Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Ebbsfleet UDC Welcomed
CPRE Kent has welcomed the creation of the new Urban Development Corporation for Ebbsfleet Garden City – but stresses the importance of sustainability and environmental protection in the decision-making process.
We agree with the UDC having powers to decide on planning applications, but local communities and elected parish, district and county councils must be represented.
CPRE Kent Director Dr Hilary Newport said: “The UDC must stick to existing agreements regarding infrastructure including schools, surgeries, hospital capacity and public transport. Also essential are excellent building design standards including visual appearance and energy efficiency, together with exemplary green space and community facilities. Getting all the key elements of delivery, design and community involvement right at Ebbsfleet will be a very important model for other garden cities across the UK.”
The comments were made as part of the consultation into the UDC which ended on Monday (October 6th).
We agree in principle with the boundaries of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation (EDC). However, the EDC includes a small area of the Metropolitan Green Belt, as well as land within the administrative boundaries of both Dartford and Gravesham Borough Councils and the proposed site of the London Paramount project. This will make it essential to work with all councils and communities in the area impacted by the development. The boundaries must also safeguard from housing development Robins Creek and Red Lions Wharf, as these minerals wharves are vital to provide for the bulk transport of minerals, thus avoiding additional congestion and air pollution if this transportation was switched to road.
- 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
