Frequently Asked Questions.

Q. Isn’t the provision of the football ground a welcome new community facility?

A. It would not be a new community benefit. The football club already exists; it would just be moved from Larkfield to upgraded facilities in Birling/Snodland. It is a ‘lift and drop’ from the existing site, there would be no additional opportunities for grass-roots football. There is already a successful football club in Snodland and facilities for grass-roots football are available in Leybourne Chase. Additionally, it would now be on Green Belt land and in the Kent Downs National Landscape.

Q. Aren’t sports facilities acceptable in the Green Belt?

A. Outdoor sports are considered appropriate, provided that they ‘preserve the openness of the Green Belt’. As proposed, there is now a disproportionate amount of built development and hard surfacing. The 3G materials have the potential for disturbing ‘micro plastic’ leakage into waterways.

Q. Isn’t the housing needed to make the provision of the football ground viable?

A. In reality, the provision of the football ground, padel courts, and golf driving range are not the real objectives of this application. By submitting outline planning first, there is a way of ‘testing the water’ to slip in more advanced plans once outline planning has been granted.

The housing is the prime objective, hidden in the guise of relocating the football club. The developer’s whole viability submission is arguably flawed.

Q. Surely we need more housing?

A. Yes, but for the right people in the right places. The Government have significantly increased the number of new houses in Conservative-controlled Authorities like TMBC, but not in London or Medway. More houses in urban areas safeguard the important rural areas, landscapes and biodiversity. It makes no sense to build on the countryside locations like this with all the harmful consequences.

No affordable housing is proposed.

There are 20,000 empty dwellings in Kent. It must be better to regenerate existing housing stock before we continue this building frenzy on precious Green Belt land.

People on low income are better houssed in urban areas with higher income potential with more infrastructure and better transport links

(see snakes and ladders below)

Q. Aren’t the proposed mitigation measures sufficient to address all the objections?

A. No. The testing for contamination is inadequate and insufficient. The wildlife, habitat and biodiversity surveys are inadequate and insufficient. The traffic impact assessment is inadequate and insufficient. The mitigation measures for the increased noise and light pollution are inadequate and insufficient. The arguments in favour of developing in, and destroying, this part of the Green Belt and the Kent Downs National Landscape areas are inadequate and insufficient.

Q. Will the new access, parking provision and highway changes on to the A228 be sufficient?

A. No. The new access is regulated by traffic lights and a controlled pedestrian crossing. This will cause additional hold ups to traffic on the A228, especially as it is so close to the existing controlled junction with Leybourne Way. At present parking for 400 cars is shown to use this access, and potentially this is only Phase1 with that number more than doubling.

The resultant congestion and hold ups will increase further the dangerous ‘rat running’ on the narrow country lane between Snodland and Birling.

Q. Is the site safe and appropriate for development?

A. No. It is a former uncontrolled landfill site and is contaminated. The level and nature of the contamination twice resulted in the Environment Agency stopping the landfill activities. Adequate exploration of this has not been carried out and with further risk due to the proposed use of piled foundations.

There is also a high-pressure oil pipeline running across the site together with underground power cables. Any disruption or damage to either of these would cause serious harm to the area and residents.

There is also the real risk of additional flooding to the area because of the landfill blocking the original watercourses. Added to this will be the increased surface water runoff with all the proposed additional hard surfacing included as part of this proposal.