Monthly Archives: October 2017

Bridge too far? Resistance grows against Highland Court while legal manoeuvrings continue against Mountfield

Posted on by

As ConserveBridge reported on 29 September 2017, Quinn Estates and Highland Court Group (HICO) presented their plans for the development of Highland Court Farm on Thursday, 28 September at Bridge Village Hall. The plans include the building of a business park, office space, extensive new build of 300 holiday homes, a 150-unit retirement village, a food and drink hub and pitches for Canterbury Rugby Club and Canterbury Football Club. Not only is the land AONB designated, but it is not allocated for development in the recently adopted Canterbury District Local Plan. Quinn and HICO face an uphill struggle to convince local residents, planners and others to give the plans the green light.

The proposal was discussed by councillors at the Bridge Parish Council meeting of Thursday, 12 October. When asked for his own views about the proposed Highland Court development at a meeting of Bridge Parish Council this week, the leader of Canterbury City Council, and North Nailbourne Councillor, Simon Cook, who lives in Bridge, said that he was not convinced by arguments from Quinn and HICO that such an extensive development in an AONB is of “national significance”. ConserveBridge welcomes Mr Cook’s views which, we emphasise, were expressed in a personal capacity and not on behalf of Canterbury City Council.

CPRE has criticised the proposals and urged Quinn and HICO to withdraw them. A response from Kent Downs AONB is awaited with interest. Meanwhile Bridge Parish Council voted to work with adjoining parish councils to see if it is possible to present a united position against the development plans, with six parish councillors voting to oppose the plans, with one abstention.

ConserveBridge is pleased to read from local social media posts that action to oppose the plans is starting to take shape. We wish these efforts every success. We also welcome recent action against the proposed Mountfield development.

The controversy over Mountfield was re-ignited when Mr Justice Dove threw out the case brought by Emily Shirley and Michael Rundell on air quality grounds. The High Court judge decided that the Secretary of State had not erred in refusing to “call in” (in other words, to decide for himself) the planning application, stating that the Secretary of State was entitled to expect Canterbury City Council to lawfully decide the planning application itself by taking into consideration all material considerations, including air quality. ConserveBridge understands that Emily and Michael have applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal Dove’s decision on the grounds that it is wrong in law. A decision on the prospects of an appeal is expected imminently.

Emily has also applied for permission to apply for judicial review of the adoption of the Canterbury District Local Plan, which proposes large scale housing and other unsustainable development with an unlawful policy in respect of air quality and without a compliant strategic environmental assessment. Since January 2010, Canterbury has been in breach of legal air pollution limits on several occasions at key spots in the city. The City Council’s recently adopted local development plan proposes 16,000 new houses on farmland outside the city boundary which, it is estimated, would result in an additional 112,000 daily car journeys. Concerns about pollution in our cathedral city have been expressed by Emily and others, including amenity groups and a leading public health expert. You can find out more about Emily’s campaign challenging the local plan here.

Highland Court

Posted on by

Bridge Parish Council has voted to oppose the proposed Highland Court development, and to approach neighbouring parish councils to see if it is possible to present a common position against the plans. ConserveBridge welcomes this news. To read our Commentary article “Bridge too far” click here.

Mountfield

Posted on by

Emily Shirley and Michael Rundell, who brought the original action against Mountfield on air quality grounds, are seeking advice on appealing to the Court of Appeal against Mr Justice Dove’s decision to throw out the case. A decision is expected shortly. To read our Commentary article “Bridge too far” click here.

Highland sting! Developers unveil ambitious plans to build on Highland Court Farm

Posted on by

Bridge will soon be encircled by a pincer movement from north and south, if the developers have their way. With the start of September seeing the unsuccessful High Court challenge against Mountfield, the end of the month saw Quinn Estates unveil their plans for the proposed Highland Court Farm development.1

Highland Court was designated a conservation area by Canterbury City Council in January 1995 and includes Higham Park and the Highland Court model farm.2 The plans, drawn up by Quinn Estates and HICO Group, would see the building of a business park and office space within the existing Highland Court Conservation Area, as well as extensive new build to the south. The overall complex would include 300 holiday homes, a 150 unit retirement village, a food and drink hub, and pitches for Canterbury Rugby Club and Canterbury Football Club. The plans are astonishing not only in their scale but in their insensitivity to the local landscape.

The design has emerged using the long-discredited UK rural development model under which plans are drawn up behind closed doors by a small select group, then presented – along with strong claims about economic benefits and “enhancing” the natural environment – to the public. Under this model developers operate as predators, roaming the countryside in search of green spaces where they can make a fast buck, trying to persuade the unfortunate communities they descend upon that there are advantages to accepting their designs. This is the polar opposite of genuine participatory, community-driven development under which communities themselves would be the sole arbitrators of what they wished, with developers then working to implement community visions and plans. In this case the communities in question are the villages of Bridge, Patrixbourne and Bishopsbourne.

A number of claims have been made by Quinn Estates and HICO Group about the proposed Highland Court development that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. One is that the existing farmland is “of poor ecological value and species poor”. There is no evidence that this is the case, but even if it were true – and the land under questions boasts extensive habitat for wildlife, including trees and hedgerows – then the solution would be ecological restoration through conventional farmland management techniques, not new buildings. It is claimed that the development would “enhance and improve the landscape and biodiversity of the immediate area”, including through “wildlife corridors”. Again, tried and trusted ecosystem techniques would suffice. It is preposterous to claim that extensive new build will improve biodiversity. Wildlife can already move freely through the site: “wildlife corridors” are only ever necessary when humans create barriers and obstacles to free movement, such as buildings.

Then there is the claim of economic benefits, such as the creation of “up to 1545 jobs”. The implication is that jobs will accrue for the local community, but they won’t. Under equal opportunities legislation employers are prohibited from favouring job applicants based on their post code.  Jobs must go to the best applicants, and in the vast majority of cases these will be outside the community. The economic benefits of this scheme for Bridge, Patrixbourne and Bishopsbourne will be slim to negligible, although the development will certainly lead to rich pickings for the real winners: the builders and owners of the proposed retirement and holiday homes, industrial estates and so on. Villages such as Bridge will be left to pick up the costs, including a spoilt natural environment and increased traffic.

As well as degrading a designated conservation area, the proposal will also despoil the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). But this does not appear to be a problem for the developers. The Kentish Gazette has quoted a representative of the Highland Investment Company as saying “Just because it’s an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty shouldn’t mean you can’t do anything with it”.3

There is a power asymmetry in UK planning, with the scales tilted heavily in favour of developers. Quinn Estates and HICO have spent time assembling an array of partner organisations with whom they are working. They include Canterbury College, Canterbury Christ Church University, Visit Kent, Pegasus Life and Kent Wildlife Trust. It is an impressive list, designed to give the impression that there is already a groundswell of support for the proposal from influential “stakeholders”. So is further resistance futile? We believe not. So far the general public has not given its consent. The Canterbury District Green Party and the Campaign to Protect Rural England have both voiced their opposition. 

ConserveBridge believes that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) should lead to the complete rejection of the plans. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF makes clear that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty” in national parks and AONBs. Paragraph 116 indicates that planning permission should be refused for major developments in such areas, except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest.

That is clearly not the case with this proposal, which does not feature in the Canterbury District Local Plan. We therefore call upon Canterbury City Council to reject it. If you agree with us please make your views known to the Planning Department of the city council.

Notes

  1. Click here to see the displays from the consultations in Bridge village hall on Thursday, 28 September.
  2. Canterbury City Council (2005) Highland Court Conservation Area Appraisal, June. To see the document click here.
  3. Warren, Gerry (2017) “Quinn Estates reveal masterplan for huge leisure plan for protected countryside site near Canterbury”, Kent Online, 3 October. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/masterplan-revealed-for-250m-scheme-133012/