Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Strongly disagree

As a resident of Bearsted who walks my child to school, cycles along these lanes, and cares deeply about the future of our village, I strongly object to the allocation of Site C4S (008). The proposal threatens the safety, character, and infrastructure of our community in ways that are unacceptable and unsound under planning policy. 1. A Clear and Present Danger to Safety As a parent who uses Water Lane regularly, I can attest to its unsuitability for increased traffic. It is a narrow, single-track lane without pavements, used by walkers, children, and cyclists daily. Introducing large showpeople vehicles—caravans, trucks, and seasonal convoys—would create an intolerable risk for pedestrians and other road users. The tragic recent collision on Thurnham Lane weighs heavily on our community and serves as a painful reminder of what’s at stake. This site clearly fails NPPF para 110, which requires safe and suitable access—something Water Lane cannot provide. 2. A Step Backward for Sustainability Our family, like many others, tries to live sustainably, but this isolated site would force total car dependency for every daily need. There is no public transport, no shop, no school within safe walking distance. That contradicts the very heart of NPPF paras 8 & 105, which aim to build sustainable communities—not isolated, car-dependent enclaves. 3. Harm to the Rural Character We Cherish One of the reasons we chose to live here is the beautiful countryside that defines Bearsted and Thurnham. This site lies at the heart of that landscape. Turning a rural field into a hardstanding for vehicles and industrial equipment would permanently scar the area, directly conflicting with NPPF para 174, which protects the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. 4. Ignoring Known Environmental Risks Anyone familiar with Water Lane knows it floods. I’ve seen it myself. Adding hard surfaces and more vehicles will only worsen runoff and drainage problems—risks that are not addressed in the proposal and which violate NPPF paras 159–167 on flood risk. A Personal Appeal This is not just about policy—it’s about people. Our lanes are already congested, our infrastructure strained. Adding a development that compromises safety, ignores sustainability, damages our landscape, and overlooks clear environmental risks would be a profound mistake. It fails the test of soundness: it’s unjustified, undeliverable, and inconsistent with the planning framework meant to protect communities like ours. I stand with the many local residents and our MP in opposing this site. Please listen to those who live here and reject Site C4S (008).