Cameron's Flights Of Fancy!

The county-based campaigning organisation Protect Kent have welcomed David Cameron’s announcement of a public consultation into the proposal for airports in the Thames Estuary.  The two main options currently on the table are the Grain Airport, to be sited on the Hoo Peninsula; and “Boris Island”, which is to be constructed on reclaimed land within the estuary itself.

Andrew Ogden, Campaigns Manager for Protect Kent said:  “While our views on this consultation may appear to contradict our normal stance, we anticipate that this opportunity to share all of the facts and figures behind these proposals will expose them as the futile schemes they are.  Over the past 60 years there have been many ventures to build airports in and around the Thames Estuary, but none have ever passed the planning stage.”

Andrew continued: “Together with other campaigning and environmental groups, we will be presenting our case against these airports in response to the consultation. We will also be calling for a referendum to be held amongst all residents likely to be impacted by these proposals, both sides of the estuary.”

Protect Kent claims there are a multitude of reasons for these airports not to go ahead, some of the main arguments being:

• The disastrous impact on large areas of land both north and south of the Thames, due not only to the airport but also from the necessary supporting infrastructure;
• The impact on local people and communities, not least from the continuous take-offs and landings, day and night;
• The environmental implications of an airport with multiple runways, particularly on air quality and tranquillity;
• The ecological importance of international significance of the chosen sites and the surrounding region;
• The negative financial viability: for a giant airport to be created off the Kent coast all three main airports around London would need to close, and the land sold off for development.
• The weakness of the business case, given the current decline in air travel and the rise of more appropriate alternatives such as high speed trains.
• The misleading messages about employment. We would not see the creation of new jobs, but the movement of employment from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, as airlines and businesses move their operations.

• 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