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.