News

SAVAGE ATTACK ON HAWKINGE DEVELOPMENT BRIEF

Swingfield Parish Council have drawn up a savage response to the brief outlining the proposals for the Hawkinge Employment Land. (view the brief here)

During a prolonged debate at the council's  monthly meeting on Tuesday (31 October), councillors were shocked at the proposals and economic ramifications. It was agreed that Swingfield Parish Council  Chairman, Cllr Colin Tearle and the Parish Clerk be given delegated authority to draft the council's response.

Response to Hawkinge West Development Brief Consultation from Swingfield Parish Council 1 November 2006

Hawkinge West Employment Allocation—Supplementary Planning Document

Reading the two page précis of this document one could be lulled into thinking that one needs to examine the detail of this document no further. As ever, the devil is in the detail, and it is not until you read this in great detail that one is forced to address the question, does, Shepway District Council (SDC) really want or intend to proceed with using this land for the purposes for which it was allocated back in 1990. i.e. Industrial?

Has SDC still got considerable spare industrial site capacity available, so is seeking to find a justification to find a different use for the land? i.e. Residential.

The reason we ask this question is that hidden within the detail are now so many caveats, development criteria, impact assessments etc. as in our view to put so many costs onto the scheme as to make it prohibitive to develop.

We find this very strange as it was SDC who allocated this land to industrial in the first place back in 1990 along with zoning the rest of Hawkinge for a massive housing expansion and a by-pass. Well, the housing has taken place, the by-pass is near completion and one of the notable pieces missing in the infrastructure which should in our view have taken place simultaneously are the industrial facilities. Currently you have approximately 5000+ new people who will have moved into what is no more than a glorified housing estate with no jobs locally and yet you now set great store in this document of a so called ‘green transport policy’ yet putting so many financial obstacles in its way as to negate it, or have little understanding of the relationship of the proposed site to Spitfire Way and its intersection with the M20 and/or A260.

This document reiterates constantly (para. 3.6) that this site is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and yet was placed next to housing. This is not something new, it was and was going to be in 1990 when it was allocated, and no-one moving into the new housing estates or those who have resided there a lot longer could have been under any illusion as to what this land was going to be used for. Now it appears that SDC are attempting in this document to change the ‘rules’.


Landscape/Ecology 

In our view a lot of rubbish is written about this issue when one has a full knowledge and understanding of the site, and well as its previous use history. e.g.. Para.4 should have been considered a long-time ago if it a problem now if you think that site is an asset in an AONB. Furthermore as it is obvious that the author of this document thinks that the local farming community should live in housing that pre-dates the 20th.century, that for us set the tone of this document. Presumably he would us all working and living on the land as depicted by Constable.

Also presumably all the requirements of para.8 have been costed and thought given as to if they are really necessary.

Why are you now concerned that the proposed industrial site is on the edge of an escarpment and will possibly be seen ? It was 16 years ago as well.

Para. 5, especially 5.4 really is a lot of nonsense when one knows the sites previous history, and all it is doing is racking up development costs.


Traffic/Transport

Really what on earth is para.6.6 about when this site was put where it is proposed precisely because of the highway network.

As for a Green Travel Plan, well that starts by putting jobs next to residential areas so people can walk or cycle to work. Its not rocket science.

Has anyone costed the all the proposals and various consultations to industry of para.6.


Pollution

Having possibly created what amounts to a small town at Hawkinge you are how worried by a new source of pollution. LIGHT! Most people that have moved into this area have come from towns so are quite ‘immune’ to this pollution, especially as you want them to walk or cycle to work. (Think of the site safety implications). 

What’s para.12 all about? Shouldn’t someone have thought about all of that before any of the new houses where built?


Noise

To be perfectly frank I think you will find there is more noise generated by traffic locally, and that’s where you should direct a noise impact study.

To summarise we believe this document is seriously flawed.

Was such a document prepared for the industrial site below Caesar’s camp? 

This is an opportunity for Shepway to create an enterprise zone for the start up of many businesses which could have a dramatic impact on the smaller local service sectors as well as helping in the sustainability of local schools, shops and pubs. That would be a genuine green transport policy.

It is most strange at a time when the Parliamentary Candidate for one of SDC’s coalition partners is going on about creating an ‘acorn area’ in Hawkinge, whilst his colleagues at Shepway, if they adopt this document are considering increasing the start-up costs for any new venture on this site.