A bid to increase the size of a gypsy and traveller site has been rejected, following fears of increased traffic and over-development.

The application was for land off Marshborough Road, in the hamlet of Marshborough, near Sandwich, which is already home to two caravans.

Approval was sought to increase the site to allow three more caravans for extended members of the family, as well as allowing horses to reside there and the creation of a communal dayroom.

But members of Dover District Council (DDC) voted against the scheme at their latest planning meeting.

It comes as 30 letters of objection were received from the public over the proposal, as well as 17 letters of support.

Brenda Baker, one of the local objectors, told the planning committee meeting: “We do not believe that such a large development is suitable for the area of land in question regardless of who lives there.

“The size of the proposal and the prominence of the caravans would be completely unsuitable for and not in keeping with the area.

“The entrance is on a blind bend to traffic from the Eastry direction. It is now even more dangerous with more and faster traffic using the road including large lorries.

“We believe if this application is approved the increase in traffic to and from the site will add unacceptably to the dangers of an already fast and dangerous road.

“There are no facilities in either Marshborough or Woodnesborough and no public transport in Marshborough since the bus service was withdrawn completely in 2017.”

Objectors also said that this would be an over-development and an over-intensive use of the site and there was not enough space for horses there.

Cllr Jeff Loffman (Lab) told the meeting: “Dover District Council has the right number of traveller sites.”

Cllr Nicholas Kenton (Con) said: “The top end of that site, due to its impact on the countryside, the location and scale, creates unacceptable harm to the countryside.”

There were 17 residents’ letters supporting the application saying the applicant and his family have a right to live and be together on the site, that there would be no harm to highway safety and the site was effectively screened so there would be no adverse impact.

The applicant themselves had written: “This is my home and as gypsies we live with family around us. I require the extra homes for my family.”

Writing on the planning portal, Elizbeth Homans said: “There has been to much animosity from settle community towards gypsies and travellers over the last years, no one seems to want them to live anywhere unless they change their lifestyle and heritage to fit in with the settled community.

“It would not be allowed with any other race of people but all’s fair against gypsies and travellers it seems. I support this whole heartedly.”

Paul Russell added: “100% support this application. The applicant has lived there for over 10 years and now their children are older would like their family around them. Good on them.”

The recommendation to refuse was voted through, eight versus one plus one abstention.

A report released after the meeting outlined: “The proposed development would by reason of its location, scale of development and levels of associated activity, result in an incongruous visual and conspicuous incursion into the countryside that would be poorly related to and fail to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, causing harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.”