KCC plans to destroy Bapchild conservation area
Published: 14-05-2010
PROTECT KENT CONCERNED OVER KCC PLANS TO DESTROY BAPCHILD CONSERVATION AREA WITH SITTINGBOURNE NORTHERN RELIEF ROAD
Gemma Watts, PR & Events Manager, Protect Kent
14 May 2010
Protect Kent has written to Kent County Council in response to their recent consultation on the final section of the Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road.
Protect Kent’s Swale District Committee and Historic Buildings Committee share serious concerns with the proposed route of the Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road (SNRR) between East Hall Farm and Bapchild.
Our concerns demonstrate that the proposal will result in an extremely damaging development in a currently undeveloped and sensitive piece of countryside, which not only contains significant historical assets but also comprises land that forms a very narrow open gap between Sittingbourne and Bapchild / Tonge and land specifically allocated to act as mitigation for the unpopular Stones Farm development.
KCC’s plans will result in the Tonge Conservation Area being physically cut in two, with the fundamental relationship between the Tonge mill pond and the stream and the Thomas a Becket’s Spring being utterly destroyed.
Both the integrity and the landscape setting of the Conservation Area will be seriously affected by the proposed route. Not only will the Conservation Area be cut in two, but the removal of trees and the proximity of the proposed road (which will be elevated) with its associated lighting and noise, will have a significant detrimental impact on the character, quality and enjoyment of the Conservation Area, and the views in and out of it.
Protect Kent’s view is that to all intents and purposes the Conservation Area will be destroyed.
Protect Kent’s Senior Planner, Brian Lloyd, said:
“The identification of this proposed route and the superficial way it has been assessed, shows that Kent County Council has little regard for the historical assets present and a complete disregard to the obligations placed upon it by national planning policy in regard to the historic environment. We are alarmed by the lack of background information presented to help people understand the environmental impact of the proposed route. ”
He added:
“The land severance this road will create will inevitably result in future development pressure. This will particularly be the case for the land contained by the ‘Bapchild Bypass’ on the northern side of the village.
If Stones Farm were to be developed this would effectively mean that Bapchild will be absorbed into Sittingbourne as a result of creeping urbanisation prompted by the road. This in turn will raise fears about development pressures further to the east, and concerns about impact on the wider gap between Sittingbourne and Teynham / Greenstreet.”
Given the passage of time and the changed economic situation since the Local Plan was prepared, Protect Kent questions whether or not the SNRR should link to the A2. There is currently no evidence to suggest that this has been assessed as an option. We also question the traffic benefits in actually linking the road to the A2 and need for a Bapchild Bypass.
In fact the County Council’s own figures show that traffic on the A2 to the east of Bapchild will increase by 67% as a result of joining it to the A2, but there are no proposals to show how the impact of this additional traffic on other communities along the A2 will be minimised and managed.
Mr Lloyd said:
“Whilst all possible routes will have a detrimental environmental impact, it is our view that the Highway Authority could not have put forward a more environmentally damaging route. We feel the proposal must be immediately and publicly withdrawn.”
-Ends-
NOTES FOR EDITORS
1. Photo caption: 'Bapchild village and the A2 looking south-west from the point where the proposed route of the Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road A2 Link would cross the mill stream from Thomas a Becket's Spring. The spire of St Lawrence church is in the centre distance.’