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.

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.

This has been an eventful week for environmental issues at four levels – international, national, city and parish – of relevance to Canterbury and Bridge. And unfortunately none of it is good news. In different ways all the developments illustrate the problems that can arise when those with power act to exclude the public and their rights. Let’s start with the international news story, and then scale down to parish level.

International: At the start of the week it was reported that Britain is flouting its international obligations on air quality. In a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, special rapporteur Baskut Tuncak slammed the UK’s record on air pollution, which causes an estimated 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. Tuncak stated that “Air pollution continues to plague the UK. I am alarmed that despite repeated judicial instruction, the UK government continues to flout its duty to ensure adequate air quality and protect the rights to life and health of its citizens. It has violated its obligations”.¹

National: It might have been hoped that international censure on the country’s abysmal pollution record from the United Nations would guide Mr Justice Dove as he finished his judgement on the case brought against the Mountfield development. The case – Shirley & Rundell vs. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – challenged the proposed development on air pollution grounds. However, today ConserveBridge has learned the disappointing news that judgement has been handed down in favour of the government. Mr Dove’s reasons for judging as legal a housing development that the evidence indicates will lead to illegal levels of air pollution are not clear. Many thanks to Emily Shirley of Bridge for her hard work in bringing this case.

City: Plans have been unveiled for development on the Kingsmead recreation ground. A group of concerned citizens campaigned to save this open space from development by trying to register the land as a village green in 2013 under the Commons Act, 2006. The attempt failed, in part due to amendments to the Commons Act made by the Growth and Infrastructure Act, 2013. This includes a list of “trigger events” that can be used to prevent land being granted village green status, one of which is an application for planning permission.² So the moment a developer applies for planning permission on an area of land it becomes too late for communities to claim the land as a common. Some might argue that the plans for Kingsmead – which include restaurants, homes and a cinema – will enhance the life of Canterbury. But who would disagree that the Growth and Infrastructure Act is a cynical piece of legislation expressly designed to load the planning system in favour of developers and against communities?

Parish: Deliberations on the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan took an alarming turn at the Bridge Parish Council meeting held on 16 September. Members of the public were asked to leave the meeting on the basis that the planning matter to be discussed related to confidentiality. A parish council is within its rights to withhold from the public information on the grounds of confidentiality unless there is “set against this, a very strong reason in the public interest why it should nevertheless be disclosed”.³

Here ConserveBridge would like to make the following points. We accept that there may be grounds for keeping discussions confidential, but only for a limited period of time and on an exceptional basis. The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is a process in which all members of the community have an interest. Acting in secret did not serve this community well earlier in the neighbourhood plan process, as became clear earlier this year when an unauthorised approach for an amendment to the Green Gap was made to Canterbury City Council. There is a clear public interest in ensuring that all deliberations are transparent and open. We therefore call upon the Parish Council to make all information available to the public as soon as possible.

References

1. Carrington, Damian (2017) “UN: Britain is flouting duty on pollution”, Guardian, 11 September, p.1 & 4. Also available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/10/uk-flouting-duty-to-cut-air-pollution-deaths-says-un-human-rights-report
2. Growth and Infrastructure Act, 2013, 16(1)(6) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/27/section/16/enacted
3. See: National Audit Office (2017) Local authority accounts: A guide to your rights, p.8. https://www.nao.org.uk/code-audit-practice/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2015/03/Council-accounts-a-guide-to-your-rights.pdf This guide relates to accounts, but gives a good indication of when the claim to commercial confidentiality can be invoked.

The judicial review of the Mountfield development took place this week at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The case – Shirley & Rundell v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – was heard before Mr Justice Dove. It was brought by Emily Shirley of Bridge and Michael Rundell, ably represented by Mr Robert McCracken QC, a leading environmental lawyer.

The case was brought after unsuccessful lobbying from several citizens for the Secretary of State to call in the Mountfield development on the grounds that Canterbury City Council had failed properly to consider the detrimental impact that the development would have on air quality. Last December the Secretary of State announced that he would not call in the proposal, leaving campaigners with no option other than a judicial review.

In court, Mr Robert McCracken noted that Canterbury City Council had referred to air quality mitigation in its report, but that the case was not about mitigation or amelioration of air quality but compliance, with the council failing to ensure compliance with existing legislation by producing an effective and up to date Air Quality Action Plan. Mr McCracken stressed that when refusing to call in the proposal the Secretary of State had specifically left environmental compliance to the council when, in fact, he was legally obliged to consider compliance with air quality legislation as a call in consideration.

 The feeling of those who attended the High Court this week was that Mr Justice Dove gave both sides a fair hearing. The decision will be announced at the latest by September. It is not possible to predict what the judgement will be.

Canterbury is not the only city in the news this week on air quality grounds. As the Mountfield case was being heard at the High Court a new policy on air quality was released by the Secretary of State for the Environment (Michael Gove).¹ The policy was published after a 2016 court ruling that the government needed to improve measures to tackle illegal levels of air pollution. But for the city leaders of some of the UK’s most heavily polluted cities – including Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Southampton – the policy does not go far enough; they have called for stronger measures and urgent legislation if they are to meet legal pollution levels.²

The leaders of these cities will be awaiting Mr Justice Dove’s judgement with interest; for if Mountfield is rejected on air quality grounds it could provide an important legal precedent for the rest of the UK.

References

1. The government air quality policy, published on 26 July 2017, can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-plan-for-nitrogen-dioxide-no2-in-uk-2017
2. For comment and analysis of the new policy see: ‘Does the UK plan to tackle air pollution stack up?’, Financial Times, 27 July 2017 https://www.ft.com/content/09b589d8-71e8-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c ; ‘UK’s new air pollution plan condemned as “weak” and “woefully inadequate”’, Guardian, 27 July 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/government-fails-to-commit-to-diesel-scrappage-scheme-in-uk-clean-air-plan; ‘Diesel and petrol car ban: clean air strategy “not enough”’, BBC News, 27 July 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40731164 

This is likely to be our last posting before the summer holiday season. Thank you for the all messages of support we have received. We wish our readers a good summer break.

Amongst the new books to appear in Waterstones’ Canterbury branch this week is the latest offering from Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister who opposed the imposition of harsh austerity measures on his country, much to the annoyance of the international financial elite. Eventually in Washington Varoufakis was asked point blank by Larry Summers, one of the high priests of the global economy; do you want to be on the inside or the outside? Summers said that outsiders prioritise their right to speak freely, but doing so loses support from the ‘insiders’. The insiders will shut out those who do not subscribe to the pre-existing consensus, defending their right (as they see it) to make the important decisions. “The key to such power networks is exclusivity and opacity”, writes Varoufakis in his book Adults in the Room: My Battle with Europe’s Deep Establishment (Bodley Head Publishing, £20.00).

We will return to Varoufakis below; but first here is an overview of the main outcomes from this week’s Parish Council meeting (Thursday. 11 May).

Chairmanship: The incumbent Chair, Alan Atkinson, was re-elected. He continues to enjoy the confidence of a sizable majority of the council, with 7 of 9 councillors voting for him. However, he no longer enjoys unanimous support, with Councillor Paul Ferguson, standing as a “stalking horse” candidate, attracting two votes. It remains to be seen what, if anything, this small shift in the barometer of support will signify.

Green Gap: The Chair announced that he had written to the Housing Inspector regarding his unauthorised letter of 20 March requesting an amendment of the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury. He made an assurance to make public his latest letter which, he said, dealt with ‘the facts’ (although it is not clear at this stage what this means).

Neighbourhood Plan: The current draft contains plans to build in the two areas confirmed by the Inspector as conservation areas: the Brickfields and the Green Gap. The Council debated the motion passed at the Annual Parish Meeting of 27 April: that the Neighbourhood Plan be suspended pending adoption of the Canterbury District Local Plan. Councillors Paul Davies, Paldeep Dhillon and Paul Ferguson voted to respect this publicly-approved motion. With four votes against and two abstentions the result was a decision to overturn the APM motion. The Chair stated that the intention was for the Neighbourhood Plan to be completed around about September.

Cantley: Two matters of interest arose. First, it is now apparent that on 30 June 2015 Cantley proposed two possible sites for house building in the village: in the Green Gap; and land to the east of Conyngham Lane. Yet only the Green Gap site, favoured by some councillors, was presented to the village during the consultations of autumn 2015. Why was this? Second, Cantley wrote to the Parish Council on 20 April 2017 stating it wishes to sell land between the recreation ground and the A2 with planning permission for housing. Should this proposal not go ahead, Cantley wishes to build near Great Pett Farm.

Mountfield: The Council made the welcome decision to donate £1000 to the fund for a judicial review of the proposed Mountfield development.

Neighbourhood Plan Group Membership: With half the members of the NPG having resigned in recent weeks the suggestion was made to expand the membership. Councillor Paul Ferguson volunteered to serve on the group, noting his wide experience as a lawyer in dealing with planning regulation and his commitment to Bridge as a village. With the Parish Council evenly divided on his offer (4 votes for, 4 against, 1 abstention) the rules gave the casting vote to the Chair, who blocked the offer. It was pointed out that Councillor Ferguson could attend the Neighbourhood Plan Group meetings, but not participate in discussions. Adults in the room?

This was Mr Ferguson’s second meeting as a parish councillor, and he will have felt welcome by many of his colleagues. But on two or three occasions he faced hostility, with heckling and some openly disrespectful comments.  Councillor Ferguson was treated in a similar way to Mr Varoufakis in Washington: as an interloper. His is a voice that some clearly wish to silence. Is there room for insider-outsider distinctions on a council of nine? All councillors should have the right to speak without fear or favour, and offers of help should be welcomed.

As things stand, it seems likely that the Neighbourhood Plan will be completed as soon as possible (with the draft commitments to build on the Brickfields and on the Green Gap remaining) before consideration can be given to the Cantley proposals made public this week.

ConserveBridge notes again that the city is not looking to Bridge for new housing allocations and we reiterate our opposition to all new housing in our Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We thank all those who serve the village, and call upon all members of the Parish Council to find a way to collaborative productively for the common good of the community and to preserve the integrity of Bridge as a rural village.

The Annual Parish Meeting provided a valuable opportunity for Bridge Parish Council to report to the community on the good work it had done over the previous year. There were also reports on the Scout group, the Horticultural Society, the Women’s Institute, the recreation ground and the Mill Centre. There were generous rounds of applause for presentations on the CHEK campaign against the downgrading of Kent and Canterbury Hospital (thank you Martin Vye and Peggy Pryer) and the Kent Environment and Community Network’s campaign for a judicial review of the Mountfield development (thank you Emily Shirley). 

Two motions were presented. Parish Clerk, Philip Wicker, explained that if the motions were passed they would be advisory only to the Parish Council, not binding.

Motion 1: That no further work should proceed on the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan until the Canterbury District Local Plan has been adopted (proposed: David Humphreys; seconded: Kevin Jenner)

The debate on this motion reflected two main lines of argument. First, that the excellent work of the Neighbourhood Plan Committee should not be lost. Second, that the community is very fortunate in that the Housing Inspector has struck out further development on the Brickfields and confirmed the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury. With the Neighbourhood Plan proposing new housing both on the Brickfields and in the Green Gap the mood of the meeting was that at the present time a pause made sense. It was also noted that Canterbury City Council is not looking to the village for new housing. The motion was carried by an absolute majority of those present:  26 for, 15 against (with 9 abstentions).

Motion 2: That the Chair of Bridge Parish Council write to the Inspector withdrawing his letter of 24 March (amended version of a motion proposed by Councillor Paul Ferguson; seconded Fiona Ferguson)

As ConserveBridge reported earlier, the Chair of the Parish Council wrote to the government-appointed Housing Inspector on 24 March stating “I would be grateful therefore, if you would consider a slight amendment” to the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury (click here for the letter). Councillor Alan Atkinson opposed the motion by explaining conversations within the Neighbourhood Plan committee, and between this committee and the planning policy manager at the city council, that preceded him sending his letter.

It was noted in debate that an officer of Canterbury City Council had suggested that the neighbourhood plan committee could “highlight as part of their representations” that a site under allocation lies within the Green Gap, but that the Parish Chairman had gone further than this by requesting an amendment to the Green Gap without Parish Council authorisation.

The debate that followed included the need to demonstrate due process and integrity in decision making. It was suggested that the meeting was wasting its time debating the motion, as the Inspector was not prepared to accept further representations. In response it was noted that the motion under debate was not for a new representation, but to withdraw one already made so that it did not lie uncorrected on the record.

No vote was taken on the second motion after the Chairman agreed to write to the Inspector withdrawing his letter of 24 March.

The annual meeting is the main occasion when members of the public can question the Parish Council and, where necessary, hold councillors to account. It is an example of a mature democracy in action. The first motion will be debated by the next meeting of Bridge Parish Council. Once again it should be emphasised that councillors and others who serve the village do so voluntarily and in their spare time; they deserve the thanks and appreciation of the community.