Response to New Local Plan

Here is the response letter sent to Planning at Swale Borough Council regarding the New Local Plan:

27th April 2021

Swale Planning Department
Swale Borough Council
East Street
Sittingbourne
Kent

New Draft Swale Local Plan.

Teynham Parish Council have serious concerns about the proposed development of 1100 houses within our Parish as published in the draft local plan of February 2021. Teynham Village’ does not exist in the arrangement as described in the document. The village and parish of Teynham is north of the centre line of the A2 London Road, often called Greenstreet. South of this line is the village and parish of Lynsted. elsewhere incorrectly it is stated that Teynham is served by two Parish Councils. Teynham Parish Council serves Teynham, north of the centre line of the A2 London Road and Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council serves Lynsted south of this border. Both operate independently of each other with Cellar Hill being in Lynsted and Barrow Green in Teynham. Greenstreet is divided between the two along its centre line. These mistakes withstanding this development should it proceed will nearly double the size of the existing “Village” and create numerous problems not only for the existing residents but also for those that would move into the area. We accept that there is a need for more housing especially affordable housing. Building on the proposed area will cover grade A agricultural land in concrete and destroy the local environment. However, our main concerns and that of the residents are to do with the lack of forward planning with other agencies and the assumptions that the infrastructure required for all these proposed houses will be forthcoming.

In the Swale Borough Councils own document “Statement of Community Involvement adopted 2018”

4 Who will we involve in consultations?

4.1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 set out those bodies that the Council must consult with when preparing development plan documents and planning applications.

4.2 The main groups to be targeted are Central, Regional and Local Government organisations, statutory bodies, community, voluntary, resident and interest groups, members of the public, Parish/Town Councils, local businesses, and developers/agents.

The Statutory Parish Councils, who both have the depth of knowledge of the areas have been excluded from any involvement. These should be included in the document. Swale Borough Councils has not followed their own Statement of Community adding to our concerns. Is this deliberate? If not, what roles does Swale Borough Council see for the Parish Councils?

The village has recently expanded by 139 properties off Station Road, which is causing traffic congestion particularly at peak times at the junction with the A2 which is an AQMA area. In the local plan there is talk of a possible By-pass to the South of the village, this would only move the problem further down the A2 towards Faversham and Bapchild.

There is already outlining planning permission to build 350 houses off Frognal Lane which would also require access to the A2 at the other end of the village, adding even more houses in this plan can only compound the problem. It is suggested enhancing pedestrian and vehicular links across the area from this development via Donald Moor Avenue/Honeyball Walk, which are both cul-de-sacs. Pedestrian links already exist onto PROW ZR247 with vehicular links being precluded during the consultation and plan approval process. To open these roads to through traffic if it were possible, would give rise to ‘rat runs’ during the regular events of the A2, London Road, being congested. According to the information that we currently have on the Frognal Lane development, Donald Moor Avenue would access onto the corner of the housing development area and Honeyball Walk the commercial are giving the prospect of trucks and vans’ passing through what is currently a quiet residential area. Both would cross PROW ZR247giving rise to increased hazard to pedestrians.

The fact that we are all being encouraged to walk/cycle more will not help with the weekly shopping or getting the children to school or residents to places of work. We may all be driving electric cars but that does not address the congestion problem or the particulates that are now found to be more harmful than exhaust gases. Public transport is limited at best, the train Station is quite small and has no parking, buses are infrequent and expensive. Junction improvements along the A2 London Road are already required at the junctions of the A2 and Station Road, A2 and Lynsted Lane, A2 and Claxfield Road and possibly at the junction of The Crescent and Conyer Road. These are considered essential irrespective of whether any further developments take place.

Teynham Primary School is already oversubscribed so where will the children of these proposed properties go to school? There has been talk for many years of a new Secondary school for Sittingbourne, but the children would need transport to attend, all of which will add to the traffic problems. There is also the question of where will the jobs be and how will people be able to get there? Already we are seeing plans to move some government departments out of London so what will be the job opportunities in the area?

Swale has the lowest number of GPs to population in the country, how are the Borough proposing to address this issue? It is no good saying that it is not their problem it is down to the local health authority. These are particularly important issues that do not appear to have been addressed in the draft local plan. There is currently only one Doctor in Teynham, and the surgery is oversubscribed so again people are having to travel to see a doctor. The parish Council is aware of shortcomings in these areas but is not aware of any current agreed solutions. At the Parish Council’s behest provision has been made on the Frognal Lane development for a medical centre but again we are not aware whether the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group has agreed to develop this.

There are many other issues involving the utility companies which seem to be dismissed as “Not our problem” we are not responsible for these issues. Well, the days of building houses and assuming the infrastructure will follow has changed and more joined up action is required it is not acceptable to hope that the roads, schools, jobs’ Doctors, and shops will follow.

The development of around 1100 new homes (pro rata) and a commensurate amount of employment. in Teynham, using the two parcels of land .one adjacent to the East of Station Road development and the other adjacent to Frognal Lane developments; both extending from the Lower Road to the A2, London Road. In their consideration of both developments under the current Local Plan the Parish Council sought assurance that this land would not be developed, thus addressing parishioners concerns of Teynham ceasing to be a rural village. With the benefit of hindsight, it was inevitable, having ‘broken’ into various field boundaries that the remainder of the fields would eventually be developed for housing but nevertheless such a large development is most unwelcome.

These are the main reasons that Teynham Parish Council representing the people of Teynham object to the proposed plan.

Yours sincerely

Clerk to Teynham Parish Council