Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

I write to lodge a formal objection to the proposed allocation of land at The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted, within the emerging Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD). I am a local resident of Bearsted and make this representation having regard to thestatutory tests of soundness, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the Council’s duties under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. While I fully acknowledge the Council’s statutory obligation to identify deliverable and suitable sites for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation, this specific site fails fundamental tests of suitability, safety, sustainability and policy compliance. 1. Failure to Meet Highway Safety and Access Requirements Water Lane is a narrow, single-track rural lane with: No pavements or pedestrian segregation Limited forward and side visibility Inadequate passing places Constant flooding issues Sub-standard geometry for large or articulated vehicles The proposal relies exclusively on access via Water Lane, contrary to NPPF paragraph 110, which requires development to ensure safe and suitable access for all users and not give rise to unacceptable highway safety impacts. The anticipated vehicle movements associated with Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople - including towing vehicles, articulated units, plant, generators, and seasonal convoys - are wholly incompatible with the physical constraints of this lane. This is not a hypothetical concern. A fatal collision occurred on nearby Thurnham Lane, a comparable rural road, resulting in the deaths of two local residents due to speed and road conditions. This tragic incident underscores the very real and foreseeable risks of intensifying traffic along such routes. In planning law, where severe highway safety impacts cannot be mitigated, refusal is mandatory. No credible mitigation strategy is presented that could make this access safe or policy-compliant. 2. Unsustainable Location Contrary to NPPF Principles The NPPF is clear that development must be located where it can be sustainably accessed by residents and service providers. This site: Is remote from essential services Is not served by public transport Requires reliance on private vehicles for all daily needs Is difficult for emergency services (and any obstruction caused by the site is likely to result in even greater difficulty) Is difficult for refuse services This directly conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 8 and 105, which seek to reduce reliance on private car journeys and promote sustainable patterns of development. A site that is entirely car-dependent, accessed via unsuitable rural lanes, cannot be considered sustainable. 3. Incompatibility with Rural Character and Landscape Harm The site lies within a sensitive rural setting on the edge of Bearsted, surrounded by open countryside and agricultural land. The intensity and operational nature of a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople site — including vehicle storage, equipment, hardstandings, lighting and activity — would cause material harm to landscape character, contrary to: Local plan countryside protection policies NPPF paragraph 174 (protecting intrinsic character of the countryside). The proposal would urbanise a rural landscape and represents a fundamental conflict in land use, not a sympathetic or proportionate form of development. Further, any alterations to the landscape to try and mitigate the unsustainable location (contrary to NPPF Principles) would fail due to the impact on the rural character and landscape. There are also several important Oak trees which have tree preservation orders. 4. Flooding, Drainage and Ground Condition Constraints It is well-documented locally that Water Lane suffers from surface water and drainage issues, particularly at its lower points. The introduction of: Hardstandings Heavy vehicle movements Residential occupation raises significant concerns regarding surface water runoff, soil compaction, and flood risk, contrary to NPPF paragraphs 159–167. No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that these constraints can be adequately mitigated and any mitigation is likely to fail due to the impact on the rural character and landscape. 5. Failure of the “Soundness” Tests For a DPD allocation to be found sound, it must be positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. This site fails on multiple counts: Not justified: reasonable alternatives with safer access appear available Not effective: severe access constraints render delivery questionable if not impossible Not consistent: with national policy: conflicts with NPPF safety and sustainability requirements The volume of local objections, including formal representations and the intervention of the local Member of Parliament, further evidences that this allocation lacks community acceptability and practical deliverability. 6. Charges Register in relation to the site I believe there may be a restriction over the proposed site (to the benefit of Barty Farm and its successors) that any owner of the land will ’not deposit any chemicals or noxious substances of any type whatsoever in the stream passing through the land’ (as referred). Conclusion This objection is not to the principle of provision, but to the unsuitability of this proposed site. The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted: Is unsafe Is unsustainable Is environmentally harmful Fails core planning tests I therefore respectfully request that Policy C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted be removed from the emerging DPD and that the Council identifies alternative sites that meet access, safety and sustainability requirements. Such removal will avoid legal and local challenge further down the line and avoid a waste of taxpayers money.