Canterbury
As well as the cathedral city itself, Canterbury district includes Herne Bay and Whitstable and much high-quality countryside, especially in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the lower-lying land to the east of the city. Housing numbers in the district have increased enormously in the last 40 years, and a further 7,200 are currently scheduled to be built to 2026.
The most pressing issues in the district revolve around Canterbury, which has severe congestion problems, though the proposed solutions can be as much of a worry.
Protect Kent has made strong objections to Canterbury City Council’s Core Strategy, which suggests that 2,000+ new houses will be built on grade 1 agricultural land on the southern side of the City.
The Council needs to accommodate 7,500 new dwellings by 2026, but in apparently favouring a large extension to the south of Canterbury the City Council could not have chosen a more environmentally damaging location. As well as being the highest quality agricultural land, it is an area that is also designated as an Area of High Landscape Value. Consequently, any large extension here would be very damaging to the landscape setting of Canterbury and to the surrounding countryside. It would also be difficult to assimilate such a large development into the existing form and character of the City without being seen as urban sprawl.
Only as recently as January 2008 the Council turned down a planning application for 480 dwellings in southern Canterbury because they saw it is a sensitive area of countryside where development would be visually intrusive. It was also considered by the Council to be an unsustainable location, being poorly located in regard to access to jobs and services. We wonder why the Council now sees it as suitable for even more development.
Whilst it may be necessary to use some greenfield land for development to accommodate such a large amount of housing, we consider that the Core Strategy should look to smaller scale sites that can be better integrated with the existing communities and better targeted to where there will be less environmental impact. We have urged the Council to keep all options open at this stage and examine all possible opportunities around Canterbury, Herne Bay, Whitstable and the larger villages.
However, to minimise the need for greenfield land releases we have asked the Council to:
a) include a windfall allowance for Canterbury City, which is allowed under government guidance and would be justified because of the significant environmental constraints that surround the City; and
b) consider a planned village expansion of Hersden focusing on available brownfield land.
We have also challenged the Council’s proposed transport strategy, which overly focuses on road transport. At the heart of the strategy is the provision of more park and ride and new and improved slip roads on the A2.
We do not consider that the case for additional park and ride has been robustly made or that it has been demonstrated that additional park and ride provision will actually help relieve congestion in Canterbury city centre. There is no clear evidence that the existing 1,800 park and ride spaces have eased city centre congestion in any meaningful way. Consequently, we consider that there should be no further park and ride provision made until a clear case of need can be demonstrated, and it can be shown that city centre congestion will be improved. Even if this can be done, we consider that any new provision should not be made on greenfield land (sites at Harbledown and Cockering Farm are being proposed) when council-owned brownfield land is available at Wincheap.
Similarly, we do not consider that the case has been made for additional slip roads at all three proposed locations (Harbledown, Wincheap and Bridge) on the A2. In any event there is no evidence that they will all actually be delivered in the plan period, making them purely an aspiration. This will only serve to blight yet more greenfield land for years to come. Whilst the planning of the north facing slip roads at Wincheap is at an advanced state, and these may bring some benefits, we can see little justification for the proposed slip roads at Bridge and Harbledown. These will be very costly and environmentally damaging and will only serve to promote more journeys into the City by car.
We have urged the Council to fundamentally review its transport strategy for the City and adopt a long-term approach that will secure a more sustainable transport system by 2026. This must include maximising the opportunities for cyclists and pedestrians and promote a high quality integrated public transport system. This could involve simple measures such as providing a bus service that directly links the east and west railway stations.
Herne Bay brownfield building
Local ‘brownfield first’ policy upheld.
(Taken from the December 2007 issue of CPRE’s quarterly campaigning newsletter Fieldwork).
A recent appeal decision in Herne Bay highlights the important role played by local plans in protecting greenfield land.
The appeal concerns an application to build 66 dwellings beyond the urban area as defined in the local plan. It was contrary to local plan and structure plan policies favouring brownfield development within the urban periphery. The appellant argued that reduced weight should be placed on these because national policy on planning for housing, PPS3, does not refer to a sequential approach and the council’s land supply falls short of PPS3 requirements to be deliverable, achievable and viable.
PPS3 does not refer to the ‘sequential’ approach, the appeal inspector acknowledged, but ‘the policy should be considered as part of the development plan as a whole’. While some elements of the council’s land supply fell short of requirements overall there was still a surplus in the urban area. Dismissing the appeal, the inspector stated: ‘…the Structure Plan and Local Plan together seek to meet housing needs in a sustainable manner and here I see no fundamental inconsistency with the objectives of PPS3. For this reason, in the circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to place reduced weight on this development plan policy.’
The appeal reference is APP/J2210/A/07/2038282. This can be quoted in campaigns for or against development schemes, plans and proposals.