Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Canterbury Local Plan Legally Unsound
A top planning barrister has judged the Canterbury Local Plan legally unsound because it has failed to properly assess sustainability and environmental impact after dramatically increasing the number of houses needed by more than 50%.
Richard Harwood QC was commissioned by Herne and Broomfield Parish Council, backed by CPRE Kent and a number of other local organisations (1), to judge whether the Local Plan was legally compliant.
He concluded that when Canterbury City Council greatly raised its housing target, it should have re-assessed the impact on habitats and the environment, and whether or not the proposed distribution of housing remained appropriate and sustainable. This it failed to do.
In January 2010, the council consulted on a Local Plan with a target of 10,200 new homes by 2026 (510 per year). In 2012, this target was revised to 15,600 new homes by 2031 (780 per year). However, despite the significant increase, the council relied on its earlier environmental assessments of where new development should be located.
Plan making rules, though, require such assessments to be double checked to be sure that no other option is better when circumstances change so dramatically. In sticking with its original preferred option for locating development, the council has failed to re-consider possible alternatives for a larger housing target.
This goes against clear guidance on how such environmental assessments of the plan should be carried out and this has already been tested in two landmark High Court Judgements (2).
Mr Harwood said: “A multi-stage process is permissible but it needs to address the proposals and alternatives in the plan which is finally produced, to have an Environmental Report in accordance with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and have been subject to public consultation at the relevant stages.”
The council failed to do this – it did not properly assess the level of development it is now proposing and it was “legally incorrect” to conclude that the Local Plan “is not likely to result in significant effects on European Sites”.
CPRE Kent Senior Planner Brian Lloyd said: “Mr Harwood’s opinion backs up our own conclusions, which we have already submitted to the council. The council has seemingly, from the outset, cast in stone the sites it wants to see developed, and despite high levels of public opposition it has not been prepared to consider alternatives. We suggested a better approach, but the Council dismissed it without undertaking any assessment.”
Mr Lloyd gives the example of the South Canterbury site where the council failed to consider any alternative to 4,000 in the number of homes proposed. He also points out a major change to the plan at the last minute when it was proposed to relocate the Kent and Canterbury Hospital to the South Canterbury site. Even then, there was no change to the site assessment despite the inevitable sustainability issues a major regional hospital would create.
Canterbury City Council is due to submit the Local Plan for public examination by an Independent Planning Inspector before the end of the year. In the light of Mr Harwood’s critical opinion, which has been passed to the council, CPRE Kent is now calling on the council to accept that the plan is flawed and to carry out new assessments and consideration of alternatives, including public consultation, and then come up with a better, more realistic and less environmentally harmful plan. The legal opinion has also been put before Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, asking him to intervene.
To view the Legal Opinion click here. To read the most recent submitted response to the Canterbury Local Plan click here.
(1) Herne & Broomfield Parish Council; CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) Kent; Kent Federation of Amenity Societies; Dr Wendy Le-Las, Planning Consultant to the National Association of Local Councils; Canterbury Society; Westbere Parish Council; Langton and Nackington Road Association; Association of Canterbury Residents Associations; South Canterbury Residents Association; Geoff Meaden; Emily Shirley; Michael Rundell.
(2) Various parties v Forest Heath District Council; Heard v Broadland District Council, South Norfolk District Council and Norwich City Council
- 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
