Working to inform Faversham and its rural environs and defend against inappropriate housing and other planning applications.




Perry Court Farm

APPLICATION APPROVED!


At last night’s (31st March) Swale Council Planning committee meeting, the decision was made by 9 votes to 5 and two abstentions to approve the planning application. This despite irrefutable erudite evidenced arguments submitted within the 400 plus letters of objections from Faversham residents and the clear wishes of the 837 individuals that signed the objection petitions.

There were a number of eloquent public speakers who each made very strong points in their 3 minute slots as to why the application should be refused. Additionally, Councillors Simmons and Wilcox also spoke knowledgeably against the proposal.

Of great concern is that there was NO EFFECTIVE DEBATE between the committee members and only 3 superficial questions tabled to the attending “experts”. One committee member councillor (Baldock) made a constructive intervention with sensible arguments why the application should at least be deferred pending a number of outstanding relevent issues. Councillor Bowles also spoke strongly against. No other councillor spoke.

In the vote, Faversham councillor Bryan Mulhern - Abbey ward (committee chairman) voted in favour of the application citing his belief that the “Nothing South of the A2” was no longer appropriate and that the M2 should be regarded as the natural southern boundary of Faversham development. Faversham councillor Mike Henderson - Priory ward abstained. One should perhaps consider if an elected representative who fails to express a position over an important local issue is fit to hold that post. Councillor Andrew Bowles who was sitting as representing a number of outlying villages voted vehemently against.

There is no doubt that there were two factors which influenced the committee. One is the blatant abuse of privilege exercised by the planning officer in his report and summing up which used inappropriate scare tactics and language referring the committee to the possible expenses that could be incurred at an appeal should the application be refused. This despite the fact that the decision of such a “Quasi-Judicial” body should be based on FACTS alone and not opiniuon or conjecture such as expressed in the report. the other point that was clear is that within the borough councillors, there is clear “animosity” between those wards within the Thames gateway development zone and those without (Faversham) when it comes to planning anmd housing development. This is not a new problem but it has rarely if ever been so blatantly clear as it was last evening.

It is to be noted that despite all the clear objections tabled by the public abd elected representatives, the NPPF allows those with vested intersts in other parts of the borough to ride roughshod over the wishes of local people. It is clear that the process is corrupt in political terms and puts the whole local government democratic process into question.


*****************


February 2016   Swale Local Plan “Bearing Fruits"

The Planning Inspector’s Interim Report parts 1 & 2 can be found  here:  Introduction Part 1  Part 2  Part 3

Note Part 3 will be available at the end of February.

++++++++++


SBC Press Release 15.1.16:  

 

Action will be taken to tackle high levels of air pollution in Teynham after Swale Borough Council designated part of the village an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

 

The designation comes after monitoring by the council showed high levels of nitrogen dioxide along part of the A2 through the village, which are above Government recommended levels.  

The council routinely monitors air pollution levels in certain areas of the borough to make sure they do not exceed the UK and EC limits. Breaches of these limits mean that the council must declare these areas as AQMAs.

Analysis of the results of this monitoring in Teynham showed that levels of nitrogen dioxide – caused primarily by traffic – were above the annual targets.

Cllr David Simmons, cabinet member for environmental and rural affairs at the council, said:

“Our monitoring has shown that emissions – predominantly from traffic - in Teynham are having a detrimental impact on air quality in the area, which, if left unchecked, could have serious consequences for people’s health.

“By establishing an AQMA we can work with local people and partner agencies such as Kent Highways and Public Health England, to put together an action plan to tackle the issue.

“The views of local people are crucial to helping improve the air quality of the village, so I hope many will choose to get involved in helping us develop plans to get the improvement we all want to see.”

Following the AQMA being set up, the council is writing to local people and businesses in the affected area, inviting them to local meetings where they can find out more, and asking them to join a steering group to help shape an action plan. 

Possible actions to be taken could include encouraging car sharing schemes, walking buses or smart traffic management schemes.

 

For more information about the AQMA, and how you can get involved in putting together the action plan, visit www.swale.gov.uk/air-quality email pollution@swale.gov.uk or call the senior environmental protection officer on 01622 602873.

 

**********


Love Lane Development


SBC Planning meeting 14th January 2016

For the Agenda click here


+++++++++++



PERRY COURT FARM

Special Planning Committee meeting 

19th November 2015                                    


CANCELLED


The planning meeting scheduled for 19th November has been postponed by Swale Borough Council, apparently as the direct result of the impact of an EU Directive concerning large developments and the impacts on Environmental Air Quality requiring further consideration.

There is of course already and environmental Air Quality issue in nearby Ospringe Street (A2).




The Swale Borough Local Plan Part 1 

Publication version (December 2014)

Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan.

The document is the latest stage of our Local Plan. It is our planning framework for the Borough to guide development and investment to 2031.  It looks to deliver, for example, new jobs, homes and shops, while safeguarding our outstanding environment for the future. Also, it provides development management policies to help in the determination of planning applications.

Click on the text above to go to the planning website page.

====


————————————


* Faversham is being swamped by a number of unrelated signifcant planning applications.

* Whilst we all accept that development involves new housing throughout England, there is no coherent plan for Faversham . 

* Swale Borough Council has no development plan – “Bearing Fruits” has been evolving for over 2 years and although now submitted for approval it probably won’t be confirmed until late 2014.  There is no overall development plan; only reaction by SBC Planning to housing applications being thrust upon Faversham (and Swale).

* This Group seeks to gather all interested parties to look at the future that Faversham citizens deserve and want within the Bearing Fruits proposals but in sympathy with town and its rural environs. It will attempt to keep all interested parties fully informed.

* This Group is not only concerned about where new housing should go in Faversham but how much additional population and traffic can Faversham realistically support.

Market Street


* The impact of all the various proposals is many fold:

  o  On Pollution - Faversham (Ospringe Street) is an official measuring point for air quality and it is already exceeding the recommended limits specified

  o   On traffic – The Teynham haulage depot intends to build 3 more cargo bays which means an increase in the number of lorries transiting the A2 through Faversham to join the M2 at J6 or Brenley Corner.

  o   On hospital / medical provision - Faversham’s GPs are already overstretched and the Minor injuries unit is under threat of closure

  o   On schools - there are already insufficient primary school places, Ospringe school has recently been denied permission for expansion - due to traffic issues.

  o   On traffic -  all current proposals will have significant traffic implications, each new dwelling will, on average, generate 7 traffic movements a day (KCC).

  o   There are many other issues to consider including the effects on Environment, ecosystems, flora and fauna; Water and flood management;  sewerage etc.



Who is behind this initiative?

The Group is run by a team of concerned and  motivated residents of  Faversham and of its immediate surroundings.

We are concerned for Faversham’s Future and want to see organic, measured, appropriate and planned development that does not destroy the heart of this unique town or the priceless rural settings and prime agricultural assets that surround it. 

----------

S2F Group Members:

Giles Klech, Julian Herrington, Don Cockrill, Joan Tovey, 

Gulliver Immink, Bob Lamoon, Brian Tovey, Frances Moskovits,


Please see “Contacts" tab to send us an email

Faversham a true "Heritage Asset" 

to be treasured by all – residents and visitors alike