Proposal to build 450 homes on Margate arable land to be discussed by councillors

Part of the site Image CSA Environmental/Gladman Developments

An outline proposal for 450 homes on arable land in Margate will be considered by councillors on the authority’s planning committee.

Gladman Developments Ltd propose to build the homes, a new distributor link road connecting Hartsdown Road, Shottendane Road and Manston Road, two new roundabouts, public children’s play areas and recreational routes.

The 19.53ha site is made up of two arable fields -Tyrells’s Top and Tyrell’s Bottom – either side of Shottendane Road.Wheat is cultivated on the land.

Gladman says the site will have up to 450 homes of varying sizes, types and tenures, the new distributor link road connecting Hartsdown Road, Shottendane Road and Manston Road to relieve pressure on the surrounding road network and access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists from Shottendane Road and Manston Road,from two new roundabouts.

A retention of the majority of trees and hedgerows along the boundary is pledged as well as landscaped open spaces for children’s play areas.

In the application the developer says: “A large new linear park is proposed within the northern part of the Site. This will be planted with native tree species of local provenance to reflect and restore elements of the local landscape character.

“Recreational paths will be provided around the new housing and through the public open spaces, providing an informal recreational resource within the development. A new cycleway will also be provided through the development alongside the distributor road, which will link Hartsdown Rood with Manston Road, avoiding the busy junction.”

But the contentious plan has provoked more than 50 objections from residents and bodies including Thanet Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) which says Thanet has an impractical and unsustainable target for housing and the Local Plan needs an early radical review, which cannot be done whilst there is uncertainty about Manston airport. The group also raises the issue that only 10% affordable housing is pledged rather than  30%.

Margate Civic Society has also objected on grounds including traffic congestion and the loss of prime agricultural land.

The application has been called to Planning Committee by Cllr Candy Gregory on the grounds of loss of farmland, highway safety and capacity issues, impact on community facilities and flood risk.

Thanet council’s planning report says that planning policy not to grant significant developments on agricultural land unless “the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the harm resulting from the loss of agricultural land” do not apply to the Shottendane build.

The report states: “The application site comprises undeveloped greenfield land, still actively in use for agricultural purposes. A series of soil tests were undertaken by the applicants and confirms that 50% of the site is grade 3a, 49% grade 3b and 1% non agricultural.

“Given this only 50% of the application site comprises best and most versatile agricultural land. The site is a Strategic Allocation for residential development in the Local Plan where the loss of agricultural land has been considered and weighed against the need for housing through the policy process. Therefore policy E16 does not apply to this proposal, and the general presumption to safeguard best and most versatile agricultural land does not apply to this site.”

A report to councillors also highlights the need to protect areas of archaeological importance, saying: “The south eastern area of the site includes the remains of a Bronze Age barrow cemetery which was later the focus of an early medieval cemetery. The presence of a ring ditch and one burial was picked up in the evaluation.

“The barrow cemetery and the main part of the medieval cemetery lies on the south boundary. A Neolithic pit was also found during evaluation trenching in the south eastern area of the site. Although undesignated the archaeological remains in the south eastern area of the site can be considered of a significance that merits preservation in-situ.

“Archaeological remains elsewhere within the development site include a small group of pits of possible Neolithic date and an enclosure and field boundaries of Iron Age date. The site also included evidence of the former brickworks and brickearth extraction.”

The developer has outlined a proposal to preserve the archaeology in the south eastern part of the site.

They also claim the development “would contribute to the economic role of the area by generating employment and tax receipts during construction. In the longer term the local economy would benefit from the provision of housing for workers, investment in local infrastructure and services, additional expenditure on goods and services, and funds from the New Homes Bonus and from additional Council Tax receipts.”

A developer profit allowance of 17.5% of GDV of the market housing and 6% on the affordable housing has been assumed within the viability report, with a total profit of £19,522,010.

As part of the plans the developer will be expected to pay:

It has been recommended that councillors delegate the decision for planning officers to agree.

The report says: “The provision of up to 450 dwellings would make a significant contribution to the District’s Housing supply, supporting the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development, with employment provided through construction of the site. This contribution to supply should be given great weight given that the Council has not met the Housing Delivery test.

“The provision of the link road from Manston Road to Hartsdown Road will provide clear and demonstrable benefits to the district’s transportation network, whilst accommodating additional traffic created from the proposal. Whilst below the policy requirement, the proposal will also provide social benefit through 10% on site affordable housing provision and the creation of a contribution pot to facilitate the delivery of both community and highways projects in the district

“The development would result in the loss of agricultural land and countryside, however, this has been agreed through the Local Plan adoption process. The amount of development proposed on the site can be accommodated without resulting in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, and in principle the development will not result in significant harm to the living conditions of surrounding residential occupiers

“Specific measures with regard to surface and foul drainage, archaeology, contamination, ecology will be secured

“It is recommended the Members defer and delegate the application to officers for approval, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement to secure the required planning obligations within 6 months of this resolution.”

Councillors will discuss the plan at a meeting on April 21.

71 Comments

    • No These have been allocated to Westgate & Birchington. However, if a former Cll Leader had not suggested it to the then owners of Manston Airport after Mrs Golag purchased the Airport for £1.00 plus debts these houses for Westgate and Birchington would not be in the equation.

  1. Because of the total lack of joined-up information to most people reading this, it totally fails to take in to account the fact the ‘reverse-L’ shape of agricultural land behind to the S and SE of Salmestone Grange through to the Cemetery is also a proposed development site leaving almost no agricultural land whatever within the area covered by these photos/plans. That’s aside from all the other areas to the north of Shottendane Road between here and the edge of Birchington, and much of the rest of the land up to Westwood Cross and beyond to Haine Road! Disgraceful mid-use of high quality farm land.

    • Sounds great extra traffic and schools cars bikes motorbikes,wait a moment we don’t have enough schools doctors hospitals for our people know,and they will probably be a lot of people from London overflow,wow sounds really great,NOT,😝😝

  2. Yet more erosion of green areas including agricultural land. The same old chestnut about bringing a workforce to Thanet. For what jobs? As usual the primary benefactors will be the developers certainly not our overcrowded locality. Lack of heathcare, Social services ,no to this development

  3. Don’t we need to start trying to be more self-sufficient in food? Building on good farm land seems like a huge mistake. And i bet the people who need social housing in Thanet won’t get a look in.

  4. More houses on farmland that could have gone on Manston a brownfield site, thanks Roger !!

  5. this will be the start of development along the length of Shottendane Road thus joining the huge developments at Garlinge and Westgate, no greenfield site is safe from this council who can only see the money generated from all these homes which will result in nothing positive for the locals it is greed pure and simple Thanet is being raped of green and precious farmland but who gives a toss? certainly not TDC

    • You can already see them preparing certain areas for such things as you’ve mentioned. I hadn’t been along Nash Lane for a long time and was shocked to see the state of it today.

      My parents moved us here from London in 1989 and have always mentioned how ‘Kent’ was called the Garden of England.

      We’re fast becoming a concrete jungle.

      Visiting friends and family always commented on how much green space and free space we had in Thanet.

      This is being taken away from us.

    • There’s not a lot the councils (not just TDC) can do to modify what the government has decide regarding housing.

  6. TDC, all should be oiked out in the upcoming elections money grabbing wasters, pity we are unable to change the planning officers as well total waste of taxpayers money.

    • Keith, read Marva above! This has nothing to do with Thanet Council, its all to do with the Tory government forcing Local Authorities to build on greenfield sites if brownfield are not available! Oops, nearly forgot, of course there is a huge brownfield site, where is it, Oh, yes at Manston airport it can take 4,000 new dwellings!

  7. All roads lead to Rome – in this case all roads lead to coffin corner. It’s a bad junction with delays with lights and school traffic as it is. A roundabout will not eliminate the extra traffic at this junction only add to the problem. A promise of a child’s play area, money to KCC, a recreation area do these out way the loss of arable land – I don’t think so!

    • I live on Beatrice rd and it’s so busy most of the time now. You should see the state of my windows and car with the exhaust particles that are emitted! More houses, people and cars means it will only get worse and you are spot on, the coffin corner junction will still be a big funnel for the traffic

  8. i would say this is not a seaside town no more just build homes iv seen this before at Dartford they put 1000 homes up no work around one job for 250 people then how do they pay for there new homes good job TDC

  9. If it were for social housing I could agree but it most definitely is not. No locals on Thanet wages can run to the (very) few ‘affordable’ houses that are planned for this site, those from London can, of course, sell up there and buy a new property here and have a 5-figure sum left over. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    • Seriously, though, what was quite recently a green landscape with towns and villages dotted about is about to become a huge urban sprawl, with a few green spaces here and there. A bit like “London” had swollen to embrace Westminster, Southwark, Islington, Hackney, Camden and so on, very soon “Thanet” will be coast-to-coast houses embracing once independent communities such as Cliffsend, Acol, Dumpton.

  10. Garden of England not any more. Too many concrete buildings that only the london crowd can afford. No extra dentist, doctor’s schools, our roads will be at stand still at busy days, school runs

  11. Well at least Roger Gale will be delighted. It was him and the former TDC leadership/s that fudged the local plan to preserve the defunct airport land.

  12. And what are Gladman Developments going to do about providing medical facilities for the residents of all these new homes? Thanet is already short of at least 19 GPs with many of the current ones very near to retiring. We simply cannot keep building homes here when we don’t have adequate facilities for those already living in Thanet. The council and our MPs have to convince government to look at development plans for Thanet. Unlike virtually every other part of the country, we are surrounded on three sides by water and simply do not have the land in this area to meet government housing targets whilst maintaining some open spaces. It is all very well putting these theories and targets in writing – perhaps some of those who come up with the figures should come to Thanet and see the reality of this area. There has never been one size fits for all for anything and that also applies to building new homes. And yes, we should be using what little arable land for food. To say nothing of the appalling low number of trees we have in this area “The tree coverage in Thanet is the lowest in the country with less than 4%. Even London is 29%.” And let’s not forget the high unemployment we have – we do not need more people moving here.

    • Our MPs are both Tories. The Tory government came up with the “algorithm” that dictates the number of homes a local authority must build.
      Things could have been a little bit better, but a Local Plan that would have been based on an earlier algorithm, requiring 1000’s fewer houses, was rejected by UKIP and Tory councillors.
      I think there’s not much choice for TDC. The requirements of the government and the flawed Local Plan are weighted against us.
      I’m quite curious to know how the “greedy” Universities got this land in the first place. Was it sold to them by “greedy” local farmers? Or were the lands originally monastic, and seized by Henry VIIIth at the dissolution if the monasteries nd given to chums who happened to be rectors of Cambridge colleges?

    • Did you see the list of infrastructure payments that the decelopers will make? That includes momey for health provision. Thanet lacks GP’s because many choose not to work in the area and have to deal with the lower end of our residents. There should be a camera in the Limes , it’d make great tv and save casting directors hours when looking for the cast of the next zombie movie.
      As for unemployment , as anothe story has discussed Thanet Earth is predominately staffed by migrant labour, the local unemployed would rather stay at home accepting the taxpayers largesse. As a nation that sees no need to have a tough stance on migration we need lots of extra houses, the majority of those coming here want to live in the south east and that has meant that eventually the developers have turned up in thanet. 20 years from now the thanet of today wil be unrecognisable let alone the placei first moved to in the late 80’s.
      Manston will be as divisive as ever, i’m in the keep it as an airport camp, it offers something unique that most areas don’t have and as such would prove foolhardy to lose it, in my opinion.
      The biggest fly in the ointment is how many of the thousands of proposed homes across the isle are secretly destined for those on the housing lists of london boroughs? Thanet has enough of lifes less fortunate having more placed here ( who really wouldn’t choose to live here otherwise) is likely not the best move.
      As for the whines about social housing , there are tens of thousands of families living in older housing stock who’d love a brand new home to live in, but despite working hard will never be able to afford to buy one, is it really right to give those that do nothing brand new homes on the cheap? Then maintain and repair at the taxpayers expense.

    • Jane we need people like you in the council instead of the money grabbing councillors who, it is alleged, benefit from the brown envelope system. Leave our fields to feed our population.

  13. These pieces of land are not being compulsory purchased, the land is being offered up by the owners, whether Manston were to have house’s built there or not, you would still see these pieces of land put up for housing, besides that, why should the people of Manston, Minster have to suffer thousands of house’s? are they not as worthy as you! rather than moaning about Manston taking all your problems, we should all be in this together, fight for our agricultural land and open spaces, not doing the governments job by throwing our neighbors under the bus.

  14. The Fudged Local Plan is flawed to allow this kind of development all over our fields needed for growing crops.
    The green wedges of wildlife corridors that run between the Thanet towns should be protected in the Local Plan, they are slowly but surely being joined up with numerous whopping great housing developments.
    The Councillors should not pass this over to planning officers. They should refuse this application and others that apply to build on the green wedges and fields. Thanet is losing it’s individuality by becomming an urban sprawl of excessive housing. The planning officers are changing Thanet’s identity. Refuse, refuse, refuse!!

    • It’s not the Planning Officers’ fault. They can only advise what’s lawful.
      And under the dreadful Local Plan, neither the Officers nor the Councillors has much say in the matter.
      Your ire should be directed at the burghers of Birchington, who campaigned so successfully against a previous and more Thanet-friendly version of the Plan.

  15. Not only the above, many large shops have closed. Lots of our youth work in retail. So now less jobs, more people seeking work, disaster. Why do the lovely lush countryside of Dorset, Devon Hampshire etc never get forced to build new houses. Build affordable housing for our locals not outsiders who have sold dear to buy cheaper here in Thanet, TDC start looking after those who pay local council tax.

  16. It’s basically to make a ton of cash out of the Londoners who will move here and catch the fast link to work in London . There are no jobs in Thanet unless it’s care work or part time hours in retail. There are no full time jobs in retail. No full time decent lovable wages for young families . They need to encourage firms here. Maybe the train link will do that , I doubt it and let’s face it the crap council killed off the port and airport the only other chance of bringing decent jobs . Jobs , health facilities , proper decent non pot hole roads SHOULD come first houses later .

  17. This is one of the strategic sites along with Westgate/Garlinge and Birchington. The three sites together will add 4100 houses to the area. All are on open, productive farmland. There is still time to object to all three applications. Please please do so.

    The number for this particular application is OL/TH/20/0847. Send an email to [email protected] quoting this application number, your name and address and your objection.

    Please do it this week before it’s too late!

  18. Big nose your so right, totally agree with you, we should fight together to stop these unwanted and unneeded homes. No matter where they are built. What people don’t realise is that most of the land in Thanet is owned by London, Cambridge uni, Oxford uni, so they profit form this. Why this land was sold to them I don’t know but together, people power and as much noise and interference into stopping these builds is all we can do.

    • Come on folks… remember we have elections coming up..our chance to make our views known. Get rid of the useless members

  19. More valuable land lost forever.more pressures on medical facilities,schools,refuse,water, sewerage,electric supplies, more congestion and pollution and more money spent on trying to maintain road infrastructure inadequately. Probably trains also at full capacity at peak times. Lack
    of enough local jobs, more food brought in and not grown locally All resulting in reduced quality of life.Gone the garden of England but the refuse tip is getting larger. We don’t even have a pier to jump off.such a shame our successive council’s have destroyed Thanet. I have been here all life. And the place gets worse.

    • There will be infrastucture charges from the utility suppliers for each of the homes, along with the list of charges in the article, tdc will receive the council tax, so should be plenty of money to provide the services required.

      • Not correct – council tax does not fund healthcare, major roads or other infrastructure.
        TDC cannot even manage current services to current residents and have sold off most of the family silver so the omens are not good there.
        Southern Water will have to invest heavily in supply and waste management – funded by the rest of us.

        • Try reading the article and the list of payments required, add on the infrastructure payments that will be paid to the utility companies, ask what contribution will be made for the road layout changes.
          The council tax tdc will in time receive will be for the services the council and kcc are responsible for under council tax.

  20. It is widely agreed that the elected representatives and senior officers (the top 12 posts cost us over £1million per annum)at TDC are not fit for purpose, just like their Local Plan that brings us this nonsense.
    However, these people are not going to go willingly so we need to make noises to government – do an email stating your views and send it to
    [email protected]
    and copy in all of these:
    [email protected]
    [email protected] (Sir Graham Brady the Tory party enforcer)
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected] (Chair of the select committee on housing etc)
    [email protected] (Officer at the communities ministry)
    Get your friends and family to do the same – good luck, power to the people!

  21. If you want to complain about this you, your family and friends should email your views to: (Substitute (a) for @)
    robert.jenrick(a)communities.gov.uk
    and copy in:
    boris.johnson.mp(a)parliament.uk
    altsale(a)parliament.uk (Sir Graham Brady Tory party enforcer)
    GALERJ(a)parliament.uk
    craig.mackinlay.mp(a)parliament.uk
    officeofclivebettsmp(a)parliament.uk (Select committe chair)
    Michelle.Peart(a)communities.gov.uk (Office of communities)

    • And that will do what?
      We voted (collectively) for a Conservative government, well aware that it was substantially backed by builders and developers. Locally we (collectively) voted for a UKIP council, which threw out a local plan that would have seen 1000s of these planned houses built at Manston, rather than on Greenfield sites.

  22. Big nose it seems to me people who support Manston as an airport are throwing Ramsgate under the bus. Still if you would rather have a noisy polluting 24/7 cargo hub on your doorstep. SHP’s plans seemed a better option all round at least they were not going to build on every inch plus some infrastructure and road improvements were planned.

  23. Also thanks to supporters of Manston like Roger Gale, SMAa etc delaying the local plan we now have a situation that the number of houses needed to be built to meet government targets has increased dramatically.

  24. People tend to forget that the former leader of TDC was the leader of UKIP party in fanet he stood up in front of an audience at the Winter Gardens pledging support for River Oak (RSP), the now owners of Manston Airport. Perhaps it was a falling out with the RSP directors and an un recorded minuted private (allegedly) meeting with SHP and a certain convicted person that persuaded him to change his mind and go for housing. I remind yet again “the leader was UKIP” and not Conservative. Mind you, he like a certain MP changes parties as often as they change their socks and like to be in with a party that is in power or the flavour of the month.

  25. Ramsgate resident, seems your argument is,NOT ON MY DOORSTEP,if you do history and have good knowledge of what is under manston airport you would know building homes etc is a no no. Ramsgate docks had all infrastructure built, later then needed, but still Ramsgate closed it down. Stop being so selfish, if your that unhappy with the airport then move. Remember that if all those homes were built that’s even more pollution,cars, people that Thanet has not got room or jobs for. So the odd plane sounds a better outcome. If it was still milarty you would not say a word and there planes are really bloody loud

  26. Why do these debates always come back to the airport?
    The problem is too many new homes regardless of whether we have an operational airport or not – 17,140 new homes will bring congestion, longer queues for everything, too few quality employment opportunities and urbanisation of Thanet whichever the Manston squabble goes.
    Politician need to understand they are gambling with the population’s welfare and wellbeing – delegating major decisions like this to officers (and we all know how that works) is ducking their responsibilities

  27. It comes back to Manston because it is/was a brownfield dormant site, and brownfield is part of housing strategy ahead of green field. It could hold 4000 houses and take the pressure off village sprawl. The SHP developer also had investment included for health and education and heritage aviation so it would have 1. accommodated a significant chunk of the housing target 2. increased local capacity for schools and GPs and 3. created heritage aviation as a runway and kept the aviation enthusiasts happy.

    Instead what do we get? We get clear fudging of the local plan so that the dormant airfield could be protected, for a DCO plan that is incompetent and a monstrous threat to Ramsgate and the environment. A DCO quashed by a judge, washed down with a CAA application also recently rejected. Mystery investors who are to be replaced with other unknown investors, no customers, no viability and no evidence of benefit.

    Anyone supporting the RSP jobs lies is in fact supporting a cause that is documented at killing more jobs than it would create. Read the inspection report.

    THIS is why housing always comes back to the airport because the whole thing sucks, it makes no sense and is a huge threat. On top of that, if the cargo obsessives stopped, it would enable Thanet to have a large chunk of housing capacity absorbed on the huge site. What I think you will find is that most Manston support is in fact anti housing sentiment, in the misplaced understanding that if an airport is mobilised, the houses won’t come. Many have spent five long years trying to explain that the houses are coming, with or without an airport.

    It is bemusing why this message isn’t understood. Now the houses are coming on the green belt and so many are here just here to remind people that this impact was pointed out thousands of times, those councillors and MPs objecting to these developments are the same ones who protected Manston. It is their fault!

    • Agree but your starting point is that 17,140 new homes is acceptable/inevitable – if it wasn’t for these homes hanging over us the Manston debate would be far more rational.

    • “It is bemusing why this message isn’t understood. Now the houses are coming on the green belt and so many are here just here to remind people that this impact was pointed out thousands of times, those councillors and MPs objecting to these developments are the same ones who protected Manston. It is their fault!”
      Absolutely.
      Over and over again the stark realities have been spelled out.
      Talk about chickens coming home to roost.

  28. This is a joke we don’t need housing we need jobs stop building on our farm land for things we don’t need like housing WE NEED JOBS

    • We do need housing, though probably less than we seem likely to get. Or have people in Thanet stopped having babies?

  29. I agree Charlie, Thanet needs a proper employment strategy focusing on those potential opportunities for sustainable development such as wind farms, solar farms the harbour and the port operations, fishing, leisure and tourism and the creative industries among others. All prospective growth areas in the UK.

    The green industrial revolution is an obvious focus for an area such as Thanet. It is the future.

  30. Blue Fox, housing numbers are decided by central government, not local government so TDC doesn’t get a choice.

    I guess TDC has a voice in responding to that government decree, but this TDC we’re talking about, a council without a local plan for years, and now with a coddled together fudge plan which only mobilised on the intervention of the central government and confirmed incompetent plan development. That was the point at which the then administration rejected the plan in favour of Manston protection. Now we have fudge fog bodge plan.

    As such, I doubt TDC has a huge voice or influence over national housing numbers or a place at the top table when it can’t even get its own house in order. No pun intended.

    • Agree with all your points. Whether houses go to Manston or not is secondary to considering how Thanet will cope with 17,140 new homes, the key issues are the absence of any credible public services, infrastructure, economic and social strategies.
      Councillors of all parties carry responsibility but the real weakness is the senior team of officers that has been present all along the bumpy road to producing our excuse of a Local Plan.
      We have a top team of 12 at TDC which costs us council tax payers over £1m per annum, they have known for a long time how many houses would be coming yet they failed to put together anything resembling a comprehensive set of strategies – their focus is on houses and a gamble that there might be central government funding for the ‘inner circuit’ ring road which would further strangle our central argricultural area.
      Failed leaders have no place leading TDC.

  31. But people we have 4000 empty property’s in Thanet, plus enough empty commercial land to build houses. So no need at all to take greenfield sites. It is down to cost, it’s cheaper to build on green sites then rebuild on exciting sites. It’s all about profit, we should be recycling as much as possible and this should and must include land.

  32. Also I would like to point out that the lower field on Hartsdown rd near Tivoli park is a covered river, which is pumped by southern water to prevent flooding. As a child in the 70s/80s me and friends would swim there in the road when flooded. The field would also flood sometimes to 3 to 4 feet. Margate football site and Tivoli park was a Victorian water garden 1850 ISH. So they want to build on a flood plain, with rising water levels this site in 20 years will be under water. A lot of Thanet is going to be underwater this has already been stated regarding the Thanet way. This would also apply to Dreamland as it sits below the sea level. Has anyone taken this into consideration, I guess not, and would the owners of the new homes be told that they will be under water. History is there to learn from and not be ignored

  33. Blue Fox in fact, I think the TDC housing allocation catapulted from around 11,000 to the current 17,000 precisely because of lack of plan?

    I assume those councils up and down the country with carefully thought out, long term, sustainable local plans are the ones looking after their whole communities better.

    What we get here are interfering aviation obsessed MPs with a few loud council chums who put their pet projects above all else, then don’t mind appearing grossly hypocritical when their sham strategies are exposed.

    Seems to me that the losers in all this are the residents. I hope the campaigners against the green belt development are successful, but it is a horrific error that at least 4,000 of the allocation isn’t currently destined for the brownfield old airport.

    • Totally agree Alice, well said.
      There are so many voices on here disatisfied with TDC performance now and stretching back over several years, we should be mobilising that energy into making a difference otherwise in 5 years time we will be no better off.
      Maybe The Isle of Thanet News should be spearheadng a campaign for openness and public accountability for the current mess we are in?
      NOTE TO EDITOR: HOW ABOUT IT?

      • An attempt was made by the much maligned officers to have a reasonable Local Plan adopted.
        But, because the proposed version didn’t specifically reserve the Manston site for aviation only use for ever and ever, UKIP, TIGs and Tories threw it out.
        The consequence is that we have a government imposed target of several thousand more houses than in the proposed Plan, and none of them can be built on the hundreds of acres of brownfield site that constitute Manston.
        So, while tumbleweed blows across the closed runway, green fields are being dug up to build houses.

  34. And….they are bit by bit moving our hospital services from the QEQM. Trauma has gone to WH and our stroke services are going to god knows where. Don’t have a stroke, with more Margate traffic to contend with you will not make it without dieing or ending with a very poor life quality. Talking of 24 A&E also going. We are very short of doctors, dentists and many health services. How on earth can the area support another 17,000 or so households. Common sense please…. someone.

Comments are closed.