The result of the public vote in Bridge on whether to include in the Neighbourhood Plan the Cantley proposal to build 40 new homes on the site between the recreation ground and the A2 was announced within two hours of the poll closing on Saturday, 25 November. The decision is to include the proposal (with 215 villagers voting yes, and 113 voting against).

It is unusual for citizens to vote in favour of new build, especially in an area that lies adjacent to a major public recreation space. Three reasons help to explain the outcome. First, Cantley’s building proposal comes tied to a number of ‘sweeteners’, in particular the allocation of land for a village hall and the transfer of the recreation ground freehold to the village in perpetuity. Second, there is a recognition amongst many villagers that the A2 site is, if not the best site on which to build, then certainly the least worst. In particular, there was considerable disillusionment with earlier proposals to allocate housing on the Brickfields and in the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury. Some villagers voted ‘Yes’ on 25 November fearing a ‘No’ vote would reignite proposals to build elsewhere in the village on other, less suitable, sites. Third, there has been a general weariness with the Neighbourhood Plan process, and a desire to bring the process to a close.

This is not, however, the end of the matter. The vote requires only that the Cantley proposals be included in the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan; but the village will be given the opportunity to vote on the full Neighbourhood Plan, which could overturn the vote taken on 25 November.

Questions have been raised over the efforts made by Bridge Parish Council to lobby for a ‘Yes’ outcome (by a majority of 6 to 2 at its meeting of 9 November). Under Locality guidance for Neighbourhood Plans a parish council can only present factual evidence to citizens and cannot lobby for a ‘Yes’ vote using public money.¹ Bridge Parish Council distributed around the village a leaflet recommending a ‘Yes’ vote (click here). It is not clear at this stage whether the costs of this leaflet were funded from public money or another source.

A leaflet circulated to dwellings in Bridge on the eve of the vote provided a useful balance to many of the points in the Council’s position (click here to see a scan of the leaflet). These included the haste with which the decision was being made, the creation of transport and other infrastructure that will leave the village vulnerable to other speculative housing proposals, and the negative impacts on our AONB. Bridge Primary school has voiced opposition on health and safety grounds to the access roads to the site, which would run along the private road past the nursing home and the school. And there is a significant question mark over Bridge Parish Council’s linkage of the building of 40 new homes with the ownership of recreation ground, the latter of which is not a valid planning consideration as identified by the independent planning consultant who advised the parish council.

Bridge villagers are entitled to answers on some important questions, including on access roads, traffic modelling and where the money will come from to build a new village hall and car park. Villagers will be seeking a guarantee that should the proposal go ahead it will be a limited ‘one off’; and not the first of a series of proposals that will transform the village. And there needs to be clarification that should this proposal finally go ahead there will be no further plans to build housing on other sites elsewhere in the village.

Of the approximately 1250 adults eligible to vote on 25 November only 328 elected to do so; a low turnout of just 26%. A much larger turnout can be expected for the vote for the full Neighbourhood Plan, which holds out the possibility of a very different outcome.

Notes

1. Neighbourhood Plans Roadmap Guide, p.53. http://locality.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Neighbourhood-planning-roadmap-2016.pdf,

The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is approaching an important phase in its development. One crucial detail remains to be decided namely where, if anywhere, new housing should be built.

By now, all villagers will have received through the post a proposal for building between the surgery and the A2 (see here). The proposal has been made by Cantley Ltd, the owner of the former Conyngham Estate since 1976. Cantley proposes:

• To build approximately 40 houses of which up to 12 (30%) could be affordable
• To transfer the recreation ground freehold to the Parish Council to enable its continued community use in perpetuity.
• Within the site to provide land for a village hall and associated car park
• A new school staff car park in the northern part of the recreation ground.

Cantley are seemingly presenting the proposals as a package.

At first sight the choice we face as a community would appear to be straightforward: to vote to accept a limited number of housing along with significant community benefits; or to reject the package in full.

However, there are complications. The government has announced that it is looking to build an extra 12,000 new homes a year in Kent, a policy that has attracted criticism from the CPRE (see here). This will include, ConserveBridge understands, 300 houses in the Canterbury district each year. At present Canterbury City Council is not looking to Bridge for new build; but that could change.

It might be helpful to summarise the arguments for and against.

Consequences of voting for the Cantley proposals 

• The A2 site is the least intrusive site in terms of views and landscape impact of any site to have been considered in the Neighbourhood Plan deliberations. The existing trees will partially shield the development from the recreation ground. Building here would represent infill between the recreation ground and the A2.
• However, there would be some visual impact from the development from the recreation ground, as well as from the bridle path and public right of way on the other side of Patrixbourne Road.
• The village will gain the recreation ground forever, and will never again have to worry that the lease will not be renewed.
• The village will gain the site for a new village hall (although not the funds for building it).
• The village can present the new houses on the site as part of Canterbury’s contribution to the government’s 300 new houses per year target, thus taking the heat off Bridge when allocations are made in the future – when we may have less of a voice in where new build takes place.
• The housing will represent an increased consumer base, and will enhance the sustainability of local businesses.

However:

• Unless the access plans are changed, there would be an increase in traffic in Patrixbourne Road and the lower part of Conyngham Lane past the nursing home and the school, posing risks to school children.

Consequences of voting against the Cantley proposals:

• The rural character of the village will be preserved. Users of the recreation ground will continue to enjoy a view of open fields looking towards the A2.
• The traffic noise pollution for those living in the houses, which could pose a mental and emotional health risk for residents, would be avoided.

However:

• Cantley’s reaction is unpredictable. They are keen to sell land in the village with planning permission for new build housing, and if the A2 site is rejected they may opt for another site that will be worse for the village.
• Bridge Parish Council will look elsewhere for new affordable housing in the village.
• Canterbury City Council may look to build elsewhere in Bridge to meet the government’s 300 houses per annum target.
• The recreation ground would face an uncertain future (although alternative options have yet to be fully considered by the village)
• Rejecting the Cantley proposals would put on hold plans for a new village hall.

In short, while the consequences – both the advantages and the disadvantages – of a YES vote are clear, those of a NO vote are highly uncertain, and may not be known for some time.

ConserveBridge has long opposed new build on greenfield sites in the village, and we maintain that stance. But we understand that important issues are at stake for the future of Bridge in this debate.

Please vote on Saturday, 25 November for what you judge to be the best interests of the future of our village.