Category: Uncategorized

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

We will remember them.

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. 

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

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

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.

Dear Residents,

Time to shape your community.

Our post of 4th June expressed an urgency for you all to respond by 12th June to register to speak at the Core Strategy Review. We know that some of you are reluctant to speak in public so, we are now reminding you that you can send in a written statement to state your opinion on the Core Strategy Review, but you’d better be quick: the deadline is this coming Friday, 3rd July.

You must contact, preferably by email, Caroline Williams. Caroline is the Programme Officer based at FHDC and is very helpful. The guidance notes for residents to make written statements are set out below:

https://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk/media/2557/FHDC-EX009-FHDC-Core-Strategy-Review-Guidance-Notes-from-Inspectors-21-May-2020/pdf/FHDC_EX009_FHDC_Core_Strategy_Review_Guidance_Notes_from_Inspectors_21_May_2020.pdf?m=637257487650170000

The Core Strategy Review Submission Draft is here:

https://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk/media/2234/EB-01-00-Folkestone-Hythe-Core-Strategy-Review-Submission-Draft-2020/pdf/EB_01.00_Folkestone___Hythe_Core_Strategy_Review_Submission_Draft_2020.pdf?m=637206487608870000

And lastly, we understand that working through the above can be time consuming and daunting. Are we expected to follow the due process and respond in Council/Planning speke? We would say probably not. If you have concerns over a proposed development near you or can see that infrastructure is failing even before it starts, now is the time to raise those concerns. If you are having trouble following the process, please contact Caroline on 01303 853376 or email: programme.officer@folkestone-hythe.gov.uk

S&DRA

 

Dear Friends,

Folkestone & Hythe District Council Planning Department has just published onto their website details of a Planning Application made by Gladman Developments for outline permission for 55 new houses on the currently open fields opposite the Dukes’ Head.

You might remember the leaflets they circulated around the village just as we were all going into lockdown and worrying about Covid-19 and how many toilet rolls we had.

The planning application was submitted and validated 4 May 2020, but has only just launched into the public arena. Please go on-line to the Folkestone & Hythe District Council website planning pages where you will find all the gory details under application reference 20/0604/FH:

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

We particularly recommend that you take a look at the Statement of Community Involvement. Respond with your thoughts about this application online, to the parish council, and of course to our District Councillors.. Please view the covering letter from Gladman to FHDC.

Covering letter Gladman

 

 

 

Dear Residents,

This is self explanatory. You have until Friday, June 12th to respond.

Please click on the link to view documentation. Yes, it is time consuming, but time spent now will be worth it in our quest to keep our district from becoming just another urban sprawl. 

———————————————————————————————————

Folkestone and Hythe District Council – Core Strategy Review 2020 

Document Reference:  FHDC EX008

Friday May 22, 2020

Dear Representor,

Examination of the Folkestone & Hythe District Core Strategy Review

I wrote to you on 19 March 2020, to inform you that the examination of the Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC) Core Strategy Review had commenced.

I can now advise you that the hearing sessions forming part of the examination are in the process of being planned.

However at this stage of the examination the Inspectors are unable to set the date for the opening of the hearing sessions and a specific timetable for each session.  Given the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and the public health safeguarding and social distancing measures in operation, the hearing sessions cannot currently take place in the form envisaged.  The Inspectors will keep this situation under regular review and liaise with the Council as the situation evolves.

The Inspectors have published the following documents concerning the examination, including an indicative running order for the sessions:

• Inspector’s Guidance Notes (FHDC EX009)
• Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions (MIQ’s) (FHDC EX010)
• Indicative Running Order for Hearing Sessions (FHDC EX011)

The Inspectors’ Guidance Notes explain the procedures which will be followed during the examination.  The document sets out the arrangements for submitting pre-hearing statements if you wish to do so and requires you to inform me in writing if you intend to participate (speak) at the hearings by:

• 5pm on Friday June 12, 2020.

Can you please confirm what session/sessions you wish to speak at following the guidelines from the Inspectors’ Guidance Notes?

The Inspector’s MIQ’s identify the main issues of soundness and legal compliance upon which the examination will focus, including during the hearing sessions once the dates are confirmed.

All written statements should be sent to the Programme Officer preferably electronically by the deadline of:

• 5pm on Friday 3 July, 2020. 

Please refer to the Inspectors’ Guidance notes for their requirements.

All information and documentation relevant to the examination is currently available on the Folkestone & Hythe District Website and the latest information can be found at:

https://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk/core-strategy-review-2020/news-and-updates

As soon as I have any further information regarding the date of the first hearing it will be added to the Council’s website.  If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or how to submit a statement for the hearing sessions please do not hesitate to contact me.

I trust you are managing in these very challenging times and thank you for your patience during the examination process.

Yours faithfully,

Caroline Williams

Programme Officer

Caroline Williams

Programme Officer

Civic Centre, Castle Hill Avenue

Folkestone, Kent. CT20 2QY

Office: 01303 853376

Email: programme.officer@folkestone-hythe.gov.uk

Website: www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk

In recent weeks there has been ongoing rumblings that the Shepway Green Party has, allegedly, sold out on the campaign to oppose the proposed Otterpool Park New Town development.

Recent videos from Shepwayvox have highlighted this sentiment with Councillor Lesley Whybrow taking the brunt of the critisism. But is it only The Shepway Green Party that has, allegedly, sold out on Otterpool? On the 6th August 2018 a video was produced by the Save Prince’s Parade (SPP) group opposing the Prince’s Parade development: ‘Prince’s Parade, Development or Destruction‘. We should say at this juncture that S&DRA has always supported this group, raising funds and generally supportive of the campaign.

Of all the demonstrations organised by S&DRA,  invitations were sent to the SPP group to attend and take advantage of all our public gatherings which they readily did, and rightly so. We are still supporting their campaign.

Sadly, we find that during this video, Jim Martin (now a Green Party Councillor) and Val Loseby, a member of The Liberal Democrat Party and a member of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE, Protect Kent),referring to Otterpool, said this, respectively..

“Shepway District Council have a full pipeline of housing sites, in fact  with Otterpool and with the Harbour Arm they’ve got an oversupply, a massive oversupply of housing sites available to meet housing need”.

“Now they (SDC) have Otterpool Park, which is a town of 10,000 houses; that’s going ahead; that’s been approved. I don’t see why they need 150 houses on Princes Parade to meet their target”.

From any point of view, the above statements suggest that both Martin and Loseby are throwing the Otterpool campaign under a bus to stop development at Prince’s Parade.

Moving on, the Shepway Green Party have already admitted that they will not fully oppose the campaign to stop the Otterpool New Town project and show no shame in publicising this heading on their website: ‘Why we cannot stop Otterpool’.

The reasons are, they say, housing need, as stated from central Government. Well hang on a minute. Let’s return to our video where Green Party Councillor Jim Martin says: In this particular part of Kent, we’ve got a massive supply of potential pipeline sites, so housing need as an argument really disappears.

And let’s not forget that Otterpool was set before FHDC as an Expression of Interest from central Government, no doubt assisted by Conservative MP Damian Collins. There was absolutely no directive from central Government to build a town; It was an invitation only. FHDC could have said NO THANK YOU. make no mistake that if this Council was anything other than a Conservative Council, Otterpool would not be happening.

Otterpool was set in motion as a vanity project from the leader David Monk and his, then, overwhelming  Conservative majority cabinet. The true, local housing need has been assessed through the process of a local plan. The total number of homes required is 14, 560. That should be the end of the story. Anything above that number should be challenged, which we are doing.

For the local Green Party to roll over and accept a Government directive, ignoring real local environmental issues is, frankly, a disgrace.

And finally a message to Val Loseby from CPRE, Protect Kent, Charing Office, where Ms Loseby is a member:

“While we entirely support the principles of high quality, sustainable design and place-making, we strongly disagree that this is the right location for a garden city of this scale. The existing pressures for development in this area are extreme, not least with the region being categorised by the Environment Agency as being under ‘severe water stress’, and we question the wisdom of drawing even more housing in to a county and a region which is already struggling to accommodate the housing  targets being generated in local plans.   Dr. Hilary Newport.

More on environmental issues and overpopulation in our next post.

S&DRA.