CPRE evidence to Waterside Park inquiry

The public inquiry into plans for an industrial and warehouse development at Waterside Park next to Junction 8 of the M20 is due to finish tomorrow (21st). The inspector has heard CPRE Kent evidence from witnesses including Maidstone Borough Councillor Tony Harwood on ecology and impact on the community; CPRE Kent Maidstone Committee Chairman gary Thomas on transport issues; the Chairman of Hollingbourne Parish Council John Cobbett on the local community impact; and CPRE Kent Senior Planner Brian Lloyd on the planning issues.

You can read a day by day account of the inquiry proceedings on the Bearsted and Thurnham and Hollingbourne Parish Council websites by clicking here and here.

Feelings against the development on grade 2 agricultural land are strong, with 70 people protesting outside County Hall on the first day., including MPs, county, borough and parish councillors and residents.

CPRE Kent, in partnership with the Joint Parishes Group (a consortium of Parish Councils local to the area), submitted 10 witness statements detailing our reasons for opposing the scheme which would be detrimental to the countryside setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural beauty (AONB) and the important heritage setting of Leeds Castle.

We drew attention to the inspector’s report on the Kent International Gateway (KIG) inquiry in 2009 where permission was refused for a similar application. The inspector’s findings were supported by the Secretary of State. We will provide evidence from groups and organisations including the Ramblers, Leeds Castle and local businesses. See the link at the bottom of this article to read our opening statement.

We have also supported KCC, working with Natural England and the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB), who focused on the impact on the AONB and the economic arguments.

The proposal, involving 16 hectares (39 acres) of prime agricultural land, is not identified for development in either the existing or proposed local plan. It was first rejected by Maidstone Borough Council planning committee in February 2014, and a revised plan was rejected in October. The developer, Gallagher Properties, accompanied by Automative Distributors Ltd (ADL) and Scarab Sweepers, has appealed against both decisions. ADL has since pulled out.

CPRE Kent’s main concerns include:

• The decision would pre-empt decisions that should be made through the local plan process and could set a precedent for further development along A20/M20. The case for the applicants appears only to consider sites within the boundaries of Maidstone Borough when there are opportunities within agreed sites, metres form the borough boundary.

• The diversion of a footpath crossing the site – the suggested route would be longer and very much less attractive, due to security fences, CCTV and lighting.

• The site is unsustainable. The interim sustainability report prepared for Maidstone Borough Council in 2012 concluded that there would be a ‘very negative’ impact on “land use, landscape and the historic environment”.

• The appeal site comprises grade 2 agricultural land in active arable production which is considered best and most versatile in quality and should therefore be preserved for food production.

• There is a risk that the accidental discharge of fuel oil or hazardous substances could pollute the water supply to people in the area and the River Len. Kent is the most water stressed county in the country and any loss of drinking water would have a serious effect on people living in the county. There are 22 groundwater abstraction points and a public water supply borehole within 2km of the site.

• It is unclear what sort of drainage will be used as the application form states the intention that foul sewage be dealt with by a cess pit. This is clearly inappropriate for a site population of at least 600.

CPRE Kent Director Hilary Newport said: “We worked very hard on our case to convince the planning inspector that any development on this site would harm the landscape, have an unacceptable impact on tranquillity, could lead to water pollution and would mean the loss of land needed for food security. We hope the planning inspector will reject the proposal because, if allowed, we fear it could set a precedent for development along the A20 and M20.”

You can read our opening statement by CPRE Kent Vice President Richard Knox-Johnston here.

You can listen to the BBC Radio Kent report of 12th May 2015 by clicking below:

Updated May 19th 2015.

• 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