protect our green belt from development

Some Objections To Development On The Meopham, Istead Rise, Culverston Green Belt :-

Flawed Report

The report which the council used to short list the proposed development sites is flawed. There are errors and omissions in the report which would have a bearing on the sites suitability and potential for development.

Background

Gravesham Borough Council have more that sufficient brownfield sites to meet the demands for new homes for many years to come, the problem is the developers. Gravesham Borough Council say that those developers are not willing to develop those sites in the next five years to satisfy demand hence they must look at alternative sites for development and the only option is green field. Unfortunately there aren’t sufficient green field sites in the borough hence they intend to create some by moving the Green Belt border releasing farm land for development.

Housing Requirements

Gravesham Borough Council have the power to set there own targets as to how many homes they need to build. The target is based on estimated data which could be wrong. Developers might change there mind and bring brown field developments forward negating the need to build on the current green belt.

Storm Drains On A227 Insufficient

In heavy rain the storm drains on the A227 are unable to cope with existing rainfall. If fields around the A227 are concreted the run off water will increase and make the problem worse.

The force of the rain water regularly lift the drain covers.

A227 Is Not Designed For Current Traffic Levels Let Alone More

The A227 cannot cope with current levels of traffic let alone any increase. It regularly suffers long traffic jams and the road has collapsed once in 2011 and closed a few times for essential repairs.

Virtually no one cycles a long the A227 as it is so dangerous opting to use there cars adding to the traffic.

Children cann’t cycle to school, and encouraged to cycle on the paths at other times to avoid the traffic.

There are parts of the A227 where school children are forced to walk within feet of traffic doing 30mph (the minimum speed limit along A227).

Rather than investigating schemes that will increase the traffic on the A227 the council should be investigating schemes that reduce it.

Loss Of Farmland

All the sites being considered have some agricultural value. Some have been farmed successfully up until the point that they were purchased by “landing banking” companies and farmers asked to leave. By considering them for development the council are supporting the practise which will see a reduction of farming in the area and possibly sign a death warrant for other farm land adjoining the current or future green belt. The council are taking a short term approach to satisfy a five year building program rather than considering the long term implications on food and the environment.

Wildlife

Alll of the area’s under consideration are rich in wildlife owls, bats, badgers, woodpeckers, even snakes. Many of these species are protected under law. So a proper wildlife study should be carried out on the sites.

Brownfield Development Sites

Gravesham Borough Council seem to have excluded sites such as the 10,000 homes in Ebbsfleet Valley from there plans as they “will happen much later”. This exclusion is wrong as its highly likely to be built in the next 20 years. This site alone would provide double the amount of homes the borough is proposing for the next 20 years.

There are errors and omissions in the report which would have a bearing on the sites suitability and potential for development.

100’s of school children have to use this path (marked with red dot) daily.

The A227 was never designed to cope with this sort of traffic.

Just feet from where school children walk