Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Disagree

Formal Objection: Proposed Gypsy and Traveller Site at Water Lane I am writing to register my formal objection to the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site on land off Water Lane, Bearsted. This objection is based exclusively on material planning considerations, referencing the Maidstone Borough Local Plan, the Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The development would constitute an unsustainable and harmful form of growth due to unsafe access, unacceptable highway implications, landscape degradation, and environmental harm—particularly given its proximity to the Kent Downs National Landscape. 1. Inadequate Access and Highway Safety Risks Water Lane is a narrow rural route with restricted visibility, limited width, and sections functioning as single-track. It lacks footways, safe passing points, and provision for pedestrians, cyclists, or equestrians. A permanent Gypsy and Traveller site would significantly intensify use, introducing: Larger vehicles such as caravans and towing units Increased daily traffic movements Service and emergency vehicle requirements This would materially increase highway safety risks. The proposal conflicts with: Local Plan Policy DM1 (safe and sustainable development) Policy DM23 (residential amenity and safety) NPPF Paragraphs 111 & 115 (safe and suitable access for all users) Given the physical constraints of Water Lane and surrounding rural roads, the site cannot be made safe through design or mitigation. 2. Harm to Countryside and Kent Downs National Landscape The site sits within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape, a nationally protected area. Permanent structures, hardstanding, lighting, and domestic activity would cause: Visual intrusion Loss of rural character Erosion of tranquillity and scenic beauty This breaches: Policy DM10 (conserve and enhance landscape character) Policy SP17 (protect countryside character) NPPF Paragraph 180 (great weight to conserving National Landscapes) The proposal fails to demonstrate any ability to conserve or enhance this sensitive setting. 3. Environmental Impact and Protected Trees The site contains mature Oak trees under Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), which are vital for biodiversity and landscape character. Development near their root zones risks: Irreversible damage to protected trees Loss of biodiversity Disruption of ecological networks This contravenes: Policy DM3 (protect natural environment and habitats) Policy DM10 (retain landscape features) NPPF Paragraphs 174 & 180 (avoid harm to irreplaceable assets) No evidence has been provided to show these trees and habitats can be safeguarded. 4. Conflict with Bearsted Neighbourhood Plan The Neighbourhood Plan prioritises: Preserving rural character and landscape Respecting narrow rural lanes Preventing highway danger and landscape harm The proposal undermines these objectives by increasing traffic on unsuitable roads and urbanising a sensitive countryside location. 5. Non-Compliance with NPPF The scheme fails to meet core NPPF principles by: Lacking safe access (Paragraphs 111 & 115) Damaging a protected landscape (Paragraph 180) Threatening biodiversity and heritage trees (Paragraphs 174 & 180) Representing unsustainable development overall Access constraints alone render the site unviable, regardless of accommodation need. 6. Limited Weight of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD The DPD is not adopted and therefore carries minimal weight. It cannot override clear and demonstrable harm or justify development on an unsuitable site. In summary, the application should be refused due to: Unsafe and inadequate access Highway safety risks Harm to Kent Downs National Landscape Threats to protected trees and biodiversity Conflicts with Local and Neighbourhood Plans Failure to comply with NPPF This proposal represents unsustainable development in an inappropriate location and should be rejected. Yours sincerely,