Local Plan: Letters
HBM
Spend money from new homes on town
I think the construction of new properties in Herne Bay is a good thing (Housing Boom, Herne Bay Gazette, May 9). They seem to be building a relief road, extra schools and a new GP surgery to cater for the extra people.
This means local shops and businesses in the area will benefit hugely. This is welcomed by people such as myself who do have some big plans to promote the town in the future by use of event promotion.
What needs to be ensured is that the tax revenue from the families in these homes needs to be spent back on the town and not in other places like Canterbury and Whitstable. Herne Bay needs regenerating, let's hope Canterbury City Council are not just doing this out of pure greed.
Ben Fisher, Mill Lane, Herne
Local Plan as good as could be expected
Of all the functions which local government is required to carry out, planning is inevitably one of the most contentious and challenging (Urban Brawl, Kentish Gazette, May 9).
Whether seeking to identify where different forms of development might go and to dratt the related policies in a Local Plan or deciding if planning permission should be granted for anything from a small porch to the largest housing estate, it is bound to upset someone.
The grander the scale, the more the council is likely to offend if it gives the green light.
People these days are far more environmentally aware and have easier access to information. Society as a whole places increasingly greater values on matters like wildlife and countryside conservation, looking after our built heritage and avoiding problems like flooding and pollution. Anything involving more traffic is bound to be controversial.
It is inevitable, therefore, that if it is to identify land for new housing of the scale envisaged, the Local Plan will give rise to concern.
If this scale of housing is needed, there are sound reasons for placing it on the edge of Canterbury to meet sustainability principles relating to travel to services such as schools and shops.
No doubt the council has wrestled with other options and considered them objectively. It should come as no surprise that land south east of the city has been chosen. It has been eyed for development, albeit of a lesser scale, for many years and potentially gives direct access to the A2.
That said, I regret that the city council is forced to find land for this quantity of new homes.
I am also sorry that this land is now under renewed threat of development, particularly as I grew up in the area and fondly recall the mix of hop gardens complete with hop-pickers and their huts, cherry, apple and pear orchards and lettuce fields, complete with tall hawthorn windbreaks which once occupied the land off Nackington Road.
I anticipate and fully understand the likely concerns and fears of local people at the scale of development and its implications and the loss of valued countryside.
Your front page headline screams "Urban Brawl". No doubt, whoever produced that is congratulating him or herself. I thought when I first saw it that you were back to the subject of the city's night-time economy. But the subject of Canterbury's future is far too serious for such cheapness.
The city council will already have expended considerable money and time on what is a highly complex matter - a glance at its website will give a clear idea of what is involved.
There will be disagreements, arguments and serious discussion, of course, and the opposition expressed from Alex Perkins and Fred Whitemore is to be expected. However, it is fairly put and your report includes reference to nothing which constitutes a "brawl" comparable to what might occur outside a pub.
John Gilbey is absolutely right: the city council has no option other than to find land for the number of homes dictated to it by others. If it does not, it faces the very real prospect of people throughout the district facing uncertainty and ad hoc planning permissions being given at appeal to unscrupulous developers, probably at very great cost financially to local taxpayers.
Tim Fisher, Hatch Lane, Chartham
The main problem with the proposed Canterbury development plan is not what is included, but what is left out.
A further 15,000 new homes will generate a considerable amount of extra trafiic, yet no new roads are planned to cope with this traffic apart from a possible bypasses at Herne and the level crossings at Sturry and Broad Oak, plus a few new junctions on to existing roads.
The ill-thought-out plan to prevent traffic passing through the Westgate Towers caused major congestion problems, showing just how critical the traffic situation is already around Canterbury.
When Ashford was made the main growth town for east Kent, the roads were put in first before the houses were built, resulting in improved traffic flow. The city council should notify the government that it can only plan for the extra 15,000 new homes when it is told where the new roads needed to support such a massive development shall be built.
After all, it is the government's responsibility not only to provide new homes but also the infrastructure needed to support these new homes.
With the government talking about stimulating the economy with more infrastructure projects, this would seem to be the ideal time for the city council to ask for the bypasses around Canterbury that are so long overdue.
Mike Armstrong, Broadview, Primrose Hill, Chartham Hatch
I cannot help but agree with the comment from Lib Dem leader Alex Perkins about the Local Plan: "I am afraid there is so much wrong with this Local Plan draft it is hard to know where to start."
First, we were told that the publication was delayed to allow a traffic report to be included, but the only traffic report is dated December 2012 and simply confirms the obvious, that all the options increase traffic in already-congested areas.
Secondly, a substantial increase in housing is proposed with little improvement to the road infrastructure, certainly no improvement to the known bottlenecks. For a start, any expansion south of Canterbury must be conditional on a south Canterbury to Sturry link road.
Thirdly, we are all being encourage to use public transport. Two nearby villages have a rail link to Canterbury, Selling and Bekesboume. How many houses are proposed in these locations? None.
But the final laugh must be for the proposed high-speed bus service from the Boys' Langton to the city centre. Why bother? It is quicker to walk.
Harry Macdonald, Churchill Road. Canterbury
One would have thought that Canterbury City Council would have learned from its Westgate Towers traffic scheme fiasco, but clearly not.
I would like to remind them that they are not all-powerful and cannot do whatever they please.
They are not empowered to alter major roads, cannot relocate secondary schools, and as for shutting down level crossings - they should learn the meaning of the term "ultra vires".
Ray Sanders, Old Dover Road, Canterbury
HB Gazette 16th May 2013
Herne Bay Matters home page