Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Traveller site on Water Lane, Bearsted, Kent. My objection is based on multiple planning, environmental, and sustainability concerns, supported by both national and local policy. 1. Unsuitability and Condition of Water Lane – Non‑Compliance with Access Requirements Water Lane is narrow, poorly maintained, and lacks street lighting. This makes it unsafe for additional vehicle movements, particularly larger vehicles and emergency services. The absence of street lighting also creates high safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, especially at night. The proposal fails to meet the access and highway safety standards set out in Maidstone’s emerging Traveller policy framework. 2. Flood Risk – Non‑Compliance with Sustainability and Safety Requirements Parts of Water Lane are prone to surface water flooding, which poses risks to both the proposed residents and the wider community. National planning policy and Maidstone Local Plan require that development in flood-prone areas must demonstrate that it will not increase flood risk elsewhere and must incorporate appropriate mitigation measures. There is no evidence that the applicant has addressed these flood risk issues, making the proposal unsustainable and unsafe. 3. Lack of Sustainability and Inconsistent Planning Decisions National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states that sites should be sustainable and not place undue pressure on local services or infrastructure. Maidstone’s Local Plan and emerging Traveller DPD similarly emphasise locating sites close to existing settlements with access to key services. Water Lane is a rural, poorly-serviced road; approving a site here would be inconsistent with previous planning decisions and national/local sustainability policies. 4. Pressure on Local Services and Facilities Local schools, GP surgeries, dentists, and roads are already operating near capacity. A new development would exacerbate pressure on these services, particularly as the site is remote and lacks access to public transport, increasing reliance on private vehicles. This contradicts the Council’s requirements for sustainable location and accessibility of Traveller sites. 5. Environmental Concerns: Noise, Light, and Air Pollution The proposed site would increase noise, light, and air pollution in a currently quiet rural area, adversely affecting the quality of life for nearby residents and the natural environment. This is contrary to the principles of sustainable development in both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Maidstone’s Local Plan, which require development to protect residential amenity and local environmental quality. 6. Impact on Wildlife and Local Ecology The area around Water Lane supports a variety of local wildlife. The proposal could lead to habitat loss, disturbance to protected species, and broader ecological impacts, which conflicts with the NPPF’s requirement to protect biodiversity and prevent harm to wildlife habitats. No evidence has been provided to show that environmental impacts would be mitigated. 7. Inadequate Local Infrastructure There is no evidence that essential infrastructure—such as electricity, water, drainage, and sanitation—can be sustainably provided to the site. Maidstone policy requires that new Traveller sites must demonstrate deliverable and sustainable infrastructure solutions. The absence of this makes the proposal contrary to both local and national policy. 8. Wider Policy Context Maidstone Borough Council’s Local Plan Review (March 2024) and emerging Traveller DPD emphasise: Meeting accommodation needs sustainably; Protecting the environment and biodiversity; Ensuring sites are accessible and safely serviced; Avoiding flood risk and harm to local communities. This proposal fails to satisfy any of these criteria. Conclusion For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Council refuses this application, as it: Fails to provide safe and adequate highway access, especially given the lack of street lighting; Is located in a flood-prone area without mitigation; Increases noise, light, and air pollution, harming residents and the environment; Threatens local wildlife and biodiversity; Places unsustainable pressure on already stretched local services and infrastructure; Is inconsistent with national planning policy (PPTS, NPPF) and Maidstone Local Plan/Traveller DPD criteria. Thank you for considering my comments. I urge the Council to refuse this application to uphold sound planning and environmental principles.