To what extent do you agree with the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document – Preferred Policies and Potential Sites (Regulation 18c)?
I object to Policy C4S (008) and the selection of 'The Lodge' as potentially suitable for a travellers' site on the grounds that it is in conflict with the Government's December 2024 policy paper 'Planning Policy for Traveller Sites' , and in particular for the following reasons: 1. There is no indication of the potential scale of development, nor whether it might or might not be for mixed residential and business use. This fails to meet Government guidance to relate the number of pitches or plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site, and therefore provides insufficient information for adequate public consultation. 2. There is Inadequate assessment of any potential impact on the adjoining highway network, and medical and education facilities. The site is accessed via Water Lane, which is substantially a narrow, single carriageway. It is particularly unsuitable for visiting caravans, and for lorry traffic associated with potential residents or any on-site employment activity. The Street, Bearsted already has significant access and traffic flow problems. 3. In view of the close proximity of the M20 Motorway, the High Speed Rail Link and the railway, the site fails to satisfy Government guidance regarding the effect of noise and air quality on the health and amenity of any travellers that might be located there. 4. The site adjoins and is in close proximity to agricultural land presently used for grazing of livestock, in a rural area which has been perceived by residents to have been subject to increasing levels of trespass, damage to land by vehicles, damage to fencing and gates, hare coursing, theft and illegal land- fill and fly-tipping. The adjoining and nearby agricultural land is not located such that it can be closely supervised by farmers and landowners.
No answer given
Negative affect on transport. Road safety. Congestion. Negative impact on the rural character and visual impact. Negative affect on the wildlife, drainage and hedgerow. Affects of privacy and noise on the surrounding community. Negative pressure on the local services and infrastructure. We have already had a hose pipe ban and this could have an affect on water consumption in the community.
The area has no suitable infastructure and/or services to support the proposed development
My comments are applicable to the Site C4S(017) , The Brishings. Box 1.2.b Local Services. The ONLY local service in Langley is the Surgery which is at full capacity. The village bus service is sparse and match school times. There is no primary school and delivery of young children to local schools would have to be by private cars. Box 1.2.d Access. The current site access point is at the junction of Green Lane and Shepherds Way. Green Lane is a narrow road barely 2m wide in places; Shepherds Way is often single lane width because of parked cars. Neither road is suitable for HGV or large lorries and the turning radius for entry from Shepherds way would be a 45 degree hairpin corner. Table 8.2 SA2, 3 and 4. For the Brishings Site the stated Objectives are not met!
Formal Objection to Traveller Site Expansion The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB Proposal: Development of 15 additional traveller pitches adjacent to areas already containing 35+ permitted pitches. (20 Pitt Road, 4 Crossdrive, 11 Chartway Street) 1. Overconcentration of Traveller Sites 1.1 The proposal would create a cluster of 50+ pitches, contrary to the PPTS requirement for fair and balanced distribution. Also conflicts with DPD Policy GT1 and Local plan Policy SP17 1.2 This level of concentration places a disproportionate burden on one rural community. 1.3 Overconcentration undermines community cohesion, contrary to national planning objectives. 1.4 The existing Traveller sites on Chartway Street, Pitt Road and Cross Drive form part of our community, and relations between residents and Traveller families are positive and well established. However, the proposed addition of a further 15 pitches in such a concentrated location risks disrupting this balance. Sustainable community cohesion depends on proportionate, well distributed provision, and the proposed expansion is of a scale that could undermine the harmony that presently exists. 2. Strain on Local Infrastructure & Services 2.1 Local schools are full, and the nearest GP practice is not accepting new patients. 2.2 Planning policy requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure, which is not available in this location. 2.3 Utilities and local services are already under pressure from existing traveller sites in the immediate area. 3. Highway Safety & Traffic Impact 3.1 Access roads are unsuitable for any increase in traffic volume, Chartway Street is heavily used by HGVs serving Winterwood, Griffins and Street Farm, large agricultural operations and Finches Caravan park. Travellers children daily travel on ponydrawn carts up and down this road, increasing vulnerability on an already hazardous route 3.2 Pitt Road (single track) already serves 20 traveller pitches, 12 houses, a car dealership, and a touring caravan park plus holiday lets. Family expansion alone has and will see the number of pitches increase. 3.3 Pitt Road is used as a ratrun to avoid congestion at Five Wents and Warmlake crossroads, increasing traffic volumes and is a short cut to the Ridge Golf Course 3.4 Collisions occur regularly, and children daily use pony/horsedrawn carts, creating significant safety risks. 3.5 Pitt Road joins Chartway Street on a blind bend. Vehicles , including children with horses, cross in front of oncoming traffic. Any increase in traffic would exacerbate the existing road danger. These impacts conflict with NPPF paragraph 111 and Local Plan Policy DM1, which require safe and suitable access for all users. 4. Environmental & Amenity Impacts 4.1 The proposal would increase noise, lighting, and general activity, harming local amenity. This conflicts with Local Plan Policy DM1 and PPTS Policy H 4.2 The site contributes to biodiversity corridors; further development risks habitat fragmentation. contrary to Local Plan Policy DM3 and NPPF Chapter 15 4.3 PPTS requires protection of the local environment and residential amenity, which this proposal fails to achieve. Continued over 5. Conflict with Local Plan & Spatial Strategy 5.1 The Maidstone Traveller DPD seeks to distribute pitches across the borough, not concentrate them in one locality. DPD Policy GT1 5.2 The proposal conflicts with the DPD’s aims of balanced growth, sustainable development, and integrated coexistence. 5.3 The Local Plan identifies need but requires proportionate allocation, which this site does not provide. Spatial Strategy SS1 and Policy SP17 6. Landscape & Rural Character 6.1 The scale and density of the proposal are disproportionate to the rural/semirural setting. Local Plan Policy DM30 (Landscape Character) and NPPF paragraph 174 6.2 PPTS Policy C requires rural sites to respect local character and scale — this proposal does not. 7. SiteSpecific Concerns: The Meadow (C4S019) 7.1 There are already 10 permitted pitches immediately east of the Meadow site, intensifying overconcentration beyond what the DPD intends. 7.2 A highpressure gas distribution line runs along the western boundary, creating safety and development constraints. HSE PADHI guidance, PPTS Policy H and Local Plan Policy DM1 7.3 National policy requires safe separation distances from hazardous infrastructure, which appear compromised. 7.4 The cumulative impact of existing and proposed pitches would overwhelm local services, infrastructure, and community cohesion. 8. Context from Maidstone Traveller Site Provision 8.1 MBC’s planned 15pitch public site demonstrates the need for carefully selected, wellserviced locations near schools, healthcare, and village facilities. 8.2 The DPD identifies multiple potential allocation areas (Boughton Monchelsea, Coxheath, Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst, Stockbury, Sutton Valence, Langley), emphasising distributed provision in line with DPD Policy GT1 and PPTS Policy B. 8.3 The council’s strategy explicitly aims to avoid concentration and ensure sustainable, balanced accommodation across the borough. 8.4 Site design policies include requirements for dayrooms, amenity blocks, and adequate space for horses, reflecting traveller cultural needs. 8.5 Public consultation on the DPD allows stakeholders to comment on suitability, impact, and alignment with the spatial strategy. 9. Conclusion 9.1 This proposal conflicts with national policy (PPTS) and local policy (Local Plan & Traveller DPD). 9.2 It results in overconcentration, inadequate infrastructure support, significant increase in highway safety risks, environmental harm, and erosion of rural character. 9.3 It is inconsistent with Maidstone’s spatial strategy for balanced, sustainable traveller site provision. 9.4 For these reasons, I respectfully request you accept my objections
Formal Objection to Traveller Site Expansion - DPD Consultation The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB (C4S019) Proposal: Development of 15 additional traveller pitches adjacent to areas already containing 35+ permitted pitches (20 Pitt Road, 4 Crossdrive, 11 Chartway Street) 1. Overconcentration of Traveller Sites 1.1 The proposal would create a cluster of 50+ pitches, contrary to the PPTS requirement for fair and balanced distribution. Also conflicts with DPD Policy GT1 and Local Plan Policy SP17. 1.2 This level of concentration places a disproportionate burden on one rural community. 1.3 Overconcentration undermines community cohesion, contrary to national planning objectives. 1.4 The existing Traveller sites on Chartway Street, Pitt Road and Cross Drive form part of our community, and relations between residents and Traveller families are positive and well established. However, the proposed addition of a further 15 pitches in such a concentrated location risks disrupting this balance. Sustainable community cohesion depends on proportionate, well distributed provision, and the proposed expansion is of a scale that could undermine the harmony that presently exists. 2. Strain on Local Infrastructure & Services 2.1 Local schools are full, and the nearest GP practice is not accepting new patients. 2.2 Planning policy requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure, which is not available in this location. 2.3 Utilities and local services are already under pressure from existing traveller sites in the immediate area. 3. Highway Safety & Traffic Impact 3.1 Access roads are unsuitable for any increase in traffic volume. Chartway Street is heavily used by HGVs serving Winterwood, Griffins and Street Farm, large agricultural operations and Finches Caravan Park. Travellers’ children daily travel on pony drawn carts up and down this road, increasing vulnerability on an already hazardous route. 3.2 Pitt Road (single track) already serves 20 traveller pitches, 12 houses, a car dealership, and a touring caravan park plus holiday lets. Family expansion alone has and will see the number of pitches increase. 3.3 Pitt Road is used as a rat run to avoid congestion at Five Wents and Warmlake crossroads, increasing traffic volumes, and is a shortcut to the Ridge Golf Course. 3.4 Collisions occur regularly, and children daily use pony/horse drawn carts, creating significant safety risks. 3.5 Pitt Road joins Chartway Street on a blind bend. Vehicles, including children with horses, cross in front of oncoming traffic. Any increase in traffic would exacerbate the existing road danger. These impacts conflict with NPPF paragraph 111 and Local Plan Policy DM1, which require safe and suitable access for all users. 4. Environmental & Amenity Impacts 4.1 The proposal would increase noise, lighting, and general activity, harming local amenity. This conflicts with Local Plan Policy DM1 and PPTS Policy H. 4.2 The site contributes to biodiversity corridors; further development risks habitat fragmentation, contrary to Local Plan Policy DM3 and NPPF Chapter 15. 4.3 PPTS requires protection of the local environment and residential amenity, which this proposal fails to achieve. 4.4 Planning Inspectors have consistently held that while the monetary value of neighbouring properties is not a planning matter, the perceived impact of a development on the desirability, character, and marketability of nearby homes is a legitimate material consideration where it relates to residential amenity and public confidence. Appeal decisions across England recognise that fear of harm, perceived risk, and anticipated changes to neighbourhood character can carry weight in the planning balance even without quantified evidence. Given the close proximity of The Meadow to existing dwellings, the potential for negative market perception and associated amenity impacts should therefore be acknowledged and assessed as part of this application. 5. Conflict with Local Plan & Spatial Strategy 5.1 The Maidstone Traveller DPD seeks to distribute pitches across the borough, not concentrate them in one locality (DPD Policy GT1). 5.2 The proposal conflicts with the DPD’s aims of balanced growth, sustainable development, and integrated coexistence. 5.3 The Local Plan identifies need but requires proportionate allocation, which this site does not provide (Spatial Strategy SS1 and Policy SP17). 6. Landscape & Rural Character 6.1 The scale and density of the proposal are disproportionate to the rural/semirural setting, contrary to Local Plan Policy DM30 (Landscape Character) and NPPF paragraph 174. 6.2 PPTS Policy C requires rural sites to respect local character and scale — this proposal does not. 7. Site Specific Concerns: The Meadow (C4S019) 7.1 There are already 10 permitted pitches immediately east of the Meadow site, intensifying overconcentration beyond what the DPD intends. 7.2 A high pressure gas distribution line runs along the western boundary, creating safety and development constraints (HSE PADHI guidance, PPTS Policy H and Local Plan Policy DM1). 7.3 National policy requires safe separation distances from hazardous infrastructure, which appear compromised. 7.4 The cumulative impact of existing and proposed pitches would overwhelm local services, infrastructure, and community cohesion. 8. Context from Maidstone Traveller Site Provision 8.1 MBC’s planned 15 pitch public site demonstrates the need for carefully selected, well serviced locations near schools, healthcare, and village facilities. 8.2 The DPD identifies multiple potential allocation areas (Boughton Monchelsea, Coxheath, Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst, Stockbury, Sutton Valence, Langley), emphasising distributed provision in line with DPD Policy GT1 and PPTS Policy B. 8.3 The council’s strategy explicitly aims to avoid concentration and ensure sustainable, balanced accommodation across the borough. 8.4 Site design policies include requirements for dayrooms, amenity blocks, and adequate space for horses, reflecting traveller cultural needs. 8.5 Public consultation on the DPD allows stakeholders to comment on suitability, impact, and alignment with the spatial strategy. 9. Conclusion 9.1 This proposal conflicts with national policy (PPTS) and local policy (Local Plan & Traveller DPD). 9.2 It results in overconcentration, inadequate infrastructure support, significant increase in highway safety risks, environmental harm, and erosion of rural character. 9.3 It is inconsistent with Maidstone’s spatial strategy for balanced, sustainable traveller site provision. 9.4 For these reasons I request that Maidstone Borough Council removes this site from the Traveller DPD / Local Plan allocations and considers more appropriate, sustainable and proportionate alternatives.
1 Housing. The current proposal is for 20 caravans but there is no indication whether this for touring or static caravans but, either way, the extra buildings required to accompany the caravans means that the development would be excessive and overbearing for the location and surrounding area. Langley Heath is not included in Maidstone Borough Council’s own policy to focus any residential development within rural service centres to large or small villages and should, therefore, be discounted anyway. 2. Transport There is a limited bus service in Langley but no schools or shops and there is little scope to improve the infrastructure so it could not be relied upon for regular commuting and, any development in the proposed location, would put pressure on the primary schools in the neighbouring areas so both these issues would mean an untenable number of cars in Langley Heath. 3. Accessibility There are restrictions in terms of the size and types of vehicles that Green Lane is suitable for and any building work and subsequent positioning of caravans would require heavy plant and machinery in order for the work to go ahead but Green Lane is not suitable as an access road because it is a one track lane and the national speed limit for that type of road for the majority of its length. Green Lane is bordered by mature trees and hedgerow which provide vital habitats for wildlife including bats. 4. Community and crime Langley Heath is not an area with a high crime rate but, equally, it does not have many facilities but a substantial increase and influx of residents and associates could adversely impact on the currently relatively low volume of anti-social behaviour and crime related incidents. 5. Health care facilities The Orchard Surgery at Langley Heath is already operating almost at its maximum capacity and faces being overloaded by other housing development already approved in the surrounding area. The proposed development will put this resource under significant pressure and/or mean that residents will have to go further afield to be able to register with a surgery. 6. Community integration and layout The proposed development would effectively separate the residents of Green Lane from the rest of Langley Heath as it would be markedly different from buildings in that road in particular and the rest of the village in general. The site is directly opposite a row of terraced cottages that date from the late Victorian era so a more modern development would not match the current architecture and can only serve to devalue the cottages. 7. Agricultural land This land has been classified as Grade 2 agricultural land. This grade of land is recognised as the best and most versatile so developing it would be in contravention of policies to retain such land as an agricultural asset. It also borders further agricultural land and only a mature hedge containing native species which provides an important contribution to biodiversity separates the two. 8. Flooding The area surrounding the proposed site is within Flood Risk Zone 2 and surface water runoff is visible in heavy downpours and it drains at and around the proposed entrance. This run off is worse as the field is no longer farmed and would be further increased by hard standing and surfaced roads. 9. Cultural Heritage There are two Grade ll listedbuildings called ‘Ye Old Cottage’ and ‘The Old Farmhouse’ in Green Lane and they in close proximity to the proposed site so, as outlined in point 6 above, a more modern development would not match the current architecture and would only serve to devalue these houses. 10. Maintaining Settlement Separation I wholeheartedly support the Parish Council’s view that it is so important to retain the separate identity of Green Lane and Langley Heath to prevent it merging with and being swallowed up by other developments and conurbation and to retain the green spaces in the area as they are in constant use by local walkers and dog walkers. In light of the above, I believe the site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:- • the location could not support or sustain this or any other building plans, • accessibility is poor, • there would be a significant increase in the number of vehicles in the area, • there is a lack of facilities within walking distance and no way to improve or add to them, • the high agricultural value of the land, the impact on the established wildlife • it would not be in keeping with the historic buildings nearby and would devalue them and impact on their setting and standing • it would mean that Green Lane would lose its identity
Site code C4S-008 - The Lodge, Water Lane, is clearly unsuitable. The area already routinely floods into the entrance to Bearsted (through water lane), more development in the catchment of this waterflow will mean more water, creating an increased hazard and likely blocking access to Bearsted village from the A20. The site will be visible from the North Downs, and Pilgrim's way - historic and special natural sites. The access through Water Lane is already treacherous - the narrow railway bridge, lack of pavements and steep banks make it unsuitable for the large vehicles mentioned, or for cycle/public transport access to services that are all too far to walk (and are already overstretched). Any plan to move forward at that site would clearly be in contradiction to the stated criteria of this plan (not to mention common sense).
In relation to The Lodge, Site C4S-008 the Sustainability Appraisal, The Environment Agency identifies risks including flooding and water run off into water lane (the clue is in the name) which have not been properly addressed. This site is clearly inappropriate and unsustainable for other reason including access to local services. These are already under severe strain since the building of the Barty Farm estate and the access created into Roundwell - which is extremely busy. There is no safe walking available on Water lane and therefore no easy access to any local services.
My comments are in regard to the following proposal; C4S (017) The Brishings (20). The site policy assessment in section 7.2 gives the 'Transport and accessibility' for this site as a single minus only. This assessment is not consistent with the facts. In the site allocation policy within Maidstone Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD it is stated that planning permission will only be granted if the site is accessed via Green Lane. Green Lane is a two way, single lane track with no pavement on either side and with no public lighting. There are minimal opportunities for cars to pass each other when travelling in opposite directions and, because of the high hedge, there is a blind corner on the route from the site to Leeds Road. The lane is not suitable for large vehicles, lorries or large caravans. There are no retail outlets or direct employment opportunities in the village so the regular use of vehicles would be essential for the occupants of the 20 proposed pitches. This would, necessarily, significantly increase the risk of accidents and congestion in, and around, Langley village. Vehicular access to the site (via Green Lane) is limited to cars and small vans only. There is two-way traffic on the lane with very few areas for cars to pass each other. Pedestrians have no pavement or public lighting. It is difficult to imagine a site with poorer access so I consider the current assessment far too lenient. The assessment should be reviewed and, in addition, these issues should be considered sufficiently serious for the proposed site to be rejected.
Formal Objection to Traveller Site Expansion at The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB I write this letter of objection on behalf of myself and wife XXX and daughter XXX, as residents of XXX. I am sure that you will have multiple letters of objections from others, many of which will likely concentrate on Planning Policy matters. I will therefore attempt not to duplicate such letters although suspect that a good deal of that area will overlap points that I make. As I am not an expert on Policy or how it is implemented, and perhaps more importantly when the Council can disregard it, I will attempt to write this giving different viewpoints for your consideration. XXX is under 10m form the boundary of the proposed development as shown below i.e. the nearest house to the proposed site, although other neighbours do have land that comes up to a few meters of the site e.g. those directly opposite in Pitt Road. XXX is situated within the blue area, and the edge of the development is shown as red line below. The wider “Summerwood Farm” are extends to around 7 acres to the West of the site and borders almost the entire Westerly side of the site (red line). XXX at the property for over 40 years so we are not people who have moved into the area and then seeking to complain about what we have found! Two-bedroom windows and several windows of a downstairs room directly overlook this site, and clearly the visual amenity will be severely affected, as well as likely noise (currently zero as has sheep). We would also like to register that there is currently none of the following list of negative items affecting us from the area of the proposed development; 1. Noise (e.g., generators, shouting, vehicles). 2. Vibration (e.g., from heavy machinery or vehicles on the site). 3. Smell (e.g., waste, burning, sewage). 4. Fumes (e.g., from vehicle exhausts or machinery). 5. Smoke (e.g., from bonfires or stoves). 6. Artificial Lighting (e.g., floodlights shining into your home/garden at night). 7. Discharge of any solid or liquid substance onto your land. It is our belief that if the site is developed as per application, then one or more of the above will become a nuisance for not only ourselves but also other neighbours of the site, although suspect we are likely to be worst affected. Unfortunately it is not possible to make any Land Compensation Claim based on expectations, but this will surely be considered should we encounter any of the above, and will keep records as we encounter them. Again I suspect it is not a consideration for the Council, but we have taken advice on likely devaluation of our property and been told that it would likely wipe over £200k off its value. It will be small comfort that this should bring a rates reduction, and think it is fundamentally unfair that compensation for such loss of value is not going to be part of any development budget. It would however be wrong not to outline this now so that the Council can budget for possible future Land Compensation Claims after the event. Should he application be allowed in full or in part, then as residents XXX, we request that no pitch is allowed within 150m of our front door – we think a very reasonable request. 1. Overconcentration of Traveller Sites 1.1 The proposed development is next to a current Traveller site so will create a massive single area even though both will have different ownership. The proposed site is also 400m from another site and on the same road as at least one more. making at least 35 pitches already allowed. It is noteworthy that all these other pitches have been given with retrospective planning permission as these sorts of applications seem to not need to follow the process that everyone else is forced to abide by. With the proposed 30 pitches that can each house 4 people, this could be an additional 120 of a minority group living literally on our doorstep, not to mention potential for likely average of 1 car per two people, so potentially 60 vehicles frequenting the site even though the proposal is to attempt to restrict to 2 – this of course will be impossible to control. I suspect and hope these numbers do not become a reality, but even if half this number, then it would mean that travellers would outnumber the current residents of Pitt Road and nearby Chartway Street residents all put together The proposal would create a cluster of 50+ pitches, some with two units, most units we would expect to have multiple occupancy, and so clearly contrary to the PPTS requirement for fair and balanced distribution. There is also a conflict with DPD Policy GT1 and Local plan Policy SP17 as it undermines community cohesion, contrary to national planning objectives. The proposed addition in such a concentrated location will also inevitably disrupt the local balance. Sustainable community cohesion depends on proportionate, well distributed provision, and the proposed expansion is of a scale that will undermine the current balance. 2. Location The site in question lies outside any area that appears in the Borough Council’s Settlement Hierarchy (defined in Policy SS1), and as such should be treated as lying in open countryside. The hierarchy effectively "ranks" every town and village based on how sustainable it is (e.g. how many shops, schools, and doctors it has). For illustration this hierarchy is shown below; • County Town: Maidstone (The main urban area). • Rural Service Centres (RSCs): These are the main hubs. • Coxheath, Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst. • Larger Villages: • East Farleigh, Eyhorne Street (Hollingbourne), Sutton Valence, Yalding. • Smaller Villages: • Boughton Monchelsea, Boxley, Bredhurst, Chart Sutton, Detling, Grafty Green, Hunton, Kingswood, Laddingford, Langley, Leeds, Platt's Heath, Stockbury, Teston, Ulcombe, West Farleigh. • The Countryside: • Anywhere not listed above. This site clearly falls into the latter group and as such, I would ask the Council to take account of this and how the site then fits into other local Policy plans. It is clearly, to give just one example, "unsustainable" because it forces residents to drive for everything. 3. Schooling Local schools are all full, and as a XXX ( Sutton Valance Primary School –SVPS), I am well aware of educational difficulties to overcome with Traveller children. At every Governors meeting we have, there is at least a 15-minute discussion on attendance and the problems associated with the local traveller children simply not turning up. This causes stress to the teachers and Governors as all are judged on attendance records in both local and Ofsted inspections. Adding more travellers to the numbers, will simply make an intolerable attendance record even worse and cause unnecessary stress to all that have to manage it. Every minute Governors spend on attendance and suspension and exclusion discussions, also means one minute less spent on the health, wellbeing and education of the other 90+% of the children as time is always of the essence with meeting constraints of time that cannot be overridden (Governors are legally obliged to have a professional Clerk who is booked for a fixed time, and usually has hard cut-off to go to, or join, their next VC. This might seem petty point of detail but a reality of the real world we have to live in, and ironically those rules around school Governance are put in place by the Government or KCC. The reality is that the time I am spending writing this letter of objection and researching Policy etc, is time I am not spending on school matters which require my attention, so the application is having an effect on a local school before it is even considered! As the owner of XXX, around 800m from the proposed site along Chartway Street, we have around 300 employees. Several of these each year who live locally, have bene unable to get their children into SVPS as the places are filled by travellers children who then do not bother to turn up – this is causing in imbalance in the Community, and as a business it has side affects you are likely not considering. One such real example is that key members of staff regularly having to leave at inconvenient times (for the business) to collect their children at schools a lot further away – the employee is also losing paid employment time through leaving early. Again, anything that makes a bad situation even worse should only be allowed if there are overriding other advantages that outweigh such negatives.. 4. Local Infrastructure & Services 4.1 Local schools are full, and the nearest GP practice is not accepting new patients (in fact this Surgery in Sutton Valence is at present likely to be closed in the next 24 months as planning permission for it to move has been refused), and there is not a Dentist accepting NHS patients within 15+ miles 4.2 Planning policy requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure, which is not available in this location, and nothing is in the pipeline to improve it. (? Correct me if wrong) 4.3 Utilities and local services are already under pressure from existing Traveller sites in the immediate area – as I write this we have not had any water for over 20 hours for example. Although clearly I am not blaming that on Travellers, it is yet another example of how poor the local infrastructure is – just in the past 12 months, there have been 4 road closures along Chartway street to repair burst water pipes, 6 to repair leaking gas pipes and 3 to repair old BT cables that have passed their sell-by date. There is no mains drainage either, and almost no mobile telephone signal, and so finding a more unsuitable site would be difficult even with some effort. At XXX we have had to cease BT Broadband and two landlines as BT cannot guarantee service, and at one stage our Broadband was down for over 6 months with BT unable to fix. BT told us that they have no spare lines to move us over to as the cabinet was full at the top of Pitt Road, and fibre not available. We have therefore had to put up a transmitter and receiver from XXX further along Chartway street to piggyback on the Company fibre line at a cost of over £5,000 so that we do at least have a good internet signal and can use WIFI calling. 4.4 Local shops etc; The site is half hour walk to the nearest shop (which is even then only a garage shop – “Murco”) along Chartway Street, which has no pavement or street lighting. The nearest Post Office is around the same distance along the same road (Chartway Street) whilst the nearest “proper” shop (Aldi) is maybe an hours walk with no public transport from anywhere near the site in that direction. 4.5 As I write this, there has been no mains water since 5am yesterday morning, so already 36 hours and Southern water have said that it might be another 2 days before water supplies restored. 4.6 Sewage; Clearly there is no mains drainage in this location or down the entire length of Pitt Road which means a sewage treatment works would be required on the proposed site should the application be approved. Whilst I would hope that this was of adequate size and specification etc, I would suggest that in the event that the council were minded to approve the application, then it should rather install mains drainage down Pitt Road, and contribute via S106. 4.7 Surface water; The site has extremely poor drainage, and water runs off the ground very easily and in heavy rains this can go through the fence and through XXX just above XX main entrance on Pitt Road. I would like to record that this is not an issue now as the volume and frequency s very low and manageable, but should any changes to the adjacent land lead to increased surface water run off, then this will lead to problems for XX next door. Again we hope this does not lead to a Land Compensation Claim, but ask that if the application proceeds, that surface water retention is properly surveyed as part of any works. A borehole for surface water removal might be a good option, but land drains in this field I can confidently inform you wil not work as the ground has too high a clay content, and the previous occupier tried this with no success. 5. Highways 5.1 Access onto both Chartway Street and Pitt Road is problematic, although to be fair not a reason to refuse this application for this reason alone. Travellers children, and four in particular who are regularly abusive to anyone they encounter, and have been known to be physically violent, travel pretty much daily on pony drawn carts up and down this road. Several of them also go at speed up and down the road with no crash helmets on unregistered trail type motor bikes, or on quads. 5.2 In terms of the pony/horse drawn carts, this is already causing significant safety risks, with at least two incidents seen first-hand where the cart has turned over in the middle of the road with the children operating them not being able to sort out the mess without help from locals. If permission was to be given, then we would ask the Council to impose a restriction on the use of such pony and traps from the site. 6. Security and Local Police; 6.1 Whilst I accept that the 60 new people might not cause any new problems or more of the same problems, it is not unfair to assume that more people are likely to need more security and better Policing than is currently the case, The local Police has also unfortunately reached breaking point and unable to contain local crime, and we have direct experience of them not even bothering to turn up when a crime is actively in progress. The golf course opposite has also had issues with ‘local children’ steeling golf clubs etc and so the track record is not good. 6.2 Should the application be allowed, we ask that provision is made for a contribution to the local Police that can directly be used to improve security and presence in our area – see alter section on S106 agreement. 7. Loss of visual amenity for neighbours The loss of such amenity does not need any further description as obvious to all. Should he application be allowed, we would strongly lobby for evergreen trees to be planted along the complete boundary shown in red on the drawing above, and a planning condition that these be maintained at a height between 10 and 15m. Also, until such time as these trees have grown to a height of 10m, that a solid fence be erected along this boundary to a height of at least 4m to obscure the development from XXX. 8. The National Planning Policy Framework 8.1 This is the Government’s published position on planning matters, with the latest update in December 2024. Paragraph 135 states that Local Planning Authorities should consider the impact of new proposals on existing residents (amongst other considerations). Especially the guidance states that new proposals should be “sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting..”. 8.2 In the case of this particular site, XXX, and the site in question next door has always been farmed – for the earlier years by XX of XX who operated a farm contracting business as his main work, but also farmed this site, Since his death and the sale of the property, the ground has predominantly been used for sheep grazing i.e. used for the purposes of agriculture. 9. Conflict with Local Plan & Spatial Strategy 9.1 The Maidstone Traveller DPD seeks to distribute pitches across the borough, not concentrate them in one locality. DPD Policy GT1 9.2 The Local Plan identifies need but requires proportionate allocation, which this site does not provide. Spatial Strategy SS1 and Policy SP17 10. Other Policy Considerations; 10.1 Policy LPRSS1 states that it is a strategic imperative to protect the rural character of the Borough and that development will generally be confined to the settlements identified in the plan – note again that this site appears to be outside that area? 10.2 Policy LPRHOU8, deals with Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Accommodation. This states that permission would be granted for such uses if the following criteria are met: 10.3 local services, in particular school, health and shopping facilities are accessible from the site preferably on foot, by cycle or by public transport – clearly they are not! 10.4 the development would not result in significant harm to the landscape and rural character of the area – it is difficult to see how it could be argued that the landscape and character of the area would not be significantly harmed by such a development 10.5 Lastly in relation to whom this plan is meant to assist, often such occupation is not taken up by the traditional Gypsy or Travelling show people (whom for avoidance of doubt we have no issues with) but by those falling outside this definition. 10.6 Should this application proceed, then I would ask that the Council to improve the existing Due Diligence process in place so that the pitches are occupied only by those that have a proper right to do so. 11. High pressure gas distribution line 11.1 This runs diagonally across the plot, going under Pitt Road a few metres from the XX entrance. I saw this pipe when it was installed and it is not as deep in places as the plans suggest, and if it were to be hit with say a JCB digging a hole on the site the explosion would be enormous. 11.2 The risk is viewed so high, that helicopters regularly patrol the line to check for unauthorised works above the pipe. Should the application proceed, then I would suggest that there is a ban on any construction equipment to be brought onto the site by occupants, such as JCB’s or mini-diggers as view this as a materially elevated risk compared to the site being left to the sheep. 11.3 I assume that the opinion of the relevant gas company has been sought before this application is considered? 12. Ecological; 12.1 This site is frequented by wildlife, specifically badgers and foxes. Whilst foxes are regarded as pests by some, at XX we welcome them as they actively keep down rodents around the house and horse stables adjacent to the house. The foxes the frequent XX all come to the property through the proposed site and so their habitat would be likely disrupted to the extent that they would suffer, and also we would likely suffer by not seeing them anymore. 12.2 In the case of Badgers, we have no feelings either way except it is nice to see thriving wildlife in the open countryside. and good to see their resurgence in the area, as 20 years ago it was rare to see one. There are several active badger sets along the Pitt Road curtilage of this proposed site and so would ask that the Council take due account of these and not do anything that would be detrimental to their continued use – this might be to consider not allowing any access to the site from Pit Road for example. 12.3 We specifically ask that should the application be approved, that the Ecological Surveyor appointed by the Council would contact us as we have local knowledge of the site and can show them the areas of concern – although the badger sets are obvious to anyone looking along the roadside just above XX on Pitt Road. 13. S106 agreement 13.1 S106 agreements are very common when local infrastructure is not suitable to support a proposed development. If any application fell into this category then it is this one. 13.2 Whilst it is clear the Council has an unfair bias on this in the sense that it would be negotiating with itself to pay money to improve infrastructure, I hope that it would look at this from an arm’s length objective given how clear it is that local infrastructure will not support this development. 13,2 Whilst a S106 is effectively the Council signing an Agreement with itself, there is no reason why some form of “unilateral undertaking” cannot form part of the condition of any permission should it be given, and effectively would give the same result. 13.3 I know firsthand that the local Primary School in is desperate need for funding for maintenance – current need is to spend £300,000+. Whilst I am not suggesting this level of contribution as clearly benefits others, this is required just to keep the school running, let alone expansion to accommodate increased numbers. A £50k contribution would not be unreasonable if the application would result in extra children needing schooling (as would inevitably be the case), as the school is currently full, and unfair for the assumption to be that other local children will be displaced. These places are needed even if the pupils don’t turn up for school it should be noted. 13.4 Specifically, I therefore request as part of this evaluation, that Kent County Council Education is consulted to calculate the precise yield of school-age children from the proposed pitches. The development should be required to pay the full standard contribution per pitch towards SVPS to mitigate the impact of increased pupil numbers, in accordance with the KCC Developer Contributions Guide. 13.5 As this is a public site, it is vital for public confidence that the applicant (the Council) is held to the exact same financial obligations regarding infrastructure contributions as any private developer would be. 13.6 Local doctor and dentists need ‘encouragement’ to take on new patients. In the case of the Doctors surgery, I am aware of planning application for a new surgery within the new build on the Sutton Road, and a conditional contribution to this could be made. A contribution of £1,000 per pitch would not be unreasonable to go towards local health care. 13.7 Local communications are poor to non-existent, so a contribution to a phone mast or access to 5G or Fibre would not be unreasonable. As site would house at least 25% of the people that would use it, suggest a 25% contribution of the cost. 13.8 Power cuts are notoriously often in this location, with around 8 per annum in the past 24 months. Supplier informs us that there is inadequate resilience in the network, so that if one section goes down, it is often not possible to loop the power back from another direction to minimise disruption, I suggest therefore that a contribution for electricity resilience is added to any S106. I have no idea of the cost, but ask that before any application is approved, that the Council seeks costings for the works needed. 13.9 As I write this at 1545 11/1/26, I have now received a message saying power is off which is impeding the ability of Southern Water to get the water back on. You really could not make this up, but this is what we live with on a week to week basis along Chartway Street! 13.10 We know there are local problems through our experience at XX as well, because we have been forced to install equipment to our Solar Panel system (at a cost of around £10k) so that if we produce more power than we use, that the excess power does not go back to the grid as it is not capable of taking it – at certain times we therefore have to turn off the panels which is crazy situation for the local areas to have got itself into. 13.11. Chartway Street is the main access for the proposed site, and this road is one of the worst roads in the area and is a decade overdue for resurfacing from A274 junction to at least the top of Pitt Road. There is also no pavement along its entire length. An agreement for this resurfacing to be done would be gratefully received by all residents as a good practical way to mitigate the Highways aspect of the development, should it be approved. 13.12 As otherwise stated herein, we believe that Pitt Road is totally unsuitable to have more traffic, and our suggested access is Chartway Street. Should this suggestion be rejected, and any entrance is allowed onto Pitt Road, then Pitt Road needs to be improved – at the very least resurfaced as parts of it have not been resurfaced for over 25 years, and the road is in a terrible state, with pot holes scattered along its length that reappear as fast as they are given a temporary repair. It is therefore suggested that the site owner contributes through S106 or unilateral undertaking, to resurface Pitt Road. The suggestion for a proportionate contribution is 5% of the cost of the works – or such % as calculated by KCC to be commensurate with the possible extra 60 cars that might use the road from any new entrance onto Pitt Road. 13.13 As directly evidenced form Southern water above, there is currently no water supply to area surrounding and including the proposed site. Whilst it might be argued this is negligence of Southern Water in terms of their own resilience, clearly there is no capacity for any more offtake as there is simply not enough water to go around if a few minor items go wrong at the same time. Whilst I am very reluctant to suggest that Southern Water be given a contribution to fix a problem of their own making, a contribution aimed to improve water resilience would be appropriate as part of a S106. 13.14 As further detailed above, there is no mains drainage down Pitt Road, and Chartway Street is uphill side of the site and so not possible for sewage to run uphill without pumping station which adds cost and risk when pumps fail etc. It is rather suggested that should the Council be minded ot accepted this stie within their plans, that they make a S106 contribution for mains drainage down Pitt Road in order to mitigate the risk of surface or foul water going onto neighbours property or running down Pitt Road. 13.15 We are aware that any contribution must comply with the following criteria, and we believe that the suggested amounts above, or actions suggested, fulfil these requirements; a) Necessary: It must be needed to make the development acceptable (e.g., there are 8 new kids, so the school needs 8 new desks and that fraction of a new classroom). b) Directly Related: e.g. The money must go to the specific school/surgery that the new residents will use, or spent on the roads used e.g. Chartway Street c) Proportionate: In previous example of the school, this is why a contribution of £300k for overdue maintenance would not be proportionate even though desperately needed by the school, but say £50k to make provision for the extra children likely to live on the site is a proportionate amount. 14. Conclusion Firstly an apology in advance if I have mis-referenced or misunderstood some of the Policy guidance refereed to. I am not a planning expert and therefore please disregard any such inaccuracies alone and still give full consideration to all other points raised. 14.1 This proposal conflicts with national policy (PPTS) and local policy (Local Plan & Traveller DPD). 14.2 It is inconsistent with Maidstone’s spatial strategy for balanced, sustainable Traveller site provision. 14.3 This site fails the criteria set out in Policy GT1 (or the new LPRSP10 in the Review and also LPRHOU8) regarding suitability. 14.4 It results in overconcentration, inadequate infrastructure support, environmental harm, and erosion of rural character. 14.5 Should the application be allowed, we request that all suggested conditions herein should be made part of any grant, including S106 agreement or some “unilateral undertaking” to effect the same proportional and considered contribution to local infrastructure. 15. For all these reasons, I respectfully request that you accept our objections.
No answer given
I would like to make the following comments on both the MBC Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Plan dated November 2025 and the supporting Appendix C of Volume 2 of the sustainability appraisal of the Plan. The plan details the overall vision and key objectives to deliver sustainable accommodation for Gypsy and Travellers which is also the guiding principals embedded in all the MBC housing developments Plans to ensure any development is sustainable and meets MBC sustainability criteria for everyone in the Borough irrespective of their ethnicity. These criteria are quite rightly rigorously applied and enforced on all Developer or individual Settled community planning applications however Appendix C states that the majority of the existing sites and those identified to be expanded are unsustainable and do not meet the MBC planning sustainability criteria. Global warming effects us all irrelevant of ethnicity and it is totally unacceptable for one ethic group to be seen as not being subject to this key planning principal as it will create tensions with the settled community contrary to the Plan objectives and could be seen as ethically prejudice whilst placing an increased burden on the Gypsy and Traveller site residents of car transportation. As stated in Appendix C many of the current sites in the RSC’s mean the Gypsy and Traveller’s have to travel several miles along unlit roads with no public transport, no footpaths to access fundamental services of shops, Healthcare facilities, schools, railway stations etc… I regularly see Mothers with babies in arms and in push chairs as well as children walking along these roads to access the RSC’s facilities. This is as a direct result of planning permission being granted by MBC disregarding the planning policy of sustainability and I fear this will eventually lead to serious injury or even death as these sites are expanded. There is a real and present danger this will further deter any integration with the Settled Community, as a larger Gypsy and Traveller site is ethnic homogeneity, enhances spatial confinement, is mutually distance and retreats into the private sphere of the patriarchy family is not facilitating integration but re enforcing separation which is contrary to the vision and objectives outline in the plan. This isolation of larger sites also sharpens the boundary between the Gypsy and Traveller Community and the Settled Population driving them to the margins, reinforcing disidentification and prejudice. Again, all of which is contrary to the vision and objectives of the plan. The Plan document acknowledges that at a Parish level there are substantially higher populations of Gypsy and Traveller communities and maybe even higher as there is often a reluctance to disclose their ethnicity. The Plan should also acknowledge in the background that these disproportionate higher levels of Gypsy and Traveller populations are as a direct result of the previous MBC planning decisions. In particular their decision to ignore MBC’s own sustainability criteria and the NPPF guideline which insists that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled Community and the decision to ignore the cumulative effect on the Parish’s population and the local landscape. The Parish level statistics clearly demonstrate that these Parishes are currently have a disproportionate number of Gypsy and Traveller pitches and any further increase would further breach the NPPF guidelines regarding dominating the nearest Settled Communities. A personal concern has been realised in that the output of these cumulative decisions has been be used as the basis of this development plan with existing unsustainable sites being enlarged to meet the identified need. It seems the Plan has been retro fitted to the “ easy “ option for MBC ignoring the key objectives including sustainability by expanding existing sites or relying on the Gypsy and Traveller community to source and purchase the land, apply for planning permission or retrospective permission, all leading to larger, Irregular and unmanaged Gypsy and Traveller sites which could be seen as creating sort of “ghettos” rather driving integration and delivering on the improvements health, safety, education and employment outlined as key important objectives in the Plan. Point 65 states that rural locations are generally more suited to the keeping of horses and whilst this is true it should not be used as a reason to sites to be located the rural areas. Horse ownership is not an accommodation need and not an essential part of keeping to a nomadic lifestyle. Today the majority of Gypsy and Travellers use motor vehicles and touring caravans to maintain a nomadic lifestyle which do not need to be located in rural locations. To include a comment regarding horse ownership is stereotyping and could be seen as ethnic discrimination. Likewise caravans are regularly seen parked in urban areas and it should not be suggested that rural locations offer better manoeuvring ability especially when the rural roads are often very narrow with occasional passing bays. In the spatial strategy point 68 of the Plan states that Maidstone Town Centre and the Urban areas are most sustainable locations for development and in the forward it states that 20,000 new homes will be built by 2038 but no sites for Gypsy and Traveller pitches has been or will be allocated in Urban areas. The larger residential building developments are generally closer to shops, transport links and health care facilities as a pre requisite of obtaining planning permission. Therefore a requirement to include Gypsy and Traveller accommodation should be mandatory on any new development along either an element of Social housing and this should not be waived by paying a large community infrastructure level as seems to be happening on other developments to reduce Social Housing quotas. Point 68 also states that the closest urban site at Coldharbour Lane is owned by Tonbridge and West Malling Council to meet their Council needs. The Plan does not state whether MBC have looked at this approach with a view to buying land outside the Borough to build a managed site or sites to meet their accommodation needs and meet their sustainability and design criteria’s. The Council should actively pursue this approach which is also used by London Borough’s to meet their social housing needs. Point 72 regarding Invicta Barracks. The document does not give clear reasons why this site is not suitable as an urban location. Development of such brownfield sites has been undertaken before and heritage and environmental constraints have also been accommodated. The site is an ideal site for development of a managed site. It is located near all the amenities, transport links, road networks, healthcare facilities, schools and its location facilitates integration with the local settled community making it an ideal site for a managed site by either MBC, a registered landlord, housing association etc… If after another detailed review, the Invicta Park Barracks is deemed not suitable for a Gypsy and Traveller site then it should not be suitable for any residential settled housing as this would be both incongruous and discriminatory. Safeguarding The safeguarding of permitted sites should include a mechanism to ensure that the sites are solely used by Gypsy and Travellers. There are many mobile homes on current permitted sites that are rented out on a weekly rental basis to non Gypsy and Travellers. Enforcing this requirement will create additional accommodation. Safeguarding should also include a programme to ensure the current permitted sites have met the original planning conditions and they meet the design and health and safety guidelines to ensure the well being of all the residents. Site Design I welcome the design policy on design and layout of new sites which should be enforced however the provision of paddocks, field shelters and other equine facilities should not take preference over providing residential accommodation as horse ownership is not an essential need and can be satisfied by using local livery services both self serviced and managed. Health and Safety: The policy should cover sanitation detailing how dirty water, rain water and sewage are managed on the pitch from both the amenity block or day room to ensure the health and safety of all the residents and to negate any environmental impact. When designing the layout of a site, careful consideration must be given to the health and safety of residents, and in particular children, given the likelihood of a high density of children on the site, vehicles and caravans. It is important to ensure that appropriate traffic calming measures are considered for all sites ensuring that appropriate drainage is accommodated within the scheme to allow for the effective passage of surplus water. Clear and effective signage should be introduced including clear directions should be in place to indicate the location of hydrants and other access points for the fire service etc when attending an emergency on site. The need for separate vehicular/pedestrian access should also be considered. Access for emergency vehicles: Consultation with the local fire and rescue service officer at the designing of a site to gain advice as to a minimum turning and reversing requirements of emergency vehicles in confined spaces for example, which may impact the design. To increase potential access points for emergency vehicles, more than one access route into the site is recommended. Where possible, site roads should be designed to allow two vehicles to pass each other. Specific guidance should be sought from the local fire authority for each site. Although roads on sites do not require adoption, it is recommended that all roads are constructed to adoptable standards of MBC to avoid future maintenance costs, and in anticipation of increased wear and tear due to frequent movement of heavy vehicles. Security The Site layout can play an important role in avoiding a sense of enclosure and isolation amongst Gypsies and Travellers. The aim should be to ‘design out’ crime and social exclusion and ‘design in’ community safety and social inclusion through openness of design, allowing ease in passing through, whether walking or driving. Care also needs to be taken to ensure that proper concern is shown for the safety of residents and children. Site layout should maximise natural surveillance enabling residents to easily oversee all areas of the site. Scheme specific advice on security provision for the site should be obtained from the Police Community Liaison Officer. I have a real concern that many of the current larger Gypsy and Traveller sites do not meet both the Health and Safety requirements and the access to emergency services. Additionally comments on Appendix C The detailed Map showing the location of all the existing sites is hard to read but I have a real concern on the numbers used to calculate the reasonable alternative site assessments. So I looked at the data for the Petsfield site really well and it is incorrect. The site was granted 2 pitches over 15 years ago and then had an additional 3 pitches approved and sited in October 2020 under planning application 20/502748. Therefore from late 2020, the existing is 5 and not the 2 stated in the appendix C. C.1.1.5 states the assessments were based on the baseline information given by the Council. This raises serious questions about the validity of all the numbers provided on both documents. How many of the other site numbers are wrong ? Was pre 2020 data used and why ? Is the overall base case being used flawed not only on these assessments but in the wider existing site calculations..?