Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Strongly disagree

I am writing to express my strong objections to the proposed Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople site allocation at Site Ref: C4S (008) - The Lodge, Water Lane, Bearsted (Thurnham), as part of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD). As a local resident, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this development could have on our community, environment, and infrastructure. My comments focus on planning-related matters, drawing from the consultation documents, local knowledge, and relevant national policy. While I recognise the need to address accommodation requirements for Gypsy, Traveller, and Travelling Showpeople communities in line with national policy, including the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS, December 2024), I believe this specific site is unsuitable for the reasons outlined below. Location & Sustainability The site is located in a rural area within the Kent Downs National Landscape, which is not sustainably positioned for development. Access to essential services such as shops, schools, and public transport is limited, requiring residents to rely heavily on private vehicles. This would promote car dependency and isolation from community facilities, contrary to NPPF paragraph 110, which states that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. Highways & Access Water Lane is a narrow, single-track country lane with poor visibility, particularly under the railway bridge at Roundwell/The Street. The lane is already challenging for local traffic, and introducing additional vehicles from a traveller site—potentially including caravans and larger vehicles—would exacerbate congestion and road safety issues. Even a modest allocation could generate traffic volumes that the lane is ill-equipped to handle, leading to unacceptable impacts on highway safety. This conflicts with NPPF paragraph 116, which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Landscape Impact The site lies within the protected Kent Downs National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). Development here would detrimentally alter its rural character and visual amenity, urbanising a natural setting. This would cause harm to an area afforded the highest status of protection, contrary to NPPF paragraph 182 (formerly 176 in previous versions), which requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Environment & Ecology The site contains several important Oak trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), which could be negatively impacted by construction and ongoing use, risking damage to roots or soil compaction. The area also supports local wildlife and hedgerows, with potential drainage issues leading to flooding or pollution. This would fail to protect and enhance the natural environment or achieve biodiversity net gain, as required under NPPF Chapter 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment). Residential Amenity Nearby residents would likely experience reduced privacy due to the site’s proximity to existing homes. Increased noise from traffic and activities on the site, along with potential lighting, could disturb the quiet rural ambiance, harming residential amenity without adequate mitigation. Cumulative Impact Combined with other proposed sites in the DPD, this allocation could place undue pressure on local services and infrastructure. The rural ward already faces challenges from overdevelopment, and adding this site risks overwhelming the area. I note that our local MP, Helen Whately, has raised similar concerns in her correspondence dated 10 December 2025, emphasising the need for the Council to account for local opinion and scale down unsuitable sites. In conclusion, the harms identified significantly outweigh the benefits of this allocation, particularly given the site’s location in a protected National Landscape and its unsustainable access arrangements. I urge the Council to remove Site Ref: C4S (008) from the DPD and explore alternative locations that better align with the NPPF and PPTS. I would appreciate confirmation that my comments have been received and will be considered in the plan’s preparation. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this consultation