Plans have been announced to build on an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) at Highland Court Farm. The planned scheme includes 300 luxury holiday houses, 150 retirement homes, a 50 acre business park, and a new home for Canterbury Rugby Club. If implemented, the plan would extend the village to the south and, assuming Mountfield and new build housing to the north of Conyngham Lane go ahead, would further increase the urbanisation of Bridge and its coalescence with Canterbury.

Following the decision by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government not to call in the Mountfield decision (29 December 2016) an appeal was made by a member of ConserveBridge against this decision. The Secretary of State has now responded to a representation saying that the decision will not be reconsidered and the decision by Canterbury City Council thus stands. Further correspondence on Mountfield should be sent not to the Secretary of State but to the Government Legal Department, One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4TS, email Prachi.Kanse@governmentlegal.gov.uk

Mr Charlie Gooch of Cantley has shared with us a copy of a letter he sent to Bridge Parish Council clarifying the situation on the allotments and the recreation ground. Mr Gooch anticipates ‘no problem’ sorting out the existing allotment lease. He notes that it is ‘premature’ to consider renewing the recreation ground lease which expires in June 2023 but that ‘I personally think that it is very unlikely that the lease of the recreation ground will not be renewed at the end of the current term.’

The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Committee held a well attended meeting at the village hall to update residents of the village on the current state of the Neighbourhood Plan. Those who attended were asked to submit written comments and to vote on the views within the village that they most valued.

Editorial: Village consultation: dispelling the myths,

The group met in the Hunter Room and discussed a report  from an independent evaluator on the state of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan which “strongly recommended” that the group leave future housing allocations to Canterbury City Council. The group took a different course of action, voting to include new housing allocations for the Brickfields and to the north of Conyngham Lane in the plan. The evaluator also recommended a number of changes  to the plan.

Editorial: Bridge’s status as a unique rural village now at risk

We can report that resistance to Mountfield is alive and well in 2017. We and some other Bridge villagers are in touch with stakeholders from Canterbury, including the Alliance of Canterbury Residents Associations (ACRA), on the possibility of a judicial review. This is an expensive option, and will cost £20,000 just to begin with. However, feelings are running high at the way the proposal was forced through with no real opportunity for local grass roots input. ConserveBridge will keep you posted on how the discussions proceed.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has responded to representations for a call in of the Mountfield development. The Secretary of State has declined the application. The Department notes “The Secretary of State has decided, having had regard to this policy, not to call in this application. He is satisfied that the application should be determined at a local level,” somewhat ironically, given comments by some members of CCC’s planning committee at the 13 December meeting that the council’s hands were tied by national policy. The letter also notes “The Government remains committed to giving more power to councils and communities to make their own decisions on planning issues, and believe that planning decisions should be made at the local level wherever possible.”

Citizens have wasted no time in reacting to this week’s news that the Mountfield proposal has been approved. Several activists (including a member of ConserveBridge ) are writing to the Department for Communities and Local Government asking the Secretary of State to exercise his statutory right to call in the development on the grounds that it conflicts with  National Planning Policy Framework guidelines.

The planning committee of Canterbury City council votes by 9-3 to approve the Mountfield park development in south Canterbury. This development of more than 4000 houses will spread almost as far as Bridge. But there are two welcome developments. The government appointed Inspector strikes out housing development at the Brickfields from the local plan, and he retains the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury.

Commentary: “Mountfield: The good, the bad and the ugly”