Menu	Party Positions DEVELOPMENT IN CANTERBURY AFTER THE ELECTIONS Because the question of large scale development in south Canterbury remains so important to us, even though the advent of the Coalition government and its myriad policy changes have led to the LDF being frozen, HIMN thought it was very important for its members to know, ahead of the coming elections, what the political parties now think about the problem. And we also wanted to go a bit deeper than party manifestos, and ask our own questions, especially as press coverage has virtually ignored the issue. So we emailed the leaders, or top officials, of the five main parties to ask where they stood. What we said was "As you will be aware this is a subject which we in HIMN take very seriously and we are alarmed that there has been so little discussion of it in the local press of late. In particular, the new Localism Act as amended by the Finance Bill is likely to allow developers to submit Neighbourhood Plans. We would like to know whether you would treat a plan submitted by a neighbourhood forum as having a similar or higher status that that of a developer. It may well be that answers to these questions will figure in your manifesto but, in any case, we wish to ensure that the whole subject will be publicly debated before the election so that everyone knows before they go to vote what the positions of the parties on the key question facing Canterbury actually is. So I would be grateful if you could spell out for HIMN your party's views on large scale development, notably where the southern fringes of Canterbury are concerned, so that we can circulate these to our members and other interested parties". We received replies from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour. UKIP and the Green Party did not respond. As it is not our attention to ally with any party or to tell people how to vote, we set out below, without comment, what the three parties have said. Conservative - Councillor John Gilbey wrote that he believes that, while the planning situation is in limbo, it is wise, and cheapest, to continue with the background studies required under the LDF because he us sure that something like the LDF is still needed. However "We had no basis for continuing with the then Core Strategy in view of the policy uncertainty and the Localism bill is still making its way through Parliament. Until this is finalised we cannot proceed on the central issues, which will not be until early next year, we think (!)". As to Neighbourhood Plans, "I can confirm that the council will give at least equal credence to developer and local residents in formulating plans. It is already clear that in formulating these plans they will have to be in accord with local residents and the LDF which means in fact that one must question the need for local plans? The Coalition appear to want to "encourage" local residents to support development with financial incentives and you and I both know that this has very little likelihood of working within the Canterbury District. Having said this, greater resident involvement and work with the council is essential and welcome. We will help with Neighbourhood Plans where we all consider them necessary but a full dialogue through the LDF would possibly be preferable for all of us? Incidentally I have seen some leaflets distributed recently that indicate Hersden should be a development site - please remember that the residents of Sturry and Hersden are just as concerned as you are about development in their area so this should not be considered an automatic or easy alternative." He also added that the party's Manifesto, which has so far failed to reach either the top of New House Lane or, apparently, the Internet, also stresses the party's continuing intention to preserve Green Gaps. Care for the environment and preserving farmland. Moreover, "We will undertake to work with residents and neighbourhood groups through the upcoming LDF process and indeed any other process - probably this will all become more active in the autumn as the Localism Bill hopefully gains clarity." Liberal Democrats - Councillor Alex Perkins wrote that the Party's views can be summed up as follows: 1: Liberal Democrats do not believe it is reasonable for housing targets to be set by central government. 2: The Canterbury City Council LDF process, which was consulted upon by the council (although the results have never been released) clearly identified land south of Canterbury as suitable for thousands of houses to be built - on farmland. Developers submitted proposals to council officers for thousands of these houses to be built specifically on land between Cockering Rd and New House Lane. The Local Development Framework Committee (chaired by John Gilbey) adopted this as their "prefered option". We objected to, voted against and campaigned against this proposal - and will continue to do so. 3) We do not believe it is necessary to use land south of the city for housing development. A sustainable development at Hersden, using in part the former Chislet Colliery brown field site - linked to a reopening of Chislet Halt railway station, is our prefered option. 4) The council recently published a document (LIP) including plans for massive development south of the city. WE objected to and voted against it's adoption. 5) The council will restart the LDF process (though possibly by a different name) after the elections on May 5th. We will continue to oppose the development of green fields south of the city for development. No guidance was given on the role of Neighbourhoods. However, the party Manifesto commits the party to halting green field development, saying "We will scrap the Tory plans to build 1000s of homes South of Canterbury and would use brown field sites for housing like the former Chislet colliery." Labour Alan Baldock, the Chairman of the Canterbury Party wrote that "You will, I am sure not be surprised, that we seek as a priority to address the need for a significant increases in housing development, especially in affordable and social homes within Canterbury and the surrounding areas. However any development proposal large or small would be subject to rigorous scrutiny within the Development Control process of Canterbury City Council. As a political party involved in that we must, and will, listen to the views of all concerned which will include groups such as yours, to ensure that what is built (if a development is indeed approved) is both appropriate and sustainable within the wider community and integrated with the transport infrastructure." He also drew our attention to the party's manifesto which, while there is no reference to the role of Neighbourhoods, contains two relevant statements. One, under Your Home, says "the Labour Party will use the council's planning powers to increase the number of affordable and social homes in new developments and prioritise affordable housing in rural areas for local first time buyers priced out of the areas in which they have grown up. We will ensure that all new developments have access to a good community infrastructure, including schools and local shops and we will encourage eco-friendly building design where possible.".The other, under the Canterbury heading includes commitments to both improving traffic and development in Wincheap and promoting sustainable tourism, both of which have some relevance to our concerns. I hope that you will all find these clarifications of party positions useful. CHC Chairman, 25 iv 2011.
Campaigning Against Giant Developments in South Canterbury