Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
CPRE Kent handed Thurnham heritage award for Woodcut Farm bid
CPRE Kent has won an award for its bid to save a stretch of countryside near Maidstone.
Our attempt to stop development near junction 8 of the M20 (Woodcut Farm) was ultimately unsuccessful, but Thurnham Parish Council recognised our efforts by naming us winner of its heritage award.
CPRE Kent had applied at the end of last year to the High Court for a judicial review of Maidstone Borough Council’s inclusion in its Local Plan of the junction 8 site as a designated site for development.
However, in February this year we were not granted permission by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE to take forward the review.
The request for a judicial review had followed CPRE Kent’s submission, in November last year, a pre-action protocol letter to the High Court against the council deciding on a Roxhill Developments planning application for the site.
Despite the letter and protest from parish councils and local groups, the council chose to grant outline planning permission for the site.
A statement on the Thurnham Parish Council website says: “The Thurnham Heritage Award was instituted in cooperation with English Heritage.
“Most awards are top down: this is the opposite. It is a parish council recognising outstanding contributions to heritage in many forms and ways by organisations or individuals. It is awarded for one year.
“The award itself was carefully made by Thomas Fattorini in Birmingham from wood grown in Thurnham Castle.”
The presentation was made at a parish council meeting on Monday, June 18, at Bearsted’s Tudor Park Marriott Hotel.
Richard Knox-Johnston, CPRE Kent vice-president, said: “I am delighted the council has chosen to recognise us, and in turn CPRE Kent was very grateful for the support of Thurnham and other local parish councils in our efforts to protect Kent’s countryside.”
Maidstone CPRE chairman Gary Thomas was at the Tudor Park hotel to receive the award from Daniel Skinner, Thurnham parish council chairman.
Friday, June 29, 2018
- 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
