otherwise and KCC alarmingly are yet to even assess the site in their capacity as local Highway Authority. These clear safety issues are only compounded by the nature of the proposed allocation. As a gypsy & traveller site, it can be expected that the access will be used by slower, larger vehicles often towing. This makes the need for a safe access with sufficient visibility essential. The Council’s Sustainability appraisal scores the site as ‘Minor Negative’ for Transport and Accessibility, however it is clear from the above that this scoring is not supported by the evidence and the correct score should be ‘Major Negative’. Using the Council’s own scoring methodology, the unacceptable highway safety impacts cannot be mitigated. 2. Sustainability As has been established above, the site in question is unable to provide a safe vehicular access. Access for pedestrians is also inherently unsafe and incapable of mitigation – Water Lane comprises a narrow, single carriage rural lane with national speed limit and a fast speed environment. There is no footway and no lighting, meaning any pedestrian trips southwards towards Bearsted would put pedestrians at significant risk. As such, the site does not afford realistic opportunities for safe non-car travel to everyday services and cannot be considered a sustainable location. In this regard, its allocation would be contrary to the NPPF and paragraph 13 of the government’s Planning Policy for Travellers. 3. Landscape Impact The Lodge site lies in very close proximity to the Kent Downs National Landscape, which sits immediately north of the M20. At present, there is no detail around the number of pitches proposed and/or the extent of any associated infrastructure and support buildings. As such, it is not possible to undertake a meaningful assessment of landscape impact or come to any conclusion on whether or not allocation of the site would fulfil the Council’s duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act 2000) to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of a National Landscape, further cemented by the Environment Act 2021. 4. Deliverability It has been demonstrated that the site is unable to provide a safe access and does not have any rights over the existing Bridge Farm access for future gypsy and traveller development. As such, the site is confirmed as undeliverable and cannot be relied upon (irrespective of its unsuitability) to make any contribution towards meeting the Council’s gypsy & traveller sites need. It is notable that the Council themselves are yet to conclude that the site is in fact deliverable. The SLAA concludes that “The site's deliverability will be subject to further detailed assessment of the site prior to publication of the Regulation 19 version of the Plan”. The proposed site would also not be able to deliver the services stated in their application. Currently both properties are served by a ¾ inch water pipe from the mains supply in Crismill lane (east of the properties). This pipeline is owned equally by both properties and would not be sufficient to service additional dwellings and would therefore require the installation of a new supply. Currently both properties have private drainage and given the location of mains drainage it would not be practical / possible to connect to these. Neither property is connected to a mains gas supply. While there is gas pipeline within neighbouring farmland, this pipeline does not serve local gas supply. We also note that the application by The Lodge states that states there are no covenants on the property. This statement is incorrect given the covenants that are within the title deeds of The Lodge regarding their access and restriction of any building / development being directly limited to that of the existing dwelling. Conclusion In summary, it has been demonstrated that The Lodge draft allocation site: - Is unable to provide an access which is safe, with achievable visibility falling significantly short of the applicable standards, even if unrealistically slow average speeds are assumed. - The access is severely constrained by existing protected trees, would add traffic to an unsuitable and narrow rural lane, and would likely add to existing surface water flooding that already blights the road. - There is no available evidence to suggest the proposed access is safe, no proposed access design and no evidence that it has been properly assessed by the local Highways Authority. - The location is unsustainable and unable to provide safe pedestrian access to local services. - Insufficient information is provided to be able to conclude that allocation of the site would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the nearby National Landscape. - In the absence of being able to provide a safe access, the site is undeliverable Allocation of the Lodge would therefore be in direct conflict with the overarching sustainable development aims of the NPPF, is unsuitable and undeliverable and as such should not be progressed as an adopted site allocation. Allocation of the site would render the DPD unsound, contrary to NPPF paragraph 36: - Unjustified – allocation of the site is not appropriate when faced with the clear evidence relating to woefully inadequate access visibility and highway safety; - Ineffective – in the absence of safe access, the site is undeliverable and thus not effective. - Inconsistent with national policy – the access would result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety, the site is unsustainable and it is not proven that its allocation would conserve and enhance the National Landscape. Accordingly, its allocation would be wholly inconsistent with the NPPF and national policy, including the Planning Policy for Travellers. We trust our representation will be given due consideration and would request that the Council ensure the views of Kent Highways are sought as part of the consultation process. It is imperative that Officers and KCC Highways both visit the site to see first-hand how significantly constrained the proposed access is in terms of visibility, and we would be happy to meet Officers on site if helpful,
Hope this email finds you well. I have received a notification from your website about the consultation of the Gypsy and Traveller plan. I do have concerns and would like to object about one of the sites in particular - C4S (008) - the Lodge. I am an active runner and regularly run down water lane - the lane at this time of year (specifically today even) is completely unsuitable for this type of site - it is always sheet Ice due to the run off from the fields, right past the proposed entrance. The road never gets salted by KCC as a non-priority road and as such is completely unpassable. I am not sure if you could find a more unsuitable point in the road than this one. Will an assessment of the danger of the road be undertaken as part of this consultation? There was a tragic couple of deaths a few years ago on Thurham Lane which runs parallel to this - again defining the unsuitability of the road for additional dwellings and traffic
I am trying to submit my negative COMMENT ABOUT THE CHOICE OF Water Lane as a site for travellers. It would cause considerable harm to the landscape of Bearsted and the road access is appalling.
We write as residents to formally object to the proposal for the potential site allocation C4S(008) – The Lodge within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Development Document. We object to the inclusion of site C4S(008) – The Lodge as a potential traveller site for the following planning grounds: LANDSCAPE AND AONB/Kent Downs National Landscape impact The proposed site lies within the Kent Downs National Landscape. Being an area of outstanding natural beauty, the natural beauty and scenery of the North Downs is to be protected. The residents work hard to look after it and protect it and there is an expectation from the council that they protect it as well. This expectation is echoed by the National policy that places great importance on preservation and deems it equivalent to a National Park. Policy SP18 (Kent Downs National Landscape) offers Kent Downs National Landscape the highest level of protection and such a development contradicts the policy. According to the policy, reasons to create a new development in such an exceptional area should be exceptional in themselves, enhancing the Kent Downs National Landscape. Allocation of a traveller site in this sensitive location will increase the volume of residential buildings, and, with this, the volume of residents and traffic. The impact on nature and scenery undoubtedly will be impacted negatively and this will contradict the designation of this area as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Without a doubt, the character of the area will be affected. To our knowledge, the council has not shown evidence that there are no other potential sites outside of the Kent Downs and in such circumstances the protection of our land cannot be overridden by traveller accommodation need. Policy SP17 stipulates that development is permitted in the countryside only if emphasis is on conservation and enhancement. Highways and access concerns Such a proposed development will increase traffic and rural lane capacity in such a quiet, rural area negatively impacting traffic on this and surrounding lanes, and negatively impacting access to homes and to the equestrian centre. Lanes in the ME14 area are narrow and are unsuitable for increased traffic that will pose a threat to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, horses and riders. Policy SP18, regarding The Historic Environment, focuses on asset types such as historic parks and conservation areas. Permission to the allocation of C4S(008) can only be granted if consistent with National Planning Policy Framework and if there are very clear and extraordinary benefits to the public. Risk of precedent and incremental harm to the national landscape Permission to proceed with this allocation can, in the future, create pressure for more similar developments. Once permission has been granted for one such development/allocation, it will become increasingly difficult to decline others. Undoubtedly, this will lead to cumulative erosion to numerous aspects of a landscape that will be irreversible. This is not in line with national policy that exists to protect National Landscapes. We respectfully request that site C4S(008) The Lodge is removed from the list of potential site allocations in the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people before it proceeds any further. If the council wishes to continue considering this site, existing residents of the ME14 area need to be provided with strong evidence that addresses landscape impact, highway safety, and the lack of realistic alternatives. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to put forward our views.
When the above site is being discussed I would like the following considerations to be addressed. The only access to the proposed site from Roundwell/The Street is via Water Lane, which is, at best, a two-lane road with passing places, narrowing in places to be single track only. There is no footpath at any point which renders it entirely unsuitable for pedestrian traffic. Mains drainage and mains water supply would be required. Would Southeast Water be able to accommodate such a project, given their current state of credibility caused by their recent track record of unreliability ?
I write on behalf of my clients, Mr and Mrs James Theobald XXXX. Their property is virtually adjacent to the substantial proposed site allocation reference C4S [019] The Meadow. My clients fully appreciate the need for this Development Plan Document and the obligation that rests on the Borough Council to accommodate the needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show people. They do however believe that this specific allocation is inappropriate and indeed fails to follow the Borough Council’s own guidance. Hence they object strongly to this particular aspect of the DPD both in terms of its location and the scale of the site in relation to the surrounding community. Location The site in question lies outside of the built up confines of any settlement that appears in the Borough Council’s Settlement Hierarchy. Hence the site must be considered as lying in open countryside with the approved development plan policies applying appropriately. The area around Chartway Street is characterised by a not insubstantial number of existing dwellings sporadically clustered together. None the less the site is outside any settlement recognised in the Development Plan. Indeed the nearest facilities are to be found in Kingswood, where there is a convenience store and a primary school, or Sutton Valence where there is a Doctors’ Surgery albeit one that at present is not taking new patients. Both Kingswood and Sutton Valance are ten minutes away from the proposed allocated site by motor vehicle and, thus, significantly longer away by foot or cycle. There is no public transport. It is also important to note that whilst the site itself is not in an identified area of countryside protection it is close to, and within the setting of, an area of Local Landscape Importance being on the edge of the scarp slope. In addition I should draw to your attention that the site is crossed by a National Gas Pipe Line. Policy considerations Whilst it is appreciated that this draft DPD specifically relates to Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show people with policies drafted appropriately it is still important to consider this proposal in light of broader National and Local adopted planning guidance. The National Planning Policy Framework is the Government’s published position on planning matters. The latest update was issued in December 2024. Of particular significance to this proposal is the guidance in paragraphs 83 and 84 which, in dealing with development in rural areas, seeks to concentrate the limited development opportunities that there are to allowing existing settlements to grow modestly. Outside existing settlements [in open countryside] very specific exceptions are set out which do not include caravan sites. Hence the normal policy presumption on the proposed site is that development would normally be refused. It is also relevant to this case to note paragraph 135 which deals with the considerations that Local Planning Authorities should give to the impact of new proposals not least on existing residents. Especially the guidance states that new proposals should be “sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting..”. In addition sub paragraph f says that new development should “create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well being with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users..” The broad national guidance is carried through into the Maidstone Local Plan Review not least in policy LPRSS1 which, as a strategic imperative states that protection is to be given to the rural character of the Borough and that development will generally be confined to the settlements identified in the plan [which, as previously stated, the proposed site lies outside]. Of particular relevance to the proposal in question is policy LPRHOU8, which deals with Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Accommodation. This states that permission would be granted for such uses if, inter alia, the following criteria are met: b] local services, in particular school, health and shopping facilities are accessible from the site preferably on foot, by cycle or by public transport c] the development would not result in significant harm to the landscape and rural character of the area. I suggest that the proposed site fails to meet either of the above criteria. In terms of consistency it is important to note previous decisions made by the Borough Council on proposals for gypsy sites in the countryside. Just one example is 2024/0962 which proposed five caravans on land south of Pluckley Station and which was refused as “an intrusive and incongruous form of development that would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the rural locality”. It is worth noting that this site is in a far less conspicuous location than this proposed site at Chartway Street. Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people DPD I turn now to the draft Development Plan Document which is the subject of the current consultation. As previously stated my clients understand the need for this DPD and broadly accept its thrust. Policy TR1 sets out the spatial strategy to be applied to allocated sites and new proposals. This again relies greatly on the settlement hierarchy but with regards to sites in the countryside states that sites will be provided in accord with the following criteria: 1. Through appropriate intensification, reorganisation or expansion of existing authorised sites 2. Through the redevelopment of previously developed land 3. As a rural exception site. With regard to the last point policy TR6 requires such a proposal to [amongst other points]: 1. be justified by a local accommodation needs survey, 2. be of a scale which is in proportion to and does not dominate the nearest settlement community 3. be suitably located in terms of access to local facilities by foot, cycle or public transport I suggest that this particular site fails to satisfy any of the above criteria and therefore its allocation would be in fundamental conflict with the policies in the DPD which guide site allocation and permissions. Proposed Allocation C4S [019] The Meadow is included in the Draft Plan as a result of a Call for Sites submission rather than having been identified by the Borough Council through its own survey and investigative work. No site capacity is suggested but it is of substantial size. In relation to the scattered dwellings in the vicinity it will be overwhelming and significantly out of scale with its surroundings.. Chartway Street is currently a well integrated community, and imposing a significant new community on to the area will fail to meet the NPPF guidance of ensuring that new proposals will provide a high standard of amenity – in its full sense, and wellbeing - for existing and proposed residents. Integration of many new residents on the proposed site with existing residents just will not happen. The resulting situation will be to the detriment of all now and in the future. To include a specific proposed allocation of this nature in the DPD will risk undermining the confidence that one may have in an otherwise sound and well meaning document. Conclusion Generally the draft DPD provides a reasoned and soundly based approach to accommodating the needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show people in Maidstone. However as is clearly demonstrated above, the proposed specific allocation of The Meadows site is clearly not in accord with National guidance, the Council’s own Development Plan Review and indeed the strategic policies in the DPD itself. Should this proposal remain in the DPD it will be to the detriment of local residents, the character of the countryside, potential occupants and the integrity of the overall DPD document. I therefore ask that site C4S [019], The Meadows, be removed from the DPD before it progresses to the next stage.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed inclusion of Site C4S (008), The Lodge, Water Lane, ME14 3LT in the DPD plan. Based on my extensive familiarity with the area, its history, and the current services available to properties in the vicinity, I believe this site is wholly unsuitable for any further consideration and should be removed from the proposed plan. In arriving at my conclusion, I have relied upon my very many years’ experience as both a police officer and local government officer where I was employed as a manager within the Highways Department of Ashford Borough Council. XXXXX Bridge Farm, Water Lane, Thurnham, ME14 3LT. Prior to purchasing the property, they kept horses at Bridge Farm, and as a regular visitor both to their horses and now to their home, I have become very well acquainted with the proposed site, its immediate surroundings, and the services and history of the local properties. Water Lane is a very narrow and busy country lane, with only a few available passing points. Throughout the year, the road carries significant surface water, largely runoff from the surrounding land. On several occasions during my visits, I have encountered flooding at the section where Water Lane meets the Roundwell, as well as under the motorway bridge north of the proposed site. Visibility when turning onto Roundwell from Water Lane, particularly when turning left, is particularly restricted. An additional hazard is caused by the limited view to the left because of the curvature of the road and owning to the facts that a row of cars is most frequently parked on the opposite site of the road causing approaching traffic to travel on the offside of the road and invariably at a fast speed, Currently, Water Lane is used by many walkers, dog walkers, and horse riders. The existing volume of traffic already presents a considerable risk to these users, particularly when the road is waterlogged, as there are no footpaths or street lighting. Any form of development would inevitably increase traffic levels, thereby exacerbating the existing dangers and risks along this stretch of road. Access to The Lodge is via a driveway owned by my son, with access allowed over the driveway to the owners of the Lodge. Recently, the owners of The Lodge have for some reason removed bushes and trees growing on their land where it borders Water Lane, just north of Bridge Farm’s entrance, quite probably in premature expectation of receiving permission to create their own driveway entrance. When joining Water Lane from my son’s driveway by car, care and extreme caution is required due to restricted the severely restricted visibility, which is caused by the trees and hedging growing on the border of the road and the curvature of the road. According to the planning application submitted by the owners of The Lodge, they propose to create a new entrance to their land from Water Lane, which would be situated north of Bridge Farm’s current access point. In 2024 the owners of The Lodge applied to remove protected (TPO’d) trees near Water Lane—an application which was refused. The justification for removal was that these trees obstructed the view from Bridge Farm’s driveway and made exiting onto the road extremely dangerous. These protected trees (one on The Lodge’s land, two in a neighbouring farmer’s field), along with the mature hedgerows, continue to limit visibility. Should a new access point be created north of Bridge Farm’s entrance, visibility would be even further reduced, especially with the likelihood of larger and slower vehicles using the access, making it entirely unsuitable and dangerous. The application for the site suggests that all necessary services are available. However, I understand that The Lodge and Bridge Farm share ownership of the pipe supplying water to both properties. This pipe is of small diameter and travels a long distance from the mains, resulting in very low water pressure and slow flow. Any additional users would further decrease water availability, meaning any new development would require its own independent water supply. Neither Bridge Farm nor The Lodge is connected to mains drainage, and connection to the mains is understood to be neither practical nor possible given the location. Furthermore, neither property is supplied by mains gas; while there is a mains gas pipeline nearby, it does not provide domestic supply to the local area. Bridge Farm has long benefited from its quiet, unspoilt countryside setting, with The Lodge (a modest two-bedroom bungalow) as its sole neighbour. The Lodge’s land borders both the northern and eastern boundaries of Bridge Farm, and any new development here would significantly and negatively impact both Bridge Farm and the surrounding rural landscape, particularly in consideration of the additional activity that a caravan site would impose on the area, introducing more homes, vehicles, and people to the area. During my visits, I have observed a variety of wildlife, including all manner of wild birds including buzzards, bats, badgers, snakes, toads and owls, whose habitats will undoubtedly be disturbed by development. In summary, I object to the inclusion of Site C4S (008), The Lodge, Water Lane, ME14 3LT in the DPD plan for the following reasons: · Water Lane is undoubtably unsuitable for increased traffic or development. · Access to the site for the proposed purpose would be dangerous and inadequate. · The site’s existing services are completely insufficient to support further development without significant update, improvement and increased capacity. · Any development will have a detrimental effect on existing properties and the local countryside My submission outlines my concern and objections to the inclusion of Site C4S (008), The Lodge, Water Lane, ME14 3LT in the DPD plan, citing inadequate site services such as water, drainage, and gas, concerns about the environmental impact on local wildlife and the rural landscape, and the unsuitability of Water Lane for increased traffic or development. The proposed development is considered to pose significant risks to both the countryside character and existing properties without extensive infrastructure improvements. I have included photographs showing the existing access from Bridge Farm/The Lodge on to Water Lane (in one of these photographs one of the TPO trees is shown) and the other photographs show the road junction of Water Lane and Roundwell.
Traveller Site Expansion on The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence, ME17 3JB Dear Sir A few personal points that may or may not meet your planning criteria. Population. The addition of thirty extra caravans has the potential to increase the number of people living in the area by ninety plus, with access onto single track Pitt Road. There as has been stated, no school or GP availability in the area as they are already over subscribed. Raw sewage is pumped onto the road from one of the present sites near the junction with Chartway Street and Pitt Road, with the potential health hazard. There would need to be a major infrastructure upgrade to cope in an already crowded area. Integration. Whilst the integration with the current traveller sites and the local population has been reasonable, there are ongoing issues with traveller children not at school carrying out vandalism with motor bikes and catapults especially at the Ridge Golf Course, but also at other locations in the area, these are ongoing and known to the police. I could make many other points, but I think these have been very adequately dealt with in the Formal Objection. I understand the MBC is in a difficult position as the sites have to go somewhere, but we are already at capacity.
Formal Objection - - Traveller DPD Consultation Reference (C4S019) The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB (C4S019) Proposal: allocation of15 additional Traveller pitches adjacent to 35+ existing pitches (in 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 (Reference C4S019) is inconsistent with national and local policy, and should be removed from the Traveller DPD / Local Plan allocations.
We have had multiple LPA consultation deadlines in recent months and, combined with the resource needs of manually completed visual checks, this means that have been unable to check the detail of the ‘Detailed Site Allocation Policies’ from page 35 of this draft DPD. We have therefore responded to this consultation in more general terms. Should Maidstone BC need Southern Water to complete detailed checks at this stage please respond to the Planning Policy team [(X)] to arrange for this to be completed ahead of the Regulation 19 version of this draft DPD.
With regards to the above consultation I would like to raise our households objection to the proposed site in Bearsted/Thurnham – site ref: C4S (008). Our object is based on a number of factors: Safety on highways and access: as a frequent user of Water Lane to run and walk in – I have had many near miss instants of cars including one this morning where a car nearly hit myself. As a neighbour of Sue and Tom Corkery who were killed in January 2024 on the sister road of Thurnham Lane I am concerned that we will see an increase in instances of accidents especially if this site is allowed and the traffic increased and with the size of the vehicles and caravans on the road which Travellers generally use. Also there is limited access to the road and turning circles. The area proposed is while on the outskirts of a small village, the actual site is rural and bringing in accommodation into this area will greatly impact the rural character Increase in the volume of traffic on the supporting roads in the village. These are small rural roads which are often already extremely busy with rush hour traffic and during Operation Brock there is an even greater volume of traffic and already large vehicles are advised not to travel along these roads due to the narrowness and the railway bridges. I honestly do not think that this is a suitable location for the proposed site plan because of the above but there is also the huge local disapproval to this plan and for a whole village to be against this shows that this is not the right place for this plan.
We wish to raise our concerns over the consideration of a Gypsy and Traveller site at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted. This development at the base of the North Downs would have significant negative impacts on the local environment and residents. Water Lane is a very narrow single track country lane utilised by local residents, farm vehicles, dog walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders. There is no street lighting, foot paths or adequate verges to allow safe passage and increased footfall on this lane will have a huge negative impact. The access point to the Lodge from Water Lane is not suitable for any increased traffic movement and this area of Water Lane is prone to excessive flooding causing continuous problems to local residents. The area is recognised as an area of outstanding natural beauty and conservation zone based at the foot of the North Downs where any development will impact the Kent Downs Natural Landscape.
I would like to submit my comments regarding the above public consultation of proposed site Lodge Farm Water Lane Bearsted and have my objection noted. I have lived in Bearsted for almost 35 years. During that time I have used Water Lane as a pedestrian, dog walker, driver, horse rider and during that time the difficulty of using the lane has increased. The lane is historically notorious for flooding culminating in deep water where the lane meets the Roundwell and this is treacherous during the winter months. This isn’t just confined to the bottom of Water lane but the whole of Water Lane for treacherous conditions. The lane is not managed by Kent County Council in the road gritting program and therefore the likes of winter 2018 will continue. During that winter the lane was virtually cut off with horrendously deep snow drifts and took a such long time to thaw especially from the Lodge/Bridge Farm entrance because the lane is sheltered by trees/railway bridge/almost vertical banks and would be still frozen at the bottom of the lane. From February 2014 to March 2018 I used the lane twice a day either with my car or as a pedestrian and know that the lane is not suitable for a local increased amount of traffic. There has been a riding school at the top of Water Lane for many years although it does not operate as a riding school now it is still an equestrian property with owners using and riding in the lane to and from the premises. Visibility in the lane is greatly reduced by the winding nature of the lane with little or no passing places for larger vehicles and more so in areas of the lane and from the M20 bridge down. There is an up take on the lane’s use when neighbouring roads are closed, most recently now happening while restrictions are placed by the Dirty Habit. Much of the diverted traffic are not local to the area so oversized vehicles cause a massive amount of congestion and damage to the banks and hedgerows of the lane and surrounding lanes. Water Lane and surrounding area cannot support an increased amount of vehicles from the proposed site at The Lodge or any other in Water Lane. The Lodge has been a family home for many years and a former owner supported a rural practice over many years by allowing livestock and horses to graze on their land. There is only access to The Lodge via Bridge Farm which is and for many years, been an Equestrian property. Turning in and out of Bridge Farm is difficult with a car because of road visibility either way and therefore larger vehicles would be more liable for road traffic accidents at that point whether it be from Bridge Farm or beside it. I had the pleasure of grazing my animals at the Lodge from May 2016 until January 2018 and had sole use of the land proposed for approximately 1 year. During my time there there were bats and swifts/swallows inhabiting the old dairy which returned during my time there. I know that the land slopes away on both sides and believe that the site to be unsuitable for the purpose proposed. The area is visible from the M20 and the proposed site would affect the area of Bearsted greatly. Bearsted is a well sought after area of residence and generates a good deal of tourism to the area because of local attractions like Leeds Castle. The train line runs adjacent to the site. I am sorry to say that sites like these are not well managed and if it is tucked away there is the propensity for them to be overlooked, not managed and become over crowded which will have an effect to the residents of Bearsted. I also need to remind the council of the double tragedy that happened on the adjacent lane (Thurnham Lane) due to a speeding car and icy conditions and whilst this tragedy was the fault of the driver, if it were not for the fact of surface water that comes from the Downs icing up on the road, it probably would not have happened. I, for one was traumatised by the tragedy, this happened to a local well respected couple just out doing what many residents of Bearsted and visitors to the area do and it would be a shame for anyone to curtail that activity because of increased traffic that this proposed site would bring.
Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Maidstone Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Regulation 18c consultation (2026). We have reviewed the documents online and provided comments below. To allow us to submit a targeted response to your consultation, please accept our comments in letter format. Our key concerns at this stage centre on two of the proposed site allocations namely Policy LPR (256) – Stede Row Woodland, South of Pilgrims Way and Policy C4S (030) – Riverwood. Policy LPR (256) – Stede Row Woodland, South of Pilgrims Way With respect to the proposed site allocation at Stede Row Woodland, the site primarily consists of deciduous woodland, a Habitat of Principal Importance (HPI). HPIs for the conservation of biodiversity in England are listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. The NERC Act, as amended by the Environment Act 2021, places a duty on public bodies to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Due regard to habitats contained within the Section 41 list is key in adhering to this ‘biodiversity duty’. The allocation of this site does not follow the mitigation hierarchy and does not give due consideration to the importance of existing onsite habitats. It is our view that the site is not considered a suitable candidate for allocation at this time and should not be included in future iterations of the development plan, particularly given the habitat known to be present and that surveys have not been undertaken to fully establish its importance for nature or whether any potential development can be suitably mitigated. Policy C4S (030) – Riverwood The proposed allocation at Riverwood sits adjacent to River Len Alder Carr to Fairbourne Mill Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and an area of deciduous woodland. The citation for the LWS states that it supports a complex of habitats including wet woodland and areas of both unimproved and semi-improved grassland which occur alongside the River Len. The LWS site provides refuge for a range of protected, priority and red listed species including kingfisher, turtle dove, reed bunting, and spotted flycatcher as well as water vole and adder. The River Len itself is narrow, shaded and shallow, and flows over base-rich alluvium providing a key habitat for an array of species. Aerial photos of the site indicate that it is already occupied but that the landscaping as required by the draft allocation policy has not been carried out. Notwithstanding this we wish to raise concerns about the proposed allocation and potential impacts of residential occupation on the adjoining LWS. As a minimum we would request that any site allocation policy for this location contains additional requirements to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are put in place to protect the adjoining LWS. These measures should include the provision of a suitably sized and appropriately vegetated buffer zone from the edge of the LWS alongside requirements for the submission and approval of details addressing light, noise and surface water pollution. We hope that the comments made within this letter prove useful in the formation of the Maidstone Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan. We would be more than happy to hold further discussion with you on any of these issues raised.
Ref: Gypsy & Traveller DPD consultation - C4S (008) Water Lane Bearsted. I wish to express my objection to the inclusion of the Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted in the DPD for the following reasons-: Highway considerations. Water lane is predominantly a narrow rural roadway (apart from one wider section under the motorway, north of the proposed site). measuring no more that about 3.6 metres wide in places, especially to the south of the site towards Roundwell and the only viable access way to the site. Given that static caravans measure in width anything from 3 to 4 m (Depending on their length) and required clearance widths are between 3.6 to 4.6 m, it is clear to see that the lane is wholly unsuitable to accommodate these vehicles. I draw your attention to your Policy TR8: General site design and layout - Access, Parking and Storage states at point 142 that "Highway layout should be designed with consideration of the movement of touring caravans or the delivery of static caravans in mind. Sufficient space and turning/manoeuvring area should be created to allow residents to easily take caravans on and off their pitches. Highways should be wide enough that a large static caravan can be delivered by a large goods vehicle to all pitches." Water lane was never designed for this purpose, and the site should not be considered for this reason alone. Public safety. The lane is used extensively by horses, pedestrians and cyclists alike (there are stables at the top of Water lane) and there are brown countryside access signs directing the public up Water Lane from the A20. There is no pedestrian pavement for the entire length of the Lane from the site entrance south to Roundwell. Given the sizes of the caravans as mentioned above, anyone meeting one of these on Water Lane will find their safety severely compromised. Given that Water Lane is a designated Access to countryside lane, putting pedestrians and cyclists at risk flies in the face of your policy TR8 which, under the heading "movement and connectivity" states that layouts should encourage cycling and walking. The site would have the opposite affect for people using Water Lane. Site entrance. The plan indicates that the entrance to the site will be just to the north of the shared entrance to The Lodge and Bridge farm, with an oak tree close to the proximity of the entrance. This oak tree is covered by a TPO order (T3). The proximity of this protected oak will make entry and exit of the site dangerous and more difficult, and will undoubtedly damage the oak, given the size of vehicles that will use this entrance. It must also be noted that the applicant applied for removal of this and other trees previously because they found exiting onto Water Lane to be very dangerous due to the trees and hedgerow obscuring the road. Therefore, by their own admission, they have found it difficult and dangerous exiting onto Water Lane in a car, It would clearly be so much worse with agricultural tractors towing large static caravans. The damage to the lane and tree would be unacceptable. The photo on page 2 shows the entrance and the protected oak, and demonstrates how narrow and unsuitable the turning area and lane is. Environmental. Water lane is situated at the base of the North Downs, and acts as a conduit for rain water running from the Downs and surrounding fields during heavy downpours. It is named Water Lane for good reason. The proposed site will require an extensive amount of road construction and hard standing to accommodate the caravans. This will in turn increase water run off directly onto the lane further increasing potential flooding into properties along Roundwell. It must also be noted that the natural flood plain at the bottom of Water Lane, Lilk Meadow which used to absorb much of this excess water, has now been built on, so there is no capacity to take the extra water. The images below illustrate how much water can flow down the lane at times of ground saturation and heavy rain. Image 1, looking North from the start of Water lane near Roundwell. Image 2, further up the lane just before the railway bridge looking north. Image 3, looking south towards Bearsted and Roundwell, the junction in the distance. The site sits at the base of the North Downs area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, on a rise that will make the site quite visible from the North Downs. The photo on page 3 shows the proposed access route in the foreground between the 2 fences and demonstrates how the land slopes upwards to the right where the caravans will be situated. It is evident that the site sits on a prominent position and therefore would be highly visible for the North Downs AONB. The North Downs, more than any other AONB is experiencing unprecedented pressures regarding urbanisation and population growth, and this ill considered site should be allowed to add to that burden. Bridge Farm. The above photo was taken from the property of Bridge farm and shows the more northly or 'Secondary route" access to the site. This clearly indicates that vehicles would be passing only 10 to 12 meters away from the occupants home which in planning terms is unacceptable. The more southerly access only allows for domestic access to the Lodge and is not intended to be used for further development. Additionally, it would be impossible to screen and vehicles would again be running some 12-13 meters from the Bridge Farm dwelling, again not acceptable in planning terms. I therefore reiterate that, for the reasons above, I strongly object to this proposal and the site should be withdrawn from the draft DPD.
We wish to note an objection to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site located at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted (Thurnham), reference C4S (008). There is an immediate and obvious increase to the risk of traffic accidents. Water Lane is a very narrow country lane frequented by walkers and horse riders daily, and increased traffic (particularly large vehicles transporting horses or caravans) increases the likelihood of a serious accident. Recently there was a sadly similar and fatal incident on Thurnham Lane: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-68046916 Water Lane (as the name suggests) regularly floods and in the winter is very icy causing further risk. The Kent Downs is one of outstanding natural beauty and this will interfere with the landscape. There are a number of important Oak trees on the site which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. Owners of these protected trees must not carry out or permit damage to them yet there is no explanation or indication as to how the Tree Preservation Orders will be followed and the trees protected. There is a wealth of wildlife in this area which would be negatively affected. Bearsted & Thurnham have seen 2 recent developments and cannot support further development without serious investment. The council expect comments regarding the proposed development to be factual and not driven by an emotional response and yet Tony Harwood has written a foreword which recalls his childhood and fond memories, a blatant breach of the council’s own regulations.
No answer given
POLICY C4S (017) – THE BRISHINGS : The scope of the site (20) is too large and will overburden the neighbourhood. Access via Green Lane is dangerous and will severely impact Heath Road which is already at a dangerous level of traffic since there are no pavements to protect pedestrians from through traffic. Access should be provided directly onto the B2163. POLICY C4S (019) – THE MEADOW This is a site which has been subject to unregulated use and, I believe, some enforcement action. A regulated use of the site is welcome, particularly the section currently belonging to the Fannon Group, whose wild built-barn has blighted the area for over 10 years. Joining this section with the site to the east would make perfect sense. Encroaching into the paddock to the west, however, would stipulate an over-development of the green belt here. No pitch numbers are stated but their number should be kept low, below 10 in total, to avoid a ghetto-isation of the GTS community in an area where there are already copious GTS sites within a 500 metres radius. Vehicular access should be via Chartway Road while pedestrian, horse and bike access may be granted via Pitt Road.
My comments are in regard to the following proposal; C4S (017) The Brishings (20). The granting of planning permission is dependent on the site being accessed via Green Lane. This route is not currently a practical or safe option. Green Lane is a two way, single lane track with no pavement on either side and with no public lighting. There are minimal opportunities for cars to pass each other when travelling in opposite directions and, because of the high hedge, there is a blind corner on the route from the site to Leeds Road. The lane is not suitable for large vehicles, lorries or large caravans. There are no retail outlets or direct employment opportunities in the village so the regular use of vehicles would be essential for the occupants of the 20 proposed pitches. This would, necessarily, significantly increase the risk of accidents and congestion in, and around, Langley village.
I have read and agree with all the comments made by Helen Whately MP in her letter to the Council dated 10.12.2025 in which she said: “I would like to raise my objections to the following sites that the Council is considering. POLICY C4S (008) - THE LODGE I am concerned that the Council does not specify how many pitches it is considering for this site. That said, the Lodge is accessed via a very narrow country lane which would not be suitable for a site of any size. I also share local concerns that it will have a detrimental impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape and could negatively impact several important Oak trees on the site which have tree preservation orders. POLICY C4S (017) - THE BRISHINGS This site is so unpopular locally that residents have drawn up a petition against it. It is important that the council takes into account the strength of local opinion when making planning decisions. Also, like the Lodge on Green Lane this is a one-track country lane which again would be totally unable to cope with the volume of traffic 20 pitches would generate. POLICY C4S (019) - THE MEADOW I am concerned that the DPD does not specify how many pitches would be allocated to this site and the local road network will not be able to manage many more car movements. It is quite a large site with the potential to expand beyond its road capacity - which could be a problem in the future. POLICY C4S (028) - OAKLAND PLACE, POLICY C4S (003) - WOOD VIEW FARM, POLICY LPR (256) - STEDE ROW WOODLAND, SOUTH OF PILGRIMS WAY and POLICY C4S (004) - ACRES PLACE There is too much development in the pipeline for Harrietsham, Lenham and North Downs for one rural ward to take. On the grounds of overdevelopment, I object to these sites unless they are significantly scaled down.”
Policies LPR(023), CS4(021) and CS4(029) should be deleted for the reasons given in the Council/Appeal reports referred above. The further development of these sites would result in landscape harm, domination of the nearest settled community, and would result in inappropriate highway and amenity impacts. CS4(021) and CS4(029) for 20 and 15 pitches, respectively, would have the greatest impact, and the site size identified is not sufficient for the number of pitches proposed for allocation. Site allocation should be on the basis of expanded TR7 & TR8 policies for consistency.
This is a fairly pointless bit of policy writing; no specific TOR or aims defined. Even the thumbnail maps are not helpful, unfortunately, so I can only comment on the proposed site near us in Bearsted (C4S (008)). I am concerned about the volume and type of additional traffic on Water Lane and the safety for potential site residents and existing village residents, as well as utilities and the environmental impact and flood risk on and because of the development.