THE NAILBOURNE PROTECTION SOCIETY

RULES
OF THE SOCIETY.

Furley Page Fielding & Pembrook,
Solicitors,

39 St. Margaret's Street,
Canterbury, Kent.

THE NAILBOURNE PROTECTION SOCIETY

l. The name of the Society is "The Nailbourne

Protection Society".

2. The objects of the Society are

(1) To promote the permanent preservation of all
that is of merit in the rural environment of

East Kent and especially of The Nailbourne Valley
and for the attainment of the foregoing to consider
and if thought fit, to promote, assist or oppose
proposals for the use or development of land in
the said area.

(2) To resist and to help others to resist by
legal proceedings (or by contributing towards the
costs of legal proceedings) or otherwise howsoever,
any threat to the peace and tranquility and the
rural character of The Nailbourne Valley and the
surrounding countryside and neighbourhood and in
particular to prevent the holding of any large
assemblies of persons which may be thought likely
to create a nuisance or disturbance to the peace
or character of the said neighbourhood or to cause

damage to property in the locality.

3. Membership shall be open to all who support the
objects of the Society. Membership shall lapse if the

subscription is unpaid six months after it is due.

4. (1) The entrance subscription for ordinary members
shall be a minimum of 50p. or such hther sum as may
from time to time be determined by the Annual

General Meeting.

1.

(2) Members who have contributed the sum of

£5. or more to the Fighting Fund shall be
entitled to life membership without further
payment.

(3) Subscriptions are payable on joining the
Society and thereafter annually on lst December
in each year.

(4) All membership subscriptions may be applied

for the general purposes of the Society.

5. The Society shall have power to make appeals,
solicit donations and canvass and receive monies for
the carrying out of the objects of the Society and in
particular shall have power to raise money for

litigation purposes in connection therewith.

6. The management of the Society shall be entrusted
to a Committee consisting of the officers of the
Society, that is to say, Chairman, Honorary Secretary,
Honorary Treasurer and 17 other members. The first
members of the Committee who shall hold office until
the conclusion of the first Annual General Meeting of

the Society shall be as follows:

Chairman Walter Whigham
Honorary Secretary S.J. Rumary
Honorary Treasurer G.G. Elliott

Other members Shirley g Bridge Parish
Council
B. whigham ) Bishopsbourne
G. Cobbett ) Parish Council
C.W. Fagg ) Kingston
J. French ) Parish Council
Clough 3 Barham

Mrs Crux Parish Council
N. Fowler g Assistant
Mrs G. Arter Treasurers
G.D. Baker )

L. Goddard

Dr. H. Blazeby

Dr. B. Christie

J. Purchase

Prof. R.T. Anstey

Mrs P. Kirk
7. Nominations for the election of officers shall
be made at or before the Annual General Meeting.
Such nominations shall be in writing supported by a
seconder and the consent of the proposed nominee must
first have been obtained. The election of officers
shall be completed prior to the election of further
Committee members. All officers and other Committee
members shall take office at the end of the meeting
at which they are elected and shall hold office until

the conclusion of the next Annual General Meeting.

A retiring member shall be eligible for re-election.

8. The Committee shall have power to fill casual
vacancies among the officers and Committee. An
officer or Committee member so appointed shall hold
office until the conclusion of the next following
Annual General Meeting but shall then be eligible for

re-election.

9. The Committee shall establish a sub—committee

to be called "The Fighting Fund Sub-Committee” which

shall consist of not less than eight of whom four shall’

be members of the Committee appointed by the Committee

for that purpose and the first such members shall be:

G.G. Elliott
N. Fowler
Mrs G. Arter
G.D. Baker

together with four members to be co—opted by the

Fighting Fund Sub-Committee (hereinafter called "the
Fund Sub-Committee"). The Fund Sub—Committee shall
elect from its own members its Chairman. At all
meetings of the Fund Sub-Committee three shall form

a quorum. The Fund Sub-Committee shall periodically
report its proceedings to the Committee and shall
conduct its business in accordance with the directions

of the Committee.

10. The Fund Sub-Committee shall be responsible for
all aspects of fund raising including the terms upon
which monies are raised and retained by the Society
and the application of moneys received for the
purposes (being objects of the Society) for which the
same have been rated and shall be empowered on behalf
of the Society to borrow for such purposes all such
monies, at such rates of interest, and in such manner

as the Fund Committee may think fit.

ll. All monies received by the Society and not
required for immediate application for its objects
may be placed with some Building Society approved by
the Fund Sub-Committee upon such terms as the Fund

Sub—Committee shall authorise.

12. The Honorary Treasurer shall keep accounts of all
monies received and expended on account of the Society
and shall present such accounts at the Annual General

Meeting of the Society.

13. The Society's bankers shall be Barclays Bank Ltd.,
Rose Lane, Canterbury, or such other bankers as the
Committee may from time to time determine. All

subscriptions, Fighting Fund and other monies received

by or on behalf of the Society shall be paid by

the members of the Fund Sub-Committee direct into
the Society's account at the said Bank. All cheques
drawn on the said account shall be signed by the
Honorary Treasurer and any one other of the members
of the Fund Sub—Committee being members appointed by

the Committee.

14. The financial year of the Society shall end on the
50th November in each year (or on such other date as
the Committee may from time to time determine) and a
balance sheet shall be drawn up as at such date in each
year together with a statement of accounts in respect
of the preceding financial year and a report of the

Committee thereon.

15. The balance sheet and accounts shall as soon as
practicable after the end of the financial year be
audited by some chartered accountant appointed by the
Committee Provided that if at any time the Fighting
Fund shall have been wound up the duties of auditor
may be carried out by two members of the Society, not
being members of the Committee or of the Fund Sub-
Committee, elected at the Annual General Meeting to
serve as auditors for the ensuing year and any vacancy
occurring in the office of auditor during the year

shall be filled byithe Committee

16. The Annual General Meeting of the Society shall
be held within three months of the end of the financial
year of the Society. Provided that the first Annual
General Meeting shall be held not later than 1st May

1973.

5.

17. The Annual General Meeting shall be held at a
time and place fixed by the Committee in accordance
with the foregoing rules and for the following

purposes:

(a) to receive the audited accounts, balance
sheets and reports of the Committee

(b) to elect the officers and Committee
for the ensuing year

(c) to elect two auditors under the proviso
to rule 15.

(d) to transact any other business previously
communicated to the Honorary Secretary

and included in the Notice of Meeting.

18. The Committee may convene an Extraordinary General
Meeting at any time and shall be bound to do so within
twenty-one days on the requisition of one fifth of the
members of the Society for the time being or twenty
members whichever is the less. Such requisition must

state the purpose for which such meeting is required.

19. The Honorary Secretary shall at least fourteen days
before any General Meeting send to every member at his
address as recorded in the Society's books a notice of
the meeting stating the time when and the place where

it will be held and the business to be conducted.

20. The business at a General Meeting shall be limited
to that provided by these rules and those further
matters set out in the notice convening the meeting.
The quorum at any General Meeting shall except where
otherwise specified in these rules be twenty or one-

fifth of the members of the Society whichever is the less.

6.

21. At all meetings of the Society each member shall
have one vote. In the event of an equality of votes

the Chairman shall have a second or casting vote.

22. The Chairman of the Society shall preside at all
meetings of the Society but if he shall not be present
within fifteen minutes after the time appointed for the
meeting or has signified his inability to be present at
the meeting, the members present shall choose one of

their number to be the Chairman of the meeting.

23. The Committee may expel any member of the Society
whose conduct shall in the opinion of the Committee
render him unfit for membership of the Society. Before
any such member is expelled the Honorary Secretary

shall give him seven days‘ written notice to attend a
meeting of the Committee and shall inform him of the
complaints made against him. No member shall be expelled
without first having an opportunity of appearing before
the Committee and answering complaints made against him
nor unless at least two—thirds of the Committee then

present vote in favour of his expulsion.

24. The Society shall have power to alter or amend
these rules by a resolution passed by not less than
three-quarters of those present and voting at a General‘
Meeting the notice of which shall have contained
particulars of the proposed amendment Provided that in
the case of any proposed alteration or amendment to
rules 2, 26 or this rule no resolution to that effect
shall be deemed to have been passed unless at an

Extraordinary General Meeting held not less than six

weeks thereafter (of which not less than four weeks
notice shall have been given to each member) and at
which not less than one—half of the members shall be
present that resolution shall be confirmed by a
majority of two-thirds of the members present and

voting.

25. The Committee may from time to time make very

and revoke regulations not inconsistent with these

rules for the regulation of the internal affairs of

the Society. All regulations made under this rule shall,

until revoked by the Committee, be binding on members.

26. If at any General Meeting a resolution for the
dissolution of the Society shall be passed by a majority
of the members present and at an Extraordinary General
Meeting held not less than six weeks thereafter (of
which not less than four weeks written notice shall
have been given to each member) and at which not less
than one-half of the members shall be present that
resolution shall be confirmed by a resolution passed by
a majority of two—thirds of the members voting thereon,
the Committee shall thereupon, or at such future date
as shall be specified in such resolution, proceed to
realise the property, cash and other assets of the
Society and after

(a) the discharge of all liabilities of

whatsoever nature including contingent

liabilities and

(b) the return to the contributories entitled

thereto or any sums due to them in accordance

with the rules of the Fighting Fund shall pay

the net sum to the Committee for the Protection

8.

of Rural Kent for its general purposes or to
such other voluntary organisation having in
the opinion of the Committee objects
consistent with those of this Society as the
Committee may in its absolute discretion
resolve and upon the completion or such

payment the Society shall be dissolved.

9.

 

 

 

\‘ ,— 1 »
. a I

_. — ; '_ a

4?.
. 4
‘
4
4

‘.
. ‘ >1

THE NAILBOURNE PROTECTION SOCIETY

1. The name of the society is "The Nailbourne Protection
Society".

2. The objects of the Society are

(1) To promote the permanent preservation of all that
is of merit in the rural environment of East Kent and especially
of the Nailbourne Valley and for the attainment of the fore-
going to consider and if thought fit, to promote, assist or
oppose proposals for the use or development of land in the said
area.

(2) To resist and to help others to resist by legal
proceedings (or by contributing towards the costs of legal
proceedings) or otherwise howsoever, any threat to the peace
and tranquillity and the rural character of the Nailbourne
Valley and the surrounding countryside and neighbourhood and
in particular to prevent the holding of any large assemblies
of persons which may be thought likely to create a nuisance
or disturbance to the peace or character of the said neighbour-
hood or to cause damage to the property in the locality.

3. Membership shall be open to all who support the objects
of the Society. Membership shall lapse if the subscription
is unpaid six months after it is due.

4. The entrance and annual subscription for ordinary members
shall be a minimum of $1 or such other sum as may from time to
time be determined by the Annual General Meeting. The subscriptbn
for Life Membership shall be a minimum of £10, or such other

sum as may from time to time be determined by the Annual General
Meeting.

(2) Members who contributed the sum of $5 or more to the
original Fighting Fund shall be entitled to life membership
without further payment.

(5) Subscriptions are payable on joining the Society and
thereafter annually on 1st. January in each year.

(4) All membership subscriptions may be applied for the
general purposes of the Society.

5. The Society shall have power to make appeals, solicit
donations and canvass and receive monies for the carrying out
of the objects of the Society and in particular shall have
power to raise money for litigation purposes in connection
therewith.

6. The management of the Society shall be entrusted to a
Committee consisting of the officers of the Society, that is
to say, Chairman, Honorary Secretary, Honorary Treasurer, and
not more than 10 other members.

7. Nominations for the election of officers shall be made at
or before the Annual General Meeting. Such nominations shall be
in writing supported by a seconder and the consent of the
proposed nominee must first have been obtained. The election of
officers shall be completed prior to the election of further
Committee members. All officers and other Committee members
shall take office at the end of the meeting at which they are

elected and shall hold office until the conclusion of the
next A.G.M. A retiring member shall be eligible for re—election.

8. The Committee shall have power to fill casual vacancies
from amongst the officers and Committee.Any officers or
Committee member so appointed shall hold office until the
conclusion of the next following A.G.H. but shall then be
eligible for re-election. The Committee may at its first meeting
after the A.G.M. elect one of its members to be Vice Chairman.

9. All monies received by the Society and not required for
immediate application for its objectives may be placed with some
Bank or Building Society or any other secure investment approved
by the Committee upon such terms as the Committee shall authorise.

10. The Honorary Treasurer shall keep accounts of all monies
received and expended on account of the bociety and shall
present such accounts at the Annual General Meeting of the
Society.

11. The financial year of the Society shall end on the

51st. December in each year and a balance sheet shall be

drawn up as at such date in each year together with a statement
of accounts in respect of the preceding financial year and a
report of the Committee thereon.

12. The balance sheet and accounts shall as soon as practicable
after the end of the financial year be audited by two members

of the Society elected at the A.G.M. to serve as auditors for
the ensuing year, and any vacancy occurring in the office of
auditor during the year shall be filled by the Committee.

15. The Society shall hold an A.G.H. as required, at a place
arranged by the Committee in accordance with the following
rules and for the following purposes :
a) to receive the audited accounts, balance sheets and
reports of the Committee,
b) to elect the officers and Committee for the ensuing
year
c) to elect two auditors under the proviso of rule 12,
d) to transact any other business previously communicated
to the Honorary Secretary and included in the Notice of
Meeting.

14. The Committee may convene an Extraordinary General Meeting
at any time and shall be bound to do so within 21 days on the
requisition of one fifth of the members of the Society for the
time being or twenty members whichever is the less. Such
requisition must state the purpose for which such meeting is
required.

15. The Honorary Secretary shall at least 14 days before any
General Meeting give public notice of that meeting stating the
time when and the place where it will be held and the business
to be conducted.

16. The business at the General Meeting shall be limited to
that provided by these rules and those further matters set out
in the notice convening the meeting. The quorum at any General
Meeting shall, except where otherwise specified in these rules,
be 12 or one—fifth of the members of the Society whichever is
the less.

17. At all meetings of the Society each member shall have one
vote. In the event of an equality of votes the Chairman shall
have a casting Vote.

18. The Chairman of the Society shall preside at all meetings
of the Society but if he/she shall not be present within

fifteen minutes after the time appointed for the meeting, or

has signified his/her ability to be present at the meeting, then
the Vice Chairman shall chair the meeting, or if he/she not be
present, then the members present shall choose one of their
number to be the Chairman of the meeting.

19. The Society shall have power to alter or amend these rules
by a resolution passed by not less than three—quarters of those
present and voting at a General Meeting, the notice of which
shall have contained particulars of the proposed amendment.
Provided that in the case of any proposed alteration or
amendment to rules 2,21 or this rule, no resolution to that
effect shall be deemed to have been passed unless at an
Extraordinary General Meeting held not less than six weeks
thereafter (of which not less than four weeks notice shall have
been given to each member) and at which not less than one-half
of the members shall be present, that resolution shall be
confirmed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present
and voting.

20. The Committee may from time to time makevary and revoke
regulations not inconsistent with these rules for the regulation
of the internal affairs of the Society. All regulations made
under this rule shall, until revoked by the Committee, be
binding on members.

21. If at any General Meeting a resolution for the dissolution
of the Society shall be passed by a majority of the members
present and at an Extraordinary General Meeting held not less
than six weeks thereafter (of which not less than four weeks
written notice shall have been given to each member) and at
which not less than one-half of the members shall be present
that resolution shall be confirmed by a resolution passed by
a majority of two-thirds of the members voting thereon, the
Committee shall thereupon, or at such future date as shall be
specified in such resolution, proceed to realise the property,
cash and other assets of the Society and after
(a) the discharge of all liabilities of whatsoever nature
including contingent liabilities and
(b) the return to the contributories entitled thereto of
any sums due to them in accordance with the rules of the
Fighting Fund shall pay the net sum to the Committee for
the Protection of Rural Kent for its general purposes or
to such other voluntary organisation having in the opinion
of the Committeeobjects consistent with those of this
Society as the Committee may in its absolute discretion
resolve and upon the completion of such payment the Society
shall be dissolved.

%M’&~\o3i~<<1q}.  C?\_'Z$“S 7.4.0 ‘'20?

_   ewc'—wiu3% ,,l cw~..

\/&“"=j PZz4z:uu3,,fi HWL  ah... ."'¢¢>.6‘Q_  

4!»  '  , 7
I H'tzm51~t’ 1 §‘La-4/C)   

mm; <Z_€a"n*‘>-$!K.i),l./L/.{e.1e«:*/L _I.
Gww  1'? ‘viii.  vhkao. 
 /L£«{.z«m«/1' ?¢}t/r’¢.<2_L-_‘/1/tag/¢,g;,‘.b,‘_-kg 
    
TC/‘ox S    ,
.      

 ~ &'~oev{2 %S"?"W,‘:_,A)Ps/ '

 mflEflY }UI'I(EG‘AM‘IELGENERAI..MEEI‘DB

 

Members of this Society, (which was forned in 1971 with the '
purpose of opposing a Pop Festival planned to be held in the
Bishopsbourne area, and later expanded in aim to help protect the
environment generally along the Nailbourne valley) are invited to
attend an Annual General Meeting of the Society on Thursday,

26th June, 1997 at 7.30 gn in Bishopsbourne Village Hall.

The Meeting will discuss the future of the Society which has been
inactive for nearly ten years. The current Chairman, Secretary and
Treasurer all intend to relinquish their positions at the A.G.M.

If the Society is therefore to continue to operate, nominations are
required for these positions fran nenbers or potential Irenbers.
Seven additional nenbers will also be required to serve on the
Committee. Failure to elect the three Officers will inevitably
mean the winding up of the Society and the distribution of its
remaining funds to other Societies or Bodies as provided for in

the Constitution.

Nominations for Officers and Cctrmittee, together with the agreement
of those proposed, must be in the hands of tm Chaimen or Secretary
by the tine of the start of the Annual General Meeting, or may be
sent in advance of the meeting to the Secretary, Mr John Purchese,
11 St Nicholas Hospital, Church Hill, Harbledown, Canterbury, Kent.

NAILBOURNE PROTECTION SOCIETY

Annual General Meeting: 25th January 1988

AGENDA

Chairman's welcome

Apologies
Minutes of last Annual General Meeting

1.
2
5
4. Matters arising
5 Treasurer's Report
6

Future of Society

To continue? If so —
Election of Officers

If to be wound-up:

Arrange meeting to wind—up Society

Try to determine extent of present
Life membership.

7. Any other business.

.TV  3«_xUwu3|«2ot ow} Imam. mo} &£fa)rmt

 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 
  

 

  
  

M).<_',5-54;)
. 1 8
Dw~fi»«.s ma s»+s,-:,a+.;ks ‘Li % -__'‘79‘ E122
BM» .73 Skmlzig mm,¢—. fig ‘ -
. ,  ~—
Péfwn) awfrkoe "I37;-))\<,Qm1 Sam .97’ 44:52; 4079
«:>_<;_r+:_~_u=>_»_*_<»_r>«_a_ '34-3' . 54.0; W '
Ha»wm.,.,., : um ge¢,é.,,,C,j .0. W - 4075
Dmovjwz My §..c,m».-ram: . gym, _” ' -
 e, SI./W3»/52.8 . 5'4 .04. _ 2"E"'m 8*,‘/D
EME“ ‘”’ Wéa~M:=, Wm E7¢V£ND)T'me,:,.' J_I2f€%_ _ Kn’ L Sm
Er./in/acts Q67 3| D€wu~bc:.» r/en/mas brézgwa - 747.753 7:,-30073,  32.78
/+uw-as caaupg ~,—c.g4,,_,w?A._ SWEET  fr 838 2s'7.fl4
L-.-_.-=-_. J2’ f gs’;  £  '79
B‘“/Wot S7195-r AT Km DE<;E
M55-IA I484»
Pumas .51» -rare .S‘<T&v£T'.9. "* .L‘1£§_‘- !5_8_£ iggl.
Wcmue aw) 6x e/n3r0’ ya 5- bay 3; .
f M acem» (ea 9) 7 -45‘ 5580,?’ 897.44 857072»
R~ef@<‘on*E2s lab‘.
C'MȎ'ouF &e,+: (M,
hilbm Sat‘ A-r.a~»c4'. 777.5‘ --
iixgttmg (Q/‘ta’? 2612.64) 0 g$f‘g7 35-35‘? 85%. :7"
s ~ 4. s "_ —

 
 
 

  
 

1

. T‘: 751-05 £63341 2‘; as-£94 lg gqow,
V14

 

A V r \/ma Ila M 01.: .. 9'.‘/‘2'”' “W “‘'5‘’“» C-£.8moe.o.. . ,

M54" M853 tgé ow?)  045;} .5»:-*;L‘L+j'fz~.  M’: .«.‘3an:..“’&ih‘».?§4'AE€MW (‘WW3 Lljatgukqfi 5/
“" "W 3 ‘“’- Dmk¢£'w-W¢R- 

1:‘ v M86 "L I

"2: 'r-' -

7T’: 63 "

 

N dz’/éozmze Pr0z‘m‘z'07z Soczkfy ~

 

3,whitelocks Close,

Kingston,
Canterbury,
Kent,
CT4 6JG
26thSeptember,1987
The aounty Planning Officer,
Springfield,
Maidstone,
Kent.

Dear Sir,

Re: KENT STRUCTURE PLAN

This Society opposes the proposed changes to the Kent Structure
Plan. The proposals reverse the necessary controls and restrictions
on developments which the special Kent Countryside merits, and
which are stated so clearly in the Structure Plan at present. It is
unacceptable that the Kent Countryside should be sacrificed to
"economic development" concepts which,as subtly worded in the
proposals,would allow planners and devlopers to do whatever they
wish, and justify doing so by quoting nebumous and contradictory
policy statements contained within the proposals.

It is unacceptable that Green Belt land is to lose so much of
its protection.

It is unacceptable that proposed changes allow for the release of
more land for manufacturing, industry, warehouses, offices, etc.,

and that the proposed strategies are worded to justify as developers

wish,such developments.

It is unacceptable that such expressions as'"clear reasons“ be
used; such expressions are open to any interpretation, or allow
for rejection of reasons.

Paragraph 8.4 and 8.5 are convenient contradictions, which if
adopted would allow for developments by quoting whichever statement
is convenient.

Policy strategies RS1 and RS2 are again contradictory. Similarly

RS.5 and RS.4.allow for any convenient interpretation by developers
to justify any development.

cont....'

I}

~$I-‘.2.

Nailbourne Protection Scy to County Planning Officer — Kent Struct.

Policy RS.6 uses the term "exceptional circumstances" — a
convenient piece of terminology.

It is sdaly evident that the proposed changes are an "about turn"
regarding planning and development to allow almost any development

at the expenses of Kent's most valuable asset - its delightful
rural countryside.

There is nothing of merit in these proposed changes, and they
should not be accepted.

Yours faithfully,

I.D. Taylor,
Honorary Secretary.

Kent County Council Planning Department Springfield Maidstone ME14 2LX

County Planning Officer:

Tel: Maidstone (0622) 671411

 

I . D . Taylor ’ Extension: 3161 Chief EXBCUIIVS
. un Coun i1

Hon. Secretary, A*'°“ Mrs. Macleod 0HE£fiagmmC
3 Whitelocks Close, 0””°f‘ DCC3/197/1

Kingston , Your ref:

Canterbury CT4 6JG Dm“ 6th October, 1987

Dear Sir,

Kent Structure Plan Second Review and Alterations

 Thank you for your letter of 26th September, 1987, referring to the

current review of the Kent Structure Plan.

Your representations will be considered and taken into account before
the policies are finalised for submission to the Secretary of State for the
Environment around the end of the year, for his approval.

Yours faithfully,
,_,X@¢\/L,&v1%.Z /k/L(?(/€{

for County Planning Officer

DC3KSP1.MLl

97 08131/89

THE [LR-’.\_Yf'1'

_ _-_!S1_‘3i:C1‘

STRUCTURE PtAy (SEQQND grviuwi

IEITIAL CONMENTS_OF TUEWCQUNQLL FOR THE PRQIECTIQN_QE dURAb

ENGLAND

The Kent County Structurc Plan is a document of cnormous
importance. it is the principal statement of how much
development should take place around the County over the next
ten years. As a blueprint for balancing competing interests in
both urban and rural areas it is vital that it commands public
support. It is than much more likely that the policies it
contains will be adhcrcd to when decisions are reached on
iinliy‘idxxal piwagu»sal.s. Tlxis is th($ nuisl. ef‘fi(rictit l¢H§’ of
ensuring proper strategic planning and avoiding a development
fiwfic frir til 1.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England is a strong
supporter of the principle of Structure Plans and Local Plans.
The Kent Branch of CPRE has a long—standing involvement in
planning topics in the County, and is keen to see the revised
Structure Plan uphold the achievements of the post war years
which have kept the County relatively unspoilt by bad modern
development. Unfortunately, the tone and detail of the
Consultation Draft of the new Structure Plan indicate a move in
the wrong direction. The policies are significantly more lax
than in the past and in CPRF’s vicw represent a substantial
threat to the countr_vside. Kent County Council is recommended to
restore policies that will encourage more urban renewal and less
development on green field sites.

The comments which follow are divided according to the chapters
of the proposed Structure Plan.

1ls_§L£2Lsgx

The new policy S1 on Economic Development is founded on the View
that in the revised Kent Structure Plan "there should be a more
positive planning attitude to economic development" (paragraph
2.9(a)) and that "Policy S1 should therefore emphasise a
welcoming attitude to new investment and economic development in
Kent" (paragraph 3.6(a)). This gives the mistaken impression
that the current Structure Plan is unduly restrictive. It is
not. Paragraph 3.3 and 3.4 of the existing Structure Plan
operative from 19 January 1984 show that policies have already
been changed to welcome pressures for growth in Kent: "the
intention is that the future pace of development generally
should shift in emphasis from development being led by
population pressures, arising from its growth and
redistrubution, to being led by the growth of economic activity
and employment. The principal theme of the Strategy,

therefore, is the encouragement of growth of economic activity
and employment in the county, where most beneficial to the
creation of additional wcalth or the improvement of inadequate
local employment opportunities".

CPRE agrees that efforts to support the economic welfare.of Kent
should be sustained, just as every Structure Plan in every county
tries to do. The existing Structure Plan is adequate for the
purpose. We shall demonstrate (below) that in Kent far more land
has been allocated for economic development and for housing than
has been required, but that development has still not
materialised to the extent expected. Demand has simply not been
sufficient to take advantage of the opportunities that the County
and District Councils have made available. The suggestion that
the revised Structure Plan should adopt a more welcoming

attitude to investment by making more land available therefore
seems to CPRE to be misplaced and potentially dangerous. More,
superfluous, land releases could threaten well—established
policies to protect the countryside. Policies for the Green

Belt and for various categories of development have been

amended in ways that threaten green field sites to a quite
unnecessary degree. The Plan gives the impression of being a
somewhat desparate attempt to raise the relative prosperity of
Kent in the South East, measured against the ‘economic
indicators’ given in paragraph 3.4, which is to be achieved in
some cases at the expense of the countryside.

Policy SI makes a significant change from the equivalent policy
in the current Structure Plan. Instead of sensibly indicating
the main areas of Kent where "a readily available supply of land
and sites will be provided for further industrial/warehousing and
office dcvelopmcnt", the new policy offers to make available "a
wide range of different types of attractive sites wherever
possible ip all_parts of thc_cguntyl (emphasis added). It is

in the nature of Kent's diversity and the location of the
Metropolitan Green Belt that this policy could only be achieved
by releasc of lreen Belt land and by the release of
environmentally attractive sites in eastern Kent. This is
implicitly recognised in thc policies for mid and west Kent, as
paragraph 3.3(a) indicates for this area: "Given its
accessibility this potential [for economic growth] should be
recognised in the interests of Kent as a whole." If this policy
was implemented, the pressures of market forces would ensure the
take up of preferred sites in western Kent and not in the
locations which the Plan claims to he targetting for new
investment. The result would be a county with widcr economic
divisions, not narrower ones, and having endured the loss of
valuable green field sites.

The specific locational policies in Policy Sl demonstrate the
scale of the attack likely on the countryside. Where conflicts
arise in East Kent, pri0rLL£.Hi1l_be giV0" 0VS£_QLh9!lP13U§Tfi§
policieE:tQ;feleasing'land for economic development. There will
be ?EE real contF6T§”on land release at Ashford. The reference
at Dnrtford to allowing new development "withgutmdetrimgnt_to
the fungtigg§_g£_thg green Belt" is weaselawordsz Kent County
Council has already promoted development in the Green Belt on
the north side of Dartford, and the expression confuses "the
functions of the Green Belt" with the Green Belt itself. The
proposed policy simply means that there will be development in
the Green Belt or a redefinition of Green Belt boundaries to
allow it. There are substantial tracts of vacant and under-
used land in the Grnvesend area that should be developed
instead. Around Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Swanlcy the Green
Belt will give way to headquarters offices and research
organisations, in open defiance of Government policy. These
"special types of firm" should locate at alternative suitable
sites not in the Green Belt. To accept the argument that they
"need" sites in the Green Belt in West Kent would be a

self—fu1fi]ling prophecy.

CPRE welcomes Policy S2 on the provision of infrastructure and
services. It is agreed that:

— attention should be focusscd on the four Economic Priority
Areas identified;

— positive and direct means of achieving economic revival will
be necessary in these locations (ie that restraints on
development elsewhere are unlikely to be sufficient to ensure
development in the Priority Areas on the scale desired); and

— the County Council should continue to influence the main
infrastructure agencies to ensure that they accord with Structure
Plan priorities.

Complementary to these policies, the following policy should be
reinstated in the Plan, in the same way as the current approved
Plan: "In preference to taking fresh land for development, the
most effective use of land will be made within the existing
huilt—up confines of settlements." The proposed removal of this
policy worries CPRE.

There is much in the principlcs set out for housing land in
Policy 83 with which CPRE agrees, in particular concentration of
development in the main urban areas. However, CPRE does not
accept the extremely high indicative figures for projected
housing requirements in paragraph 3.9. Also. the policy is
silent on the scale of housing requirements attributable to the
Channel Tunnel (and indeed attributable to natural growth and
migration). It is vitally important that the policy
distinguishes the sources of the growth expected in housing
demand, so that a proper asessment of the proposals can be
made. The Kent Impact Study on the consequences of the Channel
Tunnel is unjustifinbly glib in its attitude to the serious
impact this development will have on Kent as a whole. This is
n signifionnl impediment to proper evaluation of the Structure

Plan. The absence
“~11-1"‘-<-—_..
Study ofl_UMLJumIt

 

f statements in either the Kent Impact

r FEcTUTF"VTEfi”3fi“wh§t‘thgcb “fiquanéés of
the Channel Tunnel will be"orlhow"th5ylare“t3"beWhfindled to
snr5gfia?d the Kent environment are matters of deep concern to
CPRE. The sensible policy for phasing housing land releases in
the approved Structure Plan should be retained in the revised
Plan. The Government has indicated that it continues to

approve of such phasing policivs, as, for example, in the

Modifications to the West Sussex Structure Plan (August 1987).

   

FPRE objects to the specific policy for housing land release in
the Tunbridgc Kc] ls, Toubridge and Scvenoaks area, where it is
clear that proposed releases of Green Belt land for industry

will also necessitate rcfcfisc of fdrthor'lahdmih”the'GrcegfBelt

for hodsfhg. lhfire“shouTd'be“Fvery”efidehv6ur”to overcome the
infrastructure problems in the Medway Towns and elsewhere.

There is an unfortunate difference between the policies for
economic development and those for housing. Regarding economic
development, the proposed Plan accepts that investment can be
steered to Ashford and also that it can be steered elsewhere by
the provision of necessary investment in infrastructure. CPRE
agrees. This is in marked contrast to the Plan’s approach to
housing, which takes the view that "the scope for
redistributing housing pressures is very limited" (paragraph
3.9(f)). It is self—evident that housing and other pressures
are already being redistributed in some areas by strong
conservation policies, such as Green Belt. The Structure Plan
should acknowledge that with a balance of carrots and sticks
the housing pressures can be redistributed for the good of the
whole county.

The new policy Si on Retail Development fails to mention the
potential conflict between investment in shopping facilities
and the environment. This should be remedied. Point (c) of
the policy, indicating that at least some large freestanding
developments are likely to be allowed, not only could threaten
the countryside but is in any case not a logical conclusion
from the Explanatory Memorandum. The case for freestanding
deveiopments has not been made. he shall comment below on the
inadequacy of the detailed policies for shopping.

CPRF welcomes the retention of policy S6 for conservation of
the countryside and the introduction of a new policy S5 for the
built environment. CPRE supports the explanation given for
these policies. The point that is important about these
policies for the environment is unfortunately that the proposed
Structure Plan makes clear that less weight will be given to
them than in the past. The other strategic policies should be
moderated, as we have indicated, to stress the importance of
maintaining a high quality environment. This should be a
primary strategic objective, not a subsidiary one.

Economic Development

B2li£i§§eEQ1_§ufl EDZsDn9nesemLhe,r9lense of much more land for
manufacturing industry, warehousing, services and offices than
the ¢G??5nL approved plan. In all eighteen-planning areas the
site areas/floorspace allocated for both industry and offices
are as much as or more than the amounts proposed in the
approved plan. The increases are particularly large for
offices, where nearly 50% more floorspace is proposed for the
period 1986-91 than for the same period in the approved plan.
Sovenoaks, Swanley and Tunbridge wells will each be expected to
provide a further l0,000 square meters of office floorspace
before 1991, even though these are settlements in the Green
Belt. This will put further prossure on the housing market in
those areas. it also threatens to undermine the character of
these towns, especially Scvonoaks which has seen a
proportionately large change in the quantity of offices built

in the town.

CPRE contends that the proposed land allocations for offices
and particularly for industry are once again far too high.

They have more to do with optimism than requirements. The
large selection on offer will simply ensure that plum sites are
taken, and make urban rcgoncration and countryside protection
more difficult. This is effectively admitted in the

explanation of Policy E03, where reference is made to
substituting new better quality sites for 'non—developable’
commitments in some cases. The second sentence of Policy EU
3(a), which gives effect to this, should be deleted. Emphasis
should instcad be put on Policy ED 3(c), which recognises the
scope for upgrading sites to a standard where they become
economically attractive.

(,‘l"RFT accepts in principle policy l7.ll3(d) for the idcnti,ficr.\tion
in appropriate local plans of silos for high technology firms,
but the policy must be significantly qualified to protect the
environment. No such site should be contemplated in any part
of the County designated for protection, such as Green Belt,
Krcas of Outstanding Natural Rcauly and Areas of special
significance for countryside conservation. Provision should
also be written into the policy that only Sites that are
well—screencd and served by adequate pre—existing infra-
structure will be considered.

Policy ED 3(e), allowing for exceptional circumstances to lot
particular firms use environmentally sensitive sites, should be
¢lcl(‘=.tP.(l. l<“.nvironmcntal protect ion policies should not be set
aside, just because certain types of industry, cg high
technology industry, wish to locate in attractive places. CPRE
urges all planning authorities to adopt a consistent

altitude, ensuring that one locality cannot be played off
against another and that development takes place instead in
accordance with approved plans.

Policy EDT on the release of Green Belt north of Dartford
should be deleted. The presence of Dartford, Gravesend and
Northflect in a line of settlement moving out from London along
the Thames means that the Green Relt in this area is narrow and
fragmented. All that remains should be vigorously protected.
It is therefore a misuse of language to refer to land that the
County Council believes "does not contribute to the purposes of
the Green Belt". CPRE has objected to various schemes for
development of this threatened and in parts ecologically

important land. north of Dartford and dcplorcs further efforts
by the County Council to destroy it. The proposals for Joyce
Green hospital are completely at variance with the recent
Government policy Firculnr I2/R7 on ‘Redundant Hospital §ites
in Green Pmlts: Planning lluidolincs’, which emphasises the
desirability of finding alternative institutional uses for
c..\'_isl'ing lurildings and for avoiding development of hospital
grounds.

The Economic llcvelopmcnt policies coulain virtually no
reference to protection of the environment. CPRE therefore
views with considerable alarm the proposal to drop policies in
the current approved Plan which control industrial development
and offices in areas of development restraint, essentially
Canterbury and West Kent. The Founly Council should not play
down its responsibilities for protecting built up and rural
areas of great environmental value.

Lwsi Yl..f1._l3_“»‘_"?._l—.£’J2'l‘_'_2_'_‘.,l_'

The housing land allocations in Policy HD1 for the three five
year periods to 2001 are remarkably high, and CPRE wishes to
see them dramatically reduced. For 1986-91, the proposals are
nearly 50% higher than in the current approved Plan. For the
1990s, the proposed scale of housing development is well over
50% more than proposed in the SERPLAN figures as recently as
1985. Paragraph 5.8 fails to point out that the SERPLAN figure
of 35,500 houses in the 1990s was one approved by Kent County
Council at the time. CPRF does not believe that such a
massively different figure only two years later can carry
credibility. The SERPLAN figures also make abundantly clear
that the South East region expects to see a substantial decline
in housing demand in the 1090s compared with the 1980s: 460,000
houses built rather than 638,000 expected in the 1080s. This
decline of 30% is not reflected in the Kent figures.

The reality is that Kent, (‘oimty Council has consistently
allocated too much land for housing. Demand has not matched
supply. This can be illustrated clearly by comparing past
Structure Plan policies wilh the land made available for
housing and the number of houses actually built.

The First. !w‘truoture Plan mnvrml the period 1079 to l!'?R(3. This
e\'per~ted rl2,.'?00 houses to be built, implying an annual building
rate of‘ around (3,040. This building rate was not a«~hie\ed.
Looking back, we now ltnntf that 39,000 houses were built in that
period, l0% short of’ e,\'pe<~tatirms. This was not, due to any
shortage of‘ building land. in mid—l08l the County had l0% more
land .'1\'.'lll.'il)lv tlmn rimwlmi to meet the five years worth of‘
supply stipulated by Government under this plan.

The First /\lt<=v-ation to the Strmrture Plan, rolling pol ieies
Forward to I901 and approved in l)eeember 1983, suggested that
6l,G00 houses would be built between I979 and l99l (11,200 in
l979 to l.‘lR8 and 20,400 in 1986 to 1991). This redueed the
annual expeeted building rate to around 5,900 in 1979-86 and
4,080 in 1086-91. The annual building rate in 1970-86 turned
out to be about 5,130. Again, demand did not meet the
r~'«:pe<*tat'ions oi" the plan. More than that, the land ax/'ai.l°ab.le
for house building (within Five years) at mid—l9Rl'3 was
siliiioient for 32,900 houses, enough for 6560 houses annually.
This is sub-atantially more than enough to satisfy historic
building rates, and 6l% more than enough for the building rate
indicated in the plan For l.‘lRG—9l.

The proposed Draft Second Alteration to the Structure Plan
proposes to make land available for 29,000 houses between 1986
and 1991, nearly 50% more than the 20,400 houses in the eurrent
approved plan. Despite this astonishing inerease, there was
still more than enough land available at mi.d-1986 to ensure at
least five years’ worth of supply at this elevated rate. It is
therefore hardly surprising that paragraph 5.7 coneludes that
there is no need to make further provision for the period
l9R6—9l. The amount. of land available eould sustain a rate of
house building never before aehieved in lient.

The proposals in the draft Strueture Plan are exressive. There
is no indieaiion that demand will rise so substantially as to
neeessitate the scale of building proposed. The building rate
in the period 1986-91 is expected to rise substantially and
then to stay higher in the l990s than the rate achieved since
1979, even though regional projections (and the current
Strueture Plan) predict a gradual downturn in the housing
market after the mid 1980s. Very substantial amounts of land
are already axailable to meet the demand likely to oeeur. and
are even sufficient to satisfy the inflated requirements of the
proposed Plan. The small amounts likely to be needed to
satisfy the requirements of the period 1991-6 can easily be
Found. The County Couneil has Completely failed to make its
ease, in CPRF’s view, for further substantial land releases and
for the impael on the eountryside which they imply.

Turning to speeif‘i:~. loeations for housing development, (.‘l‘Rl~‘.
aer~,ept.s the prineiple of‘ a eontinued growth status for Ashford.
Developvnent, here should be kept so Far as possible within the
town's proposed Southern Orbital Road. Colmtryside protection
polieies should oontinue to be applied to villages in the
histriet, F]("(‘I"')l_llH.{ that l.l\r=I‘<‘ is potential for some growth in
selected villages but that the pane of Change should not be
damagingly fast.

The proposed polieies for llav~t.f'ord are in a head—on rrlash with
Government. poliey For the Green Belt. It is erroneous for the
(‘ounty Couneil to believe that signifieant developnient
stimulated by the M25 is likely to be anything other than in
eonf'.liot with lreen llelt policy. (7l‘RE does not, aeeept: that
this key strategie regional polivy for the London area should
be set; aside in Dartford or anyichere else.

(,‘l‘ltl7 weleomes the proposed policy For meeting only local growth
in the housing market in the (‘anterbury area. Under these
eireumstanees, and allowing for development in Ashford t.o
of‘f‘set any sliort.{‘aJ]s, (‘l‘ltFT enn see no just,if'ir~at'.ion for°even
considering the option of "a major development away from
(_‘ant,erlmry itself", and wishes to see this ref'e.renr~e deleted
from paragraph 5.11. The subsequent suggestion that. "An option
for a major high-profile expansion ventral to the whole, area
[of‘ NE Kent] and related to the A2 should be explored for the
longer term" is in no way explained or ,just.i,fied in the
lixplanatory Mt-m<n-nndum, applies only beyond the Structure Plan
period and in f'l"l?l7.’s view is damaging and alarming. It should
be deleted.

ln l'nlir‘§' lllll Fnr tho nmszt ]\.'H‘t tlm lovrnl lmu.<:im‘! Figures used
in Hiv ('lll'I'l?Hi l_\' n]~prrv\'mi Sll‘\l(‘lUI‘(‘ Plan should rvplnoe those
nuw pv'np<u_c-.wl For tlm pm-iml tn I991. This would in\'0l\'<?
mih.<=.L:\nt,inl I-«~rlu:~t,irms in tlw lmu.°.in_q (lr=\*c=.1opnwnt propnsml in
lmrtfnrrl, Tlnilwr-i«lgzc~. Wollq, t~l:ii<l.<:t,nnr‘/llnlling, (.‘:mt,r*rln1r_V, llvrno
l’m_v/Wliitzsatrilulo, F?l1r~pi:n_v and 'l'hnnr-t. :\llocat,ions in most. areas
qlmuld he <irr\.=‘.ti(‘nll§' mil in the period I99]-6.

(‘l‘l?F. l'.l1()l‘()llElll§' wolm>nir~s the pr'in(‘iplr‘.<: bvhinzl poli(‘§‘ lll)2 for‘
m:\l<i.n_g, l'ull um» of 'i:in«lf'nll’ Sli!“-1 Rl1(l ur:l(‘o|nn.<: the [m.lir~y,
with tho o\:(~v]il,i(~h of tlw lnszt. qr~nt,nm-0 which would allow
(l(>“\'(I‘l()]‘.lnf‘Y1i’. lwyonvl the l’lr1n'.<x px‘r\pu9.ml quunt,it.ier:. lf
s:uh.c:i'nntinl uin«ll‘nll sitnra nrim-, thvn housing’, land :illo("ntions:
should he nut. lmr~l( to misiirn that, thv number of liousos: «lv_\r:i.t‘r*(.i
in mini-nri in not. S‘l,l.’,l1lf(‘«'Hii,l_\' ('xr‘<‘«'rie‘(‘l. To do <at.lwrwise= would
mr\l(r~ :1 ln0(“l\‘€‘I‘}' of‘ St,r'n«:t.nr~o l’l:1n p(\lir‘i(‘S for housing
pw>\*i.<:irm: it is: thn numlwr of licmsnc. built. Lhat. inr1tt.er.<=., not.
Nll¢"‘l'lH‘l‘ t.hn_\ urisxo on 11ll<)(‘:1lmi Ritns or windfall Ril..t"S.

l’<ili<‘_\' HD3 on n .<;tr‘ntr~g_\' to lllllilllIlSF:‘ v0nf'lict.:= l)(~‘i,hFé(—‘il housing
<lnvr~,1npvnr~nt and r,‘<)llrH.i'§‘.'~‘.irl¢‘ pi~ntm~t inn is hn.<:e<.l on the h<')us;im2;
need twins; at the nlarmin_c7.l_\j high lr-xrvls propo.°.ml in Policy
lllll. if I‘(‘(]lll|‘!‘llll‘fliR wore imlmwl tlmt hiczh, [hon the options
fnr (r()ns=.i<io.r-ntinn would tn» uur~tli_\' of .<:t.ud_\' at the lrwal level
(with trim U‘(t‘("pl,irn\ of R('.lH‘,llH“3» pi-npm—~.ml ‘in Fast. hunt in policy
lll)Il(<*)). (‘l‘l?l" (lr).nR not nm-(‘pt tlmt tho Cr_mfli(~t.<: llP.(?(i bn
:in_Vthingz lil<«- n.-4 R(‘l'l(Hl.‘?., <~qpm~inlly in \'i(‘.W of‘ tin" Q't‘li!?Y‘:'1l
np:rnr~in«~,nt, that no fnrtln-r vnnjm‘ land rnlonses‘. are re\.quir‘r=d for
tho nczsct. Fin» ,\'v:u-.<:. Thu nnml to vrmszidnr new .<:nttl<~mmits in
:40 m:1n_\f ])i1lI‘l-“-I and similarly for m:\_jm' greenfirrlnl (?.‘ipI]I'lSiOhS of
r>.\'iqt.iri_q .r<«~tt.lvnwnt.-4 nppnm‘ to (‘l‘Rl", in be Ut1H(‘()(}"-'..°-.'\l‘il_V
nlnrniist nnri .chnnl.d he (li'()[>[w(l. Fnr l>ot,t.er, and morn grmerally
.'1ppliI‘r1bl¢~, would hp :1 strni;:lit—l”n1~x.':n~-l policy for minimising
the taking ml‘ Frh.-:l1 lnml, ms. thn [)()ll(“iP.S HEC3 and lll-‘.(‘-1 in the
r§in'|'nni; :1ppr~n\'mi Sir‘ll(.‘iIll‘F‘ l‘lnn nttmnpt, to do.

[?_':,(»,8_i,l._T>:\i_f: .1 .0 P") 0 {Lt

CIVRFT x:r>]«3mm>s: Hm ro\'i.r2w of rntnilimz policies in the Structure
Plnn l)€‘.(‘¥\UFt(’ of tho int‘r4=ns0 in r-nn.<:nmor expenditixre now
formtzmt. Tlw (witerin fur‘ ns:sr=s:s;ivi:I Droposnl.<'. for new retail

<l«2\'el.upmmit,s: of S-‘;i,r‘!\i,f3Elf' ilI\[)0I‘i7‘ll1(‘t". art‘. useful so far as they
sin. llowevcir, the unrlm'l_\in:z ohjm‘t,i\r> lwhinrl the [mlivins
r1ppr>m‘.'—: tn (‘Pltli to nffor in.qufl'ir?imit' ‘L’uidam:e on thn t._\:pt= of
(.lF?\'F‘l.(l})|'llF‘lll, thnt. t.h¢= S|,ri|«~li1i'o l‘lnn mmlri py-ofnr tn !~‘.r‘i>. A H
lon\'r:.c: tor) mnvh .<-‘mupn, in ('i‘l?F.’.<: vimu, for major nut—nf‘—tm«n
r‘I‘|nil «ln\'c‘lnpnmnt. wlinrr-1154 :1 pnl iv} riilnml at r~mwr:nt,r'nl int:
Ilf—"\'t‘l()[\lll(}Y)i, ut nxgisatinq r~c~nt:-no. Hfilllti have been nmrn (~mnpz1t,ible
with other pnlivins: in tho plnn. (mt—nt'—t.m.'n .‘~‘.(‘.lH‘lI\£‘.°~ by
<lv,l"init.irm nrv not Y‘(‘.lfli,('ri ln<~;it.inn:\ll_\' to the (\.\;i.<:tinE
[u*u\iRi0n of‘ nmqt typo.-4 nf infra‘-:t.i'uvtuI'0; t,h0} r‘rv:i|n nv-N
pnttvrns mt" mo\'<~m«2nt. r;1thm' than rr=infm'r‘r=. exi.<zt.ing onus; t.lm_\_'
(‘rt-nt,r> (‘output it inn with 0\'i.‘-ti inn’ m-ntrris-‘., tlirr>:\t«~ninq tho
imnlirest nnrl iil(‘I'(?f’)Y‘(‘ hnvinrz tJh])l‘(‘(ii(‘l:ll)l(’ C()HS4‘(]llf’.H(‘_(?F! in
:n'¢§.'L=: nt-erling the _tzv'or1t.v~.<:t qnppurt from planning p()l.l!fl€‘5-2; and
l.lH~}‘ swf up n nun-v <liffu<<¢~ pnttnrn of in‘bmii.r-:nt.inn i:hi('-h
ll\|'r‘ntvn<-1 tlw mmntigvs-;i«l«=, pnrt,i«‘ul.'n'ly whore (l('\'l?lnplllI‘Y1l is
In'u[)!)R¢‘(i on gr-:~<‘i1t'ivl(l sitvq. Thr: plnn talks of‘ growinz
pt'(‘..‘-‘»SlIl'f‘ for nut‘/ii‘-tmzn .<:lmppinr£ f'nr~ilit,ir?s:, hut at. my point
(luvs-I it, _jus‘t,it"_\ pnlivir‘.-.=: fur nllnwimz that prvs.-:nr‘(~ to ho
nvrrmnnumlntmi. lhalirxivs should lm fl(‘!1l‘(“tl to puttimz :1 zroatm‘
onus on prm=.pr~(‘t,i\'n rit*.\(‘lupt‘.t‘s‘ to dr7inm1sl.t'al.e tlm lnF\df‘.(]\lF‘H‘_V'
and un.~=.uit.'1hilit_v of‘ oppmwunitins within the built up areas —
n9sr‘nt,iz11l,\‘ tmcn i-«-ntrvz.-: — l.mt‘m1~ out—0f—tm:n .ln(~:)t.i0ns mm be
,ius4timwi. .-\ll thv r~rit,(=rin Shoulci lw rhwnrdmi with this
prinrriplo in miml.

'l'hv: mm t‘!‘lll.'1Y‘l(.‘1lIlO (\nliSSl()ll Frmn lhv <~i~it,oy-in in Iuylirry Rlll, is:
r~«~t“m~mir:e 1.0 pm-:.qilulP. mml'li<‘t,.q hntwovn nut—ot”-tzmsn dnvelopment
mnl the «taunt:-y:'<i«lr=.. Tlwrn should he n presumptirm zignilist,
i«’\l(‘l.H£{ f[““Sl1 land for slmpping purpo.=:r3.<:. just; :15; p0l'.i(*_s' HD2
gives prim'ity to using uy-lmn lnnd for linusing. (‘l‘l?lC is
"\trmm=,l_V r~m\m:r'm=.<l by the Tnilurrr of Policy RD] to mmsider
PLrlvqIl.'\LPl_\ thv «lir-«mt impact of shnppimz develnpnwnt. on the
<~mxnt,1'ysi<ls:, though tlw rm-nxznitirm of .°mc‘ondnr_v implivntions
of‘ r‘€‘l.nil ri«=,w~lupmm\t. nu lmusimz. mid industrial lnnd is:
l«‘F‘l(‘(3nH',’. The pnlirgs for improving the nt,t'.rm‘t,i<m of‘ tmm
v~mitrr=.'-I (R02) is uvl.(‘,mnvrl h_s (‘l‘Rl7..

(‘I‘l.‘F‘, ol».jm~ts to Policy l?l)f'> for major new freestanding shopping
!‘f’ntl'es both in prinrtiple and at the proposed locations. It.
nmy well he that pnrazzrapli 6.16 is eorreet in stating that "The
scope for new fren—standinvz ("t‘nll‘I‘H depends on a wide
gemzraphienl trade draw, in nodal positions on the strategic
road network" and it. may be that tlm.-3n r‘()miitions obtain in the
three areas mentioned. It does not. follow from this that "the
growth in expenditure justifies such a centre" in those places.
l‘olie5' RD5 pre—empts eonsideration of‘ individual proposals
ngainst. the (‘ritei-in in l‘olie_v Rl)l. it also once again ignores
the impact that, such selienms would ine\'itably have on the
countryside. No effort, has been made to justify massive
intrusions in rural areas of this kind, and our eomments on
F.‘olie_\: RDI apply particularly foreefully to this type of
development. It. is highl_\' likely that an out—of'~town shopping
centre in N W Kent would he on land eurrent:.l_v designated as
Green Belt. Policy RD5 should be deleted and relianee left on
the criteria (as improved) in Rltl.

Met.n.:1p.9_1_.ij;a.I1. _( .1 r 6.913 _i_B_e_,LL .
Chapter 7 of.’ the Draft St.rH(~ture Plan contains some of‘ the most
damaging‘ and worryiniz polieies: in the entire Second Review.
Thei arise from a mis—rendin9: of the Go\'ernment,’s clearly
established polieies for the (lr(-en Relt and from an approach to
dc-velopment. whieh (‘l‘l?l7. believes planes insufficient, emphasis on
prot,er~tion of‘ the countryside around l.ondon.

I‘aras.{rnph 7.2 is mistaken in elainiinsz that Cirmilur 14/81 on
Green Belts does not address the issue of urban areas whose
erzpansion is now constrained due in Green Belt boundaries
established many years ago. tfireulnr l4/84 makes clear that
"The essential elmrn«:t,erist,i(‘ of Green Belts is their
permanenee" (para. 3). it eontinues: "detailed Green Belt
boundaries defined in adopted local plans or earlier app_roV'ed

_<j_(_=‘.;'__r_=;_l__r)pr_iii>_i_i,t._L)]ans should be altered only except:ional.l.y"
(emphasis added). it. also says of‘ lmral authorities that.
"lt-‘liil.e making provision for development. in general Conformity
with the Structure Plan tliey should satisfy tliemselves that
Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of
that. period" (para l). Tlier«~ was no indiention in the
preparation or approval of the eurrent. Structure Plan that. such

a review would now be ne«~essar_\=.

The «lit't'erem~e between the F,xplannt.or_\' Memorandum of the Second
Review and that. of the current approved Fltruoture Plan Could
scarcely be more marked. For example, the latter talks of the
Green Belt boundary in North West Kent: (now proposed for
rel.e.\:at,ion) as having been "approved as recently as 1977",
(para. 7.6) and of t.he Governvnent,’s intention for Green Belt.
boundaries "that onee the boundaries have been established,
t,he,_v should not, be subjeet to alteration" (para 7.7). The
Seeoml Review, on the other hand, suggests that, "ways should be
explored to lessen the rigour of Green Belt restraint in West:
Kent in order to provide opportunities whereby the advantages
of the M25 in this eastern part, of‘ the region can be
eupitalisc-d on" (pnrn 7.1), and lslnndly asserts that "It is
quite possible. to meet, the ol1.jeeti\'o of nr~eonInmdat.inr.f selective
new development. without, compromising these Green Belt
Fnnotzions" (para 7.6). These and similar comments indicate an
attempt by the County (,‘ouneil to evade Green Belt polio,» rather
than support, it. If‘ Green Ilnlt. policy has begun after 30 years
to bite. hard in mmstrninimz outward expansion of settlements,
it: has clearly begun to do its job.

The Second llevicw is Very elear about the kind of development
it, wishes to secure on wlmt is eurrently Green llelt. in north
l)artf‘ord reference is made to "housing land", "land suitable
for distribution" (ie wm-ehousingl. "related aetivities" (which
could be anything), and npp()t‘tl.ltiil:i(‘-9 for "new employment, if
land north and east, of the town is released from the Green
llelt". Poliey F.l)7 refers also to (principally) "high quality

business park, office, research, leisure and recreation uses".
Coupled with :1 possible out.—of—t,own shopping centre in north
west. Kent, there is little for whieh the Green Belt is not
intended to be swallowed up. All the uses described are‘
activities that the Goxernment has emphasised as unsuitable in
Green Belt, unless there nro exceptional r.‘ireumst.nnr-es. The
absence of‘ nny effort. by the (‘minty Founeil to elaim such

<:\:<‘eplicmul r*ir<~um«:lmu-es: in north llnr'ifOl‘d, and tho onrirmmm
\'m'i«‘~l_\' of‘ news lo whinh luml is [\l‘r)pnRP(l tn lw put, Hlmw that
the mnjnr rr~ln*;ntinn of‘ this: .v:l,rntogiv policy now prupnsed
nnnrmt pn.«4s4il)l_v hr» just itiml.

l‘<>lic~y l‘|Gll3 nn rminfining Grvmi Rolf lmundat'iv.q should be
<iolet,r-rl. ll is ll_V[)0(‘l‘li'lI‘nl of Hm plnn to Claim tlmt Green Belt
lmnmlnr‘i.e.~% slmulri he mi‘in<<t.mi "tn now r>.<ip:¢~:-s, whihh will endure
for lhe long tnrnl", when the prrypmxnls themselves deny the long
term nndurmu-r~ of existing imundnries that have been in place for
up to tliirty _\yn:n~c, (or as little as: ten years). It is also
nxislmuiing of Hm polivy to 1-efvr to "ctonflict with the purposes
of the Green Belt" ris if this samnnhow exonernlml adjusting the
h'r*(‘n Bolt. The ronding of‘ the ])lJT‘p()S€(-‘: of Green Belt is
er~;t.r‘c-wnnly nE1l‘I‘nw, referring in the case of l)nrtfm~d to a claimed
situation wlmrn "there would be no loss to Green Belt objectives
providml :1 manuszml green wmlqra is mnintainrerl either side of the
[)nr~m1l',/Tlnnnes: r-onf‘l,urrn(~r2 as 71 break between Dnrtfnrd and Erith"
(para 7.6). This nrgunwnt Cnllld he u:=.m,l to jixsaliify development
almost nn.\-wlmrr‘ in the Green Bvlt provided 8 (mr2—l"iold green
wmlge was rntnimwl lmtm>,(-n S!‘-‘iilt"llI(‘HiS o.xpnn«iin_q tow:n'<l.~: (‘(l('?ll
otlwr. Tlm [HlY'[_\0,‘-‘.(‘ of‘ the !}r'N~n Roll is "to (“l1RUY‘P an
apprrwiuliln rnrnl worm ull nrnnnd the built—up «'l.7‘!‘<'1 rmr\r>erI\e<i"
(Firvulnr -i2/5:7, pnrn -1), nnrl not simply green nlloys: between
nrlmn nr~nn=‘..

ln the parfir~Hlm' Page of Scwr-Imnlit: and Swnnley, l\'rmt Cmlnty
(‘()llll(‘/ll is: nttmnpl ing to rn.wr‘itn. (l()w=rnmr~.nt p(>,lir*_\‘. "The nim
liorn is to nmwunlnml.-1to new typorc. nf‘ l)llSlnf"RS which l‘Pq1lll'F? :1
high quality "siren-n’ nnvirnnmr-nt, for Nlll(‘i1 there is n lav]: of
provision" (pnrn 7.6). This does not appear to (‘l‘RE to be :1
sui"i‘ir~ir=nt rvnsnri for imlusqtr.-inl zlnvelnpment in the Green Belt.
Tim ('(Hllli_\‘ (‘minc-il propm::~,v< lo v~miv.f‘irw hnundnrioq, which

(TPRF oppo.m~s—: Fm‘ I‘(‘-F\9()HR given nhnvn. The Council also
prnpmat-‘S to rmlnf'ine the mnnninz of‘ an institulimi in 1:111:20
grnunri.~=. to allow (lewnlrxpmmit. to prner-ed which it hopes to
1-'m<t\.1re. H‘ mwli n redt-=,f'iniliori, as proposed in Hm
qualification of pnlirry MGB2, is to be the p0li(‘_V, it is for
Central (inxrorrinmnt. to give nntinnnl. advice on the matter, not
For the (imJni‘}' (‘<mn<~il. "F.\'(~epiinnnl r~irm1mstnnr~es" to jus=.tify
zlevr=lnpimmt in the lronn llvlt «inn by <l0fin.ition only he
(‘ons=.idvr:e(l on n base by c~ns=.r- basis, and CPRF. views it as who1]._V
.iImppr0printn for Kent (‘0unl_\' ('<mn«~il tn dortidv in ndvmice on
an nntirn r‘ln.<<.c: of .c'.(-hr-nu‘ — high quality business uses-*. — that
can m)nstitutr> suvh an n.~<«~«=pl ion.

Both propnaml new polir-ins should be deleted. Tlwy are
dsmtnbilising of‘ we-.ll—«==~:lahlislneri pnl,ir.t_\‘, flout (‘mvernunnnt
ndvima, nnd nre exc~rzptimmll_v dnmnginrz to the <‘nuntr_vsido.

B31 ,r:.=1_l___9_r_=._U ll In _r_\t_s ,

The pvt‘-<wr~upnli0n of the .‘¥«‘<'rvml R:‘.\'inw with nllt'nv‘l.il1I!
l[l\'f—‘.'.‘-‘~i,l1H"lli in Hm (‘mmiy h:i.<=. muisml rm-nl srrttloments to be
lnnlmri upon as an ¢>.lc=mr\,nl of’ Hm (.‘m1n1_v’s image and For Hmir
r:(mi.ril)ui inn tn i,(HlI‘iF-In potential. For I‘P.Sld<-‘lli.5-‘\ - and indeed
for many Visitors-: - it is the (‘Olli'.il\Hli_\' of‘ life in rural
svttlr-imenls Hunt gives .<ml,is;f‘nr*ii(m, nnd they s-xlmnld be viewed
as o\istin_q ns: vmwh for lhnir mm .°.nl\'n its for their
Crmirilxutinn in the (.‘.0unt_v’.<: gross: dmnostic prnduvt. (.‘l‘Rl7,
5-nimmrls: high (]ll¥llli.}‘ (lu\'r~lnpuwnl , :ui\'nr‘nh-‘ii in lmllli‘ R-‘ii:

l)f?(‘1H,lRO thiq i.'-1 inherently -.ie.si1-nhlri, (rniher than for the Count.‘/'

(‘mm.~_il'<; purpr\_¢:(\ ml‘ making Kent :1 plave where people and firms
Icish to invent).

(‘.l’l?l-‘. Rilpporis: pnliuy S1 For lhu Con«~mitI'ntinn of i|T'l).'~lll
dzwelopnwnt. _in the niglitemi main zirens. The new rural
qet,t.1:-nwnt p0ll(‘l(~‘,S will tend to dv,tr‘nv,t from this: nh_ierrtive by
ndvovnting u .=:li.e;htly slnr‘l(r~.r policy for c~.onser\'ati<m than does
the nppro\‘r—2r.i plan. (Tl’h’.l-‘. is not m)nvim~r-d that n case has been
mnde for departing from the present policies. )'>fiY‘iAi“‘.llnf‘1}v' R31-

The idea behind Policy RS3 has some value in identifying
settlements where development can and cannot be accepted,
dPRpite_thG implied relaxation of restraint policy, but has not
yet been advanced to a stage where it is ready for discussion
in the context of Structure Plan Alterations, in CPRE's view.
It is unreliable and undemooratio for Policy RS3 not to include
at this Draft Plan stage its specific proposals for particular
villages and to rely instead on District Councils bringing
forward proposals "prior to their approval by the Secretary of
State". There could well be no opportunity for serious public
involvement in deciding which villages would be appropriate for
the two categories proposed. FPRE therefore urges that the
section on ‘Housing development at rural settlements‘ should be
dropped, and a separate Alteration brought forward later.

Policy RS5 allowing changes of use of genuinely redundant rural
buildings should be modified to refer only to buildings of
architectural or aesthetic qualify. Many conversions are
currently proposed of unsuitable buildings, like eowsheds, that
may actually detrant from the landscape. Policy RS4 adequately
meeis the needs of new businesses without allowing conversions
of buildings that would be refused permission for eonversion to
residential use. Further, the suggestion in paragraph 8.]
slressing that "subsequent expansion of small businesses which
would be detrimental to the character of a settlement or its
setting, or inappropriate to local employment needs, should be
resisted" should be elevated to the status of a policy if it is
to have any effect.

CPRE has found the existing guidance on hamlets and sporadic
development useful and widely applicable. The rewording in
policy PS6 introduces new matters that concern FPRE. It is not
clear why any reference needs to be made to redundant
institutions, and CPRE harbours doubts that this could be
misused to justify undesirable schemes like a new settlement at
Loybourne Grange hospital. The former wording should be
reinstated in point lb) of lhe policy, requiring provision for
developmonl "lo improve the social functioning of the
settlement in which it relates". This gives a strong local
flavour to such schemes, which the proposed new policy sadly
lacks.

Council for the Protection of Rural England

KENT BRANC[l PA TRON: Her Majesty the Queen

 

The Oast, Coldharbour Farm, Amage Road,
Wye, Ashford, Kent TN25 SDB

Telephone (0233) 813172

Our Ref: DCA/cb

1987

3rd September,

TO: All Amenity Societies

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Kent Structure Plan (Second Review)

As you will know, the Kent Structure Plan is currently under
review. Comments relating to the contents of the Review Document
must be received by the County Planning Officer not later than
Wednesday, 30th September.

CPRE has always made clear, both nationally and locally, its
strong support for the Development Planning System, and in
particular the necessity for a county perspective on development
issues. However, the current Review Document contains much of
considerable concern to CPRE.

I am enclosing a copy of our initial comments, on the Draft Plan.
I would be most grateful if you could draw this to the attention
of your Members at the earlist opportunity, and hope that you
will feel able to support our comments in your own submission.

It is vital that major changes are made to the Review at this
stage to ensure the continued sensible protection of Kent's
countryside. Please make your Society's voice heard.

Should you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me direct.

Yours faithfully,

‘  \\\ Q /}
David Allford

Conservation Officer

Enc.

President: Rt. Hon. Lord Deedes of Aldington, MC, DL

Chairman : Hugh R. Finn, CBE, DL, Vice-Chairman : Charles P. Oliver
Hon. Secretary : J. R. Hudson

 

Conservation Officer : David C. Allford, B.Sc.

(‘Imriry Reg. No. 286183

0566 7/97

_ PLANNING fiPPLICATIUN~EARHAM DOWNS, KINGSTON

{Notes made from the submission on §Hbfi"§t Halfway House I?/T?’
Whilst every effort has been made to keep these notes accurate,

they are a brief precis & precise accuracy 15 not certain.)
QPLICATION No._”__“m_~__ under fiection 27.
For change of use on 57.5 acres NUT ¥orming part o¥ agricultural
holding. Formally agricultural, “currently not in use”, to
prDVide:r Shops, caravan park, hotel,"fast ¥ood centre”, Tourist
Information Centre,"East Kent Industrial, Commercial, & Tourism
Centre”, Fuel, Garage & toilet facilities

E*v= - 9- ST...I.B...I-3*. .._E.....‘5__9.-...zC. / - T_9s:::v_..E.'..1_.~.-=~.r*.___r‘~in9._§..ca:L5eLl.*;.«a.r3.<3.x_....*§.fZ_..§,s3..Llt“warH

 

§treet_ London, SE1 0H5;

& "little used” footpaths.

   

eat. 4
~KTl~The demand for such facilities is clearly set out in the
Kent Structure Plan ~ End.Peview. 4.2 Preliminary discussions.
4.3 No objections raised. Encouragement from H.C.C.,Dover &
Shepway D.C.s. 4.4 Dover Harbour Board would like 3*5 acres.
fieveral large companies are interested. Canterbury City will
make Planning decisior. (Their reaction to date not mentioned}
Sect. 5 PLDUPSPACE. (Building size)

-*1

3.1 Tourist lniormation Diiice 10,000 SqFt. on L acres.

5.? Dover Harbour Board, Inland Clearance Depot for frieght,
plus other facilities on 4 acres (Building not specified}
5.3 N. of 9.2. 24hr. Transport Cate 7,E00~10,000 SqFt. on 3

acres. Similar but smaller facilities S.of 9.2.

5.4 3 acres with tacilities for private motorists, 12,500 SqFt.
buildings. Similar , possibly smaller, facilities 8.0% fi.E.

5.5 Hotel, 40,000-45,000 SqFt. with WDWIE0 bedrooms to “/3
Star standard. No conference or sports Tacilities, "which will
be provided at the Spinning wheel, 2 miles south”.on 3.75
acres. '

$.é N.o¥ 0.3, Transit caravan/camping site. Building 2,500SqFt.
(N0 acreage given}. Possibly similar south of 9.2.
5.? Large Fuel & forecourt tacilities both sides of road with
garage, tyre a other services.

5ect.§_§mElgXmgnt. 200w250 tull time, plus many part-time,
mostly in summer. Hnockwon effect should produce similar
numbers of jobs elsewhere.

fiert 7 Hours.__Mostly 24 hr. including Hotel. Campsite Qprfflct.

e5;,"~'..-._‘~="-.v'._-€*..c.=.r,:.ae;=>-;
3.1 Access via slip roads only trom fi.2.
8.3 No access from other roads.
S.3 Northern access designed to avoid ancient Monuments.
8.4 Existing footpaths to remain.
3.5 C.class road ("Paar Start”) could be incorperated into site
road if considered desirable.
All drainage to be provided by the developers.

 

North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. All buildings to

be in "local style“ with tiled roofs & brick walls & not more

than E storeys high.

§gct.11 There will be no disturbance of known Qrchealocical

fiites & fircheaologists will be consulted.

§§€.<;'=*.<;_1=_-.l;'~£_...lE1ls:_r1t3.i..r_Lc.:!_

WQL1 Proposal is in line with current & proposed criteria

& Channel Tunnel & with recent Govt. statements on the

development of agricultural land (Claimed not be agricultural}

12.2 In line with Kent Structure Plan, Qlteration No.1 Document,

with modifications, Kent Structure Plan, End. Review,

filternative Consultative Document, & with Kent Impact Study &

Govt. circulars & policy statements.

12.3 All of A.R is in North Downs QUNB & so any site chosen
tor these needed facilities would affect the ADNE equally.

12.4 The land is surplus to agricultural needs.

12.5 No trees or hedges to be removed except part of hedge

between the two fields 8. oi 9.2. Substantial tree planting

would take place including a small rS':e unspecified) wood close

to the Elham Vaslley Road. Having been used for agriculture the

area is not o¥ major importance to nature conservation. & it

does not conflict with Kent policy on development on the North

Downs Scarp or Crest.

12.5 The proposals would help to keep port of Dover viable.

12.7 & would strengthen E. Kent s economic growth

12.3 There is a strong need for an Inland Clearance Depot for
the Port of Dvoer & this is the only possible site

12.? The scheme would encourage tourism &, 12.10 The Hotel is
needed in this area.

12.11 Although services on the fi.2 already meet the Govt.
criteria, the K.C.C.agrees thast more services are needed.

12.14 There is need for an inland camp site serving the ports.

12.15 Ntih careful design there need be no adverse e¥fects on
landscape within the QDNB.

12.1? It would be of assistance to the tourist industry.

12.20 Kent Policy SP4 presumes against "fresh field” development

but any development anywhere along the 9.2 must be “fresh Field”

12.21 No public money would he required for the scheme & the
Rates in Canterbury would beniiit considerably.‘ “

PLEASE NOTE:
(Horde in italics are my comments & not from the document}

 
 
  
       

« V _ g ;_ .   Campaign to keep Motel tralllc out of Bridge and Canterbury
..s¥su¢LsL3*“sr

(‘hm'r/nan.‘

/tlnn llnwlnnd, ‘While Gales‘.
llckcsbour nc Rd., Bridge CT4 5/\E

I Inn. Trm.rrurr.'

Mrs Pat Wilrmlrurst, 'l)carnlcy'.
Bckcabournc Rd., Bridge CT4 5/\E

( ‘mnmim'r'.'

Dr Stuart Flcld, ‘Bourne's Corner‘.
llckcshournc Rd., Bridge CT4 SAE.

Nommn Fowler. ‘River House’.
High Street, Bridge CT4 SLA

Mrs Plcaszmcc Kirk, ‘Wych Elm‘,
High Street. Bridge CT-15JZ

John Purchase. ‘Mill Collage’.
llckcsbournc. Canterbury CT4 SHD

Mrs Margaret Reed, 87 New Dover
Road. Canterbury Cl’ I JED

Ian Taylor, 3 Whitelocks Close.
Kingston. Canterbury CH 6.10

ljJL'rlllfl@@ulBul1lfl@uBJmnw
‘llnulltlllo flinowlp

      

-on

 

White Gates
Bekesbourne Rd.
Bridge

CT4 SAE

27th Oct. 1978

Dear Sir James,

Proposed Motel Traffic Problems

On behalf of the Bridge—Canterbury Traffic Action Group may I firstly
express our appreciation for the interest you have taken in the road
safety issues concerning the proposed Motel development at Pond Cottage
and for the opportunity of discussing such matters with you.

As you may recall the outcome of our discussion was your suggestion of
a roundabout in the vicinity of Pond Cottage to alleviate the problems
of traffic access and egress with the Motel site.

I have conveyed this suggestion to local Councillor Marian Attwood who

in turn has put the idea to the Local Highway Officers. I greatly regret
having to report that the initial response is not encouraging: the
opinion expressed by the officers is that to make the scheme feasible
land occupied by Pond Cottage would have to be incorporated irrespective
of available land opposite. Councillor Attwood did stress that this was
not a detailed or final viewpoint but nonetheless a significant
indication as to a formal decision.

As far as the concept of making Bekesbourne Road a one way system in the
vicinity of my house the the outcome is once again discouraging. It
would seem that the provision of adequate sight lines at the cross roads
near Judge Giles Rook's house would be ‘expensive’. However, the officer

did suggest that an approach be made to the county council on this
particular point.

Needless to say I am disappointed at the outcome of both initiatives as
I feel both had much to recommend them. Nonetheless I and my Action
Group colleagues will continue to seek ways of resolving these
difficulties and will make every effort to achieve those objectives.

Meanwhile, should you feel there are other avenues we could explore then
obviously we would be only too pleased to do so. Equally if there are
areas wherein you feel you could help us in resolving these problems
your involvement would be greatly appreciated.

May I once again thank you for the interest you have taken in these
matters and for the opportunity of discussing them with you.

/,

// ‘V _rx\
Yours sincerely,

.—‘
J ‘,

Ax   i‘ j

I 1
. :\ '
1

3! )/l/“W /

t
Alan Howlan /«“/
Chairman Bridge—Cénterbur Traffic Action Grou

 

   
 

 
  
 

@

63

 N 42'/éozmze Protection Socieyx
$4

   

 

5, Whitelocks Close,
Kingston,
' Canterbury,

Kent, CT4 6JG

Department of the Environment,

Charles House,
375,Kensington High Street,

London,
W14 8QH 1st May 1987

, Dear Sir,

re : Appeal by Mr P.J.Be11
Ref : SE 2 52 3 460

This Society unreservedly supports the Canterbury City Council
in requiring Mr P.J.Be1l to replant 2.9 acres of Woodland at
Featherley Wood, Kingston, which was grubbed in contravention of a

Tree Preservation Order.

Inadequate notice and time prevents fuller representations to
be made, and a prior commitment precludes m attendance at the Public

Inquiry.

" 1. Mr.Bel1's grubbing out of the Woodland was an undoubted contravention

' of the Tree Preservation Order, and a deliberate act conducted with
with knowledge of the Tree Preservation Order.

2. There is evidencze to support that Mr Bell had knowledge of the
ancient Woodland status of the 2.9 acres, and of the Canterbury City
Council's intention to protect the Woodland before he even purchased

the Woodland.

3. After being served with notice to stop, Mr Bell continued to cause
the Woodland to be grubbed out. As late as Monday 21st July 1986, I
was at Featherley Wood, Kingston (I live in Kingston), and observed
that trees subject to the Preservation Order were being grubbed out

and the stools burned on the site.

cont.

N 42'/éoimze Pm‘m‘z'07z Society

A eal Mr P.J.Bell ref : SE 2 2 460 cont.

 

 

4. As at this time Mr. Bell had made a claim‘for compensation for
not being allowed to grub out the trees, he had accepted, by virtue
of that application for compensation, that he did not have legal

entitlement to grub out the trees.

5. Mr. Bell's conduct, which has been the subject of the Canterbury
City Council's Planning Committee consideration, a Public Inquiry
Hearing, and further consideration for compensation, and for enforcement
proceedings, now appears to be defiant of the law and planning controls

to which all persons are subject.

6. The Public Igquiry Hea/rd before Mr. Nightingale in February 1984
for the Department of the Environment was well attended by the Public-
the Bossingham Village Hall being full for the two days, and the
strength of local feeling regarding the need to protect this Woodland

voiced sensibly and strongly.

7. This Society submitted some 587 individual letters of objection,
collected only during the 2 weeks prior to the Public Inquiry, to

Mr. Nightingale, who in September 1984 rejected Mr. Bell's appeal
and described the Woodlands as "making a significant contribution

to the landscape," and that the woodlands were "of special interest".

8. The Canterbury City Council is acting entirely in accord with
Planning Law and Controls, and previous decisions of the Department
of the Environment in requiring Mr. Bell to replant 2.9 acres of
Woodland. The Enforcement Notice is correct and appropriate, and this
Society expects the Department of the Environment to uphold the
Enforcement Order of the Canterbury City Council.

C

9. This Society requests a copy of the decision of the Department of
the Environment in respect of this Appeal.

Yours faithfully,
I}. now

.,_ I
I.D. Taylor,

 

Hon. Secretary.

1'' FR: CENSUS POMD CoT1'A6—f. 5A'D6"— SATMDAV "237
M I

 

n W54 ——- TeLJLcA»rr§4%_6u/<r fl   ” M
T01’ N-
P‘) BlK£- L9‘,-Y C-A2 T°TAL  -
' yeryarfiow

  

II‘

!

28  53: 703

 

 

—-~ ———~T~— ~~——— -! 5

51-10 Q3 2,). ,3!3;472 ru 75/9 .24,

_ _________   >    A
no-H /;(o 43 ‘/ Ia [z+ccé7 M9 M18 fie»: £3"
,. .2. in 1% 1~ 7%7.%w>‘ was 356 M H»!
   ‘  
IL-4 » ’l§,?>°  _  '
—_——m4 ###### 4 3  .327 23 870 6:73 I9/$34197 ;3'7f
1- "L , §i2>§ ;   %

V; is |“1§2_,o . 1: Lo no :42 (o4»‘{§:7-1+3"?
raw — «II no « I7 1L,»«+e2 50‘? 10!? gm‘?  
4_,; 3 |oj|2 443 474W, <3,7_o,32.3 35’! g2_5'tI3'7;¢-3;
/F1’/4L
,(,ZAFp‘C’  M C? hours
g2_(-,3 ue.L{e.les IR Ci kou/s
= aaz “Luce In «M kw
, A Hul"O.
'S_.I3 VeL”'|QS F r ml

N42’/ootmzo Protection Society

 

 

5, whitelocks Close,
Kingston,
Canterbury, CT4 6JG

Planning Committee,

Canterbury City Council,

Military Road,

Canterbury. 27th July 1987

Dear Sirs,

re CA(87(928(CAN
Outline Application for Motel adjacent Bridge ByPass

This Society is most anxious about this application and the
unacceptable traffic dangers it would create. whilst recognising
Canterbury's need for addifional hotel accommodation, this Society
object most strongly to this present application.

we understand that the application is for a 100 bedroomed
"Motel", clearly an intention to attract motorists. we understand
there are proposals for about 110 car parking lots, and that there

would be restaurant facilities for non residents.
The traffic generated by such a complex would be considerable.

The only access/egress point is shown on the plan as being
at Pond Cottage off/onto the old A2 road into Canterbury. This

access/egress is inadequate and dangerous, and would create a
"loss of life" danger.

Consider :-

1. Any traffic from Dover leaving the By Pass to cross over
the By Pass and enter the proposed Motel would not have sight of

the access point until reaching the top of the bridge over the
By Pass. The distance from the top of the bridge to the ‘turn in‘
is only 150 yards. Traffic off the By Pass travels at speeds of
50/60, or even 70 m.p.h. - too fast to stop if the access is
obstructed by vehicles crossing the A2 road.

cont...

N.P.S. to Cant.C.C. re CAZ87/998/CAN

2. Additionally if the narrow access/egress point is obstructed,
and traffic ‘builds up’ waiting to turn into the site, then the
distance from the top of the bridge to the rear vehicle waiting
in any traffic queue would be even shorter. Accidents, injury,
and death would occur.

5. Traffic leaving the site at Pond Cottage would either turn left
to travel through Canterbury, causing more congestion in the City,
(why did we spend thousands of pounds building a City By Pass ? ),
or attempt to turn right onto the old A2. The congestion and danger
thus caused is wholly unacceptable.

4. Even if traffic is capable of negotiating a right turn onto the
A2, only that traffic heading for Dover could proceed satisfactorily,
joining the By Pass a short distance ahead. The traffic heading

for London would negotiate the triangular route via Bekesbourne Lane
and the old road out of Bridge Village to rejoin the By Pass in

the London direction. Bekesbourne Lane is about 15 feet wide,

without pavements, without lighting, and totally unsuitable for
heavy traffic.Bekesbourne Lane is a quiet residential country lane.

5. It is inconceivable that only car drivers would wish to use

the proposed Motel facilities. All manner of vehicles would enter
and leave the site. Larger vehicles would require considerable
turning circles to enter or leave the site at Pond Cottage, and
would necessarily obstruct the ‘other side’ of the roadway. Heavy
vehicles would obstruct and cause danger in the narrow Bekesbourne

Lane.

6. It is inconceivable that the operators of the proposed Motel
would discourage drivers of heavy vehicles from using the proposed
Motel facilities. The operators will wish to attract as much custom
as possible, including coaches.

It is inconceivable that traffic leaving the site could or would

be required to turn left only, as this would cause vehicles to

travel through the City causing congestion.

cont...

N.PE-‘S. to Cant.C.C. re CA/87/998/CAN 5/

7. There will be the added problem of larger vehicles visiting
the site to service the proposed Motel.

8. Unless and Until a site can be located which will allow for
safe access/egress, no application for such a large development
which would generate traffic problems should be permitted, even
in outline terms.

9. This site is inappropriate in that it is unsuitable for later
extension. The Planning Committee Members will have the knowledge
and foresight that Motel complex operators will almost certainly
seek to extend their business sometime in the future. Traffic
problems which mitigate to preclude the granting planning permission
now, would be an even greater problem in the future.

10.It would be more sensible, indeed necessary in view of the
likely building of the Channel Tunnel, to investigate alternative

sites where Canterbury could be provided with a Motel complex, but
where dangers and other development problems would be absent.

11.The Planning Committee Members will be aware that "Highland Court",

less than a mile away has just closed, and is for sale by Canterbury
and Thanet Health District. Highland Court might well be a suitable

location for a Motel complex and with sensible design, traffic
problems would be overcome.

12.Elected Councillors at Canterbury will not wish to abdicate

their onerous responsibility to ensure the safety and well being
of the public. On_grounds of traffic dangers this present

application should not be granted.

Yours faithfully,

P.S. A census of traffic flow at Pond Cottage will be supplied.

.I_\o mhéfns.
<_r§¢m:

25.3: 2.» L 9 .n

 
.._.F9_.ufl.n mnzmzm

WHlW 

.Ua<mN mvoczd ._|P.mn_o
o z w.. 38 354 dgcme
<_> mnfimnhocptm 5» am

J\o Fm>n: Jaunmh.

rozvaz aaczd 4P>nnF
.\m><.1¢ waouqmr ficmd flnbcmf

in oat.
>onm3\wm§.mm <.b amfimn wocrzw r>.,:w
no.3. new 4.. fln\.2rz J». 9.. Dawn
npigwa
T043...

18 VOCVOZ

.40 n>zAmE.»s£
o:.<

Date:
Yourrefi
()urrefi

15th September 1987
CA/87/0909/KIN

The Secretary, 7

Nailbourne Protection Society,
3, whitelocks Close,
Kingston, CT4 6JG.

Dear Sir/Madam,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PtANNING ACTS AND ORDERS.

PROPOSAL: Erection of bungalow with garage,

Military Road
Canterbury
Kent CT1 IYW

Tel: Canterbury
(0227)45l755

DX53l4

 
 
   
    

R

 

CANTERBURY

Ask for:
ext:

LOCATION: land adjacent to Iona, The Street, Kingston.

 

CITYCOUNCIL

The above proposal, and your representations have been considered by the
City Council and I am writing to inform you that it has been decided to

GRANT

the above development.

Yours faithfully,

K

' AL DIRECTOR.

 
 

fimver

Bawhamg

Nruflahterhuryi
Yuur Ref: CAfB7K1£fiQ£B&R ~ KENT.

13th fimgustfi 1Q$7m

Dear Sirg
I wauld refer yam tn the applicatimn made recent}
tn site a mmhile has: ‘ ' “ ‘ " ‘ "“ "“
naint as "Dover Wfifii»

Wei; Mu, Cflf8?f1D20fEfiH,
tn the REE? knmwh &t that
Lens and Elamk Rabin Lane»

  

:1-Ti

 

       

In Fespanse ta yams invitatimn I wmuifi make the imllnwing sbservatimhs:

1. Althnught the
it is the applimants ih
tunnels on the si
statement which a‘
hnrticultural use mi
and the volume m¥ pv,
slim Chance a$ viahi.
mf polythene tunnels“
heme and nut imr pwlyt tunhels
weuld not be applying nu iles
stated ifitEHL in dmvel J this iahd

     
   
    
  
   
  
  
   
  

a mmhiie hams mnlyg E understand that
' 1 number m@ large

hr 35s i piieants

 

. u
imr a mmbile
the appiimant
nut iur his

use“ mhd {h}

 

    

     
 

99 subject ta a tennis at V@VV
” gs phiythehe tmnheis a

nearly six aare site.

ithatifiere he t

. rant
minor . t

1“! 3

 

Incidentally, the applicant has aiearly stat”: ‘I i“:“”””““ ta use‘ polythene

tunnels, I am able tn prmvide details mi wit“ " umhfirm this ¥amtn

SD whlle cmnsiflewins the appliustimn in its Fmwmn 1 wmuid ssh that the
ts the unflerlying reasuhs Fur the applitatiung

 
 
  
  
 
   
  

Cnuncil pay special attenf

oi

acreage mi fimlythene being used?
be granted? twm causes imr
waasmns“ Firstly, it is
at “the use cf the land
present visual landscrpe
quate the secunfi paragraph 5% his statement
ta you dated éth July? E am aware that his lffiflfl scale plan shmws W
hedging" but.even suphmsing the applicant has sufficient financial resaura
plant such scweening immediately, it wauld be many, many years be¥DPe it
to icrm an eéfeative screen ta hide a commercial enterprise o¥ this s"
note from the ietter ammmmpanying his applicatian that he has paid fi.D,é.$u

praduce a repmrt which ”a'3eared tn leak ¥avourab1y an the viability Q4

prmject”, but has the ap“ ' "ht y uiully and scam?" """" "..": the screening
praposes and is he ih a ':itimn ta carrying out such screening, ta be e¥¥ecti-"
hetere the prmjevt mmmmences? Seuundiyi a point made tn me by Dr“ Sihsmn at
Elstead Lane is very relevant“ He painted nut that the prevailing wind? which is
westerlyg reaches hhenmminal velmcities by the tiw it W""m 1 the tap m; -the
banq adjacent tn the finfi and the mhances hf enmrmm sheets mf polythene being
tern iwee and ' h1m" a very real dang “. whs
wmuid wish in 11% ensue? I have lived an
my Inwlaws nuv 1 tunne s, even in very
sheltered aweagi

 

Having established H
in the event that per
cancern arisea hath
di¥Ficu1t ta see hsw th
fwill be carried hut in

  

 
  

       

   
   
     
   

 

        
 
 
 

 
 

 

‘luvs: I ~

“I

 
 
 
 

th Hut .. eh the
zhewn as e genermue eweeeimg eL”ve “ ephreeched
drawing ' '

ahruht and ete

   
 
 
  
   
 
  

 
  
  
 
  
 
  
       
  
  
   
   
 
 
 
   

   
       

. HE eeplieant” .l.. elr L
ctien within the leet and to allow a commercial

the vmlume 0% needs heine
J
requiring eumese to the

E 5 nature which must?
generate a great deal oi
he_very unwise indeed“

._‘.Azm._4 ,_

:5 it may he the applicante ihtehtion to attempt te get ell vehiclee
and leaving hisgeremieee ta do eh vie the full length ml Hut Elmsteac
at tte neer fliggew Fla, "
,. . tees line” eh .
and exit using the Barham end 0%
wed with great cencerh Liven that.»
" in this very narrow lane whe
either by fer er en feet“ very
end heflg*“‘ ‘ “flmhlete leak of

haxardeus o"- heth ml these

    
 

          

herne eut by the aepl
T H . weeld clearly laeili
Elmeteec Lane. This option too must
’ There are a number ml
heed to enter and lmzg
vieibility
make, respectivelyfi
. u.1t§a. ,
‘ ihl There is a Mental fiitereere Heme in
)ihis Heme take their only available daily="
dawn the length of Out Elmstzefl L ’ '
ihd" a reasonably wide reed in
' Residents o? the Lehe r l.. ., H harred in the Lane on
a my tour hour basis? ae i- th:.r right" Given the; the Lane a é”é”
reetrirtion {access only) th“ normally eresente no nrehlemn Hmwever,' a
comme al development like the one which wmuld Follew the granting of the
permie .eh sought by this epplicet' 1 wmuld almest ‘ ‘ ’ ih ’ ” .vy goods
vehiclee either in delivering " ' ' " " peat,’,
¥erti1iser etc., er taking tn .m .. . H.G.V. M3
Clees l driver I can state that l fi.lwwi up Gut Elmeteefl Lane en many
g occassions in a private car and noted that because ml parked vehiulee it wea1d_ ;
not have been possible to get threnght in an Hnfiuvn ml any eizeu fit best, great? ;
care wmeld be required and any pe estriehe whale? a te'r "nihte in the Lane,
have tn climb well up the banks ahd held en te the F H ln ly, in order’
tm gain ees te the site in que" ..” fis?" the hettem we ml flat Elmstead Lenefi
many drivere approaching irom Dever i "ction wmuld turn oil the enfi into Bleak
Robin Lame“ which, although not quite 5 er eohmleme as But Elmsteed
'teinly does not need an intro in the velume hr indeed, eize, ml
ueihg it.

(LI {-3.

ate

       
  

4
.L.
l..

 

.. .4>¢A~oC‘._' .

    
 
  

     

   
 

 
 

 
   

    
 

    

   

  
   

  
 
  
 

 

     
 

     
   
     

  
    
  
 
 
  
  
 

“t the right to HEFEiSE h‘h
' residents and members ef th.
fl Ceneervetien Qrea, an
i

   
    
 

‘reel emhitions,.I agree with
.u£fififi1 who ¥ee1 that in “his area? m
Cutstending Natural Beauty, the ahplicazt . he better advised be
e which is not at an extremely visually eremihent paint in en exp eed
. $maQ the Earham Downland. There are a large number ef Fields nestling
valley? surrounded by existing natural woodlande where the applicant
chuld pursue his chosen career without offending anyone? gutting elm imlh fit
' 'fig_yQe§gbtLy scars en the landecape and eromotihg rihheh

:*_~ I... J. l i ..:\ ... \..s .L -..JL. 2 x...‘ = H": n

5

   

\:

veers ieithimllyg

J“ Eu Hoehell k“

Date‘  '_;__};>L m»»,»,—1987

Yourrefi
0”’ '3“ CA/87/1020/BAR
1
The Secretary,
Nailbourne Protection Society,
3, whitelocks Close,
Kingston, Canterbury, CT4 6JG.
.1

Dear Sir/Madam,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS AND ORDERS.

PROPOSAL: Siting of one mobile home,

  
   
  
     

Military Road
Canterbury
Kent CT1 IYW

Tel: Canterbury
(0227) !$S&~7§§ “>63 we":

oxsz I 4  

cANTER;§Ygo;g;{

LOCATION: land at Out Elmstead Lane, A2 Dover Road, Barham.

The above proposal, and your representations have been considered by the
City Council and I am writing to inform you that it has been decided to

REFUSE
the above development.

Yours faithfully,

.1; '

   

CITY TECHNICAL DIRECTOR.

 

VN§E"?fiR§j'é§bé3CTIQN s . 5, Efiitelocks Close,
 socxsrr ‘ _. . Kinssten. A ~
M7} “at Ganterbury,CT4 GJG

9th. May, 1981

 

 
  

‘ who Eftor, ‘
Tfientish Gazette, ‘
St.George's Place;

Canterbury.-

Dear.Sir.

*ro: The Progesed Service Station at Bridge cA[80(128§g§AT

This Society is extremely concerned about the implications of
this Outline Planning Application, and the manner in which the-
Canterbury City Planning Committee is dealing with the matter.

   .    r‘    is s
typ serv co Station to include (acco T fig te"theVopfi&Tc” t*s ”“*TT~

‘J submitted plans) : e 250 bedroomefi motel, Conference and Banqueting

T facilities, Restaurant, Bars, a Picnic area a Coach Perk,and Coach
Service into Canterbury, a Tourist Information Qffice Banking
facilities, Cafes, Toilets, Retail shops, Petrol and Allied Services,
A.A. end R.i.C. Centres, Telephones, Postal services, Telex, and
parking.

V There is a substantial difference between a Hotel and such a
massive Service Station. T

. The proposed access and egress roads are unsetisfecbory, and the
parking facilities within the site ( no staff car park though 200 T
will be employed) an& no commercial car park ) are inadequate.

A Lent County Council traffic census at the site in 1979 demonstrated
heavy traffic. The newly constructed bridge would be obstructed by
vehicles waiting to enter the site, as would the new byupass itself,
thereby endangering life.

. The Kent County Council has issued a direction of refusal due to
the traffic hazard. In spite of this the Canterbury City Planning ~

_ Comittee has re~submitted the proposal to Kent County Council asking
that the Kent County Council change its decision; r

. why has the Canterbury City Elenning Committee ignored the danger,
nuisance, and ietriment to the public? And why has this Committee

  and itgllssstures of‘   7
development ‘ T T

The Hailbourne Protection Sooiet§ opposes this massive commercial
motorway type service station which would have such far reaching
adverse effect upon the local populace and environment.

  
   

Yours faithfully, /’:

1.1). Taylarg Eon. S339

Proposed Draft of letter to K.C.C. re the proposed Motel etc
at Bridge.

Dear Sir,

Further to our letter of 24th April 1981, this society
has recently studied the outline plans for the proposed ' Motel‘
C.C.C planning Application CA/80/1285/PAT and was shocked and
astonished to learn that not only is a Motel planned for this
site but an enormous list of services is also allowed for.

The resulting preposterous motorway service area is quite

unacceptable on the proposed site. For while we realize that

the project is impossible in its peesent form because of the
unacceptable traffic hazards, we feel the public at large has ,
been grossly mislead. The various services offered, (your l$|¥W°
list Ian please) will be let out to Franchise?to companies who GflH1‘r"
can have no possible interest in the environment of this neigha‘1I5MN”9qy
bourhood. The seduction of the City Eouncil with promises of

several hundred jobs for local people and coach trips direct

to the city and its trading is far outweighed by the inevitable
congestion and overcrowding of the surrounding lanes and

villages, and the fact that many of these incoming firms are

likely to import their own staff from outside the area.

The various local Barish.6ouncils who have given guarded
approval of the outline plan, did so on the understanding
that a Motel only was planned for this site. We must there-
fore state that the Nailbourne Protection Society is totally
against this project on the grounds mentioned above and will
rely on the K.C.C. to turn down this project in its present
form as being totally out of scale for the neighbourhood and
prejudicial to the local population.

Yours et o.

3, whibelocks Close,
Yingston,
Canterbury,CT4 6JG
fine fiditor,
:~-’.en"cis'n Gazette 9th. April, 1984

The ;.G.Y. on 6th. April 1984 was held at the Barn,Kingston,
and attended by about 40 members. A céllecfiion of bid fihdtographs
and postcards of the Nailhourne Valley Villages was on aisplay
and uttructgd much intereafi. The La y Cha1rman,Nrs Pleasance Kirk,
stressed the need far the Saéififiy‘ ; fifiue ta bé‘watch£nl far
any inappropriate building dev%1opma§,nw§n¢p¢S§fl in the Railbourne
Valley. The Society has been able to bring fifis influence to bean
in a numbgr of planning matters, in order to help preserve the.
attrgctive qualities of the Valley.

Elected to the Son ittee were : Mrs;P.Kirk (Chairman),
Kr.3.Baker,(Tnaasurer},Hr. T. £ay1or(Cec.},fi:.J.Eurchese,fir.C.Fagg,
Kr.L.Goddard,Nr.?.;tkins,Yr.N.Fowler,firs.Ycung,¥rs.Row1ands..

V after reports were received and approved, and business conducted,
the mceting was afldressefi by Er.Chris. Ccfitan, Director of Operations,
Gcnthern inter Authbrity. Hr.%ottnn @al?ed of thencomplex géology
of the fidilbcnrne Valley, its surfacgnané_undefgfoundf2ain collecbn
areas, and the reasons why wnten intérnififiently flowsfialqng the
surface river bei. fir. Cotton wéé bleanéééto advisé that the
Hailbgurnc rain colgection was not subject to any significant
abstnnctiénfiinhflftgéréfore the rivgp was fl ”nntarn1" one, dependant
TVT tngh;nang§§specfi§.p£ the r;ver nould be
      n ’  

u&e3to hr.Cotton who:

 

   
  
 
  

I;}.VTay1er,
fion.;ec.

 

 

.- -. (0227) 451755

  
   
   
 

Date: 21 . 4 . 87 Military Road
Your ref: Canterbury
Our ref: GMC |_/ 42 Kent CTI IYW

Tel; Canterbury

oxsam "\-/9:

CANTERBURY

I.D. Taylor,
Nailbourne Protection Society,
3 whitelocks Close,

  

K1 n9St0n . CITYCOUNCIL
CANTERBURY,
Kent. Askkx: Mrs. G. McLaren
ext 4421
L 4

Dear Sir or Madam,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971, SECTION 103.
APPEAL BY MR. P.J. BELL AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE IN RESPECT OF
FEATHERLY WOOD.

I write to advise you that an Appeal has been made to the Secretary of State for
the Environment against an Enforcement Notice issued by Canterbury City Council,
and will be heard at a Local Inquiry commencing at 10 a.m. on the 6th May, 1987
at the Conference Room, Canterbury City Council, Military Road, Canterbury.

The Enforcement Notice alleged the following breach of planning control on the
land at Featherly wood, Kingston, near Canterbury, Kent:—

(a) Between 29th May, 1982 and 1st June, 1982, 2.9 acres of woodland
at Featherly wood was grubbed up in contravention of The Tree
Preservation Order.

(b) Notwithstanding requests by the Council to re-plant the said 2.9 acres of
woodland it has not been re-planted.

You may attend the Inquiry and at the Inspector's discretion submit your views
in person. If you cannot or do not wish to attend the Inquiry, or have someone
attend on your behalf, you may submit your views in writing. written
representations should be sent to the Department of the Environment, Charles
House, 375 Kensington High Street, London, N14 8QH; reference SE2/5273/460/3
not later than one week before the date of the Inquiry.

The Enforcement Notice and Appeal forms together with the Council's Statement of
the Submissions to be made at the Inquiry may be inspected by appointment at the
Council Offices.

The decision on the Appeal will be sent by the Department of the Environment
only to those persons who request this to be done.

Yours faithfully,

2‘:

M.G.P. YOUNG
CITY SECRETARY AND SOLICITOR

 

Public meeting

As you may have read in recent press reports yet another planning
application has been submitted, this time to build a 100 Bedroom
Motel, on the triangle of land adjacent to Pond Cottages on the Canter-
bury side of the old A2 bridge over the by pass.

As with previous applications it is not the Motel itself which gives
cause for concern but the traffic hazards it will generate.

Under the current application all traffic i.e. staff, commercial and
clientele (there is space for over 100 cars) will enter or leave the Motel
via the T junction adjacent to Pond Cottages. There will be no direct
access from the by pass to the Motel site.

The old A2 route into Canterbury is the main feeder route from
Bridge, Bekesbourne, Patrixbourne, Bishopsbourne, Kingston as well
as the host of villages in the triangle formed by Canterbury, Sandwich
and Folkestone.

Local residents and regular users of this route are fully aware of the
tremendous growth in the volume of traffic using this route. To create
a commercial access on such a busy narrow road can only be
described as tantamount to creating another ‘Barham Crossroads’-
orworse.

in 1981 at the time of the first ‘Motel’ application the Bridge-Canter-
bury Traffic Group was formed to keep Motel traffic out of Bridge. That
same Group (it was never disbanded) invites you to attend a Public
Meeting at the Village Hall on Monday 3rd August at 7.30pm to discuss
this latest threat. Find out how this latest scheme, if approved, will
affect you.

Alan Howland, Chairman

Published by MrA. Howland, “White Gates", Bekesbourne Lane, Patrixbourne, Canterbury, Kent
Printed by A 8- J Purchese Limited, Cow Lane, Canterbury, Kent CT1 3FlW

Department of the Environment

Room {'3 \§
Tollgate House Houlton Street Bristol BS2 9DJ
Telex 449321 Direct line 0272-218IS'5

 

Switchboard 0272-21881 1

 _K;:'v-.9_ Purohe<.k\‘.«O- S0 C _

C G D F?  ‘ OUT fa efanca
/ 3;  C5Lo\.s2. Y t

Our reference

 

\r<~Lw<’§-“‘*"‘ App/Taaxo/A/26}
Ca.,-\~D2~ Data ggugl
or 1+ V5 9.1. axe
Dear Sir/-Ma-dam
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING"ACT 1971
1. I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated  
2. Copies of your letter have been sent to the appellant

and the loeal p1—ann~iage—eut‘:her'rty~ anéryour views will “be * ’—‘ r a‘
considered when deciding the appeal.

Yours fai thful 1y

Wbn

TCP 21OJ

HMSO Btl 349277/2

,- -1 (0227) 45 i755

 
 
   
    

Date: 2 .4 .86. Military Road
Your ref: Canterbury

Our ref: T50’/15/24/34/pBT/70 Kent CT] IYW
~ Tel: Canterbury

  

—'\/'\.—
T0 PERSONS HAVING AN INTEREST °"”" ‘\-/\.a

él‘ lllé AESEREAREEERRESBTECT CANTERBURY

BELOW CITYCOUNCIL

Askfor: Mrs. P. Thackray
, ext: 4405

Dear Sir or Madam,‘

TOWN AND CGUlTRY PLANNING ACT 1971
APPEAL BY MR. R.G. CLEMENTS — ERECTION OF THREE DWELLINGS ON LAND
BETWEEN WHITELOCKS FARM AND WHITELOCKS CLOSE, KINGSTON, CANTERBURY

I have to inform you that as a result of the refusal of the Canterbury City
Council to grant planning permission in respect of the erection of three
dwellings on land between Whitelocks Farm and Whitelocks Close, The Street,
Kingston, Canterbury, an appeal has been lodged by Mr. R.G. Clements. It has
been agreed that the appeal shall be decided by the use of the written
representations procedure whereby written statements are submitted within a
certain time to the Secretary of State for the Environment in order that the
appeal can be considered.

Local residents and any others who may be affected by the proposal are requested
to give any observations they might wish to make on the matter. Written
representations may be sent direct to the Secretary of State, Department of the
Environment, Room 1318, Tollgate House, Houlton Street, Bristol, BS2 9DJ,
clearly quoting the Council's reference CA/85/963/KIN and the Department's
reference APP/J2210/A/86/44482. However, it must be clearly understood that any
representations can only be taken into account provided they are freely
available to both sides of the appeal. If you have any comments to make on the
above matter, therefore, I shall be grateful if you will send them in writing to
the Secretary of State as so indicated as quickly as possible, and in any event
by no later than the22nd.April, 1986.

The Department point out that it would be very helpful if they could have two
additional copies of any representations, and also that they will send a copy of
the decision letter on the appeal only to those who ask for one.

Details of the Council's grounds of refusal together with the appellant's
grounds of appeal are available for inspection in the Planning Section of the
City Technical Services Department at these offices during normal office hours.
The Council's statement is in course of preparation but may not be available
/over

before you submit your representations to the Department of the Environment.
Therefore, you shouid check the avaiiabiiity of the statement, by teiephone to

the Pianning Section of the City Technicai Services Department, Extension 4847
(Mr. C. Madden), before coming aiong to inspect it.

If you are not the owner of the house you occupy or if you know of any other
person who may have an interest in the matter, I shouid be grateful if you wouid
draw their attention to this ietter.

Yours faithfuiiy,

M.G.P. YOUNG
CITY SECRETARY AND SOLICITOR

Departmen of the Environment

Romn (3 AK

Tollgate Ho se Houlton Street Bristol BS2 9DJ

Telex 449321 Direct line 0272-218 / J?

 

Switchboard 0272-21881 1

/\//'6"//‘V619 M4/\/-5 7/Co 7?:TC.Wo/\/ /. /Q _ 77c;\/L we

do C . Your refé(;';nc&'J_ 9
K;   om 0/‘OSE7 Our refers ce [ 9 

K/Nd‘/J 76/V App/\/’Zm;2/ o /My

8/<2/x/’;_;:&« me; Q 7; Qajcz mfl ggré “Q5”

\.»

Dear Sir/Madam
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971

1. I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 
2. Copies of your letter have been sent to the
appellant and the local planning authority and your views

will be considered when deciding the appeal.

Yours faithfully

TCP 21OJ

HMSO BI! 348184/2

    
   
 

Date; 17-9-85- Military Road
Your ref: Canterbury

Omef: T50/16/14/27 PBT/GF/35 Kemcn WW
Tel: Canterbury
1 (0227) 451755
TO PERSONS HAVING AN INTEREST Dxsm e
IN THE PROPOSAL THE SUBJECT
OF THE APPEAL REFERRED TO C U
mow ANTERB RY
CITYCOUNCIL
Askkxi Mrs. P. Thackray
€Xt:

Dear Sir 1u=:Mm,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971
APPEAL BY MR. G. GARRANAY

LITTLE MARLEY FARM, MARLEY LANE, KINGSTON , CANTERBURY - ERECTION OF BUNGALON

I have to inform you that as a result of the refusal of the Canterbury City
Council to grant planning permission in respect of the erection of a bungalow on
the site of Old Cottage, Little Marley Farm, Marley Lane, Kingston an appeal has
been lodged by Mr. G. Garraway. It has been agreed that the appeal shall be
decided by the use of the written representations procedure whereby written

statements are submitted within a certain time to the Secretary of State for the
Environment in order that the appeal can be considered.

Local residents and any others who may be affected by the proposal are requested
to give any observations they might wish to make on the matter. Written
representations may be sent direct to the Secretary of State, Department of the
Environment, Room 1318, Tollgate House, Houlton Street, Bristol, BS2 9DJ,
clearly quoting the Council's reference CA/86/0383/KIN and the Department's
reference APP/J2210/A/86/54331. However, it must be clearly understood that any
representations can only be taken into account provided they are freely
available to both sides of the appeal. If you have any comments to make on the
above matter, therefore, I shall be grateful if you will send them in writing to
the Secretary of State as so indicated as quickly as possible, and in any event
by no later than thelith October, 1986.

The Department point out that it would be very helpful if they could have two
additional copies of any representations, and also that they will send a copy of
the decision letter on the appeal only to those who ask for one.

Details of the Council's grounds of refusal together with the appellant's
grounds of appeal are available for inspection in the Planning Section of the
City Technical Services Department at these offices during normal office hours.
The Council's statement is in course of preparation but may not be available

/over

before you submit your representations to the Department of the Environment.
Therefore, you shou1d check the avai1abi1ity of the statement, by te1ephone to
the Pianning Section of the City Technical Services Department, Extension 4847
(Mr. C. Madden), before coming aiong to inspect it.

If you are not the owner of the house you occupy or if you know of any other
person who may have an interest in the matter, I shou1d be gratefu1 if you wou1d
draw their attention to this 1etter.

Yours faithfu11y,

A 3 .
‘%3,a$«
.« —#‘“a-v@£%%
w4é%§& §& Ea fv

M.G.P. YOUNG
CITY SECRETARY AND SOLICITOR

Date  18.2.86 Military Road

Yournfi: Cbnkxbuw
Ourrefz [T50/16/3/43/PBT/44 Kent CT I WW
T S ” 5 Tel: Canterbury

  
  
      

 T 1 (0227) 451755

W
Mr. I.D. Taylor, m6“4 T-""’-‘~"

Secretary,

Nailbourne Protection Society, 

3 Whitelocks Close, CQINGL
Kingston
Canterbuéy GT4 6JG Askkx: Mrs. P. Thackray

5“: AAOS

Dear Sir or Madam,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971
APPEAL BY MR. E. HAWKINS - DETACHED HOUSE ON LAND ADJACENT TO NATERLOO COTTAGES,
BRENERY LANE, BRIDGE, CANTERBURY, KENT.

I have to inform you that as a result of the refusal of the Canterbury City
Council to grant planning permission in respect of the erection of a four
bedroom house on land adjacent to Waterloo Cottages, Brewery Lane, Bridge an
appeal has been lodged by Mr. E. Hawkins. It has been agreed that the appeal
shall be decided by the use of the written representations procedure whereby
written statements are submitted within a certain time to the Secretary of State
for the Environment in order that the appeal can be considered.

Local residents and any others who may be affected by the proposal are requested
to give any observations they might wish to make on the matter. written
representations may be sent direct to the Secretary of State, Department of the
Environment, Room 13/18, Tollgate House, Houlton Street, Bristol, BS2 9DJ,
clearly quoting the Council's reference CA/85/991/BRI and the Department's
reference APP/J2210/A/85/42368. However, it must be clearly understood that any
representations can only be taken into account provided they are freely
available to both sides of the appeal. If you have any comments to make on the

above matter, therefore, I shall be grateful if you will send them in writing to
the Secretary of State as so indicated as quickly as possible, and in any event
by no later than the 7th March, 1986.

The Department point out that it would be very helpful if they could have two
additional copies of any representations, and also that they will send a copy of
the decision letter on the appeal only to those who ask for one.

Details of the Council's grounds of refusal together with the appellant's
grounds of appeal are available for inspection in the Planning Section of the
City Technical Services Department at these offices during normal office hours.
The Council's statement is in course of preparation but may not be available
/over

before you submit your representations to the Department of the Environment.
Therefore, you should check the availability of the statement, by telephone to
the Planning Section of the City Technical Services Department, Extension #847
(Mr. C. Madden), before coming along to inspect it.

If you are not the owner of the house you occupy or if you know of any other
person who may have an interest in the matter, I should be grateful if you would
draw their attention to this letter.

Yours faithfully,

,5“.

M.G.P. YOUNG
CITY SECRETARY AND SOLICITOR

 

 

3, whitelocks close,
Kingstono, 4
Canterbury, CTR 6JG

Chief Solicitor
Southern water iuthority,
Guildbourneofiouse,
xonrarne,

Sussex, B311 1LD 15th. January, 1984.

D631? Sir,

re : Application by H.Mount & sons Ltd§Bekesbourno

to vary license No. 9/40/4/407/G
and amalvamate 40 #. /SR & 9 40 4 O S‘

‘This Society is interested to understand the implications
of the above Applications. May we please have photocopies oi
Applications and maps so that effects can be studied. I will
be pleased to send the coat of photocopies to you._You will

appreciate that to call at Uortbing would involve a long Journey.

dith Thanks,

Yours faifihfully,

ToC*I;o.omgy1or.
Hon 0 S33 I

N 42'/éozmze Protection Society

3 Whitelocks Close
Kingston
Canterbury

Kent

CT4 6JG

 

 

6 March 1986

Ref: CA/85/991/BRI
APP/J2210/A/85/M2368

The Secretary of State
Department of the Environment
Room 13/18

Tollgate House

Houlton St

BRISTOL

BS2 9DJ

\Uear Sir

APPEAL BY MR E HAWKINS FOR PERMISSION TO BUILD A DETACHED HOUSE ON THE LAND
ADJACENT TO WATERLOO COTTAGES, BREWERY LANE, BRIDGE, CANTERBURY, KENT

This Society exists to help preserve the attractive countryside of the Nailbourne
Valley, and having investigated this planning application which has now come to
appeal make the following representations-

1. The Society unreservedly supports the Canterbury City Council's Planning
Department in its policy of not permitting back land development. If such

a policy is to be meaningful then only in the most exceptional circumstances
should that policy be breached. There are no such special circumstances
associated with this proposed development and this Society believes that the
Canterbury City Council has correctly and properly rejected this planning
application.

2. This Society is in most general terms concerned about developments along
the banks of the Nailbourne River which though of intermitent flow is an
important feature of the Nailbourne Valley and any encroachment or disturbance
would be to its detriment.

3. This Society considers that the Canterbury City Council has correctly
rejected this application because of poor sitelines at the access point.

4. If such planning proposals as this one were to be granted then the excellent
work of the Kent County Council in preparing a Kent structure plan setting

out the policy for planning matters which includes a general rejection of
backland development and which structure the Canterbury City Council has adopted
as its policy, then that planning policy would be breached and set a precedent
for other developments of a similar nature. As there are no special circum-
stances associated with this planning application then there appear to be no
reasons for exceptions to be made to the planning policy and the rejection

of this planning application by Canterbury City Council is consistent therefore
with their planning policy.

5. For the above reasons this Society strongly recommends the Department of
the Environment to reject this appeal.

Yours faithfully

l —~\\:>. ‘ *“3 i*J

I D Taylor
Honorary Secretary

N 42'/éozmze Pruieciioiz Society

3, Whitelocks Close,
Kingston,
' Canterbury,

Kent, CT4 6JG

 

 

Department of the Environment,

Charles House,
375,Kensington High Street,

London,
W14 8QH 1st May 1987

Dear Sir,

re : Appeal by Mr P.J.Bell
Ref : SE 2 2 3 460

This Society unreservedly supports the Canterbury City Council

in requiring Mr P.J.Bell to replant 2.9 acres of Woodland at
Featherley Wood, Kingston, which was grubbed in contravention of a

Tree Preservation Order.

Inadequate notice and time prevents fuller representations to
be made, and a prior commitment precludes my attendance at the Public

Inquiry.

C 1. Mr.Be1l‘s grubbing out of the Woodland was an undoubted contravention

of the Tree Preservation Order, and a deliberate act conducted with
with knowledge of the Tree Preservation Order.

2. There is evidencze to support that Mr Bell had knowledge of the

ancient Woodland status of the 2.9 acres, and of the Canterbury City
Council's intention to protect the Woodland before he even purchased

the Woodland.

3. After being served with notice to stop, Mr Bell continued to cause
the Woodland to be grubbed out. As late as Monday 21st July 1986, I

was at Featherley Wood, Kingston (I live in Kingston), and observed
that trees subject to the Preservation Order were being grubbed out

and the stools burned on the site.

cont.

N 42'/éozmze Protection Socz'e_2‘y

A eal Mr P.J.Bell ref : SE 2 2 460 cont.

 

 

4. As at this time Mr. Bell had made a claim-for compensation for
not being allowed to grub out the trees, he had accepted, by virtue
of that application for compensation, that he did not have legal

entitlement to grub out the trees.

5. Mr. Bell's conduct, which has been the subject of the Canterbury
City Council's Planning Committee consideration, a Public Inquiry
Hearing, and further consideration for compensation, and for enforcement
proceedings, now appears to be defiant of the law and planning controls

to which all persons are subject.

6. The Public Inquiry Hea/rd before Mr. Nightingale in February 1984
for the Department of the Environment was well attended by the Public-
the Bossingham Village Hall being full for the two days, and the
strength of local feeling regarding the need to protect this Woodland

voiced sensibly and strongly.

7. This Society submitted some 587 individual letters of objection,
collected only during the 2 weeks prior to the Public Inquiry, to

Mr. Nightingale, who in September 1984 rejected Mr. Bell's appeal
and described the Woodlands as "making a significant contribution

to the landscape," and that the Woodlands were "of special interest".

8. The Canterbury City Council is acting entirely in accord with
Planning Law and Controls, and previous decisions of the Department
of the Environment in requiring Mr. Bell to replant 2.9 acres of
Woodland. The Enforcement Notice is correct and appropriate, and this
Society expects the Department of the Environment to uphold the
Enforcement Order of the Canterbury City Council.

9. This Society requests a copy of the decision of the Department of
the Environment in respect of this Appeal.

Yours faithfully,
I E. .7305

.,_ l
I.D. Taylor,

 

Hon. Secretary.

( ‘/mi/’m(m:

Alzm llowland, ‘While (Jnles‘,
ll<.'l\L‘Sl'0lIl'IH.‘ Rd., HIidg4:("l'4 5/\l7

] (ml. 7 l'('(l5'llI‘£‘I'.'

Mrs Pat Wilmshurst, ‘Dc.'1rnlcy‘,
Bckcsbourne Rd, Bridge CT4 5/\[i

C‘mm1ziIIv(’.'

D1 Sluzul I‘icld, ‘Bmnnds Corner‘,
Bckeshournc R-11., Bxidge CT4 5/\E

Nornixan Fowler, ‘River House‘.

- - - Hig1SlrCct, Blidgc C14 5l.A

Campaugn to keep Motel lrafhc oui of Budge and Canterbury M,‘ ,,|C;Nmu, KM‘ .wyL.h Hm.‘

----—-s-—-----———-—----—---—.—,« _...__ HighSt1'cc!,B1idgc (_f'[4 SJZ

John l‘ur<hcse, ‘Mill Cottage’,
Uc:kr,‘sbnnr no. (.'z1nterbury CM 5} I I)

Mrs 1\I:ugmct Reed. 87 New Dover
Road. (‘antn hlll y CT] JEI)

Ian 'l'a_\lor, 3 \\'hitel0cks Close,
Killgslnn, (‘unlcx bury CT4 6.lU

 

Dear  I

As you may well have read recently in the local press the 'Mote1'
business has raised it's ugly head again with a new application for a
100 bed mote] on the triangular site adjacent.to Pond cottages. My
information is that road access is exactly the same as the last scheme

i.e. entirely inadequate and representing a serious hazard.

As we never disbanded our Group I am therefore convening a committee
meeting for 7.30 p.m. on Tuesday 21st July at my house to consider our
position and agree our course of action. A copy of the plans will be

available.

Although we have until 25th August to submit our objections, holidays
will quickly erode our usable time.

If you are unable to attend please let me know plus any information you
are able to aquire in the mean time.

I do hope you can make it on the 21st.

Yours sincerely,

<:E$;\§:l///’flTfl
A. Howlandl

ߣ 

 N 42'/éozmze Protection Soczkty

3 Whitelocks Close

      

 

 

   

Kingston
Secretary of State Canterbury
Department of the Environment CT” 5JG
Room 13/18
Tollgate House
Houlton Street
Bristol BS2 9DJ 1% April 1986

Dear Sir
re: APP/J22lO/A86/M4fl82 CA/85/963/KIN

Appeal by Mr R G Clements against the decision of Canterbury City Council to
refuse to grant outline planning permission for 3 dwellings at Whitelocks
Farm, Kingston, Canterbury, Kent.

This Society opposes the granting of this Appeal, and refers the attention of
the Secretary of State to the contents of our letter to the Canterbury City
Council Planning Department, dated 26 September 1985.

It is a matter of regret that Planning Applicants and Appellants so frequently
resort to distortion of facts, misrepresentations and untruths to further
their personal financial gain. This matter is no exception.

This Society exists to seek to protect and preserve the attractive Nailbourne
Valley and its peaceful rural villages. This Society does not oppose sympathetic
or appropriate developments but the unwarranted intrusion of development which
are contrary to carefully considered Planning Policy arising from protracted work
to produce the Kent Structure Plan and Countryside Plan, cannot be supported,
substantiated or justified.

The Appellant — through his agent - states that the proposed development would
be a "minor" one and "within the confines of the existing built up area" and
"not an intrusion". These three statements are untrue. In this location the
development would constitute a major intrusion outside the existing built-up
area of the village. It is backland development on both sides of the boundary
of the Village Conservation Area.

The Appellant states that the proposed development would be "appropriate to the
scale and character of the Village". In this location the proposed development
is certainly not in character with the village and "scale" is not appropriate.

The Appellant states that the proposed development would "utilise existing
services on the site". The Appellant's home may be provided with services but
there is no sewerage, water, electricity or gas on the site of the proposed
development.

The Appellant considers that the proposed development would "enhance the appearance
of the existing (listed) Barn”. Such a development would do precisely the
opposite. To surround a listed old Barn with modern houses would be detrimental

to the appearance of the Barn. The Appellant states he is concerned about his
listed Barn being "disfigured by unsympathetic extensions — this appears to be a
correct statement" - then why does he wish to replace unsympathetic extensions

with new unsympathetic extensions? The statement by the Appellant that the

Barn will be restored cannot be considered seriously. If he cared about the

_ 2 _

N 42'/éozmze Proiecliaiz Society

 

 

status of his listed property and if he wished to "improve the setting of Whitelocks
Farm", he would not wish to pursue this wholly inappropriate and unwarranted

development proposal.

The Appellant is incorrect in stating that "the existing access from the street
is improved by the proposed development".

Sight lines and visibility will not be changed in any way. The access point
is already hazardous, and the proposed development would result in greater
vehicular use of the access point. The Barn remains in situ, its wall coming
to within about 3' of the road. The neighbouring property's fence to the East
is not the property of the Appellant. The access to the village street will
be exactly the same but with more traffic.

A traffic survey in the village street on Monday 19 May 1980 demonstrated that
during a 10 hour period (8 am until 6 pm) on a weekday there were 598 traffic

movements along the lower street, (one per minute).

Even allowing for the & mile difference in location the traffic at the proposed
access point is not "minimal".

Further the proposed access point is at the bottom of a long hill (of whatever
gradient) and without doubt is the point at which vehicles are travelling down
the street faster than at any other point along the street. The access is
dangerous.

It should be noted that two public footpaths join the village street at the
proposed access point (Nos 273 and 275).

It should also be noted that there are not any footpaths along the village street
at the proposed access point.

It is dishonest for the Appellant to claim that "present access requires that
vehicles using the double garage have to reverse into the street". This is not
correct. The Appellant knows full well that his car can be reversed into the
garage, and is generally reversed into the garage, thus allowing for a forward
movement onto the street. Even any larger vehicles reverse in off the street
thus making any necessary loading from the garage onto the back of any lorry
easier.

The Appellant has also deliberately omitted to acknowledge the existence of
two other and separate access points for vehicles to his property.

The access point in question is for his family's two private cars into and out
of the double garage. Ten yards away there is vehicular access onto the
circular drive in front of his home and adjacent to that another separate
vehicular access which is used for horseboxes, tractors etc. Because of the
location and layout of paths etc., this is the most sensible route for horse-
boxes allowing a level walk from stables to vehicle horsebox.

It is also through this access that vehicular horse boxes reach their parking
space and space to turn round.

- 3 _

 Nazi/ootmzo Pmmm Society

  

 

The Appellant's statement that the development proposals "entirely eliminate”
the need for vehicles to reverse onto the road is not true, and is presumably

made in an attempt to mislead.

It is of little consequence which of the Appellant's two contradictory claims
regarding the road gradient (1:18 or 1:34) is true; it is the speed of vehicles
down the street which is so crucial, plus the poor sight lines etc.

The Appellant's statement that "in terms of visibility (the access point) is the
safest section of the street", is untrue. It is the most dangerous section due
to vehicles travelling so fast at this location.

The Appellant's statement that the village street is an "unclassified collect

or road" seems to be a meaningless nomenclature of his own invention. The
village street can be given any title but any title does not render it different
from what it is. This road is dangerous and has been frequently discussed

for its general layout, gradients, derestricted status, narrowness, much of it
without footpaths, and its entire length without lighting.

The Appellant is well aware of all these facts.

The Appellant makes the wholly unwarranted statement regarding the reason for
the existence of a neighbouring fence and that his development proposals would
provide "every incentive" to remove this fence.

The Secretary of State for the Environment is required to decide upon the
Planning Appeal as submitted in respect of the Appellant's development proposals.
This Society is not aware that this appeal concerns any constructions on any
other property. The Appellant appears to have reduced himself and his arguments
to a regrettable low level.

If the Appellant is concerned re the appearance of the old Barn it is contradictory
to state that the proposed new houses would not be detrimental, but that they are
too far away from the Barn to be detrimental.

Perhaps the Appellant would have been better advised to put forward only sound
planning reasons for the proposed development. His expression of concern to
"help meet the need for local housing demand" is unworthy of him; his motivation
is his own financial gain at the expense of the countryside environment which
needs to be preserved and protected.

The Kent Structure Plan, the Countryside Plan, the Conservation Area status of the
village, the status of being in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the list
building status of the Barn and Farm, all mitigate against the granting of Building
Permission.

Also the dangers in the village street at the access point, the probable fatal

harm by building work to the very fine tree on the site, the backland status of

the site, the intrusion of an inappropriate building development on fresh land,

the loss of privacy and amenity value at the location to nearby residents (contrary
to the Appellant's claims), the erosion into rural land outside the village all
mitigate against the granting of Building Permission.

The opening of adcess to the large field to the rear of Whitelocks Farm would
undoubtedly lead to further attempts to encroach into this backland for building
purposes and such prospects must now be in the mind of the Applicant whether he

_ 4 _

remains in occupation of his home or note.

The errors, inaccuracies, —omissions, half truths, and untruths contained
within this Planning Application and Appeal all mitigate towards refusal of
permission to build.

This Society invites the Inspector for the Secretary of State for the Environment to
dismiss this appeal and indicates its willingness to support the Appellant should

he wish to make any application anywhere for financial aid to restore his listed
Barn building.

I D Taylor
Hon. Secretary

 

6th August, 1987 3 whitelocks Close,
Kingston,
Canterbury,
Kent.

Mr. M. Bacon,

Technical Director,
Canterbury City Coucil,
Military Road,
CANTERBURY,

 I

CT1 1Yw

Dear Mr. Bacon,

Re: Planning application CA87/1020/BAR
Siting of mobile hme on land at Digges Place

On the 17th July, 1987 the above planning application was notified to the
public via the local newspaper, The Kentish Gazette.

It has subsequently been drawn to the attention of this Society that the
notification was incorrect and misleading. The application is not for a
mobile home, but for a prefabricated bungalow. The application is not in
respect of Digges Place, but in respect of a site a quarter of a mile away
on land adjoining the main A2 road.

It is unsatisfactory and unacceptable to this Society that applications in
respect of planning matters be so erroneous and misleading, and serious
questions might be asked regarding the applicant and his attempts to
deceive both your department and the public. V

This Society does not suggest any blame upon your department. We would,
however, be pleased to be advised what measures your department might be
able to take to remedy this situation, and what measures might be taken to

avoid such situations in the future.

This Society will be submitting strong objections to this application in
any event.

Yours sincerely, ~

Ian Taylor
Honorary Secretary

    
   
   
      

 

*”’:;: ID afluoisjifiw E V89 .3 use
_ ‘nojagnix I

......................_.__.z’
” "w“ M ........... ....

Ei2§¢§\€3‘.§L3_E‘\\"i§z3.Z3 :..;:;::r‘53.i£L‘_I<.V;2;« Qairzrmfil :25: - ,A
   I‘   ‘_
 .;4...% !L:‘v~'j_ ,*.;l.;.«‘L £17375; win? 172'}

  .:;.~'_.:.;«i. —.+:l:: mzv '3.ii'c;t1.ss.3

::«;;‘..- oi »::~...v.;:.,w  V» .Vf.‘;'1L~'=t~.:.%?2f<*;-.-:;;;?;.»e:  ' 32

C

     
  
  
 
 
  
 

.:at §

7. 4' 

.' Qp. -’ .. . V, . ,. 3
 ‘us:-a_1~ M3.) (uliufi.‘»'.1;:»_rt;:‘l bwiaza m 3n‘m'f.m '¢=.fie<3i.:I£3:~;u.;p

gw;!auq an: bus jnsmjisqan mung died avisosb

r
.
. x z
3'
x

.;m9v9 yns.

yyjiexecxtia ZZUJOY

._,_}_'§_‘~'§

1oIy5T nsl
xgggexoea ggsionofl

N 42'/éozmze Protection Soczkaty

 

3 whitelocks Close

KINGSTON
Canterbury

Kent

10th August l987 C“ “G

Mr M Bacon

Technical Director
Canterbury City Council
Military Road
CANTERBURY

Kent

Dear Sir

RE: CA/87/1103/Kingston - Barn to dwelling.
CA/87/ll04/Kingston - Outhouses to double garage.
CA/87/ll05/Kingston - Extension to cottage.

These 3 applications relate to Whitelocks Farm, Kingston.

This Society generally welcomes these 3 Planning Applications with the
following observations:

1. This Society is pleased that the splendid old barn is to be
restored and reconstructed, so that as a residence it will be
preserved in good order. The addition of Kent Peg Tiles to
the roof is particularly pleasing. We would point out however,
that the removal of the present double garage (where the front
door of the dwelling is to be situated), should not be regarded
as an "opening up" of access for anything other than vehicles
exclusively belonging to or visiting the residents of the new
barn dwelling.

2. The reconstruction of the outhouses to form a double garage and
utility room for the farmhouse is sensible.

3. The reconstruction and extension of the cottage to the rear of
the farmhouse seems rather grand, and the development may extend
rather too far to the south. A more modest extension of different
design might be more appropriate, but in general terms, the
improvement of the cottage as a dwelling is pleasing.

 I I O U

- 2 — ' NAILBOURNE PROTECTION SOCIETY
10th August 1987

Canterbury City Council

 

4. Nothing in any of these 3 applications should presume any further
development at the site.

5. Nothing in these 3 applications should interfere with the public
bridleway alongside the cottage.

6. As the total proposal increases the dwellings on the site by only
one, (i.e. the barn conversion), we accept that traffic to and
from the site will not increase much. Drivers entering and
leaving the site, should exercise the normal care required.

Yours faithfully

Ian Taylor
Honorary Secretary

 

3 whitelocks Close
Kingston.

17th August 1987.

To: The Editor
Kentish Gazette.

Dear Sir,
Re: Proposed Motel at Pond Cottage, Bridge.

Few would deny that Canterbury needs additional hotel
accommodation. Those who represent the public must however, balancne
comercial need with public safety. A

The Canterbury City Council Llanning Committee has already granted
_outline planning permission for a 70 bedroomed hotel at Pond Cottage, only
to be told by the Kent County Council Highways Jepartment that the hex!
Developers must undertake to pay the full cost of necessary new roadway
\::nctions. The previous Developemnet Company appears to have retreated
rather than agree to pay such costs.

The need for road improvements is clear. The only intended access/
egress point at Pond Jottage is already dangerous. A recent traffic census
demonstrated some 918 vehicular movements per hour past the site on the
Canterbury side of the bridge over the by-pass at Pond Cottage. host of
the traffic travels at 50-60 m.p.h., some much faster.

If the fianterbury Planning Committee grants the new application for
a 100 bedroomed hotel, then those local Gouncillors will be supporting
the creation of a major traffic problem which will place the lives of 1
local people, travelling over the bypass into the City, in danger.

Are our local Councillors so prepared taxing to disregard the safety
and welbeing of local people “

\,/ Canterbury can have its Kotel '

Only half a mile away Highland Gourt is for sale. Cad as it may be

to some to see this spendid historic house become a Hotel, it is adjacent

o the by—pass, could be easily adapted, and is already served by a traffic
ridge over the byopass. . Access to and from the by—pass could be

zhieved without creating the traffic danger which is presently being
roposed at Pond Cottage.

' lours faithfully,

Kr Ian D, Taylor
Hon. Sec.

To:

NA/cc.  SW6

5 whitelocks Close
Kingston
Janterbury.
7.7.87.

Planning Dept.

Janterbury Jity Jouncil.

Dear Rir,

CA/87/0909/KIN
outline Planning Application for Bungalow

fhis Society opposes the granting of this application for the
following reasons:

1.

5.

-5.

The proposed development is outside theVillage envelope and
contrary to Policy SP4 of the Kent Ttructure Plan which
presumes against developementof fresh lands in the countryside.
?here are not any special circumstances to make any exception.
The site is adjacent to the Nailbourne Ftream and is subject

to flogging. To build any property "above" flood level would
cause eater to flood to a greater depth on adjoining

property, particularly the garden of "Iona".

fimilar applications in respect of the same site have been
rejected previously, see CA/85/7#O/KIN.

Contrary to the Applicant's statement the proposed developement
would require the contruction of a new "Official" access onto
the roadway.

The site is not a case of "infilling" but an intrusion into

countryside land,,on the edge of a Conservation Area, and in
an Area of Uutstafiding Natural Beauty.

fa’ ful—l—y;‘—’ /

 ,3 ._\/

J:

Your?

Ian D. Taylor

Hon. Sec.

 
   
  
     

Date: 30”‘ June 1987 I Military Road

Your ref: Canterbury
Our ref; CA/87/0909/KIN Kent CT] IYW
Tel: Canterbury
r‘ The Secretary, 1 (0227) ‘W755

Nailbourne Protection Society,
3, whitelocks Close,

DX53l4  

Kingston, CT4 6JG. 
Ask for:
ext:

Dear Sir/Madam,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT AND ORDERS.

PROPOSAL: Erection of bungalow with garage,

LOCATION: land adjacent to Iona, The Street, Kingston.

An application has been made to the City Council to carry out the proposal
referred to above. The application may be inspected at these offices between
9.00 am and 4.30pm Mondays to Fridays

If you have any observations to make on the proposal these must be made in
writing to reach me by 17th July 1987 In order for your views to be
given full consideration this date is the last by which any representations may
be submitted and any views received by this date will be taken into account when
the application is considered.

You should be aware that the Council will be obliged by law to make any letter
you submit available for inspection by the applicant or any other interested
persons. Additionally should an appeal arise from the application, it may be
necessary for me to refer in my evidence to any views which you let me have,
which may also involve sending a copy of your letter to the appellant. In the
interest of economy an acknowledgement will not be sent but you will be informed
of the decision in due course if you have written expressing an interest in the
application.

u s a’ ully,

Odds!‘

M.J. BACON — CITY TECHNICAL DIRECTOR.

FOOTNOTE: If you are not the owner of the property to which this notice is
addressed your co-operation in notifying the owner of the contents of this
letter would be most appreciated.

 

mi scam 9:

03 eweiv

nadw Inuosés ad

 

v .sw:,s.::' am’ Iran’

.3? .3n6Y

an? V»
mam: ‘sf ad [ivy EDV ind 3092* fl ifim fi }

:-, ,.P *
‘i! ‘v 3

2? gjéjw
’%fi1 ?0

 

 

vam'2nai§s3va2t

rx r

s39V9?n.

*?n9§ae5_au? is wafiwc ;€:,gn%g¥*i

" saw 1*’ ;~riax- ‘

_snKfi£§$3*Efi9

1

 
    
 

      
. ‘ V I _ ' . _> *5 _ A. ’ -_ _ _

   

,:W:m:¢:§tfi
Z€VVfififEfi;§3:wfi%&§  i
sexébiifi at az$hnfig»'“

 

   

  
   
    

'r& We

 

  
   
   
 
 
   
     

‘ grgaqfi 3&3 fit
u%*§§$3
I§QQé efiiwé. w? %

gnraéawqxa

-‘:5.

v '’ V ~T

 .33’:

 % V L  7
— A-Vv ', :_r¢g

.'..;m: :“§Z)h;';‘2‘é  »g%;:Vm.;:;=«.:- sa:i2,‘*rg;}ssar:z.&Ei« "n-‘;T:~:= 33:3  Aé”3TO§1TG{3?€

aw mé fi§%3§1§q9«D3 3E§€‘b§§aawbb5
‘i-i:%:a35’%3sw:zésjV  bIgaot&§s:.#s:¥

     

 

 
 
   

 
 

@

6th August, 1987 3 Whitelocks Close,
Kingston,
Canterbury,
Kent.

 

 Not’/ootmzo Protection Society

Mr. M. Bacon,

Technical Director,
Canterbury City Council,
Military Road,
CANTERBURY,

Kent.

CTl 1YW

mm,

Dear Mr. Bacon,

Re: Planning application CA87/1020/BAR
Siting of mobile home on land at Digges Place

On the 17th July, 1987 the above planning application was notified to the
public via the local newspaper, The Kentish Gazette.

It has subsequently been drawn to the attention of this Society that the
notification was incorrect and misleading. The application is not for a
mobile home, but for a prefabricated bungalow. The application is not in
respect of Digges Place, but in respect of a site a quarter of a mile away
on land adjoining the main A2 road.

It is unsatisfactory and unacceptable to this Society that applications in a
respect of planning matters be so erroneous and misleading, and serious
questions might be asked regarding the applicant and his attempts to
deceive both your department and the public.

This Society does not suggest any blame upon your department. We would,
however, be pleased to be advised what measures your department might be
able to take to remedy this situation, and what measures might be taken to
avoid such situations in the future.

This Society will be submitting strong objections to this application in
any event.

Yours sincerely,

.—--—-\
}5..”T) . ‘ 547$ QJ‘

/”“

Ian Taylor

Honorary Secretary