Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
From cycling to the impact of the Lower Thames Crossing, these are lively times in Gravesham
CPRE Gravesham chairman Alex Hills lifts his head from a busy workload and shares his thoughts
There have now been two meetings of the Gravesham and Dartford Cycling Forum since its formation and it is making good progress on achieving CPRE aims.
I landed the job of chairman by default, which I was not keen on initially, but it has enabled me to help promote the benefits of commuter cycling, access different cycling groups’ knowledge, help make cyclists’ voices heard and develop useful contacts.
There is now a move to form an umbrella group for cycling forums to tackle wider issues such as access to train travel.
I would urge all CPRE branches to engage with their local cycling forum if they have one. If there is no cycling forum, help set one up as it will be worth the effort.
The tram project is making progress – the battle is now on to find the funding.
Highways England (HE) has now dropped any pretence of the planned Lower Thames Crossing being anything other than a Green Belt grab for growth, with all mention of reducing congestion at Dartford being dropped.
Some improvements have been made to the design – but I think HE had always intended to do these anyway.
The LTC and Gravesham Borough Council (GBC) plans to build 2,000 houses in the Green Belt are very much linked due to the need for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
My view is that the growth it is said will be created by the crossing should be included in the Highways England Strategic Environmental Assessment, but I would like further advice before pushing the point.
The council announced plans to consult on building 2,000 houses in the Green Belt to accommodate a lack of houses being built by developers and a massive increase in migration from abroad. Both points are totally wrong.
The umbrella action group Gravesham Rural Residents Group, of which CPRE is a member, has been partially reactivated. After a social media and letter-writing campaign by the group, the cabinet papers on the Green Belt review were withdrawn.
A long list of questions has been sent to the council… we await response.
Monday, December 4, 2017
- 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
