Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Waterside Park Statement of Case
CPRE Kent has joined with 16 parish councils to campaign against plans for a business park at Waterside Park by Junction 8 of the M20. We have been granted Rule 6 status, meaning we will play an active part in the public inquiry which begins next May.
CPRE Kent believes the planned development of warehouses, industrial premises and offices would be detrimental to the countryside setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the important heritage setting of Leeds Castle.
In our Statement of Case, submitted just before Christmas (23rd December), we focused on the community impact issues including traffic, noise, light and air pollution and the detrimental effect on the enjoyment of the countryside. We also highlight the risk of contamination of an important water supply source and also the River Len, which runs alongside the southern side of the site, arising from potential accidental discharge of fuel oil and other stored chemicals and hazardous substances. And we draw attention to the impact on the heritage setting of Leeds Castle and the risk to rural tourism.
Kent County Council together with Natural England and the Kent Downs AONB Unit, will also be opposing the development at the Inquiry, in particular looking at the impact on the AONB and the economic arguments.
The proposal, involving 16 hectares (39 acres) of prime agricultural land, is not identified for development in either the existing or proposed new Local Plan and breaches important planning policies that seek to protect the countryside.
The plan was first rejected by Maidstone Borough council planning committee in February, and a revised plan was rejected in October. The developer, Gallagher Properties, has appealed against both decisions.
Brian Lloyd, Senior Planner for CPRE Kent said: “We hope that the Planning Inspector holding the Inquiry will reject this proposal because of the damage it will cause to this attractive area of countryside. If this is allowed, it could set a precedent for further development stretching alongside the A20 and M20 right back to Maidstone. It is completely the wrong place for development.”
To read the full Statement of Case click here.
23 December 2014
- 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
