Paying for Sturry

click

Here’s what our new housing estates look like [Draft Local Plan 1.57]:

Hillborough Site - 1000 dwellings; Employment floor space 33,000sqm (Altira Park, extended); local shopping only; doctor’s surgery; community facilities. New link to Thanet Way via Altira Park and limited access to Sweechbridge Road; provision of new west-facing on-slip to Thanet Way at the Heart-in-Hand junction; measures to discourage additional traffic using Heart-in-Hand road; contribution towards the provision of Herne relief route and new Sturry crossing. This is alongside the area that the Sainsbury proposal is for (95,000 sq ft plus petrol station). The map shows a primary school on site but the words don’t mention it

Herne Bay Golf Club - 400 dwellings; Employment floor space 1ha of mixed commercial uses; local shopping only (i.e. no supermarket); 8ha of sports and leisure facilities, including cricket, football, hockey, tennis and open space; 1.25ha set-aside for Herne Bay High School but no mention of what it will be for; doctor’s surgery; care home. Contribution (to be agreed) towards the provision of Herne relief route and new Sturry crossing; new footpath/cycle path in conjunction with Strode farm

Strode Farm - 800 dwellings; the words say Employment floor space 15,000sqm; local shopping provision only; community facilities, including new parish hall and local needs housing. Picture suggests commercial/leisure, so conceivably there will be no employment floor space. Provision of new relief route for Herne and contribution (to be agreed) towards the provision of new Sturry crossing; new footpath/cycle path to be provided in conjunction with Hillborough site

Greenhill - 600 dwellings ; community facilities to be determined; recreation and leisure facilities, new allotment provision; contribution towards the provision of new relief route for Herne and new Sturry crossing.

2.23    There’ll be another 190 houses at Bullockstone Road – there’s no other information at all on this. This is particularly worrying given that Bullockstone Road is intended also to be the Herne relief road.

2.40    30% of the new housing on any development of more than seven houses will be affordable housing.

The Herne Bay and Hersden housing estates will pay for the Sturry crossing entirely. Canterbury won’t contribute at all. This is money that will have been earned by Herne Bay for improvements in Herne Bay, but it’s being siphoned off for Sturry.

Retail Strategy

click

"The retail offer of Herne Bay, also dominated by independents, should benefit from regeneration efforts identified in the Herne Bay Area Action Plan, which seeks to improve the retail offer and increase the amount of consumer spending retained in the town." [Draft Local Plan 4.9]

The Herne Bay Area Action Plan (HBAAP) was written over a period of a couple of years, ending in 2009. In 2009 the Council appointed developers to develop the Central Development Area (the area that centres on William Street and Morrisons). The Council and the developers have failed to interest any major retail player in their plans in the years since then. We are nearly four years on and the Central Development Area plan is dead in the water. Despite this, the Council is still clinging to this plan as its only idea to regenerate Herne Bay. This means that our retail centre will continue to struggle whilst Canterbury's is expanded and improved. Our fear is that this will mean that Herne Bay will become a dormitory town, surrounded by housing estates, with no town centre to speak of, and all the consumer spending will be bled out into Canterbury.

"… Where the growth of non-retail uses reduces the availability of choice for customers and creates 'dead frontages', there is a loss of vitality of the centre and attractiveness to customers. This is particularly marked in Herne Bay town centre, where strict application of the Primary Shopping Frontage policy will assist with consolidating the main shopping streets, and ensure there is an accessible central core of shopping for Comparison and choice and which supports the planned regeneration activities. The Herne Bay Area Action Plan includes specific development proposals for the town centre, including significant retail provision." [Draft Local Plan 4.17]

This means that, whatever happens to our town's shops, in some areas owners will not be able to convert a shop into a restaurant or bar. This seems unnecessarily restrictive when the Council is doing nothing to enhance the town's retail offer.

Local shops such as:

Herne Bay Road/ St Johns Road, Swalecliffe;
Sea Street, Herne Bay;
Canterbury Road, Herne Bay;
Reculver Road, Beltinge;

will be protected from "damaging development elsewhere". [Draft Local Plan 4.25]

We think that this has huge implications. The Central Development Area dream has already failed. The Council will oppose the Sainsbury at Altira. We are not going to be allowed to have more "comparison shopping". At the same time, the town's population will increase by thousands. We cannot picture the town's much bigger population all driving into town to shop at Morrison's or the Co-op. the Local Plan will drive even more Herne Bay people to spend their money outside the town.  

"… Herne Bay has an under-performing town centre, due to the limited range of comparison goods retailing and the strength of Canterbury. Once completed, significant comparison retail in the Central Development Area, as well as other allocations in the Herne Bay Area Action Plan, will use and indeed exceed, any available capacity for additional floor space for the foreseeable future." [Draft Local Plan 4.32]

This paragraph claims that, once the Central Development Area has been redeveloped, that will soak up the entire town's demand for stuff like clothes, household goods and bigger purchases. There are two problems with this.

• One, there's no prospect of any large retailer wanting to take space in the Central Development Area.
• Two, the town's population is going to expand by an additional 37 to 47%.

Even if the Central Development Area did happen, we don't see how it can handle Herne Bay's shopping needs. The Council's insistence on flogging this dead horse means that we won't get any new retail space in the town centre at all. This will do nothing to regenerate our town and support our independent tradespeople.

"…For Herne Bay, the retail study identified very modest levels of capacity. Implementation of the foodstore envisaged in the Adopted Masterplan for the Central Development Area would use this remaining capacity, as well as those increases in capacity that result from increasing Herne Bay Town Centre's market share for convenience good expenditure. […] Any out-of-town capacity would be removed by the provision of food retail floor space in the Central Development Area, since Herne Bay would become more self-sufficient in convenience goods terms. Regeneration activities identified in the Area Action Plan are key to ensure additional retail capacity is generated. The Council will resist any out of town development that would threaten implementation of the Area Action Plan and regeneration of the Herne Bay Town Centre." [Draft Local Plan 4.34]

In this paragraph, the word "capacity" means "demand". The Council says that all Herne Bay's future food shopping needs for the new, massively expanded, population will be met by the supermarket planned in the Central Development Area. The trouble is, none of the major supermarket chains wants to open a store in that area. This means that we will not get a local supermarket to meet our food shopping needs.

"…Herne Bay will undergo significant changes over the life of the Local Plan. Regeneration schemes as set out in the Area Action Plan are attracting significant new investment through the implementation of Development Principles Supplementary Planning Documents for:

Central Development Area (Policy HB1);
Beach Street (Policy HB2);
Bus Depot (Policy HB3)."
[Draft Local Plan 4.50]

We know that nothing has happened on the Central Development Area for nearly four years. There is not so much as a whisper of possible investment for the Bus Depot site. Bill Murray has plans – mainly housing – for Beach Street. We think that the Council is being overoptimistic when it says that these areas "are attracting significant new investment." If they really were, the Council would have wanted to tell us all about it.  

"As well as enhancing the retail and cultural offer, status and trading performance of Herne Bay, these will help to retain a higher proportion of residents' expenditure within the town, much of which has been lost to nearby centres of Westwood Cross and Canterbury. There is no significant capacity beyond the floor space on these identified sites and it is imperative that regeneration of the town is not threatened by development of out-of-town floor space." [Draft Local Plan 4.51]

The Council tells us regularly that 70p in every pound leaks out of Herne Bay to be spent elsewhere. Then in the paragraph above it says that all our demand for shops and shopping can be met by the sites already identified in the existing, dormant or failed, plans. We simply do not see how both these statements can be true.  

"Herne Bay is a traditional seaside resort in a desirable position with reasonable transport links, improving beaches and a nostalgia factor that draws people to the town in the summer season. However, during the rest of the year there is insufficient tourist income to maintain a basic level of tourist infrastructure. Planned investment in the sea front will improve the town's tourism prospects. In addition to this, a major events programme has provided new reasons to visit in recent years and there are modest signs of a recovery in business." [Draft Local Plan 6.45]

The Council recognises the problem that the town has little tourist trade in the winter but seems to think that we can overcome this by having a few new benches and some events. We don't think that this provides us with a stable tourist income for October to May. The Local Plan needs to recognise that Herne Bay needs a proper strategy for tourism

Water & Sewage

click

"Known areas at risk of flooding include Blean, Chestfield, the Gorrel Stream, Swalecliffe Brook, Westbrook, Plenty Brook, Stour, Little Stour and Nailbourne river." [Draft Local Plan 7.32]

The Council accepts that we have some known flood areas.

"The infrastructure along the coastal lowlands with respect to foul and surface water drainage is nearing saturation despite improvement works." [Draft Local Plan 7.33]

We have a known sewage management problem and yet the Council is proposing lots of new housing. The Plan says that this problem will need to be dealt with (new treatment works etc.) but it does not say how, nor does it say how it will be paid for.

"On sites that have not been previously developed within the Environment Agency's Zones 2 & 3, no development will be permitted unless an exceptional justification can be demonstrated." [Draft Local Plan 7.41]

We think that both the Greenhill site and the Golf Course site might include areas which are at significant risk of flooding as defined by the Environment Agency. It is very difficult to be sure of this as the Plan only includes cartoon maps rather than proper plans that are to scale, but it does look as if residential housing is being planned for some flood risk areas. In addition, if this is a natural floodplain that is going to be built on, there will be an increased risk of flooding further down the line in central HB if all this housing is built.

The district is already water-stressed in terms of public water supply. There is no proposal to deal with the added demand on water that another 14,000 to 18,000 people will make. [Draft Local Plan 7.59]

Public Transport

click

The Council still has not produced a Transport Strategy for the district. This is particularly worrying given the scale of new building that the Council is proposing. [Draft Local Plan 1.36]

Both the City Council and County Council will work together through the planning process to facilitate the use of sustainable transport by:

• looking to locate development near existing transport hubs
• requiring facilities for walking, cycling and public transport and
• ensuring mixed-use developments where housing and employment are located in close proximity to encourage shorter commuting journeys.
• [Draft Local Plan 1.38]

The major development sites proposed for Herne Bay will be dependent on car transport – they are nowhere near "existing transport hubs". The Council has also said nothing about the number of jobs that will be created on Herne Bay's new housing estates and has produced no the evidence that they will be delivered.

Congestion & Traffic

click

"In contrast to Whitstable, Herne Bay does not suffer from high levels of congestion. Here the challenge is to revitalise the town centre and reduce the need for residents to leave the town for services, leisure or retail opportunities by making the centre a pleasant and attractive environment for shoppers and visitors." [Draft Local Plan 5.8]

This fails to take into account the Council's plan to add thousands of homes around Herne Bay. If we did all came to shop in the town centre instead of going to Canterbury and elsewhere, congestion would be massive and there would be a gross under-provision of parking.

Herne relief road will be through Strode Farm and an improved Bullockstone Road. [Draft Local Plan 5.52]

We do not believe that Bullockstone Road can cope with this as well as the addition of 190 new homes.

"New development sites allocated in Herne Bay, Sturry, Broad Oak and Hersden will be required to fund a Sturry by-pass that avoids the level crossing by providing a new road bridge including a bus lane over the railway line. New development sites allocated in Herne Bay, Sturry, Broad Oak and Hersden will be required to fund a Sturry by-pass that avoids the level crossing by providing a new road bridge including a bus lane over the railway line." [Draft Local Plan 5.53]

So, we need housing here in Herne Bay to fund the Sturry crossing. There is no mention of the need to deal with our existing transport problems. There are no plans for improved rail for Herne Bay; no plans for a better bus service; and no mention of a change in parking policy to encourage people to shop in Herne Bay.

Open Spaces

click

To implement the Council's vision for the area, there will need to be a significant increase above the historic level of development in the area, both housing and employment space. There will also need to be a significant additional provision of open space of various types, proportionate to the level of other new development. [Draft Local Plan 1.51]

The housing estates proposed for Herne Bay eat up open space, they do not produce it.

There is not enough amenity green space provision now in Reculver, Heron and West Bay wards. A much bigger Herne Bay population will make this worse. The Council recognises that we don't have enough playing fields or allotments now. [Draft Local Plan 11.30]

"Everyone should have access to a space where children can play within 300 metres of their home (this includes amenity open space)." [Draft Local Plan 11.32]

This is not being achieved everywhere in Herne Bay now.

"Historically, some development has occurred outside the urban areas, that has led to the gradual erosion of the open countryside and coalescence between built up areas. The City Council is concerned that this gradual coalescence between existing built up areas not only harms the character of the open countryside, but is having an adverse impact on the setting and special character of villages." [Draft Local Plan 11.53]

The four biggest housing development sites of the five being proposed join Herne Bay to Herne village. In the east, Herne Bay will go south from the sea, through Hillborough, Broomfield and Hunters Forstal to Herne. In the west the town will stretch south from Hampton, through Greenhill to Herne.

Greenfield Sites

click

"However, public support for development is conditional. Local people expressed concerns about the loss of greenfield land, traffic congestion and the impact on public services; and there was also an expressed desire that higher levels of development should deliver tangible benefits to local people in terms of affordable housing and economic benefits, and providing the opportunity for young people and families to remain in their local area. It is important that the Local Plan, and other public policy interventions, seek to address these issues as far as possible." [Draft Local Plan 1.20]

Canterbury Council knows that people do not want to build on greenfield sites. However, all the major new sites proposed for Herne Bay are greenfield land.

Schools

click

"…new housing accommodation should be provided alongside other social and physical infrastructure, to ensure that existing infrastructure capacity is not exceeded and made worse by new development. Integral to encouraging balanced and sustainable communities are measures to provide access to public transport, education, health and other public services, measures to prevent crime, leisure and recreation and a strong environment that will aid sense of place and community." [Draft Local Plan 2.43]

It is well-known locally that we do not have enough secondary school places in Herne Bay. The Plan is for many more people to live here, but there is no new secondary school proposed for us. This can only make the current shortfall of local school places worse. We're also worried that this big population increase cannot be served by just two new doctor's surgeries.

"…The City Council has cooperated with Kent County Council in respect of the impact of proposed new development in the Plan on the need for new or improved school provision in the district, and some of that provision is made as part of the strategic allocations in the Plan." [Draft Local Plan 3.63]

Note that word "some". The Council knows that the rash of new housing estates that it is proposing for this town will exacerbate our current shortfall in school places in the town.

"The Council also believes that there is a strong case to be made for grammar school provision at the coast." [Draft Local Plan 3.66]

However, the Plan does not make that case and there is no land set aside anywhere to build a new secondary school. Nor is there any commitment from Kent Council to fund a new secondary school. This statement is pure pie in the sky.

Shopping

click

50,000 m² new "comparison shopping" retail space is set aside for Canterbury and 3,250 m² for Whitstable. "Comparison shopping" includes clothing; household goods; and other purchases where people will wander about and look at alternatives before buying. It does not include food shopping (convenience shopping). There is to be no new "comparison shopping" for Herne Bay even though our population is set to soar. This suggests we are all expected to spend our money in Canterbury. [Draft Local Plan 1.53]

It is proposed that there will be 15,000 m² of new employment land at Strode Farm and 33,000 m² at Altira. Other Herne Bay employment sites "identified and protected" are at Eddington (8.2ha), Altira (1.6ha) and Metric Site (0.2ha). The Council will not allow retail businesses on these sites, which suggests an end to the Sainsbury's proposal for Altira.  [Draft Local Plan 3.36]

The Council wants to protect Canterbury's pre-eminence as a retail centre. [Draft Local Plan 4.6]

"…the district centres (Herne Bay and Whitstable) have a complementary role as part of the established retail hierarchy, serving the local population. They ensure a sustainable focus and pattern for development and their position within the retail hierarchy will continue to ensure they have opportunities to enhance and strengthen their role. The distinctive characteristics of each centre will be promoted, and there is clearly scope within both centres for making improvements to the public realm and shopping environment." [Draft Local Plan 4.7]

What this means is that the retail centre is Canterbury. The plan remains for Herne Bay people to shop in Canterbury and boost the City's coffers. Our local shopping offer is to be lower key, local shopping only. 

We want housing AND jobs

click

"…Recent research conducted by IPSOS MORI (2012) found that local residents overwhelmingly wanted the council to help create new employment opportunities and support business development." [Draft Local Plan 3.18]

"…The survey [MORI 20120] also reinforced the importance of local economic growth for local people. When asked about economic issues, the majority (69%) considered there to be insufficient employment opportunities in the area while a higher level (85%) said more should be done to help businesses set up in the area. The research also found many local people (68%) would support the building of new homes if it helped to create jobs by attracting people and businesses to the area." [Draft Local Plan 3.28]

What residents said to the Council is that we want jobs and that we'll support housing if it creates jobs. What we're getting in the Plan is just housing and no strategy for creating jobs. 

No economic strategy for jobs

click

In drawing up local plans, local planning authorities should: 

• set out a clear economic vision and strategy for their area which positively and proactively encourage sustainable economic growth; 
• set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period; 
• support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting and, where possible, identify and plan for new or emerging sectors likely to locate in their area. Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances; 
• plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries; 
• identify priority areas for economic regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement; and facilitate flexible working practices such as the integration of residential and commercial uses within the same unit.
• [Draft Local Plan 3.5]

We can find no economic plan in the Local Plan that sets out how the Council will attract enough employers to Herne Bay to soak up thousands more job-seekers. We already have above average unemployment in Heron ward. The explosion in housing planned for Herne Bay can only make it worse.

"…Generally the private sector and key growth sectors are under-represented in the local economy, which instead continues to rely upon a few consumption driven, low-value added sectors and the publicly funded sector." [Draft Local Plan 3.14]

We have low value jobs locally, and not enough employment in growth sectors. We can see nothing in this Plan that sets out how the Council will resolve this for our town. It looks as if the Council's plan is to have people live near Herne Bay and commute in their droves to Canterbury.

Flawed logic

click

“…the district’s Development Requirements Study (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners, 2011). This provided a range of scenarios for future development in the area. It found that, in order to increase the labour supply and to support new job creation in the district, a significant level of new housing was required (15,600 to support the creation of 6,500 new jobs), and that an additional 96,775sqm of employment floor space would be required to meet the anticipated needs of businesses through the Plan period.” [Draft Local Plan 3.26]

We think this is fundamentally flawed. The Council is assuming that if it builds lots of houses, employers will move to be near them and the new population. If employers really did move to be near pools of unemployed people, there would be no areas struggling with high and long-term unemployment.

In addition, let’s look at the calculation here: 15,600 new homes, each of them being multi-bedroomed and so having more than one person; just 6,500 wishful new jobs; that’s just four jobs for every ten homes. On that basis, what we would be creating here with this housing explosion is massive unemployment.

Tens of thousands more people

click

“…the main property types that the future housing market needs are those that will attract more affluent working households and families, and those that meet the needs of younger families facing deprivation and affordability problems.” [Draft Local Plan 2.64]

The Council says that we need family accommodation rather than two bed flats. So, we have based our estimate on an average size unit of three beds. The Council is proposing that we have 2,990 new homes on these five housing estates. In addition, we would have our normal share of smaller developments every year.

Looking at the figures proposed for smaller developments for the district, we estimate that our share of that would be another 1,610 new homes, making 4,600 in total. If these are mainly three bedroom homes, we are looking at an increase in population for HB of about 14,000 to 18,000 people. Herne Bay has around 38,000 people now.

The increase in the town’s population is huge – another 37% to 47%. We think that this is unworkable.

Rate of Build

click

#LPLV In the MORI poll in 2011, 61% of residents said they thought that no more than 510 new homes should be built in the district every year. Despite that, the Draft Local Plan aims to build at a rate of 780 new homes per year.

[Draft Local Plan 1.19]

Local Plan: letter - Strode Farm

click

Why we don't want this development

We have objected to the development of Strode Farm for the following reasons:

• We have camcorder film of a serious flooding issue several years ago in Bullockstone Road with homes and gardens under water by over 1ft, followed later by another serious flood in which the same homes again went under water.
• What drainage will be installed to deal with the water from Home Farm to Lower Herne Road? This floods the road and in winter ices up, making the road a skating rink and causing numerous accidents.
• Strode Farm has already put in a lagoon to the north of the new bypass because of drainage problems with the land. This takes a lot of water every time we have heavy rain. What drainage is proposed to cope with the flooding there?
• The present culvert that takes water from both Hares Brook and Plenty Brook collapsed in February 2013.
• How much traffic will be trying to get out on to Bullockstone Road from the new developments which include the old golf course? The road already suffers serious problems as it is still just a small country lane with sharp bends and bad surfacing.
• What measures are going to be put in place for the safety of local residents who already take their lives in their hands trying to come out of drives and onto Bullockstone Road?
• A doctors' surgery is to be installed on the present golf course, but how will the Estuary View Minor Injuries Unit cope with such an influx of people to the area?
• What will happen about supplying more police for the area? We already have trouble with the lack of policing, and it takes time to explain to Maidstone Control where Bullockstone Road, Lower Herne Road, Owls Hatch Road, and Thornden Road are, as they are not local to the area, already causing delays in getting here.
• There are four stable yards using the roads. How are you proposing to provide safe and secure riding for them when the traffic increases and roads become even more dangerous than they already are?
• With more and more food being imported from abroad more often these days, farmland should not be developed for housing when we need to feed ourselves.

It is also delightful to be able to look out at such a green and verdant landscape which is why most people live here.

This tiny hamlet has remained unchanged for hundreds of years, with only more modern buildings being erected on the sites of the old.

Mrs Margaret Clark, Bullockstone Road, Herne Bay

HB Gazette letter 27th Jun 2013

Local Plan: letter

Plan fails with no funding for roads

The local development plan is flawed.

I have sent all members of Canterbury City Council (CCC), and their highly-paid consultants Amec, who produced coloured charts on the selected areas, "evidence-based" reasons of why they are fundamentally flawed.

In addition CCC has also ignored government guidelines on consultation. These government guidelines declare that the community, and stakeholders, must be involved at all stages of the process that ultimately will decide which sites go forward into any draft proposals for public consultation, as happened on May 30th 2013.

Members endorsed officers' recommendations for "their" choice of sites. You, the public, have been totally ignored.

Members suggest that you will now be consulted (the ten-week consultation period) but, and it is a big but, you the "public", will only be consulted about the proposed sites endorsed by the executive committee, not the many other sites that are "better" alternatives than the sites endorsed by officers, and later council members.

The secrecy behind all this is breathtakingly unbelievable.

Major - and I mean major - road construction and bypasses are necessary. Canterbury City Council has no responsibility for roads; Kent County Council (KCC) does. KCC has no money for major road construction - it cannot even fill the many potholes in the county. This Government has no money for major road construction; it is also broke.

Developers will not want to spend money on major road construction out of their profits. Of course if CCC officers or council members have guarantees or promissory notes, then let us the public see them.

In the meantime, there is no cash for the major roads changes that this draft plan to work requires.

Council members keep saying they are listening. Hear this: the whole plan put forward by you is bound to fail, on the sites, the pre-consultation, and funding of major roads and infrastructure.

The only council member to acknowledge our concerns and who has the professionalism to reply to me is Councillor  David Hirst. Well done to him, the other councillors and officers remain deafeningly silent.

Ken Little, Whitstable

HB Times 13th Jun 2013

Local Plan: brilliant letter reveals Gilbey's NIMBYism

Council leader is a Nimby himself

As a footnote to a recent letter regarding the Canterbury draft Local Plan, this paper helpfully added "Nimby stands for not in my backyard". Readers can get a fuller understanding of this term by going online to the planning applications section of the councils website, searching for CA//07/01795 and then viewing the "Associated Documents".

This application was for a single, modest-sized bungalow in-filling on a garden in lieu of an existing structure. "Technical consultations" returned to the case officer, Nan Barton, showed no objections raised by the Highways Agency, the Environment Agency, Kent County Council Highways and even Kingston parish council had no issues.

There were, however, four "Written Representations" from local residents against the application. The one from the next door neighbour, council leader John Gilbey, and addressed not to the case officer but rather the department head, makes compelling reading. So Nimby can be seen to actually mean "not a single one in my backyard, but over 40,000 on greenfields in yours is OK by me".

Ray Sanders, Old Dover Road, (South) Canterbury

HB Gazette letter 6th Jun 2013

Local Plan: it may not happen

Alex Claridge, Gazette Senior Reporter

Here's a thought: Let's say the city council in its draft Local Plan has either deliberately or accidentally - overstated the number of homes which can be built in the district over the next 18 years.

The council will endure a year or so of sniping and criticism. Afterwards. it can produce a blueprint for the future with a reduced number of homes.

That will go before the independent planning inspector who may revise the figure still further before he produces his final document, scheduled to be ready by the end of next year.

It means that the majority Conservative group on the city council will have an extraordinary piece of ammunition when it goes into the election year of 2015. It will be able to say: "When you told us you wanted fewer homes, we listened and cut the number in the plan."

No doubt those creating the plan will regard this as a cynical conclusion but it seems a difficult one to ignore given the way politics at all levels has worked in this country for the last 20 years or so.

It seems there are just too many obstacles to the figure of 15,600 homes ever being   realised - schools, healthcare, transport and employment, to name a few. Meanwhile, the question of homes is proving easily the most contentious aspect of this document. It attracted more than 20 public speakers to last Thursday's meeting (30th May 2013).

But one method of guaranteeing that councillors are less receptive to your views is to rant at them. Unfortunately, several speakers adopted unedifying tones last Thursday. Councillors are not aliens bent on the destruction of the district. All of them are people who have chosen public office because they think they can make things better.

And just like anyone else they should not have to endure people yelling in their faces.

HB Gazette 6th Jun 2013

Local Plan: CPRE don't like it much

Proposals put builders first, not people

CPRE Protect Kent are extremely worried about the innumerable negative impacts that the current draft local plan may have. We are particularly concerned that the plan has no mechanism in place either to defend or to enhance what is left of Canterbury's cultural and historic character.

Instead, problems will inevitably arise from the proposals to build too many houses in and around the city, which will in turn increase the traffic and air pollution problems.

Barrie Gore, Canterbury district chairman of CPRE Protect Kent

CPRE Protect Kent does not see any local evidential need for such a large number of new houses, and the thrust for such development seems to be led by Government, the city council and large scale developers rather than local people's desires for the area. We are also extremely concerned that the plan shows a lack of emphasis on design of new property.

As an incredibly historic area, with major landmarks such as the Cathedral we find it very sad to think of Canterbury's heritage being diluted by these plans.

CPRE Protect Kent, together with many other local amenity bodies, was involved in the production of The Residents' Vision of Canterbury, published by the Canterbury Society. There is little or nothing in the Local Plan which picks up the themes and suggestions from the Vision.

CPRE Protect Kent is also extremely concerned that the plan does not deal adequately with the influence exerted upon the city by the universities and colleges. In at least one other city the local authority imposes a limit on student numbers, yet in Canterbury we have seen large, sometimes out of scale and unattractive, new student blocks built on prime residential sites originally designated for private and also affordable housing.

The CPRE Protect Kent Canterbury Committee will be making all these points, and more, in its discussions with the Council and in its response to the draft Plan.
 
HB Times 6th Jun 2013

Local Plan: Gilbey calls for logic not rhetoric

Yes, I laughed too.

Council leader John Gilbey has urged critics of the Local Plan to avoid rhetoric and "be logical and be practical". In a measured speech - frequently interrupted by a lone heckler - he said Canterbury was not alone in the UK in facing the prospect of building on greenfield land.

Cllr John Gilbey

"For the last 20 or 30 years, we have been using up brownfield sites and we don't have any of it left no matter what people tell you. This is a coherent plan, something we are legally obliged to do and something we  intend to look at rationally. We will take the consultation very seriously. Come and talk to us, not with rhetoric, but be logical and be practical."

Cllr Gilbey dismissed a claim by one public speaker who said that 70% of the land earmarked for development is owned by either the city council or KCC, telling the meeting it is all owned by other people or organisations.  He went on:

"You have got to come to us and talk to us and we have to tell you in great detail  about what we can and cannot do."

HB Gazette 6th Jun 2013