Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

Formal Objection to the Proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site on Water Lane I wish to formally object to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on land off Water Lane, Bearsted. This objection is made solely on material planning grounds, having regard to the Maidstone Borough Local Plan, the Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The proposal represents an unsustainable and harmful form of development due to unsafe access, unacceptable highway impacts, landscape harm, and environmental damage, particularly within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape. 1. Inadequate Site Access and Highway Safety Concerns Water Lane is a narrow rural country lane, with limited visibility, restricted width, and sections that operate effectively as single-track highway. The lane lacks footways, adequate passing places, and safe provision for pedestrians, cyclists, or equestrians. The intensification of use associated with a permanent residential Gypsy and Traveller site would introduce: Larger vehicles, including caravans and towing vehicles Increased daily vehicular movements Service and emergency vehicle access requirements This would result in a material increase in risk to highway safety. The proposal conflicts with: Maidstone Borough Local Plan Policy DM1 (Principles for Sustainable Development), which requires development to be safe, sustainable, and supported by adequate infrastructure Policy DM23 (Residential Amenity), where increased traffic and highway danger would adversely affect the amenity and safety of existing users NPPF Paragraphs 111 and 115, which require development to achieve safe and suitable access for all users Given the inherent physical constraints of Water Lane and the surrounding network of narrow rural lanes, the site cannot be made safe by design or mitigation, rendering it unsuitable for development. 2. Harm to the Countryside and Kent Downs National Landscape The site lies within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape, a nationally designated landscape afforded the highest level of protection. The proposed development would introduce permanent residential structures, hardstanding, lighting, fencing, and domestic activity into an open and sensitive rural landscape. This would result in: Significant visual intrusion Erosion of rural character Loss of tranquillity and scenic beauty This is contrary to: Maidstone Borough Local Plan Policy DM10 (Kent Downs National Landscape), which requires development to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and landscape character of the designation and its setting Policy SP17 (Countryside), which restricts development that harms the character of the countryside NPPF Paragraph 180, which affords great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes The proposal fails to demonstrate how it would conserve, let alone enhance, this sensitive landscape. 3. Environmental Harm and Protected Trees The site contains several mature Oak trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). These trees are prominent landscape features and provide important ecological and biodiversity value. Any development within or adjacent to their root protection areas risks: Irreversible harm to protected trees Loss of biodiversity Degradation of ecological networks This conflicts with: Maidstone Borough Local Plan Policy DM3 (Natural Environment), which seeks to protect biodiversity, habitats, and protected trees Policy DM10, where landscape features contributing to the Kent Downs’ character must be retained NPPF Paragraphs 174 and 180, which require development to avoid harm to irreplaceable environmental assets The proposal has failed to demonstrate that these protected trees and habitats can be safeguarded. 4. Conflict with the Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan The Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan places strong emphasis on: Protecting the rural setting and landscape character of the parish Ensuring development respects narrow rural lanes and traffic conditions Preventing development that would cause highway danger or landscape harm The proposal is clearly at odds with these objectives, as it would: Intensify traffic along unsuitable rural lanes Urbanise a sensitive countryside location Undermine the parish’s distinctive rural character As a made neighbourhood plan, its policies carry full statutory weight and must be given priority in decision-making. 5. Conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The proposal fails to meet the core planning principles of the NPPF by: Failing to provide safe and suitable access (Paragraphs 111 and 115) Causing harm to a protected landscape (Paragraph 180) Failing to protect biodiversity and heritage trees (Paragraphs 174 and 180) Representing unsustainable development when considered cumulatively Due to access and safety constraints alone, the site is not viable in planning terms, irrespective of accommodation need. 6. Limited Weight of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD The Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD) is currently not adopted and not legally formalised. It is an emergency or interim document and therefore carries very limited weight in accordance with planning law. A non-adopted and non-statutory plan cannot outweigh clear and demonstrable harm, nor justify development on a site that is fundamentally unsuitable due to highway, environmental, and landscape constraints. The proposed development should be refused because: Unsafe and inadequate access via Water Lane Unacceptable highway safety impacts Significant harm to the Kent Downs National Landscape Threats to protected Oak trees and wildlife Conflict with the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Conflict with the Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan Failure to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework In conclusion, the proposed development should be refused as it represents unsustainable development in an inappropriate location.