Category: News

The Environment Agency have not objected to the planning application but have proposed a number of conditions. You can read their comment in full here: Environment Agency Comments

This is the response to our letter requesting that the Secretary of State calls in the planning application:

It is the Secretary of State’s policy to wait for the local planning authority to assess an application before he considers whether to intervene. If the Council resolves to grant planning permission (but before it issues the decision), the Secretary of State will consider your request to call in. 

The South East Kent Clinical Commissioning Group has commented on the planning application. They have requested an upfront s106 contribution of £151200 to allow an extension of the Oaklands surgery to deal with the extra demand. They note that other developments have been allowed in Hythe with no such contribution which has impacted on the practices in the town such that there is no spare capacity. They list the risks of not requiring the s106 contribution. But what they don’t address is how the proposed extension of the surgery will be staffed.

Historic England have submitted their objection to the planning application and it has finally appeared the council’s website.  Well worth reading.  Historic England Objection Letter

The archaeology department of Kent County Council has submitted a comment to the planning application that says that the harm to the historic environment provides sufficiently strong grounds for the application to be refused.

They say that it is not enough  to consider the impact of the development on certain fixed views as the applicant has done. Instead the assets setting needs to be considered “in the round” looking at a range of views, environmental factors and mental links that are understood together.

They believe that the harm that the scheme would cause is higher than the applicant’s assessment of “limited to moderate harm.”

They acknowledge that the provision of a new leisure centre is an important public benefit which could be balanced against the harm to the setting to the canal but point out that the leisure centre could be built elsewhere. They say that the proposed improvements to the canal itself are not sufficient to balance the harm to the canal caused by the development and in any case do not pass the test of being directly related to the development as they could be delivered independently of the development.

The say that the contribution the development would make to Shepway’s housing need is small.

And they conclude by pointing out the great weight that the NPPF places on the conservation of the Royal Military Canal as a designated asset of the highest significance.

You can read the full report here:

KCC Archaeology Comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

We were expecting the final public consultation on the draft local plan to take place in Sept/Oct. This is the explanation for the delay from Ben Geering, Head of Planning:

“The cabinet resolution from July identified a requirement for further matters to be addressed ahead of the consultation, with delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Portfolio holder to finalise the plan .  These matters included additional highway modelling of the A20/A260 junction following comments from Highways England and further assessment of transport data from neighbouring authorities to inform the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat Regulations Assessment.

This work has been time consuming to complete and had to be undertaken after the summer period (for traffic neutrality), leading to a delay to the consultation as you point out.  We are working through the outputs of the transport modelling with statutory consultees so as to update the plan accordingly ahead of consultation and submission.”

Click here to read the report:

Martin Arnold Financial Appraisal

Having listened several times to David Monk’s interview on BBC Radio Kent on Tuesday 24 October we are really concerned that he just doesn’t seem to have read his own council’s planning application.

On the subject of contamination he said that whatever has to be done will be done. He then went on to say that he didn’t know the detail – sometimes it has to be covered and sometimes it has to be dug out.

If he had read the Geo Environment report which is part of the planning application he would know that “a variety of clean cover scenarios have been recommended (including 600mm clean cover in private gardens.” If he hasn’t read that report then how can he be sure that what he is proposing for the site will be safe for existing and new residents? How can he have any idea how much this work will cost and therefore whether the project as a whole is financially viable?

Does he understand that putting this clean cover on the site will mean removing all the vegetation? Does he not
understand the catastrophic impact this will have on the wildlife?

He claims that the site has no historical significance. Does he not know that the Royal Military Canal is a scheduled ancient monument? Has he not read the correspondence from Historic England including their pre application advice which is also included in the planning application documents? Does he not care about the harm that his proposed development will cause to the setting of this wonderful historic asset?

Councillor Monk claims that the project will cover its own costs but does he have any evidence to support that? What proof does he have that adding a fitness centre to the swimming pool will mean that it won’t continue to need a subsidy? The council submitted the planning application before carrying out proper financial viability studies for the proposals and even now it is not clear if that work has been done.

He implied that the decision not to put the leisure centre on Hythe Green was because local people objected but the reality was that this proposal was stopped by the restrictive covenant on the site. Something the council should have been aware of before they even proposed this idea and spent public money drawing up the plans.

Councillor Monk calls us nimbys. But we are not fighting to protect our views nor do we object to all new development – we are just fighting to protect this unique green open space. The council does have a duty to provide housing and leisure facilities for future generations but surely it also has a duty to protect the town’s open space and heritage for future generations too.

Residents deserve an assurance that Shepway council, as local planning authority, will not decide its own planning application before the local plan is decided by a Government Planning Inspector? If it fails to do this we will be left with the impression that the council has cheated the planning system and ridden roughshod over local people’s views.

 

 

For the next few weeks you can listen to the programme here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05hxmjd