Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Standing up for Kent's built heritage
Campaigners are calling on people living in Kent to identify thousands of valuable historic buildings in the county which need protection from demolition or ruin.
The Historic Buildings Committee, part of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Kent, is holding a workshop for people and organisations interested in saving important heritage buildings in their area which are not on the national list kept by English Heritage.
It is aiming to persuade all 13 district councils in Kent and Medway to make a Local List to give these buildings protection from demolition or inappropriate change.
Chairman of the CPRE Kent Historic Buildings Committee, Bob Baxter, said: “There are more listed buildings in Kent than in any other county, but there are thousands more which could be pulled down or changed forever if they do not get protection. As planning laws are relaxed, historians, conservationists, architects and archaeologists have become increasingly concerned about loss of buildings which mean something to their local community but may not be protected by the English Heritage national list.”
Recent examples of buildings at risk in Kent include the fine Victorian office building at Sittingbourne Paper Mill and the 16th century Blue Boys Inn at Matfield – both demolished “overnight” – and the Ashford Tannery, for which demolition was approved by the council earlier this year. CPRE Kent has successfully campaigned to save unlisted buildings such as the Hythe Lifeboat Station and the Sittingbourne Magistrates Court.
“However, it is hard work when the value of these buildings is not recognised until it is nearly too late. This is where we need input from volunteers,” said Dr Baxter.
English Heritage is keen to get all planning authorities to revive the “Local Lists” of historic buildings – a move supported by the committee. These lists have fallen into disuse in the last 20 years in all but one of Kent’s administrative districts. So far, only Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells Councils have made any concrete steps to join Canterbury in setting up a local list and the committee wants others to follow their example.
At the meeting next month, the Sevenoaks Society will present what they have achieved to date and there will be an opportunity for other civic societies, local history societies and individuals to learn what is involved to plan their own projects.
The meeting will be on 13 November at the CPRE Office in Charing. Details are on CPRE Kent’s website at cprekent.org.uk/events.
- 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
