The official closing date for public comments to CCC planning has now passed. However, you can still contact your local City councillors and tell them what you think.
The new proposals for 630 houses and a major road will be heard by the planning committee at a date yet to be set, but probably early February.
People should write to their councillors now. Their email address is at the bottom of this article.
Here are some guidelines:
The application number is CA/20/02826. Please state this reference in any correspondence.
You can find details online here:
https://pa.canterbury.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage
We would advise that all objection should be as specific as possible. The committee can only take into account objections that show where planning law, environmental legislation etc. are breached. Remember, this site is part of the Local Plan of 2017, and has been designated for development.
This application is about the houses and the main road. The building of the flyover and development at Broad Oak will only come about if this is approved. It will also allow more development at Hersden and Herne to proceed.
No one wants to pay all the money for the road. Kent County Council will contribute and an organisation called SELEP (South East Local Enterprise Partnership, a government funded body) will also contribute. But the main funding will be from the private developers of this and the other housing estates. Naturally, they want to squeeze in as many homes, cut back on facilities and ensure that their profit margins are as high as possible.
In our leaflet we explain some of the reasons that the last application was turned down: Here they are again, and with our reasons why they are still valid.
If you are using any of these, please keep the policy reference in your letter
1 TOO DENSE: The Planning Committee determined that the proposed development exceeds national average densities and therefore would appear overdense. The development is therefore contrary to policy DBE3 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017.
Reducing the dwellings by 20 is too little to have an effect.
2 DIVIDED COMMUNITY: The Planning Committee determined that the division of the site by the proposed Sturry Link Road would result in a poor layout and lack of connectivity within the site that would be contrary to policy DBE3 of the Local Plan 2017.
Putting a major road through new housing will divide the community.
3 OPEN SPACE INSUFFICIENT: The Planning Committee determined that there would be a lack of useable open space available for future residents of the development and as such contrary to policy OS11 of the Local Plan 2017.
There is till not enough room in this application for recreational use for the community. No sports provision. Not enough space for a football pitch, and the green verges on the main road have been counted as open space, as have the ponds built to help ease the drainage problems.
4 DAMAGE TO WOODLANDS: The Planning Committee determined that the development would result in inadequate protection of ancient woodland as a result of its use by future residents of the development and would result in the deterioration of the ancient woodland contrary to policies LB8 and LB10 of the Local Plan 2017.
Housing positioned too close to woods, will still impact on wildlife and ecology. The danger from deposits of household waste around the edges will damage wild life habitats.
5 NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The applicant has failed to provide affordable housing.
Local plan states that there should be 30% affordable housing. Still the developers plan to build none.
6 CONTAMINATED SITE: The Planning Committee determined that large parts of the site are unsuitable for development because of contamination from lead shot and there was no report, with adequate site investigation information prepared by a competent person. Therefore contrary to policy DBE3 and QL12 of the Local Plan 2017.
Developers’ own survey records several examples of higher than average leachable lead deposits. There will be huge amounts of excavation and replacement of soils as a result.
7 HEALTHCARE: The Committee determined that there would be a lack of adequate local healthcare provision contrary to policy QL8 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017.
Nothing in new proposal to alter the situation, new residents will be expected to travel to Northgate surgery in Canterbury.
Documents:
There are over 200 documents on the planning website. We encourage you to read as many as possible and make objections specific. There are interesting projections for road traffic, for example.
It is obvious that the new road will attract more traffic with all the associated health risks.
Local City Councillors
Our local city councillors are keen to ensure that they represent their community’s opinions.
email them:
georgina.glover@councillor.canterbury.gov.uk
Louise.Harvey-Quirke@councillor.canterbury.gov.uk
My husband and I object to these new houses due to the fact that the traffic is already a nightmare, we already have a new housing in hersden which is going to make it worse . Also these companies that put in for planning do so saying they will be affordable , then once they get permission they build 4/5 bedroom houses . The youngster will never afford these size houses . Plus we need to keek some beautiful landscapes !
Please make sure that your comments are also sent to Canterbury City Planning Dept. Thank you
Mr Trevor Martin
Me and my wife walk the woods daily
And are very concerned about the woods
And it’s wild life ie foxes badger numerous
Birds ie European eagle. robins. chiff caff.
Cooko . Jays wood pecker and so many
More also the water runs through these woods in. Many ways and ends in the filds