Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

I wish to submit my formal objection to the proposed allocation of site C4S (008) in Bearsted within the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document currently under consultation. Having reviewed the Preferred Policies and Potential Sites document (Document 4), I am concerned that this site has been identified without sufficient regard to its compatibility with the surrounding area or its alignment with the Council’s wider planning strategy. 1. Inconsistency with the Maidstone Local Plan Review The Local Plan Review seeks to focus development in locations that are well connected to services and infrastructure. Site C4S (008) is not well served by public transport or local facilities, making it an unsustainable location that conflicts with the overall spatial strategy of the plan. 2. Impact on Residential Amenity The proposed allocation has the potential to adversely affect the amenity of nearby residents through increased traffic, activity, and noise. Given the proximity of the site to existing homes, these impacts should be given significant weight in assessing its suitability. 3. Environmental and Visual Impact The site currently contributes positively to the rural and semi-rural character of Bearsted. Development would result in the loss of open land and would have a lasting visual impact on the area, contrary to planning policies that seek to protect landscape character and the setting of settlements. 4. Lack of Robust Justification and Alternative Site Assessment While the Council is required under the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites to identify deliverable sites, the consultation documents do not clearly demonstrate why site C4S (008) has been selected over other potential sites that may perform better against sustainability, infrastructure, and landscape criteria. Conclusion I acknowledge the importance of meeting accommodation needs; however, this should not be achieved at the expense of sound planning principles. I do not consider site C4S (008) to be appropriate or justified and urge the Council to reconsider its inclusion in the DPD.