Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed allocation of land off Water Lane, Thurnham/Bearsted for a Gypsy and Traveller site within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document . My objection is based entirely on planning grounds and the requirements of Policy TR4 of the Maidstone Local Plan. I am of course aware that all people are entitled to a safe environment for their housing, with access to amenities. However the location of this site is totally unsuitable for the families concerned as outlined below: Non-compliance with Policy TR4 – Site Not Suitable for Allocation Highways and Access – Water Lane Is Inherently Unsafe Water Lane is a single track/narrow country road and will be totally unsuitable for an increase in traffic, there is limited width for two-way traffic. This road is unsuitable for towing vehicles, caravans and larger vehicles associated with a fair/circus. At rare times, larger vehicles from the stables, situated further along Water Lane have caused great difficulties in passing and surface issues on the road due to their weight. This also significantly increases road safety risks, evidenced by the sad and unnecessary deaths of Tom and Sue Corkery in January last year when Scott Gunn drove at speed down Thurnham lane an identical lane that runs parallel to Water Lane. Water Lane is used by many local dog walkers and cyclists; this site would increase the risk of an accident occurring . The visibility is poor on Water Lane without any room for pedestrian pathways and is without street lighting which increases the danger to all concerned. Kent Highways’ own standards require safe, accessible routes for intensification of use — standards that cannot be met at this location without major (and unachievable) upgrades. This is a clear conflict with Local Plan transport policies and therefore TR4 Development in a rural area The site lies directly adjacent to the Kent Downs National Landscape (AONB) and forms part of its immediate rural setting. The proposed development would cause a substantial change to the local landscape and would cause visual and noise disturbance to the local landscape. Causing harm to the character of the countryside, contrary to local planning policies protecting local and rural settings. It is vitally important to protect the natural habitat of local wildlife and consider the impact to hedgerows. Water Lane is bordered by mature hedgerows, woodland, and wildlife corridors supporting: bat's, badgers and protected bird species. Any development risks habitat fragmentation and lighting disturbance. Without full ecological assessments, allocation would be premature and contrary to Local Plan biodiversity policies. This again breaches TR4 Flooding The area already suffers from significant drainage issues, particularly at the end of Water Lane, where water accumulates during periods of rainfall. In winter, this standing water frequently freezes, creating hazardous conditions in which Water Lane can become comparable to an ice rink. This provides clear evidence of inadequate drainage infrastructure. Any increase in traffic or residential development will exacerbate these problems. Additional runoff from new hard surfaces, combined with heavier use of the road, will intensify flooding and ice risks. Furthermore, mud and debris transferred onto the road by heavy vehicles will create further hazards, increasing the likelihood of accidents and causing avoidable damage to the local environment. Therefore the area has known drainage issues, including: slow-draining clay soils, surface water run-off during heavy rainfall, risk of overspill onto Water Lane. Hardstanding and caravan bases would worsen run-off and flood risk to neighbours and the highway. This contravenes Local Plan and NPPF flood-risk policies, and therefore TR4 Impact on Local Infrastructure and Amenities. Bearsted amenities and infrastructure are already under heavy strain due to the increase in developments. I am concerned that local schools, healthcare services, police, road networks and local facilities would not be able to take further strain. Furthermore, there would be no safe walking route to schools, shops, GPs, or bus stops and there would be a heavy reliance on private vehicle trips for daily needs which risks noise impact from vehicle movement. This is contrary to the NPPF, Local Plan policies on sustainable development, and incompatible with TR4. It would create overdevelopment and have an impact on the local community, therefore it cannot comply with TR4. For the reasons above — relating to TR4 non-compliance, highways safety, landscape harm, ecological risk, flood/drainage concerns, and overall unsustainability — I respectfully ask Maidstone Borough Council to reject the allocation of Water Lane as a Gypsy & Traveller site in the emerging Development Plan Document.