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.
Some of these sites are large in number and in the same areas as existing large sites. The council should in my opinion choose small sites evenly populated across the borough. Consideration should also be given to the loss of amenities to the existing community by putting additional burden and pressure on already stretched services.
I do not know each site well enough to comment fully, but it is clear that there are several sites very closely located, and the impact of this on nearby facilities should be considered.
I'm unable to comment widely but from local knowledge can say The Meadows, Pitt Road/Chartway Street is an unsuitable site. Pitt Road is a single track road with few passing places and Chartway Street is heavily used by both residential and commercial heavy goods vehicles making already above capacity for this significant increase in traffic. Pitt Road already floods from the run off from the surrounding farmland. This would be significantly increased if a site were to be constructed causing less ability for natural water dispersal. And it's not dissimilar for Chartway Street.
Policy Ref C4S (017) - The Brishings - I do not consider the above site to be suitable for the following reasons: Lack of infrastructure - Green Lane is a single track rural lane running parallel to the site on one side, providing no suitable access to it. The adjoining Shepherds Way is often restricted to a single lane for its entire length due to resident parking. Lack of local amenities - schools and shops can only be accessed by transport and public transport is very limited. Also, the local GP surgery has no capacity to take on new patients. Risk of flooding as identified in the UK Flood Risk Map. Any development of this site would increase surface water on adjoining roads. Damage to the local environment - The Brishings is a greenfield site, historically used for agricultural purposes. It also provides a habitat for wildlife. Both are essential to maintain in light of recent and ongoing housing developments in the area. Light and noise pollution. Detrimental impact on the character of the area including several nearby listed buildings.
Site C4S 017 Brishings is unsuitable. With access onto single track Green Lane
Policy C4S (008) We consider that this site is totally unsuitable as the access is via a very narrow lane with no footpaths,which regularly floods. This proposal will overwhelm the local infrastructure to the detriment of local residents.
I wish to protest about the plan to create a Gipsy and Show people site in Water Lane Bearsted. It is not a suitable site for such a development, or any other development that would need access by vehicles of various sizes. 1. Water Lane is very narrow and vehicles cannot pass each other without extreme diffulculty. 2. The whole of that area comes into the category of outstanding natural beauty which would be destryed by any buildig development. 3. The lane regularly floods and becomes impassable. 4. The water and sewage infratructure are already insufficient to support existing housing. 5. The traffic in the village of Bearsted is already overwhelming and under investigation with the aim of reducing it. Further development would be contrary to the need to reduce traffic. Please do not allow this plan to go ahead.
I wish to oppose the planning permission for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document Consultation closes on the 11th of January. The road infrastructure is not sufficient to cope with 42 mobile homes. It's bad enough for the residents here. I also think we have more than enough travellers in the village who cause a nuisance especially the children running around with catapults harming the wildlife, and abusive to residents, so I do not want anymore, we have lived in the village for 11 years and enjoy village life as it is.
Policy C4S (002) - Shenley Corner We agree with all parts raised in the policy will be acceptable to us, through the planning process.
Policy C4S (015) - Oakhurst We agree with all points raised in the policy will be acceptable to us, through the planning process.
The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted (Thurnham) This has to be a joke? Hasn’t Bearsted and environs been XXXX enough in recent years - numerous developments with little or no associated improvement to infrastructure - without threatening us with this disasterous proposal. Access is abysmal. the local roads are already inadequate - Roundwell is becoming a racetrack ,especially in the event of M20 problems , which no one seems willing to address- as are doctors, dentists, schools and and and, and. What of the effect on we the residents of a settlement of travellers right on our doorsteps? 300 metres to the access but in reality the site itself very much closer immediately adjacent to the railway line; and what of the adjacent environment itself, we all know how well that is regarded and cared for by the occupiers of such developments. I understand that we are already well in excess of prescribed requirements compared with the country as a whole so let’s look to them to live up to their responsibilities without offloading yet more on good old Kent, once known as the garden of England, but now? NO,NO,NO, this has to be nipped in the bud NOW
C4S (008) I wish to express my concern regarding the suitability of this location as a potential site, based on the following planning considerations: • The site’s location is remote and does not support integration with the surrounding community. • Access to key services and facilities would be limited, resulting in poor accessibility for future occupants. • The site would encourage reliance on private vehicles rather than sustainable travel choices. • There appears to be insufficient public transport provision to support the site sustainably. • Additional traffic movements could have a detrimental impact on local roads and highway safety. • The development has the potential to adversely affect residential amenity through increased noise and activity. Taking these factors into account, I do not consider this site to be suitable for allocation within the DPD. This representation reflects my views as a local resident and is submitted in the interest of sustainable and appropriate development.
I am writing to submit a formal objection to the proposed allocation of land at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted within the emerging Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD). As a resident of Bearsted, I make this representation in consideration of the statutory requirements for development plan soundness, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the obligations placed upon the Council under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. I recognise the Borough Council’s legal duty to identify deliverable and appropriate sites to meet the accommodation needs of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople communities. However, I contend that this particular site fails to meet essential planning tests relating to safety, sustainability, environmental impact, and policy compliance, and therefore cannot be considered suitable for allocation. My grounds for objection are set out below. 1. Highway Safety and Access Constraints Water Lane is a narrow, single-track rural route that lacks the necessary infrastructure to support intensified or large-scale vehicular movements. Specifically, the lane presents: No footways or pedestrian segregation, Restricted visibility and unsafe forward sight lines, Insufficient formal passing places, and Inadequate alignment and geometry for heavy or articulated vehicles. The proposed development is entirely dependent upon access via Water Lane, which is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 110, requiring that developments provide safe and suitable access for all users and avoid unacceptable highway safety impacts. The nature of a Travelling Showpeople site, which is likely to generate movements from towing units, articulated vehicles, plant machinery, generators, and seasonal convoys, is fundamentally incompatible with the physical limitations of this road. It is also relevant to note that a fatal collision occurred on nearby Thurnham Lane, a road of comparable rural character and condition, resulting in the tragic loss of two local residents. This incident serves as a stark reminder that the risks associated with traffic intensification on unsuitable rural lanes are not theoretical but demonstrably real. Where severe highway safety impacts cannot be adequately mitigated, planning policy and legal precedent establish that refusal becomes unavoidable. No credible or deliverable mitigation strategy has been presented to demonstrate that safe access could be achieved. 2. Unsustainable and Car-Dependent Location The NPPF directs that development should be located in areas that support sustainable patterns of living and enable access to services by means other than private vehicles. This site: Is not within reasonable walking distance of essential services, Is not served by public transport, and Necessitates full reliance on private car journeys for daily needs, as well as for service and delivery access. This conflicts directly with NPPF paragraphs 8 and 105, which seek to reduce dependency on private vehicle use and promote sustainable development. A wholly car-dependent site, accessed via an unsuitable rural lane, cannot reasonably be considered sustainable. 3. Harm to Landscape Character and Rural Setting The site is located within a sensitive countryside setting on the periphery of Bearsted, bordered by open agricultural land and valued rural landscape. The operational requirements associated with a Travelling Showpeople site — including extensive hardstanding, storage of large vehicles and equipment, external lighting, and ongoing activity — would result in the urbanisation of a currently rural landscape. This outcome would be contrary to: The Council’s own countryside and landscape protection policies, and NPPF paragraph 174, which seeks to safeguard the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The proposal represents a significant conflict in land use and is neither proportionate nor sympathetic to its rural surroundings. 4. Flooding, Drainage and Ground Stability Concerns It is widely recognised within the local community that Water Lane experiences persistent surface water and drainage issues, particularly at lower points along the route. The introduction of hardstanding surfaces, heavy vehicle use, and permanent residential occupation presents legitimate concerns regarding: Increased surface water run-off, Soil compaction from heavy loads, and Heightened flood risk. No supporting evidence has been provided to confirm that these constraints can be satisfactorily mitigated, as required by NPPF paragraphs 159–167. 5. Failure to Satisfy the Tests of Soundness For a development plan allocation to be found sound, it must be: positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. I submit that this site fails to meet these criteria for the following reasons: Justification: Alternative sites with safer and more suitable access appear to exist, Effectiveness: Access limitations raise serious doubts over the site’s deliverability, and Policy Consistency: The proposal conflicts with NPPF requirements for safety and sustainability. The substantial volume of objections raised by local residents, along with representations made by the local Member of Parliament, further demonstrates a lack of community acceptability and highlights questions regarding the practical suitability of the allocation. Conclusion My objection does not challenge the principle of providing suitable accommodation for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople communities. Rather, it is based solely on the demonstrable unsuitability of this specific site. In summary, The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted: Presents unacceptable risks to public safety, Is inherently unsustainable in planning terms, Would result in significant environmental and landscape harm, and Fails key statutory and policy tests for allocation. I therefore respectfully request that the Council removes Policy C4S (008) from the emerging DPD and gives further consideration to alternative sites that can demonstrably satisfy the requirements for safe access, sustainability, and environmental protection.
We write to formally object to the proposed allocation of Site C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, Thurnham – for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation. Our objection is based on material planning considerations and the site’s failure to meet key requirements set out in Maidstone’s Development Plan, including the Local Plan Review and the emerging Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD), as well as national planning policy. 1. Flood Risk and Drainage Constraints Water Lane is known locally to experience regular flooding, particularly at the junction with Roundwell. This raises serious concerns regarding the safety and reliability of access to and from the site for residents, visitors and emergency services. Development Plan policies and the emerging DPD require sites to be located in areas where flood risk can be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated, and where development will not increase flood risk elsewhere. The introduction of residential units, associated hardstanding, and additional foul and surface water drainage infrastructure would be likely to increase surface water runoff and place further pressure on existing drainage systems in an area already prone to flooding. In this context, the site fails to meet flood risk and drainage policy requirements. 2. Inadequate Highway Access and Road Safety Water Lane is a narrow rural road with limited passing opportunities, poor forward visibility and constrained geometry, particularly in the vicinity of the proposed site. These characteristics make it unsuitable to safely accommodate the level and type of traffic associated with residential use, including larger vehicles, service vehicles and emergency access. The Development Plan and emerging DPD require that sites can be safely accessed by all vehicles and do not result in unacceptable harm to highway safety. Given the physical constraints of Water Lane, this requirement cannot be met, and the allocation would therefore conflict with highway safety policy objectives. 3. Lack of Pedestrian Infrastructure and Sustainable Access There are no pavements or public footpaths along Water Lane, nor is there sufficient space within the highway corridor to provide them. Pedestrians would therefore be required to walk in the carriageway alongside vehicular traffic. Given the narrow road width, blind bends and vehicle speeds, this creates an unacceptable risk to pedestrian safety. Planning policy requires development to provide safe and suitable access for all users and to promote sustainable patterns of movement. The absence of any safe pedestrian infrastructure means the site fails to meet these requirements. 4. Absence of Street Lighting Water Lane has no street lighting. This further exacerbates the highway and pedestrian safety issues identified above, particularly during hours of darkness and periods of poor weather. The lack of lighting materially undermines the suitability of the site for residential occupation and conflicts with the policy objective of ensuring safe and inclusive access. 5. Impact on Protected Trees and Environmental Assets We understand that there are Tree Preservation Orders affecting at least three trees in close proximity to the site. Development would inevitably involve construction activity, access works and installation of services within or near root protection areas, placing these protected trees at risk. Development Plan policies require proposals to avoid unacceptable harm to protected environmental assets, including trees subject to TPOs. Given the constrained nature of the site, it is difficult to see how development could proceed without adverse impacts, rendering the site unsuitable in policy terms. 6. Impact on the North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) The site lies in close proximity to the North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Residential development at this location would have an adverse impact on the character and setting of this nationally designated landscape, both visually and through increased activity and noise. National planning policy and Maidstone’s Development Plan afford the highest level of protection to AONBs, requiring that great weight is given to conserving and enhancing their landscape and scenic beauty. Development that harms the setting of an AONB should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, which have not been demonstrated in this case. 7. Previous Planning History and Site Suitability We note that previous planning applications for domestic residential use at this site have been refused. If the site has previously been found unsuitable for conventional residential development on planning grounds, it raises serious concerns as to how it can now be considered appropriate for residential occupation under this allocation. This calls into question the consistency and soundness of the site selection process. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, Site C4S (008) fails to meet key Development Plan and emerging DPD criteria relating to flood risk, highway safety, pedestrian access, environmental protection, landscape impact and overall site suitability. The allocation is therefore unsound and inconsistent with both local and national planning policy. We respectfully request that Site C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, Thurnham – is removed from the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document and not taken forward for allocation.
I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller Plan site at the Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted / Thurnham. Water Lane is particularly narrow and has no footpaths of any description on either side of the carriage way. The railway bridge is also narrow and a bottleneck when the frequent large horseboxes travel up and down to Cobham Manor stables, any extra traffic such as vans and lorries would only add to this problem, also putting pedestrian traffic in the unlit lane at danger. Access to the proposed site from the north would be even more problematic. Please remember the tragic accident on the next carriageway along to the west, Thurnham Lane last year when two pedistrians were killed outright by a speeding motorist.
POLICY C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, Thurnham We would like to comment on the above proposed site allocation only. The following points highlight the unsuitability of the site: Access: The access is currently shared with the neighbouring property and runs very close to their house which could lead to privacy and noise issues. The existing access has poor sight lines onto Water Lane. If the access was moved to the north, visibility and sight lines would be even worse due to the native hedgerows and protected mature oak trees. There is insufficient width for manoeuvring large vehicles, which would not comply with the requirements set out in the document. Water Lane is extremely narrow with high banks on either side at the southern end and a narrow railway bridge situated on a bend in the road. This would be difficult for static mobile homes or other large vehicles to navigate. Water Lane often floods at the southern end, by water flowing from nearby fields so does not provide a safe route for vehicles or pedestrians. There are few places wide enough to accommodate vehicles to pass, which would create problems for access for static and towed caravans, especially as the road is used by horse boxes which access the riding school. There is no footpath or lighting, and the road is often flooded or icy and provides no safe route for children to walk to school, or for other pedestrians. Character of the Area: The site is located within the setting of the North Downs National Landscape. If the hedgerows or trees were removed, it would change and cause harm to the character of the area. Bearsted Parish Council also fully support the comments made by The Bearsted & Thurnham Society.
In light of the detail below, I urge the Council not to include site C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, in the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document at this stage. The site presents significant highway safety, landscape, environmental, arboricultural, and sustainability concerns, which have not been sufficiently considered or mitigated in the Regulation 18c consultation materials. I respectfully request that the Council either remove this site from consideration or subject it to further robust assessment (including transport, landscape and ecological impact studies) before any allocation is taken forward in the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission Plan. Barbara Chandler Thank you for considering my detailed concerns as follows: 1. Inadequate Highway Access and Road Safety Concerns The proposed site is accessed via Water Lane, a narrow, rural country lane with limited width, poor visibility and no pavements or safe pedestrian routes. This road is unsuitable for increased traffic, especially vehicles associated with caravan sites and servicing, and may lead to congestion, safety risks and conflict with existing road users. There are no apparent proposals to improve access or mitigate these issues. These highway safety concerns weigh against allocation under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirement to ensure safe and suitable access for all users. 2. Landscape Character and Environmental Impact The site lies close to the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty / National Landscape (or adjacent sensitive landscapes), where there is a strong need to protect landscape quality and local character. Development of this rural countryside site would result in visual intrusion and harm to the openness and scenic quality of the landscape. The Development Plan Document lacks robust evidence demonstrating that the landscape impact of allocating this site has been thoroughly assessed or mitigated. Local landscape harm is a valid planning concern and should be given significant weight. 3. Impact on Heritage and Arboricultural Assets There are significant Oak trees with Tree Preservation Orders on or adjacent to the site that contribute to local character and biodiversity. Allocation and subsequent development could harm these trees or place pressure for their removal. No evidence has been provided that satisfactory measures have been secured to protect these trees in perpetuity. This omission raises concerns about compliance with environmental protection policies. 4. Lack of Demonstrated Sustainability Credentials Maidstone’s Development Plan Document emphasises locating sites near existing settlements and services. The proposed site at Water Lane does not appear well related to community services, transport connections, schools or health facilities, which undermines the sustainability principles of the Plan. 5. Prematurity of Allocation Prior to Detailed Site Assessments The consultation document indicates that the list of potential sites is not final and may be subject to change, and that further detailed assessments will be undertaken. Allocating this site at the Regulation 18c stage without thorough assessments (landscape, access, ecology, deliverability, sustainability) is premature. This could result in an allocation that fails to meet sound planning tests at later stages of the plan.
I am writing to object to the proposed gypsy site in water lane Bearsted I am objecting as this is green belt and has outstanding natural beauty and would have a terrible visual impact on the countyside Would cause traffic congestion from a country lane into a country village which would be dangerous More congestion for schools, doctors surgeries etc Disruption of wildlife and hedgerows Noise pollution Light pollution in an area of outstanding natural beauty There must be brown field sites where this would be more appropriate
As a resident of Bersted, I am writing to formally object to the proposed gypsy and traveller site in Bearsted and Thurnham, site reference C4s (008). While I acknowledge the importance of providing appropriate accommodation, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this development will have on our picturesque village and community. My specific concerns are as follows: 1. **Impact on the Village Green:** The presence of the site would significantly alter the use, safe nature and cleanliness of the village green, which is a cherished feature of our community and a central aspect of our village’s identity. 2. **Community Well-being and Safety:** There are worries that children from the site, who may not attend local schools, will spend time unsupervised in our community woodland trust, on the green or outside the local shops. This could lead to disturbances and safety issues, affecting residents’ enjoyment and security. 3. **Property Values and Saleability:** The presence of such a site is likely to lower property prices and make it more difficult to sell homes in our village, which could have long-term financial implications for residents. I feel that it is very unfair that my property that I work hard for and pay tax to contribute to the community should be lowered in value for this reason 4. **Community Atmosphere:** The development may cause residents to feel uncomfortable or intimidated, undermining the peaceful and welcoming environment that defines our village. 5. **Increased Travel Risks:** The use of pony and trap and other such transport modes and increased travel in our narrow, rural roads could lead to dangerous situations, especially for children and other pedestrians. 6. **Safety for Children:** The potential for increased traffic and the presence of unfamiliar vehicles and individuals could make it unsafe for our children to play or go out alone. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this planning application and urge you to reconsider the potential adverse effects on our community’s character, safety, and well-being. Please can my objection remain anonymous for personal safety reasons.
I am writing to comment on the proposal of a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople site and the proposed site being located at The Lodge, in Water Lane. I have been a resident in Bearsted all of my life, 52 years, so know the area extremely well. I was very shocked to read that one of the proposed sites has been put forward firstly in this village, an area of outstanding natural beauty, and what horrified me the most, was that the proposal was along one of the most dangerous, narrowest roads, which happens to almost year round be deep in water, hence the name, Water Lane. This applies to both the narrow lane and the surrounding fields. My family and I were very keen horse riders many years back, so know the land and roads around here very well, especially Water Lane, Pilgrims Way and Roundwell, so I feel I am justified to comment on this proposal and give my points of view. There are many negatives to this suggestion of having a site at this location, but I would like to write a few down, which I hope will be looked at and considered. I do understand that Gypsy and Travellers need accommodating, along with everyone in our society, but I really feel strongly, that there are many better sites, which would suit both their needs, and not have such a devastating impact on an area. I have read that you have a few sites you are considering and feel the others will be much better suited. Bearsted and Thurnham and the close surrounding areas are already at bursting point with houses, cars and people. Developers keep building on any bit of land they can get there hands on, and this cannot continue, if we are to keep the integrity and beauty of our village. There are far too many cars on our roads, which a great deal of them in this direct area were built for horse and carts, and have not been widened since being built, and neither should they be, to maintain the character of our village. Water Lane, Tower Lane, Roseacre Lane, The Green, Sandy Lane, Yeoman Lane, Sutton Street, Plantation Lane, to name just a tiny amount, to give examples of a few. The lanes are narrow, windy and have no pavements for pedestrians. If you are to add travelling showpeople and gypsies to this, it would be a total disaster, and if they were not grounded from mud and water trying to get out of Water Lane, onto Roundwell, or the other end, Pilgrims Way, then they will get stuck from oncoming traffic, being cars, tractors, farm machinery and horses, that use our roads and lanes. If they are true travellers, then the constant coming and going of their cars, vans, lorries, horses will destroy the fields where you are proposing they live, and their accommodation will sink, and the areas they travel to and from will be badly impacted. Surely there is terrible drainage issues in the area, judging by the amount of times Water Lane is closed throughout each year, due to flooding, landslides and debris over the road. In winter, it is barely passable on foot, or vehicle, due to the constant water turning to ice. The pot holes are just continuous, and the sides of the roads have deep gutters and parts of the lane missing completely, due to the constant water damage. Even straight after it is repaired, the issues return almost straight away. How will having all these people living on the proposed site coming and going with trailers, cars, horses etc help this situation, and how will they dispose of their toilet matter and washing facilities? If this proposal goes ahead, the area along the Pilgrims Way, Thurnham and Bearsted will be blighted FOREVER! It is an Area of Outstanding Beauty for a reason. The wildlife, hedgerows, trees and fields will be irreplacebly damaged. No matter how much shielding you build, it will not hide the fact a huge area will be detrimentally damaged and gone forever! The landscape will be changed and the visual impact will be awful. As a village, we try to keep the rural character of the village, the land and the many listed buildings protected, why on earth has Water Lane even been considered, just because it happens to have an area of land not built on yet! The road safety, no visability around every tight bend, congestion, let alone highway access are just some of the things that spring to my mind, when you consider building anything up Water Lane or beyond that area heading towards the Pilgrims Way. What about the farm house and other homes up Water Lane, Pilgrims Way, Roundwell etc who will be directly blighted by this proposal. The worry and stress of just the proposal of something so impactful must be causing them great distress and financial ruin. Their property along with everyone's in the surrounding area, will plummet in price and be unsellable. It really is just awful. Then there are all the other things to consider such as there are limited places in our schools, waiting lists to get onto the doctors and dentists books, how will these people access shops in travelling vehicles? There is nowhere big enough to park a normal Mini, let alone anything bigger! I have read quite a bit on the proposed sites on the Maidstone Borough Council's website, but to be fair, it is very confusing and quite hard to actually reply, which makes me worry that you have made it very difficult for actual residents of our village to comment for a reason. But please do take all of my comments on board, and any others from people who may have written in. Once something great like our village has gone and been changed, it is irreplacable. There are better sites to consider, which will have less impact on so many things. I would also like to say that although I do not have very much direct experience of Gypsies and Travelling folk, the only experience I have actually witnessed in the last couple of years here in Bearsted is a group of Gypsies, who I believe come from the Sutton Valence area, who have ridden their horses, along with carts attached, down to the Green and all around it, at great speed, whilst screaming and whipping their very mistreated, thin and very poorly looking ponies, and then a few times, whilst people were sitting enjoying a summer's day, rode straight over the Green multiple times, churning up the grass, along with the Cricket Green area, galloping and riding at people without a care in the world. When confronted by a few people, they screamed obscenities and just continued. They were then seen riding at speed down the Ashford Road and drinking in The Rose pub, swearing and shouting at each other. Is this what our quiet, beautiful village is going to come to? My parents who live in Hartlip village, have a Gypsy site just down the road, just off of the A2, not far from them, and this was given the go ahead for them to have a site just like the one you are proposing a few years back. A small, well hidden, proper facilitated site for a few, but it has got completely out of hand, as more and more Gyspies and Travellers have taken the law upon themselves, and more and more keep turning up and styaing and now there are so many living there, the council have to fly drones over the top to try and witness what is going on there, as all authorities, including the police and the council, do not want to confront these folk, as they are so dangerous. A few things they do, other than litter the whole area, drive around on quad bikes on land belonging to private homes and across the church land near my parents, steal villagers dogs and cats and use them as bait for dogfighting on site. My parents have found many abandoned, disfigured, starved and badly hurt dogs down their lane, which all came from this site. Horses and ponies, some too ill to save are left tethered on roadsides. Cars have been stolen and joyridden in their village and then set on fire. Fly tipping has increased all around the lanes where my parents have lived for the last 27 years, and if my parents neighbours have caught them fly tipping and spoken to them, the gypsies threaten to follow them home and do unthinkable things, like set their houses on fire. My parents are very caring people and had a couple of men knock on their door asking for directions, who were quite clearly drunk, when they directed them and went to shut the door, they got aggressive, and one of them took out a catapult and fired a ball bearing type marble through one of their windows which shattered. My parents called the police who took details, but said unfortunately they know the culprits, and there are too many of them to go and face and try to prosecute them in any way. Just do not open your door next time they were told and the issue has been logged! They have lived in a lovely listed property all this time, and now want to move, purely because of this site. So my parents who raised me in Bearsted, went to Hartlip when we all left home. Their village was like Bearsted & Thurnham, but now they have their house up for sale to move back to Bearsted, and to my horror, this is what you are proposing to come to our village. Please, don't push people out of their homes here. This site would not work on any level. I do not wish to tarnish all Gypsy and Travelling folk with the same brush, but please read what I am saying, just from a tiny bit of experience, and if a site has to be found, a better site proposal MUST be found. We have all worked hard to buy our homes and live here in peace with our neighbours. I fear once you let in a few, you open the gates to something that will quickly be out of anyone's control, especially the council and the police. Thank you for reading my comments and I really hope you consider them in the consultation.
I’ve had a good read of all the information available on-line and have to say that the material is highly confusing and very hard to navigate. Many of the links are circular and I don't believe it is fit for purpose - as most residents will not be able to find their way around It. I thought I was going to see a series of questions to respond to but in fact my submission was made after only one comment. Hence I am writing the following, in addition to my on-line comment. The proposed site C4S-008 is ridiculous. The access route from Water Lane is not an access and did not exist until its recent rough creation. Water Lane regularly floods and any sort of hardcore addition to the proposed long access route would contribute to additional flooding. Water Lane is not safe for pedestrian use, particularly at night. It has no illumination (this is not appropriate) and no pavements. The danger from cars on a similar but wider road was highlighted by the death of two people on Thurnham Lane not long ago. There are no local services within easy reach. No new doctors, schools or shops have been built within walking distance. Yet several new housing developments have been allowed and these have put huge pressure on Bearsted Village and Roundwell. The access through Barty lane (which used to be a country lane) is massively overused already. As an aside, the Grade 2 listed wall there was not re-installed as had been promised (other than a few decorative bricks) and the area has effectively been urbanised. There is a significant litter problem on Roundwell ( I know because my wife and I undertake litter picking duties for the Parish Council) and Water Lane and the creation of a new gypsy site in the vacinity would certainly not diminish this. In summary I object to this site even being considered.
Ref LPRSP 10 (c) LPRGTI 1)-(11) LPRHOU 8 Ref the above suggested development plan We’d like to oppose this plan because we do not feel that the village of Kingswood has the capacity or resources to cope with such an influx of people , vehicles, probably horses and traps ( of which we are aware of now !) We moved to Kingswood 3 years ago such a lovely community to be part of But since then we have no bus service and have to drive everywhere which is also compounded by very frequent road closures To allow another small village which is what it would be is just not sustainable We totally oppose this development
We are writing to formally object to the proposed allocation under Policy C4S (008) at The Lodge, Water Lane. After reviewing the proposal, we have significant concerns regarding the suitability, safety, and sustainability of the site. Our reasons for objection are outlined below. 1. Inadequate Drainage and Existing Flood Risk Water Lane already suffers from a lack of drainage infrastructure, leading to regular and severe flooding along both Water Lane and The Street/Roundwell. Any further development will likely exacerbate existing flood conditions, increase surface‑water runoff, and place additional strain on already inadequate drainage capacity. 2. Unsuitability of Water Lane for Large Vehicles and Pedestrians Water Lane is a narrow, rural road with no passing points, poor visibility, and no footpaths, making it inherently unsafe for additional traffic—especially large articulated vehicles associated with travelling showpeople. Increased HGV‑type movements would create hazardous conditions for pedestrians and local residents, cause congestion, and heighten risks at junctions with The Street and Roundwell. 3. Harm to the Character and Landscape of the Area The proposed site is located in an area of natural beauty and rural character. At the time of purchasing our property, we were advised that this land would not be built on or used for residential purposes. A high‑intensity, operational travelling showpeople site would cause material harm to the landscape, alter the rural character, and introduce an incompatible land use. 4. Insufficient Utilities and Pressure on Local Infrastructure The area is already experiencing significant strain on water and electricity supplies. Residents of new‑build developments are acutely aware of the limited capacity. Any additional demand on the water main serving The Street will likely reduce supply reliability and increase disruptions for the wider Bearsted community. 5. Poor Suitability of the Site for Travelling Showpeople The proposed location is remote from essential public amenities, with limited public transport and no village bus service. Its proximity to a railway line would further diminish living conditions. The site therefore fails to provide an appropriate or supportive environment for travelling showpeople. 6. Alternative Sites Available Within Maidstone There are numerous empty and under‑utilised properties within Maidstone that could be redeveloped for this purpose, avoiding unnecessary pressure on sensitive rural areas. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, and request that the site be removed from the Local Plan Review.
I am writing to oppose the proposal of a Gypsy and Traveller site in Bearsted. This small Village has already spread so much that it can hardly call itself a Village now. It has a lot of traffic now using it as a short cut driving at speed. It can hardly contain what it has resident wise as it is if you add more people in this very small area it won't ever cope. There are lots of areas around Kent. Please stop doing this in and around Maidstone. Too many people, too many cars, resources can't cope.
As a local resident living at XXXXX I would like to raise my concern and objection to the propsed Travellers site location at The Lodge just off Water Lane, Thurnham/Bearsted. Access to the location near The Lodge would be via Water Lane, which is a narrow unlit country lane which is already struggling to cope with additional traffic since new buildings have been developed over recent years. The infrastructure to accomodate more homes just aren't available - this includes schools, public transport and amenities. In addition access to the location is narrow too with hedging and trees in place which is in keeping with a rural location in an area of natural beauty. There are trees with preservation orders in that area too. There should also be consideration of the local biodiversity with a biodiversity, ecological and wildlife survey requirement as bats, slowworm and orchids all within that area. Archelogical finds have also been found in that area too. All these will require consideration and in depth surveys at the site. Any additional homes using Water Lane as an access point will put addition strain on local country lanes. Water Lane itself often floods and in cold weather freezes and can become very dangerous with water draining from fields too which freezes and cracks the road surface. The propsed site off the lodge would be very near to an existing building and would change the landscape and tranquility for those people living there. With the number of homes being proposed for this travellers site it would also impact the local residents to be bringing addition traffic to the area. Please accept this email as an objection to the The Lodge Water Lane site being considered as a Travellers Site or indeed any additional housing .
We are writing to object to the proposed allocation of “The Lodge, Water Lane” within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (Regulation 18c). Our objection is based on first-hand experience of the site and its immediate surroundings, as frequent visitors to Bridge Farm, the neighbouring property. This gives us direct knowledge of the access arrangements and the characteristics of Water Lane. Highway Safety and Access Constraints Highway safety is our primary concern. Water Lane is a narrow, busy country road with very limited passing points. It has no footpaths or street lighting and is regularly used by walkers, dog walkers, and horse riders. The proposed access is immediately adjacent to the existing access serving Bridge Farm, where visibility is already severely restricted. Introducing additional traffic movements at this point would significantly increase the risk of accidents for all road users. The lane is not designed to accommodate the type and frequency of vehicle movements associated with a new site. The absence of safe pedestrian provision, combined with the rural character of the lane, creates an unacceptable conflict between vehicles and vulnerable road users. This is contrary to the principles of safe and sustainable access set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS), and the draft policies within this DPD. Flooding and Surface Water Issues Water Lane is prone to surface water accumulation, particularly near the junction with Roundwell, where flooding has occurred on multiple occasions. Any intensification of use would exacerbate these drainage issues and increase highway hazards during wet conditions. Context and Wider Safety Concerns The vulnerability of rural lanes to accidents is well documented. While not directly related to this site, the fatal accident on Thurnham Lane in 2024 illustrates the risks posed by narrow country roads with mixed traffic and no pedestrian infrastructure. Water Lane shares these characteristics, and adding further pressure to this network would be irresponsible. Landscape and Environmental Impact The site lies within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape (formerly AONB), an area afforded the highest level of landscape protection. As frequent walkers in the Kent Downs, we are acutely aware of its sensitivity and value. Development at this location would introduce a visually intrusive element into an otherwise rural and open landscape, undermining the DPD’s stated aim to safeguard landscape character and ecological integrity. Policy Conflict The proposed allocation conflicts with the DPD’s own principles of good design, residential amenity, and environmental protection. It fails to meet the tests of suitability and sustainability under the PPTS and NPPF, particularly in relation to safe access, landscape impact, and infrastructure capacity. Conclusion For these reasons, we strongly object to the inclusion of “The Lodge, Water Lane” as a potential site within the emerging plan. The combination of highway safety risks, flooding issues, and landscape harm makes this location wholly unsuitable for development.
Harrietsham Parish Council has viewed the documentation contained within the above consultation and requests that the following comments be taken into consideration when determining the suitability of future sites within the Borough. Site: C4S-028 – Oakland Place This site is located within the setting of Kent Downs National Landscape and is sensitive to its protection and enhancement. There is no indication as to number of pitches proposed nor detail relating to how the site will be developed in the future. The view of Harrietsham Parish Council is that this area, though having mobile homes sited within it, should not be further enlarged to increase the further urbanising effect of the open countryside. There are numerous policies contained within Maidstone’s adopted Local Plan including Policies LPRSP14(A) and LPRENV3 which all relate to the area’s protection. The National Planning Policy Framework places great weight on conserving and enhancing nationally designated landscapes and their settings. The presence of existing plots on this site does not justify further development. Any accumulative expansion would result in demonstrable harm to the landscape character and setting, which has not been adequately considered or addressed. Finally, the Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment advises that the site lies within the Eyhorne Vale Landscape Character Area which is assessed as being of ‘Good’ condition and of ‘High’ sensitivity with guidelines to ‘Conserve’. The fact the area is being considered goes very much against this assessment. Site: C4S-030 – River Wood Planning history for this site confirms permission was granted on appeal (Appeal Ref. APP/U2235/W/21/3283952) for six one-bedroom wooden cladded tourist lodges; subject to strict conditions and landscaping mitigation. The Inspector dismissed proposals for a caretaker lodge, recognising the sensitivity of the site and limited access arrangements as Chegworth Lane is simply a single lane track. The original application had a planting scheme in place, which was accepted by Maidstone Borough Council. However, this scheme would have shown no access to the area known as The Wildlife Site, due to its carefully worded Landscape design. The ecology report stated that the planting would serve the adjacent land, being ideal for its native inhabitants. Campaign for Rural England even suggested that the land surrounding the current caravan/tourist lodge site was not suitable for any further development and made reference to Maidstone Borough Council’s very own policies to justify their statements. Local Wildlife site MA11 was mentioned by Kent Wildlife Trust, who strongly objected to any incursion into the Wildlife area. Helen Forster from the KCC Ecology Department spoke of the significance of the adjacent land being a wildlife site, as well as the River Len Alder Carr and subsequent harm to such an important piece of land. The evidence provided by ecological specialists clearly identifies this land as an intrinsically important wildlife area which requires protection. The land in question has seen development occur in recent months by the import of concrete and hardstanding. Aerial imagery confirms that many trees have been removed for the construction of a road. Such matters should be subject to enforcement action as opposed to simply allowing the land to be adopted in the Council’s call for sites. The original site was accepted as a field with six tourist lodges, with strict conditions, that did not allow for certain practices, let alone a further incursion into the Wildlife Site. The Parish Council notes that recent press interest has highlighted that the Government is facing demands to crack down on illegal traveller sites; noting that the number of caravans parked in unauthorised camps rose by a fifth in a year. Official statistics show that there are 4,464 mobile homes parked on land without planning permission in 2025. An increase of 21% on the previous year. Evidence suggests that high profile cases where travellers had purchased land in the countryside before laying tarmac, usually under cover of darkness, creating pitches before going on to seek retrospective planning applications to remove them. This has clearly happened with this site. Harrietsham Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site, which will not only harm but destroy the habitat within the Harrietsham Wildlife area and the Len Valley corridor. Site: LPR256 – Stede Row This site is located within the Kent Downs National Landscape and therefore designated as Countryside in the Maidstone Local Plan. The site itself is currently predominately woodland. The draft Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Development Plan Document (DPD) does not indicate the number of pitches to be allocated to this site, and therefore it is not clear to what the extent that the site promoter is prepared to develop this site. Regardless of this information, we believe that the site should not be designated a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people development site as this this would be contrary to policies LPRSP9 – Development in the Countryside, and especially LPRENV3 – Caravan Storage in the Countryside, where the siting of caravans inside the Kent National Landscape is specifically not permitted. In addition, the introduction to policy LPRSP14(A) – Natural Environment in the Local Plan states that “protection of the natural environment sits at the heart of the planning system” which, we believe, must also be considered, in addition to the policy itself. In addition, paragraph 189 of the current NPPF states: “Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within all these designated areas should be limited, while development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.” Finally, to the west of the site is located over 100 small plots. In 2021, one of these plots sought planning permission for a change of use of land to equestrian and associated development. This was refused and one of the reasons given was that the proposal "would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as well as the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside hereabouts.” We believe the same reason applies to the proposed Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people proposed site at Stede Row Woodland. The adverse impact caused to this nationally designated landscape of the highest value would be contrary to the Maidstone Local Plan; Maidstone Borough Council's Landscape Character Assessment (2012 amended July 2013); the National Planning Policy Framework (2024); and the Kent Downs National Park Management Plan (2021-2026). For the reasons set out above, Harrietsham Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of the identified sites within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document. The Parish Council considers that allocation of these sites would be contrary to Nations and Local planning Policy and would result in unacceptable harm to designated landscapes and sensitive ecological assets. Furthermore, it would undermine the proper protection the Countryside within the Borough.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of Site C4S (008) at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted/Thurnham, within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document. I am a local resident living in close proximity to the proposed site and consider that the allocation is unsound when assessed against established planning policy and material considerations. Highways Safety and Access The proposed access via Water Lane is inappropriate for the level and nature of traffic likely to be generated by a permanent site. Water Lane is a narrow rural road with constrained width, poor forward visibility in places and a restricted approach beneath the railway bridge. The road already experiences congestion and safety issues. The proposal therefore conflicts with highway safety principles and fails to demonstrate that safe and suitable access can be achieved, contrary to national planning policy. Sustainability and Accessibility The site is located in an unsustainable position, remote from key services, facilities and public transport. Future occupiers would be heavily dependent on private vehicles for day-to-day needs, which conflicts with the objectives of sustainable development and the requirement to locate development in accessible locations. Landscape Character and Visual Harm The site lies within an open rural landscape that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. The introduction of development in this location would result in an unacceptable urbanising effect, causing harm to landscape character and visual amenity. This harm has not been adequately justified or mitigated. Impact on Residential Amenity There are existing residential properties in close proximity to the site. The proposed allocation raises significant concerns regarding adverse impacts on residential amenity, including noise, artificial lighting, increased activity and loss of privacy. Such impacts would be inconsistent with the established quiet and semi-rural character of the area. Cumulative Impact and Infrastructure Capacity The Bearsted area is already subject to cumulative development pressures, particularly in relation to highways, healthcare and education provision. The allocation of this site would exacerbate existing infrastructure constraints, and no clear or robust evidence has been provided to demonstrate that local services have the capacity to accommodate additional demand. While I recognise the need for the Council to make appropriate provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, this does not outweigh the clear planning harm identified above. In my view, the proposed allocation of Site C4S (008) is not justified, not sustainable and not consistent with planning policy. I therefore respectfully request that the Council removes this site from the plan and considers alternative locations that are more suitable and sustainable.
C4S(008) The Lodge I am a local resident and I would like to post my objection to the above site. This area situated on a very narrow country lane very unsuitable for large vehicles trying access the area regularly. No footpaths. The area is also subject to flooding and access in bad weather would be hazardous.
I am against the proposed use of the land for a Gypsy and Traveller site for the following reasons: Water Lane is narrow with limited options for vehicles, especially large ones, to safely pass each other. Turning in and out of Water Lane to and from Roundwell is hazardous because it is on a bend and seeing oncoming traffic along Roundwell from both directions is difficult. There is no footpath for pedestrians along Water Lane and it would not be possible to create one. Walking up and down Water Lane is dangerous especially for children and creating increased traffic would make it more so. Crossing Roundwell at the bottom of Water Lane is also hazardous for pedestrians because of the bend. It is necessary to cross the road here because there is no pedestrian footpath on that side of Roundwell and therefore no option to walk to a safer place to cross. The reasons outlined above also apply to cyclists, especially older children and teenagers who might choose to ride a bicycle to school. To create a site where many people live which is difficult and dangerous to access without the use of a car and which would put them in danger if they walk or cycle is totally unacceptable. I urge you to take these comments very seriously.