Inquiry starting into homes plan

Developers hoping to build 40 homes on the outskirts of Herne Bay will go head-to-head with council bosses at a public inquiry this week.

The two-day hearing, which started 25th Jan, was called after officials from Canterbury City Council failed to decide on the application by Kitewood for a site in Beltinge, near Coventry Gardens.

Kitewood boss Mike Dolan told the Times he was confident the Government inspector would rule in their favour, adding:

"We want to have a harmonious relationship with both officers and councillors. But we don't expect to be ignored when we submit an application. We submitted the application in spring 2011 and just didn't have a reply. The council needs to have a full and deliverable five-year supply of housing and I don't think that is the case."

Kitewood has faced fierce public opposition over plans to build upward of 1,000 homes on agricultural land in Hillborough.

Council spokesman Rob Davies confirmed the application had not been decided within the 13-week target. But officials have since decided they would have refused the development because the site was not needed for housing at the moment.

thisiskent 27th Jan 2012

Kitewood divides young and old

Hmmm... separating the under-60s and over-60s... do I detect an attempt to 'divide and rule'?

Developers pushing for a £240 million housing scheme on the outskirts of Herne Bay claim people over the age of 60 do not want it to happen. In a report compiled on public opinion, Kitewood Estates says there is opposition from “those more senior residents who would prefer to retain the existing status quo".

The firm adds “those who appeared to be aged over 60 were more likely to be opposed to the scheme”, but claims a “broad support” overall, particularly from people with young families.

The comments are made in a report put together after two days of public consultation about the plans, which include 1,375 homes, a primary school and shopping centre in Hillborough. The phased development would start at the end of next year and continue until 2026.

More than 400 people are thought to have attended the exhibitions at Reculver Primary School in August and September, with 183 filling out questionnaires. Of those who responded, 36% are said to be in favour of the scheme, with 62% opposed and just 2% undecided.

Kitewood claims all 47 online replies were in support of the proposal. Only 60% of objectors explain why they are against the plans, with Kitewood accusing the others of “expressing a blanket opposition to the development”.

Among the concerns raised are traffic congestion, the need  for another secondary school, and the loss of green space. Other replies push for new medical and dental facilities, an improved bus service and even a new railway station.

But Kitewood accuses locals of failing to grasp the road improvements proposed and how they would ease traffic density concerns. It also says people have confused the scheme with other unrelated developments in the area.

Despite the majority of responses opposing the plans, Kitewood describes those who did not as a “very high” percentage, claiming an “organised anti-development faction often represents no more than a minority voice”. It adds:

“There is broad support for the scheme and understandable opposition from those more senior residents who would prefer to retain the existing status quo. It is important for Kitewood to enhance its plan and incorporate the proposals made by local residents and to address the important issues they have raised. Most importantly, it is essential that Kitewood is able to communicate the beneficial impact and long-term planning gains the scheme will deliver for the community.”

---

---

Campaigner questions result

Speaking on behalf of the Save Hillborough campaign, leader Laura Calder questioned the results. She said:

"Only 13% of the paper replies to the consultation were in favour, but 100% of the email replies were in favour, which looks a bit odd. Even if you include all of the favourable email replies, over 60% were not in favour of the scheme, but Kitewood describes this as ‘broad support’.

It is very disappointing that they should go to all the trouble of this big PR exercise. and then ignore the voices that they don't want to hear. Let’s hope that our councillors pay more attention to us than the developers have."

Concerns: sewage, roads, schools and more

Dear Sir,

After our local residents meeting, I would like to express mine and my families dissatisfaction on the proposed development by Kitewood Homes. Quite clearly the infrastructure of Reculver, Beltinge and Broomfield is not designed to cope with such a development.

My main concerns amongst many others are as follows:

• Sewage:  The current sewage system in place is inadequate in coping with the demands that the additional Barnes Way estate has created.  Medway Cleansing Service (MCS) sewage teams are regularly seen clearing the waste as the current tannery plant at Hillborough cannot meet the areas current demands.
• Roads:  The area is of a village / semi-rural area, therefore the roads are completely inadequate to meet the demands of a new housing estate.  People will not simply join the Thanet Way to get from A to B, most residents avoid the poor connection onto the Dual Carriageway and access the local amenities via the existing road network. Add to this the heavy plant that would be incumbent to the area, should this development get approved, the roads will be only fit for the agricultural vehicles that used to farm the proposed land!
• Schools:  As stated in the Local papers, a school has not been promised – and even if it had – the area does not need another primary school.  My children when at Grammar School age will have to travel out of the area.  Promising land and passing the problem on to Kent County Council is not the answer, we all know they prioritise Canterbury over surrounding areas!
• Homes & Jobs:  I would welcome a development such as this… if Herne Bay surrounding areas was a business magnet with car plants or such like.  If this were so, and had the area not had any available property or brownfield land then we would welcome development.

Whilst my property backs on to the proposed field, and I will lose privacy and daylight, my real concern is that the proposal is on Grade 2 Agricultural land.  By building on this the development will hand more demand for imported products and of course this will be followed by price increases for products in demand. A sensible option would to follow Government Guidelines and prioritising building developments on brownfield land, not on perfectly arable agricultural land. We do not have a business centre and there are many available units in better areas than the Altira Estate.

As mentioned, I have extreme reservations on this proposed development.  We must take in consideration of Herne Bay's Redevelopment proposals, are we simply abandoning a perfectly good town centre and attempting to build another beside it, with no infrastructure?

I trust you will use and forward on my concerns on this poor choice of placement for a development.

Kind regards,

AR, 6th Jan 2012

Kitewood claim "broad support"

Kitewood have published their report on the outcome of their public consultation - click HERE to see the report. Not surprisingly, they think it went quite well, but they may be looking at the results through rose-tinted specs...

• Only 13% of the paper replies to the consultation were in favour, but 100% of the e-mail replies were in favour, which looks a bit odd (see pages 11-15).
• Even if you include all of the favourable e-mail replies, over 60% were not in favour of the scheme, but Kitewood describes this as "broad support".

It is very disappointing that Kitewood should go to all this trouble, and then simply ignore the voices that they don't want to hear (see Section 5.2 in their report).

Let's hope that our councillors pay more attention to us than the developers have.​

Voter power!

Unless things have changed,  when a planning application is submitted, if there are over four objections it goes before the planning committee.

There are twelve councillors on the planning committee. These councillors represent you in the local elections.

I think that we should make a point of not voting for those that pass this application in future elections. We will then hopefully eliminate the ones that don’t listen to the public, if that makes sense.

R, 29th Dec 2011