Local Plan: letters

MIsleading Maps

The local plan is about to go out to consultation and the council has tried to put their spin on it in their official mouthpiece District Life.

They have printed maps of some of the sites but just manipulated the scale to completely falsify the situation. The 4,000 homes proposed at South Canterbury appear to take up about the same amount of land as the 400 at Herne Bay Golf Club!

They don't, of course. The map has just been adjusted to half the scale!

I thought that when a council consulted people it was supposed to present the facts in a clear and balanced manner.

When we pointed out this deliberate attempt to mislead at the local plan steering group we were promised it would be rectified. Far from it. Now this cynical attempt to mislead has gone out to every house. Throw your District Life into the recycling (don't forget which bin). Look at the sites with a decent map and then tell the council what you think.

How shameful that the council destroyed any credibility in its own magazine in trying to peddle its latest doctrine.

Cllr Nick Eden-Green, Lib Dem - Wincheap ward, Dane John, Canterbury

---

Use empty houses, not farmland

In respect of the draft Local Plan, which the city council proposes as a blueprint for the future of Canterbury, I would like to make the following observations. Canterbury district has about 4,000 empty dwellings. This  equates to a similar number proposed  for the sites in South Canterbury.

Why doesn't the council focus its  efforts on bringing these houses and  flats back into the housing stock? Yes this is difficult but a truly visionary council would look to make this effort rather than concrete over very fertile farmland. By 2050 the world population is set to increase by 30% to nine billion people. All these people need to be fed, including residents of the UK.

If we do not ensure that we are self- sufficient in food the true cost will be prohibitive for many of our children and grandchildren.

This is happening now if you take into account the rise in the number of food banks. I have raised this issue at a number of public forums and met with the glazed look of councillors who obviously do not consider it a real possibility. It is not properly addressed in the draft Local Plan and I question the very notion that such a plan can be "sustainable" when it proposes to remove such high grade land from the food supply.

Jon Linnane, Old Dover Road, Canterbury

---

Student housing

I fear local planning authorities are being asked to cure the symptoms of a problem and not its causes.

We have just received our copy of District Life, which shows the now familiar Key Local Plan proposed sites. On Monday evening I heard Cllr Peter Lee telling the people of South Canterbury, that, effectively, it was time for the city itself to take its share of development. Or, as Cllr Gilbey was quoted, possibly out of context, in an earlier issue of the Kentish Gazette, they "should put up or shut up."

This must not be a matter for dividing communities in our district, and I am happy to be labelled a Nimby; however, if people like me do not speak up for our neighbourhood it seems no one else will. Perhaps more will be sympathetic if some other facts are explained.

The proposed development for South Canterbury is, by the scale of the city, massive. It may not look so at first glance of District Life, but the South Canterbury plan is at a scale of 1225000, the Sturry/Broad Oak plan at 1:20000, Hersden at 1217250, and Herne Bay Golf Course at 1215000. The Canterbury proposal is equivalent in size to the whole of Hales Place, St Stephens, Whitstable Road area and London Road Estate combined.

Cllr Gilbey, at last Monday's meeting, twice mentioned Brighton as a city having to plan to build on land hitherto regarded as sacrosanct. This was an attempt to explain that Canterbury is not alone in having to take tough decisions, but he chose an apt comparison. Brighton has two universities. For many years its Victorian and local authority suburbs have filled with students. It cannot extend south!

Many other university towns and cities have growing ghettos of students and it is becoming a national problem. Successive governments have allowed the expansion of the higher education sector without providing for student accommodation. The local plan gives the issue two paragraphs, concluding that it is not a problem, that consultation proved thus and that student HMOs could be controlled from now on.

This horse has of course well and truly bolted - ask students if they mind more students in the district and the answer is no! But where have the residents gone? Very many have moved to the estates which have already been built in Herne Bay and to a lesser extent Whitstable. They do not just disappear! Many old Whitstable residents have sold up their terraced houses to weekenders and they have also moved to the edge of town estates.

Here is my alternative; plan for high-density student apartments between Tyler Hill and Blean to serve UKC, with a direct bus/cycle link, and on the barracks to serve CCUC. No more expansion of university places until the accommodation for existing student numbers is provided. CCUC and local developers such as Pavilion have shown what can be done. Clever planning and design, different funding streams, including batch sales to existing landlords, backed by assured student rents will enable development to occur on a fraction of the land of the present plan.

Existing housing stock will return to the market either to rent or buy, and will yield council tax. This would, I assume, not yield the building bonus per new house from government, but if local authorities in similar difficulties and local campaigners against large developments unite nationally, central government might be inclined to help middle England out of a hole. Could our MP help too?

The city council might not get its second link to the A2, yet. Mr Gilbey might, but with careful planning would not, lose his seat in Blean, and if he took the lead on a bold alternative plan he might get the thanks of the people of South Canterbury, Sturry, Herne and beyond.

Clive Flisher, Old Dover Road, Canterbury

HB Gazette 6th Jun 2013

Local Plan: Tories and opposition split over proposals

Canterbury City Council's blueprint for the district has already created a split between the Tory majority and opposition members. Each Conservative on the ruling executive insists he or she will listen to public opinion and allow it to shape Canterbury's future.

Cllr Peter Lee

The council will use its forthcoming issue of its District Life magazine to outline the Local Plan and tell people how they can comment on it. Cllr Peter Lee, the council's finance supremo, says much of the proposed house-building is geared towards retaining talented and employable people. He said:

"We are not going to be able to do that  unless we build affordable homes for them to live in."

Cllr Terry Westgate

Cllr Terry Westgate, who represents St Stephen's ward, said:

"I've lived in Canterbury for 38 years and I'm passionate about the city. I want people to support what is good in this plan and tell us what they think is wrong with it."

Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones

Cllr Peter Vickery-Jones, the council's member for transport, warned objectors to the draft plan to be measured in their criticism:

"It's no good screaming and shouting and being abusive to councillors - that will not help. I am heartened to hear what people have to say. It's clear they are passionate about the district."

Cllr Alan Baldock

Northgate Labour councillor Alan Baldock urged the executive to act on the views put forward in the coming consultation. He said:

"It [the draft plan] lacks one vital ingredient - the wisdom of local people whose feet are firmly on the ground with a stake in their district, every day of every year. But the truth is that this executive no longer has the trust of the people of this district. They no longer believe that their comments will be listened to or answered."

Cllr Nick Eden-Green

Lib Dem Nick Eden-Green described the plan as "fatally flawed" adding:

"Suffice it to say that there is much in it that is excellent, but I disagree with its conclusions on housing numbers and their locations."

HB Gazette 6th Jun 2013

Local Plan: extra NHS funds needed for population boom

A top doctor says extra NHS funding will be needed for local health services to cope with an influx of more than 15,000 new homes in the district.

Dr Mark Jones, the clinical chairman for NHS Canterbury and Coastal Clinical Commissioning Group, says it would need extra government cash to deal with an estimated population increase of 40,000.

Dr Mark Jones

He was speaking after the release of the city council's draft Local Plan, which has earmarked land in Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable for 15,600 new homes before 2031. He said:

"We are aware of the development of the Canterbury Local Plan and will work closely with the council to address the opportunities and challenges the proposals present to the health needs of the population. The new health and social care structure enables the CCG to work closely with the council, and other partners, through the local Health and Wellbeing Board. NHS budgets are based on population size so we anticipate an increasing population will be supported by increased levels of NHS funding."

Dr Jones' comments came before a first public debate about the controversial draft plan. East Kent Hospital Trust spokesman Gemma Shillito said:

"The trust has had some early dialogue with Canterbury City Council. We recognise the need to provide additional facilities and housing in the city and now that the plans have been published, we will be looking in more detail to see what impact the plans may have on clinical services delivered at Kent and Canterbury Hospital."

A dozen speakers voiced their fears at a council meeting on Monday, complaining about a lack of consultation and the scale and location of the future developments. The Guildhall was packed for the meeting of the city council's overview committee, where residents spoke against numerous elements of the plan. The document recommends homes are built at a rate of 780 a year, including 4,000 in a "garden city" in south Canterbury.

But a proposal to send the plan back to the council working group to get more input from the community and a reduced rate of house building was rejected. The motion was put forward by Liberal Democrat opposition leader Cllr Alex Perkins, who branded the draft document a "developer-led plan" which local people had not been consulted on. He said building a vast housing estate in south Canterbury was only being proposed to pay for new roads. He said:

"The working group should work with local residents and associations for their vision of what they want in the district."

Cllr Nick Eden-Green, who was a member of the working committee, said he believed the huge scale of housing planned in south Canterbury was "undeliverable". He argued far fewer houses - about 550 a year - was appropriate and they should be built where there was most economic need, like Herne Bay and Hersden.

The city council's head of regeneration, Ian Brown, insisted the council wanted to create communities, not housing estates. He believed the sites in Herne Bay would launch regeneration in the town and fund relief roads at Herne and the Sturry crossing by-pass.

HB Gazette 16th May 2013

Local Plan: That's too many new houses to be built

Councillor Paula Vickers and I have sat on the Local Plan steering group for the past several years as Lib Dem nominees. We fundamentally disagree to the proposal to increase the rate of house-building to 780 per annum from the recent level of around 550.

Consequently some of the site allocations are unnecessary, in particular the 4,000 houses in south Canterbury. We have insisted our objections be minuted during meetings at which both Conservative and Labour representatives agreed the higher figures.

This plan has been flawed from the start. It should have taken its cue from the public responses to the earlier and abandoned Local Development Framework. This gave us our best indication of what local people wanted.

We should have first openly consulted with local people about the dilemma between the need to build on greenfield land (we have almost no brownfield left) and the need to build new homes for our changing population. We should have considered the "garden city" option advocated by the government's new planning framework. And we should have done this years ago.

However, we do agree with Cllr Gilbey on one thing. The Local Plan is indeed the most important document ever about the district's future. The population of Canterbury district has grown almost 50% faster than the South East average according to the 2001-2011 census figures. The published draft local plan calls for 15,600 new houses to be built between 2011 and 2031 or 780 a year. For the last few years we've been building around 550 houses a year. This means building 42% more homes a year when we have already grown faster than the south east average. This is unsustainable and a figure of 500 houses a year, or 10,000 over the plan period, is right.

The figures are complex and are explained in the plan. Because we have some sites allocated, because we are ahead of target, and because some new ‘windfall' sites will be found, a 15,600 target will mean 9,916 houses on new, mainly greenfield, sites. On the other hand our 10,000 target will require only 4,316 new houses.

We agree that many of the sites put forward in the draft plan should be considered but that the south Canterbury site for 4,000 houses will risk the historic setting of the city, our main attraction and economic generator. It will cause intolerable levels of traffic and use largely Grade 1 farmland which forms a key green buffer between Canterbury and Bridge. If this site is removed from the plan there is still plenty of choice between the sites left which should indeed be publicly debated.

There is also a major brownfield site in Hersden that was taken out of the plan at the last minute on Cllr Gilbey's insistence. This must be reconsidered together with the Howe Barracks site giving much more choice over where we should build. These two brownfield sites alone could mean 1,000-1,500 fewer houses on farmland.

This plan was promised in November. It was then delayed to January, then February. Latterly we were told by Cllr Gilbey it had to be delayed until May for new traffic modelling data to be included.

This new data has not been given so the reason to delay it for publication late on the day of the local elections does seem extraordinary. It was not a date ever discussed or agreed by any of us on the working party. and clearly a decision he alone made.

Cllr Nick Eden-Green (Lib Dem. Wlncheap Ward)

HB Times letter 16th May 2013

Local Plan: money to flow out of Herne Bay

Hundreds of homes at Herne Bay are needed to pay for improvements to roads across the district, councillors have revealed.

As the area's draft local plan was discussed in public for the first time on Monday, officials said the developments at Altira Park, Strode Farm and the former golf club, as well as near Briary School, in Greenhill would bring in vital cash to pay for a new crossing at Sturry.

Relief route

Developers would also be asked to fund a "relief route" for Herne - but opponents said it did not go far enough and a bypass was needed. Canterbury City Council's head of regeneration Ian Brown said:

"We are trying to build communities, not just individual housing estates. The Herne Bay sites will provide a new regenerative beginning for the town, a new focus and will contribute to new transport infrastructure. In part that will help to fund routes through and the Sturry bypass."

The plan includes proposals for 1,000 houses at the Altira park, together with a new doctor's surgery and community facilities.

The developers would have to pay for new links to the Thanet Way, work to discourage motorists from using Heart-In-Hand Road and make a contribution to a relief route at Herne and the Sturry crossing.

The golf club scheme - of 400 homes, business units, convenience stores and a sports hub, plus care home and doctor's surgery - would also bring in money for the Herne relief route and Sturry crossing, as well as a new footpath to the Strode Farm development. That site will have 800 homes, business units, shops, a new parish hall and cash for the crossing and relief road.

The final contribution is from 600 homes near Briary School, in Greenhill, along with allotments, and community facilities.

But town stalwart Dick Eburne said the plan to improve Bullockstone Road as the relief route did not go far enough. He raised concerns about transport, and said the public transport system would need significant investment in order to meet the target of more people choosing to travel sustainably within three years. He said Herne needed a bypass and Bullockstone Road was not suitable, and that through traffic on the A28 should be diverted.

Members of the council's overview committee supported more development at Herne Bay rather than Canterbury, where plans for 4,000 homes south of the city, near Nackington Road, were criticised. Lib Dem councillor Nick Eden-Green said:

"Put houses where we need economic development, Herne Bay and Hersden, not south Canterbury."

Studies commissioned by the council suggested most people preferred more developments at Herne Bay then larger villages, then Whitstable, with Canterbury last on the list. [This is a lie - click here to see the truth.]  But 70% of people did not support building on green-field sites.

Planned development at Hersden and Broad Oak would also bring in funding for the road network. Lib Dem leader councillor Alex Perkins said:

"Whether we need this local plan is another matter. I would like to refer it back to the local plan steering group."

His proposal was not supported by the committee, nor was one by Labour's Alan Baldock for an extended consultation period.

Consultation is expected to start in June for eight weeks and the plan is due to be revised by councillors in December, with a public inquiry due to take place next summer before the document is finalised.

HB Times 16th May 2013

Canterbury district's local plan discussed in public for the first time

 ... and guess what - Herne Bay gets screwed. To pay for treats for Canterbury. 

---

Canterbury City Council's draft local plan was discussed in public for the first time last night, amid accusations one of the key sites was "undeliverable" and uncosted.

At a meeting of the council's overview committee, Lib Dem Nick Eden-Green said the proposal for 4,000 homes on farmland at south Canterbury was in the wrong place and would not work. Mr Eden-Green, part of the group involved with putting the plan together, argued fewer new homes were needed than included in the plan. He said:

"There is a lot that is excellent but it is not community led and that has been a fundamental initial failing. We should put houses where we need economic development, Herne Bay and Hersden, not south Canterbury."

Studies commissioned by the council suggested most people's preferred choice for more developments was Herne Bay, then larger villages, then Whitstable, with Canterbury last on the list. [This is a lie - click here to see the truth.] But 70 per cent of people did not support building on greenfield sites.

Mr Eden-Green won applause as he added:

"South Canterbury is barely costed and possibly undeliverable. This site and this plan have been hijacked by that development and the need to put the junction in for economic development."

But both a proposal to refer the plan back to the steering group, and to extend the public consultation, were defeated.

Lib Dem leader Alex Perkins said:

"It is quite clear that publishing this draft plan has caused a great deal of disquiet and discomfort. To cram 4,000 homes in South Canterbury when we know it is only to pay for new roads is wrong. The working group should work with local residents and residents association to find their vision of what local people would like to see in the district because the danger is we are simply going to get this wrong."

In Herne Bay, hundreds of homes planned will also help pay for improvements to roads across the district, officials revealed. The developments at Altira Park, Strode Farm and the former golf club as well as near Briary school in Greenhill would bring in vital cash to pay for a new crossing at Sturry.

Developers would also be asked to fund a 'relief route' for Herne - but opponents said it did not go far enough and a bypass was needed. Canterbury City Council's head of regeneration Ian Brown said:

"We are trying to build communities, not just individual housing estates. The Herne Bay sites will provide a new regenerative beginning for the town, a new focus and will contribute to new transport infrastructure. In part that will help to fund routes through and the Sturry bypass."

But town stalwart Dick Eburne said the plan to improve Bullockstone Road as the relief route did not go far enough. He raised concerns about transport, and said the public transport system would need significant investment in order to meet the target of more people choosing to travel sustainably within three years. He said Herne needed a bypass, and Bullockstone Road was not suitable, and that through traffic on the A28 should be diverted.

But Whitstable Tory Ashley Clark urged people to get involved. He said:

"Canterbury has got off lightly in the past. Whitstable has taken a lot of pain. I want all of you who are not happy with things to participate. Look at what is there and see what you think and if you genuinely can be constructive about it please take part and participate."

Whitstable has been earmarked for 400 new homes alongside Duncan Down, between St Luke's Close and the Thanet Way, with a new junction off the Thanet Way. There is also a proposal for a green burial site on part of Duncan Down as well as more pedestrian access.

Consultation is expected to start in June for eight weeks and the plan is due to be revised by councillors in December, with a public inquiry due to take place next summer before the document is finalised.

Comments sent in before the official consultation starts will not be valid.