Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Thanet Local Plan Consultation
We have set out our concerns about the unrealistic and damagingly high target for new homes and jobs in the draft Thanet Local Plan.
The plan sets a target of 5,000 new jobs. We believe this is unachievable, mainly because the catalyst for growth on which it is based – Manston Airport – has gone. We are advocating a lower target of 3,100 jobs and this would mean the housing target could be reduced.
The housing target of 12,000 new homes is based on population information that is out of date and unreliable. It fails to take account of housing proposed in neighbouring districts – especially Dover. Dover has already set a high growth housing target of 14,000 new homes. In addition, Dover District Council has recently granted planning permission for even more houses – including 500 at the Discovery Park. The Dover and Thanet housing markets are closely aligned, and we believe that Dover will inevitably meet some of the Thanet housing need. This has not been taken into account in Thanet District Council’s assessment of housing need.
We believe it is wrong to identify so many greenfield sites in the plan which comprise grade 1 agricultural land (up to 5,000 home proposed on such greenfield farmland). CPRE Kent Senior Planner Brian Lloyd said: “Land of such good quality is a nationally important asset and vital for food security in the future. This should be a major constraint to development.”
Furthermore, Thanet faces serious water supply and water quality issues – which are openly admitted in the plan. This again must be recognised as a constraint to development. Plus the impacts on infrastructure, transport and social, including health and education, have not been properly assessed and should further limit the amount of new housing.
We do not believe that house builders will actually be able to build the target amount of new housing in Thanet – they would have to build 600 new homes each and every year for the next 20 years. On average they have only achieved just over 500 new homes a year for the last 10 years. Therefore a target nearer to 9,500 new homes is realistic and this would help avoid the loss of valuable farmland.
We think it is entirely unacceptable that the plan fails to grapple with the future of Manston Airport. The future of the airport has been left to a future plan, but crucially any development there would be additional to that proposed in this local plan.
Mr Lloyd added: “Greenfield sites may be sacrificed prematurely when there is a major brownfield site at Manston that could alleviate the need for this. We think the council must resolve this now.”
CPRE Kent disagrees with the plan’s intention to promote Westwood as a new integrated community. Mr Lloyd said: “It functions as an out of town shopping destination rather than as a town centre and it is inappropriate to propose a new residential community around it. This will only serve to push the urban area further into the countryside.”
On a positive note, we support ‘the vision’ presented in the plan, in particular the recognition that tranquillity is a feature of the district’s countryside. We would like the council to have a strategic policy on the need to retain tranquillity.
Bright blue indicates the highest quality agricultural land. Map from Natural England: download here: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/141047
CPRE Kent has submitted its comments to Thanet District Council. To read our comments on the Thanet Preferred Options Plan click here. To read our covering letter click here.
- 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
