Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Discovery Park Plan Criticised
CPRE Kent has criticised a decision to approve 500 homes at Discovery Park in Sandwich, even though the area is not designated for housing.
Dover District Council planning committee is not following its own guidance set out in its Core Strategy. This does encourage educational and commercial development at the former Pfizer site but does not identify it as a location for housing.
CPRE Kent Senior Planner Brian Lloyd said: “Residential development has never been considered for this site – we ask why it was not identified during the drawing up of the Land Allocations Development Plan? This would then have saved other greenfield sites which have been included in the plan.
“What is the point of having a Local Plan if they ignore it – firstly with more than 600 dwellings allowed at the Western Heights and Farthingloe, part of which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and now 500 at Sandwich? That’s over 1,100 homes now agreed that were not envisaged in the Local Plan. This undermines the whole point of having a plan, which is intended to provide certainty as to where future development will happen.”
We are also concerned that the Planning Committee has approved the application at the Discovery Park even though the developers have made no funds available for a new primary school. Kent County Council had asked for £21,429 per pupil towards build and land costs. The applicants claim there is insufficient finance available for this. Planning officers admitted “this is not an ideal scenario, with a lack of certainty regarding how a school could be provided” but still recommended approval of the plan.
Plus, the NHS requested £421,200 to enhance healthcare provision – again the developers claim this is not viable and again officers recommended that the benefits of the scheme were so great as to not require this contribution.
CPRE Kent is also concerned that there is a complete lack of affordable housing in the plan – even though the Council’s own policy specifies that 30% of any development should be affordable homes.
Planning officers themselves admitted that “a nil affordable housing provision on a site of this scale would have a significant impact in terms of the balance of the community”.
“Again they are not following their own policies and former decisions,” said Mr Lloyd. “To allow this development, without any affordable housing and with no primary school and other essential services, is wrong and unfair. This will only mean that the sites it has identified for development in the local plan will have to shoulder a larger financial burden to meet the needs of a growing population. This makes a mockery of their planning strategy.”
- 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
