Downswood Parish Council Trust That You

Land West of Church Road – Downswood Parish Council Closing Statement for Planning Enquiry Downswood Parish Council trust that you, sir, as an independent inspector, will appreciate and acknowledge the genuine honest facts relating to the many material considerations that are very relevant to the development of the Land West of Church Road, Otham, presented by ourselves and other concerned local residents. We trust that you will not be taken in by the many falsehoods that we, and others’ formal objections and more recent written representations, have identified in the developer’s duplicitous planning application documents and MBC Planning Officers’ Reports or those we have heard being presented to you at this public inquiry. I hope that you will be mindful that on 3 occasions, the elected members of Maidstone Borough Council have rejected this application – despite recommendations and pressure from officers and with the knowledge that costs could be awarded against them. This I think will give you a very clear idea of the feeling of local people who live and work in this area. In the view of Downswood Parish Council, it is appalling that the developer, like the Planning Officers of Maidstone Borough Council in their published Committee Reports, is still resorting, even now at this planning appeal, to making misleading or incorrect statements or omitting key facts relating to material considerations, to substantiate their case. The developer has used others’ errors or lack of clarity, such as the inconsistent Kent County Council Flood and Water Management’s (as the LLFA) responses, and Historic England’s responses, to support their own case. It cannot be right for this appeal to be judged, primarily, on the two reasons for refusal formulated by the various MBC Committees’ Members, who, whilst recognising the applications should not be approved, lacked any professional advice at that time to create a longer list of reasons, as a result of the unprofessional behaviour of their own salaried Officers. The evidence of those MBC Officers, now demonstrated by the MBC Planning Committee having to commission, at extra expense, a private planning consultant, whose limited recent involvement prevents him creating a strong rebuttal of the developer’s statements without the experience of the progression of this proposed development site over a period of years. Those same Planning Officers, on numerous occasions, did not honestly disclose but almost ignored, or did not fairly describe, the facts in the objectors’ original submissions relating to the material considerations, whose presence they specifically denied in their Committee Reports. However, those significant material considerations, that, as I said, have been clearly identified by numerous professionally qualified objectors in their formal objections and written submissions, irrefutably dictate that this development should not be allowed to proceed on this site. DPC trust that you, sir, will familiarise yourself with those facts in the plethora of detailed objections submitted to MBC that, we understand, have been forwarded to you for your consideration. The relevant facts stated in the various submitted formal objections and written objections, including those from DPC and now CPRE, clearly demonstrate that there are ample significant material considerations for this development not to proceed in accordance with the Adopted Local Plan, as indicated in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 These include simple examples such as: In terms of the proposed development traffic mitigating measures (where KCC Highways is a statutory objector), we would highlight just three of the many aspects that the proposed mitigating measures, that apart from adding to the existing and growing severe congestion, would cause more problems than they would solve. At the ill-considered and dangerous proposed signalisation of the junction of Deringwood Drive in the severe depression in Willington Street, how reducing the Deringwood Drive approach from two lanes to one, so delaying free flowing south bound turns out that is presently possible, in favour of north bound turns out that would be prevented exiting by the continuous traffic tailback across the junction in peak hours could be considered a beneficial mitigating measure. Such a design would simply increase congestion by prolonging and lengthening queues of primarily Downswood residents trying to leave Derringwood Drive. The fact that the so-called mitigating measure to facilitate traffic turning at the junction of Church Road and Deringwood Drive actually undoes an earlier highway improvement, by KCC Highways some years ago, to improve pedestrian safety at that location is surely irresponsible, as it makes it dangerous for Downswood’s resident pedestrians again. The developer would be required to alter this junction in order to facilitate buses turning from Deringwood Drive into Church Road – currently any larger vehicle does find it extremely difficult to make a left turn into Church Road. We consider that the substandard widening, albeit with proper full depth construction, constructed on just part of Church Road south of the proposed development access, (another supposedly mitigating measure) apart from being impractical on a lane that during its whole life has only been surface dressed, (so actually needs total reconstruction of its full width) would encourage even more rat running and speeding on the widened sections. So, vehicles approaching the most severely restricted length at speed would create a serious highway safety issue. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence that such widening would cause any vehicles leaving the proposed development to favour turning right in a southerly direction on Church Road and thus alleviate the increased traffic pressure in Downswood rather than causing even more severe congestion as a result of traffic turning left in a northerly direction, especially during peak hours. Downswood is one of the most densely populated Parishes in Kent, built around 30 years ago when 2 or 3 cars per family were far from the norm that they are now, – to have over 400 additional homes using our already congested estate roads. Parking is at a premium, many of the dwellings on Downswood have only sufficient off road parking for a single vehicle – The existing dwellings at the lower end of Church Road are typical of this – many residents having little alternative but to use kerb side parking - no consideration seems to have been made of this. During construction phase large vehicles travelling to the proposed construction site will cause chaos and grid lock Church Road. If this proposed development does proceed it would be essential that any sensible and agreed junction and traffic mitigation measures should be completed pre-commencement. We note that the developers Statement of Case declares at 4.5.7 that ”Historic England therefore raise no objection”. This not true, as indicated the most recently published communication with MBC’s Planning Officer, an email dated 30 March 2020, where they stated that they still formally object to the development itself. We therefore wish to highlight that, contrary to the many assertions made by the developer and MBC Planning Officers in the Committee Reports, that the impact on the Grade I Listed church is less than substantial, this also is not true. Historic England, as another statutory objector, has stated from the outset that this development, whether with or without a dedicated car park, would have a high level of harm on the setting and significance of the church, which cannot be reduced. As set out in their published letter, dated 11 February 2020, and confirmed in their last communication. In addition to that high level of harm, the developers recent disclosure that it would be necessary to pile the foundations of all the development, would probably cause serious damage to the adjacent ancient church that has little or no proper foundations. Again, we ask that you re-examine or familiarise yourself with the detail in Historic England’s letter, dated 11 February 2020, so that you are fully aware and appreciate the extent of their very real concerns. On the surface water drainage disposal front, apart from the fact that the developer has still not shown to the satisfaction of KCC Flood and Water Management (see their response dated 11 April 2019) let alone the Environment Agency’s Groundwater Protection Team that deep water soakaways are a feasible means of disposal, the developers SUDS proposal with swales, clearly contravenes the developer’s own site investigation survey report warnings that surface water ingress at ground level should be avoided at all costs. This is due to the geology of the site comprising the Hythe Beds that are well known for the creation of solution features caused by surface water percolating into the stratum from ground level. The statement in the developers Statement of Case that the swales would drain into deep bore soakaways indicates their ignorance of their own drainage advisor’s (Herrington) advice that that swales themselves would be designed to maximise surface water infiltration where possible! The increasing incidence in recent years of swallow holes / solution features in the Maidstone area, most recently, just a few months ago, the opening holes adjacent to a new housing development, west of the town centre, is clear evidence of the consequences of such ground conditions and the resulting potential structural instability

Load more