Category: Uncategorized

Another box ticker from FHDC.

Published on by Slurry-Kent2 Comments

The 26th March 2021 was webinar day; the day when the public had the opportunity to pose questions to a group of FHDC’s experts about the proposed housing estate known as Otterpool Park. Treading carefully not to upset the apple cart, FHDC’s host Phil Laycock presented us with the positive effect that Otterpool would have on our lives and invited written comments to be put to the panel of experts, including Andy Jarrett from FHDC. Not all the questions or statements made were delivered due to the time factor. At some point Mr. Laycock assures us that we will all be able to view all the questions/statements made on his website. Where that is, we don’t know. Perhaps will get to hear about it soon, who knows?

We still have the opportunity to contact Mr. Laycock and make our views known by emailing:

phil.laycock@built-environment-networking.com

Why not copy us in with your comment. We’d be happy to hear from you.

Anyhow, we are publishing some of the comments on our website just in case they are mislaid or end up on the cutting room floor, so to speak. Here they be:

Heritage

Great that they are celebrating the heritage, such as the castle and… that’s about all they’re saying.  The barn has a hammerbeam roof – one of a handful (six?) in the country.  They forgot to mention that.  It isn’t suitable for a museum unless you’re putting doors on it and lighting and… ugh.  And the Roman villa – nothing said about that this time.
I asked at the last ‘consultation’ where the museum was going.  I got a sheepish look and admission there wasn’t one.  I asked about the Roman villa and suggested a Roman Painted House style museum over the top.  They said it’s likely going to be covered over (and built upon?).  So I’m glad to hear they’re ‘considering’ an alternative.  There’s more to be discovered there – discover it, assess what you truly have and perhaps get the likes of English Heritage or the National Trust involved.


Cars

Well, that’s all a shambles, isn’t it?  It’s a real shame that KCC are intent on reducing parking spaces per the Kent Design Guide, and FHDC absorbed it verbatim into the PPLP (see Transport section including Policy T2 and tables 13.1 and 13.2).  It’s a shame they adopted it a couple of weeks after the Use Classes changed, as that leaves its effectiveness up in the air for commercial parking standards.
Where’s the encouragement of greener fuel sources?  Why discourage cars altogether?  That is impractical – firstly for the elderly and disabled, but also for anyone who needs to go out in the rain shopping, or bring a lot of shopping home.  I don’t know about you, but I find the whole process of online grocery shopping poor, especially not being able to choose your own cut of meat, vegetables etc.  And getting skimmed milk when you asked for whole, or some bizarre replacement!
Public transport is poor.  Bus travel times have greatly increased – the bus from Folkestone to Ashford takes over 90 minutes now (it was around an hour a few years back) AND that’s because it goes around the houses in Lympne!!  To Maidstone, it’s 3 hours!  The alternative is a very expensive train (I think it’s about £20 to Maidstone)… or drive.  Likewise, if you’re a Mum in Cheriton or Hythe, it’s cheaper to drive to Ashford and park (let alone Folkestone) than get two kids on the bus to go shopping for a couple of hours in Folkestone on the bus.  And the retail offering is better in Ashford (or was).  MAYBE the silver lining could be their focus on essential shopping only, which could see people come to Folkestone if the Place Plan gets its act together.  I think that’s a weird focus for… isn’t it 10,000 homes in the end – so about 25,000 people?  
Buses need a local loop and interconnecting out-of-town buses that don’t fart about around the houses.  They DO know that there’s only one bus to Folkestone from Westenhanger per hour, and it takes exactly an hour, right?  Ashford is about 15 minutes more!  And those are direct buses without changing!
The speed limits sound pretty restrictive – 30 mph on the A20?!  That’s going to cause chaos.  And I wasn’t impressed with that shared space layout – it just looked confusing.  You just have to look at Ashford to see that it is a stupid idea that doesn’t work.  But don’t worry, “Operation Stack is not a regular event” – Andy Jarrett.


Affordability

It’s a joke that the Council set a 30% affordable housing target, yet they come up with 22% for the largest scheme in the district.  What message does that give other developers?  It’s OK to submit a shonky viability assessment to excuse the need to provide more?  Or will they put extra pressure on other developers to make up their huge (what, 800?) shortfall by reducing it to 22%?  And, of course, they won’t be truly affordable. 


Initial Provisions

Someone mentioned a GP surgery.  Interesting, but isn’t there a shortage of Doctors?  I wonder if the CCG will test their ludicrous idea for a ‘super surgery’ for Folkestone at Otterpool?  Hopefully they do and realise it doesn’t work.  Someone mentioned frequent traffic jams on the A20 (that’ll be worse at 30 mph) and how they affect the ability to get to William Harvey hospital.  Does that mean Mark Quinn isn’t building his super hospital in Canterbury, or that Ashford will remain open now, anyway?  Because WHH is 14 minutes from Westenhanger by car and KCH is 24 minutes.  That 10 minutes could be life or death.  Well, you’d have to get an ambulance, of course – it’ll be a longer difference on your bike!!
So the housing provision is going to be for the key workers in the area.  They’re all welcome, so long as they’re fit to walk / cycle and don’t have kids older than 10.  Well, they could go to Brockhill, but how many more can they take?  Oh, and they probably shouldn’t be religious, unless they don’t mind cycling to Stanford.  Except that’s C of E.  There’s a Methodist church in Sellindge, a Baptist church in Brabourne and err… is the nearest Catholic church in Hythe?!  Does this mean the Otterpool team are antisemitic?!?

It’s a joke that the Council set a 30% affordable housing target, yet they come up with 22% for the largest scheme in the district.  What message does that give other developers?  It’s OK to submit a shonky viability assessment to excuse the need to provide more?  Or will they put extra pressure on other developers to make up their huge (what, 800?) shortfall by reducing it to 22%?  And, of course, they won’t be truly affordable.  

—————————————————————————————————————————

Q: This area has the designation of having WATER SCARCITY STATUS. The population of the Dour region, as set out by Affinity Water is 160,000 or thereabouts. The proposed increase in the population will have a detrimental effect on Groundwater resource, which can not be denied. If the population increase is allowed to go ahead, this decade will see the onset of a desalination plant somewhere along our coastline. This has been documented in Hansard (July 2006). How can this be squared against the current governments policy of all development to have an environmental gain?

Q: we often hear about stakeholders having an input into the consultation process of building a new town. The only ones that we seem to hear about are the ones that plan to make a profit out of it. The most important stakeholder of them all is the local resident. Where are those voices? In a number of polls, support for a new town was less than 3% across the area. Where is there mention of all the demonstrations that have taken place showing residents opprobrium against an unwanted town within a rural setting.

Q: DCLG Criteria for a new town was to have local support – there is none, abeit 3% as stated. It also states that new towns should not be dormitory towns. It would appear that that is not the case, emphasising main transport links to London.There should also be a local housing need. The town is over and above the local plan. Will there be migration into the area, possibly from London or overseas?

Q: Isn’t this soi-disant consultation a case of the cart before the horse. We still have to hear back from the Inspector on adopting the Local Plan and also the Planning Application for Otterpool. I would suggest that this is just another box ticking exercise by FHDC to help the application along the way.

Q: Paddleswoth (which is the proposed reservoir for Otterpool) is only 13 megalitres, and is literally a transfer pool, from groundwater sources. The pipeline of 11Km has not been accounted for in the £30m Utilities budget. At what point does this Otterpool scheme become unviable, given that the £30 million budget will be far in excess of that cost. Will it be the Affinity Water customer paying for Otterpool Town via their water bills.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Mr Laycock,
Thank you for the opportunity to take part in the webinar. The presentations were clear and it was useful to learn more about the plans for Otterpool Park. I was rather disappointed in the Q & A part of the session. It would have been interesting to hear more questions from local people and to give them a chance to comment on the answers given by ‘the Team’, as in “Question Time”. 
I have some questions that I would appreciate having answers to, please:

  • Will it be possible to view all of the questions and comments raised in the webinar and subsequently, and by whom, for the sake of transparency? If not, there is a risk that interested parties will we be left with the impression that negative or difficult issues may have been excluded from the public consultation. 
  • It is documented that FHDC failed to receive the £281,000,000 Government grant for the new Garden Town infrastructure. What impact will that failure have on FHDC’s ability to achieve its ambition to create a high quality development with excellent design and construction, wonderful facilities and well maintained public spaces? Cozumel Estates Ltd was to have been the major co-developer of the project. Cozumel has withdrawn from the project, making approximately £20,000,000 profit from the sale of the Racecourse land to the project, even though that land does not currently have planning permission for development. FHDC Councillors have told me that the money needed for infrastructure could always be borrowed. As a local council tax payer I am concerned about how the costs for the project are mounting (£50,000,000+) and the fact that the Otterpool Park project is still under consideration for approval in the local Core Strategy. Will local council tax payers end up having to pay for this project despite it being of little or no benefit to the surrounding communities?
  • Are the statements in the webinar presentation about Otterpool Park being well connected based on the assumption that Westenhanger Railway Station will be a stop on HS1? Why would HS trains stop at Otterpool Park when they stop already at Folkestone and Ashford, and the residents of Otterpool Park are not expected to be commuters to London? Is the reality that Otterpool Park will become a dormitory town?
  • How is it intended to provide 8,500 new homes with a sustainable water supply when Affinity Water has stated that it can provide only potable water to 1,500 of the proposed homes at Otterpool Park? Is Council Leader Mr Monk’s suggestion of a desalination plant at Hythe or Folkestone still on the table? What would happen if the new residents at Otterpool Park exceed the projected unrealistic allowance of 90 litres of water per person per day?
  • What new medical facilities will be available at Otterpool Park to coincide with the first new residents moving in, given that the local hospital and surgeries are at full capacity already?
  • The consultation was for Phase One. This is for 8,500 homes. How many homes are proposed for subsequent phases? The website master plan shows 10,000 homes and the original proposal to Government for Garden Town status was 12,000 homes. 

I look forward to receiving your responses to the above questions.

—————————————————————————————————————————

I wish to object to Otterpool Town Y19/0257/FH for multiple reasons. The proposal of such a large development is not sustainable and will be ecologically detrimental to our locality, adversely affecting wildlife, putting a dangerously high demand on water usage, increasing traffic on the motorway and A20 and putting extra strain on schools, hospitals and surgeries which are already at capacity. 1. The supply of water to the proposed new homes is of huge concern and the suggested water usage figures are far too low to be taken seriously. 2. The massive housing development is not ecologically sensitive and is outdated. Far better to allow local villages to plan for themselves. 3. Following Brexit and Covid-19 we should be ensuring that our farms are protected and that we are able to buy food grown locally as much as possible. 4. This development appears to be designed as a dormitory town because all the indications are that London commuters are the target residents – rail link and house prices, reduced % of affordable housing, little local transport infastructure. Making a high speed stop at Westenhanger will slow down the line for everyone further along! 5. Local hospitals and surgeries are at breaking point. Local schools are full. Planners seem not to be aware of how hard it is to recruit doctors, nurses and teachers let alone the pressure on existing services. 6. Local opinion and concerns have not been taken into account. The council are being disingenuous if they are saying this is a community led project – it is not. They have ignored the very many objections.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Mr.LaycockI
I have responded to the feedback request following the recent attempt to justify Otterpool
and ticked the box asking to receive a reply.Some time has elapsed and nothing has appeared.In the feedback I raised questions as to why Otterpool is being proceeded with in spite of the lack of public support when this was highlighted as a primary requirement.In fact,as you may not know,there were many public gatherings to highlight their opposition to Otterpool.Also the council presentations were largely shown by any public attending to be overwhelming against Otterpool.Why The has this not been taken into account?
There are other reasons why there is no support for this unwanted scheme such as the fact that this area is in a water deficiency zone together with the fact that valuable agricultural land is being sacrificed.The infrastructure will not support the building of such a vast number of houses as evidenced by the build up of traffic on the roads even at today’s level of population.Not to mention the overstretched medical services which is apparent today without the population of 10,000 further houses adding to it.
After all is said and done were Otterpool to go ahead it would lead to a total disaster to our present green and pleasant land.

I await the response the Otterpool justifying website promised but fear it will only further be the whitewash of public concern already exhibited by those seeking to foist this desecratory scheme on those who pay their council taxes with gritted teeth.
Colin Abbott
Lympne

————————————————————————————————————————-

Looking forward to seeing your comments.

S&DRA.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

MORE HOLLOW CONSULTATION – BOX TICKING

Published on by Slurry-Kent1 Comment

This coming Friday, 26th March, we are all invited to have our say on shaping the first phase of the massive housing estate being tagged by FHDC as Otterpool Park.

This is another case of putting the cart before the horse as the CSR inspector has yet to report back on the Districts plans. Moreover, the Otterpool Planning application has yet to be aired.

Here be the message from FHDC’s PR people:

Hello, 

We are at an exciting stage of planning Otterpool Park – we are designing the first phase, which includes the town centre. Together with our project consultants, we are holding two virtual public information and consultation events about phase one at Otterpool Park on Friday 26 March. 

Attendees will be able to watch a presentation and get their questions about phase one answered live by panellists. The event will also provide an opportunity for attendees to share their thoughts on the plans, which will be considered ahead of final proposals.  

There will be an online afternoon session running from 1pm until 2.30pm and an evening session from 5.30pm until 7pm, all open to the public who can register to attend here https://phaseone.otterpoolpark.org/.  

The engagements will be recorded and published on the Otterpool Park website, so that those that are unable to attend can watch it at a later date and provide their feedback.  

I do hope that you are able to register and attend. We are promoting these events in the local media, on social media and through other routes however we would be grateful if you could let others in your local networks know about the opportunity to attend. 

Kind regards, 

Zoe at Pillory BarnOn behalf of Otterpool Park LLP

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Casting our minds back to the beginning of the Otterpool debacle, a document was produced by The Department for Communities and Local Government entitled Garden towns and cities – Criteria for support. In it, six paragraphs jumped out at us:

4. We want to encourage more local areas to come forward with ambitious locally led proposals for new communities that work as self sustaining places, not dormitory suburbs. They should have high quality and good design hard wired in from the outset – a new generation of garden villages, towns and cities.

11, Equally, we are clear that this prospectus in not looking to support places which merely use ‘garden’ as a convenient label. Rather, we will support local areas that embed key garden city principles to develop communities that stand out from the ordinary. We do not want to impose a set of development principles on local areas , and will support local areas in developing their own vision for their communities. But, we will want to see evidence of attractive, well designed places with local support.

Local Leadership and community support.

17. New garden villages should have the backing of the local authorities in which they are situated. We expect expressions of interest to demonstrate a strong local commitment to delivery. They should also set out how the local community is being, or will be, engaged at an early stage, and strategies for community involvement to help ensure local support.

56. Expressions of Interest should set out how the local community is being, or will be, engaged at an early stage, and strategies for community involvement to help win local support.

67. We would like to ensure that, where possible, infrastructure needs are clearly assessed and met as any part of a proposal.

Local demand.

21. It is important that new garden villages are built as a response to meeting housing needs locally. We expect expressions of interest to demonstate how the new settlement is part of a wider strategy to secure the delivery of new homes to meet assessed need.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

This soi-disant presentation is another box ticker just to demonstrate that protocol has been followed to erect an unwanted urbanisation of our rural areas. Engaging with FHDC to shape a town that is not required or wanted will only add weight to their fake box ticking exercise. We have already shown, through numerous meetings and polls that support for such a town is less than 3% of the residents.

It is clear from the 6 pargraphs above that this money making bandwagon should have been halted at the first hurdle. Yes, sign up if you wish to their presentation, but please make it known that you will not engage in something that will change our lives forever, and not for the better. Please use the pargraphs above to argue the case that Otterpool is not required and does not fulfill the critera as set out by central government – DLG.

S&DRA.

H2 WOE.

Published on by Slurry-Kent2 Comments

If you had just moved to Folkestone and Hythe in the past two years, you may well be thinking how wet our Winters are. The fact of the matter is that we have experienced two of the wettest winters that I can remember.

Our area has the status of Water Stressed with good reason. During the mid nineties, amid drought conditions, a scheme was in place to transport water across the North Sea from Scandinavia to supply our region due to very low Groundwater levels to supplement dwindling supplies. Another plan was to import water through the Fire Hydrant system of the Channel Tunnel, once again, to top up potable water supplies. With very little headroom in the Dour Region (Folkestone, Hythe and Dover) we are now at a critical stage of water supply to the near 160,000 homes and commercial/Industrial units within Affinity Water’s (AW) catchment area. There have been countless occasions where the threat of water restrictions, in one form or another, has been on the cards with the Tanker Drought probably being the most memorable: https://historicdroughts.ceh.ac.uk/content/tanker-drought-1995-1998

The plan to build almost 15,000 more homes, including the Otterpool New Town scheme is quite frankly unbelievable. Add to that, the ever expanding housing schemes in the Dover District, especially at Whitfield, and you have a pending environmental problem. Low river flows, Groundwater levels plummeting, Water courses running dry, Wildlife destroyed. The threat of Groundwaters becoming brackish,

Compounding the problem is that of Climate change. Whether you think it’s man-made or cyclical, the fact remains that our weather is changing; getting warmer. According to the Met Office, nine of the warmest years ever recorded in the UK have occured since 2002. Thames Water forecasts that, by 2050, our Summers may be an average of 3 degrees hotter and 18% drier.

So, how do we plan to mitigate for water shortages, and who pays?

We are constantly being advised to use less water. Why? – Because there is little to spare. We are being offered freebies from Affinity Water; devices to save water (aerated shower heads and the like) Why? Once again, there’s little to spare. WE ARE THE DRIEST AREA IN THE UK.

The recent Core Strategy Review (CSR) was enlightening in the respect that mitigation measures were exposed as a box ticking exercise to placate both the planning Inspectors and the public. Let’s take the proposed housing estate being tagged as Otterpool Park. Our Council, FHDC, say that water usage per person (per capita consumption – PCC) will be 90 litres per person per day. The planning Inspectors thought this figure to be too low and has settled on a figure of 110 PCC as outlined in the Building regulations. This is, of course, still aspirational. At the moment, the average Briton uses 142 litres per day. So the aspirational figure of 110 PCC is a reduction of 32 litres. Affinity Water tells us that we use 155 litres, Given the above reduction, that would bring down the PCC to 123 litres.Still very much, aspirational.

We are then told by FHDC that a team of plumbers will visit homes within the district and replace old cisterns for new ones, reducing the flush by 3 litres (full flush) and 6 litres (half flush) How are these homes chosen and who pays for this work to be carried out? In any event, modern cisterns will never be compatible with older type pans due to the profile and litreage in the bowl. All of this is complete tosh and will never happen.

The CSR also threw up the discrepancies in funding for the utilties across Otterpool Park. FHDC’s consultants say that £30 million will be enough to install all utilities, including water mains, across the site. When questioned whether it will include the upgrade in the services to and from Paddlesworth reservoir (which isn’t really a reservoir – merely, a transfer pool) and associated 500mm trunk mains ancillary pipework and booster stations, he didn’t know. In a meeting between FHDC (then SDC), KCC and AW 30th September 2016, Ian Macathy (AW) said. ‘In terms of funding, AW advised that costs associated with water abstraction and high level plant are likely to be costs that all AW customers would have to meet.‘ Funding for reservoirs, booster staions and trunking mains would be a matter for agreement with developers while local level mains pipes and connections into new homes would be fully developer funded’. It would appear that no agreement has been settled between AW and FHDC on booster stations and trunking mains, as underlined above. Moreover, further abstraction and high level plant costs would have to be met by AW customers – You and Me.

Talk of building a desalination plant has been mooted on several occasions. AW said they would never build one, Leader of FHDC, David Monk said the Council could part fund the building of such a plant. Where would the money come from? Beckton (London) desalination plant cost £250 million over ten years ago. Where would it be sited? Hythe?, Folkestone?

There is no doubt that the further development of our already water stressed area is a ‘bridge too far’ in terms of development overload.

Our Association will be opposing this scale of unwarranted development, leading to the ruination of our way of life and desecration of our countryside. Please let us know what you think in our comments section or feedback.

S&DRA.

MORE ON QUINN IN SELLINDGE.

Published on by Slurry-KentLeave a comment

Dear Residents,

Quinn Estates have just submitted their ‘Reserved Matters’ application for the Bucknall land behind Rhodes House.You can find the detail on the FHDC website, the planning application reference is 21/0279/FH.https://folkestonehythedc.force.com/pr/s/planning-application/a1n2o000003HbNUAA0/210279fh?tabset-185b1=2This plan shows the extent that they are giving details for now, where they plan to build first….REMEMBER!  They already have outline planning consent for this, including the access point of the A20.
Take a look at all of the information that’s been published, and if you want to say anything about it, now is the time! 
…and it’s something else to amuse yourself with while ‘not going out’ is the order of the day…..

Westenhanger Castle Towers over Otterpool. Or does it?

Published on by Slurry-Kent1 Comment

How often have we heard our beloved Council leader, David Monk, tell us that Westenhanger Castle will be the ‘Jewel in the Crown‘ of the Otterpool Town development. We’ve lost count !

Our Council tell us that:

‘Westenhanger Castle is a Scheduled Monument and grade 1 listed building in a significant location with the opportunity to contribute distinctive identity for the key open space of the
garden town’.

It now turns out that Westenhanger Castle isn’t even within the boundary of the Otterpool development, but we now hear that the red boundaty line will be changed to include Westenhanger Castle, with the Local Planning Authority and the applicant amending the application to allow a consultation period at that stage. FHDC hope it will be later in the year, but bearing in mind the Core Strategy Review needing to run its course, it could even be early next year.

So why wasn’t the Castle included within the boundary line the moment the purchase was completed by FHDC? How does this affect the Otterpool application in terms of resubmission and, moreover, the recently concluded Core Strategy Review. Was the Castle left outside of the boundary for reasons other than an oversight?

We simply ask the question.

Let’s see the response.

S&DRA


DON’T DELAY – Have your say.

Published on by Slurry-Kent1 Comment

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has launched an online survey asking for members of the public to give their views on the planning system, which it says will inform its ongoing inquiry into the government’s white paper proposals. 

Parliament: committee probing latest planning changes (pic: Getty)

Here’s the online survey:

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=nt3mHDeziEC-Xo277ASzSsBc9hscYRNFrbfHBkcg0ANUOE0xVzEzWkU5MDVWTE1OVFNJSzFSOFlNTy4u

Please pass it on to friends, family and neighbours.

Thank you.

S&DRA

Council Turncoats.

Published on by Slurry-KentLeave a comment

On the 16th September, an Extraordinary Full Council meeting was convened at the Civic Centre to discuss the Places and Policies Local Plan. The plan was approved 17 votes to 12 with 1 abstention. It’s interesting to note that 3 of the votes ‘For’ came from 3 members that locals would describe as ‘turncoats’. Voting alongside the Conservatives, Cllr. Wimble (Ind), Cllr Meyer and Mullard (both UKIP) showed their support for the plan to swing the vote to the Conservatives, led by Cllr. David Monk. The electorate put their faith in these 3 Councillors at the last election to curb the seemingly rampant developments across the District, halting the Tory stronghold within the cabinet. Our friends at Shepwayvox reported on the meeting in great detail here:

FHDC pass Local Plan and Central Govt propose 1043 homes per year for our district.

S&DRA

STANFORD NO GO – SENT TO MOJO

Published on by Slurry-Kent2 Comments

Yesterday afternoon it was announced that a 27 acre clearance facility/Lorry Park is to be buit at Junction 10A, just off the M20 at Ashford.

You may remember that the site at Stanford West was earmarked for a Lorry park which was heavily supported by Conservative MP, Damian Collins (FHDC) and Dover MP, Charlie Elphicke. Local Councillors Hollingsbee and Carey (both Conservative) also gave weight to the development stating that it was of national importance and therefore could not be stopped. Well, it was. Mr. John Forge of Westenhanger Castle set about with a Judicial Review and won the day. Thanks to the Government and the apparatchiks mentioned above, 15 million quid was lost from the public purse on consultants and exploratory works – taxpayers money.

Residents of Stanford and surrounding villages cited many reasons for not building the worlds biggest Lorry park between tiny Kent villages and, from our own research found that it would have caused more congestion along the M20 and local roads given that Junction 11 would have been closed at the time of  operation. In the end, Highways England conceded that it would have never worked.

So, here we have the story from The Guardian Newspaper.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/10/vast-brexit-customs-clearance-centre-to-be-built-in-kent

More confirmation that Stanford et environs will be spared the industrial onslaught that our sio-disant representatives had in mind for us all.

Have a good weekend.

S&DRA

Sellindge, Kent – Mini City of the future.

Published on by Slurry-Kent4 Comments

Dear Residents and friends of Sellindge and surrounding Villages,

 

Please read all comments below after the article.

 

Cast your minds back just 5 years. Look at us now. Would you have ever imagined that our rural scene and way of life would would be under such attack by our own District Council, hand in glove with developers; and rotten ones at that.

We are all aware of the thousands of homes in the local plan and the unwanted and unneeded Otterpool Town that Leader Monk and his cohorts want to foist upon us. As locals we are aware of the back stories of the 250 Taylor Wimpey houses and the Bucknell Trust land proposal for 180 houses. Now we have Gladman Developments. A developer whose reputation preceeds them. We’ll say no more on that subject for now.

The long term plan is to build 170 houses along the South side of the A20, Main Road, Sellindge, with the first phase of 55 around Grove House and Fieldhead. More details on the link here:

https://folkestonehythedc.force.com/pr/s/planning-application/a1n2o00000313PEAAY

Please click on the link above and go to ‘Comments’ heading to have your say.

We would encourage you all to comment on this application as early as possible. The cut off date to comment is Wednesday, 8th July.

To date, there have been 10 residents who have taken the time to comment. For your guidance, we are publishing them below with names and related property names redacted.

 

S&DRA.

 

25/06/2020

The proposed development of land off Ashford Road, Sellindge, opposite the Duke’s Head public house. We wish to register our total opposition to this totally unnecessary development and the further rape of our one-time delightful little village. Our reasons are: Our failing health centre due to massive over-subscription, and that is before the current developments are even fully occupied. The school is also oversubscribed. This land owner has over the years, with various partners, tried to persuade and cajole adjacent land owners to take part in a much larger development, which thankfully have been thwarted. To endeavour to make the development on this parcel of land a more attractive proposition for the developer, 30 odd semi-mature trees have been cut down before preservation orders could be served on them, should this development go ahead many more trees and areas of shrubland would also be vandalised. We cannot allow this to happen. The developer is well aware that no building permission would be considered on the part of the parcel of land which adjoins Bulls Lane and the area behind Grove House and Woodlands, so has come up with a blatant bribe to the village and the planners to construct a play area, outdoor gym and other amenities. Should this ever come to fruition the on-going costs for any equipment with regular inspections, maintenance and refurbishments, and particularly insurance, would be a massive drain on the resources of the village or the District Council for recreational areas, of which we already have 2 in the village. The idea of having a footpath entrance/exit into Bulls Lane is foolhardy and would be dangerous for children, mothers with prams , etc. The existing statutory footpath can be easily and safely accessed at the top of Bulls Lane, along the boundary with Rothergate. The idea of a footpath along the secluded strip of land between Grove House and Woodlands would be a magnet for antisocial and criminal behaviour, when it seems that police resources are stretched in policing the community we already have, further problems should not be contemplated. The prospect of extra pedestrian traffic in Bulls Lane is too dangerous to consider. The Lane is approximately 2.4m wide with no foot way. Quite apart from normal traffic to the properties at the top of Bulls Lane, e.g. delivery vans, gas and oil delivery trucks, etc, the local farmer using this lane to access Rotherwood Farm, whose equipment, for instance a mower 3m wide, stock trailer 2.7m wide, as can be seen, this would be a total recipe for disaster. This proposed development would be on the highest point of land in the Parish of Sellindge so this modern development would be seen from all around the village, and outside. The overview of our once delightful village from places like Farthing Common would be spoilt by this development which would stick out like a carbuncle in the midst of just one more part of destroyed beautiful Kentish countryside. We are appalled with information that has just come to our notice that this development company, with a possibly dubious reputation, in conjunction with the land owner, appears to be trying to subvert public opinion with some people being threatened with legal action if they speak out against, or object to, this planning application. This is morally, if not legally wrong, and a Local Authority administration that prides itself on being “government by the people for the people” should immediately dismiss this application. Name redacted. copies of this email sent to Local parish council Ms Carey Ms Hollingsbee Sellindge Residents Association Sellindge Community Facebook Page

25/06/2020

The proposed development of land off Ashford Road, Sellindge, opposite the Duke’s Head public house. We wish to register our total opposition to this totally unnecessary development and the further rape of our one-time delightful little village. Our reasons are: Our failing health centre due to massive over-subscription, and that is before the current developments are even fully occupied. The school is also oversubscribed. This land owner has over the years, with various partners, tried to persuade and cajole adjacent land owners to take part in a much larger development, which thankfully have been thwarted. To endeavour to make the development on this parcel of land a more attractive proposition for the developer, 30 odd semi-mature trees have been cut down before preservation orders could be served on them, should this development go ahead many more trees and areas of shrubland would also be vandalised. We cannot allow this to happen. The developer is well aware that no building permission would be considered on the part of the parcel of land which adjoins Bulls Lane and the area behind Grove House and Woodlands, so has come up with a blatant bribe to the village and the planners to construct a play area, outdoor gym and other amenities. Should this ever come to fruition the on-going costs for any equipment with regular inspections, maintenance and refurbishments, and particularly insurance, would be a massive drain on the resources of the village or the District Council for recreational areas, of which we already have 2 in the village. The idea of having a footpath entrance/exit into Bulls Lane is foolhardy and would be dangerous for children, mothers with prams , etc. The existing statutory footpath can be easily and safely accessed at the top of Bulls Lane, along the boundary with Rothergate. The idea of a footpath along the secluded strip of land between Grove House and Woodlands would be a magnet for antisocial and criminal behaviour, when it seems that police resources are stretched in policing the community we already have, further problems should not be contemplated. The prospect of extra pedestrian traffic in Bulls Lane is too dangerous to consider. The Lane is approximately 2.4m wide with no foot way. Quite apart from normal traffic to the properties at the top of Bulls Lane, e.g. delivery vans, gas and oil delivery trucks, etc, the local farmer using this lane to access Rotherwood Farm, whose equipment, for instance a mower 3m wide, stock trailer 2.7m wide, as can be seen, this would be a total recipe for disaster. This proposed development would be on the highest point of land in the Parish of Sellindge so this modern development would be seen from all around the village, and outside. The overview of our once delightful village from places like Farthing Common would be spoilt by this development which would stick out like a carbuncle in the midst of just one more part of destroyed beautiful Kentish countryside. We are appalled with information that has just come to our notice that this development company, with a possibly dubious reputation, in conjunction with the land owner, appears to be trying to subvert public opinion with some people being threatened with legal action if they speak out against, or object to, this planning application. This is morally, if not legally wrong, and a Local Authority administration that prides itself on being “government by the people for the people” should immediately dismiss this application. Name redacted.  copies of this email sent to Local parish council Ms Carey Ms Hollingsbee Sellindge Residents Association Sellindge Community Facebook Page

25/06/2020

I am totally appalled that the council is even considering granting permission for more development in the village of Sellindge…… if you can still call Sellindge a village! The people of Sellindge have been subjected to a living nightmare during the last year and a half at least with the continuous traffic issues due to the lorries having to use the village as through road. Enough houses have gone up directly opposite the school. The doctors surgery cannot cope, the school cannot cope and the road cannot cope. I believe there has been enough development before the risk of Sellindge no longer being a village

22/06/2020

The village has many new properties and The amount of houses proposed for this site is unrealistic for the size of the plot.

22/06/2020

Sellindge is currently undergoing a transformation from a typical Kentish village to a sprawling town with no thought given to traffic flow and basic amenities such as increase in doctors or indeed schooling above primary. If this and other developers are allowed to continue to ransack our countryside for nothing other than profit for both them and the council then all quality of life will be forever lost.

22/06/2020

Without knowing the impact of the houses currently being built, how can further houses be planned? The village is already lacking the infrastructure required for the new houses opposite the Co-op, the houses currently being built will add further strain, so an additional 55 houses built on green belt land are neither required or wanted. The character of the Village is being destroyed by overdeveloping. I strongly object.

21/06/2020

We currently don’t have adequate facilities (doctors etc.) for existing residents and any more housing at this current time is not appropriate. This particular location needs to be given extra thought as it’s close to houses currently being built we need to see their impact before adding any more.

20/06/2020

As very close neighbours of the proposed site we have a number of concerns. Of particular concern is the surface water drainage of the immediate area. I sent the following request for information to Gladman during their consultation period, but have received no reply nor the coutesy of an acknowledgement. ” With regard to your development proposals for the land off the A20 in Sellindge, I would like to ask how you intend to deal with the disposal of surface water/rainwater. We live in House name redacted. which is situated on the main road just to the West of the proposed site. Our house is lower than both the road and the land behind us. In periods of persistent rain the existing field (The Site) drains towards the road and the water runs West, regularly resulting in a small river which collects around our house as it cannot flow past the access road to the West of us. With continued rain the level rises, and would ultimately reach the level of the road before draining. This would put our house at least 30cm under water. Currently we are protected somewhat by the fact that the land absorbs much of the rainfall, and with general occasional rain we have no issues. If the area is converted to almost all roadways, hard standing, roofs etc., our position would be potentially be a lot worse. Could you confirm that there will be adequate provision by either main drainage, dedicated soakaways, pumping systems, or any other means to ensure the land drainage situation is not made worse. Could you also confirm what means will be employed to achieve this.” We are also very concerned about the potential traffic hazard caused by the single access road for 55 houses joining the A20. The junction is in a 40mph speed limit which is not enforced, and continually broken by through traffic which is not local, but avoiding the motorway due to closures, accidents or just taking the scenic route. The pedestrian route for children walking to the local school is inches from 40 tonne lorries travelling at 40+mph. Cycling is definitely not a great option, with many cyclists already taking to the pavement for safety, the A20 is just not wide enough. Could serious consideration be given to making future developers contribute to a by-pass for through traffic, before any further developments are completed, in order to provide a safe environment for the existing and new residents, and maintain some semblance of village life.

19/06/2020

With the horror of Otterpool Park on our doorstep do we really need 55 houses built in a Village? There is no local need for them. With Otterpool and various other proposals being squeezed into every tiny space available and also the 250 Taylor Wimpy houses in progress at the moment, Sellindge is losing its village status. We believed Folkestone &Hythe Council when told the 250 Taylor Wimpy homes would be all Sellindge will be asked to suffer. Obviously this was not true. Shame on you. The A20 cannot cope with the traffic at the moment let alone the traffic that this and other developments will cause. The air quality In the Village already suffers from traffic fumes spewed out by continuous artic lorries thundering through the village. Please reject this proposal, it is not wanted and it is not needed.

19/06/2020

As our homes are already blighted by Otterpool and plagued by Motorway closures do we really need more homes?You have approved more by the railway and at the top of Barrow Hill yet will do nothing regarding a bypass.We do not need more housing in the village until you sort out the access for the current residents who are prisoners in their own homes due to the volume of traffic. Our lovely village will become a Town and that is not why we moved here.