Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Call for planning re-think on Western Heights and Farthingloe
CPRE Kent has called on Dover District Council planning committee to re-think its decision to grant planning permission for hundreds of homes which would cause untold damage to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The plan for 521 houses and a 90 dwelling retirement village in the AONB at Farthingloe and a large hotel on the historically important Western Heights was agreed in June last year; but 18 months on the promised £5 million Section 106 agreement has yet to be finalised. We objected strongly at the time and are calling on planning committee members to think again when the proposal is discussed on Thursday (18th December).
“This plan would cause significant, irreversible harm to this beautiful and historic landscape,” said CPRE Kent Dover District Chairman Derek Wanstall.
“We do not believe that there are exceptional circumstances which justify this destruction. The planning committee now has an opportunity to re-assess and protect this important area.”
The applicant had pledged £5 million for conversion of the Drop Redoubt at the Western Heights into a museum and visitor centre but this agreement has not yet been finalised. A draft agreement, to be considered by the committee, proposes that the payment is phased, depending on people moving into the new houses. The largest payment of £2.25m, to be paid in 12 phased payments, is linked to that part of the development which is the most visually prominent part of the site as seen from the wider Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A further £750,000 is to be paid in a further four phases.
“Linking the bulk of the payment to the most sensitive part of the site just rubs salt into the wounds,” said Mr Wanstall. “This is a complex agreement, which should see the full £5m paid over a period of years. I am not sure that this drip-feeding of contributions, which could be turned off by the developer if development stops, will secure the improvements to the Drop Redoubt sought. We would question that it provides the certainty of funding required and provides any justification for the Council’s continued support of the development,”
Also, there is no affordable housing included in the scheme and there will be no element of this on site – only off site if there is any money left over from the infrastructure budget. Plus the countryside access area (the open space between the two locations) was originally intended to be 116 hectares and is now only 42 hectares.
16th December 2014
- 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
