Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Growth without discussion...
Protect Kent have expressed concern that Kent County Council are doggedly pursuing “Growth without gridlock”, their transport strategy for Kent for the next 20 years, despite the flaws it contains and the widespread opposition to some of the schemes from the people of Kent.
Earlier today, at KCC’s “Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee” meeting for environment, highways and waste, an update on Growth without gridlock was delivered, covering the major proposals for a third Thames Crossing, a solution to Operation Stack, dualling of the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury, and rail improvements for East Kent. It also covered the thorny issue of funding for these schemes, seeking to avoid direct contribution from the public purse.
Almost no alternatives remain on the table. There will be a Third Thames Crossing, despite the fact that removing the existing tolls at Dartford would solve the congestion problems at the crossing “at a stroke”. An enormous lorry park will be built at Aldington, near Sellindge, despite other options including parking at the Port of Dover. And the Thanet Parkway Rail Station is still being promoted as essential to the development of Manston airport, even though Flybe (the only scheduled flight operator at Manston) have announced their intention to withdraw their operations in March.
Possibly the only scheme that is sensible and receives widespread support is the improvement and dualling to the A21 between Tonbridge and Hastings. This is long overdue, and would do much to improve safety and air quality in the area, as well as remove congestion and hence relieve some of the stress for motorists.
Andrew Ogden, Campaigns Manager at Protect Kent said: “KCC appear to be pursuing all of the schemes within their transport strategy with blatant single-mindedness, as though sheer determination will make them acceptable in the eyes of the public. There certainly does not appear to be room for open debate on all possible options to solve our transport problems. In fact, it appears that KCC have decided there is but one solution – theirs, which must be the right one – and nothing else will be entertained”.
Andrew continued: “However, as everything is still at the planning stage, it is not yet too late for KCC to open-up a consultation on their proposals. This will ensure we arrive at the best possible transport solutions for Kent, its people and communities. We encourage KCC to take up the challenge of a public debate.”
- 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
