Fears of club ‘collapse’ as £125m project damned in council report

A controversial plan to build a £125 million holiday village and sports complex on protected countryside has failed to win the backing of the city council.

For a year-and-a-half, Quinn Estates has been working on proposals to transform an area of outstanding natural beauty at Highland Court Farm, near Bridge, into a “game-changing” centre for sporting excellence - including delivering a new stadium for Canterbury City FC.

However, as the club gears up for its biggest game since reforming in 2007, a damning officer’s report has listed 12 grounds for recommending the divisive application be rejected by councillors next week.

The planning committee will decide the fate of the development on Tuesday night, three days after Canterbury City attempt to reach the quarter-finals of the FA Vase

At the meeting will be chairman of the nomadic football club, Tim Clark, who says he is ready to fight hard to convince councillors to vote the scheme through.

“I intend to look them straight in the eyes and tell them it’s time for justice and a ‘Yes’ vote,” he said.

“We have no plan B and a ‘No’ vote will see the club collapse for the second time in 20 years. It’s as stark a choice as that.

“The city council has a once-ina-lifetime opportunity to vote for a sporting legacy that will serve generations to come.”

Along with a new home for the football club, which currently ground-shares with Faversham, the scheme includes six new pitches and a clubhouse for Canterbury Rugby Club.

The 300-acre project would also create a luxury 175-holiday home complex, artisan food and drink outlets, an extension to Canterbury Business Park and ‘innovation centre’ for start-up businesses.

It is a joint venture between Quinn Estates and the Highland Investment Company, which owns the farm, and aims to attract wealthy visitors to the county by creating an idyl- lic estate of second homes in the style of the Cotswolds’ Yoo Lakes and Silverlake in Dorset.

Having gained a host of objections, including from Natural England, Kent Wildlife Trust, Dover District Council and a number of parish councils, the development has long-proved contentious.

That controversy has been recognised by authority planning officer Steve Musk, who cites adverse traffic problems, harm to the protected landscape, a lack of affordable housing, loss of agricultural land and a lack of community infrastructure as reasons behind his recommendation to refuse the project.

The report has angered Mark Quinn, CEO of Quinn Estates, who adamantly believes the development can bring a significant economic boost to Canterbury.

He said: “The report definitely doesn’t give a fair or balanced appraisal of the plans. They have chosen to ignore significant elements of evidence we have supplied and hardly touched on the great praise we got. We’re extremely disappointed by it.”

With the decision by no means being set in stone until the planning committee meeting, Mr Quinn hopes the tide can still turn in his favour.

He added: “We would be amazed if councillors refuse it. I am very hopeful that they will look at it and use their common sense.”

In stark contrast, Barham Downs Action Group chairman David Howe is hoping the recommendation is followed through.

“I’m very happy with it,” he said.

“It really is a damning report, I’ve never seen one quite as bad Thursday, January 31, 2019 Kentish Gazette (KG)

Thursday, January 31, 2019 Kentish Gazette (KG) www.kentonline.co.uk

Newsdesk: 01227 475985