SPRING NEWSLETTER FOR A.R.T. MEMBERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN MARCH 2005.

The enclosed sheets have been compiled in recent weeks and exemplify matter concerning developments in Ashford. Sadly, on a number of fronts they read more like the immortal words in Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar' spoken by Marc Antony ' I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him'.
To coin yet another phrase - 'Too many cooks spoil the broth' there are clearly too many bodies involved in the planning and layout, and at the end of the day the planners in charge at ABC, both within the Council and in the Planning Department, for all their efforts have failed to exercise adequate control over the developers. The result is that we have sufficient houses to keep Prescott at bay, but we do not have communities, we do not have infrastructure, and the Council are caught between retaining their powers by building the requisite number of houses to keep their independence and not daring to get tough with developers who go crying to the Inspector whenever anything is challenged.
We have a Charter that was so badly composed it had to be binned; we have new housing estates with not a single facility; we have estates through which no bus can pass;
we have a dearth of telephone booths and post boxes; community facilities are non existent. Properly defined, clear plans are kept in wraps, and local bodies are given semi-indecipherable plans showing whole areas only, without detailed layout of roads or buildings, on which to base their own assessments. This is not good enough. We need detailed plans of areas to be built on and time scale.
Some will condemn these as harsh criticisms, and on some fronts remedial action may have been taken or is planned. So be it, we at ART set out our stall as we see it and we want to make our voice heard!
We plan to hold our AGM as usual in the Octagon Room at Ashford School on Thursday, June 9th. at 6.30p.m. We hope to have a speaker and will place an announcement in the 'Kent on Sunday' on each of the two Sundays preceding the meeting as a reminder. Wine and soft drinks will be served.

Ian Grant - Chairman Ashford Rural Trust.

EXPOSE OF PRESENT SITUATION ON ASHFORD'S DEVELOPMENT

There has been considerable confusion over who is responsible for what and who is answerable to whom. To try to shed some light on this let me set out the main players:-

1. Mr.Prescott, Minister representing the government. He has decreed that Ashford must expand by 31,000 new homes and create 28,000 new jobs by 2031.(Source para.1.1.3 RPG 9 dated Feb.2004)
2. Mr.Prescott's assistants are the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA), who in turn have their proposals examined by a Panel appointed by the government (G.O.S.E.) with the aim of ensuring that all interested parties can air their views in public by invitation, and subsequently to endeavour to ensure that all bodies work in concert to prevent hold-ups and delays and permit the developments to proceed smoothly.
SEERA employ civil servants who are responsible for overseeing all developments in the South East of England, and are based at Guildford in Surrey.

The KCC succeeded in persuading Mr.Prescott to allow them to oversee his demands rather than a government appointed body taking over. Thus you have:-

1.KCC based in Maidstone and led by Sir Sandy Bruce Lockhart.
2.Ashford Borough Council whose Planning Officer is Richard Alderton, working in conjunction with Ashford Future Development Board, where Martin Bacon has overall responsibility for overseeing decisions and in particular liaising with Public Service bodies, and Ian Hill who heads up future planning projects.

Out in the sidelines are South East Development Agency, an unelected body who oversee decisions made by SEERA and make their own assessments based on need primarily and available infrastructure secondly. Also reporting direct to Mr.Prescott are Urban Initiatives, an independent firm of consultants, who have been commissioned by the government to prepare various alternative schemes for housing/building areas
set out on maps, and to map out what they consider to be spaces available for building in and around Ashford. They advise their findings to ABC, but ABC no longer work in conjunction with them.

Taking a keen interest in these developments are independent bodies such as CPRE and the ART, to name but two.

It is hardly surprising that despite much liaison there have been some glaring mistakes made in pursuing these developments against a background of government pressure and
demands made by developers. The Council is faced with being forced to make decisions quickly in order to ensure the houses are built and avoid the government taking over their role. Developers are keen to get on building, are anxious to build houses of a type they can sell, are keen to maximise profits by building only houses and essential services, and know that if the Council procrastinate they can go straight to the government inspector who almost invariably backs their plans! The Council Leader presides over members who are locally elected and not unsurprisingly are more interested in looking after the voters living in their patch than in the overall benefit to the town. The combined numbers of rural councillors and those representing fringe areas amounts in percentage terms to more than 50% of those representing the town itself, with the result that matters concerning the whole town are left on the shelf or to the decision of the Leader.
He in turn has to decide whether to recommend a development that provides maximum housing on a brownfield site without any amenities, as against one with fewer houses and more amenity areas, probably spilling over onto a Greenfield site.
So there are conflicting elements combining to restrain the Planners from ensuring that what they would like are indeed built.
In consequence we see new 'communities' being squeezed willy nilly into a given space, with absolutely no amenities, not even a bench and a green patch, let alone shops, community hall, schools, places of worship, facilities for medical attention, public houses etc. Worse still the roads layout makes no provision for buses or public transport, there are no telephone boxes, no post boxes, no directional signs, no additional parking facilities. Roads are so narrow that Fire Engines will experience problems getting through if cars are parked in the main routes.
So right at the start we are left with sprawling housing estates packed into tightly knit areas, lacking all those ingredients that would make them into communities.
Looking ahead it is easy to foresee heavy congestion, as every householder will need to use their car to get anywhere, and the local roads will be blocked by parked cars as the Planners have allowed only 1 and a half parking spaces per dwelling. Look around too, and you will see cars parked in front of garages rather than in them. Why? Because the garages are so narrow that once you have driven your car in there is no room to open the door to get out!!
Parking everywhere in England is an increasing problem, and one that planners are simply not addressing. In particular at the William Harvey Hospital it is so bad visitors use Tesco's car park, leaving greatly reduced room for shoppers.
As stated above G.O.S.E. has stated that 10,000 new jobs must be created by 2010.
The current job creation rate is just 300 p.a. So where are all these newcomers going to work? If there is no work in Ashford they will be commuting to London or the Thames Valley towns, if not drawing the dole! Road communications from developments in South and West Ashford to the M.20 junction 9 will need urgent re-planning.
As if this was not enough there are problems with services arising. Water is the first to raise it's ugly head. Mid Kent Water is being put up for sale by it's foreign owners.
Whilst it has a legal obligation to ensure supply for all users there is no sign that any serious attempt is being made to increase the current supply; to the contrary the Water Authority is talking about rationing. With one of the lowest rainfall areas in the country Kent is not well placed to suddenly dramatically find new sources of supply.
Then you have Electricity. One power station at Dungeness is due to close in 2005; the other in theory can continue until 2023, but if the periodic inspections disclose serious faults it could be shut down much earlier. The next is due in 2008! The only source proposed at present for replacing the lost output from Dungeness, some 440 megawatts p.a., are Wind Turbine Farms. It is estimated that 1200 would be needed to replace the power station, and that at a cost of £1m. each. The site proposed on Romney Marsh is bitterly opposed by conservationists and others, and that is for just the 26 units planned!
Some suggest that 2015 will be crisis year, with only minimal supply available, as by then more than half the nuclear fuelled power stations will have been closed down.
So add this to water, plus the failure to increase the capacity of the Bywater plant to process more waste water, and you have two major crisis factors looming in the very near future.
Ashford has never been considered a cultural town. It does not have a Cathedral, no major battle was ever fought there, indeed it has very little historic significance. Just a plain market town where farmers gathered to together to sell their produce. More recently there have been some attempts to inject a little culture, if you can refer to such buildings as the Julie Rose Stadium and multi-shopping precinct just south of the rail line. There is talk of a Discovery building, but neither design nor site has been chosen, nor funds allocated. The ugly Charter Building within the town centre is earmarked for demolition, but when or what would replace it are light years away. Even the draft wording and format of the Charter document designed to set out for all to see what Ashford had achieved and proposed to build on has had to be binned and sent back to the drawing board!
This situation is on the one hand sad and on the other a matter for grave concern. One forms the opinion that in trying to protect their own position, the Council have been too weak and have failed as a body to exercise their authority both by standing up to government demands and being too lenient with developers. Only very recently do we have at last one example of them exercising their muscles and insisting that two buildings within Repton Park be demolished since they were not built in accord with plans approved. It is time, perhaps, for ART to seek support from other bodies such as CPRE and the combined groups of Parish Councils to submit a paper to the government, copied to ABC and KCC highlighting the failures in these developments and demanding that infrastructure is put in place and funded in advance before these developments are commenced.

IAG MEMO. 14TH.MARCH 2005 RE NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN ASHFORD.

1. WATERBROOK AND CHIESEMANS GREEN.
It appears that a developer, G.S.E. (Groundwork South East) has acquired land at Waterbrook including the old exhibition buildings and the Truck Stop. The overnight rate for truckers has been increased from £4 to £9, and this has deterred many drivers from using it and given rise to complaints from their use of free lay-bys and other potential free parking spaces around Ashford. There will be a meeting on Friday, March 18th, to discuss this with ABC and GSE. There is a proposal to move the truck park closer to Jnc.10A. This is vehemently opposed, and it has been pointed out that the provision of such a park is the responsibility of KCC and should not fall as a burden on ABC rates payers. An alternative proposal to put it near Maidstone will be mooted. ART will support this motion.

2. JUNCTION 10A.
ART do not believe that Junction 10A is either needed or will be needed if the truck stop is moved. Rather they would support a clear route extending the South Orbital route to join up with Junction 9 but avoiding the town centre.

3. PLANS AND MAPS
ART deplore the plans produced by Urban Initiatives as being very indistinct, not easily related to the 1" to 1 mile Ordinance Survey, and showing far too little detail on main roads, existing roads, new roads, rivers, streams etc. What are required are much more detailed plans showing the proposed layout for each new development, which can be handed out to interested parties for proper appraisal.

4. 'BODIES'
ART question why so many different bodies are required. Surely GOSE are quite able to represent the government in overseeing the strategy and the bringing together of the various parties involved to co-ordinate the dictates
set out as government policy, and ABC have a Council that is elected and a Planning department they employ to make decisions on what sites should be developed and to work with a developer. Why do we need SEEDA, SEERA, Urban Inititiatives putting forward contradictory proposals? How much extra do they add to the cost and do they actually have a credible input? ART believe that local bodies are far more useful.

5. PUBLIC TRANSPORT
ART believe that much more attention needs to be paid to the routes and the termini. It suspects that these are loosely planned on paper without sufficient research as to whether routes are passable for buses, whether roundabouts will need to be enlarged, lay-bys built, and routes chosen that will entail only small distances from houses to termini. Shoppers will not use the service if they have to haul their purchases several hundred yards to reach home. Certainly the terminus proposed at The Warren will require modifications.
6. MEETING GOVERNMENT TARGETS
ART perceives that the Council for Ashford are perhaps not acting as a unified body, with the result that much responsibility for final decisions rests firmly on the shoulders of the Council's Leader. In consequence torn by the constraints of meeting government guidelines and targets on one hand and trying to limit the amount of land newly dedicated to housing on the other, sight is lost of building communities in the determination of developers to maximise housing potential for each site and therefore their profits. Much of the infrastructure is left in their hands to the detriment of the overall scheme. More attention needs to be paid to the detail.

7. 'NEW' HOUSING
There seems to be no challenge made to the government's assessment that in excess of 30,000 houses must be built in Ashford. ART wonders if any check is being kept on how many houses are sold to existing home owners. The inference from the government directive is that most of the new houses should be for new owners, i.e. immigrant families, young marrieds/first time buyers, those who have been renting. If it were found that many houses were being acquired by house owners moving from elsewhere in England, surely there would be a good case for fighting the government on the number of new houses actually required?
There has been little mention in discussions of the use of blocks of flats, either for university students, 'affordable' homes, low income workers etc. Whilst no-one wants a repeat of Stanhope, a number of well built and attractively designed blocks could quite easily be incorporated in the schemes, and flats require much less land than individual houses.

8. POWER/ENERGY
Power from renewable energy sources is undoubtedly desirable, but the availability of such sources is extremely limited. Wind Turbines are promoted as being one source in advanced and tested form, but they have many disadvantages, not least being very cost ineffective. Surely the way forward is renewal of Nuclear Energy plants, where new technology can now overcome most of the complaints levelled against existing plants? No doubt in a couple of decades power from the sea waves and the wind may become more practical and economic as developments progress, but unless decisions are taken now and action motivated we risk major power cuts in the next few years.

9. JOBS/EMPLOYMENT
28,000 new jobs are supposed to be created in Ashford. ART remain highly sceptical that the scope exists or will be created to achieve anywhere near this target. Based on current levels it would require little short of a miracle. This factor may well lead to high unemployment in the town on one hand and/or an influx of retired people or pensioners, neither group of which will assist the local economy.