Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed allocation of Site C45-008, Water Lane, Bearsted, for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site. After reviewing the proposal and assessing the location against relevant planning policy, I believe the site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons: 1. Highway Safety and Inadequate Access Water Lane is a narrow rural road with limited passing places and constrained visibility at junctions. The lane already experiences congestion during school hours and peak times. The increased vehicle movements generated by the proposed site would significantly heighten the risk of accidents for pedestrians, cyclists, and road users. The access conditions fall well below what would normally be expected for safe and sustainable development. 2. Unsustainable Location The site is isolated from key services and has poor access to public transport. There are no continuous, safe pedestrian routes or adequate street lighting. Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), sustainable development requires safe and suitable access for all users—criteria this site does not meet. 3. Harm to Rural Character and Landscape This land forms part of Bearsted’s rural edge, contributing to the area’s openness and landscape quality. Development here would erode the distinctive character of Bearsted and Thurnham, contrary to local and national policies that protect countryside settings and prevent urban sprawl. 4. Pressure on Local Services and Infrastructure Local healthcare, schools, and community facilities are already operating near capacity. Additional demand generated by this development would place further strain on essential services, with limited opportunities for expansion within the village. 5. Flood Risk and Drainage Issues Water Lane and adjacent fields have known surface-water drainage problems during periods of heavy rainfall. Unless major drainage works are undertaken, development will likely worsen these issues, creating risks both for future occupants and nearby properties. 6. Inadequate Emergency Access Due to the narrow carriageway, tight bends, and restricted turning space, Water Lane does not readily accommodate emergency service vehicles. Kent Fire & Rescue Service access standards are unlikely to be met without significant reconfiguration of the road network. 7. Overdevelopment of a Rural Site The scale and nature of the proposed development represents an over-intensification of land within a rural context. It would substantially alter the openness of the countryside and conflict with policies designed to safeguard rural character. 8. Uncertain Utilities Provision There is no clear evidence that the site can be safely and sustainably connected to essential services including sewerage, water, electricity, and waste management. Development without confirmed infrastructure presents environmental and public health risks. 9. Heritage and Conservation Impacts Bearsted and Thurnham contain conservation areas and heritage assets whose settings rely heavily on surrounding open countryside. Developing this site would undermine the rural landscape that contributes to their significance and historic character. 10. Noise, Light, and Visual Intrusion Additional activity on the site—vehicle movements, lighting columns, and noise—would negatively affect the amenity and tranquillity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. 11. Precedent for Further Development Granting this allocation may set a precedent for subsequent development along Water Lane and surrounding countryside. The cumulative impact would further erode the rural boundary and be contrary to the principles of controlled, plan-led growth. 12. Concerns About Site Selection and Assessment It is unclear whether all alternative sites were assessed consistently or whether full environmental, landscape, and transport assessments were conducted for C45-008. A site with so many constraints may indicate that the assessment process requires further scrutiny to ensure transparency and fairness. Conclusion For these reasons—spanning road safety, sustainability, landscape impact, infrastructure pressure, drainage concerns, emergency access, and policy consistency—I strongly object to the allocation of Site C45-008. The site is fundamentally unsuitable for development and presents multiple risks to the surrounding community, environment, and rural character of Bearsted. I respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council remove this site from consideration.