Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

Objection to Proposal for a Site in Water Lane, Bearsted Reference C4S (008) The Lodge We are writing to strongly object to the above site being allocated as a Gypsy/Traveller site on the following grounds: Maidstone Borough Council’s Spatial Strategy/Settlement This policy requires that new traveller sites are located in sustainable and appropriate locations within the Borough. For many good reasons the Water Lane site does not appear within the detailed site allocations list under the GT DPD. The allocation of a site at this location risks completely undermining the carefully considered planned approach to meeting accommodation need by distributing sites in a way which is not consistent with the overall settlement grading and sustainable distribution of services. Lack of evidence of suitability – site specific assessments missing or not yet demonstrated At present we cannot source the documentation (if published) regarding detailed site-specific assessments for Water Lane, Bearsted, for example flood risk, highway and traffic access, visual landscape impact, ecology/biodiversity. Without these documents the site’s suitability is unproven, but Water Lane regularly floods quite considerably to at least 50 metres into the lane and across into Roundwell and the new Roundwell Development. Without these technical appraisals the inclusion of this site is premature and would be contrary to principles of creditable planning doctrine and transparency. Risk of Environmental/Amenity harm (landscape, ecological, greenfield loss) The GT DPD make it quite clear that any site allocation must comply with non-strategic policies on general site design, layout, landscaping, biodiversity and climate change. This site on Water Lane currently proposed is greenfield land and development there would represent loss of open countryside/greenfield, with an immense impact on local landscape character, ecology, wildlife, habitats, drainage and local amenity. Without a proper Environmental Impact Assessment or at the very least an ecological and landscape assessment made fully public at this state, allocating the site is inconsistent with the council’s stated commitment to protecting the borough’s natural and build environment. Given that the site would immediately be subject to hard standing concrete all over the site, the water run-off into the lane would be exponential. Procedural Concern – allocating a site before proper review and before final plan submission The GT DPD indicates that this consultation is not the final Plan (Regulation 19) and that the evidence gathering (including assessments of potential sites) remains ongoing, but allocating Water Lane, Bearsted before the technical assessments are complete and before full public disclosure would prejudice the ability of residents and stakeholders to make informed comments and might severely limit their rights to object at a later date. This would undermine public confidence and undermine the transparency and fairness of the plan making process. Proximity to Barty Farm Social Housing The Barty Farm housing development has social housing on the east side of the estate, which abuts Water Lane. Would placing a Gypsy/Traveller site adjacent to the social housing be considered to be a well thought out inclusion? I assume that the local police Chief Constable will be included in the consultation and I would be interested to hear their concerns over this site, especially with the obvious extra strain that this has placed on the community. Infrastructure – doctors/dentists/school allocation With more than 13,000 residents of Bearsted, Thurnham, Hollingbourne, Downswood, Shepway and beyond already using just one doctor’s surgery, would it be sensible to add further pressure on this surgery? The same applies to local schools. As Thurnham and Roseacre schools would not be in the catchment area, where is the proposed school? In light of the above we respectfully request that the council remove Water Lane, Bearsted from the list of potential allocated sites in the GT DPD at this stage or at the very least defer any allocation pending the publication of full site-specific assessments on flood risk, highways, landscape/visual impact. Ecology, drainage/ground conditions, amenity etc and then conduct a further round of public consultation once those assessments are available. If the council decides to proceed with the allocation regardless of the above, we ask that the council commit in writing to ensure that no planning application will be accepted unless it is accompanied by full technical reports, including but not limited to flood risk, drainage, highways access, ecological and landscape impact. Robust landscaping and mitigation measures to protect the local environment, biodiversity and amenity should be carried out. A thorough and clear enforceable layout and design plan compliant with the design, layout and amenity standards set in Policy TR8 of the GT DPD should also be included. We reserve the right to comment further at Regulation 19 or on any future planning application, once more detailed information is made available.