Case Officer, Brendan Boyle

18 May2016

Case officer, Brendan Boyle

Development management

Canterbury City Council

Military Road

Canterbury

CT1 1YW

Dear Brendan

Planning application CA/16/00673

Outline planning application (all matters reserved except access) for a mixed-use development of up to 370 dwellings, local centre, open space, community ecological park, hard and soft landscaping and associated infrastructure with access from a new roundabout on Island Road.

Proposal

Location Land to the south of Island Road (A28), former Chislet Colliery, Hersden, Westbere

1. This is the response of Westbere Parish Council to the above planning application.
2. This application raises many of the same issues as application CA/16/00404/OUT at Hoplands Farm, the adjacent site, to which we have alreadyobjected. For convenience,this responsewill set out again, as briefly as possible, the comments that apply in both cases.
3. Westbere Parish Council are not opposed in principle to the use of part of the colliery site for a small scale housing development. Our parish plan, A Vision for Westbere, (WPC 2011), envisages the use of part of the site for 39 dwellings, as part of a contemplatedgrowth in the population of the parishby approximately 40 percent. However,we think that this proposal for roughly ten times that number of additional dwellings is unacceptable, overwhelming and quite inappropriate, and the more so because of its close proximity to the SSSI and Ramsar site.

The context – the inappropriate scale of the proposed development

1. The application relates to a site entirely within the parish of Westbere.If the application were granted, the number of residential properties in the parish would increase from around 150 to 520.If both this application and the Hoplands Farm application were granted, the increase would be from 150 to 770. That would produce a new settlement within the parish of more than six times the size of Westbere Village: the parish’s existing core settlement, in which there are around 120 residential properties.
2. The proposal for the colliery site is for 120 more dwellings than are currently proposed for the Hoplands Farm site, even though the colliery site is only two-thirds the size of the Hoplands Farmsite. The colliery siteneeds to be considered withthat other proposal and with all the other developmentsthat arealready agreed, or are proposed for the draft local plan, which cumulatively would all amount to nearby housing development on a massive scale.
3. We believe strongly that the local infrastructure is quite unable to support the proposed overall scale of proposed nearby development, either in the short term or in the long term. Furthermore, the proposals that have been made for enhancing the localinfrastructure to overcome this difficulty are quite inadequate for thepurpose, even if they could be implemented instantly. This, in turn, casts serious doubt on whether this scale of development in this area is a viable solution to a local shortage of housing.
4. It is in this context that wewish to object to the application and, on the grounds set out in this response, to request its refusal.
5. In our response to the Hoplands Farm application,we explained that ourstarting point for responding to planning applications is the parish plan mentioned above. As we also explained, thatplan was produced after extensive consultation within the parish; and this responsetakes account of that consultation, as well asof thesubsequent local consultation undertaken following the Hoplands Farm application.
6. We have found no reference toour parish plan in application 16/00673 and consider that this constitutes a major flaw in the case put by the applicants.

Incompatibility with CCC’s Local Plan and draft Local Plan

1. The applicants have failed to make the case for a departure from the Local Plan, or from the current proposals for a new plan (CDLP, Publication Draft 2014), read with CCC’s proposed amendments to the draft plan (27 November 2015). These do not identify the site of the proposed development as a site for housing development, although the Government Inspector did suggest, by describing it as a “brownfield site”, that it should be treated as “previously developed land”. For the reasons given in paragraph 14 below, we disagree with that suggestion.
2. We agree that CCC’s amendments to theirproposals for the draft Local Plan will secure that their targets for housing development will be met - although we do still have the reservations set out in paragraph 6 above.On that basis, the proposals for the local plan do not need to be supplemented by the use of this site for more housing development.
3. We also consider that there are grounds for serious concerns about the potential foryet another development that is not proposed for the draft Local Plan further to undermine the viability of what has been proposed for inclusion in the plan.
4. One particular aspect of these concerns relates to any assumption that housing demand in the Canterbury area is being driven by the attraction of access to high speed trains. Even now, the advantages of high speed trains for the area of the proposed developmentsitesare largely negatedby the time involved in driving to Canterbury and finding a parking space. There is no speedy public transport, nor a sufficiently safe cycle route, to Canterbury West. The proposed developments would aggravate the travel time difficulties and the proposed infrastructure changes would be inadequate even to preserve the status quo.

The site should not be treated as previously developed land

1. The site should not be treated as previously developed land. Certainly that description is inapplicable to the whole of the site, and, in the circumstances, it is incorrect to apply the definition to the site as a whole. We believe that a large part of the site has blended into the landscape. It is currently designated as a Local Wildlife Site. In addition, the site —as a site used for mineral extraction that has been subject to restoration work, including specifically the removal of waste tips and railway sidings — should be regarded as falling within at least the spirit of the exception for such land, even if (which it has not been practicable to check) the restoration work was not made through obligations that are capable of being described as “development control procedures”.

Unsuitability of developing Hersden southwards so that it straddles the A28

1. This application, like the Hoplands Farm application, assumes benefits and advantages in expanding the community of Hersden southwards across the A28 into the parish of Westbere.In ourview these benefits and advantages are highly questionable.It seems unlikely that these they can be realised by creating an enlarged community divided into two by the major trunk road providing access to Canterbury from the East, particularly as the development itself will be further contributing, in terms of traffic volume and speed, to the creation of a barrier (the road)between the two parts of an enlarged Hersden.

Heritage assets, the character of Westbere Village and the rural landscape

1. Under the Rural Settlement Hierarchy in the draft Local Plan (CDLP Publication Draft, June 2014, chapter 1: 1.60. page 29), Westbere is identified as a hamlet and as such, with its listed buildings and conservation status, deserves to remain a rural settlement….” It is important that the distribution of new housing sites in rural settlements reflects [such] a settlement pattern, and that rural allocations made as part of the emerging plan are generally small in scale”.The need to conserve Westbere as a rural hamlet is further recognised by the proposal in the draft development plans for green gaps to its West and North.There can be no development to its South because of the railway line, the river Stour and the SSSI/Ramsar sites. Nevertheless, the character of Westbere is put at serious risk by the scale of the contemplated development and that risk is aggravated by the cumulative effect of this and the other proposed developments nearby.
2. One of the Government’s core objectives, as set out in the NPPF, is to “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so they can be enjoyed for their contributions to the quality of life of this and future generations”, another objective considers preserving those elements of the setting that make “a positive contribution to, or better reveal the significance of, the heritage asset”.
3. The proposed development would be highly visible from across the Stour Valley and would have an adverse effect on the setting of Stodmarsh, Lampen Stream and Elbridge House Conservation Areas quite apart from the views from across the other side of the Valley. It would represent, therefore, a significant and obtrusive blot on the landscape that would change this beautiful area of Kent forever.
4. Government guidance on archaeology in the NPPF provides a structure for making decisions regarding listed buildings ‘where the settings of heritage assets are affected by development’ and CCC, in their proposed draft local plan suggest: that priority should be given to protecting “the rural character of the district and development will be restricted to minor development”.This application cannot be considered a proposal for “minor” development.

Unresolved Issues Relating to Transport Links and Traffic

Sturry and the A28

1. A substantial and widespread element of the concern in Westbere relating to the developments proposed locally, including this one, relates to the potential impact on road congestion and traffic noise on the A28, and the consequential potential for increased air-pollution in the low lying areas to the south of the A28 where the majority of the residential properties in Westbere, as well as the SSSI/Ramsar sites, are situated. This concern relates both to the long term consequences of the development and to the shorter term consequences of the traffic generated by the construction work and the proposed road improvements near Sturry.
2. There is an existing significant negative impact on traffic congestion and pollution as a result of the level crossing at Sturry and the frequency of its closure for essential train services.There has also been an increase in the use of the A28 as a trunk road for heavy commercial traffic – a large proportion created by the industrial sites at Lakesview International Business Park. Weunderstand that it is accepted that the new housing developments planned for Hersden, Sturry and Herne Bay will aggravate the situation still further, to the extent of necessitating road improvements and new infrastructure near Sturry: to bypass the level crossing and Sturry village.
3. The only existing specific proposal for this new infrastructure is contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for application CA 16/00841. It is difficult to see how this could provide any significant improvement to the existing situation. It would require all westward travelling A28 traffic to continue to come down Island Road as far as the level crossing and then turn right up the A291 to reach the link road, a manoeuvre that would inevitably, and frequently, be disrupted (whether the crossing is open or closed) either by traffic using the crossing to travel eastwards or by traffic waiting to cross it in a westward direction.
4. Even if infrastructure changes were devised that were likely to be more effective for reducing congestion on the A28, the new housing developments will have their effect before the improvements and new infrastructure can be in place, as well as producing additional heavy traffic on the A28 in connection with the construction works on the housing and on the improvements. So things are going to become significantly worse for several years before any amelioration will be felt. In those circumstances, it would make no sense to aggravate the situation further by approving the construction of housing outside the proposals in the draft Local Plan.They would only increase the problems both in the interim and thereafter.
5. For the interim, in particular (when it will be impossible properly or accurately to assess the extent to which the contemplated road improvements and new infrastructure will themselves generate additional traffic volume and when things will be made worse by additional construction traffic), there seems to usto be a completely overwhelming argument for withholding permission for unnecessary additional housing development on the eastern A28 approaches to Canterbury via Sturry.
6. There is also a strong possibility that further aggravation of the A28 traffic problems could increase the risk that Westbere village would become a route for bypassing traffic congestion on the A28.The lanes into and out of the village (a conservation area) are totally unsuitable for that purpose, and their use in that way would be both damaging and dangerous.
7. Additionally, there is insufficient analysis in the applicants’ documentation of the impact of the contradictions between the two apparently inconsistent objectives:a) facilitating a faster and more efficient route into Canterbury from the East and b) the desirability of expanding Hersden into a larger but safe community straddling both sides of this improved route.
8. It is in this connection that theWestbere parish plan considers the possibility of further limited development to the east of the parish and, if that proceeds, recommends the re-opening of Chislet Halt in order to provide improved public transport access to Canterbury. It seems unlikely that reliance on the A28, even when improved, is going to be sufficient to mitigate the increased problems. Some non-road based access to Canterbury is going to be essential.
9. Moreover, the A28 is not only a route linking Thanet and the villages bordering the road, (including Westbere and Hersden) to Canterbury, it is also a road that forms an essential component of all road travel from areas East of Canterbury to connect with the routes to the North and the South which are mentioned below.
10. It seems to us that the applicants’ transport analysis does not adequately take account of this factor. Nor indeed does it seem adequately to take account of three other factors, namely—

a)The fact that the proposed new housing for the area would provide a supply of housing that goes beyond what is thought to be needed to meet locally generated demand: and so is bound to produce a very substantial increase in commuting, not only into Canterbury but also to the North and to the South.

b)The extent to whichany non-housing components of the proposed developments would generate traffic into the area from outside Hersden.

c)The impact on the A28, in addition to that of the housing developments proposed for the CCC area, of the new housing being built at Preston.

Routes to the North

1. It is clear to usthat residents of the parish and other nearby communities North of the railway line make significant use of the cross-country routes northwards to the A299 in order to bypass Canterbury and to reach the London-bound M2. There has been no proper analysis of the likely impact on those routes of the proposed development, in conjunction with the other proposed local developments. In the absence of evidence about the likely impact on those routes and the financial implications of that impact for the highways authorities, the application should not go forward.

Routes to the South

1. The same point can also be made of the significantly greater use that the increased number of commuters and other residents in the communities East of Canterbury are likely to make of the cross-country routes southwards from the A28, via Grove Ferry or Fordwich. Significant use is already made of these routes to by-pass the closer approaches to Canterbury for reaching the Sandwich road or the southbound A2 towards Deal and Dover -or even with a view to re-joining the A28 beyond Wincheap.

Environmental Concerns

1. There are overwhelming policy and legal reasons why it is essential to protect the SSSI and Ramsar site which are situated within the parish and (but for the railway line) adjacent to the proposed development site.
2. Our view is that the applicants’ documentation fails to provide the necessary reassurance or evidence that the proposed development would have no significant adverse effect on those sites, or that it would have an effect that is capable of being mitigated by measures imposed by conditions.Neitherare we satisfied that the case has been made out for the inevitable serious prejudice to the ecology of the site itself, which (as a designated local wildlife site is protected in its own right.
3. The fact that the proposal for this site is even more intensive,spreads further into the valley and ultimately gets closer to the SSSI and Ramsar site than the Hoplands Farm proposals, (which, in our view, would already go too far in those respects) is a source of particular concern.
4. Weare especially concerned about the following matters and feel that they have been given insufficient consideration in the documentation.

a)The potential for the additional noise and light pollution to wildlife habitats from a substantial settlement very close to the protected areas.