Some good work has gone into the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan in recent years. The idea of a Neighbourhood Plan for Bridge is based on sound reasoning: it gives the village a strong voice in its own future and prevents us from being entirely at the mercy of Canterbury City Council.
The decision of Canterbury City Council to proceed with the Mountfield development to the south of Canterbury will bring the city to the edge of Bridge village. It is a “game changer” for the village – and if the development goes ahead it will be essential that the Green Gap between Mountfield and Bridge is preserved. Not surprisingly, this has been reflected in discussions within the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Committee.
For reasons that are not clear, five members of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Committee have resigned since mid-March. They include the long standing chair of the committee, Professor Joe Connor. Members of that committee have given up their free time to work for the good of the village, and they deserve the thanks of all villagers for doing so.
It is important that the excellent work of the committee in recent years is not lost. But clearly the committee is in no position to continue with its deliberations at the present time. There are four reasons why now is a good moment for the committee to pause in its deliberations.
First, under UK planning law a neighbourhood plan must conform to the district local plan. So the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan must conform to the Canterbury District Local Plan (CDLP), which is due to be finalised later this year. At present the draft CDLP presents two features that we should welcome: the district is not looking to Bridge to build new houses; and the Green Gap between Canterbury and Bridge is likely to be confirmed. Once the CDLP has been adopted, the village will have a better idea of what we can, and cannot, include in the Neighbourhood Plan.
Second, movements are afoot to raise money for a judicial review to challenge the Mountfield Development. If the judicial review goes ahead it will focus on air quality. Hopefully it will succeed, and the Mountfield development can be halted. Either way, it makes sense to await the outcome of this review before finalising the Neighbourhood Plan.
Third, the resignation of five experienced members from the Neighbourhood Plan Committee deprives that body of some vital expertise and experience at a crucial time in its deliberations. Some of those who have stood down have given lengthy service, and their resignations represent a loss of institutional memory that will not easily be replaced. A pause will give the village time to recruit people of the calibre the committee needs.
Finally, it is no secret that feelings are running high in the village at the present time on housing issues. A reading of some recent postings on the Bridge Village Facebook page reveals an unusually high number of postings expressing dissatisfaction with recent developments on housing. A pause in the Neighbourhood Plan process will give an opportunity for the situation to calm down.
For all these reasons, it makes sense that no further work be carried out on the Neighbourhood Plan process until the Canterbury Local District Plan has been adopted.
The following motion (proposed: David Humphreys; seconded: Kevin Jenner) will be discussed at the Annual Parish Meeting in the Bridge Village Hall, Thursday, 27 April at 7:00 pm: “That no further work should proceed on the Bridge neighbourhood Plan until the Canterbury District Local Plan has been adopted”. Please come and make your views known.