Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
What a year for CPRE Kent! Happy Christmas from us all...
It’s easy to overstate the hyperbole at such times, but 2017 has been an extraordinarily busy year for CPRE Kent. Busy and momentous…
The highlight came late in proceedings, with this month’s Supreme Court victory where we successfully defended the Appeal Court’s decision to quash planning permission for more than 600 homes in Farthingloe Valley, in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
It was a complex case, but suffice to say the Supreme Court agreed with the Appeal Court’s earlier ruling that the planning committee at Dover District Council had not given legally adequate reasons for its decision to grant permission for a development it acknowledged would cause significant harm to a protected landscape.
It was a victory that should have far-reaching implications for both the performance of our local authority planning committees and the protection of AONBs.
Another success in which we were involved came at Pond Farm, Newington.
The dismissal in the High Court of a developer’s appeal against an earlier planning decision was the first instance in the UK of air quality proving a critical factor in such a judgment.
CPRE Kent had been in court in October giving evidence as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government defended a planning inspector’s dismissal of two linked appeals made by Gladman Developments against the local authority’s refusal of planning permission for its scheme.
The issue of air quality is now rising up the wider agenda, leaving, we suspect, some of our planners not totally certain of the way ahead.
Fantastic victories, for sure, but at CPRE Kent we’re always keen to stress that we are not opposed to all development. Indeed, we want to see an emphasis on new affordable housing that will give people across the county the opportunity to live in their own home.
While we believe that the Farthingloe application, for example, should never have progressed as far as it did – and it is disappointing that it was left to CPRE Kent alone to contest it – we are aware that housing does need building.
Our viewpoint, happily, is simple: right homes, right places.
One extensive development is at Ebbsfleet, where there appears to be some progress on a project for which planning permission was granted some 15 years ago and should ultimately deliver about 15,000 houses.
CPRE Kent has not objected to this plan, but we will be monitoring it to see whether its concept of sustainability is met.
Things are very much different at Otterpool Park, a scheme adding a staggering 12,000 houses to Shepway District Council’s current identified need of 8,800 homes.
This is a development that has little going for it other, perhaps, than the pumping of a few council egos.
The area is already congested and prone to water stress, but with the Department for Communities and Local Government backing the project and the district council being both applicant and judge it is hard to see where we can get any purchase on opposing it.
So it hasn’t all been plain sailing, evidenced further by a 12km line of 5m-high pylons across east Kent being granted planning permission in August. Supposed mitigation for this highly intrusive scheme appears negligible.
Similarly disappointing was the approval of a Lower Thames Crossing east of Gravesend, which now has three lanes each way planned. CPRE Kent does not believe the new road will, should it be built, ease the problem of either congestion or air pollution at Dartford.
Staying with transport, we all accept that the implementation of Operation Stack is not acceptable and must be tackled, but CPRE has never backed the building of a huge lorry park at Stanford. Happily, the government is reconsidering the plans.
The battles will, we are sure, continue to come thick and fast. We support renewable energy, for instance, but that doesn’t mean every such scheme should be accepted without question.
The colossal scale of the proposed 890-acre Cleve Hill solar farm, near Faversham, for example, is surely too great. There have to be better ways to deliver energy, we believe.
CPRE Kent is also involved as a Rule 6 participant in two another inquiries that will run into next year – Woodcut Farm and Brabourne Lees – while our work in relation to Local Plans and any number of development applications is constant.
Whatever 2018 holds, we will, as ever, be fighting for this county’s countryside.
As for now, it’s time to take a break and we wish you all a happy, peaceful and fulfilling Christmas and New Year. Thank you for your support…
Friday, December 22, 2017
- 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
