Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

The city council has finally published its league table of services as it lays the ground for further budget cuts and savings.

It has put the controversial Local Plan, in which more than 15,000 new homes are planned for the district, atop the pile, with the cost of running democracy second and development management third.

Culture in Canterbury also features highly with the Marlowe Theatre at five out of 70, the Beaney at seven and the Roman Museum at 21. Meanwhile, rubbish collections are ranked 28 and public toilets are 53.

The lowest scored services were elections, archives and the council's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

Executive members and senior officers drew up the table as the council prepares to lose 45% of its income by 2017.

It means certain services and staff will face the axe. Mr Carmichael will go into greater details with officers at the staff conference on November 14. In his letter to council workers, chief executive Colin Carmichael said:

"All this information is being used in our star chambers to think about whether we need to continue to deliver these services and, if we do, whether to do so at the current cost level."

The table was created by rating each service out of 10 against each of the council's 10 pledges on its corporate plan. These have titles such as economy, safety, homes, culture, health and well-being, and young people.

Questions may be asked about those ratings after the Marlowe Theatre received 4/10 for health and well-being and the mayor's office received 3/10 in every single category, including housing, safety and protecting the environment.

The Conservative controlled authority came under fire earlier in the year after it created the list but refused to let anyone see it.

Cllr Alex Perkins, the leader of the opposition Lib Dem group, believes the people of the district should have been allowed to rate the services they use. He said:

"If the council are going to determine funding according to a league table of priorities then they should be local residents' priorities. not council leader John Gilbey's. Why don't the council ask people to give their own scores and actually prioritise what local residents want for a change."

The league table is published in the agenda for the executive meeting at the Guildhall tonight (7th November).

HB Gazette 7th November 2013

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

11 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

11 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

11 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

11 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

11 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

Definition of secret: not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others. Definition of confidential: intended to be kept secret.  [Oxford Dictionaries online] 

Who does Cllr Gilbey think he's kidding? 

---

Canterbury City Council is one of the most democratic local authorities in the country, claims leader John Gilbey. He hit out after the Kentish Gazette reported that the council had drawn up a league table of its 71 service areas and ranked them in order of importance but refused to reveal it.

Cllr Gilbey denies the council is guilty of secrecy. He told last Thursday's meeting of the ruling Conservative executive: 

"Some of these documents are kept confidential for many reasons and are looked at very carefully.  I think this is one of the most democratic councils we have, I honestly believe that.  That is why I don't take kindly to people inventing stories."

Last week it emerged that the league table is a key document as the council prepares for the 2014/15 budget. It is facing a cut of 50% in income by 2017 and scored each service according to importance and against the pledges in its corporate plan.

The Marlowe Theatre was fifth in the table and refuse collection came 29th, but none of the other positions are known and some are almost certainly facing the axe.

The council claims it will make the league table public next month when the proposed budget for next year is published.  But Cllr Alex Perkins, leader of the council's opposition Lib  Dem group, is demanding it is released now.  He said:

"The Gazette is absolutely right and deserves praise for bringing the council's appalling secrecy to everyone's attention.  There is absolutely no reasonable justification for the current leader of the council to keep the council budget formation process confidential.  And the Gazette has certainly not invented any of this as John Gilbey has claimed. 

The current leader and a tiny handful of Conservative councillors keep jealous control of all the budget information declaring it 'confidential' and refusing to share it even with their own backbenchers, let alone opposition councillors or the public.  It's completely unacceptable - it's your money after all."

Kingsmead Field campaigner Sian Pettman said:

"There's a worrying disconnect between Cllr Gilbey's perception of democracy and that of many of the district's residents.  His authoritarian style of leadership is ill-suited to the 21st century."

University of Kent Emeritus Professor of moral philosophy Richard Norman added:

"If Cllr Gilbey thinks that this is one of the most democratic councils, he needs to be aware that there are a great many people in Canterbury who don't see it that way."

The council will begin its consultation on the budget in November and will look to approve it in February.

HB Gazette 17th October 2013

View fullsize

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

11 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

11 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

11 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

11 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

11 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

Oh dear... the Council that represents us and works for us is refusing to tell us what they're doing. It's a kind of nanny-dictator state. 

---

Canterbury City Council has produced a league table of its 71 service areas in order of importance, but is refusing to reveal how it has ranked them. The Gazette has learned that the Marlowe Theatre is fifth in the league table while bin collections - a service delivered to every home in the district is 29th.

Senior officers and councillors spent hours in meetings scoring the service areas according to the council's priorities and rated each one against its 10-pledge corporate plan.

Colin Carmichael, the chief executive of the Conservative-controlled council, says he is determined to keep the league table a secret until the next budget is published later in the year.

"This is the first time that we have actually taken a step back and asked questions about everything that we do. But I can't let people see it because we are only half through."

The league table was compiled as the council assesses the way it will run its services in future. lt is steeling itself for a 50% drop in income by 2017.

Members of the ruling executive injected their political priorities into the rankings which could be used to cut some council services completely as the drive to save money intensifies in the coming years.

Asked why the Marlowe scored so much higher than bin collections, Mr Carmichael said the theatre "ticked several boxes" on the corporate plan pledges.  He said:

"Refuse collection, for example, scores mid-range at 29th on the priority list as it scores highly against only two of the 10 pledges, but it is a top political priority and it is a statutory service. The Marlowe can be seen to fulfil more pledges. It is important economically for us as we didn't want that end of the city to lose out with the building of the Whitefriars shopping area."

Lib Dem group leader Alex Perkins is furious at the decision to keep the league table secret.

"Presumably, they'll only show people when they've made all their decisions.  Here we are yet again with the council taking decisions with public money on the basis of its own political agenda and refusing the public the right to know how it is ranking services. If that's not a sign of how the council is going to hell in a handcart, then I don't know what is.

HB Gazette 10th October 2013

View fullsize

HBM

Council Priorities: where will the axe fall?

11 years ago

The Council's priorities. Theirs, not ours.

11 years ago

Council's priorities not secret, not confidential, just rubbish

11 years ago

Council's priorities aren't secret - they're confidential!

11 years ago

Our Council's secret priorities

11 years ago

Tories step back over new boundaries

Conservative members of Canterbury City Council have stepped back from making a formal proposal to the Boundary Commission about planned new ward boundaries across the district.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is asking for people's views on the subject. Following a six-week public consultation, the commission announced it may recommend the council has 38 councillors in the future, 12 fewer than the current arrangements.

The organisation now needs information from people and groups across the district to help it to produce a new pattern of wards to accommodate the 38 councillors. In drawing up new boundaries, the commission aims for each councillor to represent roughly the same number of voters.

Canterbury council leader John Gilbey said:

"It is essential the setting of new boundaries doesn't lead to accusations of gerrymandering or voter manipulation by the council. After discussions with colleagues, I have taken the view the council itself should step back and let the Boundary Commission decide the new wards based on its own studies and after giving detailed consideration to the opinions of any individual, group and parish council."

On the decision the cut 12 council members, Cllr Gilbey said:

"I am thankful to the Boundary Commission for their considered approach in considering whether the number of councillors should be reduced to 38. This was not a request we made without giving a lot of thought. but we felt it was unfair on local taxpayers to make them pay their hard-earned cash on sustaining 50 councillors at the possible expense of crucial services many cherish."

People have until December 10th to submit their views. Further information on the review and interactive maps of the existing wards can be found at consultation.lgbce.org.uk and www.lgbce.org.uk Residents will have a further chance to have their say after the commission publishes its draft recommendations in March next year.

HB Times 10th October 2013

Pier Trust EGM Minutes

I couldn't make it to the EGM on 10th July, so I asked the Trustees what had happened, and what the results were of any votes that were taken. I got conflicting reports as to whether anything had been sent to some or all of the members. I hadn't received anything, and neither had several other paid-up members.

I knew that one of the motions to be voted on was the election of Trustees. I asked who the Trustees of the HBPT now are. There was no answer. I find this astonishing and disappointing.

The Board should have published the Minutes to the membership within days of the EGM - that's simply courtesy. Given that they hadn't published the Minutes, the reply to any member asking for the identity of the current Trustees should  have been to rattle off their names. Instead, I was told that my request would be considered.

However, the day after threatening to raise the matter of Secret Trustees with the Charity Commission, the Minutes and the identity of the Trustees appeared on the HBPT Facebook page. The Minutes are reproduced below.

The current trustees are:
Doreen Stone - chair
Aileen Barker - membership and lots more
David McCormick - Health and Safety and Events
Lynn Faux-Bowyer - Treasurer
Andrew Cook - CCC appointed trustee - Company Secretary
Joe Howes - CCC appointed trustee - external liaison

---

The EGM Minutes

HERNE BAY PIER TRUST
Minutes EGM 10th July 2013 Christchurch Hall Herne Bay

Present: Doreen Stone (Chair)
Aileen Barker
Lynn Faux-Bowyer
Joe Howes
Andrew Cook
David McCormick
Members as recorded on signing in sheet.

Agenda item 1:
Doreen Stone began the update announcement with the fact that the Pier Opening day was attended by the National Piers Society which is very supportive of what was being organised. They also suggested that they may consider holding their next AGM in Herne Bay.

(The meeting was interrupted by the arrival of Andy Newell, former member and trustee. When he was asked to leave because an EGM is open only to members, a member on the floor made a proposal, which was seconded, that the Meeting be suspended until he left followed by a unanimous vote in favour. He did leave and the meeting resumed.)

DS continued with the update – The Trust had been granted a Planning Permit for 18 Retail Huts (an initial 12 to be followed by a further 6). She announced that the Trust had applied for the Lease of the complete platform area now it had been confirmed that the Golf Application would not operate this year. The £2k loan money had generated 1.5 jobs on the Pier so far and one hut owner was already considering employing extra staff to meet demand for teas/cakes etc.

HBPT needed an income of £65,000 to move to the next stage of managing the platform. Work by CCC on renovating the decking where the next 6 huts are to be built would begin in Oct. She suggested the Trust should now plan for an all weather building/structure on the platform which, if it included a heritage and information centre, maybe with a sea- themed attraction? One of our members has suggested approaching RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) to hold a design competition for students of architecture for Herne Bay Pier.

Agenda Item 2: Election of Officers.
There were 2 applicants – Aileen Barker & David McCormick. They both spoke to the Meeting and the voting took place.
Ds informed the meeting and listed the Proxy votes she had received – a total of 24 supporting her choices and 1 against the motions.
Total number of votes possible (incl proxy votes) = 42.
Results: Aileen Barker total in favour - 41
David McCormick total in favour - 41.
Both candidates unanimously elected as HBPT Trustees.

Volunteers- have become essential to the running of the Trust and there was a suggestion from the floor that maybe a 2nd tier of 'management' to work alongside the Board should be considered. This was agreed and that the trust should ask the Charities Commission for advice on this.

Agenda Item 3: This motion was to confirm the ruling in the Articles of Association and the Memorandum of Association the Board of Trustees can operate within the constitutionally specified number of Trustees required at any one time with a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 11. This was agreed – 41 for and 1 proxy against.

Agenda Item 4: That the Articles of Association be amended to state that the term of office for non CCC appointees is 3 years and that they must stand for re-election after that period; trustees to be permitted to hold position for a maximum of 3 consecutive terms. This was agreed 41 for and 1 proxy against.

The Chair, Doreen Stone, thanked everyone for attending and hoped they would spread the word on the positive progress of the HBPT. Meeting closed @ 19.55

After the meeting closed some points were raised for Board discussion eg
More notices about activities on pier such as:
- Boards with Hut Vendors names listed
- Large Chalk Boards with notices
- Press releases on regular basis showing how new businesses were being supported and new employment created by the Hut Village
- The importance of integrated community involvement to raise the profile of Herne Bay.

Local Plan: Responding Online

click

[from the CCC website] The instructions below will help guide you to make comments on-line. If you need more help, then please contact CCC using the contact details at the bottom of the page.

1: Open the Consultation Portal

Go to http://canterbury-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/ between the 20th June and the 30th August 2013. Select ‘Canterbury District Local Plan Preferred Option Consultation 2013’ at the bottom of the page.

2: Register and Log-in

You can read the document without signing-in but as we are unable to accept anonymous comments you will need to register and log-in before submitting comments: Click Login/Register

If you already have a user name and password, login using these. If you do not already have a user name and password you will need to register. The information box below will help you.

If you have made comments on a previous local plan consultation (written or online), you will already have a user name and password. If you need help, please contact us (details below) and we will be able to provide them for you.

3: Make and submit your comments

Once successfully logged in, click ‘Read and comment on document’.

You can then begin to read the draft Local Plan. You can skip straight to the part of the plan you are interested in by using the contents list on the left hand side of the page, or read straight through the document using the ‘next page’ button.

You can comment on each part of the document by clicking the ‘Add Comments’ button: click this button by the paragraph or policy you wish to comment on.

Indicate whether you wish to support or object; add your comments and any supporting documents and press ‘submit’. If your comment is very long, the system may ask you to provide a summary of your comment.

You can then continue to read through the document and make as many comments as you wish.

For assistance on submitting your responses online, please contact Planning Policy:

Telephone: 01227 862 199 or Email: planning.policy@canterbury.gov.uk

Draft Local Plan

click

The Draft Local Plan 2013

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.