Developer ignores genuine concerns

Corinthian’s John Trotter (Gazette, February 9) is right to say that Canterbury is “in the midst of a housing crisis” (Housing Need Demands We See The Bigger Picture, Gazette, February 9).

The problem is that the Mountfield Park scheme will do little to address this crisis.

A development of low-density mediumto-large private homes in an out-of-town setting offers nothing to those in greatest need.

For those at the sharp end of the housing crisis, even the so-called affordable homes in Mountfield Park will be out of reach.

What is actually required is a large injection of social housing and genuinely affordable starter homes and flats.

Mr Trotter has correctly identified the problem, but there is an almost complete mismatch between what is needed and what is on offer.

At the same time, a development of this type will do nothing to alleviate the already dire problems of traffic congestion and air pollution which all of us in the city have to live with. It is for these reasons, not unthinking nimbyism, that Corinthian’s plans have been so widely criticised. Michael Rundell Wincheap, Canterbury

The Alliance of Canterbury Residents’ Association has to take issue with John Trotter.

We have four main areas of complaint. One is that we do not recognise the number of consultation events he mentions.

There were far fewer than 30 and those we attended were often ill-prepared and unhelpful.

They fell far short of what is required by the National Planning Policy Framework and failed to convince us that Corinthian had any desire to engage with residents.

Second, while we share his concern for the homeless and the need for new housing, we are unconvinced that Mountfield Park will provide what is needed.

Third, we utterly reject his charge that we are missing the big picture.

In fact, ACRA has consistently criticised the council for looking at developments in isolation.

It wants to see an overall approach, considering the cumulative impact of the developments being planned for the city as a whole and which together threaten both gridlock and further deterioration in its already dire air quality.

Last, Mr Trotter talks of those “who make the most noise”. This is not the way to describe the 20 or so speakers who opposed Corinthian’s development at the planning committee.

The Gazette complimented them on their politeness in putting forward the issues which worry so many people in the city.

Alas, none of these were answered either by Corinthian’s team or by councillors. So we must continue to voice our concerns. Clive H Church Chairman ACRA, New House Lane, Thanington Without, Canterbury

Corinthian say 30% of the homes to be built at Mountfield Park will be affordable but what does that mean?

Can Mr Trotter explain how, by building Mountfield Park, homeless people will find it any easier to buy or rent a home?

Presumably the reason they are homeless is because they have no job, or are low paid and/or have no deposit, Brian Summers of Kingsnorth Road, Faversham, took this picture of seagulls at Whitstable Harbour. making it impossible for them to even rent in the current housing market.

He might argue building so many homes will bring down the cost of all local housing, but that won’t happen. Hilary Spon Iffin Lane, Canterbury

I would rather heed the warnings of the air quality and transport professionals who have full local knowledge than the director of a company in line to make millions from this development.

We all acknowledge the need for more housing but, more importantly, new developments should be built in areas with jobs and good transport links.

Thousands of homes are planned for east Kent on sites in Folkestone, Dover, Canterbury, Manston and Birchington but where are these residents going to work? Marion Bell Wells Avenue, Canterbury.

Developer John Trotter does not understand the point of consultations.

Individuals and residents’ associations made comments on the scheme and feel they have been ignored.

It is as if they think we do it as an end in itself. A harmless hobby like a quiz night in a pub but there never seems to be a prize with consultation only one wooden spoon after the other.

We had consultations on the Local Plan but while they may have “listened” to our submissions, no one from Canterbury City Council chief executive Colin Carmichael downwards modified their decisions. Nicholas Blake Leycroft Close, Canterbury.

The National Planning Policy Framework requires early consultation with communities occurs.

By the time John Trotter’s company did present their proposals to the public it was clear little was going to be changed.

Canterbury City Council is partly to blame in abrogating their duty to ensure consultation occurs, but Mr Trotter’s memory is at fault if he thinks there were 30 events open to the public. We can recall fewer than half a dozen.

The planning for this development has been taking place in secret for some time.

Indeed Mr Trotter himself stated that his company has been working on this for nine years.

Were council officials and councillors unaware of this?

Alongside other residents’ associations in Canterbury, we will continue to challenge poorly-thought-out proposals which fail to address real social problems, which will worsen the environment and whose chief beneficiaries will be Mr Trotter’s company. Huw Kyffin Chairman, St Augustine’s Residents Association, St Augustine’s Road, Canterbury.

Although the Corinthian scheme has apparently been in the planning for nine years, the company only made contact with our group in the autumn.

In total we have attended three open stakeholder meetings plus one smaller meeting to plan one of the events .

By the time these took place the planning application was all but finalised.

Indeed one event was held after the application had been submitted to Canterbury City Council.

Far from a process of genuine engagement, we were treated to a series of presentations to explain the details.

Comments made by us at this very late stage were either not accepted or resulted in minor tweaks of fine detail.

We hope the promised future engagement with us will prove far more fruitful because we have sought to be as constructive as possible in our discussions with the company.

If we are to have new neighbours, we need to feel comfortable with each other.

We take great issue with the claim we have no interest in either social or affordable housing provision.

Many of our members give generously of their time and money to support vulnerable people in our city.

Younger members of our families struggle to a find a home of their own.

Wage levels in Canterbury are relatively low in comparison with other parts of the country.

We feel questions about air quality and traffic congestion are far removed from a plea for the retention of the status quo.

To continue to press the case for an eastern relief road is a justifiable objective and nothing to do with the selfish protectionism implied.

We support modal shift but realistic expectations of its impact supported by properly integrated infrastructure are vital.

We endorse the view put forward by Prof Richard Scase and others that largescale housing developments such as