These comments have dispelled a myth that has been circulating within parts of the village: that a ‘majority’ of the village favour new housing development either on the Brickfields or to the north of Conyngham Lane between the village and Mountfield. On the contrary, it is now clear that the expressed opinion is strongly against new building, and that villagers are keen for the remaining Green Gap between the village and south Canterbury to be preserved.
This is good news – and here we can dispel a second myth, namely that if the Neighbourhood Plan Committee does not allocate sites for housing then Canterbury City Council will do this – and this may be on sites that the village does not want. We can understand where this view comes from: this is indeed the case when a city council makes clear that it intends to build houses within a particular neighbourhood.
Fortunately, however, Canterbury City Council is not looking to Bridge for housing sites. The village should welcome this, and not look this gift horse in the mouth. As we reported earlier, Bridge has escaped allocation in the city council’s local plan, the council wish to maintain the Green Gap between the village and Canterbury, and the Green Gap has the support of the government-appointed housing inspector.
Where does this leave us? We call upon the Neighbourhood Plan Committee to strike from the plan all housing allocations in the village. Canterbury City Council does not expect this from us, the government-appointed housing inspector does not support this, and the village does not want it.