Plan for ‘up to 130 properties’ on farmland off Chalk Hill discussed at Fernham Homes drop-in

Fernham Homes site image

Developers proposing to build on farmland at the rear of Chilton Primary School say the site could contain up to 130 properties.

Fernham Homes has been talking to residents today (September 10) about its proposals for two agricultural fields and a small woodland, scrub area off Pegwell Road and Chalk Hill.

Photo Get Wild

The site is in a ‘special landscape area’ which is protected for its open views and sits close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

The company, which is headquartered in West Malling, does not own the site but says it has “an option” on it.

Dozens of people were in attendance as a drop-in event at St Laurence Church hall opened this afternoon, with the majority saying they were opposed to any plans for development.

Fernham Homes representatives said they wanted to hear what people would want to see included if a development were to go ahead.

One representative said: “We know that in principle people who live near to the site are going to be opposed (to development). We understand that’s the case.

The site Photo Get Wild

“The reason why we have done a red line (showing the site boundary) rather than a detailed lay out is because we are asking people, if this were to go ahead is there anything they would like to see as part of the development.

“That might be bungalows or parking for the school or play space.”

The earmarked fields are not allocated for housing in Thanet’s Local Plan – a blueprint for development and infrastructure up until 2031 – but a Fernham Homes representative said: “We think it is a good site with development potential based on our own reviews.”

Fernham Homes says Thanet council has not met its housing need numbers (building targets set by Government) and that means there is “a window as long as the site is promoted in a diligent way  to contribute towards Thanet’s housing need.”

Thanet Local Plan documents say the isle has a need for the provision of family homes and that need for affordable housing outweighs supply.

People were asked to leave their comments

Fernham Homes says feedback from today’s event will be considered. Work will then take place for the design layout with conversations taking place with Thanet and Kent councils by the end of October.

A second public event is proposed and then a planning application is expected to be submitted by next Spring.

Photo Get Wild

One resident at the event said criticised Fernham Homes for having a lack of local knowledge, adding: “They did not even know about the National Grid plan, it’s disgraceful. I told them they should have done their homework.”

Others questioned tree felling that would take place for access to the southern part of the proposed development and how the impact on wildlife would be mitigated, while one resident said simply: “They ask what we want, we do not want anything in this area.”

Photo Get Wild

Nature expert Nik Mitchell, of Get Wild, is one of those opposed to the development. He said: “I have a lot of concerns about them developing the area. It’s actually an area protected for its open views. It has always been an important place for skylarks, it sits on top of a natural spring that feeds into Pegwell Bay SSSI.

“It will prevent Chilton primary from ever expanding, we keep building houses but we’re not building schools. That’s just to name a few reasons why this development shouldn’t happen.”

Fernham Homes, established in 1999, has developments in Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Greater London.

The drop-in event is open until 6pm.

14 Comments

  1. Of course all local residents are going to say they don’t want the development. What did Farnham Homes expect?

    Unfortunately, we have to accept that new homes are going to be built and a small development of this size, just 130 homes, is nothing compared to the 1,600 being put forward for Birchington.

    Personally I think our local MPs should fight for Thanet and ensure everyone in Westminster (government and civil servants) realises that Thanet is different to most other councils in the country in that we are surrounded on three sides by water and we cannot continue development here using the same criteria. Especially as so much of the proposed development here in on prime agricultural land. So come on Polly – stand up for your electorate and not your party. Roger already doing so for Birchington.

    • Why the comparison with Birchington? Pegwell is a much smaller community than Birchington, so 130 houses isn’t “nothing”, as you succinctly put it, to those that live here.

  2. Not in the Thanet development plan; agricultural land and a ‘special landscape’ area. It should be a very simple ‘no’. Build instead of the under occupied industrial estates.

  3. This seems to be a very poor plan of action by Fernham’s. Quite shrewd though in no having yet bought the land.
    However, nothing will happen until they actually apply for planning permission. Then we will see!!

  4. The event was an absolute joke. Fernham didn’t invite anyone to give contact details, offered post its to write on which are ‘definitely going to be typed up back at the office’. The Fernham representative admitted that Fernham have never decided not to proceed with a development, no matter how negative the feedback received at these events. She said they’ve already been in discussion with TDC planning to get advice on what they should put on the site. Is this true? When they don’t even own the land? She offered ‘solutions to traffic problems’. Traffic problems caused by Fernham and their development. Don’t build there, you won’t create problems therefore no ‘solutions’ necessary. Simple. Don’t try to pretend you’re doing us a favour with your fake solutions. There was also word at the event that this is just the start and Fernham plan to build along that entire corridor of green space and stunning views. It’s used every day by cyclists, walkers, horse riders. The loss would be devastating. Genuinely disgusted by these opportunists and their fake displays of listening to the community.

    • “There was also word at the event that this is just the start and Fernham plan to build along that entire corridor of green space and stunning views. It’s used every day by cyclists, walkers, horse riders.”

      Ahh, so its narcissistic nimbyism as young people and new families struggle to find affordable properties? Either evolve or get left in the dust like a dinosaur…

  5. Any developer can ask a council for pre-application advice, for which they pay, in order to understand obstacles they would need to overcome to obtain planning consent. This advice is given by officers. It does not involve councillors. It’s standard practice across the country and doesn’t mean anything in terms of whether consent will ultimately be granted.

  6. Streets.. not swirling meandering cul-de-sacs.

    Walkable and cycle routes.. connected into existing streets.

    Grass, trees and planting.. not acres of tarmac for a car centric development.

    Interesting modern design.. not square red brick boxes.

    Freehold.. not leasehold.

    Adopted roads with proper pavements.. not privately managed.

    No removal of permitted development rights to squeeze more homes in.

    Opposing the development is a complete waste of time, people need to demand better developments. They are going to, and need to, happen anyway.

      • Support what? Screwing over young people even more than they have been already? Young people have had to cope with the fall out of the GFC (2008), pandemic (2020), stupidly high interest rates on student loans and zero real terms wage growth since 2008.

        So no I won’t join in with objecting to this, even though I would prefer not to build on farm land and despise most of the UK housing developers.

        But the hard truth is that our housing crisis is causing huge damage to the economy (see stagnant wage growth) because too much of, what should be, young persons disposable income is disappearing into the pockets of landlords and over priced housing. This also has knock on effects for job mobility and keeping local workers local.

        So yes, more housing.. but argue for decent homes and well designed sites.

    • I pretty much agree Paul. Also they should be Eco homes and cheaper homes. That’s a difficult combination to achieve but not impossible if the will were there. As it stands I just don’t see how those in greatest need will afford these homes and they are an ugly, polluting blot on the landscape.

  7. Good stuff. The more development, the more likely younger generations can get on the housing ladder easily. NIMBYISM can get in the bin. Absolute goons and harbingers of non progression for ALL residents.

  8. That’s rather disingenuous, anon – it’s patently obviously that regardless of the supply, it’s not accessible to younger people, first time buyers or people that should be in a position to own their own homes..unless they’re lucky to have support from parents/inheritance etc. because new stock just gets hoovered up by landlords and Local Authorities! More housing isn’t inherently bad but if it doesn’t benefit anyone other than developers and landlords; it’s not solving any issues! Doubly so if the houses are poorly built and ugly..which they seem to be more often than not!

  9. A totally inappropriate place to build houses, and I say that as someone who is hoping to get on the property ladder soon so is generally in favour of more houses.
    Fareham homes should go away and forget this site. This is not appropriate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


five × 2 =