By Local Democracy Reporter Daniel Esson
Plans for 1461 homes on land off Nash Road have been approved despite fears it will not be properly served by public transport.
Axis Land Partnerships applied to Thanet District Council (TDC) for permission to build the properties on the land in May 2023.
Calling the proposed estate Humbers Mill, they also asked permission to include a new two-form entry primary school, small shop units and link road.
TDC’s planning committee met on April 16 to make the final call on the application.
Matthew Hare, planning director for Axis attended the meeting to speak in favour, telling members: “I’m pleased to say that 30% of those homes will be provided as affordable homes.”
With 22 hectares of open space proposed, much higher than TDC policies require, he said: “This will provide a huge social and environmental gain not only for the future residents of the scheme but also for those living in the surrounding area.”
Mr Hare also stressed £8 million would be contributed to Kent County Council’s North Thanet Link road project – earmarked for improvements to roads in the interior of Thanet.
A total of 15 representations against the application were received by TDC since the plans were submitted.
The site was allocated for 1,450 homes in TDC’s 2020 local plan – which governs the building of houses in the district until 2031.
Furthermore, the 1,161 homes on the estate accessed from Nash Road cannot be occupied until all the road works are completed.
The proposal is for a 67-hectare site of predominantly agricultural land to the west of Nash Road, and close to Westwood Cross Shopping Centre and also includes a new strategic link road along Nash Road which will mean the demolition of two barns at Nash Court Farm and alterations to existing junctions from Nash Road and Manston Court Road.
A 2ha area of land at the west of the site is proposed as Chalkhole Farm Roadside Nature Area. It is proposed that it will not be accessible to the public but will be managed as grassland habitat.
The new homes will be a mix of 1 bedroom to 5 bedroom properties. The developer says up to 30% will be affordable housing.
Existing bridleways and public rights of way through the Site will be retained and incorporated into the site layout.
Some councillors praised the bid, with Cllr Jill Bayford (Con) saying: “In my view it’s a very well designed development.
“Personally I would find it difficult to identify cogent planning reasons not to support this.”
Cllr Steve Albon (Lab) concurred, but added his concerns around the local NHS, saying: “We haven’t got enough doctors – the hospital is rammed.”
But Cllr Mike Garner (Green), stressed his fears that greenery and wildlife areas on the estate will not be well maintained.
“Some of those pictures you showed of the character areas – they looked like trees there which were about 40 years old so I don’t think any of us are going to see them,” he said, referring to the developers’ drawings.
“It can be quite misleading to show us these beautiful pictures with children playing in parks with massive trees on either side, these great big green areas everywhere – it would certainly stand out like a sore thumb next to the Star Lane [industrial] estate.”
Officers’ reports also note that “Stagecoach have confirmed they have no current plans for serving the site”, and instead the applicants have agreed to provide £960,000 to fund a shuttle bus service Mondays-Saturdays to Margate and Westwood for three years.
“We shouldn’t be developing large sites of thousands of houses where it’s very difficult for people to get on a bus or public transport – it just doesn’t work,” Cllr Garner added.
TDC voted to delegate authority to officers to approve the plans, subject to legal agreements, by nine votes to three.
As it was an outline planning application, Axis will have to return to TDC with further planning applications to determine the exact layout and design of the homes at the site.
And which senior schools are the 60 or so children from the “proposed” new two form entry primary school going to? Currently, some children living in Birchington are being denied a grammar school place even though they have met the required criteria, because they live at the wrong postcode! I can only assume that senior schools will only serve Westwood Cross?siouxiee
A new secondary school will be built – serving the new developments in the area. I asked this question during the meeting.
When you say in the area
Would that be the one in the proposed planning for the Birchington Development for the houses
That’s dependent on the KCC link road
Is ANYBODY doing any calculations for how much farmland we require to survive as a species? Or is the strategy to rely on imports from our friends in the USA and elsewhere?
Housing in Thanet is spiralling out of control. From unaffordable rents to inappropriate developments, it’s clear that the current approach is failing local residents. Our communities are being reshaped by policies that prioritise short-term interests over long-term wellbeing—and it’s time to hold decision-makers to account.
One of the key figures at the heart of this issue is labour Councillor Helen Whitehead. As someone who has held a portfolio responsible for housing, she has played a central role in driving the current housing strategy in the district. Many of the most concerning proposals and decisions have taken place on her watch!
With elections approaching, it’s vital that Ramsgate voters reflect on the impact local leadership has had on our neighbourhoods. We cannot afford more of the same. Thanet needs strong, responsible, and community-minded housing policy—not political posturing and broken promises from Helen.
If you believe in better housing, better planning, and a better future for our community, think carefully before you vote. This May, let’s send a clear message: Thanet deserves better.
This isn’t true. Housing sites were allocated in the draft 2018 local plan, supported by Cllrs Pugh, Shonk and Dennis among others. Helen wasn’t even a councillor then and the council doesn’t commission private developers to develop private housing. It’s the local plan process which decides where they should go, which is a planning matter subject to external validation. The detail of individual developments is then ruled on by planning committee.
Helen’s role as housing portfolio holder is about council housing, homelessness and temporary accommodation, and she’s doing a fantastic job. But she’s not involved in bringing forward private schemes on land the thencouncil first designated in 2018.
Wasn’t more housing added due to the delay in the earlier local plan was not complying
GP surgeries …. massively overstretched already. And I totally agree that the infrastructure generally cannot cope. The policy is just to stuff people into popular areas & hope they boost the economy. Which they might in some ways … but we’re all going to be more miserable and hard-pressed to access basic services. This is madness, it’s bad for humans, bad for the environment.
Bet schools are never built ,why not insist any school etc are built first and then the houses .On all the other developments no schools shops doctors surgeries have been built ,even though in the application it was stated the developers would build them ,also what qualifies as affordable housing ,£300000+ ,not in the pockets of local people
You say “draft” plan. Can this not be overruled by the present councillor’s. As you say, it is ruled upon by the planning committee ? Just an observation, not a criticism.
No, it can’t, unfortunately. The draft plan agreed in 2018 was sent by that council for external examination and agreed as sound by the inspectors. The plan was very late and the council was under govt pressure to adopt it when it came back. It would likely have been imposed by the Secretary of State if it had been changed at that point because that would have meant that the whole consultation / examination process would have had to be started again.
Once adopted it has legal force. The only practical way to change it is to bring forward a new one, which takes years and is in process now. The planning committee looks at individual applications but it cannot change the allocations or turn them down on principle. The principle of residential development is established by the adopted plan. If the committee rejected them because they are housing they would inevitably be granted on appeal and costs awarded against the council.
We have a Labour government now, who could easily change things if they wanted to. The “It woz the Tories wot did it” mantra is wearing very thin!
Well, no.
Legal allocations are legal allocations.
If you have given legal permission for development, you have given legal permission for development. The land allocations were approved years ago; that was the time to influence allocations, and the Labour Group at the time tried to, and disagreed with 2000 homes being moved on to agricultural land; but were in a minority at that point.
2018 is before my time (as pointed out in a response to a previous post that somehow attempted to blame me for events that occurred a year before I was elected) and I readily acknowledge that there are things that I can change, and have; but I can’t change the outcome of a previously determined central decision.
Michael Gove scrapped housing targets in 2023:
https://housingview.co.uk/2023/12/23/gove-scraps-housing-targets-as-planning-permissions-decline/
Yet Labour not only restored housing targets, but increased them:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/housing-targets-increased-to-get-britain-building-again
Michael Gove scrapped housing targets in 2023. Yet Labour not only restored housing targets, but increased them.
Classic planning ruination and
You don’t care about food
You care for money
How much debt did you make and still have ..
30% is crap percentage value you know it’s same every time …
Goodbye food
Using a ratio of 2.3 occupiers per new home built, these 1400 homes will be adequate for around half of the migrants who have arrived across the channel so far this year. Not saying they will all live in these particular houses but they have got to be accommodated somewhere if their claims are successful?
That’s the scale of the housebuilding challenge we have in the UK. Net migration in the hundreds of thousands. The housebuilding planned can’t even cover this – let alone provide housing for young people needing their own place.
The boats crossing the channel are a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun) most migration, is from India, Nigeria, Pakistan and China none via small boats….. So stop with the Daily Mail rhetoric.
Axle – you need to wake up and smell the coffee! System is creaking at seams and 30000 odd illegals per year does nothing to help. Labour Party promise to curb these numbers failed and yet another lie.
Where was my maths incorrect in terms of numbers crossing so far this year and houses being built referred to in this article ? If their claims are approved then the equivalent of this development wouldn’t even cover two months worth of boat crossings.
Yes overall migration is much higher than small boat crossings. My point on that is that the Labour policy to build 500,000 new houses per year isn’t going to make much impact with a 600,000 net migration figure.
I suppose on the bright side, only one last large application left, then this mess will be over….for now…