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

Charing public inquiry takes a break until April

‘The people of Charing have made it clear, both in their emerging Neighbourhood Plan and in their submission to the inquiry, that they do not want this development,’ said CPRE Kent’s Richard Knox-Johnston

It’s time for a breather at the public inquiry into Gladman Developments Ltd’s appeal against Ashford Borough Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for 245 homes at Pluckley Road in Charing.
CPRE Kent has been giving evidence at the inquiry, but today (Wednesday, March 28) was the last session before the break, with tomorrow’s planned site visit postponed.
The visit should now take place in the over-run week of Tuesday to Friday, April 24-27.
Today’s events at Ashford Civic Centre were devoted to a cross-examination and re-examination of Gladman’s witness over the council’s housing figures and whether the local authority can show it has enough housing in the pipeline to satisfy the five-year supply test.
Points raised by CPRE Kent in its evidence included:

  • The appeal site is outside the village envelope and disconnected from the village centre
  • Few people in Charing use the village train station to get to work, questioning the scheme’s sustainability
  • Increased vehicle movements and the attendant risk to both drivers and pedestrians, including children coming home from school
  • The setting of the village on the edge of the Kent Downs AONB
  • The importance of the countryside in promoting health
  • The planned development would add an unsustainable 30% to the village population
  • The site is in a flood zone so could be flooded
  • The risk of contamination to boreholes providing water to local people

In his opening statement, CPRE Kent’s Richard Knox-Johnston said: “The site of this appeal is a large open and rural field to the south of and distant from the Charing village envelope.
“This application by Gladman is speculative and is typical of applications they have made throughout the country, as described very clearly in the BBC One programme Countryfile, where the appellant [Gladman] declined to be interviewed.
“The comment in this programme was that these speculative applications were at the expense of local communities on a no-win no-fee basis.
“Gladman are not developers themselves, they are speculators and, having gained planning permission, will sell it on to a developer at a considerable profit. They make serious profits out of this fault line in the planning system.
“They specialise, as in this case, in submitting development applications on land that is not being considered in the draft Local Plan. Having then gained permission, either through a planning appeal, such as this, or through a High Court case, if the appeal is dismissed, they sell on to a developer or retain the option by land-banking, so increasing the value of the land.
“Selling on to a developer takes time. When a developer buys the permission they then, more often than not, ask for a viability assessment.
“This means renegotiating the original permission and conditions in order to ensure a minimum 20% profit margin.
“This also lengthens the time and causes further delay. Even if this appeal was to be successful, there would be a considerable delay in completing the development.
“It would therefore, in all likelihood, not assist with the five-year housing supply in Ashford.”

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

CPRE Kent responds to PM’s housing speech

Hilary Newport, CPRE Kent director, on Politics Today
(image: BBC)

CPRE Kent has given a guarded response to Prime Minister Theresa May’s speech today (Monday, March 5) in which she highlighted planning reforms and stressed the need to stop housebuilders ‘banking’ land by not building homes for which they had planning permission.
Mrs May told the National Planning Conference in London that the National Planning Policy Framework was to be revamped, via consultation, confirming up to 80 proposals put forward last year. These include:

  • Councils having to adopt a new nationwide standard showing housing need in their areas
  • 10% of homes on major sites being made available for affordable ownership
  • Builders being more open about commitments to affordable housing at the planning stage
  • Infrastructure being considered pre-planning
  •  Councils considering overturning planning permission after two years if building has not started
  •  Ancient woodland and aged trees being protected

Mrs May attacked the attitude of developers who had a financial incentive in hoarding land with planning permission for homes, condemning specifically bosses receiving bonuses “based not on the number of homes they build but on their profits or share price”.
“In a market where lower supply equals higher prices, that creates a perverse incentive, one that does not encourage them to build the homes we need,” she said.
Referring to the issue of land-banking, Mrs May said: “I want to see planning permissions going to people who are actually going to build houses, not just sit on land and watch its value rise. I expect developers to do their duty to Britain and build the homes our country needs.”
Giving the view of CPRE Kent, director Hilary Newport, who appeared today on the BBC’s Politics Today show, said: “Nothing is wrong about building new houses, but the crisis is one of affordability, not availability.
“Simply building more and more houses is not going to bring down affordability. What we need is more homes in the right places and that requires social policy.
“What we are keen to see are proper policies that make houses more affordable.
“I think we need to consider a return to social housing because it is impossible for people to get a foot on the housing ladder in London and the South East.”
Mrs Newport also addressed the issue of protecting the Green Belt.
“It is difficult to see how it can be [protected] when you look at how many houses places like Sevenoaks needs with huge targets,” she said.
Mrs May’s speech comes shortly after the release of a study by CPRE and housing charity Shelter showing how housebuilders are using a legal loophole to avoid building affordable homes in the countryside.
Looking at eight rural councils over the course of a year, the analysis shows that half the affordable homes councils were required to build were lost when viability assessments were used.
Developers use ‘viability assessments’ to argue that building affordable homes could reduce their profits to below some 20%, giving them the right to cut their affordable housing quota.
This results in developers over-paying for land and recouping costs by squeezing their affordable housing commitments.
Both CPRE and Shelter are calling on the government to use its review of planning rules to close the loophole.
Crispin Truman, CPRE chief executive, said: “The lack of affordable housing is often overlooked as an urban-only problem. It cannot be ignored any longer. Too much of our countryside is eaten up for developments that boost profits but don’t meet local housing needs because of the ‘viability’ loopholes.
“CPRE is calling for urgent action from the government to close these loopholes to increase the delivery of affordable housing – otherwise rural communities risk losing the young families and workers which they need to be sustainable.
“We must ensure that we are building housing that people need and can afford across England – including the countryside.”

See CPRE Kent director Hilary Newport on Politics Today here

Monday, March 5, 2018

Gladman drops appeal against Marden housing refusal

Marden has been spared the diggers at Church Farm

CPRE Kent is delighted that a developer has dropped its appeal against refusal of plans for a housing estate near Marden.
Gladman Developments Ltd had applied for planning permission to build 150 homes at Church Farm, Maidstone Road, on the outskirts of the mid-Kent village, but this was refused by Maidstone Borough Council in October 2016.
Giving reasons for its decision, the local authority noted that the proposed development lay “outside any defined settlement boundary and would consolidate sporadic development in the area, causing unacceptable visual harm to the character and appearance of the countryside”.
Further, it “would result in significant harm to the setting” of the Grade II-listed Church Farm House and The Old Vicarage while being “detrimental to existing social infrastructure”.
Gladman close to appeal this decision, but in October last year (yes, this had gone under the radar) withdrew its appeal, citing “a change of circumstances at Maidstone Borough Council”.
We believe this to be the fact that the site had not been allocated for development in the council’s Local Plan.
Either way, CPRE Kent, which had made written representation against both the original application and the appeal, is happy to see the back of this wholly inappropriate scheme.

Thursday, February 8, 2018

Inspector dismisses developer’s appeal against refusal of housing scheme

The government inspector dismissed the appeal by Quinn Estates

Just when some benighted residents had perhaps begun to feel that the onslaught of housing development on the county could not be held back, news comes of a victory in the village of Ash, near Sandwich.
A scheme by Quinn Estates for 104 homes, business units and a Scouts hut north of Sandwich Road had been turned down by Dover District Council at the start of last year, but the developer chose to appeal that decision.
At a hearing last month, however, the planning inspector dismissed Quinn’s appeal, citing the loss of high-quality agricultural land and the damage the proposed development would cause to the rural setting.
Further, the inspector noted that DDC was able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land.
CPRE Dover was represented at the inquiry, objecting to the planned development – on a site not allocated for housing in the council’s Local Plan – noting not only the loss of farmland but also the highways problems it would bring the village.
CPRE Dover chairman Derek Wanstall said: “We supported the council on the grounds it had given for rejection and also stressed the highways issues the scheme would bring.
“With the impact of other developments as well, we would effectively be reverting to the time before the Ash bypass was built – the place would grind to a halt with the amount of added traffic.”

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Now we wait for Brabourne Lees decision

Brabourne Lees is surrounded by glorious countryside

CPRE Kent is in what has become over recent months a familiar position of waiting… in this case for the outcome of the public inquiry into a proposed housing development at Brabourne Lees.
The two-week inquiry into Gladman Developments Ltd’s appeal against Ashford Borough Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for 125 homes in the village at the foot of the downs ended on Friday last week (January 19).
The local authority was defending its decision and the CPRE team gave the bulk of their evidence to the hearing, at the Civic Centre in Ashford, during the first week of proceedings.
We have been told to expect the inspector’s decision on or before Monday, April 16.
In the meantime, CPRE Kent is preparing to give evidence into next month’s public inquiry into Gladman’s plans for 245 homes at Pluckley Road, Charing.
It is scheduled to start on Tuesday, March 13, and expected to last six days.

Friday, January 26, 2018

So what now for Manston? And for Thanet?

Manston… its future hangs in the balance

In a collision of some of Kent’s more enduring stories, the thorny subject of Thanet District Council’s Local Plan is being voted upon tonight (Thursday, January 18), with housing numbers and Manston airport certain to be among the main factors debated.
The Plan of course covers a range of issues, mapping out the isle’s planned development until 2031, but the subject that has attracted the greatest coverage and sparked the greatest division of opinion is the future of the Manston airport site.
Manston’s days as an airport could be numbered, following the revelation of plans by site owner Stone Hill Park Ltd to build 2,500 homes (a figure that could rise to 4,000), business units and sporting facilities there.
Those proposals appeared to have been backed in October last year when the local authority’s cabinet approved the draft Local Plan, which includes an allocation of 2,500 properties at Manston, but tonight it is to be voted upon by the full council in circumstances so contentious that some are predicting a change in regime at the local authority.
That could occur should council members refuse to adopt the Local Plan, a situation intensified by that fact that Thanet is one of 15 councils to have been put “on notice” by Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, for its lack of progress in putting forward its Plan for examination.
If the Plan is refused tonight, its adoption is likely to be set back by anything up to 18 months, prompting Mr Javid’s department to step in and effectively impose its own plan on Thanet, most notably, it is feared, an increased housebuilding target – up from 857 a year (a total of 17,150) to 1,063 (more than 21,000), assuming proposed new government methodology is accepted.
In contrast to the Stone Hill proposals for Manston, meanwhile, would-be airport operator RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) has stated that it has the plans and the funding in place for the site to be revived as a freight hub.
It says this would be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and the Secretary of State can grant seizure of the site through a Development Consent Order (DCO).
It had intended to apply to the Planning Inspectorate for the DCO by the end of 2017, with a subsequent decision from the Secretary of State expected by the end of this year.
RSP says the granting of the DCO would allow it to have a refurbished airport back in business by 2020, but such hopes nosedived when a TDC-commissioned report concluded that Manston was not viable as an operational airport.
However, a recent leaked email from the council’s chief executive revealed a proposal for a two-year deferment on accepting the scheme for housing and business at Manston. This would give RSP time to pursue the DCO.
So… a rejuvenated airport or Manston new town? What is the opinion of CPRE on the isle?
Geoff Orton, Thanet district secretary, said: “We have agreed not to take a view on the airport as feelings are so mixed.
“Those in favour of an airport, though, see the airport as an employment opportunity. What would be the point of building 21,000 homes without it? If there’s no airport, what economic future does Thanet have?”
As for what appear to be eye-wateringly high housebuilding targets, Mr Orton echoed the views of many in highlighting their constant increase alongside a local economy that has almost been a byword for unemployment.
“The official figure of 17,000 was already a hike on the previous 12,000 – now we could be looking at a figure north of 20,000. And all this without the airport?
“Further, we’ve lost the deaf school in Margate, along with two care homes – and more rumoured to be going. And with retail becoming more automated, what are Thanet’s young people going to do for work?”
In what is looking increasingly like a perfect storm, the loss of Thanet’s remaining open space is another likely depressing outcome of the forthcoming political machinations, but Mr Orton believes that could be offset to a large degree through brownfield development.
“Thanet is the worst district south of Bolsover for empty properties, while we have a real problem with our high streets. There’s also the deaf school site, while the Canterbury Christ Church University campus is due to be closed. All can be used for housing.”
And a final word from Mr Orton?
“The longer Manston is held in reserve as a relief lorry park, as suggested by the Transport Minister is a possibility – and we know all about the Stack dilemma – the more opportunity for a sensible Local Plan assisted by neighbourhood planners to develop, and the more strategic value our threatened Class I farmland assumes.”
Indeed. Tonight’s meeting at the Thanet District Council offices in Margate should be interesting…

For more on the Manston airport saga, see here

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

Thursday, January 18, 2018

CPRE Kent team stands up for Brabourne Lees at public inquiry

Brabourne Lees sits at the foot of the Kent Downs AONB

These are lively days indeed for CPRE Kent.
No sooner has the dust settled from our appearance in the High Court, where we gave evidence in the successful battle for Pond Farm, Newington, and our Supreme Court victory in saving Farthingloe Valley from destruction by developers than we have a team involved in a public inquiry.
This time we are giving evidence to a planning inspector hearing the appeal by Gladman Developments Ltd against Ashford Borough Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for 125 homes at Brabourne Lees, a village at the foot of the Kent Downs AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).
The local authority is defending its decision and the hearing, at the Civic Centre in Ashford, is expected to conclude by the end of this week (Friday, January 19).
And – after that – we’re giving evidence in another public inquiry, this time into a proposed development at Charing. It’s scheduled to start on Tuesday, March 13, and expected to last six days.
All the best to our team… fighting, as ever, for Kent’s countryside and quality of life.

Monday, January 15, 2018

Plans are back for a bigger Kent Science Park… oh, and 11,000 houses

An image of rural life in north Kent… but for how much longer will this chime true?

It wasn’t so very long ago that we were wishing you all a happy Christmas and New Year. Those sentiments still stand, of course, but all too predictably a large dark cloud has loomed over the horizon to dim any remaining festive thoughts.
We refer to the re-emergence of plans to extend Kent Science Park on the edge of Sittingbourne… and how they have re-emerged!
This long-running venture has had a range of incarnations, but the scale of the latest proposal is staggering, entailing the building of a new town to the east and south of Sittingbourne, together with commercial development and a relief road.
To quote one local woman, Monique Bonney, an Independent councillor on Swale Borough Council, the whole thing is “monstrous” and “a disaster for the local rural villages and town”. To be precise, the proposals particularly affect south Sittingbourne, Rodmersham, Tunstall, Bredgar, Milstead and Bapchild.
No planning application has yet been made, but the developers have applied to Swale council for an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Screening Opinion – the first stage in asking the local authority to judge if an EIA will be needed.
The application, which can be found here, reads: “The EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Screening Opinion is for a mixed-use development including up to 11,250 residential dwellings, commercial space (circa 120,000 sqm/1.2 million sqft), new infrastructure to create new junctions onto the M2 and A2 joined by a new relief road, new retail and health facilities, leisure facilities, educational facilities and community facilities at land to the south and east of Sittingbourne.”
That’s right… more than 11,000 houses are being targeted for this attractive rural area.
Cllr Bonney said: “Historically, the previous grandiose Kent Science Park proposals have been thrown out by government planning inspectors during the last three Local Plan cycles over the last 12 years or more, allowing only a small extension on one side of the site that has not materialised.
“Locals should not be railroaded by this new plan, especially given all previous concerns over the environmental constraints (high-grade agricultural land, countryside gaps and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), ancient woodlands and local road infrastructure, with its devastating consequences on the rural lane network.”
Talking about how best to tackle the scheme, Cllr Bonney said: “We need as much help as possible from all the locals around Rodmersham, Bapchild, Tunstall, Bredgar and Milstead.
“The Five Parishes Opposition Group (FPOG) – made up of a representative from each of Rodmersham, Bapchild, Milstead, Tunstall and Bredgar parish councils – will actively lobby against this proposal, but we need your help, too.
“Follow FPOG here and our Facebook page here.” 
And finally, an appeal: “FPOG would welcome any offers of help and resources with regard to planning, environmental consultants, transport consultants, funding and donations.
“Please contact me at montybon1@aol.com or FPOG through its website.”
Here we go again…

Friday, January 5, 2018

Inspector dismisses developer’s appeal against refusal of planning permission

The government inspector dismissed the appeal by Quinn Estates

A planning inspector has dismissed an appeal by a developer that had tried to overturn refusal of its scheme for up to 77 homes, business space and a shop in a Kent village.
Swale Borough Council had turned down the plans by Quinn Estates, but the developer appealed against the decision, citing a range of factors.
Dealing with the appeal, the government inspector addressed three principal issues:
a) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with specific reference to its effect on the landscape.
b) Whether or not the site was a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the council’s settlement strategy.
c) Whether or not the council could demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and the implications for planning policy.
Giving extensive reasoning as to his verdict, the inspector dismissed the appeal by Quinn Estates against the council’s original decision.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

We still have to fight for Gravesham’s Green Belt, says district chairman

The proposed Lower Thames Crossing will add further strain to Gravesham’s environment

Many doubtless gave a hefty sigh of relief on Wednesday when Chancellor Philip Hammond gave an assurance that the country’s Green Belts were safe from development.
However, all is not necessarily as rosy in the garden as it might seem. Alex Hills, CPRE Kent’s committee chairman for Gravesham, is preparing to fight proposals for 2,000 homes in the area of the Metropolitan Green Belt that falls within the district.
CPRE will be joining its talents with other members of the Gravesham Rural Residents Group, a group formed in 2011 to defend the Green Belt.
“The group is ready to fight again as people in Gravesham care about the Green Belt,” said Alex.
“In this area healthcare is at breaking point, air pollution is at dangerous levels – every one of our services is at breaking point, water supply and flooding risk in Kent are now pressing questions and our roads face gridlock – the Thames crossing alone will cause a doubling of the traffic on the A227, which run north to south right through Gravesham.
“Is it not time we questioned the growth targets?
“Governments of different colours for many years have shown that they have no understanding of what sustainability means – people need to stand up and say enough is enough.
“We need to spell out to the government what living in this area is really like as it is clear they do not know – if they did, housing targets would have been drastically reduced.
“We need our councillors to turn round to the government and say we can not build more houses as there is not the infrastructure for them.
“We need all the South East MPs to do their job and say enough is enough.
“Standing up to excessive development is not about being a nimby – it is about protecting essential services for everyone.
“It is also about fixing the broken planning system that allows developers to build what they like where they like when they should be building the properties people need, where they are needed.”

Friday, November 24, 2017

Move quickly if you want to respond to housing consultation

Housing yes, but the right type, the right places… and the right numbers (photo by Hastoe)

Time is almost up if you want to respond to the government’s consultation on future housing provision.

The Department for Communities and Local Government document Planning For The Right Homes In The Right Places has sparked alarm across much of the South East.

Its proposed new methodology on determining housebuilding levels could leave some counties facing colossal hikes in the number of homes they are required by central government to build.

However, the burden is not being shared equally and, extraordinarily, some counties, even in the pressurised South East, could be asked to build fewer houses than previously scheduled.

Conversely, Kent is being targeted for a disproportionately large increase in the number of homes its must build.

If you think that is unfair – or indeed have any views on what the government could be about to unleash on us – you have until 11.45pm tomorrow (Thursday, November 9) to add them to the consultation.

CPRE has already responded and is encouraging others to do the same, even at this late stage.

You can do so here

For more on the consultation, see here

To read how Kent could be targeted disproportionately heavily, see here

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Manston: the story moves forward

The end of the line for airport operations at Manston?

What is to be done with the Manston airport site? One of the most contentious issues in the county could have moved at least some way towards resolution with Thanet District Council’s Cabinet approval of its draft Local Plan for publication.
It of course covers a range of issues as the local authority sets out the isle’s planned development until 2031, but the subject that has attracted the greatest coverage and sparked the greatest division of opinion is the future of Manston.
Now, plans by site owner Stone Hill Park Ltd for 2,500 homes (a figure that could ultimately increase to 4,000), business units and sporting facilities would appear to have been backed with last Wednesday’s (October 25) approval of the Plan, which includes an allocation of 2,500 properties at the site.
A succession of operators struggled to make the airport work as a commercial venture and in May 2014 then-owner Ann Gloag, the joint founder of the Stagecoach bus company, closed it before selling a majority stake of the 750-acre site to “regeneration specialists” Chris Musgrave and Trevor Cartner, who rebranded it Stone Hill Park.
Alongside this, however, would-be airport operator RiverOak Strategic Partners (RSP) stated it had the plans and the funding in place for the site to be revived as a freight hub.
It says this would be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and the Secretary of State can grant seizure of the site through a Development Consent Order (DCO).
It is intending to apply to the Planning Inspectorate for the DCO by the end of this year, with a subsequent decision from the Secretary of State expected by the end of 2018.
RSP says the granting of the DCO would allow it to have a a refurbished airport back in business by 2020.
Such hopes, however, took a nosedive when a TDC-commissioned report concluded that Manston was not viable as an operational airport.
It was subsequently little surprise when council policy incorporated Manston as a site suitable for redevelopment as something other than an airport.
CPRE Kent has been following the saga closely, producing a substantial response to
RSP’s Manston Consultation earlier this year. It can be viewed here.
Commenting on the latest news, Hilary Newport, CPRE Kent director, said: “We believe in sustainable use of brownfield land, but it’s got to the right development in the right place.
“We trust that if the Stone Hill Park scheme does go ahead, it will negate the need to build on valuable agricultural land elsewhere in Thanet.”

Monday, October 31, 2017

CPRE Kent welcomes Medway Council attack on proposed housing hike

CPRE Kent today applauds Medway Council’s Cabinet for its withering rejection of proposed government policy that would see it face an “unrealistic and totally unacceptable increase in the levels of housing” to be built in the district.
Further, we support the council’s call for Kent and Medway MPs, as well as other local authorities in the county, to join it in expressing to central government the concerns that an increasing number of people and organisations have about the burden of housing development Kent would be expected to take.
It is telling that a Conservative-led council should offer such trenchant criticisms of the DCLG’s own policies.
After yesterday’s Cabinet meeting (Wednesday, October 25), the council released a fierce statement blasting the DCLG’s demands:
“At yesterday’s meeting of Medway Council’s Conservative Cabinet, members strongly rejected proposals from the Department for Communities and Local Government which would see an unrealistic and totally unacceptable increase in the levels of housing required within Medway,” it said.
“Independent consultants have previously determined Medway’s Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing as 1,281 dwellings/year.
“This figure has been used as a core component of Medway Council’s Local Plan to assess the housing needed over the period covered by the plan (2012-2035).
“This work has already produced the ambitious figure of 29,463 homes required by 2035, [for] which the council has been tirelessly working to identify the land and infrastructure necessary to facilitate delivery.
“However, the flawed proposed government methodology would see a 29% uplift in the level of housing to be allocated to Medway, calling instead for 38,295 houses in the same period.
“The government may state that its approach represents a 5% increase across England, but there is significant variation in this figure.
“Within the South East, the average rise is an appalling 35%, yet the Conservative Group is disgusted to find that there are other local authorities who have in fact seen a fall in their level of housing need.
“Such authorities are largely in the north of England, reflecting the disjointed and disproportionate nature of this policy compared to the efforts the government has already been making to rebalance the economy and deliver the infrastructure in the north that would be able to support these homes.”
Responding to the statement, CPRE Kent vice chairman Richard Knox-Johnston said: “We welcome Medway Council’s statement as a first realistic reaction to the increased housing demand it has been allocated and the problems it will cause.
“CPRE has been saying for some time that the infrastructure is simply not sufficient to deal with the proposed new figures, while the DCLG approach does not address the real needs of young people and young families.”
Stressing further the views of his council, leader Alan Jarrett said: “Medway, like most of the South East, is an area already straining at the seams to accommodate the originally proposed level of growth, and therefore any increase to this figure will absolutely not be tolerated by Medway Conservatives.
“Whilst the Cabinet recognises the need for housing, and is already leading by example through the establishment of its own housing company, the sustainability of the government’s plan must be seriously questioned.
“Medway simply does not have the physical or social infrastructure to cope with any increased housing target. It is extremely unrealistic of DCLG to propose a change of target in the face of developers’ reluctance to build homes and a current lack of skilled workers to deliver these homes.
“Myself and my Conservative colleagues implore the three Medway MPs, and other Kent authorities and MPs, to follow suit in conveying to DCLG the severity of the concerns we have here in Kent and Medway.
“If the government were to ignore comments from this council, not only would this jeopardise the reams of work that have already gone into the production of Medway Council’s Local Plan but we face a scenario in which existing housing delivery targets will not be able to be met.
“On behalf of Medway residents, the Conservative Group will not stand idly by whilst our green spaces and our housing market are decimated.”

Thursday, October 26, 2017

We’re back in court again, this time battling for a site in north Kent

What future for Pond Farm at Newington?

After the high-profile Farthingloe Valley appeal hearing at the Supreme Court yesterday, CPRE Kent has been back in court again today (Wednesday, October 18).

This time we are in the High Court supporting the decision to reject a scheme for up to 330 homes and 260 residential and care “units” near Sittingbourne on the grounds of harm to the landscape and increased air pollution.

Gladman Developments Ltd is challenging the dismissal in January this year of two linked appeals it made against the refusal of planning permission for its scheme at Pond Farm, Newington.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s inspector had dismissed the appeals because of “the substantial harm http://onhealthy.net that the appeal proposals would cause to the character of a valued landscape and their likely significant adverse effect on human health”.

Gladman is now contesting that dismissal on the grounds of the inspector’s treatment of future air quality and mitigation; the decision in relation to the Newington air quality action plan; and the decision’s claimed conflict with the emerging development plan for the village.

Defending January’s decision to dismiss Gladman’s appeals are the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Swale Borough Council.

CPRE Kent, which was an important participant in the planning inquiry in November last year, is present in the High Court as an Interested Party.

The hearing is due to finish tomorrow (Thursday).

Wednesday, October 18, 2017