Astonishment as councillors now asked to support development at Junction 8

We are astounded that Maidstone councillors are being recommended to approve the principle of development at Junction 8 of the M20 just weeks after spending hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting a planning appeal at the site.

The result of the public inquiry into industrial development at Waterside Park at Junction 8 is not known yet.  CPRE Kent, 16 parish councils, Kent County Council, Natural England, Leeds castle and the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Unit all opposed the plans which would have harmed the countryside setting of the AONB and the important heritage setting of Leeds castle.

Now Maidstone Borough Council’s Policy and Resources Committee is being recommended on Wednesday (June 24^th) to approve an Economic Development Strategy supporting development at Junction 8.  We have written to the council demanding that the report be removed from the agenda.

The officers’ report says: “The strategic case for a new employment site at Junction 8 has been established and its development is critical to ensuring that the principle aim of the Strategy is achieved i.e. the creation of 14,400 jobs by 2031 in a range of sectors and occupations.”

This is despite the “acknowledged sensitivity of the landscape in the J8 location and that that development at J8 would cause substantial landscape harm” as well as “the limitations of the location in terms of public transport connections and relative separation from the centres of population”.

Richard Knox-Johnston, Vice President of CPRE Kent, said: “It is extraordinary that after a three week public inquiry at which Maidstone Borough Council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting development at Junction 8, councillors are now being asked to pre-empt the planning inspector’s decision and ignore all its own arguments against development, as well as everyone else’s concerns, and promote development there.

“We think the council departments are failing to communicate.  With the council’s planners refusing planning permission at Waterside Park, it is baffling to now see that the Economic Development Manager is recommending that development at Junction 8 should go ahead.  His report doesn’t even mention the three week planning Inquiry that was held in May.

“Why is this report being considered now?  Surely they need to wait for the inquiry decision before making any further recommendations on potential development at Junction 8. The council also needs to work with neighbouring authorities to consider strategic sites for employment, such as the newly vacant Aylesford Newsprint site just over the border in Tonbridge and Malling, but very much part of the Maidstone employment catchment area.  His report makes no mention of this opportunity.”

The Inspector’s decision on the Waterside Park site is expected by the end of July, and we are hoping that she will agree that development should not be allowed because of the considerable harm to the landscape it would cause, especially on the important national heritage site of Leeds Castle.

June 22nd 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

• Read more on the Swale Local Plan
• Read CPRE Kent’s detailed comments on the plan
• View the council’s consultation document