Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Strongly disagree

I am writing to register my comments and strong objection to the proposed gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeople development plan, particularly for the proposed site on Water Lane, Thurnham. I have attempted to comment online but your webpages are so confusing and difficult to navigate, that I am writing to you via direct email and trust that you include my comments in your assessment. 1. Harm to Landscape Character and Rural Setting Water Lane sits within high-quality, unspoilt countryside, valued for its mature trees, hedgerows, and rural tranquillity. The permanent introduction of hardstanding, day rooms, caravans, fencing, and lighting would cause an unacceptable and irreversible intrusion into this sensitive landscape. The proposal is contrary to planning policies aimed at protecting rural character and preventing further urbanisation of our fast reducing countryside. 2. Inadequate, Unsafe, and Overburdened Road Access Water Lane is a narrow country lane with no pavements, limited passing places, and restricted visibility. It is used daily by walkers, dog-owners, cyclists, and horse riders. Over recent years, significant new housing development in the surrounding area has already increased traffic to levels that these rural roads cannot safely support. The addition of vehicles associated with a permanent traveller site—cars, caravans, towing vehicles, and service vehicles—would greatly exacerbate existing safety issues. It is important to note that both Water Lane and nearby Thurnham Lane have a history of accidents and near-misses involving vehicles and pedestrians. Last year, a widely reported tragic road incident on Thurnham Lane resulted in the deaths of two pedestrians and their dog, caused by a speeding vehicle on a narrow rural road. This demonstrates the very real and serious danger these lanes already pose, even without additional traffic pressure. Approving a development that increases traffic in this area would heighten the risk of further accidents, and it fails to provide the “safe and suitable access for all users” required by the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. Unsustainable Pressure on Utilities and Local Services Recent housing growth in Thurnham and Bearsted has placed considerable strain on local infrastructure. The proposed site provides no clear evidence that the existing utilities—water supply, drainage, sewage capacity, or waste collection—can accommodate additional, permanent residential demands. This rural area lacks the robust service infrastructure needed for further development. Adding a permanent residential site here would therefore be unsustainable and potentially harmful to both local residents and the environment. 4. Fundamentally Unsustainable Location The site’s isolation means that residents would be entirely reliant on private vehicles for all essential needs. There are no safe walking routes, no footpaths, and no public transport connections. This conflicts directly with national and local policy requirements for sustainable development and for locating new residential uses where adequate services and transport connections exist. 5. Cumulative Impact and Precedent The area has undergone considerable development in recent years, and the cumulative impact is already evident in increased traffic, reduced road safety, pressure on utilities, and visible erosion of rural character. Allowing this development would further intensify these problems and set a negative precedent for additional development in the countryside. Conclusion For all the reasons above, the proposed permanent traveller site at Water Lane, Thurnham should be refused. It would result in: Increased danger to pedestrians and other road users on already hazardous rural lanes Unsustainable pressure on local roads, utilities, and services Significant harm to valued rural landscape and character A location that is not sustainable under national or local planning policy Cumulative negative impacts on the local community and countryside Thank you for considering my comments and objection to the proposal.