Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Waterside Park Inquiry nears completion
The public inquiry into the plans to develop nearly 17 hectares of land between Hollingbourne and Bearstead is drawing near to its end, and once again I’ve been overwhelmed by the level of public engagement and commitment that the local community has shown.
A planning inquiry is an unusual experience for most people. Rather like a court of law, it is an opportunity for those on opposite sides of the case in dispute to make their case either in favour of, or against, a planning decision, in front of an independent and impartial adjudicator – the inspector. The inspector’s role is to weigh all the evidence presented and come to a conclusion which will be presented to the Secretary of State, who will make the final decision for or against.
It is a highly formal process, with the presentation of evidence by expert witnesses, either for or against the proposed development, followed by cross-examination by those who disagree with their case and seek to discredit their evidence in front of the inspector.
The very formality of the process can seem at odds with the notion of public engagement. It is sad that the local community has once again had to come together in opposition to plans for major development at this site – they have the long experience of the public inquiry into the proposed Kent International Gateway, very close to the proposed site for Waterside Park, which took place in the final months of 2009. But the important thing to remember is that this is a public inquiry, set up so that those local people who will be most affected if it goes ahead have the opportunity to have their concerns heard. The legal and technical experts who have been making their cases so ably will pack up their boxes of evidence and move on to the next case, but it is the people whose lives and livelihoods will be affected by the outcome of the inquiry who will have to live with the consequences. Let’s all wish the good folk of Bearsted, Hollingbourne and beyond the outcome that they want.
Dr Hilary Newport
Director, CPRE Kent
May 20th 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
