Skip to content

London Resort, Swanscombe, the BBC and biodiversity... actions will speak louder than words

Elementary Admin
By Elementary Admin &
12th January 2022

The Swanscombe peninsula is a wonderful place for wildlife (pic Paul Buckley)

Are you enjoying Green Planet, the BBC’s latest natural-history blockbuster (showing now on all working televisions)?
Of course, the corporation’s standards in this field are second to none, while it makes a big deal of its record on sustainability, so it’s difficult to understand its involvement in the proposed development of the London Resort theme park, a scheme that would effectively destroy one of the most wildlife-rich sites in the country – the Swanscombe peninsula.
Campaigner Chris Rose highlights this apparent quandary in his blog on biodiversity, which will be highlighted during COP CBD15, or the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, taking place in China in May.
As he points out, the ongoing loss of biodiversity – the ‘nature emergency’ – is overshadowed by the climate emergency, even though the two are inextricably linked. This, he argues, needs to change, with lip-service to the cause of biodiversity translating into genuine action and policy change.
The failure of the theme-park developer, London Resort Company Holdings, to meet deadlines has delayed the Planning Inspectorate’s six-month examination of its application and the process is now anticipated to begin in March (it had been scheduled for September last year), meaning it is likely to be running throughout COP15.
The UK government will of course be participating in that conference – it’s time for the big talk to be matched by the action…

  • You can read Chris Rose’s blog ‘The Cinderella COP And The Extinction Theme Park’ here
  • For more on this story, see here

Wednesday, January 12, 2022


  • 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