Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
New Year....Old Issues!
Here we are at the start of a new year, when the previous twelve months become a fast-fading dream, often bid a final farewell with comments such as “where did that year go ?” And quite naturally our thoughts turn to the year ahead and the challenges, known and unknown, facing us.
Within Protect Kent many of our challenges are old issues, carried over from previous years, which are still unresolved, ‘to be concluded’, or possibly lacking any agreed way forward. Examples are many, from the variety of proposed airports in the Thames Estuary to the dispute over the need for night flights from Manston; the numerous transport issues, from the Third Thames Crossing to the irritation caused by the noise emanating from the M20; and of course the crucial planning issues, from the nationally significant draft NPPF to the more local ‘Local Plans’ and their sometimes damaging impact on our countryside. The same “old chestnuts”!
This is in-efficient and exhausting. None of us can afford to keep revisiting each and every idea, option and proposal, sometimes approaching them from opposite directions and creating confrontation. Limited resources (faced by everyone) demands focussed action. There needs to be a better way.
So, to all our members, supporters, followers, groups, bodies, and people we work with (and even those we may appear to work against), I would like to issue a “Challenge for 2012”:
Let us work together – Protect Kent with the organisations and people of Kent – to tackle the legacy of issues from previous years, and reach an agreed and final strategy for each.
Let us make 2012 a happy, prosperous, and co-operative New Year !
- 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
