Campaigners gathered outside Thanet council’s offices last night (September 4) for the first of two planning committee meetings to discuss a 1600 property development on Birchington farmland.
The development, which includes a primary school, shops, care home, expansion of Birchington medical centre and a community park, is earmarked to take place on land off the Canterbury Road and was first proposed by Ptarmigan Land and Millwood Designer Homes in 2019 with a planning application submitted in December 2020.
Millwood Designer Homes is no longer part of the scheme. The joint applicants are now Ptarmigan Birchington Ltd, Places for People Homes Ltd, landowners The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John The Evangelist in the University of Cambridge and The Birchington Pool Trust.
Members of action groups for Birchington and Westgate and Garlinge , as well as Save Minster Marshes, were among those to attend the meeting.
Gina McCready, of Birchington action group against housing development, was also one of those to speak at the meeting against the application.
Gina urged the committee to either refuse the application based on less than 30% affordable housing being offered; defer it so more time could be taken to consider the proposals or refer it to the Secretary of State for determination.
Gina raised concerns that the 600 pages of planning documents barely mention Thanet’s chalk aquifer, run off into the water table or water protection zones and the cumulative impact of development across the isle.
She also said: “It is put to the planning committee for approval with only six full days for councillors to read, understand and interpret over 600 pages of complex information.”
She added: “This enormous development spanning both sides of the A28 into Birchington has far reaching consequences for Birchington and Thanet as a whole.
“It is likely the most significant and complex application the planning committee has ever had to consider and I believe this timeframe is insufficient for councillors to make an informed decision and that it is unreasonable to expect them to do so.”
Gina said she was concerned councillors may “feel pressured” to go with the officer recommendation to defer the decision to officers meaning it would not receive the scrutiny Birchington residents deserved.
Ahead of the meeting Gina said: “I have lived in Birchington for more than 50 years and I am trying to save it for future generations.”
Other speakers against the application were Rod Giddens, reading out a statement from resident Craig Solly, which highlighted that councillors were being asked to make a decision despite the application not including a masterplan and documents being “contradictory,” and Birchington Parish Council chairman Nick Blankley who outlined numerous concerns around the site footprint; making decisions in advance of understanding the costs of the North Thanet breaches of planning policy and numerous design issues.
Resident Anne Ray also spoke of the “negative and overbearing impact” the development would have on Birchington with “4,600 residents” joining the current population of 10,000 “in one fell swoop.”
Councillors George Kup, Phil Fellows, Emma Dawson, Reece Pugh, Bertie Braidwood, John Worrow and John Davis also spoke against the application.
Cllr Fellows branded the scheme “utter madness,” noting how the allocation for development in the village had risen over the decade from 1,000 properties to 1,600. He accused “greedy developers with pound signs in their eyes” of wanting to destroy the landscape and questioned why a development that will not deliver the expected 30% affordable housing should be considered.
He added: “The impact on our countryside and wildlife is unimaginable. We cannot keep concreting over Best and Most Versatile, grade 1 agricultural land. The council must make a stand against this and it can start right now.”
Councillors raised issues including the loss of BMV land, a lack of masterplan, insufficient affordable housing, uncertainty over finding for the North Thanet Link Road to be built, inadequate design, traffic congestion and a lack of GPs to serve the almost 50% increase in village population.
Cllr John Worrow branded the Link Road proposals as “Champagne ideas with beer money” while Cllr Braidwood emphasised how planning policy meant the application could be refused due to the benefits of development not outweighing the harm to BMV agricultural land.
Craig Neilson, on behalf pf Ptarmigan, said the proposals would benefit both new and existing residents with millions in developer contributions, affordable housing of between 15 and a half % and 23%- dependent on the funding required for the Link Road- expansion of the medical centre and green space equivalent to 44 football pitches as well as 1600 “much needed housing.”
Officers explained the details of the application during the rest of the meeting.
Tonight (September 5) councillors will debate the issue and will be required to make a decision on the application.
Campaigners will again demonstrate outside the council offices from 6pm.
