Volume 1: Sustainability Appraisal of the Maidstone Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document 2023–2040

Strongly disagree

Formal Objection to Traveller Site Expansion at The Meadow, Chartway Street, Sutton Valence ME17 3JB I write this letter of objection on behalf of myself and wife XXX and daughter XXX, as residents of XXX. I am sure that you will have multiple letters of objections from others, many of which will likely concentrate on Planning Policy matters. I will therefore attempt not to duplicate such letters although suspect that a good deal of that area will overlap points that I make. As I am not an expert on Policy or how it is implemented, and perhaps more importantly when the Council can disregard it, I will attempt to write this giving different viewpoints for your consideration. XXX is under 10m form the boundary of the proposed development as shown below i.e. the nearest house to the proposed site, although other neighbours do have land that comes up to a few meters of the site e.g. those directly opposite in Pitt Road. XXX is situated within the blue area, and the edge of the development is shown as red line below. The wider “Summerwood Farm” are extends to around 7 acres to the West of the site and borders almost the entire Westerly side of the site (red line). XXX at the property for over 40 years so we are not people who have moved into the area and then seeking to complain about what we have found! Two-bedroom windows and several windows of a downstairs room directly overlook this site, and clearly the visual amenity will be severely affected, as well as likely noise (currently zero as has sheep). We would also like to register that there is currently none of the following list of negative items affecting us from the area of the proposed development; 1. Noise (e.g., generators, shouting, vehicles). 2. Vibration (e.g., from heavy machinery or vehicles on the site). 3. Smell (e.g., waste, burning, sewage). 4. Fumes (e.g., from vehicle exhausts or machinery). 5. Smoke (e.g., from bonfires or stoves). 6. Artificial Lighting (e.g., floodlights shining into your home/garden at night). 7. Discharge of any solid or liquid substance onto your land. It is our belief that if the site is developed as per application, then one or more of the above will become a nuisance for not only ourselves but also other neighbours of the site, although suspect we are likely to be worst affected. Unfortunately it is not possible to make any Land Compensation Claim based on expectations, but this will surely be considered should we encounter any of the above, and will keep records as we encounter them. Again I suspect it is not a consideration for the Council, but we have taken advice on likely devaluation of our property and been told that it would likely wipe over £200k off its value. It will be small comfort that this should bring a rates reduction, and think it is fundamentally unfair that compensation for such loss of value is not going to be part of any development budget. It would however be wrong not to outline this now so that the Council can budget for possible future Land Compensation Claims after the event. Should he application be allowed in full or in part, then as residents XXX, we request that no pitch is allowed within 150m of our front door – we think a very reasonable request. 1. Overconcentration of Traveller Sites 1.1 The proposed development is next to a current Traveller site so will create a massive single area even though both will have different ownership. The proposed site is also 400m from another site and on the same road as at least one more. making at least 35 pitches already allowed. It is noteworthy that all these other pitches have been given with retrospective planning permission as these sorts of applications seem to not need to follow the process that everyone else is forced to abide by. With the proposed 30 pitches that can each house 4 people, this could be an additional 120 of a minority group living literally on our doorstep, not to mention potential for likely average of 1 car per two people, so potentially 60 vehicles frequenting the site even though the proposal is to attempt to restrict to 2 – this of course will be impossible to control. I suspect and hope these numbers do not become a reality, but even if half this number, then it would mean that travellers would outnumber the current residents of Pitt Road and nearby Chartway Street residents all put together The proposal would create a cluster of 50+ pitches, some with two units, most units we would expect to have multiple occupancy, and so clearly contrary to the PPTS requirement for fair and balanced distribution. There is also a conflict with DPD Policy GT1 and Local plan Policy SP17 as it undermines community cohesion, contrary to national planning objectives. The proposed addition in such a concentrated location will also inevitably disrupt the local balance. Sustainable community cohesion depends on proportionate, well distributed provision, and the proposed expansion is of a scale that will undermine the current balance. 2. Location The site in question lies outside any area that appears in the Borough Council’s Settlement Hierarchy (defined in Policy SS1), and as such should be treated as lying in open countryside. The hierarchy effectively "ranks" every town and village based on how sustainable it is (e.g. how many shops, schools, and doctors it has). For illustration this hierarchy is shown below; • County Town: Maidstone (The main urban area). • Rural Service Centres (RSCs): These are the main hubs. • Coxheath, Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham, Marden, Staplehurst. • Larger Villages: • East Farleigh, Eyhorne Street (Hollingbourne), Sutton Valence, Yalding. • Smaller Villages: • Boughton Monchelsea, Boxley, Bredhurst, Chart Sutton, Detling, Grafty Green, Hunton, Kingswood, Laddingford, Langley, Leeds, Platt's Heath, Stockbury, Teston, Ulcombe, West Farleigh. • The Countryside: • Anywhere not listed above. This site clearly falls into the latter group and as such, I would ask the Council to take account of this and how the site then fits into other local Policy plans. It is clearly, to give just one example, "unsustainable" because it forces residents to drive for everything. 3. Schooling Local schools are all full, and as a XXX ( Sutton Valance Primary School –SVPS), I am well aware of educational difficulties to overcome with Traveller children. At every Governors meeting we have, there is at least a 15-minute discussion on attendance and the problems associated with the local traveller children simply not turning up. This causes stress to the teachers and Governors as all are judged on attendance records in both local and Ofsted inspections. Adding more travellers to the numbers, will simply make an intolerable attendance record even worse and cause unnecessary stress to all that have to manage it. Every minute Governors spend on attendance and suspension and exclusion discussions, also means one minute less spent on the health, wellbeing and education of the other 90+% of the children as time is always of the essence with meeting constraints of time that cannot be overridden (Governors are legally obliged to have a professional Clerk who is booked for a fixed time, and usually has hard cut-off to go to, or join, their next VC. This might seem petty point of detail but a reality of the real world we have to live in, and ironically those rules around school Governance are put in place by the Government or KCC. The reality is that the time I am spending writing this letter of objection and researching Policy etc, is time I am not spending on school matters which require my attention, so the application is having an effect on a local school before it is even considered! As the owner of XXX, around 800m from the proposed site along Chartway Street, we have around 300 employees. Several of these each year who live locally, have bene unable to get their children into SVPS as the places are filled by travellers children who then do not bother to turn up – this is causing in imbalance in the Community, and as a business it has side affects you are likely not considering. One such real example is that key members of staff regularly having to leave at inconvenient times (for the business) to collect their children at schools a lot further away – the employee is also losing paid employment time through leaving early. Again, anything that makes a bad situation even worse should only be allowed if there are overriding other advantages that outweigh such negatives.. 4. Local Infrastructure & Services 4.1 Local schools are full, and the nearest GP practice is not accepting new patients (in fact this Surgery in Sutton Valence is at present likely to be closed in the next 24 months as planning permission for it to move has been refused), and there is not a Dentist accepting NHS patients within 15+ miles 4.2 Planning policy requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure, which is not available in this location, and nothing is in the pipeline to improve it. (? Correct me if wrong) 4.3 Utilities and local services are already under pressure from existing Traveller sites in the immediate area – as I write this we have not had any water for over 20 hours for example. Although clearly I am not blaming that on Travellers, it is yet another example of how poor the local infrastructure is – just in the past 12 months, there have been 4 road closures along Chartway street to repair burst water pipes, 6 to repair leaking gas pipes and 3 to repair old BT cables that have passed their sell-by date. There is no mains drainage either, and almost no mobile telephone signal, and so finding a more unsuitable site would be difficult even with some effort. At XXX we have had to cease BT Broadband and two landlines as BT cannot guarantee service, and at one stage our Broadband was down for over 6 months with BT unable to fix. BT told us that they have no spare lines to move us over to as the cabinet was full at the top of Pitt Road, and fibre not available. We have therefore had to put up a transmitter and receiver from XXX further along Chartway street to piggyback on the Company fibre line at a cost of over £5,000 so that we do at least have a good internet signal and can use WIFI calling. 4.4 Local shops etc; The site is half hour walk to the nearest shop (which is even then only a garage shop – “Murco”) along Chartway Street, which has no pavement or street lighting. The nearest Post Office is around the same distance along the same road (Chartway Street) whilst the nearest “proper” shop (Aldi) is maybe an hours walk with no public transport from anywhere near the site in that direction. 4.5 As I write this, there has been no mains water since 5am yesterday morning, so already 36 hours and Southern water have said that it might be another 2 days before water supplies restored. 4.6 Sewage; Clearly there is no mains drainage in this location or down the entire length of Pitt Road which means a sewage treatment works would be required on the proposed site should the application be approved. Whilst I would hope that this was of adequate size and specification etc, I would suggest that in the event that the council were minded to approve the application, then it should rather install mains drainage down Pitt Road, and contribute via S106. 4.7 Surface water; The site has extremely poor drainage, and water runs off the ground very easily and in heavy rains this can go through the fence and through XXX just above XX main entrance on Pitt Road. I would like to record that this is not an issue now as the volume and frequency s very low and manageable, but should any changes to the adjacent land lead to increased surface water run off, then this will lead to problems for XX next door. Again we hope this does not lead to a Land Compensation Claim, but ask that if the application proceeds, that surface water retention is properly surveyed as part of any works. A borehole for surface water removal might be a good option, but land drains in this field I can confidently inform you wil not work as the ground has too high a clay content, and the previous occupier tried this with no success. 5. Highways 5.1  Access onto both Chartway Street and Pitt Road is problematic, although to be fair not a reason to refuse this application for this reason alone. Travellers children, and four in particular who are regularly abusive to anyone they encounter, and have been known to be physically violent, travel pretty much daily on pony drawn carts up and down this road. Several of them also go at speed up and down the road with no crash helmets on unregistered trail type motor bikes, or on quads. 5.2  In terms of the pony/horse drawn carts, this is already causing significant safety risks, with at least two incidents seen first-hand where the cart has turned over in the middle of the road with the children operating them not being able to sort out the mess without help from locals. If permission was to be given, then we would ask the Council to impose a restriction on the use of such pony and traps from the site. 6. Security and Local Police; 6.1 Whilst I accept that the 60 new people might not cause any new problems or more of the same problems, it is not unfair to assume that more people are likely to need more security and better Policing than is currently the case, The local Police has also unfortunately reached breaking point and unable to contain local crime, and we have direct experience of them not even bothering to turn up when a crime is actively in progress. The golf course opposite has also had issues with ‘local children’ steeling golf clubs etc and so the track record is not good. 6.2 Should the application be allowed, we ask that provision is made for a contribution to the local Police that can directly be used to improve security and presence in our area – see alter section on S106 agreement. 7. Loss of visual amenity for neighbours The loss of such amenity does not need any further description as obvious to all. Should he application be allowed, we would strongly lobby for evergreen trees to be planted along the complete boundary shown in red on the drawing above, and a planning condition that these be maintained at a height between 10 and 15m. Also, until such time as these trees have grown to a height of 10m, that a solid fence be erected along this boundary to a height of at least 4m to obscure the development from XXX. 8. The National Planning Policy Framework 8.1 This is the Government’s published position on planning matters, with the latest update in December 2024. Paragraph 135 states that Local Planning Authorities should consider the impact of new proposals on existing residents (amongst other considerations). Especially the guidance states that new proposals should be “sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting..”. 8.2 In the case of this particular site, XXX, and the site in question next door has always been farmed – for the earlier years by XX of XX who operated a farm contracting business as his main work, but also farmed this site, Since his death and the sale of the property, the ground has predominantly been used for sheep grazing i.e. used for the purposes of agriculture. 9. Conflict with Local Plan & Spatial Strategy 9.1 The Maidstone Traveller DPD seeks to distribute pitches across the borough, not concentrate them in one locality. DPD Policy GT1 9.2 The Local Plan identifies need but requires proportionate allocation, which this site does not provide. Spatial Strategy SS1 and Policy SP17 10. Other Policy Considerations; 10.1 Policy LPRSS1 states that it is a strategic imperative to protect the rural character of the Borough and that development will generally be confined to the settlements identified in the plan – note again that this site appears to be outside that area? 10.2 Policy LPRHOU8, deals with Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Accommodation. This states that permission would be granted for such uses if the following criteria are met: 10.3 local services, in particular school, health and shopping facilities are accessible from the site preferably on foot, by cycle or by public transport – clearly they are not! 10.4 the development would not result in significant harm to the landscape and rural character of the area – it is difficult to see how it could be argued that the landscape and character of the area would not be significantly harmed by such a development 10.5 Lastly in relation to whom this plan is meant to assist, often such occupation is not taken up by the traditional Gypsy or Travelling show people (whom for avoidance of doubt we have no issues with) but by those falling outside this definition. 10.6 Should this application proceed, then I would ask that the Council to improve the existing Due Diligence process in place so that the pitches are occupied only by those that have a proper right to do so. 11. High pressure gas distribution line 11.1 This runs diagonally across the plot, going under Pitt Road a few metres from the XX entrance. I saw this pipe when it was installed and it is not as deep in places as the plans suggest, and if it were to be hit with say a JCB digging a hole on the site the explosion would be enormous. 11.2 The risk is viewed so high, that helicopters regularly patrol the line to check for unauthorised works above the pipe. Should the application proceed, then I would suggest that there is a ban on any construction equipment to be brought onto the site by occupants, such as JCB’s or mini-diggers as view this as a materially elevated risk compared to the site being left to the sheep. 11.3 I assume that the opinion of the relevant gas company has been sought before this application is considered? 12. Ecological; 12.1 This site is frequented by wildlife, specifically badgers and foxes. Whilst foxes are regarded as pests by some, at XX we welcome them as they actively keep down rodents around the house and horse stables adjacent to the house. The foxes the frequent XX all come to the property through the proposed site and so their habitat would be likely disrupted to the extent that they would suffer, and also we would likely suffer by not seeing them anymore. 12.2 In the case of Badgers, we have no feelings either way except it is nice to see thriving wildlife in the open countryside. and good to see their resurgence in the area, as 20 years ago it was rare to see one. There are several active badger sets along the Pitt Road curtilage of this proposed site and so would ask that the Council take due account of these and not do anything that would be detrimental to their continued use – this might be to consider not allowing any access to the site from Pit Road for example. 12.3 We specifically ask that should the application be approved, that the Ecological Surveyor appointed by the Council would contact us as we have local knowledge of the site and can show them the areas of concern – although the badger sets are obvious to anyone looking along the roadside just above XX on Pitt Road. 13. S106 agreement 13.1 S106 agreements are very common when local infrastructure is not suitable to support a proposed development. If any application fell into this category then it is this one. 13.2 Whilst it is clear the Council has an unfair bias on this in the sense that it would be negotiating with itself to pay money to improve infrastructure, I hope that it would look at this from an arm’s length objective given how clear it is that local infrastructure will not support this development. 13,2 Whilst a S106 is effectively the Council signing an Agreement with itself, there is no reason why some form of “unilateral undertaking” cannot form part of the condition of any permission should it be given, and effectively would give the same result. 13.3 I know firsthand that the local Primary School in is desperate need for funding for maintenance – current need is to spend £300,000+. Whilst I am not suggesting this level of contribution as clearly benefits others, this is required just to keep the school running, let alone expansion to accommodate increased numbers. A £50k contribution would not be unreasonable if the application would result in extra children needing schooling (as would inevitably be the case), as the school is currently full, and unfair for the assumption to be that other local children will be displaced. These places are needed even if the pupils don’t turn up for school it should be noted. 13.4 Specifically, I therefore request as part of this evaluation, that Kent County Council Education is consulted to calculate the precise yield of school-age children from the proposed pitches. The development should be required to pay the full standard contribution per pitch towards SVPS to mitigate the impact of increased pupil numbers, in accordance with the KCC Developer Contributions Guide. 13.5 As this is a public site, it is vital for public confidence that the applicant (the Council) is held to the exact same financial obligations regarding infrastructure contributions as any private developer would be. 13.6 Local doctor and dentists need ‘encouragement’ to take on new patients. In the case of the Doctors surgery, I am aware of planning application for a new surgery within the new build on the Sutton Road, and a conditional contribution to this could be made. A contribution of £1,000 per pitch would not be unreasonable to go towards local health care. 13.7 Local communications are poor to non-existent, so a contribution to a phone mast or access to 5G or Fibre would not be unreasonable. As site would house at least 25% of the people that would use it, suggest a 25% contribution of the cost. 13.8 Power cuts are notoriously often in this location, with around 8 per annum in the past 24 months. Supplier informs us that there is inadequate resilience in the network, so that if one section goes down, it is often not possible to loop the power back from another direction to minimise disruption, I suggest therefore that a contribution for electricity resilience is added to any S106. I have no idea of the cost, but ask that before any application is approved, that the Council seeks costings for the works needed. 13.9 As I write this at 1545 11/1/26, I have now received a message saying power is off which is impeding the ability of Southern Water to get the water back on. You really could not make this up, but this is what we live with on a week to week basis along Chartway Street! 13.10 We know there are local problems through our experience at XX as well, because we have been forced to install equipment to our Solar Panel system (at a cost of around £10k) so that if we produce more power than we use, that the excess power does not go back to the grid as it is not capable of taking it – at certain times we therefore have to turn off the panels which is crazy situation for the local areas to have got itself into. 13.11. Chartway Street is the main access for the proposed site, and this road is one of the worst roads in the area and is a decade overdue for resurfacing from A274 junction to at least the top of Pitt Road. There is also no pavement along its entire length. An agreement for this resurfacing to be done would be gratefully received by all residents as a good practical way to mitigate the Highways aspect of the development, should it be approved. 13.12 As otherwise stated herein, we believe that Pitt Road is totally unsuitable to have more traffic, and our suggested access is Chartway Street. Should this suggestion be rejected, and any entrance is allowed onto Pitt Road, then Pitt Road needs to be improved – at the very least resurfaced as parts of it have not been resurfaced for over 25 years, and the road is in a terrible state, with pot holes scattered along its length that reappear as fast as they are given a temporary repair. It is therefore suggested that the site owner contributes through S106 or unilateral undertaking, to resurface Pitt Road. The suggestion for a proportionate contribution is 5% of the cost of the works – or such % as calculated by KCC to be commensurate with the possible extra 60 cars that might use the road from any new entrance onto Pitt Road. 13.13 As directly evidenced form Southern water above, there is currently no water supply to area surrounding and including the proposed site. Whilst it might be argued this is negligence of Southern Water in terms of their own resilience, clearly there is no capacity for any more offtake as there is simply not enough water to go around if a few minor items go wrong at the same time. Whilst I am very reluctant to suggest that Southern Water be given a contribution to fix a problem of their own making, a contribution aimed to improve water resilience would be appropriate as part of a S106. 13.14 As further detailed above, there is no mains drainage down Pitt Road, and Chartway Street is uphill side of the site and so not possible for sewage to run uphill without pumping station which adds cost and risk when pumps fail etc. It is rather suggested that should the Council be minded ot accepted this stie within their plans, that they make a S106 contribution for mains drainage down Pitt Road in order to mitigate the risk of surface or foul water going onto neighbours property or running down Pitt Road. 13.15 We are aware that any contribution must comply with the following criteria, and we believe that the suggested amounts above, or actions suggested, fulfil these requirements; a) Necessary: It must be needed to make the development acceptable (e.g., there are 8 new kids, so the school needs 8 new desks and that fraction of a new classroom). b) Directly Related: e.g. The money must go to the specific school/surgery that the new residents will use, or spent on the roads used e.g. Chartway Street c) Proportionate: In previous example of the school, this is why a contribution of £300k for overdue maintenance would not be proportionate even though desperately needed by the school, but say £50k to make provision for the extra children likely to live on the site is a proportionate amount. 14. Conclusion Firstly an apology in advance if I have mis-referenced or misunderstood some of the Policy guidance refereed to. I am not a planning expert and therefore please disregard any such inaccuracies alone and still give full consideration to all other points raised. 14.1 This proposal conflicts with national policy (PPTS) and local policy (Local Plan & Traveller DPD). 14.2 It is inconsistent with Maidstone’s spatial strategy for balanced, sustainable Traveller site provision. 14.3 This site fails the criteria set out in Policy GT1 (or the new LPRSP10 in the Review and also LPRHOU8) regarding suitability.   14.4 It results in overconcentration, inadequate infrastructure support, environmental harm, and erosion of rural character. 14.5 Should the application be allowed, we request that all suggested conditions herein should be made part of any grant, including S106 agreement or some “unilateral undertaking” to effect the same proportional and considered contribution to local infrastructure. 15. For all these reasons, I respectfully request that you accept our objections.