I have tried to find out how much
this ridiculous situation has cost the taxpayer but EKO refuse to answer my
Freedom of Information requests. I have now appealed to the Information
Commissioner. But whatever the cost might be, it’s the taxpayer who will be
footing the bill.
Shortly after I exposed Hart’s role
in the EKO planning debacle and following some skatepark and airport related shenanigans
Hart resigned as Council Leader. He was replaced by Iris Johnston. David Green was quickly appointed as Hart’s
successor to the EKO management board. The EKO planning appeal was heard in
August 2014. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric
Pickles, considered the matter and in a
letter to Thanet Council in late October
declared that EKOs planning appeal should be granted. Within days work
commenced on site.
Pickles’ decision was based on the
fact that, unlike most other councils in Kent, TDC did not have an up to date
and properly approved local development
plan including a strategic housing assessment and evidence of available house building
land to cover the next 5 years. On this basis it was not possible for Thanet
Council to resist building houses on the greenfield site and EKOs application
could not be blocked.
Notwithstanding Pickles’ decision
there is no legal reason to build houses on EKO land. Thanet as a 50:50 owner of the site
could have dug its heels in and demanded that the EKO board consider
alternative uses for the site. Councillor Leader Iris Johnston, who on many
occasions has proudly told people about her unbending commitment to Labour’s manifesto promises, could have
been true to her words and told the EKO board that TDCs ruling Labour group
would not allow the house building to go ahead. But surprisingly for someone so
self-professedly principled as Johnston,
she didn’t!
So Labour’s refusal to stick to its
manifesto promise and Pickle’s decision on the EKO appeal have now opened the floodgates for developers to submit planning
applications to build houses on other green field sites in Thanet. The so-called Manston Green development,
comprising of 850 houses on agricultural
land less than one mile away from the
EKO site, will shortly be put before TDCs planning committee and is almost
certain to be approved. Applications to build
housing on or around the former
Manston Airport site are likely to appear quite quickly and £10 million Government finance is already in place
to rip up hundreds of acres of prime agricultural land to build the new Thanet
Parkway station in 2015-17 which will serve the thousands of “executive style” homes which are likely to be built on Thanet’s
agricultural hinterland in the next 5 years.
Interestingly, Thanet Labour
Party’s 2011 Election Manifesto said of Parkway
that they would not support the station “at the expense of the environmental damage” it was likely to cause. I wonder if this promise to the
people is likely to go the way of Labour’s promise to protect our green fields
and open spaces and to oppose the EKO development?
It’s been said to me by a number of
concerned Labour Councillors, and more than one council officer, that the
failure of the Council to prepare a robust local plan; to identify a lot more brownfield land for housing development and
to protect more proactively rural open and green field land, might
be a deliberate ploy by TDCs political leadership and senior managers. This is
because for a council with limited resources, like Thanet, house building can
be very lucrative. 5-6000 new houses could generate at least £5million a year
in additional council tax. Additionally, the Government’s so-called New Homes Bonus
pays the equivalent of one years council tax per new house built for up to 6 years meaning that on the basis of
5-6,000 properties TDC stands to gain a staggering £30million in additional
funding. So this might well be the real reason why, unlike most other councils
in Kent, Labour controlled Thanet
has delayed the development and
implementation of a local plan and created a situation whereby developers have
free rein to destroy, disfigure and
despoil our open spaces and green fields.
But conspiracy theories aside, the development of 550 houses at the EKO site,
850 houses at Manston Green, the 1,000 houses already under construction at the
Persimmons development at the back of Marks and Spencers and goodness knows how
many houses on or around the former airport site, will create a garden city by stealth
within a square mile of Westwood Cross.
Westwood Cross is already a traffic
congestion nightmare with some of the worst airborne pollution in Kent. How will it
cope with the massive increase in
traffic and pollution resulting from building 5-6,000 new houses close by? Furthermore, we need to think about the
implications of building so many houses on our water supply. Thanet is already
an area designated by the Environment Agency as suffering “water stress”.
Southern Water has already said that it is being forced to dump raw sewage on
our beaches because its sewers are being overwhelmed by a growing population,
increased incidents of climate-change related heavy rain and
massively increased water run off from hard surfaces created by building
over open land. Then we have the question of the additional health, social care
and education services required to support the people living in the new homes.
The Green Party does not have its head in the sand. There’s no doubting that Thanet
does need more housing, especially decent social rented housing for the growing
number of people who can’t afford to buy or who are struggling to pay
spiralling private sector rents. But just how much is needed? The Council
estimates approximately 12,000 new homes by 2021. Is this a realistic figure? Where
will it be built? How will it impact upon our environment and public services? These are all questions which are being
avoided by the current Labour leadership of the council, the Tories and UKIP
alike.
Only the Thanet Green Party is
willing and able to discuss these issues and develop practical solutions such
as building the vast majority of new housing on previously developed brownfield
sites within our urban boundaries. Taking a tougher line on forcing the
refurbishment, sale or rent of the 1,000
plus long-term empty residential properties in Thanet. Insisting on the incorporation
of water re-use, micro generation and insulation technologies in all new developments. Opposing
the concreting over of gardens and opens spaces. Encouraging cycling and
walking and supporting better public transport
to cut down on vehicle use. If Thanet Greens are elected to the Council
in 2015 we will begin a major public
consultation and debate on these issues and how we can develop a sustainable future for
Thanet for our children and grandchildren.
More and more people are beginning to realise that the Green Party is the only political organisation in Thanet engaging in serious debate about Thanet’s future and the only political organisation putting forward sensible solutions to the environmental, social and economic challenges that we face. That’s why our membership is growing fast and why some of our members and supporters are disaffected ex-members of the Labour, Lib-Dem and even the Tory parties.
School playing fields are green not brown. Stop the ploy of selling them off & buying farmland to build replacement ones on. Or have you swiped the lot anyway.
ReplyDeleteI am always surprised that you seem surprised that neither Labour or Tory members of TDC can be trusted to keep their word!! Personally....I believe in the 'brown envelope' test.....what's in it for them?
ReplyDeleteResponsibility for this lies fairly and squarely with the pro-airport fanatics, who have refused to contemplate building houses on Thanet's biggest brownfield site. The council is now caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't build on the airfield because it might upset the SMA, so they have to authorise building on greenfield sites. It's high time the council told the pro-airport campaigners to grow up and to stop acting like spoilt children. The airport is closed and Riveroak hasn't come forward with any convincing evidence that they can make the airport viable. It's time to consider other uses for the airfield, INCLUDING the housing that we desperately need.
ReplyDelete