Local Plan: discussion in Canterbury

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) has met with pressure groups ahead of the publication of the Canterbury City Local Plan today (20th June).

On Monday, the CPRE were joined by members of the South Canterbury Alliance, North Canterbury Forum and the Canterbury Society, and discussed how all parties will launch their campaign against development of housing projects across the Canterbury districts outlined in the plan.

There are a proposed 15,600 new homes in the plan, at a rate of 780 every year. Brian Lloyd, senior planner for CPRE Protect Kent said:

"Local communities throughout the district are, understandably, extremely concerned about the damage that these large and unsustainable sites will cause to the character and quality of their local areas, and CPRE shares those concerns."

HB Times 20th Jun 2013

Local Plan: Parish pledges to halt Strode in its stride

Parish councillors have vowed to stop a massive housing development they fear would link Herne to Herne Bay.

Members of Herne and Broomfield Parish Council are working with charity CPRE Protect Kent to find reasons to stop 1,000 homes being built at Strode Farm owned by Hollamby Estates, of which parish councillor Andrew Brealy is a director.

Mr Brealy left the room when the issue was discussed at a meeting on Thursday, but chairman Tony Day said the charity's advice was to focus on highways issues.

The development, included in Canterbury City Council's draft Local Plan, would involve upgrades to Bullockstone Road to turn it into a "relief road". But Councillor Day said they did not go far enough. He said:

"The road will end up more or less as it is. It is totally inadequate. It is less adequate than the current route through the village. People from all the new developments will all want to go to Canterbury and will be going through our village or a relief road. All these developments should hinge on the proper infrastructure being in place."

The parish council plans to hire an independent expert - part funded by CPRE Protect Kent - to examine the highways issues but members said it was crucial residents also got involved. Councillor Ann Blatherwick said:

"We need to find out why we are not being considered separately to Herne Bay and why we are not mentioned as a village. We are a separate community. But we are just lumped in together and that explains why they are trying to join us up."

Members also discussed the loss of agricultural land, and the lack of school places. County councillor Alan Marsh said:

"We would need new schools, two primary and two secondary, to deal with the numbers of children. There isn't money for one school, let alone four."

The parish council won the backing of city councillor Peter Vickery-Jones, who stressed he had not been part of the Local Plan steering group that put the proposals together. He said:

"It is about time Canterbury picked up where it should. There has been huge resistance to South Canterbury but it is right it should be developed there."

But he cited the need for an alternative option, and suggested Thanington near Canterbury.

Village Hall plans on display

Plans for a new village hall for Herne will go on display next month. Herne and Broomfield Parish Council members have asked flve developers to provide drawings and costs for a new building in St Martin's View, next to the School Lane car park.

Villagers will be asked to choose their favourite and fill in a questionnaire before councillors decide how to proceed.

At a meeting of the parish council on Thursday, clerk Monica Blyth said developers would be at a public exhibition on Friday, July 12th from 1 to 7pm to answer any questions and results of the consultation would be considered by the hall committee.

Cllr Tracey Jones said it was important the consultation was as wide as possible, with an exhibition at the weekend as well as during the week. Councillors agreed to investigate other dates the material could be on display and to print extra leaflets and posters to distribute via schools and shops.

HB Times 20th Jun 2013

Local Plan: Canterbury businesses invited to discuss future plan

Businesses can discuss the city council's draft local plan at C4B's Annual Conference on June 28th.

The plan outlines proposals for development over the next 20 years. It is available online now for public consultation.

Colin Carmichael, chief executive of Canterbury City Council business, will be presenting the plan and explaining its effects on local business in the area.

The conference, which is free, takes place at Augustine House in Canterbury from 8am to 10.30am, and includes breakfast.

To reserve a place, e-mail paul.spree@canterbury.gov.uk

HB Times 20th Jun 2013

Local Plan: Parish Council oppose Strode Farm plans

Parish councillors are set to outline their opposition to the Local Plan tonight (13th June 2013) as the public consultation on proposals for 3,000 homes in Herne Bay begins. Herne and Broomfield parish council is expected to focus its arguments against plans for 800 houses at Strode Farm.

Although it has expressed disapproval for a 400-home development at Herne Bay Golf Club, councillors are expected to say they will accept the scheme as a compromise. They are calling on residents to write to the city council in opposition to the inclusion of Strode Farm on the draft Local Plan.

The document outlines housing strategy for the Canterbury district until 2031, proposing 15,600 homes for the area overall. Parish council spokesperson
Monica Blyth said:

"The big thing for us is to get out the importance of people responding to the consultation. It carries more weight if several individuals respond rather than getting a petition together. We are going to have to accept some development and of the two proposed developments in the area, we do not want Strode Farm.

Residents want to keep that buffer and the lesser of the two evils is the golf club. It is not such a big development and will have less impact. A development at Strode Farm would have a tremendous impact on the parish."

The parish council is in discussion with the Campaign to Protect Rural England about putting together an environmental challenge to the plans.

Ms Blyth added:

"Canterbury City Council don't appreciate Herne and Broomfield are villages and not part of Herne Bay. Herne was here first and long-established before Herne Bay arrived. This amount of properties will be huge and add 50% to what we have already."

HB Gazette 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: timetable

People will have all summer to comment on the draft after the executive agreed to increase the consultation period to 10 weeks - until the end of August.

Then the council will submit its plan for scrutiny by an independent government planning inspector. Comments made will also be passed to the inspector.

If the inspector needs any extra evidence or submissions, this will happen in summer next year. By the end of 2014, the planning inspector will have produced the final Local Plan for the Canterbury City Council area up to 2031.

Ian Brown, the council's head of planning and regeneration, said:

"That report will be binding. It will be the final part of the process.  We see south Canterbury as a way of extending the city and providing sustainable transport into the city. Such a development would also address the problem of affordable housing."

Mr Brown also suggested people to look beyond housing for other topics discussed in the plan, including history, environment and transport.

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

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: Letters

Bay is getting poor side of housing deal

What is going on? Canterbury City Council wants Herne Bay to have another 2,000 new homes built. How many Herne Bay people will live in them, and what does it do for the people that live here?

We have had our share of developments: Talmead, Neville Road, Barnes Way, Sea Street, Dence Park, two lots in Kings Road, and Town Court, just to name a few. Some of these have been built on brownfield sites and have made the town look better, more could be built this way, leaving our green fields alone, but of course Canterbury City Council don't get their big handouts for doing it that way.

Canterbury City Council has said Whitstable and Canterbury are last on their list for development, why? While they are getting the money, they do not want it there so we have to have it at Herne Bay. Herne Bay has become the dumping ground, and all investment goes to Canterbury.

Why is the money going to the Sturry crossing, how often do any of us in Herne Bay use that bit of road? I can only see Canterbury City Council are taking off us our green and pleasant land, and yet again giving nothing in return. Herne Bay roads are full of pot holes, I can't see much going on in the way of repairs, yet the money is needed for Canterbury. Two of these sites are farmland why are we taking away arable farmland and allotments to put houses on, don't we need to grow food anymore?

Shame on you Canterbury City Council!

Brenda Jones, Herne Bay

HB Times letters 30th May 2013

Local Plan: Developers' cash should stay in town

I was angered and dismayed to find that the draft Local Plan explicitly stated that developers' contributions (once called S106, now called CIL - Community Infrastructure Levy) would flow OUT of Herne Bay.

There was no mention of CIL money flowing out of Canterbury or Whitstable, and no mention of CIL money flowing IN to Herne Bay. So we were going to get screwed.

I decided to ask our beloved councillors what they thought. Only one of them answered. Cllr Peter Lee apparently has no idea how Herne Bay residents would feel about this, and will wait for the outcome of the consultation. Incredible. 

---

Councillors have refused to back calls for cash raised from new housing estates planned for Herne Bay to remain in the town.

At a meeting of the town's area members panel, made up of city and county councillors, campaigners said contributions from developments included in the new local plan should be spent on projects in Herne Bay. Local resident Ros McIntyre said:

"There are five new estates planned for around Herne Bay but money from them is earmarked for a crossing at Sturry and a relief road at Herne. Why has improvement money been channelled from Herne Bay to Canterbury and why is there no provision for a bridge at Blacksole?"

Phil Rose, from the Friends of the Downs, asked councillors to raise their hands if they were against the scheme to divert the money to other projects, adding:

"Money that could and should remain in Herne Bay is already being earmarked for projects out of our town."

But West Bay councillor Peter Lee said it was too early to have a view. He said:

"We haven't had any consultation yet and we don't know what people's views are. I am sure there are plenty of people who use that road who will be all for it."

Panel chairman Gillian Reuby said the money would not all be spent on the road schemes - some was for affordable housing and education contributions. She added:

"The infrastructure isn't at Canterbury, it is at Herne for a relief road and Sturry, the route most people from Herne Bay will use to go to Canterbury."

HB Times 30th May 2013

Local Plan: Letters

Infrastructure is under threat

South Canterbury infrastructure is already overloaded with the current rapid rise in house building, with many of these houses unsold. Gridlock on pot-holed roads, sewage overflows and power cuts.

Once again the city council is being charmed by builders to give them precious greenfield sites to cram in maximum high-priced houses for their own high profits.

The farmland opposite Langton Boys' Grammar was sold to a builder some time ago and because the land can only be used for educational use, the builder has offered to build a new school - in return for consent to build on the existing Girls' Grammar School site, which has recently had a lot of ratepayers' money spent on it.

Add to this all the other proposed houses to be built in South Canterbury, stretching to the Bridge bypass, and this will result in a complete infrastructure breakdown. What a surprise that this proposal was not published until after the local elections!

Listen to your ratepayers who fund your salaries for once and stop this crazy plan to move the school.

J.C. Rogerson, Nackinqton Road, Canterbury

---

A sad dismissal of community

I was very interested to read Bob Britnell's response to my call for  the Local Plan to be community-led and for a pause to allow for proper community input. I have always much respected Mr Britnell's straightforwardness and I genuinely believe he means well, but his rather dismissive assessment of community involvement is very sad indeed.

The Canterbury Society's recent and excellent document The Future of our City clearly illustrates that a very positive contribution can be made by community groups.

Also, the National Planning Policy framework actually requires substantial public engagement in the plan-making exercise. It clearly stresses that 'early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and business is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that the Local Plan, as far as possible, reflects a collective vision...'

Moreover, I wonder if Mr Britnell has actually read the final report of the Mori poll of residents which he cites, as it is fully in tune with the intelligent community and amenity societies that he seems to admire and yet decry.

As the summary findings unequivocally state regarding more house-building and the comparison with present rates of construction: "the majority support building in principle but most prefer same/slower pace".

This is directly at odds with the Preferred Option Local Plan which is premised throughout on the basis of a much higher level of house building.

Finally, it is my strong conviction that the most robust Local Plan will be a truly community-forged one.

Rev Paul Wilson, Clare Road, Whitstable

---

An additional 4,000 houses planned alongside New Dover Road is a major issue for Canterbury and not one to be regarded as just too big a ship to be turned or for members of the public to be intimidated by rhetoric. It is apparent that central government sees house building as a way to stimulate the economy and is putting pressure on local councils to comply.

House building provides employment for the building industry during the course of construction and some maintenance work thereafter.

However, one would have thought a much better strategy would be to concentrate on the creation of industries that will produce income, provide long-term employment and manufacture goods and services that  can either be exported or that will  reduce the amount of goods being imported into the country.

Employees need housing but there is limited benefit to having housing without the creation of businesses for the employees to work.

What I would like to see is an independent detailed and factual environmental study of the impact of this proposed housing development. We saw recently with the Westgate Towers trial that what appeared to be a small change in traffic flows gridlocked Canterbury for almost a year, and since the trial ceased it is like someone has waved a magic wand.

Building 4,000 houses on the edge of Canterbury is not a trial that can be reversed and I feel it will take a bit more than bypassing the Sturry Road level crossing and a fast bus service into Canterbury to prevent permanent gridlock of traffic in and around the city. What is interesting is that in his report to the planning committee on the proposed crematorium near the University of Kent, council officer Cullum Parker drew attention to the potential impact of the site on traffic. I would suggest that if traffic from this site will pose a problem it will be nothing compared with the impact on traffic of 4,000 additional houses.

John Morgan, Church Lane, Kingston

HB Gazette 30th May 2013

Canterbury spouts nonsense, Herne Bay fountain of wisdom. Nobody surprised.

#FUCCC Our Council's Culture & Enterprise bureaucrats seem to think they know what Guardian readers are interested in (how?), but I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that Guardian journalists have a much clearer picture of what interests their readers.

In fact, they've already said that they'll be coming to Herne Bay to cover this summer's marvellous Duchamp Centenary celebrations... FOR THEIR READERS.​

---

Arts festival will bring Guardian journalists to Herne Bay

Guardian readers may not be tempted by the town but the paper's reporters will be heading to Herne Bay this summer.

Staff from the art and travel section of the national newspaper are planning to cover the three-week festival dedicated to artist Marcel Duchamp and his links with the town, amid a storm over an advert that praised Whitstable and Canterbury but left out Herne Bay.

Tourism chiefs, who paid up to £10,000 for the full-page feature in the Guardian's travel section, say they were concentrating on the brands most likely to attract Guardian readers. But at a meeting organised by the team behind the August festival, they revealed the paper's journalists were looking forward to their visit.

The festival marks 100 years since Duchamp spent a month in Herne Bay, a period believed to be critical to his career. Volunteer Sue Austen, from Bayguide, which is behind the festival, said it could be a boost to the whole town. Southeastern trains have agreed to display posters on board. She said:

"It will hopefully encourage people to Herne Bay who have not been before. It will be covered by the Guardian arts section and Guardian travel section and is already listed in Coast magazine as one of the top things to do this summer."

Sue revealed both Kent County Council and Visit Kent had readily offered support, but said "conversations were ongoing" with Canterbury City Council, who have so far offered to waive the rent on the Kings Hall for a one-day conference to discuss the artist's work.

Steve Coombes, who stood in the KCC elections to raise awareness of the festival, added:

"Charlotte Higgins is the chief arts writer of the Guardian and we have been in enthusiastic communication about the Marcel Duchamp Centenary, by email and phone, since last October. The same is also true of the Times, Telegraph and BBC arts. Unlike the CCC dept of Culture and Enterprise, they were all thrilled by the idea."

Members of the Cartoonists' Club of Great Britain are also planning to take part, after Ralph Steadman created a one-off design for a promotional poster. They will create cartoons for toilets, pubs and other places and there will also be quotes from Duchamp in unusual places around the town and themed window displays from shops.

David Cross, who will be curating the gallery shows, said:

"We would like to make it successful to show them that Herne Bay can be - and has got to be - equal to Whitstable and Canterbury."

Other events planned include an open exhibition at Beach House from July 11 and introducing Mr D at Herne Bay Museum from July 16. Invited artists will show their work at galleries around the town from July 23 and there will also be an art bike trail.

Children can take part in workshops and add their own designs to postcards for a pop-up gallery, and live music, street theatre and chess games are also planned.

Jason Hollingsworth, from Bayguide, said:

"There is a huge cultural legacy to this. There will be a trail and a plaque on the house where he stayed in Downs Park."

For more information on the festival, or to get involved as a volunteer, visit www.iamnotdead.co.uk

Canterbury Times 24th May 2013

That Ad...

#FUCCC The current kerfuffle, which has been christened Guardiangate, was triggered by an ad that Canterbury City Council's Culture & Enterprise bureaucrats placed in the Guardian.

For those of you who were too busy knitting your own ciabatta to pick up a copy that day, here it is - sorry it's a bit blurry, but it's legible when you zoom in.​

Guardiangate Ad by HerneBayMatters

This really pisses me off

Tourism chiefs say Herne Bay won't tempt Guardian readers after leaving it out of national advert for the district

Tourism bosses have been accused of overlooking Herne Bay after promoting Whitstable and Canterbury in a national newspaper.

Officials at Visit Canterbury paid up to £10,000 for the full-page advertising feature in the Guardian Travel Guide, with a mention for the Canterbury Food and Drink Festival, Whitstable Oyster Festival, The Beaney, Roman Museum and the Marlowe Theatre - but not the Kings Hall or the Herne Bay Festival.

Deesons and The Goods Shed in Canterbury, Jojo's in Tankerton and the Sportsman at Seasalter are also given a plug, but there is no reference to any Herne Bay venue, with celebrity favourite Le Petit Poisson, the top-rated Oyster and Chop House and new restaurant Mushy Peas all left out.

The omission was raised at a meeting of Herne Bay Area Panel by Sue Austen from BayGuide, the team staging a festival to celebrate the centenary of artist Marcel Duchamp's stay in Herne Bay.

She was speaking to support their application for funding to help promote the festival in August and said visitors were expected from America and Europe as well as all across the country.

Showing councillors a one-off design by cartoonist Ralph Steadman, she said:

"What you will get for your money is this, a specially designed poster from an internationally respected artist to promote Herne Bay. What you won't get is a full page Guardian advert about Canterbury and Whitstable that nowhere mentions Herne Bay."

The first paragraph of the advertorial refers to the district's "perfect blend of heritage, culture and coast", and it goes on to recommend a stroll along Tankerton Slopes to savour "Whitstable's beautiful sunsets" - ignoring Herne Bay's beaches just a few miles away.

It praises Whitstable's "picturesque" appearance, the harbour and the retail village there - but not Herne Bay pier, due to have its own selection of beach hut shops this summer.

Jenny Cross, from the Friends of Herne Bay Museum, said she was disappointed with the advert. In a letter to council bosses, she said:

"We have a beach, huts, ice-cream, fish 'n chips, three art galleries, museum, festival, sailing club, yacht club, even half a pier! This summer we have a festival celebrating a hundred years since Marcel Duchamp, the most influential artist of the 20th century spent a summer in Herne Bay. Given all this, plus loads of independent shops and cafes, the least you could do is give us a mention!"​

I have no idea where this picture comes from, but it's Janice McGuinness

But Janice McGuinness, head of culture at Canterbury City Council, argued Guardian readers would not be tempted by Herne Bay. She said:

"With all opportunities to promote the district, including articles such as this, we always consider who our target market is. For the Guardian, the focus of this advertorial was on culture, heritage and food. The council's approach here was to focus on the brands most likely to catch the attention of the Guardian Weekend's readers and attract them to the Visit Canterbury website."

She said the website contained information about Herne Bay and the district's villages, and the town would be promoted "on other channels". She added:

"Our Visit Canterbury Team carries out an enormous amount of promotion for the district and Herne Bay features regularly in this work. We will promote the town and the forthcoming Duchamp and Herne Bay Festivals through other channels over the coming months when we highlight the excellent cultural programme happening over the summer in Herne Bay, Whitstable and Canterbury."

Canterbury Times 23rd May 2013

#FUCCC

---

You can email Janice McGuinness on: janice.mcguinness@canterbury.gov.uk​ or Tweet her on @seahorsebella

Local Plan: Letters

Local Plan must be community-devised

I am writing as a local minister who is interested in fostering good community relations and also as an ex-policy planner concerned to see good environmental outcomes.

I was very interested to receive notification of the Canterbury district preferred option local plan and I attended and spoke at the Council Overview Committee at the Guildhall on May 13.

In preparation, I read the draft local plan and all the supporting documents in my spare time. I confess I fell asleep during at least one of the very many technical reports! However, I was delighted to read early on: "As a council... we are ambitious and will do the best for our people".

Can I graciously suggest that in order to fulfil that promise, our elected representatives and our public servants might find it helpful to ask themselves if the draft Local Plan actually reflects the emphases in the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on the need for the Local Plan exercise to be creative, collective and realistic?

I believe the local plan, which will run to 2030, should certainly be a "creative" production, as the NPPF puts it: "finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives". It's good to embrace the future with hope and to be imaginative.

Let's allow the Canterbury City Council policy planners to dream dreams! But at the same time they and their political masters must not frame policies and proposals in a fashion that is remote from the populace they serve. The local plan process should definitely be a "collective" one! In terms of the NPPF again:

"Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and business is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that the local plan. as far as possible, reflects a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area..."

Also, the local plan must be "realistic" if it is to succeed in terms of maintaining healthy communities in our district, promoting growth and ensuring sustainability. In his foreword to the NPPF, Greg Clark, the Minister for Planning, says "Local plans should be aspirational but also realistic". They should address opportunities for development and the environmental implications of planning choices. They should reflect genuine needs and local concerns.

At this stage, I have some concerns and misgivings. I'm concerned about the over-reliance on the ancillary reports produced and testing of possible scenarios carried out by private consultants. The local plan needs to be community-devised and community-led. Not simply informing us about what has been prepared for our benefit, but involving us in the framing of policies and proposals that will directly affect us.

As I read the draft local plan, I confess that I fail to even hear consistently the convincing voice of the professional planners offering coherent advice to us and deduce that they themselves may be struggling to reconcile the myriad consultant reports that have been commissioned to underpin the plan.

I'm concerned about the disconnect between the evidence gathered and the proposals contained in the draft local plan. The Mori poll of residents says "Don't use greenfield sites" and a commissioned study says "Protect and conserve" in south Canterbury yet the draft local plan says, in effect, "OK to use this grade 1 agricultural land for development". Supporting studies highlight congestion and the urgent need to surmount gridlock in Canterbury yet the draft local plan proposes a 4,000 home development that will inevitably add to traffic flows in and around Canterbury city centre!

Can I finish by suggesting that my fellow residents get ready for the forthcoming consultation exercise by looking at the draft local plan on the CCC website? Please look at the plan in the round, thinking about the various and some unique pressures on our district, as well as noting carefully how it will impact your own neighbourhood. Do participate fully when the consultation process begins in mid-June, so that the finished local plan document that goes before the Planning Inspector will be truly be the Community's Preferred Option Local Plan!

The Reverend Paul Wilson, Whitstable Baptist Church, Middle Wall, Whitstable

---

Vision of 2031 is a nightmarish one

Canterbury City Councils' draft (surely daft?) local plan is a ill-thought out long-term project to make the district's over-population and congestion problem many times worse ("Visions of 2031: are we on right track?", Times, May 9).

If the Canterbury area is already suffering from a gridlock and pollution crisis, I dread to imagine what an extra 15,600 homes will add to this nightmare. Now, on a clear, warm day one can stand on the hillside at the University of Kent, look down over Canterbury and view the plainly visible omnipresent smog cloud which envelops our city.

As our population increases incrementally this current carcinogenic chemical fog will likewise be growing in size and toxicity every year. By 2031 air pollution is likely to be so catastrophic that respiratory/cardiovascular illnesses will have reached epidemic proportions whilst residents and visitors will be forced to wear particle filtration masks (commonly worn by people working around asbestos) as a matter of routine.

Canterbury City Council executives are systematically destroying the district by constantly approving the uprooting of what remains of our vegetation, house-building we don't need and the opening of countless small business-killing chain stores.

My vision of 2031: Paradise lost

Clive Wilkins-Oppler, Canterbury

HB Times 23rd May 2013

Local Plan: criticised for being developer-led

Residents' groups have united in opposition to the garden city vision for Canterbury, which they claim is "seriously flawed".

They formed a non-political alliance at a joint meeting last week, where every individual group raised concerns about the process, scale and speed of proposed house-building, which includes 4,000 new homes in south Canterbury.

Speakers questioned the motivation for the plan, its excessive targets, its lack of infrastructure provision and the timing of both its publication and the consultation period. Chairman Clive Church said:

Clive Church

"We share a common belief that this plan is seriously flawed. It is so obviously developer-led and it ignores the genuine long-term economic and social needs of the district as a whole. We also have serious concerns about the democratic process here in Canterbury since it allows a small number of councillors, 90% of who live well outside the city, to foist a series of completely unacceptable proposals on the city without allowing sufficient time for proper consultation.

We have no doubt that every part of the city will be badly-affected by these plans. The full scale of the extra housing proposed for Canterbury has yet to be revealed. We also have very grave concerns about the extent of the major infrastructure construction that will be needed notably the provision of water and sewerage services. We are concerned as well about the extra traffic congestion and air pollution which would ensue.

Equally we doubt the availability of the jobs needed to support the increase in population. Hopes that these can be provided by a 'silicon valley' style complex are, in our view, quite unrealistic for an area that does not have science-led universities.

Over the next few weeks individual residents groups will be examining the proposals in greater detail and will convene meetings of their members, at which council officials will be invited to speak. The new alliance will meet again in mid-June to discuss the views from these sessions and plan the next steps in its campaign of vigorous opposition."

HB Gazette 23rd May 2013

Local Plan: debate delayed by Council blunder

A special meeting about the controversial draft Local Plan had to be cancelled this week because of an administrative blunder by the city council.

The executive committee had been due to decide on Monday 20th May whether to put out to public consultation the document, which earmarks almost 16,000 new homes across the district. But an eagle-eyed resident spotted the council had failed to give 28 days' notice of the meeting, with embarrassed bosses forced to put back the debate.

The authority admitted it had incorrectly labelled the decision as "key" on papers sent out before the meeting, making it mandatory to advertise it four weeks in advance. But bosses have now taken advantage of powers they hold to give just five days' notice in cases of urgent business, meaning the meeting will be held next Thursday 30th May.

The error was raised with the council's democratic services department by Jon Linnane, of Old Dover Road, Canterbury, who is a member of the Langton and Nackington Road Residents Association. He said:

"The law is quite clear that a key decision needs 28 days notice and I raised it with them on the basis the decision was of high cost and covered more than one ward. They were aware of this on Tuesday, so why did it take until Friday to pull the draft Local Plan from the agenda?

It is laughable that a council which can't follow simple procedural rules has a chance of over-seeing this huge strategic development. We had leafleted 450 of our residents urging them to go to the meeting to express their anger and frustration at this uncosted, environmentally unfriendly and heritage-damaging plan."

City council leader John Gilbey claims there was no need to publicise the upcoming meeting. He said:

"I don't think this is a key decision because it's consultation - it's not that we're deciding to do this. We're putting it out there for the public to look at and have their say. As there is doubt, we will take the safe route and wait a week. I'm not happy about losing the time but I'm not prepared to take any chances."

HB Gazette 23rd Mar 2013