Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Concerns about Maidstone Local Plan
CPRE Kent has said it is concerned about the scale of development – 18,560 new homes – proposed in the Maidstone Local Plan.
Responding to the Maidstone Local Plan Pre-Submission document, we also raised the following concerns:
- the absence of sound supporting evidence
- the accompanying draft Integrated Transport Plan has not been agreed with Kent County Council or the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board
- the cost of providing much of the necessary supporting infrastructure is unknown and there is no guarantee that statutory contributions will cover the cost
- the Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment has not followed government guidance.
Photos above: Harrietsham sign by Gregory Elliot and view near Staplehurst by Fraser Elliot
Most of the housing (84%) is allocated on greenfield land and this approach will not encourage the development of brownfield and previously developed land. The scale of residential development in villages and rural settings is disproportionate to their size, and is unlikely to promote sustainable journeys and more likely to increase traffic on the roads.
Finally, we are very concerned that land at Woodcut Farm close to junction 8 of the M20 is allocated for employment – this is an unsuitable location for development as agreed by the inspectors who considered the Kent International Gateway proposal, and the recent Waterside Park application.
Chairman of the CPRE Kent Maidstone Committee Gary Thomas said: “This local plan is already having a terrible impact on villages and countryside. It would cause enormous traffic problems and a strain on school, health and travel facilities. The number of new homes is unrealistic and unsustainable. There will be a loss of greenfield land, much of it valuable farmland and the beautiful landscapes so important to the character and enjoyment of our county.”
Read our full submissions here and here.
March 23rd 2016.
- 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
