As previously noted below under ‘Significant Local Developments’, the Society very rarely offers any formal objection to local development. However, this proposal is exceptional in both scale and impact. It would affect all four villages in multiple ways, most notably through further pressure on an already failing wastewater and sewage system, increasing traffic, and the irreversible loss of valued rural landscape.

Of particular concern to the villages is the inevitable pollution impacts on our precious Little Stour chalk stream.  Click here to go to two downloadable articles below which describe these impacts in detail.  Or click here to go to our Activities > Little Stour pages on this website which provide further information on the global environmental significance of chalk streams.

Despite a unanimous decision by Canterbury City Council’s Planning Committee in July to refuse planning permission, the Council has since decided not to contest the appeal submitted by the developer in November.

A recent statement in the local press by a Kent County Councillor provides a clear and compelling summary of the wider issues associated with strategic housing development across the Canterbury District. The substance of that statement is paraphrased below.

The councillor reflects the widely held view of local residents that development is proceeding at an unsustainable pace and that essential infrastructure must be delivered in advance of new housing. Proposals that overload local roads, erode the countryside and natural environment, or place additional strain on already overstretched local services should not be supported, particularly where there is no clear, deliverable mitigation that provides genuine benefit to existing communities.

Too often, infrastructure—especially wastewater and sewage provision—has lagged behind housing delivery. Local communities have been consulted repeatedly on the location of major developments and have largely opposed them, only to be overruled. The result has been a landscape and future shaped by top-down decisions rather than by local people. The benefits accrue to a small number of private interests, while the costs are borne by local communities and the valued rural landscapes that residents currently enjoy.