Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Homes at Ebbsfleet to be delivered at last, but where's the detail?
CPRE Protect Kent is cautiously optimistic about the news that Ebbsfleet is to become a garden city. This development, if done correctly, will bring much needed housing to an area which is brownfield land and well connected with direct access to high speed trains.
We now look to the Chancellor George Osborne to follow up his words with practical steps to ensure that this land does at last get developed. This is now an important opportunity to get on and deliver homes that are affordable and a place where families want to live.
Planning permission for this site was first given in 2007 and so far only about 150 homes have been built out of a planning permission for 6250 homes. Up to now this has been a prime example of ‘land banking’ – where a large developer obtains planning permission and then holds the land as an asset, without pressing on to deliver the homes that are so needed.
The Government is convinced that planning is the cause of the lack of housing but this is not the case. There are many sites in Kent where planning permission has been given where development has yet to begin. This is putting greater pressure on the countryside with both Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Green Belt being especially vulnerable. CPRE Protect Kent has long been campaigning to unlock chunks of land which, like this one, have been left undeveloped despite having planning permission for many years. We look forward to seeing more detail about this development proposal, and exactly what it can provide for those in need of housing in northern Kent.
- 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
