An appeal against Thanet council’s refusal of permission for 200 properties to be built on agricultural land off Cottingham Road in Cliffsend has been thrown out.
Land promotion business Richborough submitted an outline planning application for the properties in January this year, with 60 earmarked as ‘affordable’ homes.
The site is on land adjacent to the St Augustine’s Cross, which was erected to commemorate the meeting of St Augustine with King Aethelberht of Kent in 597 AD, and to mark the place where it was believed to have occurred.
In June Thanet council refused the plans on six grounds:
- Significant harm due to the location and proximity to the Grade II Listed St. Augustine’s Cross
- Lack of archaeological assessment or field evaluation works, including trial trenching, which given the sites potential to include remains of high significance, particularly a Roman road/track, could result in harm from development works to archaeology of significance that requires conservation
- Development that encroaches beyond the existing urban boundaries of the village within the Wantsum North Shore Landscape Character Area, resulting in the loss of openness to the edge of the village
- Failure to submit sufficient surveys for breeding birds and bats, potentially resulting in harm to farmland bird habitats and protected species,
- Increased recreational pressure on the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), and Sandwich Bay and Hacklinge Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI),
- Failure to enter into a legal agreement to secure affordable housing, and the delivery of the necessary planning obligations
Richborough said the proposals include a buffer area with no development to avoid noise from the railway and that it would preserve the view and setting of the Grade II Listed St. Augustine’s Cross.
Following the rejection of its plans by TDC, Richborough took the case to appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.
An inquiry was held last month and a decision has now been published by Planning inspector Benjamin Webb BA.
In the decision Mr Webb is scathing of developer submissions describing the Augustine Cross’s meaning as ‘folklore’ and ‘legend’ and noted the “failure to clearly demonstrate how acknowledged design opportunities could be taken in a way that would successfully integrate the cross, conserve its significance and sensitively shape the place.”
Suggestions that a tree be planted to represent the Cross were noted to have “incorrect positioning,” and potential to be just a “a relatively short-lived feature.” The inspector branded the proposal as “little more than a tokenistic gesture.”
The Inspector described the plans as having “fundamental design failings” and being “ill conceived, reflecting the lack of a detailed understanding of context, place and setting, and the role these play in the significance of the cross and its appreciation.”
Talking of the biodiversity statement from the developer, he labelled it a ‘fantastical vision’ saying: “Whilst I observed parakeets during my site visit, it is highly improbable that hummingbirds and exotic butterflies would become future features of the site. Both are nonetheless depicted within the biodiversity section of the Design and Access Statement.”
Concluding “the effects of the development would be unacceptable,” the Planning Inspector dismissed the developer’s appeal.
A small bit of sense from the Planning Inspectorate! This was really a development too far.
Good shot time this madness is stopped,but watch out for the appeal and bigger brown envelopes flying around
That was the appeal dismissed.
The Developer has taken the decision to appeal. The appeal was rejected.
Your obsession with trying to find brown envelopes that don’t exist is clouding your ability to understand how the planning system actually works. But what are facts if they not what you want them to be.
Before anyone starts waving flags as if it were the relief of Mafeking,it’s not over until it’s over.
The developer/agent has been brought up short by PINS because of sloppy work and arrogance, in that they thought they could use Chat gpt to do the hard work, and it shows.Next time they will get Wessex archaeology in to do a proper assessment, which might scupper some of the scheme and then resubmit without the humming birds and other unlikely flora and fauna.I am surprised they did not include dinosaurs and puffins.
If you go on to the Richborough land site, you will find loads of managers, and directors , some of them “Honorary” what ever that means.I suspect the workforce are mostly former planners who have cashed in. That said they act on behalf of landowners, so some of this stuff about prime farming land and food security, is being torpedoed by the very lobbyists who say we are concreting over Britain.
PINS is there to uphold planning law and not to court popularity or public outrage.Like the court system, we support them when they come up with answers like this, but call them traitors when they don’t.You cannot have it both ways, and by the way please stop all this stuff about brown envelopes because it is defamatory and ill judged. If you have proof of malfeasance in public office, you should report it to the police, not make unsubstantiated allegations on a website.It’s not the 1960’s and T Dan Smith and Poulson, died long ago.
The reasons for rejection were clearly set out, and largely related to the sightlines and effect on the context/character surrounding St Augustine’s Cross. It is going to affect their bottom line if they duly need to landscape around that to the extent that it is not just a minor feature of a housing development.
The archaeology and environmental elements were also material factors though they can in theory be overcome with a great deal of expense.
This is quite apart from the access limitations (by road) and the lack of local services.
So Richborough may decide to focus on easier targets.
This land was not in the Local Plan either, which is probably a stronger reason for rejection in the first place.
It was a speculative, tossed-off application as you imply, and has burnt through a sizeable wedge of cash from Richborough in making an appeal on such flimsy grounds.
I agree with what you say about the PIN and this stuff about brown envelopes though. What has got missed here is that TDC have actually made a principled decision and stood their ground (with good input from the Parish Council). They get a lot of flak (some of it quite fairly), but it should be pointed out when they get it right, too.
George Nokes- I too wish people would stop suggesting that there will be bribes.
You going to tell me there is now no sort of corruption or bribes in local or nation governments. ‘if you keep up with the news various people have been caught. The brown envelopes thing is a running joke ,seems you and others on this site have no sense of humour, merry Xmas to all
Some of us do get fed-up with the ‘brown envelopes’ posts but then maybe I don’t share your sense of humour.
Name them!
Or was this just banter?
Merry Christmas
Try reading the newspapers or watch tv ,or do you need someone to do it for you
brown envelopes are so last century;
why bother with them when there are so many revolving doors available these days?
bigger brown envelope required as usual – and if that offends any of the usual do gooders on here – well thats just hard luck