Warehousing plan near KIG site
LOCAL people are bracing themselves for another battle after Gallagher Properties un- derlined its aim forM20 Junction 8 by lodg- ing a planning application for 60,000sqm of commercial development. As previously reported in Downs Mail,
the company wants to create an industrial, office and warehousing scheme on 17 hectares of land south of the A20 near Hollingbourne, between the Ramada Jarvis Hotel and the headquarters of Biffa Waste Services. Residents and politicians who saw off the 112-hectare Kent International Gateway proposal on nearby land north of the A20 have said they plan to fight the latest scheme. Cllr Mike Bedwell, chairman of Holling- bourne Parish Council, said members were totally opposed to development on the site, when therewere brownfield sites available. He said: “Although it is a smaller site, the arguments against KIG still apply. If this is allowed to go ahead, some £3m of taxpay- ers money, spent in fighting KIG, will have been money down the drain.” The proposal is called Waterside Park,
and an application has been lodged asking whether an environmental impact assess- ment will be required. The application requires the “regrading of the site to create a level development plat-
tion for an industrial park. Quoting a Maid- stone Council site assessment study, the company’s supporting statement said “Even though both sites are in agricultural use, and theWoodcut Farm site is noted to have an “undeveloped countryside charac- ter”, only the proposed site is judged to ex- perience adverse landscape effects as a result of the loss of that rural character. “The Woodcut Farm site is rated one
The view south from the proposed site
form (with the creation of new bunds and batters as required)” as well as internal drainage, road layouts, landscaping and the diversion of a public right of way. The proposal has the support of the landowners, the Rochester Bridge Trust, with whom Gallagher has a long-term op- tion agreement. The site is one of three being considered
for industrial use by Maidstone Council in its emerging Core Strategy. The most signif- icant other site is 25 hectares of land west of junction 8 at Woodcut Farm, north of the A20, which was part of the fiercely-opposed KIG proposal. Gallagher is keen to demonstrate that its land south of the A20 is amore fitting loca-
‘Maidstone needs this development’
THE chief executive of the Gallagher Group insistsWaterside Park would fulfil a demand for warehousing in the local area.
Nick Yandle, pictured right, said: “At
the heart of our thinking is awareness that there is demand for logistics, distri- bution and manufacturing facilities in the Maidstone area and that there are no other suitable sites currently available. “Such sites must be close to a motorway junction in order to ensure efficient oper- ation and mitigate any impact on local communities. “Maidstone Borough Council has a duty
to plan for, and provide, new employment opportunities, to “We believeWaterside Park could be an important element of the future employ- ment offering for Maidstone, and would
grade better (negative as opposed to very negative) than the proposed site in terms of land use, landscape and the historic envi- ronment. That judgement does not appear to be justified by the actual circumstances which are that theWoodcut Farm site is sig- nificantly closer to the AONB [Area of Out- standing Natural Beauty] boundary than the proposed site, and is more visible from some points within the AONB. “The Woodcut Farm site is not well con- tained, and is highly visible from both the A20 and theM20.” Because the Gallagher proposal is well- bounded, the developer also argues there would be no creeping development, while the potential for this exists atWoodcut Farm The statement added: “Because the change [of use] in terms of the lowering of levels within the site is designed to create low level development platforms and effec- tively screen the new buildings in most ex- ternal views, the effects of that change would be limited.” A public footpath would need to be di-
provide jobs locally, rather than see them lost to places such as Ashford, Sitting- bourne and Dartford.” “In spite of the economic climate and without any promotion on our part the media coverage has led to enquiries from prospective occupiers demonstrating that there is a demand.”
verted if the scheme got the go-ahead. It cur- rently crosses the site from Old Mill Farm in its south western corner to roughly the centre of the northern site boundary, where it descends to the A20 verge. Some borough councillors have raised concern about the proposal’s impact on ex- isting water courses and drainage, but the statement claimed: “The disposal of surface water will be kept within the site and will mimic very closely the present situation.” Aplanning application was due to be sub- mitted to Maidstone Borough Council. It is anticipatedthatitwillbeinhybridform with the access, structural landscaping and some buildings shown in detail – to address the requirements of identified occupier(s) – with the remaining plots applied for in out- line, with details to be confirmed. The public has until February 11 to sub- mit its views on the submitted proposal.
Opponents prepare to fight scheme
MAIDSTONE’s Liberal Democrat group has been fiercely opposed to development on this site from the outset because of possible river contamination and the risk of a bridgehead being created be- tween the site and open countryside towards Otham and the south. The site is home to internationally protected species of wildlife. Lib Dem leader Cllr FranWilson said: “This site
has serious issues. In ecological terms, it has the River Len running along its southern boundary, a stream along its eastern boundary and, to enable development of the size proposed,major land-cut and infill would be necessary, which would have profoundly negative impacts in visual and eco- logical terms. It is also in the foreground of the AONB, close to Leeds Castle.” KCC Cllr Jenny Whittle said she was “very dis- appointed” with Maidstone’s failure to put down a formal classification for the area, which had left it vulnerable to speculative development. She said: “Maidstone council needs to have vi-
sion; it cannot just become one vast, urban sprawl. The council has to protect its rural area.”
14 Town Cllr Whittle (pictured) said the area simply did
not have the infrastructure to cope with increased traffic levels. She said: “There is no sign of a Leeds-Langley bypass on the horizon. Central government will not give us the funding and KCC does not have it. The roads cannot cope with the additional traffic this would bring. “There is also the fear that it would draw jobs away from
ParkWood. This development could damage our tourist economy and lead to job losses in other parts of the town. “ Cllr Mike Bedwell, chairman of Hollingbourne Parish Council, said he feared any development would have an adverse impact on the Mercure Hotel, Leeds Castle and Lenham Storage. He said: “There will be no net benefit to Maidstone if new business comes in at the expense of similar, es- tablished business, such as Lenham Storage. These three businesses employ a lot of people and need to be protected.”
Historic site THEsiteiswellknown for its archaeological value. A Roman coin hoard was
found on the site in the 1950s and, as a result, it is identi- fied as having a good poten- tial for further Roman evidence. A post-medieval sand pit
andmine was located imme- diately to the north-west of the site. If mine workings ex- tended into the site these would require investigation prior to any development. The supporting statement
said: “While the site might contain a small number of prehistoric flints or medieval stray finds, it is believed to have a generally low poten- tial for significant evidence from the prehistoric, Saxon and medieval periods.”
You can e-mail the Downs Mail —
info@downsmail.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48