Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
580 homes would harm countryside
CPRE Kent is warning that proposals submitted to Swale Borough Council by Gladman Developments for 580 new homes off Swanstree Avenue in Sittingbourne would cause severe damage to the countryside.
We fear the scheme would be a disaster for this attractive area of countryside, which is designated as a Special Landscape Area. It comprises one of the dry valleys which descends from the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to the town, forming a historic link between the two. It also provides a vital green gap between Sittingbourne and the village of Rodmersham Green. If development went ahead, this gap would be reduced from 1.2km to just 350m.
CPRE Kent Senior Planner, Brian Lloyd, said: “This is an attempt by the developer to undermine the new Swale Local Plan by seeking to get planning permission for a greenfield site that has been rejected by the Borough Council in its new plan. The local plan, quite correctly, seeks to focus development on previously developed land and the regeneration of Sittingbourne town centre. This proposal is at complete odds with that intention and the Council must strongly resist this challenge to its plan.”
In its comments on the planning application, CPRE Kent also makes the point that the area is high grade agricultural land which national planning policy seeks to protect. Where development of agricultural land is considered necessary to meet housing targets, it should be on lower quality agricultural land. The developer has not shown that there are no alternatives involving lower quality land, and there has also been no assessment as to how the loss of this 26 hectare (62 acre) site would affect the viability of the remainder of the farm holding.
“With food security and the ability to feed a growing population an increasingly important issue, there is no justification for giving up precious high quality land for development,” said Mr Lloyd. “If for no other reason the application should be refused on this ground.”
To read our response to planning application, click here.
14th January 2015.
- A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
- There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
- There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.
The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:
- There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
- A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
- Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
- Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.
Concerns about the rush to submit the plan
The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.
As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.
Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.
Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.
The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.
Further information
