Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

We are writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of land at Water Lane, Bearsted as a Gypsy/Traveller site within the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (GT DPD). I am copying in our local MBC councillor and constituency MP as they are taking an active interest in this matter. Our objections are based on the following material planning grounds: 1. Conflict with Maidstone Borough Council’s Spatial Strategy / Settlement Hierarchy The adopted spatial strategy requires new traveller accommodation to be located in sustainable, appropriate and sequentially justified locations. Water Lane does not appear within the GT DPD’s detailed site assessments or allocations, and its sudden inclusion risks undermining the strategic, evidence-based distribution of sites across the Borough. Allocating this site would be inconsistent with the settlement hierarchy and would not represent sustainable development as required by the Local Plan. 2. Absence of Essential Site-Specific Evidence There is currently no publicly available evidence demonstrating that Water Lane is suitable for development. Key technical documents—such as assessments of flood risk, highways/access, landscape impact, ecology/biodiversity, ground conditions and drainage—have not been provided. Water Lane is known locally to flood extensively, often for at least 50 metres along the lane and into Roundwell and the new Roundwell development. Without robust technical appraisals, the proposed allocation is premature, contrary to the principles of proper plan-making, and inconsistent with the transparency required for meaningful public consultation. 3. Environmental and Amenity Harm (Landscape, Ecology, Greenfield Loss) The GT DPD clearly states that any site must comply with policies on design, landscaping, biodiversity, ecology, climate resilience, and amenity protection. Water Lane is a greenfield site forming part of the open countryside. Development here would lead to: Loss of greenfield and countryside character Harm to landscape views and visual amenity Ecological and habitat disruption Increased surface water run-off and drainage problems, especially given the proposal’s extensive hardstanding No Environmental Impact Assessment, ecological survey or landscape appraisal has been provided. Allocation at this stage is therefore inconsistent with the Council’s environmental commitments and potentially harmful to the natural environment. 4. Premature Allocation and Procedural Fairness Concerns The Council has stated that this consultation is not the Regulation 19 (final) consultation and that evidence gathering is still ongoing. Allocating a site before its assessments are complete—and before residents have been able to consider technical reports—would prejudice public participation and undermine confidence in the fairness and transparency of the plan-making process. 5. Inadequate Local Infrastructure (Health, Education, Services) Bearsted, Thurnham, Hollingbourne, Downswood and surrounding areas—amounting to over 13,000 residents—are currently reliant on one GP surgery, already under significant pressure and with long waiting times. Allocating an additional site would place further strain on already overstretched health services. Local schools are also at or near capacity. As the site would lie outside the catchment of Thurnham and Roseacre schools, it is unclear where school places would be provided, and no evidence has been supplied to demonstrate that adequate educational provision exists. Request for Withdrawal or Deferral of the Allocation In light of the above points, we respectfully request that the Council: Remove Water Lane, Bearsted from the list of potential allocations at this stage, or At minimum, defer any allocation until full site-specific assessments (flood risk, drainage, highways, ecology, landscape, amenity, etc.) are completed and made publicly available, followed by a further round of consultation. Should the Council proceed with the allocation despite the significant concerns raised, we request a written commitment that no planning application will be validated unless it is accompanied by: Full technical assessments (flood risk, highways/access, drainage, ecological and landscape reports) Thorough mitigation measures to protect biodiversity, landscape character, and local amenity A detailed, enforceable layout and design plan compliant with Policy TR8 of the GT DPD Right to Comment Further We reserve the right to submit further comments at Regulation 19 stage or in response to any future planning application, once detailed evidence is provided.