Archived Page
November 2017 Update
120 Homes Application in Lynsted Parish
WITHDRAWN
POLLUTION - STILL GROWING
Dear Residents and Neighbours,
Another authoritative piece on the challenges facing communities currently suffering pollution concentrations at harmful levels.
Source: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
This link gives you access to the latest advice being provided to local authorities from NICE. It also brings together in one place a few key pieces of current evidence.
There are further links at that page, but for convenience (time is precious!) I have reproduced their introduction and links below for you to explore:-
- “NICE has published final guidance helping local councils to improve air quality across England.
- The guideline, developed by NICE and Public Health England (PHE), says bylaws could be introduced as a way to enforce ‘no vehicle idling’ in areas where vulnerable people collect (for example schools, hospitals and care homes).
- Air pollution is harmful to everyone, but there are some people who are more at risk than others. Children (14 and under) and older people (65 and older) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution. As are people with respiratory conditions, like asthma, or heart problems.
"Air pollution is a major risk to our health, and measures suggested so far have not managed to tackle the problem sufficiently.
"This guidance is based upon the best evidence available. It outlines a range of practical steps that Local Authorities can take, such as the implementation of no-idling zones, to reduce emissions and protect the public."
Professor Paul Lincoln, chair of the NICE guideline committee. - PHE estimates long-term exposure to particulate air pollution has ‘an effect equivalent to’ around 25,000 deaths a year in England. This makes air pollution the largest environmental risk linked to deaths every year.
- Road traffic is estimated to contribute more than 64% of air pollution recorded in towns and cities. This comes from exhausts and other sources such as the wear of tyres.
No-idling zones could be used as a way to decrease the level of pollutants those people most at risk are exposed to."
This a mix of technical as well as very accessible advice, intended to help local authorities and communities protect their health. In particular, the latest thoughts on finer particles.
1. Borough Plan "Bearing Fruits" - Latest
2. Lynsted: 120 Homes Proposal - Latest
Developer's "Technical Response" (20th June 2017) to KCC Rejection letter of 20th March 2017 - KCC rejection based on non-suitability of Lynsted Lane, the proposal falling outside SBC Borough Plan allocation. (Updated 26th June)
3. Teynham: 300++ Homes and Industry - Latest
Agreed Expiry Date Thursday 9 March 2017 (updated 11th February)
POLLUTION IN THE NEWS - idle away a couple of minutes!
- "So I Can Breathe" - BBC Blog Season - links with a range of associated topics. Good browsing!
BOROUGH PLAN: ADOPTED
- Earlier Inspector's Report (20th June 2017) can be read using this link.
- The Inspector's Questions for Public Consultation (PDF)
- Kent County Council Transport (KCCT) - letter to SBC: KCCT argues that SBC should reject ANY developments along the "A2 corridor" for the first five years of the Borough Plan while SBC develops a robust strategy to avoid even worse congestion than we already have.
--- Letter from Swale Borough Council ---
--- Letter from the Planning Inspector about Next Steps ---
(Setting out her timetable and objectives)
SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL "BOROUGH PLAN" UPDATING NOTES
*** Your submissions on the Borough Plan ***
must be received by Swale Borough Council by 19th January 1917
LYNSTED LATEST
31st October: Developers withdraw their application after running out of arguments and evidence. On 1st November, SBC confirmed they are taking no further action.....
20th June: Developers have submitted "technical responses" on:
- KCC's rejection letter of 20th March 2017 which focuses on unsuitability of Lynsted Lane and its place outside the Borough Plan;
- Another air quality assessment - which also falls foul of the adverse impact on residents along the A2 but may also make worse the pollution experienced by those living at the north end of Lynsted Lane when longer delays cause vehicles to sit outside their homes pumping out pollutants.
- A resident's reaction to these documents can be inspected from the Planning Portal or click on this link.
See see all the documents here - the Planning Portal page for Lynsted Lane development papers.
Developer's have submitted revised papers on 3rd February about the application for 120 new homes south of the A2:
- One document revision argues that pollution is not a "significant" problem; and
- One report revision argues that the loss of 6 hectares of land was is "not significant" because other top quality land is being used. So, SBC should 'look that other way'!
This link takes you to the main page for the development, where you can see the two new documents.
The developer continues to pretend - harm to the health of residents has to be assessed on a 'cumulative' basis. The developers accept that there will be an impact but try to argue that the increased pollution shouldn't worry us! They also ignore the smaller particles and combustion gases that are called "PM2.5" - these smaller particles turn out to be harmful because they can reach and stick to the deepest parts of our lungs, in our blood and in our organs.
The developers also try to argue that the land IS the highest quality but such a "small" area of land is too insignificant to be taken seriously..... They argue that Swale Borough Council is lookin at other comparable soil to build on, so they should let the land south of the A2 go the same way. In short, the land behind our homes south of the A2 is so small that it doesn't matter if we lose that agricultural land (even if it is the best land for agriculture!).
120 Homes Determination Deadline: MOVED AGAIN
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 10:27 AM
To: Mike Whiting (Cllr); Lloyd Bowen (Cllr)
Cc: Andrew Byrne
Subject: RE: 120 Homes South of the A2/London Road, Lynsted Parish
Hi Mike and Llloyd
Following an update from the case officer, Andrew Byrne, the latest position on the planning application is as follows:
- SBC planners have met with the applicant and explained that we are not likely to look on the application favourably given the advanced stage of the LP and the production of the 5 year housing supply paper.
- There are a number of other matters relating to noise, air quality and ecology that have raised some concern and which the developer wanted to address – to narrow the differences between parties.
- An extension of time has been agreed to the middle of Jan to deal with these, although we have not received the additional material from the applicant yet.
- We are also awaiting comments from Kent Highways on the scheme – mindful that a significant number of objectors which have been raised regarding traffic issues.
- A further extension of time is likely to be agreed given that we believe the application is not likely to be determined for at least another 28 days.
If officers were minded to refuse the application, which is likely, then we would be in a position to determine the application through delegated powers. I have asked Andrew to keep you informed of progress
Kind regards
James Freeman I Head of Planning I Planning Services
TEYNHAM LATEST
Up to 300 Homes + Employment Area (26,840sqm)
If permitted, this will add significant pollution
(an existing source of harm confirmed by AQMA5).
Equivalent to around 600 or more vehicles
arriving/leaving for work, shopping, deliveries, school runs and socialising
PLUS the employment generated traffic (workers and deliveries/despatch).
ALL of this will add directly to the A2 at a roundabout at Claxfield Lane.
This additional traffic will have priority over traffic
coming from Greenstreet/London Road to the East.
This must worsen traffic backing up eastwards into the A2
between Teynham and Lynsted Parishes.
If you have a view - visit this link TEYNHAM: 16/507689/OUT
DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS - 9th DECEMBER EXTENDED
{Teynham Parish Council has complained about this short deadline
because the application has more than 100 documents!}
MAKING SENSE OF Department of Transport's TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR TEYNHAM and THE A2
Raw Traffic Data: The data counting points (A,B,C, etc....) are found in a massive Department of Transport annual traffic-counting exercise. I have reproduced the measures in an Excel file. You will see that the numbers for "C" and "D" are broadly the same - after all, where else would the traffic go? The figures for 2015 are out of kilter with the trends in data elsewhree locally and nationally, so something else is at work there.
RULE No.1: PRIORITISE
DON'T BE 'INTIMIDATED' BY THE VOLUME AND LENGTH OF DOCUMENTS
Not All Documents are Equal
Remember the key issues for us are POLICY ISSUES
If this Planning Application gets through SBC Planning Committee
or it is altered in any material way
.....
RULE No.2: DO NOT WRITE JUST ONCE!
Every change submitted by Developers
means the 'start gun' is fired again by the SBC Planning Department.
After all, if there have been changes, SBC may assume you have changed your mind if you don't react to each change.
UNFOLDING STEPS OF THE "120 HOMES" (Lynsted Parish)
OPENING SHOTS: ON THE FACE OF IT.... SCOTT PROPERTY GROUP THROUGH THEIR AGENTS ICENI PROJECTS ARE TRYING TO "DE-LINK" ACCESS TO LYNSTED LANE FROM PLANNING POLICY The issues are intertwined, so this application should be fought. |
The key issues for Swale Borough Councillors are POLICY ISSUES
Borough Councillors need to hear all views for and against this proposal.
Even if someone else has said what you wanted to.
Add your name and comments.
- The Borough Plan: The development proposal to the south of the A2 in Lynsted Parish falls outside the emerging Borough Plan
Policies - those policies were largely applauded by the Planning Inspector, who now has an upgraded number of planned developments. The current and emerging Borough Plan says:
- 4.3.64 Other than the northern edges of Sittingbourne, the town is surrounded by the highest quality agricultural land, part of the belt of such land located north and south of the A2 running from the edge of the Borough in the west through to Teynham (and beyond) in the east. Where such land is not required for development as allocated by this Local Plan, its loss will be strongly resisted
- "Prematurity" - The advanced state of "Bearing Fruits" Borough Plan cannot be ignored by Swale Borough Council (SBC) - this is Government Policy. A useful summary of the arguments can be read in this letter to SBC.
- New housing for Teynham is important - The Borough Plan recognises this:-
| Dwellings | Industrial/ office floor space (sq m) |
|
| Land at Frognal Lane | 260 | 26,840 |
| Land East of Station Road | 107 | 0 |
| Land adjacent to Mayfield, London Road | 13 | 0 |
| Barrow Green Farm | 30 | 0 |
| Total Teynham | 410 | 26,840 sq. metres |
- Congestion: Unsuitability of Lynsted Lane for increased traffic congestion.
- Pollution Effects are Cumulative and the Developers have based their assessments on an AQMA that sits 3.5km away from AQMA5! It follows that their statistics and Conclusions are worthless.:
- The Air Quality Assessment provided in the Document Pack is entirely worthless! They were told in a public meeting on 29th February that Teynham/Greenstreet has an AQMA(No5) but they have studiously ignored it.
Instead, they say:
Local Air Quality Management
As required by the Environment Act (1995), SBC has undertaken Review and Assessment of air quality within their area of jurisdiction. This process has indicated that annual mean concentrations of NO2 are above the AQO within the council's administrative extents . As such, four AQMAs have been declared. The closest of these to the site is described as follows:
"The area of East Street, Sittingbourne."
The AQMA is located approximately 3.5km west of the development. It is considered unlikely that the proposals would cause air quality impacts over a distance of this magnitude. As such, the AQMA has not been considered further in the context of the assessment.
SBC has concluded that concentrations of all other pollutants considered within the AQS are currently below the relevant AQOs. As such, no further AQMAs have been designated. - Their submission ignores our AQMA5, even though they were told about it at the public meeting on 29th February! Our health is already going to be damaged by ALL the developments identified in the Draft Borough Plan - an opportunistic development only adds to our problems. These Essex Developers and their "experts" are appalingly amateurish. Ignoring these cumulative effects is negligent.
- The Air Quality Assessment provided in the Document Pack is entirely worthless! They were told in a public meeting on 29th February that Teynham/Greenstreet has an AQMA(No5) but they have studiously ignored it.
"Personal impact" statements can be added to the key policy objections to show how passionate individuals are - even if they are not persuasive in Planning Policy terms.
Photographic evidence of congestion issues taken at different times, different days, in and out of school terms will all help reinforce our case - I am happy to host on this website any/all those photographs if you supply times and dates for each photograph or batch of photographs.
More flesh on the bones ....
- Prematurity. Opportunism by developers is no substitute for proper consultative processes and a Borough Plan that is in an advanced state of preparation. The current proposal falls squarely under national policy on "prematurity" which defends refusal of developments where the Planning Authority has policies in advanced state of preparedness. Parish Councils and SBC need to be reminded! "Prematurity" summarised in a letter (it will be updated if needs be and sent again to SBC in response to this outline application about access to Lynsted Lane!).
- Access: 'Single-track' in Lynsted Lane. Effectively a 'single-track' as it approaches the A2 due to long-established residential parking. Wholly unsuitable for any increases in traffic. The bottleneck at the north end of Lynsted Lane can lead to further blockages onto the A2; traffic backing up in both directions increase pollution southwards along the built-up part of Lynsted Lane; Local traffic already diverts along Cambridge Lane/Cellar Hill (which is even more narrow all along its length) and Claxfield Lane (which is full of blind bends and is very narrow).
- What's in a name?: LYNSTED or TEYNHAM? The Developers refer to "Teynham" throughout the current documentation.
- Deceiving Maidstone: Because the current "outline planning" application focuses on permission to build access between the field and Lynsted Lane, it is primarily directed to Maidstone for a decision outside the question of planning permission;
- If allowed, the developers will try to hang their application off this "approval";
- AQMA5: Far from being just a Maidstone District Council (Highways) issue, the Air Quality Management Area No.5 is the responsibility of Swale Borough Council - so any decision that threatens to increase traffic onto the A2 MUST be considered by Swale Borough Council.
- Increased complexity makes for more danger: travelling along this part of the A2 is becoming more difficult and complicated for drivers, pedestrians, wheelchairs, baby buggies and cyclists as more traffic joins it from::
- The Fowler Welch site - heavy vehicles doubled;
- Brickearth extraction from Teynham/Barrow Green - heavy vehicles from the north onto the A2 for as many years as it takes to extract the clay;
- Current Plans for Frognal Lane development - residential/commuter and heavy vehicles - 260 Homes [the outline application made in November 2016 has sneakily increased the bid to 'at least' 300 homes];
- Current Plans for Station Road development - residential, commuter and delivery vehicles - 107 Homes;
- Current Plans for Barrow Green Farm - 30 homes;
- Current Plans for Bapchild, Stones Farm - residential, commuter and delivery vehicles - 550 homes; and
- Current Plans for Sittingbourne that flow onto the A2, East of the built-up centre of the town - residential, commuter and delivery vehicles;
- Increasing kerb-side parking on residential and business stretches of the A2 narrows parts to one-lane throughout the day.
- Pavements used by cyclists who fear riding along the A2.
- The "Canyon Effect" worsens pollution: When traffic stops and starts it creates and traps more concentrated pollution at ground level for residents, visitors, shoppers and workers - this is called the canyon effect" and effects the whole length of our community to varying degrees and north/south along nearby sections of Station Road and Lynsted Lane. The developers who are proposing the 120 homes south of the A2 confirm that just 120 houses will have an additional "slight to moderate" impact on existing harmful levels of pollution that affect us all.
BUT, this is not only about 120 homes - because ALL the above developments along the A2 will add traffic and worsen our health problems at a time when policy requirements are to find ways of REDUCING pollution.
It is important to emphasise that ALL additional vehicles between Ospringe and the east of Sittingbourne will have to turn east or west - there is no option to redirect traffic. Department for Transport figures confirm that traffic is the same in East Sittingbourne, Teynham and Ospringe. If we have problems today, this will get much worse if ANY new planning approvals go through, without demonstrating successful strategies for reduction! Riding 'bicycles' isn't a credible strategy when the greatest harm is done by lorries of all sizes and cars that are 'commuting' to, from and through our Parishes. - Lynsted Parish Design Statement (2002) - "Sensitive Edge": This document was created through widespread consultation with residents and businesses to form a balanced view of what is most valued in the Parish. Through consultation with Swale Borough Council, the document was added as "persuasive" planning documents. The Design Statement established two features of importance to this application - first, Lynsted Parish historical pattern of development is characterised by being "one proprty deep along lanes and the A2; secondly, the edge of the Parish that meets the back gradens of homes along the A2 was determined as a "sensitive edge" - deserving of particular protection.
- Location of existing and planned Infrastructure: the new community (if permitted) will have to cross the main road to reach shops, library, station, dentist, GPs, etc. The Frognal Lane development includes "promised" investment to the north of the A2 (such 'promises' often get shelved after planning approval and building starts);
- Reduced train services: there are fewer fast trains from Teynham;
- Employment: there are no sizeable employers nearby; so all developments will lead to more commuters/traffic, which will also take their spending power away from the community around the A2;
- Primary Education: Teynham primary school is now full; Lynsted/Norton village primary school is heavily over-subscribed.
- Medical care is very stretched and divided. Curiously, the two GP practices (both in Teynham) sit in different Local Area Health Authorities (the split runs along Station Road) - who knew!?
CONSULTATION:
- "Bearing Fruit Borough Plan" (to 2031): The 6-week Public Consultation period ended on Monday, 8 August. You can read all the submissions using this link.
- Respond to Submission for Outline Planning permission for access associated with threatened build of 120 homes.
- The Proposal - Planning Portal (validated by SBC 28th August 2016)
- Your comments must be received by officials by 23rd September 2016.
- Do this through online through the Planning Portal or by writing letters to Mid Kent Planning Support, Maidstone House, King Street, Maidstone, ME15 6JQ
THE INSPECTOR RETURNS IN 2017
The Inspector has received a great many comments on the Borough Plan (Bearing Fruits) and will resume her hearings from 31st January 2017. Formal Notification was given on 4th November 2016.
- Swale Borough Council's covering letter can be read using this link.
- The Inspector's Note (ID-10) sets out the Terms of Reference
and can be read using this link.
WHAT IS "IN IT" FOR SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL?
- Each new home-owning person or family brings another contribution to Council Tax and some additional spending in the community (less if they commute out of the local community).
- Then there is something called the "New Homes Bonus" - this is paid by central government to Swale Borough Council. Every new home brings with it a 'bonus' equal to the Council Tax paid for six years. In theory, this money goes towards all those promised 'extras' such as schools, GP surgeries, and so on. I found this article that helps make sense of whether this 'bonus' works for us or against us.
EARLIER DOCUMENTS & DEVELOPMENTS - RETAINED FOR YOUR INFORMATION
MATTERS HAVE MOVED ON WITH SCOTT PROPERTIES
OPTING TO TRY AND 'DE-LINK' ACCESS FROM PLANNING POLICY
IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS - DON'T RELAX!
- A letter (sent 9th May) to Councillors, MP and Parish Councils along the A2 concerning the doubtful decision to allow large housing development in Newington. The advice from officials suggesting that AQMA is not relevant! Read the letter here.
I have since been told that letter has been put into the "objections" that will be considered by SBC when they call in the decision to allow the Pond Farm development to proceed. We await the Planning Inspector's views as there may be implications for us and our pollution problems.. - Notification of a key Councillor's meeting inside Swale with the latest Officers' recommendations on where housing should be permitted.
“Extraordinary, Local Development Framework Panel - Thursday, 19th May, 2016. 7.00pm”- The briefing pack (670 pages, 41Mb file - large because it contains a large number of maps and illustrations) can be viewed from SBC's own website.
- SBC also provides a Summary for Councillors (106 pages). You can download and view the (much smaller) PDF here.
- Parish Councils have been invited to a briefing meeting on Thursday 16th June.
Keep an eye on this page!
On the face of it, these meetings are encouraging but .... always a 'but' ....
- this meeting may change things,
- then there is the public consultation later this year {COMPLETED 8th AUGUST},
- then the proposals need to clear through the Inspector,
- then Councillors have to get the result bedded down and published.
So, let's not hold our breath - keep vigilant.
29th February Parish Council Presentation. Our report on what more than 20 residents heard at the Lynsted Parish Council meeting that invited Essex developers (Scott Property Group) wanting to build on fields next to houses on the south side of the A2. We also heard about the dangerous levels of pollution that we are already experiencing. Community Report.
11th April Public Exhibitions in Teynham Community Hall (1pm to 4pm) and Belle Friday Centre (5.30pm to 8pm).
- The plot of land: The whole stretch of land between Lynsted Lane and Claxfield Lane has been offered by the landowners for up to 390 homes. The portion of initial interest to Scott Property Group is shown in their leaflet - view aerial picture here.
- First sketch map: Shown at the Parish Council Meeting but not included in their leaflet-drop. They may amend it (with 'sweeteners') in light of the hostility from local community residents - view the plan (version 1) - picture or PDF.
- Swale Borough Council's new policy restriction: breach of harmful pollution along the A2/Teynham-Lynsted due to existing congestion - see the Order.
Our Community - why "Greenstreet"?
Until just after World War 1, the whole residential and commercial community on both sides of London Road was officially recognised as "Greenstreet" because this was the main population between Faversham and Sittingbourne. It was the Post Office (Faversham) who wanted to identify the Parishes separately. Since then, there has been a lack of clear identity for our Community in the business of our two Parish Councils. It is worrying that Swale Borough Council has identified the new proposals with "Teynham" although it falls entirely in Lynsted Parish.
DOCUMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE
Perry Court (Faversham) - Approved - 1st April 2016
Perry Court (Faversham) greenfield site is agreed for development because SBC fear legal challenges that they cannot afford to defend even if policy guidance steers local authorities away from using highest grade agricultural land (greenfield) and ignores fears about pollution - ignoring the "cumulative impact" on existing polluted areas like Teynham/Lynsted. As Councillor Simmons put it after this frustrating planning meeting: "
-
Kent online report
- Councillor Simmons's speech - 31st March Planning Committee Public Meeting
1st April resident's letter arguing that this proposal is getting a bit ahead of itself - so called "prematurity".
Points raised
- This plot of land has been regularly rejected in the Five Year Plans in recent years.
Reasons given by SBC:
(a) linear pattern of development across the rural parish of Lynsted makes the proposal inappropriate; direct access to open aspects of Lynsted Parish valued by residents;
(b) amenity value to local residents (both sides of A2);
(c) national planning policy argues against the use of land of highest quality of agricultural land because of the importance of food production;
(d) national planning policy argues against use of green-field sites and SBC Policy argues that greenfield sites should not be used outside the economic regeneration plans between Sittingbourne and Sheppey; - Opportunism: SBC is currently reviewing its 5-Year Plan in response to the Planning Inspector's decision that SBC needs to increase home numbers further. Developers are already trying to take advantage of this review period to raid profitable greenfield and high quality agricultural sites - See Perry Court (Faversham), Swanstree Avenue (Sittingbourne), Bapchild and others;
- New policy constraint: the pollution hazards are already at harmful levels and legally obliges SBC to take measures to reduce pollution. This fact argues against all development proposals between Ospringe and Sittingbourne should be put 'on hold'. National reviews show that national measures to encourage cleaner engines is not having the impact they anticipated. Pollution levels have stabilised rather than dropping; more traffic=more pollution.
Full document can be read here (PDF)
PARISH COUNCIL MEETING on 29th February 2016
London Road and Lynsted Lane under threat from Dangerous Pollution levels and 120 new homes
Over 20 Lynsted Parishioners attended Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council’s meeting on Monday 29th February to hear about two related and important issues that affect all of us along the A2 and Lynsted Lane.
An extremely unprofessional presentation was given by Essex developers, Scott Properties, who want to build 120 houses on the field lying immediately behind the existing homes along the south of London Road (ME9 9QH), in Lynsted Parish. Vehicular access for approximately 300 cars (that is an estimated 600+ extra vehicle movements each day: commuting, shopping, school-runs, deliveries, bin collections, etc) will flow into Lynsted Lane.
Unfortunately for them the first line of their presentation was known not to be true! Their claim that Swale Borough Council (SBC) had offered “positive support” for this proposal misrepresents the case. Their presentation was not helped by using the wrong postcode in their submission to SBC, putting the site clearly on the Teynham/Frognal Lane side of London Road. This schoolboy error led them to give a presentation to Teynham Parish Council on the plans!
The risk to residents is that SBC does lump Parish Council areas together to weaken arguments against development encroaching further south of the A2. So, their paperwork lumps this part of Lynsted Parish into "Teynham".
They went on to misrepresent SBC’s position by claiming SBC did not have the required “5 year plan”. This is misleading. SBC are currently reviewing their draft 5-year plan as required by Government Planning Inspectors. The facts are:
- SBC has been told to add 3,000 homes to their existing plans for more than 12,000 homes by 2031 (that includes 200+ each year of the five years of SBC’s plan).
- To do this, SBC are looking again at all previously rejected parcels of land that landowners have offered for potential development. Ours was one of those rejects.
- That long list of previously rejected land across Swale could, in theory, yield an additional 17,500 homes! So, it is not obvious that valuable top-quality agricultural land in a rural location is a “favoured” site for SBC!
- SBC has its own policies: (a) support for an economic development plan, and (b) non-use of green-field sites outside their economic priority areas connected with Sittingbourne and Sheppey. It makes sense to bring large housing developments to places where people work and where there are services already in place or that can be expanded most economically.
- SBC has decided not to seek development around Faversham or in the rural villages and the countryside of Swale.
- SBC adopted the Lynsted Parish Design Statement in 2002 as a planning document, based on several democratic processes involving the whole Parish. That document included the importance of preserving the “sensitive edge” to the immediate south of existing households on the A2. (The Design Statement is available to download here, or through the Planning Pages of Swale Borough Council)
The developers didn't know that the land (even after brick-earth extraction) has been classified by central government (DEFRA 2005) as “excellent” agricultural land. The most productive and most flexible agricultural land.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF - 2012) states “Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.” This land has for many years been rejected by SBC for good reasons.
It was clear the developers had not done their homework:
- They seemed not to be aware of the narrowness and lack of pavements on Lynsted Lane towards the A2, nor did they know there is no way of widening it.
- They didn't know that the north end of Lynsted Lane is already congested, dangerous, and effectively a single carriageway with limited line of sight.
- They didn’t know that pedestrian access along London Road was dangerous for people with young children with pushchairs etc because pavements are often blocked or narrowed by parked cars.
- They didn’t know that primary school places are oversubscribed locally and the existing level of traffic level and parking outside of the school is dangerous.
- They didn’t know we had no significant employment locally.
- They didn’t know that London Road and the bottom of Lynsted Lane are now in an Air Quality Management area after measurements showed dangerous and illegal levels of pollution (Nitrogen dioxide in particular).
- They didn’t know that Teynham Railway Station was not served by the fast link into London.
- They didn’t know about the recent fatalities on London Road.
When asked directly “what would be the benefits to the local community?” the developers fell silent and then a voice from the floor was heard to say - “that would be none then!” They did offer up a footpath going south from London Road to the development. We had to explain the path already existed and they were planning to build over most of it!
If this plan goes ahead, it would set a precedent and may look attractive to the landowners of the parcel of land along the back of the rest of the houses off the A2 leading onto Claxfield Lane (which is currently said to be suitable for 157 more homes) and possibly turning Claxfield Lane into a major junction.
The current “draft” site plan is on the Swale planning portal or as a PDF file on this site or as an image here.
The developers have promised a community consultation open day prior to any plans being formally submitted. If you want to be kept in touch please email sos@lynsted.com.
The Second Topic – Pollution on London Road
Cllr David Simmonds (SBC Cabinet Member for the Environment and Rural Affairs) reported that SBC had made an Order (February 2016) to establish an Air Quality Management Area (No.5) along London Road where it passes through Lynsted/Teynham Parishes. The “crunch” for everyone living, working, shopping and travelling along London Road is that pollution concentrations have already hit dangerous levels of nitrogen-dioxide poisoning.
 |
 |
Today's pollution is completely different to the 'smogs' or 'peasoupers' of the 1950s and earlier. The harmful gases today are invisible and odourless, the particles are several times smaller that the width of one of your hairs. Most of this type of pollution along the A2 comes from diesel engines of lorries and vans. Many vehicles come from Europe and do not meet the most modern emission standards. So, pollution levels are rising with trade flows and will not reduce any time soon, especially with the recently approved doubling of capacity of the Fowler Welch coldstore.
Transport is responsible for 80% of all NOx pollution on UK road links outside London. This is due to both the significant growth in vehicle numbers over the last ten years and the emissions standards not delivering the expected reductions under real world driving conditions (rather than laboratory conditions). [Source: DEFRA]
Mortality Figures: An estimate of an effect on mortality equivalent to 23,500 deaths annually in the UK has been made on the basis of NO2 concentrations. Many of the sources of NOx are also sources of particulate matter (PM). The impact of exposure to small particulate matter pollution (PM2.5) is estimated to have an effect on mortality equivalent to nearly 29,000 deaths in the UK. There may be overlap between these two estimates of mortality, but the combined impact of these two pollutants is a significant challenge to public health. Recommended limits for exposure have been set taking account of guidelines by the World Health Organisation.
The smallest particles pass through membranes and into our blood, lung and brain tissues.
We are not alone. Previous Orders have already been made along the A2 at Ospringe, two sites in Sittingbourne, and Newington. Swale has now to explore strategies (if they can) to reduce harmful pollution all along the residential areas facing onto the A2 where traffic accelerates, decelerates and stops.
Pollution is concentrated:-
- where smooth flow of traffic is interrupted (e.g. at junctions, bus-stops, parking narrowing the road, pedestrians trying to cross the A2, Age Concern minibus drop-off, general weight of heavy traffic and so on);
- where the prevailing wind crosses two lines of buildings as happens in the built-up parts along our community that straddles the A2. This is called the “canyon effect”, where stagnant and polluting fumes and particulates are trapped between and trapped next to the buildings sitting on both sides of the busy road. The fresh air simply passes over the top of the buildings an leaves pedestrians in the soup of poisonous levels of pollutants.
When buying or renting their properties on the A2, residents said they accepted the traffic (including noise and light pollution) in front of their properties – but that was offset by the sanctuary given by their gardens and the ‘lung’ of fresh air coming from the south-west (the prevailing wind direction). Significant building on those fields would further pollute residents with no respite.
Cllr Simmons agreed to look at adding pollution measurement points all along the built-up area of London Road. Measurements are now being taken outside the Belle Friday Centre, near Frognal Lane.
All efforts have so far failed to improve air quality along the A2 (see Ospringe evidence). In fact, all types of traffic have increased in recent years as more lorries and cars join the A2 – so, pollution levels are rising (recently measured and confirmed at Ospringe, which shares our traffic and the same problems).
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) says: “In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.”
The pollution will affect residents, shoppers, visitors, cyclists, pedestrians and car users. We already face worsening conditions when the Fowler Welch development opens its extension and doubles its flow of lorries (the worst and most dangerous polluters). If SBC allows any more housing developments between Faversham and Sittingbourne we will be polluted even further! Without the long promised southern relief road, new traffic can only go east or west along the A2 – there is no escape.
Where does this leave us?
- SBC and developers need regularly to be reminded that there are better sites to be found from the list of previously rejected parcels of land that could theoretically support 17,500 – when only 3,000 more are needed across the whole of Swale up to 2031!
- It is far too premature for Swale to look at new development sites in already polluted and endangered communities along London Road. SBC has many more suitable sites that meet their own plans for economic regeneration. For example, if Swanstree (Sittingbourne) went forward, that would meet nearly HALF the increased target for the whole of the next five-years! If the Stones Farm planning proposal (Bapchild) went through, these two proposals would satisfy the need for the whole of the next five years – but both those sites face their own problems and both those sets of problems are shared by everyone along the A2 between Sittingbourne, Lynsted/Teynham & Ospringe. So, while these two alternatives are not ideal, they do illustrate that opportunism of land-owners and developers are no substitute for a planned approach. Swale Borough Council are in the process of updating their five-year Plan.
- There are also many more modest sites in the list, of a scale suited to local builders in and around Sittingbourne and Sheppey (and Faversham).
This is not the only part of Lynsted Parish that is under threat!
If you want to know more, or would like some info into how to make your views known to Swale Borough Council, go to www.lynsted.com for further details. If you would like to be kept up to date with issues affecting our Parish, email sos@lynsted.com.