Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Local Lists and Regeneration
Over 40 people were at Turner Contemporary on Tuesday (17th March) to discuss the role of heritage in regeneration, promotion of tourism and preparation of local heritage lists. The meeting was a follow-up to our own workshop in November.
James Kennell of Greenwich University provoked a lot of discussion with his review of different approaches to “regeneration”, giving examples throughout the UK and abroad, and of how successive governments have approached regeneration issues. He described some key factors needed to attract tourists to an area and increase their contribution to the local economy. He emphasised that it is not enough to just have heritage assets; they need to be presented in the right way.
Graham Horner, of our own Historic Buildings Committee, explained why local lists will help planning authorities, developers and the community understand better what buildings and places are valued in their area. He gave examples of cases where demolitions might not have happened and arguments at the stage where planning applications have already been submitted could have been avoided if the relevant buildings had previously been researched in a local listing process.
Representatives of the Sevenoaks http://purchasepropecia.net Society brought the description of their local list project in Sevenoaks Town to this East Kent audience. In Sevenoaks, some 3-400 buildings have already been considered for inclusion on the list and the society hopes to submit the first tranche of recommendations to the district council early next year. Sir Michael Harrison described how the society had pushed the council to consider a local list in their Local Plan and the support they were now getting from both the Town and District Councils. John Stambollouian described how the project is progressing with relatively few but keen volunteers and Nick Umney described how, by careful initial planning, a quite sophisticated and versatile database of information on heritage assets can be developed with off-the-shelf software.
After lunch watching Margate’s newly-restored time ball in action, there was a lively discussion focussing on the way forward to preparation of local lists in East Kent, with Robert Lloyd-Smith of Historic England bringing the audience up to date on the progress of their related “Buildings at Risk” Project.
The Symposium was hosted by Margate Civic Society and the Margate Neighbourhood Plan Forum and supported by Turner Contemporary who provided the venue.
- 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
