Sponsored page
downsmail.co.uk Hard is keen for active
involvement from residents. Contact the group at
www.saveharrietsham.co.uk, Facebook (hardcampaign) or email us at
hardcampaign@gmail.com Protestors vow to keep fighting
RESIDENTS in Harrietsham were left reeling after three major housing developments were approved by Maidstone Council’s planning com- mittee in the same number of months. In December, the council gave the go-ahead
for 80 homes in Church Road, followed by plan- ning consent for 49 homes in Mayfield Nursery and 114 homes on the former Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) depot south of the A20 Ashford Road.
These are in addition to The Hollies, a devel- opment nearing completion at the western end of the village. Ken Kay, a spokesman for Harrietsham Against
Reckless Development (Hard), said “It’s very dis- appointing but it was always going to be an up- hill struggle when our own parish council had accepted all these sites for development in the draft neighbourhood plan. “These sites will mean a total of 370 new
homes for the village since 2011, which is a 45% increase in size – enough is enough.” With these sites already decided, it raises the question: Does Hard have a purpose any longer? Hard leader Amanda Chinnery explained that there are still two sites in danger: Tong’s Meadow, for which a planning application for 105 homes is pending; and Court Lodge Road, which has twice been the subject of refused ap- plications for 80 homes.
‘Green space should stay’
LAND south of Court Lodge Road is another site that Hard has been campaigning to pro- tect, along with the Court Lodge Road Action Group. This site has had two planning applications submitted in the past 18 months, both of which have been refused by Maidstone Coun- cil. However, the site remains in the Harriet- sham Neighbourhood Plan because the parish council believes that building 50 homes on half of the land is a good exchange for securing the other half as green space. Resident Gary Trussler thinks this is laugh-
able: “It’s green open space already and Maid- stone Council has made it clear it doesn’t think it’s a suitable site for development. Twice it has been refused due to the harm it would cause to the landscape character, the Kent Downs AONB and the setting of listed buildings.” Hard wants to see Harrietsham Parish Coun-
cil take this site out of its neighbourhood plan. Mr Trussler added: “As long as it stays in the neighbourhood plan, the developer will keep trying, and will quote the neighbourhood plan in support of its application.” An appeal against the first refusal was lodged by the developer last year and subse- quently withdrawn.
20 Maidstone East April 2015 Members of Hard get their message across
“There’s still plenty to fight for,” she added. “These sites are both adjacent to the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). “Tong’s Meadow is a designated wildlife re-
ceptor site with many protected species, includ- ing great crested newts. Its unique mix of marshy wetland and dry grassland provides a haven for an amazing array of wildlife and its network of footpaths provides essential informal open space for residents. “It’s madness to build on this site; the parish council supports building here so we will keep on campaigning until it accepts that the right thing to do for this site is to protect and con- serve it, not build on it.” The planning application for Tong’s Meadow
(Ref 14/0208) requests access via West Street, facing Hook Lane – an area already suffering from severe traffic congestion. Mike Williams, a local resident, said: “The traffic on West Street is already chaotic and at times dangerous. Buses can’t get through and, where there are no pave- ments, you see mothers with buggies walking in the road with traffic squeezing by. The road was- n’t designed to take the current levels of traffic, let alone more.” On March 9, Maidstone Council’s cabinet re-
moved Tong’s Meadow from the list of housing allocations on its draft local plan. Hard believes this is excellent news but the parish council still supports development on this site so it is still under consideration. Maidstone Council agreed that the ecological
issues are significant, but Hard doesn’t believe it should even be considering an application on this site. Ms Chinnery added: “Natural England states
that when a site is selected as a wildlife recep- tor site it must be free from the threat of future development. On that basis, this site should not be considered for housing. “KentWildlife Trust strongly objects to the pro-
posal, the Campaign to Protect Rural England objects and so does the Kent Downs AONB unit. It’s quite clear this site should be protected and any planning application refused.”
Neighbourhood plan delayed
HARRIETSHAM’s neighbourhood plan was sub- mitted to Maidstone Council in June 2014 for its next consultation, but since then not a lot has happened, with the borough and parish councils blaming each other for the lack of progress. In the first consultation the majority of resi-
dents objected to the neighbourhood plan. Colin Przystupa, a spokesman for Hard, said
“After the last consultation in 2013 everyone we spoke to was against the proposals.” Hard submitted a Freedom of Information re-
quest to get access to the feedback. “That was an eye-opener,” said Mr Przystupa. “The only real support came from developers, landowners and members of the parish council. “There was very strong opposition to build-
HARD says it will continue its campaign to pro- tect Harrietsham from reckless development. Spokesman Paul Hicks said: “If we get some
new thinking on the parish council, we will be able to work more constructively with the parish and borough councils to achieve a bet- ter outcome for the residents of Harrietsham. “Hard can have an influence – when Bell
Farm North was put forward as yet another site for a further 80 homes we lobbied hard to Maidstone Council and, with the support of
ing on Tong’s Meadow and Court Lodge Road but the parish council refused to make changes.” It was because of the parish council’s intran- sigence and refusal to take on board residents’ concerns that a vote of no confidence in the parish council was carried unanimously. Hard is looking forward to when the neigh- bourhood plan goes out for further consultation because it will give residents another opportu- nity to submit their views and raise objections. “We will highlight the lack of consideration for environmental impacts – damage to the land- scape, biodiversity and character of Harriet- sham,” Mr Przystupa added. “It will be for the residents to decide if this is the right plan for us, as it will be subject to a public referendum.”
‘There’s still so much work for us to do’
borough councillor Eddie Powell, we suc- ceeded in getting this rejected. “We cannot be complacent – we are looking
at a huge expansion of the village in the next two to three years and further sites will be put forward. “Bell Farm North could resurface and a fur-
ther site for 100 homes offWest Street has al- ready been proposed. We want Harrietsham to remain a village – not a sprawling urban es- tate. We still have lots to do.”
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 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56