Ashford council told to drop 500 new properties from Local Plan

The Hothfield area is the greatest beneficiary from the inspectors’ report, with some 400 homes slashed from the building target (pic www.hothfield.org.uk)

Inspectors have ordered Ashford Borough Council to chop some 500 new properties from its Local Plan.
Sites at High Halden and Hothfield are to be deleted altogether, while five plots in other villages must be reduced in size.
The new Plan, which identifies where 13,521 homes will be built up to 2030, was approved by the council in December last year, but it must now be amended.
The Hothfield area is the greatest beneficiary from the inspectors’ conclusions, with a total of 400 proposed homes axed at Tutt Hill, near Holiday Inn, near Hothfield Mill and near Coach Drive. It is believed isolation from the village and damage to trees were the primary reasons for their exclusion.
Fifty properties at Stevenson Brothers petrol station between High Halden and Bethersden also failed to convince the inspectors.
Sites at Brook, Mersham, Aldington and Wittersham all have reduced numbers of houses to be built.
Thankfully, the inspectors have said the borough does not to add sites to compensate for those that have been dropped.

Monday, October 15, 2018

Cockering Farm housing approval: CPRE Kent slams ‘lamentable’ consultation

The planned development borders Larkey Valley Wood SSSI (pic explorekent.org)

CPRE Kent is concerned by the decision of Canterbury City Council’s planning committee to grant outline consent for the proposals for 400 homes at Cockering Farm, Thanington.
A spokesman said: “We fully respect the council’s right to approve the application, but we are deeply concerned by the proposals, which do not respect the comments of local people
“The scrutiny has been inadequate and the consultation lamentable for such an important site. The lack of detail is regrettable, making the whole situation doubly disappointing.
“People are only just beginning to understand the implications of this planned development and their concerns must be fully acknowledged if it goes ahead.
“CPRE, with other concerned parties in Canterbury, will scrutinise the details further, as and when the developer finally provides them.
“We will challenge the developer to shape the scheme into one that provides good-quality housing, respecting both the context and the need in the local area and the vitally important heritage of Canterbury.”
The proposed 42-hectare development by Quinn Estates Ltd lies immediately to the north of Larkey Valley Wood, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and in a designated Area of High Landscape Value.
The decision to grant outline permission for the 400 homes, up to 3,716 square metres of business space, a community/leisure facility of up to 200 square metres and 18 hectares of open space, was made on Tuesday, September 18.

Monday, October 15, 2018

Annual General Meeting: Friday, November 9

Featured

Our president Graham Clarke with one of his wonderful poems at last year’s AGM (pic Paul Buckley)

This year’s AGM will be held on Friday, November 9, at our usual venue of Lenham Village Hall.
After positive feedback from last year, we will hold it once again in the morning, starting at 10.30am and ending after lunch, which will be served at 12.30pm.
As well as our usual presidential address we will be hearing from our keynote speaker, Rt Hon Damian Green MP.
This is a chance for you to meet the team in person and find out more about the wonderful work that CPRE Kent is doing.
We hope you will join us.
Please let us know if you would like to appoint a proxy to vote if you are unable to attend, or if you would like to join us for lunch after the meeting (the charge for lunch is £12 per person, cheques payable to CPRE Kent, please, to be received no later than Wednesday, October 31, or via BACS payment at the details in the invitation form posted below).

Invitation AGM 2018

Trustees report and accounts 2017-18

AGM draft minutes 2017

 Monday, October 8, 2018

As plans for massive resort falter, what is the future for Swanscombe?

There were grand plans for the resort (pic LRCH)

Announced to huge fanfare in 2012, the proposed London Resort theme park at Swanscombe appears as far from fruition as ever, a fact noted gloomily in a report advocating colossal urban development in north Kent.
The developer behind the theme park, London Resort Company Holdings, has revealed that it is delaying its application for a Development Consent Order until 2019.
It reportedly did not “sufficiently estimate” elements that could affect its plans for the 535-acre site.
In an indication of the extraordinary development pressure on the area, LRCH has pointed to three neighbouring proposals, including proposed changes to the A2 and the Lower Thames Crossing, for the delayed application.
Whatever the reasons, it seems support for the developer is waning.
Dartford MP Gareth Johnson said: “Dartford is losing patience with LRCH and its proposed theme park.
“This latest delay is just one in a series of postponements that has created uncertainty for the existing businesses on the Swanscombe peninsula and makes LRCH look incapable of ever delivering this project.
“I have always felt the jobs that could come from a leisure facility on the peninsula would be very welcome, but I have yet to see evidence of how the local area would cope with the extra people and vehicles it would bring.
“The concept of a theme park was initially welcomed by local people, but this uncertainty is becoming intolerable.”
The delayed submission date will presumably not go down well with the Thames Estuary Growth Commission, which is calling for “a minimum” of a million homes to be built in the estuary by 2050.
This advisory body to the government declares in its 2050 Vision report that a DCO application for London Resort should be made “as soon as possible”.
“Should an application not be submitted by the end of 2018, the government should consider all the options for resolving the uncertainty this scheme is creating for the delivery of the wider Ebbsfleet Garden City,” it says.

Saturday, September 29, 2018

Green Belt: not as safe as you might like to think

Is nothing sacred? The Green Belt at Lullingstone (pic Susan Pittman)

Anyone who believed Green Belt designation might mean land was safe from development would appear to be sadly misguided if CPRE analysis is anything to go by.
This organisation’s figures reveal that almost half a million new homes are targeted for land to be released from the Green Belt – and very few of those will be classed as genuinely affordable.
Our analysis by the charity revealed that last year 72 per cent  of the homes built on greenfield land within the Green Belt could not be classed as affordable under the government’s own definition.
That depressing figure is set to rise to 78 per cent for the 460,000 homes planned for land due to be released from the Green Belt, according to CPRE’S State of the Green Belt report.
Tom Fyans, CPRE director of campaigns and policy, said: “We are being sold a lie by many developers. As they sell off and gobble up the Green Belt to build low-density, unaffordable housing, young families go on struggling to afford a place to live.
“The affordable-housing crisis must be addressed with increasing urgency while acknowledging that, far from providing the solution, building on the Green Belt only serves to entrench the issue.
“The government is failing in its commitment to protect the Green Belt – it is being eroded at an alarming rate.
“But it is essential, if the Green Belt is to fulfil its main purposes and provide 30 million of us with access to the benefits of the countryside, that the redevelopment of brownfield land is prioritised, and Green Belt protection strengthened.”
The charity argued that brownfield land, which has previously been used for housing or industrial development, could accommodate more than one million homes in England.
Local authorities with Green Belt land have enough brownfield sites for more than 720,000 homes, says the CPRE report.
The government has, however, defended its position on the Green Belt. A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We are clear that building the homes our country needs does not mean tearing up our countryside.
“Last year the number of new homes built was the highest in a decade, and only 0.02 per cent of the Green Belt was developed for residential use.
“We are adding more certainty to the planning system and our new planning rulebook strengthens national protections for the Green Belt.”
As well as a genuine ‘brownfield first’ approach to development, CPRE is urging the government to:

  • Retain its commitment to protect the Green Belt by establishing long-term boundaries
  • Halt speculative development in the Green Belt
  • Develop clear guidance for local authorities on housing requirements to protect designated land
  • Support the creation of new Green Belts where local authorities have established a clear need for them

Monday, September 17, 2018

Estuary growth commission points to a very crowded north Kent… and beyond

The landscape of the North Kent Marshes – this is Faversham Creek – will never be the same if the growth commission has its way

If you thought development pressure on Kent could not get any worse, there is some sobering reading from the Thames Estuary Growth Commission.
This advisory body to the government is urging “joint spatial plans” to be created in both Kent and Essex to support the building of more than a million homes.
The two counties should take more of London’s housing need, says a commission report.
The formation of the commission was revealed in the 2016 Budget and tasked by the government to “develop an ambitious vision and delivery plan for north Kent, south Essex and east London up to 2050”.
Its 2050 Vision report, published in June, says “a minimum” of one million homes will be needed to support economic growth in the Thames estuary by 2050; this equates to 31,250 homes a year.
However, it says that “between 2012/2013 and 2014/2015, on average, fewer than 10,000 homes were built per annum against Local Plan targets of 19,495 per annum”.
It continues: “Low land values, challenging site conditions and a limited number of house builders are all contributing to the delivery gap.”
The report says that, using the government’s methodology for calculating housing need, “around two thirds of these [one million] homes should be delivered in east London”.
However, the commission “believes that solely focusing on homes in London is unsustainable and that more of these homes should be provided in Kent and Essex”.
It claims there is “scope for the Thames estuary to be even more ambitious in responding to London’s ever growing housing need”.
This should be enabled by greater strategic planning across the area, according to the commission, which supports work already being carried out by local authorities in the ‘South Essex Foreshore’ area, which covers the Basildon, Castle Point, Southend-on-Sea and Rochford council areas.
Those local authorities “should continue to work with other authorities within the housing market area/neighbouring areas, Essex County Council and Opportunity South Essex to produce an integrated strategy for delivering and funding high-quality homes, employment, transport and other infrastructure”.
The report backs the same approach for the ‘North Kent Foreshore’, which stretches the definition of Thames estuary to the limit in covering the Medway, Swale, Canterbury and Thanet local authority areas.
It seems the sky’s the limit for the commission, which says the joint plan “should also be ambitious – going above the minimum housing numbers set by government – to attract substantial infrastructure investment from government”.
2050 Vision warms to its task in saying that, if joint plans “demonstrate sufficient growth ambition – going above the minimum threshold set out by government for local housing need; and being given statutory status – government should reward this ambition with substantial infrastructure investment and freedoms and flexibilities”.
There is also backing for new development corporations “with planning, and compulsory purchase powers to drive the delivery of homes and jobs aligned to major infrastructure investment”.
You have been warned.

To read the 2050 Vision report, click here

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Don’t forget, now is the time to comment on the Thanet Local Plan

What future for the Isle of Thanet?

We have covered the tortuous tale of Thanet District Council’s draft Local Plan with some intensity over recent months, so we’ll keep this reminder brief…
You have some five weeks to view and comment on the draft Plan, which was approved by the council in July and is intended to provide the isle’s planning blueprint until 2031.
This ‘pre-submission stage’ began on Thursday, August 23, and ends at 5pm on Thursday, October 4, with comments received going straight to the planning inspector; respondents might be then invited to speak at the Plan’s Examination in Public.
To view the Local Plan and make comments, visit here

It is also available at The Gateway in Margate, Pierremont Hall in Broadstairs, Custom House in Ramsgate and in any public library in the district.

For (a lot of) background on the Thanet Local Plan, visit herehere, herehere and here

Friday, August 31, 2018

Curiouser and curiouser… why would anyone back this Thanet Parkway plan?

Early impressions of a Thanet Parkway station

The case for a Thanet Parkway railway station near Ramsgate seems ever weaker.
Details have been published of a damning government rejection of Kent County Council’s bid to win funding for the project.
KCC had put in a planning application for a site off Hengist Way, close to the Ramsgate-Ashford railway line, with the intention that a new station would open in 2021.
The project had been costed at £11 million, but local media outlets have reported that this figure has almost doubled.
KCC’s application for an £8.7 million grant was rejected last year by the Department for Transport, but a statement secured by Broadstairs man Ian Driver might make some wonder why such a project is even being considered.
“The panel considered that the proposal was not yet developed enough to support at this time as the project was still only at the GRIP [Guide to Rail Investment Process] stage one,” says the DfT statement.
“There were also concerns that the project would require extensive infrastructure work to allow the service to operate as planned, that no funding had been identified to cover the additional cost of this extensive infrastructure work, and that the new station would have a detrimental impact on the existing timetable.”
And the positives?
In truth, none seem immediately apparent, at least as far as the DfT is concerned.
“In particular, the panel was concerned that accommodating an additional stop at Thanet Parkway would add two minutes to the journey on the line between Ashford and Ramsgate,” says the statement.
“This means that Ramsgate and Margate would benefit from net improvements of only one minute, rather than three minutes as planned in the current journey time improvement scheme.
“In addition, the panel noted that building a new station would require Network Rail to redevelop a nearby level crossing, but that there were no proposals in the business case on how to cover the costs of this.”
Despite such a crushing critique of the project, KCC reportedly still plans to push ahead with its parkway plans.
These stretch back some years. In December 2010, the county council unveiled its Growth without Gridlock strategy, leader Paul Carter saying:
“A Thanet Parkway station would support economic growth in Thanet and accelerate development of Kent International Airport at Manston, while improved line speeds between Ashford and Ramsgate would benefit all local rail users.
“With an estimated 1,000 new jobs generated per million new air passengers, these improvements would help create 6,000 jobs by 2033.”
The uncertain status of the airport – the development of which was supported financially by KCC before it changed tack and backed Stone Hill Park Ltd’s plans for 4,000 homes at Manston – together with the fact that, far from improving line speeds between Ashford and Ramsgate, a Thanet Parkway station would in fact increase them makes Cllr Carter’s trumpeting of the project seem puzzling.
And that’s before we even consider those, at best dubious, job figures…
Thanet CPRE chairman David Morrish has already given his opinion on the idea.
“We believe that a decision on the parkway station shouldn’t be made until the situation at the Manston airport site is clarified. It was, after all, initially proposed that a parkway station would serve an expanded airport.
“There are widespread fears that it would result in the closing of nearby Minster station, while the idea of encouraging people to travel across Thanet to a new station rather than using their existing stations of Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Margate – with all the issues of traffic congestion that would entail – is bizarre.
“There needs to be a full study on the impact on local transport, which is likely to suffer as a result of this, while are we sure there is enough capacity on the trains to take extra people to London, as is intended?
“Further, we thought that the protection of our farmland was moving up the agenda in the light of the great changes that lie ahead. This station would of course result in a substantial loss of high-quality farmland.”

For more on this story, see here

Friday, August 31, 2018

Manston… airport DCO will be considered

Will planes be landing at Manston again? (pic Hamza Butt)

The Manston airport site might just have a future in aviation after all.
The latest phase of this long-running saga has seen the Planning Inspectorate agree to consider the case for the airport reopening through a Development Consent Order.
This will determine whether it should be regarded as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, paving the way for the relevant Secretary of State to grant seizure of the site.
RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) proposes to establish the airport as a freight hub, but site owner Stone Hill Park Ltd has its own plans to build some 4,000 homes, business units and sporting facilities there.
RSP had to resubmit its DCO application after an earlier bid was rebuffed by the Planning Inspectorate, which wanted more details on funding.
Now the application has been accepted, there will be an inquiry.
The public and other interested parties can register with the Planning Inspectorate as an Interested Party; to do this, a written ‘relevant representation’ must be made, giving the individual’s or party’s views.
The Interested Parties will then be asked to a meeting, run and chaired by an appointed Examining Authority.
This part of the process would be expected to last some three months, after which the Planning Inspectorate has six months to carry out its examination. Interested Parties will be asked to give further written details of their views during this time, while there might be public hearings.
When all that is concluded, within the next three months the Planning Inspectorate must prepare a report and recommendation for the Secretary of State, who then himself has three months to decide on the application.
Finally, there is a six-month period when that decision can be challenged in the High Court.
Thanet CPRE has chosen not to give a view on the airport as feelings on the subject are so mixed.

For more on the tale of Manston, see here and here

For CPRE Kent’s response to RSP’s Manston Consultation last year, see here

Friday, August 31, 2018

Council approves its own plans for Princes Parade but the fight might not be over

If the scheme goes ahead, it will impact on the Royal Military Canal, a scheduled historic monument (image courtesy of Save Prince’s Parade, saveprincesparade.org)

More than 700 letters of objection, an e-petition of 6,292 names, opposition from Historic England, Kent Wildlife Trust and CPRE Kent, together with a peaceful protest by some 100 people, were not enough to stop Folkestone and Hythe District Council awarding itself planning permission to develop land it owns at Princes Parade in Hythe.
The council’s planning committee approved the application for up to 150 houses and associated buildings including a leisure centre, hotel and café or restaurant on Thursday, August 16.
The 100 protesters had gathered before the planning meeting, which saw the proposal approved by the tightest of margins, with five votes in favour, four against and one abstention.
CPRE Kent had objected to the council’s plans on ecological grounds, submitting a detailed report highlighting the harm that such a development would cause to the site’s wildlife and wider natural environment.
Our historic buildings committee had also put in an objection, citing the scheme’s unacceptable impact on the setting of the nearby heritage assets, namely the Royal Military Canal and its associated fortifications.
This was supported by government body Historic England, which expressed its concerns about the effect of the development on the setting of the canal, a scheduled historic monument.
Campaigners against the development were also concerned it could be approved even before the site’s future was fully considered as part of the overall planning process for Shepway.
In response to the application’s approval by the council, campaign group Save Princes Parade has asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call it in.
Graham Horner, CPRE Shepway district chairman, said: “The loss of this green open space in an urban area is regrettable.
“The design of the leisure centre is ugly and it has been put in a position that severely compromises the heritage assets in that area.
“To raise the money needed to pay for the necessary clearing-up of the site, which is contaminated, there needed to be a lot of housing in the application and so we’re left with this monstrosity.
“We’re waiting to find out if this will be called in by the Secretary of State as Folkestone and Hythe has been deciding its own planning application – or effectively marking its own homework. I would support anything that brings about a rethink.”

  • For more on this story, see here
  • Visit the Save Princes Parade website here

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Learn about the draft Sevenoaks Local Plan: you still have time to comment

More demand on the River Darent seems certain (pic Glen Humble, flickr)

Consultation on the Sevenoaks draft Local Plan (2015-35) ends on Monday, September 10.
CPRE Kent has taken calls in recent weeks from residents across the district concerned what a proposed housing target of 13,960 new homes might mean for them and for the status of the Green Belt.
In response, we have produced a briefing that covers the core issues relating to new-housing allocation within the draft Local Plan. We also make our own observations on the document.
You can see the briefing and our observations here
Sevenoaks District Council has organised a series of drop-in sessions, where you can learn more about the Local Plan. You can still make two of these:

  • Swanley Link (BR8 7AE): Wednesday, August 29, 2pm-8pm
  • Sevenoaks District Council (TN13 1HG): Wednesday, September 5, 2pm-8pm

We can not stress strongly enough that if you have concerns about what is proposed by the council in its Local Plan, or you simply want to be involved in the future of Sevenoaks district, you need to respond to the consultation by Monday, September 10.
You can do that here

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Sevenoaks draft Local Plan: a briefing and CPRE Kent observations

What future for the Green Belt in Sevenoaks district? (pic Susan Pittman)

Sevenoaks District Council’s Local Plan strategy

The draft Local Plan (2015-35) sets out the council’s strategy of:

  • providing 13,960 homes to meet its local housing need
  • focusing growth at existing settlements and maximising supply (through increased density)
  • redevelopment of previously developed land (and of locally-defined brownfield land in sustainable locations)
  • development of greenfield Green Belt land only in exceptional circumstances, where social and community infrastructure is being proposed in addition to housing, which could help address evidenced infrastructure deficiencies in the local area

 

Locally-defined brownfield land
Sevenoaks District Council is seeking to introduce the concept of locally- defined brownfield land as a means of gleaning as many housing sites as possible to contribute towards the requirement of 13,960 homes.
This definition goes beyond the (Nationally Planning Policy Framework) NPPF definition of previously developed land (PDL) – and could have serious repercussions for other Kent Green Belt authorities.

Locally-defined exceptional circumstances
The council is also seeking to include a local definition of exceptional circumstances.
The draft NPPF states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
The council is exploring in its draft Local Plan whether its Green Belt boundaries should be altered to meet its housing need. Twelve exceptional-circumstances sites have been put forward for consideration.
The council acknowledges that Sevenoaks is a highly constrained district, with 93% being Green Belt and 60% (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) AONB.
It is explained at para 1.14 of the draft Plan that consultation is taking place on all these sites to receive stakeholder comments… and that the inclusion of these sites in this consultation does not guarantee their inclusion in the final draft Local Plan.
The table below lists the 12 exceptional-circumstances sites.

Location                               Policy            No. of units            Site area (hectares)

Sevenoaks
Sevenoaks Quarry                 MX43             600                            94

Land west of Chevening        MX49             26-30                        1.7
Road, Chipstead                    HO53

Land east of London             MX50             40                              8.5
Road, Dunton Green             HO70

Swanley
Land between Beechlea       MX54a/b         750                            39.5
Lane and Highlands Hill,      HO188
Swanley

Pedham Place, Swanley/      MX48             c2,500                       117.6
Farningham/Eynsford

Edenbridge
Land south and east of        HO189 &        515                             27.2
Four Elms Road or              HO190
———————————— MX25 &
———————————–  MX26
———————————— HO223

Land at Crouch House        MX51              250                             18.4
Road or                              HO158

Land at Breezehurst            MX10             450                             18
Farm

and
Land west of Romani          MX44             80                               6.7
Way

Westerham
Land north and east of        HO371 &       600                             21.8
Westerham                          HO372
————————————-HO373 &
———————————— HO374
———————————— EM17

Fawkham/Hartley
Corinthian and                     MX52 &         Corinthian 570        74.6
Banckside                            MX53             Banckside  230
———————————— HO162 &
———————————— HO163

Halstead/Pratt’s
Bottom

Broke Hill golf course        MX41             800                             60.2

Subtotal       6,800

CPRE Kent observations on the Sevenoaks Local Plan

In general, CPRE Kent supports a development strategy that meets the following criteria:

  1. Prioritises the redevelopment of appropriate, sustainably-located previously-developed land. It does not support development on locally-defined brownfield land in unsustainable locations.
  2. Does not lead to the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, Green Belt, AONB and other designations.
  3. Focuses growth at existing settlements and maximises supply through increased densities at sustainable locations.
  4. Recognises the acute need for rural affordable housing.

 

CPRE Kent is concerned about the level of housing proposed. It is noted that the 2015 SHMA sets out objectively assessed need based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2012-based sub-national population projections and 2012-based household projection figures.
These figures will need to be reviewed in light of the 2016 mid-year figures and the household projections (expected next month).
Following the decline in population (2012-2016), it would seem reasonable to assume that household projections will also be in decline. However, we wait with interest to see what the government’s stance on this will be.

CPRE Kent has serious reservations that the construction industry will be capable of delivering the proposed level of housing. Average housing completions for the district are noted as 250dpa (dwellings per annum) over the last 10 years. With the suggested local housing need of 13,960, this would rise to 698dpa.

CPRE Kent has serious reservations over the need to deliver homes in accordance with the standard methodology for calculating local housing need, for the following reasons:

  1. The NPPF states that the government attaches great importance to the Green Belt – it states that “once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of Plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the Plan period”.
  2. One of the Green Belt purposes is to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Resisting development in the Green Belt will help encourage the bringing forward of previously developed land in the urban area.
  3. New housing in the Green Belt is likely to be for large properties that won’t meet the demand of local people who genuinely require housing in the villages and settlements within, or washed over, the Green Belt.

CPRE Kent does not consider that allocating land to meet local housing need with the promise of social and community infrastructure sufficiently demonstrates exceptional circumstances.
CPRE Kent is concerned that the harm caused to the purposes of the Green Belt designation and other considerations would not be outweighed by the requirements of the local housing need requirement.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018 

Dr David Neden: a tribute to a CPRE champion

Dr David Neden fought tirelessly for Pegwell Bay and the surrounding area

Dr David Neden, once one of the most active members of the Thanet district group of CPRE Kent and a co-founder of the Pegwell & District Association, has died.
His passing, on Friday, July 20, means east Kent bids farewell to one of the most passionate and determined campaigners for the natural environment in our area.
Dr Neden was born in Carshalton (then Surrey, now London) in January 1929 and went to school in nearby Sutton, gaining Higher Certificates in zoology, botany, physics and chemistry before heading to University College London and then University College Hospital medical school.
Eighteen months of house jobs at medical school preceded two years’ National Service, from 1954-55, which he saw out as a doctor in the Royal Navy.
Two more hospital jobs followed before Dr Neden became a general practice trainee in Middlesex. Just a few months later, however, in late 1957, he took a job as a GP at the Grange Road surgery in Ramsgate, where he was to stay until retirement in 2005.
Moving with him to Thanet was wife Irene, the pair having married during Dr Neden’s spell in Middlesex; they had met during his time at medical school.
Settled happily in Ramsgate, the couple brought up their children Sarah, John (himself a GP in Ramsgate today) and Andrew.
Although his last home was in Grange Road, Dr Neden had lived for many years on the West Cliff with Irene, who passed away in 2009.
Dr Neden had enjoyed a strong Christian faith since his school days and was a regular at Christ Church Ramsgate and a trustee of the Sailors Church by the harbour.
Moving to Thanet sparked an interest in the natural environment and this formed the bedrock of his involvement in the creation of the Pegwell & District Association in April 1987.
This had been prompted by a London developer’s plans to run a railway line through the Pegwell cliffs, along the West Cliff foreshore to Ramsgate harbour.
The battle against the scheme was won, although eventually, after further proposals and public inquiries, a publicly-funded tunnel and road to the harbour were built.
Reflecting many years later on the outcome, Dr Neden had said: “The amazing irony was that the very day the road opened, the ferry company Sally, which was operating out of Ramsgate, went bust.”
He also drew a typically positive outcome from what had happened: “The tunnel, I suppose, was the best of a bad job.”
Both Dr Neden (he only stepped down from the committee last year) and Irene carried on their work for the Pegwell association, while they were active members of the Thanet district group of CPRE Kent.
The Pegwell association flourished to the point that at one time it had some 230 members on board, with a healthy social scene that included parties and a range of outings to places outside the area.
Asked what he considered to be the association’s greatest achievement, Dr Neden had said: “We added to the opposition to unseemly development and have continued to be alert. And we have made friends out of it.”

  • Dr David Arthur John Neden died on Friday, July 20, 2018. He leaves daughter Sarah and sons John and Andrew. There will be a thanksgiving service at 11am on Thursday, August 30, at Christ Church Ramsgate. It is asked that donations in lieu of flowers go to Pilgrims Hospices c/o HR Palmer, Funeral Directors, 30 Hardres Street, Ramsgate CT11 8QF.

 

New planning rule book: ‘a speculative developers’ charter’

CPRE has slammed the government’s revised planning rule book, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as a “speculative developers’ charter”.
In a damning early critique, the organisation says the government has not fulfilled its promise to “build attractive and better-designed homes in areas where they are needed”.
Indeed, the document, published on Tuesday, July 24, continues to “favour the delivery of any development, rather than development that meets communities’ needs, respects the environment, and adheres to policies in the NPPF other than those which deal with housing delivery”.
CPRE’s main worry is the introduction, in November, of a ‘housing delivery test’, which sees councils further encouraged to set high housebuilding targets – the new policy has clearly been designed to enforce those targets.
The test will mean councils are penalised when housebuilders fail to deliver homes in their areas; the ‘punishment’ is the removal of local control over planning decisions.
This, of course, will leave countryside open to speculative development.
Other CPRE concerns include:

  • a failure to provide an effective brownfield-first policy
  • the continuing failure to support provision of affordable housing in rural areas
  • the discouragement of neighbourhood planning because of uncertainty over the validity of Local Plans older than two years

Matt Thomson, CPRE’s head of planning, said: “Rather than delivering ‘what communities want’, as it claims to promise, the new planning rulebook and its new ‘housing delivery test’ will result in almost all Local Plans becoming out of date within two years.
“It is a speculative developers’ charter and will lead to the death of the plan-led system.
“Without a Local Plan, councils and communities have little control over the location and type of developments that take place. Local communities’ needs are ignored and valued countryside [is] destroyed for no good reason.”
Despite its disappointment with the revised NPPF, CPRE applauds some positive moves within it. They include:

  • National Parks and AONBs reinstated as having the “highest status of protection”
  • Maintenance of Green Belt protections and an improved definition of “exceptional circumstances” for releasing land from Green Belts
  • Exclusion of National Parks, AONBs and Green Belts from the Entry Level Exceptions Sites policy
  • “Social housing” reinstated in the definition of affordable housing

Hilary Newport, director of CPRE Kent, said: “Unfortunately, the revised NPPF carries on a situation where too much of the power within our planning system lies with developers.
“The housing delivery test, for example, does nothing to restore the balance that’s needed so local planning authorities can direct the development that’s needed to the places it’s needed.”

  • For more on CPRE’s response to the revised NPPF, see here

    Friday, August 3, 2018

Goodwin Sands dredging: widespread concern over approval of DHB plan

The chairman of CPRE Kent’s Dover committee has expressed his disappointment over the approval of plans to dredge some three million tonnes of aggregate from the Goodwin Sands.
Derek Wanstall said: “We’re fully behind everyone who objected to this scheme. The truth is no one knows the effect any altered drift caused by the dredging will have on our coastline and, of course, on the Sands themselves.”
The dredging application was made in 2016 by Dover Harbour Board, which intends to use the sand for building work at its Western Docks.
The proposal sparked a storm of protest, including a 12,000-name petition handed to 10 Downing Street, while there were three periods of public consultation.
Nevertheless, on Thursday last week (Thursday, July 26), the Marine Management Organisation granted the harbour board its licence to dredge a stretch of the Goodwins seabed, which is owned by the Crown Estate.
The organisation’s chief executive officer, John Tuckett, said the licence was granted because “sufficient measures were proposed to protect the marine environment, prevent interference with legitimate users of the seas and mitigate impacts to any other relevant matters”.
Much of the upset was due to the Sands’ role as the resting place for airmen killed during the Battle of Britain, along with possibly thousands of seamen from shipwrecks.
David Brocklehurst, chairman of the Battle of Britain Museum in Hawkinge, was reported by the BBC as saying that some 60 aircraft had crashed during four months of 1940 at the Sands, with the loss of at least 74 airmen.
“There are thousands of airmen and seamen there, whose remains will be sucked up, and they are unlikely to ever be identified with this method [of dredging]… it’s dishonourable and disgusting,” he is reported as saying.
“It just shows a complete lack of understanding – how would they feel if it was their grandfather, or uncle?”
The Goodwins – which comprise 10 miles of sandbanks some six miles off Deal – also form a valuable wildlife habitat.
The petition Goodwin Sands SOS – Stop the Dredge!, which has more than 15,600 signatures, says:
“The Goodwins are home to a colony of 500 grey and harbour seals. They are also the spawning and nursery grounds of a variety of fish and shellfish, with many shipwrecks providing a semi-natural habitat.
“The colony of seals use areas adjacent to the proposed dredging zone as their ‘haul out’ sites, ie where they rest on land at low tide.
“The noise and vibration from the huge dredgers will disturb them in their natural habitat; there is also the possibility of them being injured by collision with the dredgers and propellers as they are naturally inquisitive creatures.”
The petition also highlights potential problems for the Kent coastline: “Coastal flooding along the east Kent coast is a continual problem and one which would be exacerbated by dredging the Goodwin Sands due to lowering the level and changing the topography (shape) of the seabed.
“The sandbanks absorb the energy from the huge rolling waves coming in from the North Sea which would otherwise be crashing straight onto the Kent coast with destructive results.”
Stephen Eades, co-ordinator of national marine conservation organisation Marinet, said of the decision: “It will likely cause severe damage to the marine life and the aircraft remains. This is a decision which respects neither of these two things.
“The DHB could easily go elsewhere for the sand, but they have allowed commercial interests to rule.”
The MMO decision is all the more disturbing because the dredging area falls within a site proposed by Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) as a Marine Conservation Zone.
The dredging is due to take place from September 2019 to September 2020.
Campaigners have vowed to appeal against the MMO decision; they have already taken legal advice and stated their intention to launch a CrowdFunding campaign.
For more on this and to sign the petition, which is still live, visit https://goodwinsandssos.org/

Wednesday, August 1, 2018