Kentish Gazette Canterbury & District
What do other Tories think?
How is it possible that all the flock of Conservative councillors have been seemingly muted? Surely we’d hear some
plaintive bleatings signalling distress at the authoritarian pronouncements emitting from Ben Fitter-harding.
As the number of contributors to the letters page pointed out last week - how can his statement that there is “no avenue” for reducing the 17,000 houses be acceptable [‘No avenue to reduce housing plan for district’, Gazette January 26]?
Do his fellow Tory councillors all seriously support this proposal in the draft Local Plan? But there’s nothing but silence. Penny Morgan
Church Lane, Kingston
Five people took to your letters page last week to outline their objections to the Local Plan and you covered at least five stories about residents up in arms about proposed developments around Canterbury.
When will the city council, and in particular its leader, Ben Fitter-harding, realise we do not want and cannot sustain any more development in our area. I would say I am looking forward to the local elections in May when we can kick this lot out, but will Labour and the Liberals be man enough to stop these proposed developments? I’m not sure they will. Perhaps we should encourage independents to stand for election who want to stop the wanton destruction of our countryside?
Linda Hill
Norton Avenue, Herne
In November the city council published its Local Plan for the district up to 2045 to which we were invited to contribute with the deadline of January 16. During this period the Minister of State for Housing, Michael Gove, said central government would allow local authorities to be more flexible on future housing targets to reflect local circumstances.
This is particularly pertinent to our city, where the leader of the council insists we need 17,000 new houses, which would double the size of the existing city, and cause unbearable strain on the infrastructure.
The Canterbury Society made a carefully reasoned submission as to what it sees as the best way for our community to develop over the next two decades.
It’s a group made up of qualified architects, surveyors, academics and others with considerable knowledge of town planning, conservation, health and social issues.
It made a careful calculation of what the community really needs by way of realistic housing numbers and their impact on the district.
It seems like Cllr Fitter-harding will ignore this as well as several other very carefully argued submissions, including one from a highly qualified former town planner.
If there is no legitimate scope at this late stage in the delivery of the plan to make any change, why then were we encouraged in the first place to comment on
what is in any case only a draft, and by the very definition is not final?
It all seems rather a waste of time. Also, if central government has invited local authorities to revise their projected needs for future housing, why not Canterbury?
We all wonder why Cllr Fitterharding cannot see fit to change the plan at this late stage in light of the views expressed in the submissions.
Could it be for fear of what might happen to the Conservative majority in the May elections?
I for one hope the newly elected council will be more reflective of public opinion in the inner city wards as well as the surrounding district.
Dr Hubert Pragnell
Meadow Road, Canterbury
Those people writing in objecting to the council Local Plan should make common cause with those objecting to the zoning plan for the city as the two are inextricably connected. For years people have called for an outer ring-road around the city, but rather like the northern relief road and the Sturry Road relief road it has never happened because there has never been any public money to fund it, and there still isn’t.
For a ring-road to happen money must come from elsewhere. That elsewhere will be developer contributions, but to raise a lot of money, enough to build a ring-road, you will need a
lot of contributions.
You can only get a lot of contributions if you allow a lot of new housing as the contributions are meant to be spent solving the problems caused by new development.
If the council wants to justify spending the money on a Canterbury ring-road, it must raise the money from developments in the city. Whether the monies you collect to build the ring-road keep up with the inflation is another matter.
There is a very real risk that in 20 years’ time we will have vast new housing estates, but still won’t have enough money for the ring-road.
And as for us in north Canterbury, we get no ring-road, but must rely on Rough Common Road, Giles Lane through the university and then Rheims Way, Whitstable Road or St Stephen’s Road to the very edge of the city centre, then out along Wincheap or Broad Oak Road to the ringroad. It’s utter madness.
Bob Britnell
Orchard Close, Canterbury
Week after week there are letters printed criticising the incompetent and economically poor decision making of Cllr Ben Fitter-harding’s Conservativecontrolled council.
In May there are local elections, and the time is ripe for the electorate to show their dissatisfaction by putting their cross in the box that shows how we feel.
That will be a “consultation” Cllr Fitter-harding cannot ignore.
Gordon Ford
Upper Harbledown
I would like to object in the strongest terms to Cllr Fitterharding’s conclusion the city council is not able to re-appraise the draft Local Plan. Specifically in relation to the plan the local authority carelessly calls Cooting Farm despite that being the name of my house which is not part of the plan.
There were many reasons why it should not go ahead.
One of them is that the majority landowner is not willing to sell the land now or in the lifetime of the Local Plan.
Without that land the scheme is unworkable.
Even if Cllr Fitter-harding is correct and he can’t adjust the numbers required for the whole district, that doesn’t mean a new town in unspoilt countryside is an acceptable option.
The new proposals for the
national planning policy framework (NPPF) clearly states that if housing need can be met only by building at densities which would be significantly outof-character with the existing area this may be an adverse impact which could outweigh the benefits of meeting need in full. This change recognises the importance of being able to plan for growth in a way that recognises places’ distinctive characters and delivers attractive environments.
The city council’s current Local Plan was fundamentally flawed before the new guidance and after the changes to the NPPF guidance it is dead in the water. Cllr Fitter-harding needs to revisit his assessment there is “no avenue” to make adjustments because there clearly are a number of avenues that can and should be taken.
Danielle Ottey
Cooting Farm, Adisham
Are we to believe that the consultation process for the draft Local Plan is a complete waste of time?
Cllr Fitter-harding seems to be of the view that nothing can be done and it is going to happen due to demands from central government.
He needs to be aware that if he was to visit that far-flung eastern outpost of his empire, Adisham, he will encounter widespread opposition to the proposals which will create a contiguous conurbation linking Adisham to Aylesham and Womenswold.
Hundreds of acres of productive farmland will be lost, and the identity and character of these villages and hamlets such as Cooting and Blodden will be changed forever. Fortunately it looks as if one of the schemes is undeliverable because a major portion of the land required is not available, so should be removed from the plan forthwith.
What procedures are in place to monitor the city council’s interpretation of the results of the consultation?
I look forward to future articles on this matter in your pages.
Guy Steward
Pond Hill, Adisham