Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Fracking coming to Kent?
Well actually, no! There will be no fracking for the time being, but what has been applied for are three test boreholes which are spread across countryside in the Dover District.
Whilst there is no intention (yet) of hydraulically fracturing the shale to release gas, there are still concerns for CPRE Protect Kent; not least what these test boreholes might lead to! The test boreholes, in much the same way as Balcombe, will be located in quiet, rural and tranquil areas of open countryside. Even with nothing more than a test borehole being drilled, there will still be a significant impact on the countryside.
There will be an increase in traffic movements which will be primarily from large vehicles and which will undoubtedly be travelling down small and inaccessible roads. These roads were never made for large lorries and the impact that these traffic movements will have on residents of the area could well be significant. 
There is also the landscape issue. The sites will be entirely removed from their natural states, and in many cases will likely be visible from a fair distance away. At around 1900 square metres, their size is nowhere near as great as many inappropriate developments we normally see proposed for the countryside, but it is still significant, and with the drilling rig standing around 9 metres it will certainly be prominent.
There will also be associated lighting of the site. This causes us considerable concern as I’m sure many of you know, CPRE run a national ‘dark skies’ campaign, asking members of the public to count the stars they can see. For a large chunk of open countryside to be lit through the evening hours is simply inappropriate, not to mention a crass waste of valuable energy!
These proposals, whilst not guaranteeing that fracking will ever take place, are of a serious concern to CPRE Protect Kent. This is because of the many impacts they will have on areas of our precious landscape, regardless of the arguments for or against the actual extraction of gas—they are many, and for both sides of the debate! There will be landscape impacts, there will be ecological impacts, there will be traffic impacts and because of these cumulative issues, and because of CPRE Protect Kent’s desire to keep Kent beautiful, we will be responding to the public applications (you can find them at the links below). We would urge all residents who care about their countryside to do so as well.
- 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
