The decision by the planning committee of Canterbury City Council to proceed with the Mountfield development earlier this week came as no great surprise to the crowded public gallery at the Guildhall on Tuesday. There was no debate; not even the semblance of a discussion.
Several citizens expressed their dismay at the scheme on a number of grounds. Traffic was one of them. Driving between Canterbury and Bridge along Old Dover Road and New Dover Road will certainly be more frustrating and will take a lot longer in the future. The chair of Bridge Parish Council, Alan Atkinson, spoke clearly against the proposal in its present form, arguing that it would lead to traffic backing up into Bridge. There was a persuasive intervention from Stephen Peckham (Professor of Health Policy at the University of Kent) on the serious consequences the development will have for air quality in Canterbury, and statements from several residents’ associations on the loss of countryside, habitat erosion for bats, birds and other species, the social and environmental unsustainability of the development and the cultural erosion of Canterbury as a historic city. Rarely can the Guildhall have seen such well-argued and informed interventions from such a broad range of stakeholders. And in the end none of it mattered.
One of the most telling comments was from Councillor Ashley Clark, who started by saying that anyone who thinks there is democracy in local planning is mistaken, adding “Anyone who thinks this is a planning committee is living under a delusion… This is not a planning committee. This is a damage limitation exercise.”
He has a point. The inspector decides how many houses are built. Councils have had their budgets slashed, by up to 40% in some cases, since austerity was introduced in 2010. Cash-hungry councils have found that one way to generate income is by building houses. Even some councillors who would have liked to oppose the scheme felt their hands were tied. That is the ugly reality. So much for grassroots participation and local democracy!
There was some heckling and cries of shame from the public gallery at the end, but this was always a done deal. The final vote was 9-3 in favour, with some restrictions. Hats off to Councillors Oliver Fawcett, Nick Eden-Green and Alan Baldock for some incisive criticisms and for voting against the development.
But on a dark winter’s evening there were some welcome chinks of light. First, Councillor Clark proposed that one of the restrictions in passing the scheme be that “we vote for open space in perpetuity”. This was agreed. And there were two unexpected gifts from the Planning Inspector, who struck further housing development from the Brickfields from the local plan “given its effect on the Kent Downs AONB in which it is located”. The Inspector also confirmed the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury. Both were highly welcome (especially given that the Inspector failed to uphold the Green Gap to the north of Canterbury, namely the Chaucer Fields between the city and the University of Kent).
It now remains to be seen how Bridge Parish Council will respond to these welcome Christmas gifts
