Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document

Strongly disagree

I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposal to allocate Site C4S (008) – The Lodge, Water Lane as a potential Gypsy and Traveller site within the emerging Gypsy, Traveller & Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document. My objections are based solely on material planning considerations, as required by national and local planning policy. 1. Highway Safety and Unsuitable Access Water Lane is a narrow rural lane, with no footpaths, limited passing opportunities, and restricted visibility at several points. The lane already struggles with existing residential, agricultural, and service-vehicle traffic. From Woodland Grove, residents rely on Water Lane for safe access to local roads. The addition of a site generating larger vehicles (towing caravans, service vehicles, and day-to-day traffic) would significantly increase: conflict points, reversing movements, and risks to pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders. This conflicts with NPPF requirements for safe and suitable access and Maidstone’s own highways standards, which emphasise safe visibility splays and appropriate road widths. 2. Landscape and Rural Character Harm This location lies within a valued area of open countryside, forming part of the rural setting between Bearsted and Thurnham. Introducing hardstanding, utility buildings, lighting columns, fencing, and multiple pitches would fundamentally alter the: openness of the landscape, rural visual character, and tranquillity of the area. This is contrary to: Local Plan Policy SP17 – Countryside Protection, DM30 – Design and Local Character, and Parts of the NPPF emphasising rural landscape protection. 3. Impact on Protected Trees and Ecology The Lodge site includes significant, high-quality Oak trees, several understood to be subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). Development involving: new hardstanding, service trenches, parking areas, or new access works would almost certainly encroach on root protection areas and threaten these protected trees. Furthermore, Water Lane and the surrounding fields provide habitat for bats, birds, and other wildlife. The proposal risks loss of biodiversity, contrary to planning policy requiring ecological protection and measurable biodiversity net gain. 4. Unsustainable Location The site is not within reasonable walking distance of shops, schools, healthcare, or public transport. Water Lane has no footways, no lighting, and is unsafe for pedestrian travel to Bearsted village or the station. Residents would be forced to rely on private vehicles for all needs, which conflicts with: Local Plan sustainability objectives, and PPTS guidance, which asks councils to locate sites where residents can access services safely and sustainably. 5. Cumulative Impact on the Area The immediate Bearsted/Thurnham area has already seen significant development pressure. Adding a site here would compound: traffic congestion, pressure on primary schools and GP practices, and erosion of rural separation between communities. The cumulative impact has not been adequately assessed in the site’s consideration. 6. Conflict with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) The PPTS states that local authorities must ensure traveller sites: have safe access, are not located in areas of high landscape sensitivity, support good community relations, and avoid placing undue strain on local infrastructure. This site clearly fails on multiple PPTS tests, including safety, sustainability, and landscape compatibility. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Maidstone Borough Council removes Site C4S (008) from further consideration in the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people DPD. This is an inappropriate and unsustainable location for any form of residential development, and the harm to highway safety, rural character, protected trees, and local sustainability is clear and significant.