Skip to content

Can you sponsor Vicky in her 2.6 Challenge?

Elementary Admin
By Elementary Admin &
21st April 2020

The challenge is being taken on across the country

The financial problems faced by many charities due to the Covid-19 lockdown have been well charted, but one staff member at CPRE Kent will be taking on the 2.6 Challenge to raise funds for the countryside charity.
“I will be running round my paddock 26 times for CPRE Kent because I want to help protect the countryside and fauna,” said Vicky Ellis, who has set herself the target of raising £500.
The 2.6 Challenge has been established to help charities through this lockdown period, which potentially could prove terminal for some.
It was set up by JustGiving and “the organisers of the UK’s biggest mass participation events, who have come together to create The 2.6 Challenge, a nationwide fundraising campaign to raise vital funds to help save the UK’s charities”.
It launches on Sunday (April 26), which had been the date of the London Marathon before its postponement; this is the world’s largest one-day fundraising event, last year pulling in more than £66.4 million for thousands of charities.
In response to that loss, organisers have been encouraging people to take part in the challenge on Sunday, although people can take part up until Sunday, May 3.
The JustGiving website says: “All that people need to do is think of an activity that suits their skills based around the number 2.6 or 26. The campaign is open to anyone of any age – the only requirement is that the activity must follow the government guidelines on exercise and social distancing.”
Vicky, who will be tackling the challenge on Sunday with her friend Catherine Avery, said: “I run virtually every day, but with lockdown I have decided for this 2.6 Challenge to keep it local and run round my horse’s field 26 times.
“I may get a funny look or two from my horse and donkey as they wonder what it is I’m up to. The total in laps equates to around five miles.”

  • To sponsor Vicky, please click here
  • You can of course take on your own 2.6 Challenge for CPRE Kent. To do so, or just to learn more about it, click here

Tuesday, April 21, 2020


  • 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