Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Waterside Park closing statements
The public inquiry into plans for an industrial and warehouse development at Waterside Park next to Junction 8 of the M20 has finished with a decision expected by the end of July. You can read the full versions of all the parties at the end of this post.
In his closing statement CPRE Vice-President Richard Knox-Johnston described the impact on Leeds Castle: “It will harm the setting of the castle. It will be a large grey building, very close to the gardens which themselves are a heritage asset, some 400 metres away and also be very obvious and out of place industrial building able to be seen from the castle environs, no matter how many people see it either today or in the future.”
He went on to say: “The view is there, hopefully it will always be there and no matter how many people enjoy the aspect it is still a beautiful view and needs to be preserved for future generations.
He described the adverse impact on the footpath from the point of view of the Ramblers: “Walking alongside an industrial area with a two to three metre wire fence, security lighting and CCTV cameras was not his idea of a country walk.”
Mr Knox-Johnston spoke of the concerns about the risk of contamination to the water supply, warning that: “…just one spill could contaminate the important adjacent borehole which in turn would contaminate the aquifer permanently. Kent is the most water stressed county in the country and any loss of drinking water in a drought threatened area could be devastating.”
And he concluded that: “The residents in the area of Junction 8 …. have had to put up with many threats to their surroundings over the last few years. Having beaten off a road rail interchange they are now fighting an industrial complex which is totally foreign to the countryside which surrounds Junction 8 at present. What is more there is another application being submitted.
“However they are not daunted and will continue to battle to preserve this attractive very important heritage area. They are doing this not only on their own behalf but to protect these important heritage assets for Kent and for the UK in order that tourists may continue to enjoy the castle and its surroundings.”
You can read the full closing statements below:
CPRE Kent and Joint Parishes closing statement – Waterside Park
KCC, Kent Downs AONB and Natural England closing statement – Waterside Park
Maidstone Borough Council closing statement – Waterside ParkAppellants’ closing statement – Waterside park
Appellants’ closing statement – Waterside park
June 1st 2015
- 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
