Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Strongly disagree

C4S 008 THE LODGE We write to strongly object to the above site being allocated as a gypsy/traveller site on the following material planning grounds. 1. Inconsistency with the council’s spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy. The GT DPD sets out a “Spatial Strategy” under Policy TR1 that requires new traveller sites are located in sustainable and appropriate locations within the Borough. The Water Lane Bearsted site does not appear within the detailed site allocations list under GT DPD. Seven locations have been identified in the GT DPD - Linton, Boughton Monchelsea, Coxheath, Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst, Stockbury. The Water Lane site is not part of this allocation. Bringing additional sites into the GT DPD at a later stage undermines the careful planning approach to meeting accommodation needs which may not be consistent with the overall settlement hierarchy and sustainable distribution of services. 2. Lack of evidence of suitability. There does not seem to be any site-specific documents or assessments for highways/traffic access, ecology/biodiversity impact, landscape impact and flooding risk. Water Lane is named for a reason - it floods to the point the lane becomes inaccessible by vehicles and pedestrians. It has been this way forever. No documents providing technical appraisals therefore makes the inclusion of this site speculative which is contrary to principles of good planning. 3. Risk of environment/amenity harm. The GT DPD State any site allocation must comply with non strategic policies on general site design, layout, landscaping, biodiversity and climate change. My understanding is that this site is on green belt land and the NPPF, PPTS 2015/23 No.16 states that “inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development”. Developing this site is potentially contrary to national policy. Other concerns include, but are not exhaustive, are impact on the designated Kent Downs National landscape, loss of open countryside, impact on local landscape, loss of wildlife habitats, current Tree Preservation Orders on magnificent oak trees, loss of green fields made over to hard standing creating environmental issues eg flooding and drainage and finally highways concerns. Water Lane by its very nature is a narrow lane and totally unsuited to development. Highways and Environmental Impact Statement Assessment should be undertaken and made public before proposed sites are potentially allocated. In addition the council states that it is committed to protecting the boroughs natural environments - again further inconsistency with policy. 4. Prematurity/Procedural concerns. Allocating before a proper review and before final submission prejudices residents to make informed comments and potentially limits their rights to object later. This undermines public confidence, transparency and fairness of the plan making process. 5. Impact on local infrastructure. Bearsted and Thurnham has 13,000+ residents. The pressure on local services such as Doctors and schools is beyond breaking point. Bearsted Medical Practice has patients who live in Hollingbourne, Harrietsham, Langley and Marden. Our local infrastructure is buckling under the strain. 6. The GT DPD mentions the travellers “historically” based background in the Maidstone borough suggests that in itself is reason enough to allow more site allocations. We challenge that need as many local residents have lived in the borough for many generations but their rights are not held in the same regard. Maidstone has the largest traveller sites in the country. Isn’t it time other boroughs shared this responsibility. In conclusion we request the Council removes Water Lane from the list of potential sites. If the Council is not mindful to do so then we ask that written commitment is provided that no planning applications are accepted without full technical reports on all the above points raised and Policy TR8 of the GT DPDin included. We also reserve the right to comment further on Regulation 19 or any future planning applications.