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.
In relation to the above Consultation I would like to make the following comments: I object to the inclusion of the potential traveller site at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted. Access to the site is inadequate, especially for Lorries, visiting caravans etc. The site is unsuitable under government guidelines because of the proximity to the M20 and two railway lines. The site could also pose a risk or nuisance for adjoining and nearby agricultural land , which is not directly overlooked by the landowners.
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 to arrange for this to be completed ahead of the Regulation 19 version of this draft DPD.
Letter of Objection to the proposal of a Gypsy and Travelling site Water Lane Thurnham. Location and Sustainability Schools in Bearsted are already oversubscribed and long standing residents of Bearsted and Thurnham would lose places at the school as catchment changes to include this new developments in Water Lane. Local medical services are at breaking point with many local residents now not being able to access NHS services. Highway’s and Access Water lane has a known and historic history of flooding. This is despite extra works being taken with the development of Barty Fam and the new development at Lilk Meadow. The road is also narrow and doesn’t allow for 2 car width for the majority of the lane. There is also a riding stables at the top of Water Lane with horses daily frequenting Water Lane down to Roundwell. The exit from Water Lane to the north is onto Pilgrims Way. Which is an ancient coaching road and is certainly unsuitable for extra traffic. This route is often used by hikers via Water Lane. Landscape Impact It is accepted that Bearsted and Thurnham is situated in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There is no doubt that a traveller site what have a detrimental effect on this rural character. Environment and Ecology There is a reason why Water Lane has received its title. There is already considerable flooding at the bottom of the lane and in cold weather the water draining of the field often freeze’s. Travelling up and down the lane is hazardous and we should all be aware of the recent fatalities on Thurhnam Lane which could so easily be repeated on Water Lane. There is no doubt that the proposed site would have a significant impact on the negativity of wildlife in the hedgerows. Residential Amenity The more people travelling through the village would result in increased noise, lighting and reduction in privacy. Cumulative impact Overall the pressures of having the provision of a Traveller site would have a massive negative impact on the village. Living on XXXX we have seen the increase in traffic and speed of the vehicles especially in the last 5 years. This will only get worse with bringing in another development of the size planned. We urge the Borough Council to exclude the Water Lane site from its development plans.
We are writing to raise our concerns / objections relating to the unsuitability of the proposed site at Water Lane , Thurnham C4S (008) listed in your consultation plan . We object in principle to this proposal in a totally unsustainable location , the proposed site at Water Lane is a narrow unlit rural country lane. There is an unrestricted speed limit and no footpaths . Water Lane road surface is very poorly maintained , uneven and full of pot holes . The southern end of Water Lane , at its junction with Roundwell frequently floods , making passage by vehicles difficult and passage by pedestrians impossible . Water lane is frequently icy in the winter months and this presents a further hazard to all users of the Lane .Water Lane is regularly flooded and does have drainage issues . The access to the proposed site is dangerous , very narrow and not suitable for large vehicles ,mobile home trailers or articulated fairground ride trailer access .There are also Oak Trees on site which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders . The site is located within the Kent Downs National Landscape Area and this area must be conserved and protected . Any development will have a detrimental effect on the landscape and environment .The visual impact of a new site would be significant and not in keeping with the natural rural landscape . The site is also located near an “Area For Potential pre historic Roman and Early Medieval Sites” not far from the Pilgrims Way which is mentioned in the Doomsday Book . The heritage of such a significant area must be protected . The site and surrounding rural areas are home to numerous forms of wildlife , bats and birds or prey . The natural undisturbed habit is a wildlife haven , and this must be protected. The proposed site is next to Bridge Farm which is a private residential property , any development would have a significant impact on the family who live at Bridge Farm .A proposed development should not have a significant detrimental impact on a neighbouring residential property to this extent . The site would create a loss of privacy , excess noise and traffic and a sense of overbearing .Any development will also have an affect on their health and well-being as a family unit . The proposed site is totally unsuitable and must not negatively impact the surrounding residents or local services . There would also be further impact on local services , allocation of school places has been a contentious issue for several years . Many local village children have to travel miles just to get a school placement , as the local schools are so heavily over subscribed .Thurnham would not be able to cope with any more pressure on its local services . The site has not been properly assessed and is totally unsuitable for any form of development due to its location and accessibility.
I am writing to formally submit an objection to the inclusion of site C4S-008 in the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document. I contend that the site is not deliverable, not sustainable, and legally unsound for the following reasons: 1. Irreconcilable Conflict with National Landscape Protection. The site lies entirely within the Kent Downs National Landscape (AONB). Pursuant to NPPF Paragraph 182, the Council is duty-bound to give "great weight" to the conservation of this landscape. • The introduction of an engineered caravan site, hardstanding, and associated domestic paraphernalia would constitute significant "urbanisation" of a highly sensitive, tranquil hillside. • Under PPTS (2023) Policy C (Para 14), the Government explicitly states that "When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such development does not dominate the nearest settled community." • The Footnote 7 constraint clearly tilts the balance such that the protection of the landscape overrides housing need. • The addition of development between the M20 Motorway and the existing railway between Maidstone East and Ashford International would be a blight on landscape for existing residents in the Barty Way development as well as the Mallings Lane development. • The designation of the Kent Downs National Landscape is such that conservation and enhancement of natural beauty is necessary. Alien features such as utility blocks, hard standing, caravans and fencing will not enhance beauty. • It is almost certain that additional and unacceptable light pollution would be created, contrary to the Kent Downs Management Plan which would require less unnatural light for habitat and species protection. • The site would also be highly visible in all surrounding areas including public rights of way. 2. Procedural Unsoundness: Unspecified Capacity. The submission of C4S-008 with an "unspecified capacity" renders the Council's Sustainability Appraisal (SA) impossible to conduct with any degree of accuracy. • Without a defined number of pitches, the Council cannot calculate the impact on the narrow Water Lane, the local water table, or the "Biodiversity Net Gain" requirements. • To allocate a site of unknown density is a failure of the Council’s duty to provide a "Justified" and "Effective" plan. • Water Lane continues to be an area with a high risk of flooding when heavy rain occurs, demonstrated most recently on the 8.01.20-25-09.01.2025. The Street was impassable on foot due to the torrent of water streaming down Water Lane. This produced a large area on The Street with upwards of 16cm of water across the whole road. Further destruction to the earth banks in Water Lane would result in further erosion and therefore a much bigger flooding problem. See attachment • The area between Mallings Drive and Roundwell is already designated as an Amber alert warning for flooding within the Maidstone Borough: https://www.getthedata.com/flood-map/maidstone • To proceed with a significant lack of detail is to propose a thoroughly improper site. This would also be contrary to the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. 3. Severe Highway Safety Risks (NPPF Para 115). Water Lane is a narrow, rural "C" road characterized by steep gradients, blind bends, and significant width constraints. • The road is incapable of supporting the regular ingress and egress of large, towed caravans and commercial vehicles associated with Traveller sites without significant widening. This would represent a severe and unacceptable impact on highways contrary to NPPF Paragraph 115. • Any attempt to widen the road would result in the destruction of ancient hedgerows and protected banks, further violating AONB protections. • The road is also used frequently by pedestrians and equine riders, to access a Bridleway adjacent High Speed One. These pedestrians and equines would be on their way to Thurnham and the North Downs Way, so making their ability to safely walk or ride would be detrimental to local businesses such as the Black Horse Inn in Thurnham. • The road geometry of Water Lane makes turning circles for caravans and heavy goods vehicles impossible. • The lack of continuous lighting on Water Lane, as well as a lack of footways, forces vulnerable road users (e.g. pedestrians) into direct conflict with caravans or heavy goods vehicles. • Parked vehicles on The Street and Roundwell would likely render the delivery or movement of such towed or static caravans implausible. 4. Impact on Irreplaceable Habitats and Biodiversity The site contains several veteran Oak trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). • NPPF Paragraph 186 states that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as veteran trees) should be refused. • The intensification of use on this site poses a direct threat to the root protection zones of these ancient specimens. The compaction of soil in these zones by concrete hard standing, caravans and heavy goods vehicles would lead to further loss over time of these habitats. • You are reminded that there is a requirement for a 10% biodiversity net gain on developments. The adding of concrete hard standing, on a site that is mostly ‘green’, cannot possibly be a biodiversity net gain. 5. Unsustainable location. The National Policy (PPTS) is very clear that sites should be located with proper and sustainable access to amenities such as schools, medical care and public transport without the need for private cars. • This site is physically separated from core services in Bearsted, meaning there will be an over-reliance on private cars or light goods vehicles. • The gradients and lack of lighting and safe pedestrian access on Water Lane would mean residents of the proposed site would be a barrier to use of walking, cycling or other non-vehicular transport, particularly children and the elderly. 6. Feedback from Gypsy and Traveller Residents. I am interested in your consultations with the Gypsy and Traveller population that you are intending to create sites for. As part of this consultation process, documents show that when planning a site, it is pertinent to have older residents plots located furthest away from any childrens areas to maintain a more peaceful location for the older residents. Putting this site right next to a railway line would not seem to support this vision. The availability of local services also is an issue in Thurnham/Bearsted. Local bus services are minimal as are children’s play areas. One such area highlighted in your consultation document, is actually on a private housing development and as such would not be available to the children on the site, leaving them to have to walk down an unpaved road (Water Lane), to access the only nearest small play area on the Green in Bearsted. Conclusion Site C4S-008 fails the Council’s own "Sieve Test" for site selection. It is a speculative submission by a landowner that ignores the "highest status of protection" afforded to the North Downs. I request that this site be removed immediately from the candidate list and not be carried forward to Regulation 19. Continued inclusion undermines the credibility of the council’s process and we are in no doubt that there are many other far more suitable potential sites to consider. Water Lane is simply not capable of taking a higher volume of traffic, it is often a conduit for significant running water making it even more dangerous for vehicular and non-vehicular traffic alike. I further note that the site, being submitted by the landowner, is not one that is being undertaken for the pure purpose of delivering proper and necessary sites for gypsies and travellers / travelling showpeople – it is instead designed to maximise value for that landowner concerned.
22/500705 I would like to draw your attention to the above application that was refused by MBC and the appeal was also dismissed. The owner has since sold the property. I understand the property Woodview has still been mentioned in recent documents as being land that could be suitable for mobiles for Gypsy/Traveller community.
I am writing to appeal against the proposal to develop a residential site at the bottom of Water Lane, Bearsted. The reasons why I believe this is not suitable as a residential site is set out below: Access is via a single track road that is totally unsuitable for additional traffic flow. Water lane frequently floods and can be closed under the bridge at times. The steep banks into Water Lane when driving from Bearsted have already experienced land slippage, further damage caused by vehicles passing and/ or large travelling vehicles will cause further erosion potentially putting the social houses on the Barty Way development at risk. In recent years there was a fatality on Thurnham Lane caused by a car hitting a walker. Water Lane is often used by walkers and horse riders and there is no footpath or bridleway, so using the single track fairly dark road is the only option. The road under the railway bridge is limited in height and width, plus dark making it hard to see road users at times. There is no street lighting There is no mains drainage, so significant infrastructure needed which would include : sewage disposal, as well as electricity and water supply as a minimum. Local schools are already over subscribed, so where would any children go to school? A number of trees have preservation orders on the proposed site. There would be a detrimental impact on the landscape and wildlife. In short there are far better site sites for residential expansion.
We write to formally object to the inclusion of Site C4S (008), accessed via Water Lane, Bearsted, within the Council’s Call for Sites consultation for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation. Our objection is based on material planning considerations, with explicit reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and reflects long-standing and well-documented issues affecting this location. ⸻ 1. Severe and Well-Documented Flood Risk (NPPF paragraphs 159–165) Water Lane, Bearsted has a long-standing and well-documented history of surface water flooding, particularly during periods of heavy or intense rainfall. The lane lies at a topographical low point, where surface water naturally runs down from surrounding higher ground, overwhelming the existing drainage network and forming extensive ponding. Paragraph 159 of the NPPF requires development to be directed away from areas at highest risk of flooding through application of the Sequential Test. Given the established flood history of Water Lane, Site C4S (008) is clearly unsuitable for allocation. ⸻ 2. Flood Interaction with the Lilk Stream and Surrounding Area (NPPF paragraphs 159, 161, 167) Floodwater regularly accumulates at the lower end of Water Lane and has been observed to flow across The Street and into the nearby Lilk Stream, increasing flood risk both locally and downstream. The area locally known as “The Bogs” has long been recognised as flood-prone. Paragraph 161 requires that all sources of flooding, including surface water and interactions with watercourses, are fully assessed. The consultation fails to demonstrate that this has been adequately addressed. ⸻ 3. Inadequate Drainage and Sewer Infrastructure (NPPF paragraphs 167 and 174) The local drainage and sewerage network, including infrastructure operated by Southern Water, is already under strain during heavy rainfall events. Past flooding has resulted in drainage exceedance, sewer surcharge and blockages, demonstrating that the existing system lacks capacity to support additional development. Paragraph 167 states that development should not increase flood risk elsewhere, a requirement that cannot be met at this location. ⸻ 4. Recorded Flood Events and Climate Change Risk (NPPF paragraphs 152, 153, 159) Significant flooding incidents occurred in 2019, with further extreme rainfall events across Kent in 2021 highlighting the vulnerability of local infrastructure. In line with paragraphs 152 and 153 of the NPPF, planning decisions must mitigate and adapt to climate change. Allocating Site C4S (008) would be contrary to this requirement. ⸻ 5. Unsuitable Highway Access and Road Safety (NPPF paragraphs 110–113) Access to Site C4S (008) is via Water Lane, a narrow rural road with steep banks, no pavements, limited visibility, poor lighting and no safe passing places. Flooding frequently renders the lane partially or completely impassable. Paragraph 110 requires developments to provide safe and suitable access for all users. Increased traffic, including larger vehicles, would create unacceptable risks to pedestrians, cyclists, residents and emergency services. ⸻ 6. Impact on Local Infrastructure and Services (NPPF paragraphs 8 and 92) Local infrastructure, including roads, drainage systems, schools and healthcare services, is already under pressure. The proposal provides no evidence that additional demand arising from Site C4S (008) could be accommodated without harming existing residents. This conflicts with the social sustainability objectives of paragraph 8 of the NPPF. ⸻ 7. Harm to Rural Character and Landscape (NPPF paragraphs 174 and 180) The site is located within a sensitive rural setting, and development would be out of keeping with the established character and appearance of the countryside. The proposal would harm the openness and rural character of the area, contrary to national policy. ⸻ 8. Environmental and Ecological Concerns (NPPF paragraphs 174 and 180) There is potential for harm to wildlife, mature trees and established habitats, including possible impacts on protected trees. These environmental effects have not been properly assessed, and no evidence of biodiversity net gain has been provided. ⸻ 9. Scale of Development and Lack of Detail (NPPF paragraph 35) The consultation does not specify the number of pitches, layout, access arrangements, hardstanding or mitigation measures proposed. Paragraph 35 requires plans to be clearly justified and effective; this lack of detail prevents meaningful assessment by residents and decision-makers. ⸻ 10. Cumulative Impact (NPPF paragraphs 8 and 159) Maidstone Borough already accommodates a high number of Gypsy and Traveller sites. The cumulative impact of further allocations, particularly in flood-sensitive and infrastructure-constrained locations such as Water Lane, has not been adequately assessed. ⸻ Conclusion For the reasons set out above, Site C4S (008) – Water Lane, Bearsted is fundamentally unsuitable for allocation within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan. The proposal conflicts with multiple provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly in relation to flood risk, highway safety, infrastructure capacity, environmental protection and climate resilience. We respectfully request that the Council removes Site C4S (008) from further consideration.
I have recently learned of the proposal to allocate land in Water Lane to gypsies, travellers and travelling show people. Whilst I appreciate that it is part of Government policy to provide land, a proposal I feel is fair if the conditions are appropriate, I strongly feel that the location proposed in Water Lane is totally unsuitable. Firstly, the land is located on a Country Lane. The lane is narrow, with a narrow pedestrian pathway, and often congested during peak times. Also, cars having left the Ashford Road are often driving very fast. It needs to be strongly considered that there are significant safety risks in providing land at this site. Given the sparsity of local schools, often school children take this route to Thurnham and Roseacre Primary Schools. This has become all the more common since the nearby housing developments. Quite simply, children will be put at risk. This also raises a separate point. Children are in some cases walking nearly two miles to get to the nearest primary schools. Both Thurnham and Roseacre are three- form entry schools (with around 95 pupils in each year). The local schools cannot cope. At some of the other alternative sites, schools are not as overwhelmed. Many of the trees on the land hold TPOs. I live in an area in Bearsted where many of my neighbours have trees with TPOs, which are designed to preserve the natural environment. This development would completely contradict the council's policy of preserving trees in the village. In addition to this, many residents around the green, which is a few hundred yards from the site, face strict legislation around changing the appearance of their property. Again this proposal would completely contradict that, especially given its importance as part of the Kent Downs landscape. The village has seen more than enough development in recent years. I feel that residents, myself included, do not feel that the local area can cope with more. I would strongly ask you to consider alternatives given the negative impact this proposed site would have on the village, the environment and local services.
I am writing with regard to the application to Maidstone Borough Council for the proposed site in Langley Village as shown above. I understand that this proposal has now moved to the next stage in consultation. I wish to object to this proposal for the reasons shown below. Any entrance or exit from the site in Green Lane would be dangerous as this is a narrow, single track road with limited passing places. This lane was not designed to take a heavy increase in traffic including construction vehicles, refuse collection, delivery lorries and a larger volume of caravans and private cars. The surrounding and adjacent roads are not capable of coping with increased volumes of traffic. The only other road that can be used to gain entry and exit for the site in Green Lane would be Shepherds Way. This also has a very narrow access and exit to and from Heath Road, increasing a concealed bend which makes it extremely hazardous. Another point to bear in mind is that there are no pavements on this part of Heath Road so increased traffic would be potentially dangerous for pedestrians. The safety implications of trying to get fire or ambulance services along a narrow lane into the site could be life threatening. Langley Village does not have the infrastructure to accommodate so many additional residents. There are no schools, infrequent bus services and the two local GP surgeries are filled to capacity. The redevelopment of such a large area as this farmland site could cause serious drainage and water run off problems in the village. The proposed development is out of keeping with the surrounding areas i.e. farmland and agricultural land. The increase in traffic of heavy vehicles could impact on a local heritage site. I would ask that my comments be taken into serious consideration when making your decision and refuse this application.
POINTS TO CONSIDER RE, PLANNING APPLICATION SIDE REF C4S(008) I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED SITE IS THE MOST INAPPROPRIATE AREA BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING :- 1 THE NAME WATER LANE GIVES THE GAME AWAY! 2 THIS LANE FLOODS REGULARLY DOWN FROM THE FIELDS ONTO THE STREET IN BEARSTED AND HAS CLOSED THE ROAD ON MANY OCCASIONS. 3 THE VICTORIAN RAILWAY BRIDGE is ALSO UNSUITABLE, BECAUSE TWO VEHICLES HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY IN PASSING EACH OTHER AND VISABILITY is IMPAIRED BY THE ANGLE OF THE BRIDGE AND I HAVE EXPERIENCED DAMAGE TO MY CAR BEFORE NOW. 4 THIS LANE IS USED BY HORSE RIDERS ALSO 5 SHOPS AND SCHOOLS ARE ABOUT 2 MILES AWAY AND WE NO LONGER HAVE A BUS SERVICE THERE ARE ABOUT 200 HOUSES IN THE NEAR VICINITY AND LOCAL SERVICES AND INTRASTRUCTURE ARE INADEQUATE 6 I DOUBT WHETHER IT WILL BE EASY TO TOW A LARGE CARAVAN ALONG THIS NANE IN PARTICULAR NAVIGATING THE NARROW LOW BRIDGE. 7 WHAT ABOUT ALL THE LARGE LORRIES HAVING TO BRING CONCRETE ETC to MAKE AN ACCESS ROADWAY IN AND HARD STANDING FOR THE CARAVANS LORRINS AND CARS ATC. TOTALLY UNSUITABLE
With reference to the above proposal for The Lodge site development in Water Lane, and as a resident of Bearsted for 51 years, I am making the following comments to advise against the Plan. Access and Highway Safety: Very inadequate and dangerous. Water Lane is narrow, winding, with blind bends, and is often flooded in places or icy. It can barely accommodate small vehicles, let alone large lorries and trailers, especially when turning in or out of the site - not just during construction, but when the residents are driving large vehicles when going to and from their seasonal work events, The south end of it already has frequent accidents/collisions because of the sharp bend near Crismill. Increased traffic in and out of Water Lane, either at that end or the north end T junction on a blind bend with the busy, narrow, Pilgrims' Way, would result in more chaos and accidents. Pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders would all be put in much greater danger of accidents with the increased vehicular movements than is the case already. Emergency vehicles or work on road repairs, provision and repairs of mains services and carriageway would all be continuously blocking or adversely affecting the comings and goings from the site, as well as affecting the site residents, farmers and other residents of the Lane. Landscape and Environmental Harm: The south side of the North Downs, viewed from Bearsted Road, the A20 and Crismill is mainly an area of outstanding natural beauty, and is a great tourist attraction as well as a very popular area for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. It needs to be protected and to retain its natural beauty, peacefulness and agricultural status. Now, more than ever, we need to utilise fertile and productive farming land to provide food for our fast increasing population, rather than pollute the atmosphere by flying in produce from other countries and destroying the rural nature of our countryside with obtrusive buildings and concrete that will also disrupt or destroy our endangered wildlife. Drainage and sewage pollution are serious concerns, especially in the appropriately named Water Lane. I have seen and smelt sewage flooding down Water Lane and across Bearsted Road. The ongoing housing development opposite on the Lilk Meadow, sited lower down, has already had to put in major measures to prevent flooding and sewage overspill. Old maps, particularly from the Victorian era, appropriately call that area The Bogs, from the days when the Lilk stream was, as it still can be, polluted. This would likely be exacerbated by further development just into Water Lane. There is considerable wildlife in that area of former farmland, which was not looked after or respected when piles of tyres and industrial chemicals were dumped on that farmland a few years back and periodically set alight, until the Council enforced its removal. I appreciate there will be what should be an independent, high standard Habitat survey of the site. Already, wildlife has been seriously affected and destroyed by all the pockets of developments that have been going on in the locality in recent decades. Humans also need pleasant, safe places to walk and exercise for their health and well being, especially in this troubled and turbulent 21st century. Countryside pursuits are essential to us all, and adding more traffic, more dwellings to such essential and popular areas is very ill advised. Light pollution from the proposed site, as well as noise, would ruin the views of the night sky and disrupt the fairly peaceful atmosphere of the local area. This would continue well beyond the construction phase. I am opposed to similar proposed sites across the foot of the North Downs, as they too are on greenfield sites, rather than on Brownfield sites. Also the infrastructure is already seriously inadequate, especially sewage, water supply (still a hose pipe ban in Kent!), energy, schools, transport, shops, doctors and dentists' surgeries, social/leisure centres, hospitals , parking, etc. We should be using existing brownfield sites, or other counties' brownfield sites, for such developments as well as for homeless people and for migrants. Kent is already overcrowded and under-resourced. Thank you for your consulting with residents. I would happily make more comments if I had time.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Gypsy & Traveller site at Water Lane Bearsted. I am a local resident and have several concerns mainly regarding the impact on local traffic with increased traffic flow and the safety of pedestrians and horse riders. Water Lane is very narrow with no footpaths, no street lighting and already suffers from heavy congestion at certain times of the day. Water Lane and the infrastructure around Bearsted is really not suitable for the extra large vehicles, mobile homes etc, the addition of this site will bring. It should also be noted that Water Lane is prone to regular flooding several times a year where road closures are common. Bearsted is a quite residential community and many of it's residents feel that this development would not be an ideal fit for the location. Bearsted has natural beauty with several conservation areas which would be impacted. I urge Maidstone Borough Council to reconsider it's need and obligations regarding the proposed site and explore alternative and more suitable locations that would have less impact on traffic, safety and local residents.
My wife and I wish to register our objection to the Maidstone Borough Council's proposal for a Travellers site at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted principally as a result of:- 1. Poor access via the narrow Water Lane 2. Impact on the beauty of the North Downs 3. The potential for significant expansion into the adjacent farm land 4. The increased strain on current resources in the village 5. Impact on the wildlife 6. Impact on existing trees The proposal does not seem appropriate for the rural and village settings. We look forward to hearing from you about your responses to these objections and whether you are still continuing with this proposal despite such strong objections.
Please could we just say how difficult it has been to negotiate the consultation documentation with questions spread throughout the differfent sections of this very lengthy consultation document. Housing The proposal to site 20 caravans (or more?) in this field would totally dominate the existing static settled community. Transport The village has a very modest bus service with nearest bus stops being 10-15 minutes away. Accessibility Green Lane is a very narrow single track road with signage already in place stating that it is not suitable for HGVs. During a previous lengthy closure of the |Leeds Road, Green Lane was closed off by Highways because of the havoc caused by lorries etc using it during the initial few days of the closure. Community and Crime Langley is currently a very quiet crime free community with a large retired community. The proposed site would immediately border the back gardens of several bungalows which I feel (rightly or wrongly) will cause anxiety for the retired and elderly residents. Access to Healthcare The village surgery is no longer taking on new patients (we know as we have tried!) and is going to be under even more pressure due to all the new houses being built on the Sutton Road. Community and Integration and Site Layout The potential necessity for walls/fencing in this site would give the impression of segregation from the village. Local economy There are limited job prospects in the immediate vincinity. Natural Resources The site consists of 1.84 hectares of high quality Grade 2 agricultural land. Light Pollution The introduction of 20 residential caravans would substationally increase the level of artificial lighting in the area. Flooding Risk There is documented evidence of flooding originating from the proposed site, with water flowing into properties along Shepherds Way. Current drainage pattern indicates a potential risk for future flooding, both for the access routes and adjacent residential properties. Cultural Heritage Opposite the proposied site is a Grade II Listed building (Ye Old Cottage) and directly opposite is another Grade II listed building (The Old Farmhouse). On the opposite side of Green Lane is a row of attractive brick built cottages dating back from 1879. The site’s development would cause substantial harm to these heritage assets adversely affecting their setting and significance.
We wish to object to the proposal to include the Water Lane site in the proposed LDF. As residents of Bearsted for more than 50 years, and having used these local roads in Bearsted and Thurnham extensively by car, bicycle and on foot, our reasons for objection are as follows: i. Highway safety: Water Lane and all other nearby adopted roads are narrow, and have poor forward and rear visibility. There are no footways, with hedges on both sides, and very limited verge space. making this very hazardous for all road users. ii. Pedestrian safety. These are popular walking, running and cycling routes. Additional vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic from a multi-vehicle occupation site would add to safety risks for all users. iii. Water Lane (as the historic name suggests) has permanent Springs issuing from the base of the North Downs escarpment of Lower Chalk underlain by Gault Clay. There are water flows which run permanently downhill towards Bearsted; these always freeze during winter to leave icy patches on road surfaces. Additional daily traffic from a large site built on hard standing will produce additional water spread across the carriageway. As a non-principal route this is very unlikely to be gritted in winter. Being higher in altitude than the lower village areas, the area receives higher snowfall and in severe winters Water Lane and surrounding roads are impassable, with drifting across the entire carriageway. iv Access:Any access would need improved visibility and signage with through considerably improved sight lines. v Ground Conditions in the area are very poor for building. The mixture of clay and Head, plus the need for extensive cut-off drainage will lead to construction and maintenance costs which are far higher than the accepted norm. Given all the above, we oppose the inclusion of this site in the the draft DPD and request that it be removed.
I am writing to lodge a formal representation on the emerging Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document. I am writing in a personal capacity, but as a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute with a wealth of relevant experience in assessing sites, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations. I have over 20 years’ experience practicing in the local area, having been involved with many sites promoted through the Local Plan process in the Borough. I am writing with particular regard to the proposed allocation at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted (draft Policy C4S(008)), objecting to its inclusion in the Plan for reasons detailed below. I live in the area local to this site so know it and Water Lane well, and when visiting neighbouring Bridge Farm, have been a frequent user of the adjacent access, which currently serves The Lodge. In the absence of any detail on the proposed number of pitches etc, I have more general concerns about the allocation in the context of the site’s location in the setting of the National Landscape, but wish to raise two primary issues which in their own right very clearly fail the relevant tests as defined at Paragraph 36 of the NPPF; namely highway safety and sustainability of location (itself leading to significant highway safety concerns). Highway Safety In my professional capacity, I am very aware of the relevant standards applied to any proposed access point to ensure highway safety is maintained. Water Lane is subject to the national speed limit at this location and is a narrow, unlit country lane. Visibility at the existing adjacent access is already severely limited. I am aware of the assessment carried out by the owners of neighbouring Bridge Farm, which I understand has been prepared by a qualified highways Civil Engineer. Having reviewed this assessment, it applies relevant industry standards. This has established what visibility splays are achievable at the proposed access point, namely a mere 14 metres and 29.5 metres to the north and south respectively. This level of visibility is extremely limited and it would be unheard of for this to be considered acceptable in the context of both the proposed allocation/development and the nature of the road on which it is located. Even if recorded speeds at this location are lower than the speed limit (I’m not aware of any available data on this), this level of visibility would fail to meet the required splays as set out in Manual for Streets by some distance. Put simply, if a planning application were submitted proposing this access, it would represent a clear and indisputable reason for refusal, fully supported by the NPPF (Paragraph 116) and Local Plan Review Policy LPRHOU8, which requires sites to be “safely accessed to and from the highway by all vehicles using the site on a regular basis”. The fact it can be expected that larger vehicles and those towing would also use the access only serves to strengthen these significant safety concerns. Draft Policy TR8 rightly states that all sites must “provide safe vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the site to the public highway”, yet The Lodge site is unable to satisfy this basic site requirement. It is therefore of deep concern that the LPA have taken a site forward to the Regulation 18 stage, essentially declaring it a ‘preferred’ site, without undertaking any meaningful highways assessment and without any engagement with the Local Highway Authority, as the draft Plan and evidence base confirms. To the best of my knowledge, The Lodge site has no alternative vehicular access points available to serve any additional development, with existing Tree Preservation Orders placing further constraints on the proposed access. From all the information available to me and my own direct experience, the proposed access falls significantly short of the required standards and would pose a very real highway safety threat. Accordingly, I would urge Officers to undertake a proper highways assessment of the site and consult with Kent Highways as a priority. Sustainable Location Whilst The Lodge site is geographically favourably located relative to Bearsted and the services found there, this belies the reality of the site’s accessibility. The nature of Water Lane is such that all future occupiers of the site would be wholly reliant on the private car for any journeys, the alternative being an unsafe walk along the narrow, unlit Water Lane with its national speed limit. This road is also regularly prone to flooding, which is consistent with the available Environment Agency surface water flood mapping. This is in direct conflict with the national Planning Policy for Travellers, Policy LPRHOU8, and the overarching aims of the NPPF to deliver sustainable development. There is a clear need and statutory duty for the Council to allocate and provide sufficient sites in the Borough, and for this reason the production of this DPD in itself is fully supported and will greatly assist in the proper planning for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites in a sustainable, plan-led manner. However, all allocated sites must be suitable and deliverable and no site should result in unacceptable highway safety risks. Given the clear highway safety risks identified above, I object to the draft DPD in its current form and would request that The Lodge site (draft Policy C4S(008)) is removed from the subsequent Regulation 19 draft, with alternative, safe, suitable and deliverable sites included in its place.
Site Allocations: C45 (021) LPR (022) LPR (023) Clause 80 states: ‘Generally it is the preference of both the travelling and settled communities to have sites located close to but not within existing settlements.’ Clause 66 states: ‘The sites that have been submitted to the council for consideration for future accommodation provision are…. not within existing settlements.’ This is plainly not correct for these 3 sites. These site allocations are clearly in the middle of an ancient Wealden farmsteads hamlet, with listed 16th century Elderden Farmhouse and cottage 200m to the east, 15th century listed Rabbit’s Cross Farmhouse 50m to west and 17th century Little Rabbit’s Cross Farmhouse and Little Rabbits Cross Barn directly adjacent to mobile homes already granted permission by MBC. There are two more households adjacent to these sites on Elderden Farm drive. These households are already outnumbered by G&T sites. This was a situation that a planning inspector warned against last year when just one extra pitch was allowed on appeal. It must be obvious to everyone, including MBC planning committee that these further proposed allocations allowing 22 more pitches are grossly unfair to the settled community. Site LPR (022) On 6 January 2025, the neighbours were confronted by a team of men and machines destroying the hedge which lines their private drive, in order to create an unauthorised gypsy site. The neighbours bravely tried to prevent this extremely unpleasant attack but were unable to keep a night and day vigil. This is an important and ancient hedge as shown by Ecology and Land Management in October 2022 (see Planning Reference 22/501658, Pegasus comment, appendix 2) The occupants of the site do not own the hedgerow. It is an agricultural hedge which I have maintained as part of Elderden Farm since 1981. If I had destroyed this hedge there would be little doubt that I would have been prosecuted under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and would have expected a fine of up to £5000. The destruction of this hedge was a criminal act. However, the occupants of this site have been rewarded by this criminal act permission for 4 sites. This has caused enormous anxiety to the settled neighbours and has allowed the site occupant to use this private drive with no obligation to help maintain it. The site occupant has therefore obtained a large financial gain at the expense of their settled community neighbours. This MBC G&T and Showpeople development plant is clearly not fit for purpose, as it further zones Chart Hill Road for GT&TS development at an accelerated rate. The settled community have already suffered grave injustice, and are now being threatened with further disruption and adverse effects on their quality of life. It is close to destroying a once pleasant medieval rural landscape close to the River Beult SSSI by turning it into an irregular shanty town. At what point will MBC question the need for ever-increasing G&T site numbers? Continually satisfying the demand for them appears to be stimulating further demand.
C4S - 008 I am writing to formally object to the proposed traveller site in close proximity to Bearsted and to submit my concerns in response to the current planning consultation. My objection is based on the planning considerations outlined below and the potential adverse impacts on the local area, its residents, and local infrastructure. A number of years ago, my family made the difficult decision to leave our previous home in Headcorn due to the cumulative impacts arising from poorly managed development pressures in the area, including increased congestion, safety concerns, and strain on local services and amenities. This decision was not taken lightly and was driven by a sustained decline in residential amenity and a feeling that local infrastructure and safeguarding measures had not kept pace with growth. We moved to Bearsted specifically because of its well-planned village environment, strong sense of community, and reputation as a safe and sustainable place to raise a family. It is therefore deeply concerning to see similar pressures now proposed in this location without clear and credible mitigation. Location & Sustainability Bearsted is a well-established village with limited capacity to absorb large-scale development. Local shops, schools, healthcare facilities, and public services are already operating close to capacity. The proposed site appears unsustainably located in relation to these services, which would place additional strain on facilities that are not designed to accommodate a significant increase in demand. Highways and Access The surrounding road network consists primarily of narrow village and rural roads that are already heavily used, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times. Increased vehicle movements associated with a large site would raise serious road-safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, and schoolchildren, and could exacerbate congestion and accident risk on surrounding country lanes. Landscape Impact Bearsted is valued for its rural character, open views, and village setting. The scale and nature of the proposed development would represent a significant and intrusive change to the visual landscape, harming the character of the area and undermining the qualities that make Bearsted a distinctive and attractive place to live. Environment & Ecology There are concerns that the proposal could adversely affect local wildlife habitats and biodiversity. In addition, surface-water drainage and flood risk must be carefully assessed, particularly given substantial existing pressures on local drainage systems in that area. The development should demonstrate conclusively that it will not increase flood risk or environmental harm. Residential Amenity The proposed development risks causing a loss of privacy, increased noise, and light pollution for nearby residents. These impacts would materially diminish the quiet residential character of the area and negatively affect the quality of life of local households. Cumulative Impact Taken together, the cumulative impact on highways, infrastructure, services, and residential amenity would be significant. Based on prior experience, development that proceeds without robust management, clear enforcement, and sufficient infrastructure provision can lead to long-term harm for both existing residents and new occupants alike. In conclusion, I respectfully request that the council gives full and careful consideration to these concerns and reconsiders the suitability of this location for such a development. Any proposal should be demonstrably sustainable, safe, and fully compatible with the character and capacity of Bearsted, which this proposal does not appear to achieve.
Thurnham Parish Council submits this formal representation to Maidstone Borough Council in response to the Regulation 18c consultation on the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD). Following consideration at its meeting on 8 December 2025 and having taken into account matters raised by residents during public participation, the Parish Council objects to the inclusion of the proposed site at Water Lane within the parish. The Parish Council’s objection is based on material planning considerations and is set out below. 1. Highway Safety and Access The Parish Council considers the Water Lane site to be fundamentally unsuitable in highway terms. Water Lane is a narrow rural lane with steep gradients, blind bends and no footways or pedestrian safety infrastructure. The geometry of the road is constrained and unsuitable for the regular movement of towed caravans, service vehicles or larger domestic vehicles associated with the proposed use. The road is also used by pedestrians, equestrians and recreational users accessing nearby public rights of way and the wider countryside. Increased vehicle movements would materially increase risk to vulnerable road users. The Parish Council considers that safe and suitable access has not been demonstrated and that any highway improvements required to accommodate the site would themselves result in unacceptable environmental harm. 2. Flood Risk and Surface Water Management The Parish Council has significant concerns regarding surface water flooding along Water Lane during periods of heavy rainfall. Water Lane is known locally to act as a conduit for surface water run-off, with recent flooding events rendering sections of the road difficult or unsafe to use. The introduction of additional hardstanding and increased site activity would be likely to exacerbate surface water run-off, erosion of roadside banks and downstream flooding. The Parish Council considers that insufficient weight has been given to local flood risk and cumulative drainage impacts. 3. Infrastructure Constraints and Deliverability The Parish Council notes that the site is not served by essential infrastructure, including mains sewerage, gas supply or confirmed adequate water provision. The absence of basic infrastructure raises serious concerns regarding deliverability, long-term sustainability and reliance on private or non-standard solutions. In addition, the Parish Council understands that restrictive covenants may apply to the land, which could present legal and practical barriers to development. These unresolved constraints further undermine confidence in the site’s deliverability. 4. Landscape Impact and Rural Character The site lies within a sensitive rural landscape, formerly designated as a Special Landscape Area and closely associated with the wider Kent Downs landscape. The Parish Council considers that the introduction of caravans, hardstanding, fencing, utility structures and associated domestic paraphernalia would result in an urbanising impact that would harm the intrinsic character and appearance of the countryside. The Council also notes the likelihood of increased light pollution and visual intrusion, including from nearby public rights of way. 5. Biodiversity and Trees The Parish Council understands that the site contains mature and veteran trees, some of which are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. The intensification of use, introduction of hardstanding and increased vehicle movements present a risk to root protection zones, soil structure and irreplaceable habitats. The Parish Council is not satisfied that the site can realistically achieve meaningful biodiversity net gain given its constraints. 6. Sustainability and Access to Services The Parish Council considers the site to be poorly located in sustainability terms. The site is physically separated from schools, medical facilities, shops and other key services. Public transport provision is limited, and the lack of safe walking and cycling routes would result in heavy reliance on private vehicles, particularly affecting children, older residents and those with limited mobility. 7. Proportionality and Cumulative Impact The Parish Council is concerned about the cumulative impact of existing and proposed traveller sites within the wider area and whether sufficient weight has been given to proportionality in relation to the size, character and infrastructure capacity of the local community. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, Thurnham Parish Council considers that the proposed Water Lane site fails to meet key tests of suitability, safety, sustainability and deliverability and should not be included within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document. The Parish Council respectfully requests that Maidstone Borough Council remove the Water Lane site from further consideration and give due weight to the local evidence and planning concerns outlined in this representation.
We write as one of many concerned residents of Bearsted to formally oppose & object to the plans for the site at The Lodge, Water Lane for a traveller site. The owner of this property has already attempted to obtain permission for development of the site to the official planning authority and has over the past few years known to have been been consistently rejected due to being an unsuitable site for development. Why this site would then be suitable for the development of a traveller site has to be seriously questioned. The access to the site is barely, if at all, a single track off of Water Lane and the approach road - Water Lane, already experiences significant traffic issues and is definitely not suitable for the amount of extra traffic this site would generate. With my wife being a horse owner and us both being dog walkers, we already experience almost daily near misses with cars, vans, trucks on Water Lane and the country lanes that surround Bearsted where we live. An introduction of a site will only add to the significant traffic issues that currently exist. As i hope you are aware, only recently we as a community experienced the sad death of neighbours walking their dog, killed by a speeding motorist. Water Lane itself frequently floods and on those occasions becomes impassable by motorists, demonstrating again that this is not an ideal scenario for an large increase in residents in and around the lane. Bearsted is considered to be one of the most beautiful villages in Kent and people visiting the area bring economic benefits to local traders & this is in fact a lifeblood to the local businesses. The introduction of a traveller site to the area would have a huge detrimental impact to residents and businesses alike. There must be far more sites across the county that are far more suitable than this proposed one in beautiful Bearsted and its parish. I trust that those considering this application and proposal will take note of and account for these views and the rationale underpinning them based upon all the historical factors connected with the parish and the land designated for it.
I wish to register my formal objection to the proposed traveller site near Bearsted and to outline my concerns based on the relevant planning considerations and the likely impacts on the village and its residents. My family relocated to Bearsted specifically for its scale, character, and suitability as a safe and sustainable village environment, and it is troubling to see a proposal that risks undermining these qualities. Bearsted’s schools, medical services, shops, and public amenities are finite and already under pressure. The proposed development does not appear to be sustainably located in relation to these services, and there is insufficient evidence that additional demand could be accommodated without negatively impacting existing residents. The local highway network is constrained, consisting largely of narrow roads and junctions that are already busy at peak times. Increased traffic movements associated with a large site would heighten risks to pedestrians and cyclists, particularly children travelling to and from school, and would further strain roads that are unsuitable for intensified use. The surrounding area contributes significantly to Bearsted’s identity as a village with a semi-rural setting. Development of this nature and scale would be visually intrusive and out of keeping with the established character of the area, resulting in a permanent and harmful change to the local landscape. Nearby households would likely experience increased noise, light pollution, and a loss of privacy. These impacts would significantly erode the quiet residential environment that residents reasonably expect and currently enjoy. When considered collectively, the pressures on infrastructure, highways, services, and residential amenity indicate that this site is not an appropriate or sustainable location for the proposed development. Past experience shows that once such impacts occur, they are difficult to reverse and can have lasting consequences for the community. For these reasons, I urge the council to reconsider the suitability of this proposal and to ensure that any future development within or near Bearsted is fully supported by infrastructure, compatible with the village’s character, and demonstrably sustainable.
I hear that there is a proposal to recommend six mobile homes on land next to Woodview, Lenham Road, Kingswood ME17 1LU. Application 22/500705 was refused by MBC and the appeal was dismissed. XXXXX. We would both urgently plead that you drop this site from your recommendations for gypsies and travellers. We note that MBC already has a significantly higher proportion of gypsies than the national average.
I write to formally object to the proposed allocation of land for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show People development within the Development Plan Document, specifically Site Reference C4S (008), The Lodge. The proposed allocation is considered unsound and unsuitable for the following reasons, having regard to national and local planning policy. Highway access and safety: The site is accessed via Water Lane, a narrow rural country lane with limited width, poor alignment, and constrained visibility. The nature of this access raises significant concerns regarding safe vehicular movements, including the ability to accommodate larger vehicles typically associated with the proposed use. As such, the proposal conflicts with paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which requires development to provide safe and suitable access for all users and to avoid unacceptable impacts on highway safety. Impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape: The site lies within, and would be visually prominent in, the Kent Downs National Landscape, a nationally designated area afforded the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Paragraphs 176 and 177 of the NPPF require great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of National Landscapes, and state that development within such areas should be limited and carefully justified. The proposed allocation would introduce development that would be harmful to the character, appearance, and tranquillity of this sensitive landscape, contrary to these provisions and to the statutory purpose of designation under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Impact on protected trees and natural environment: The site contains several mature Oak trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. These trees make a significant contribution to landscape character, local amenity, and biodiversity. Development on the site would place unacceptable pressure on the root protection areas of these trees and risks their long-term retention. This conflicts with paragraph 131 of the NPPF, which requires existing trees to be retained wherever possible, and with paragraph 180, which seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity and valued natural features. Plan-led and sustainability considerations: In addition, the allocation does not accord with the NPPF requirement for plans to promote sustainable development in appropriate locations. Given the site’s constrained access, landscape sensitivity, and environmental designations, it cannot be considered a sustainable or suitable location when assessed against reasonable planning alternatives. For the reasons set out above, the allocation of Site C4S (008) The Lodge is not supported and should be rejected from the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show People DPD.
I write to formally object to the proposed allocation of land for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show People development under the Development Plan Document, specifically Site Reference C4S (008), The Lodge. The proposed site is considered unsuitable for allocation for the following reasons: Firstly, the site is served by Water Lane, a narrow rural country lane with limited capacity. The restricted width, alignment, and nature of this highway raise significant concerns regarding safe access, manoeuvrability, and the potential impact on highway safety for both future occupiers and existing road users. Secondly, the development of this site would result in an unacceptable visual impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape. The area is of high landscape sensitivity, and the proposed use would be detrimental to the character, appearance, and scenic quality of this designated landscape, contrary to the objective of conserving and enhancing nationally important landscapes. Finally, the site contains several mature Oak trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. Any development on this land would pose a substantial risk to the health, retention, and long-term viability of these protected trees, which make a significant contribution to local amenity, landscape character, and biodiversity. For the reasons set out above, the allocation of Site C4S (008) The Lodge is not supported and should be rejected as part of the proposed DPD.
Re Maidstone call for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Sites and in particular the site at The Lodge, Water Lane, Thurnham, Kent. I am writing to lodge my objection to any possible of use of the above property / site for anything other than a single dwelling. Water Lane is mainly a single track rural lane with passing places leading up to the Pilgrims Way North Downs and the North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Because of the lack of passing places it can be a challenging lane to drive along. I have twice had to get into someone’s car and reverse it for them as they were unable to reverse round a bend into a passing place. It is heavily used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders. As both a dog walker and horse rider I am well aware of the challenges that can be faced as there are no pavements the whole length of Water Lane. In winter in icy conditions Water Lane can be treacherous. Indeed it runs parallel to Thurnham Lane where two people and a dog tragically lost their lives twenty-four months ago in icy conditions. Water Lane is a very apt name. In wet conditions water can run in torrents off of the North Downs and large part of Water Lane (and Thurnham Lane) can become very flooded and impossible to pass. This includes the junction of Water Lane with Roundwell Bearsted. Water Lane simply is not able to take any more traffic safely particularly in poor weather conditions. Consideration must be given to the safety of walkers, cyclists and horse riders. In addition I fail to see how any caravans, static or otherwise could safely gain access to the very rural site. It is on these two points that I object.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of land on Water Lane, Bearsted, for inclusion in the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD). As a local resident with direct oversight of this site, I have taken into account both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Maidstone Borough Council’s duties under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004). While acknowledging the Council's responsibility to identify suitable sites for all communities, including those of Gypsies, Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople, I wish to highlight that site selection must carefully consider suitability, safety, environmental impact, sustainability, and the wider implications for local infrastructure and residents. I set out my principal concerns below: 1. Road and Access Requirements Water Lane is a narrow country lane lacking pedestrian pathways or footpaths, which presents significant risks to road users and pedestrians alike. Past incidents in the area have tragically demonstrated these dangers. Increased traffic, particularly from larger vehicles, would further heighten these risks and could adversely affect local wildlife and trees. Site access is limited exclusively to this road, compounding potential hazards. 2. Flooding Risks Water Lane is prone to flooding, raising additional concerns about road safety and the risk of water and sewage issues impacting Bearsted village. According to NPPF paragraph 110, safe and appropriate access for all users must be ensured, without introducing unacceptable highway safety impacts. It appears unlikely that effective mitigation strategies could sufficiently address these matters. 3. Lighting Deficiencies The absence of street lighting on Water Lane increases the inherent risks discussed above. This is also following on from the tragic death of a Bearsted couple on Thurnham lane last year. 4. Impact on Local Infrastructure Bearsted’s population already places pressure on local infrastructure, such as traffic flow, parking, and essential services (shops, healthcare, schools). The village’s roads, particularly during peak hours, frequently experience congestion, and existing parking provision is often insufficient for both residents and visitors. Local shops and healthcare facilities, including GP surgeries, are operating at or near capacity, leading to extended waiting times and reduced accessibility. Schools within Bearsted are similarly stretched, with limited places available and concerns about class sizes rising in recent years. Further expansion as proposed would exacerbate these challenges, potentially overwhelming the current infrastructure and diminishing the rural character and residential quality of the village. Additionally, strain on public transport services and utility networks may result in service interruptions or delays, further impacting everyday life for local residents. The cumulative effect of increased demand risks eroding the sense of community and peaceful environment that Bearsted is valued for. 5. Residential Amenity and Property Value The proposed site would be visible from my property, and I am concerned about the consequent negative effects on residential amenity and on property values. Sites should ideally be considered where infrastructure, amenities, and safe access are more adequately provided, preferably closer to larger urban areas rather than in a rural context. 6. Site Management and Oversight There is insufficient information regarding how occupancy levels will be managed and monitored, and whether contributions such as council tax and waste collection arrangements will be comparable to those for existing residents. 7. Noise and Community Safety Potential noise disturbance has not been fully assessed. Previous experiences indicate difficulties in enforcement by local authorities, risking community safety and tranquillity. 8. Environmental and Wildlife Impact The development poses threats to local flora, fauna, and the valued rural landscape, including views towards the North Downs Area of Natural Beauty, which should be preserved. I respectfully request confirmation of receipt of this letter and that I be kept informed of all subsequent stages of the consultation and DPD examination.
I am writing to formally object to the above planning application for the establishment of a traveller site within/adjacent to the village of Bearsted, Kent. My objection is based on planning and environmental considerations, particularly the impact this development would have on the character of the village, the local conservation area, and existing infrastructure. Impact on the Conservation Area and Village Character Bearsted is a historic village with a strong rural identity and a well-established conservation area that is valued by residents and visitors alike. The proposed development would, in my view, cause harm to the character and appearance of this area. From a cultural and heritage perspective, the scale, nature and use of the site would be out of keeping with the traditional settlement pattern and visual landscape that the conservation area is intended to protect. National and local planning policy places great importance on preserving the character, appearance and setting of conservation areas, and I do not believe this proposal demonstrates sufficient justification or mitigation to offset the harm that would be caused. Pressure on Local Infrastructure and Services Bearsted already experiences pressure on local infrastructure, including road capacity, parking, healthcare provision, schools and drainage. The application does not, in my opinion, adequately address how these services would cope with additional demand, nor does it provide clear evidence that the development would be sustainable in this location. Highway Safety and Access Local roads in and around Bearsted are narrow and heavily used, particularly at peak times. Increased vehicle movements associated with the site could raise concerns regarding highway safety, congestion and pedestrian safety, especially given the village setting and proximity to residential areas. Precedent and Cumulative Impact Approval of this application could set an undesirable precedent for further development of a similar nature in or around the village, leading to incremental harm to the countryside, conservation area and overall character of Bearsted. Conclusion I fully recognise the need for appropriate and well-planned accommodation provision; however, this must be achieved in locations that are suitable, sustainable and compliant with planning policy. For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that this application be refused.
I am writing to object to the proposed Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted, Kent. My concerns relate to safety, sustainability, environmental harm, and the proposal’s clear conflict with national and local planning policy. Water Lane is wholly unsuitable for additional development. It is a narrow, unlit rural lane with poor road conditions and limited visibility. Increased vehicle movements, including larger vehicles, would significantly increase the risk of accidents and would hinder access for emergency services. This directly conflicts with Maidstone Borough Council’s requirements for safe and suitable access for Traveller sites. The site is also located in an area affected by surface water flooding. Planning policy is clear that development must not be permitted where flood risk cannot be safely managed. The application fails to demonstrate adequate flood mitigation and therefore poses a risk to future occupants and neighbouring properties. The location is inherently unsustainable. National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the Maidstone Local Plan both stress the importance of locating sites close to existing settlements and essential services. Water Lane is remote, poorly connected, and lacks access to public transport, making residents heavily reliant on private vehicles and placing additional strain on local infrastructure. Local services such as schools, medical facilities, and the road network are already operating close to capacity. The proposal would further increase demand on these overstretched services, contrary to sustainable development principles. Environmental impacts have also not been properly addressed. The introduction of noise, artificial lighting, and increased traffic would significantly harm the rural character of the area. The site also supports wildlife and local habitats, yet no credible ecological assessment or mitigation strategy has been provided, in conflict with NPPF requirements to protect biodiversity. There is also no evidence that adequate infrastructure, including drainage, water, and sanitation, can be delivered sustainably to the site, as required by Maidstone’s planning policies. In summary, this proposal fails to meet the criteria set out in national planning policy, the Maidstone Local Plan Review, and the emerging Traveller DPD. I therefore urge the Council to refuse this application.
I would like to object to the proposed Traveller site off Water Lane in Bearsted. The site is completely unsuitable for any potential change of use / development, whether it be for a traveller site or a housing development. There is no estimate of the number of pitches that would be made available on the site, however, given its size, it could be assumed a significant number. Water Lane is a single track road with no pavements in either direction, apart from where the M20 and train line have been built. There is a narrow railway bridge to the south leading towards Roundwell. Many walkers and horse riders currently use Water Lane, this development would significantly increase the traffic on Water Lane and surrounding areas, therefore increasing the risks to pedestrians and horse riders, who have used this road in its current state for many years. Water Lane already has issues with drainage, changing the use of the land and putting a development in this area would increase the risk of further flooding. The proposed development is bordering the Kent Downs National Landscape, an area of outstanding natural beauty, the visual impact of any development would cause harm to the landscape. The potential site has several important Oak trees which have tree preservation orders, there is a risk of damage / destruction of these trees should any development be granted.