Action group to be set up after 125-home development plan for arable land in Minster is revealed

Residents say they will fight plans for a 125-home development in the village

A Minster action group is being created in response to a 125 home development that is being proposed for arable land in the village.

Gladman Developments, which is also behind the 450 home plan on agricultural land off Shottendane Road which has gone to appeal, says the site will also have public open space and recreational facilities. The proposal is for land off Foxborough Lane.

Gladman Developments says it is working on an outline planning application to be submitted to Thanet council.

The developer says: “The development will include new areas of publicly accessible green space. These open areas will include new tree and hedgerow planting, footpaths as well as both an orchard and community allotments.. Our proposals will provide a fully equipped children’s play space to cater for a range of ages.”

They add that there will be 30% affordable housing, the Shottendane development was rejected three times due to offers of just 10% and then 15% affordable housing.

Residents in the village say they will object to the plans. One of those is Caroline Fleming who is setting up an action group to co-ordinate the fight against the development.

Caroline, who is a business development manager, is also hoping to use both social media – via the Minster’s Future Matters page – and Minster Matters magazine to make villagers aware of what is happening and to explain the best way to get information and submit views on the application once it goes live.

Caroline, who has recently joined the parish council but is creating the action group as a resident not a councillor, said: “It is a two-pronged approach. I am trying to get together a small group of interested villagers that can support the cause.

“I also want to educate people about what they can do, and how to do it so they do not have to search everywhere for information themselves.”

Caroline says roads, schools and GPs are under enough pressure, particularly as one development has already been approved, and she hopes everyone will get involved and do their bit to protect the village.

She added: “I was like many people, thinking someone else would do these things, bt I became aware of this and just thought I love Minster and should do a bit more myself. It is a steep learning curve but I already have more knowledge today than yesterday.”

District councillor for Thanet villages, Reece Pugh, said he will be calling the application in to committee – meaning it will have to be discussed by councillors rather than an officer decision.

He said: “I’m conscious that residents are understandably concerned and the land is not included within the Local Plan. With the approval of the land to the west of Tothill Street earlier this year, Minster has more than enough development.

“When the planning application is submitted, it’s really important that residents send in their comments to the TDC planning portal.

“I will be calling the application in to be considered by the planning committee.”

In April an application to build 214 houses on agricultural land west of Tothill Street was delegated to planning officers for agreement.

Keep up to date via Minster’s Future Matters here

The Gladman proposal can be seen at

Councillors agree 214 house development at Minster can be approved by planning officers

Planning inquiry date set for controversial 450 homes proposal on Margate agricultural land


  1. I wish the Action Group all the luck in the world.
    But here’s how it works :—-
    1) the site was never part of any Local Plan for housing but it will be deemed a “windfall site” and an application will be made
    2) the developer will promise all kinds of “affordable housing” even up to 30% of the dwellings ,but, once permission is granted, a few months later will come back to amend the plans as the firm just can’t afford the cost of the “affordable housing”. Poor souls! Shall we have a whip round for them?
    3) None of the homes will do anything to meet the actual housing need of the local population as most young people starting out won’t be able to pay for one, and few of the local older population will be able to “downsize” as most will be three or four bed “Executive-style” houses.
    4) Not surprisingly, there will be no provision for local people looking for affordable rented accommodation as none of the homes will be Council homes and ,when some of them are snapped up by private landlords, few will be able to afford the rents as ,these days, rents are as high as mortgage repayments.
    4)Local MPs, when pressed, will either avoid the question (Mackinlay perhaps) or will promise to have a quiet word with the Minister (Gale, perhaps).
    5)Regardless of which Party or coalition is in power at TDC, they will be faced with a dilemma. If they refuse permission, the developers, who have far more cash than local Councils, will appeal to the Minister and will have the legal staff to do it. TDC knows that the Westminster government is committed to the mass building of expensive houses all over the country. Houses suitable for the better-off of the wider South-East. But few suitable for residents with more limited means. So, will TDC waste it’s money fighting a government which has no interest in the feelings of local villagers or in the protection of the environment and countryside?
    6) TDC will put up their hands and surrender but point to the “green,open spaces ” in the plan as a kind of compromise.
    7) Minster locals will be outraged at TDC for being so weak and there will be endless grumbles about how useless the Council is, and “the Planners” will be even worse!
    8)In reality, this isn’t just a “local,Thanet” issue. It stems from the decisions made in Westminster and the wholesale destruction of the countryside is a Government policy and it has been for decades.

    9) At the next General election, many of the local complainers will vote as before and will return a government similar to the current one, able and willing to carry on in the same way. And so it goes on…..

    • Bang on Keefogs! I don’t live in the area, but perhaps Gale and Mackinlay could be asked to attend a meeting to explain government policy on these developments?

    • Thank you for your insightful response, Keefogs. We must all remain vigilant and willing to speak up.
      I was glad to hear Cllr Pugh commit to calling this in, and there is a strong hope that the plan will fail on the same grounds that saw it rejected last time.

  2. I thought this site was allocated for housing in the local plan ? I remember seeing it specified on the map. Can anyone clarify one way or another ?

    • It was considered, but there was a (Thanet?) Highways objection “in principle” (their words) to extra traffic along Foxborough.

  3. We need to protest more and chase these developers out of Thanet before the whole Island is under concrete and tarmac. We need our fields for growing crops. If the Councillors agree this then they need changing at the next elections too. It is intolerable the amount of applications coming in for every spare bit of land. The council officers agreeing to them all should be ashamed of themselves for Thanet’s downfall of it’s beautiful scenes too.

  4. Have a read through at Gladman developments reviews on Google. Up and down the country they are destroying the countryside with no regard of the impact it has on the local towns/villages. They are evil and need to be stopped.

  5. Surely if we want to stop building houses on our greenfield sites then we should firstly stop our population from increasing week on week . . .

    • As an “Old Age Pensioner” (though I don’t feel old except when my back plays up), I am too aware that it’s people like me, living far longer than we did before, that has led to the big population increase. And to the greater need for pensions, Benefit payments, health and Social care costs, housing etc.
      And I also know that, when I survey my own brother and sister and my wife’s brothers and sisters, and their partners, I find that 11 now-elderly people have produced only 7 offspring between us. So , like so many of us elderly grumblers and complainers, we have not even replaced ourselves with fit offspring able to fill all the jobs needed to keep us well cared-for in our old age.
      We ALL live in 3 or 4-bed houses when we would actually like a good choice of affordable smaller apartments or houses, without the exploitative, ever-rising, “maintenance charges” that accompany many specialised accommodation units for people our age.
      These just aren’t being built!
      As for reducing population growth, that would require me to commit hari-kiri and I am still too happy writing comments on this page to do that!
      But I confess that I have not applied myself to reproducing the next generation of necessary workers in sufficient numbers so I will continue to expect to have a lot of jobs done by immigrant labour and I promise NOT to grumble about that.

  6. Everyone who is concerned about the overdevelopment of Kent needs to sign the petition at called Halt Harmful Housing to change the law and save greenfield sites from the planners and developers.
    They need to pressure their MP to bring a private members bill to amend the planning laws to protect our agricultural land.
    They need to join Stop the Destruction of Kent on Facebook and Save Kent’s Green Spaces & be prepared to act not just complain.

  7. Regrettably Carol, our MP Roger Gale enables house building on prime land because of his obsessive protection of the largest brownfield site in Kent.


  8. Thanks Keefogs. The proposed Gladman site north of Foxborough Lane is way bigger than ‘windfall’ scale. 5 hectares proposed in 2018 but not taken into Local Plan. Traffic, access & local healthcare and schooling constraints still exist so this should not feature in any update to the 2020 Adopted Local Plan

    • Yes but it’s like Keefogs says (his Point 5): If a local council isn’t seen at Westminster as cracking on with their Local Plan (i.e. if they’re behind the houses-per-year build-rate; a rate set ultimately BY Westminster) the Builders just appeal TO Westminster, and Westminster overrules…AND the builder’s awarded costs against that Council. Re your point about this, that & other issues, I listened in to the Zoom meeting regarding the 214 proposed at the cemetery: I couldn’t believe how what I, like you, thought were bona fide issues, just melted away: KCC for ex: “No traffic issues” (Huh?)

Comments are closed.