Are YOU affected by pollution?
The red areas of this map show where High Levels of pollution have been measured.
If I vary my jogging or others make use of the Plume Flow device, this may change the map.
This website includes records of real-time air quality using a Plume Laboratories - "Flow" Device.
LOCAL PLAN REBOOT - REGULATION 18
SBC appear to be ready to launch a welcome new Regulation 18 Public Consultation. The Local Plan Panel will share a proposed timetable at their meeting of 8th September 2021. The details will not emerge until the formal launch of the Reg18 Consultation in October 2021. An email has gone out (1st September 2021) to Residents and Neighbours to alert them to the process.
Lynsted Lane plans - 86 new homes - now on its own page
QUINN ESTATES launches attack on Rural Life and Grade 1 Farmland - 9,250 homes ("Highsted Park")
New website spearheads awareness campaign and sharing advice on making objections
Latest Threat on East Side of Lynsted Lane
new junction 55 meters from A2
Phase 1 - 10 Homes
Phase 2 - up to 50 Homes in total
(350 meters along Lynsted Lane).
DRAFT LOCAL PLAN - due for resubmission "late October 2021"
We must wait to see if SBC removes TAO in response to democratic responses in the flawed and doomed Reg19 Consultation.
"Teynham Area of Opportunity (TAO)" + Bearing Fruits - Total of 1,400+ new homes north and south of A2
add the 1,330 new homes already allocated under Bearing Fruits = 22,500 vehicles daily.
Add a Bypass through fields south of the A2.
Loss of two cul-de-sacs in Teynham Village to through traffic.
|World Health Organisation (WHO) Revises its Air Pollution "Harmful Thresholds". It is fifteen years since the last Report and the science has moved on considerably since then. Report 22nd September 2021. Infographic from New Scientist explains below:-||PDF download|
|NEW: 300,000 Homes urban-focussed Policy Change and LETTER TO RESIDENT FROM SECRETARY OF STATE JENRICK about decisions by local authorities on "appropriateness" of housing numbers in Local Plans||PDF download|
|Emerging Picture from the Local Plan Reg19 "Consultation". Kent Messenger article from the Chair of LKPC.||PDF Download|
|THIS IS THE LYNSTED WITH KINGSDOWN PARISH COUNCIL LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE LOCAL PLAN - NOW LOADED TO THE SBC PORTAL||PDF Download|
NEW: Newspaper Report: "Law Firm issues challenge over housing blueprint." - Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council comes out fighting.
|Open Newspaper article|
THIS IS KCC'S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO THE LOCAL PLAN - FAIRLY DAMNING OF SBC'S HANDLING OF THE LOCAL PLAN
|Download the PDF|
|NEW Resident's website put together by those who have managed to comment - it really helps! I ftime is short, try using the Interactive Form. Very clear and easy to read website with only four pages!||Stop-Tao.com|
|NEW Letter from Helen Whately, MP for Faversham - sent out on 26th April 2021 on the Local Plan||PDF Letter|
|Teynham Area of Opportunity paragraphs. Allows you to draft off-line and then cut and paste into SBC Consultation Portal. Your formatting is kept when you cut and paste into the Consultation Portal.||Word download
|Summary of Key Arguments to use in "Policy AO1" - using the headings of relevant tests of deliverability, justification, legal compliance, compliance with national policy.||PDF download|
Drafting Ideas (including versions from Nigel Heriz-Smith) -
|The purpose of the website https://stop-tao.com/ Is to simplify the process of commenting on the Local Plan. Try it and see! Simply copy and paste the statements (add anything else you want) into the representation form and email it off. You don't have to use the portal, which is clunky and time-consuming.||STOP-TAO Website|
|Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council (LKPC): Dedicated Local Plan Newsletter (April 2021)||Visit LKPC website Newsletter|
|Pollution: CPRE Report on Spread of Pollution associated with AQMA5 - April 2021 PDF||Download|
|Pollution: Imperial College modelling of average pollution levels in Lynsted with Kingsdown (PM2.5, PM10, and NO2) in 20 square metres of the whole UK. The figures for Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish - created by a Parishioner. I found it very revealing.||Parishioner's Project|
|Housing Numbers: Stacking up homes in the wrong place. Pollution, vibration, noise, congestion into the future. Add the other allocations already approved for Bapchild (600) and Ospringe (300). About 2,300+ homes total and all that brings with it.||TAO Housing Numbers|
|New House Farm Development off Lynsted Lane 10-40-50 homes proposed near A2/Lynsted Lane.
- KCC Letter 2020
- KCC Letter 2021-
- Link to the Proposalasking for entrance to the Site to be approved, associated with ten homes but gaining access to a much larger site.
Objection Letter - 26th May 2021 (Nigel Heriz-Smith)
|Letter to Residents
Objection Letter (Nigel Heriz-Smith)
|Active Travel: Working Together to Promote Active Travel: A Briefing for Local Authorities - Public Health England questions the viability of "active travel" in rural communities. SBC is pissing into the wind with TAO||Download|
|Bypass Survey: Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council (LKPC) shares the results of your responses to the idea of a bypass||Visit LKPC website article|
- My thoughts on SBC's "Inside Swale" (March 2021) - no mention on the cover and only six sentences inside (one of those looks like it is wrong about charging!?) - as of 8th March 2021, I look forward to their promised letter to all households - will it clarify the position in a way that means something to residents of Swale? The "Inside Swale" mentions.
- 7th February 2021: thoughts following the public Zoom Meeting. Guidance to Objections to challenging the "soundness" of SBC's Draft Local Plan and, more locally, the Teynham Area of Opportunity - this document has been created in response to the open community Zoom meeting on 5th February 2021. Thanks to Lloyd Bowen for hosting. PDF Download.
- Letters from Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council Chairman Objecting to SBC handling of the Draft Local Plan including the Plan to impose 1,400 new homes around Greenstreet and Teynham Village together with a bypass through fields south of the A2. This is in addition to the ones already approved in Bapchild and Teynham.
- Recording of the Extraordinary Council Meeting, 3rd February 2021. The short version is - public consultation (Reg18) was abandoned by the Coalition - that meant they also threw out a commitment to "meaningful consultation" with residents - the Local Plan Panel taking it upon itself to decide ALL matters of selection before submitting it to this Council for approval for Reg19 Consultation. Reg19 has been discussed in Council as being ONLY about whether the Draft Local Plan is "sound". This is misleading as you are entitled (a) to comment on any aspect you wish and expect that to be considered before submission to the Planning Inspector. So residents across the whole Borough have been prevent any "meaningful consultation". It is my view that the Council has failed to consult and abandoned us to decisions made without local knowledge..
- 3rd February 2021 - CPRE "weighs-in" against faulty "consultation" over Draft Local Plan.
- Copy of a Letter sent on 22nd January 2021 by Nigel Heriz-Smith to Kent County Council seeking clarification of their views on a bypass around Teynham tied to 1,405 new homes east and west of Teynham village and south of Greenstreet joining Lynsted Lane to Claxfield Lane.
- 19th January 2021 - Swale Borough Council Meeting to discuss the early Draft of the Borough Plan to 2031. My thoughts can be read using this link - my document includes links to the SBC Notice and Links to all twelve document under discussion. Central to the document is the idea of "Teynham Area of Opportunity" based on 1,100+ new homes north and south of London Road/Greenstreet with a bypass in Lynsted Parish.
PUBLIC INTEREST RECORD: THE 90-MINUTE MEETING - HERE (unedited)
- PUBLIC INTEREST RECORD: Extraordinary Executive Meeting on 26th January 2021.. HERE (Unedited)
Shocking disrespect shown towards elected Councillors - casual dismissal of valid policy poiints of view rounded off the meeting. The question of procedures is a serious worry.
- A Problem for 2021: Changes to the Distribution of Housing in the UK is under review, to move housing numbers to urban areas. How this might affect the position Swale has not been worked out yet (1st February 2021). In the meantime, let's consider just what we may lose with building over Grade 1 agricultural land (near London Road and open downland countryside (south) and creekside (north). If you want to zoom-in, visit the mapping tool by clicking here for a map showing paths around us..
- I have put together a map of the whole of Swale based on plots of land already approved in "Bearing Fruits" (shown in pink) and plots offered into the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) that SBC Officials have indicated are "Suitable and Deliverable" (shown in blue). There two file sizes a vailable to download - 25Mb File and 9Mb File. If you want detailed commentary for these sites, you should visit the Swale Borough Council web site.
- Health Warning: Although some 90+ Sites are deemed by Officials to be "unsuitable" or "undeliverable", Councillors can revisit and/or challenge those omissions when detailed discussion takes place on making choices. The plots shown here are roughly speaking "at the front of the queue for consideration when detailed discussions take place."
- The developers behind the "Highsted Park/Valley" (the urban sprawl dressed up as a New Garden Community to the S.E. of Sittingbourne) have started their "charm offensive" to put pressure on SBC and existing communities with a bit of window-dressing. SBC appear not to like the New Garden Communities, so Quinns and other major developers are rolling up their sleeves for a fight... Quinn Estates held a "public webinar event" on Tuesday, 29 September 2020. This is their first attempt to 'make facts on the ground' with SBC, dressed up as 'public consultation' - knowing that very few (unrepresentative) people would take part.
UPDATE: Direction of Travel: At their Meeting of 23rd September 2020, Swale Borough Council decided to support planning decisions based on "Option C" identified by Officials. That Option proposed that 10,000 new homes to be spread:
|Isle of Sheppey||14%||1,400 homes|
|Sittingbourne (Built up area and adjacent land)||10.5%||1,050 homes|
|Faversham (Built up area and adjacent land)||35%||3,500 homes|
Rural Areas (supposedly keeping within any defined built areas like Teynham and Lynsted)
|Windfall (unplanned infilling and development sites that don't breach SBC POlicies and rules set by National Planning Policy Framework, 2018) - they could appear ANYWHERE||30%||3,000 homes|
237 POTENTIAL SITES OFFERED TO SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN - MPAS and SBC Officials' comments included
The Full Document can be downloaded here - 80MB, 560 Pages - if this is too much, watch this space for smaller PDFs for each group identified below over the weekend of 20th/21st June 2020. Be patient, this is not a trivial process! I may also produce a Map like the one I did for the first Borough Plan - see here. Frightening!
I have put all the Candidate Plots offered into the Local Plan Revision - - - Worst case scenario, Teynham becomes continuously linked along the A2 to Sittingbourne. Bapchild disappears entirely. Urban sprawl absorbs all the agricultural land south of the A2 from DULLY LANE to Sittingbourne. This appears to be the direction of travel given the language used by SBC officials that favour the "mega proposals" over the smaller plots that are "rejected" - especially around Tonge/Bapchild.
A Spreadsheet has been shared with me by a friend, which very helpfully exposes the full enormity of what we are threatened by - Excel Sheet download. Be aware, some of the associations are wrong ... Cellar Hill is not in Teynham the last time I looked!
The Plots of Land from Sittingbourne to Faversham can be viewed more easily in this shorter document.
- Adding further pollution along the "trapped" section of the A2 between East Sittingbourne and West Faversham.
- Teynham and Lynsted Ward
- Around Teynham = 8 plots offered [with one 'repeat' off Frognal Lane!]
- Lynsted Lane and Claxfield Lane = 5 plots offered.
- Lynsted Village = 3 plots offered
- 1 at Norton Ash crossroads
- 4 at Ospringe to its West
- 3 at Bapchild
- Teynham and Lynsted Ward
I have prepared a map for OSPRINGE and FAVERSHAM showing the candidate plots of land being put forward for adoption in the Revised Local Plan. Those plots that feeddirectly onto the A2 are the most obvious threat to AQMA5, in particular those in and around Ospringe. However, the bigger picture for Faversham is not pretty.
- For an overview, you can download the smaller map (8Mb);
- if you want to be able to read some street names - use this much larger file (19Mb)
Taken together or separately, all these options add to harmful pollution in existing AQMAs. Any suggestion otherwise is a nonsense. Agriculture will also be damaged.
- FURTHER BACKGROUND: Coastal Flood Risk Map
- AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION - MAP.- South of the A2 is GRADE 1 Agricultural land through to Bapchild!
- NIGEL HERIZ-SMITH COMMENTS on amended plans for development south of A2 leading onto Lynsted Lane. My response.
Be aware, Swale Borough Council plans to hold its Meetings,
including Planning Meetings, via Skype.
Local Government Air Quality Responsibilities
House of Commons Library Briefing Paper for MPs
(Issued 25th February 2020)
Woodland natural capital accounts, UK: 2020.
Natural capital accounts containing information on ecosystem services for woodlands in the UK.
This Bulletin, issued 28th February 2020 by the Office of National Statistics, is not as "snooze-making" as the title appears!
I lays out in plain English, the problems we face from poor tree cover and the financial benefits that come from local planting at the small-scale - not just forests and woodlands. 46-pages but a lot of that is illustration/graphs...etc.
Living with Beauty - Promoting health, well-being and sustainable growth
Published 28th January 2020 - 190 Pages - This is a very wide-ranging document. My interest is in idea of planting fruit trees as part of the planning approvals process as well as improving public spaces. Remember, you can order fruit trees in different sizes - you do this by choosing a "rootstock" - this is summarised and explained by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS). Brogdale can also help.
If time is short - read pages 35-52 which summarise "What Should Be Done?".
If you are even shorter of time ...
"Policy Proposition 32: plant urban orchards – one fruit tree per house. In addition to the wider benefits set out, there is a need to reconnect children with nature and with the sources of their food. The government should:-
- Support a programme of urban orchards within our towns and cities;
- Encourage, via guidance, local councils to require one fruit tree per new house built; and
- Encourage housebuilders to plant one fruit tree per house."
Latest Government Statistics on Pollution trends across the UK, 14th February 2020
I have written to Neighbours and Residents to alert them to the latest evidence that we face "business as usual" when it comes to protecting our health against the attack of major housing developments injecting and trapping yet more traffic into the A2 in places where drivers have very little choice but to join queues that spew harmful Particulate Matter into our bodies. You can read that email here.I produced a graph for the data from 2008 to 2018 to help make the point.
The short lesson for Swale Borough Council is - stop ignoring the bigger picture!
Fixating on NOx alone means our health is in the hands of people wearing very narrow blinkers.
We have a new SBC administration, what do you think? Will officials be instructed to get a grip on reality? Or will the bully boys win?
There is a need for good quality housing, but not if all logic and compassion is ignored.
Here we go again!
My "starter for ten points" has been submitted to the Planning Portal on 23rd October 2019
We have raised many issues of concern, most have direct connection with SBC legal responsibilities to "reduce" harm and reinforce the importance of "Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish" as a rural parish that benefits us all - north and south of the A2.
If this proposal is revisited by the Developers to make material changes,
we will have to stand ready to resubmit ALL our objections
because SBC would fire a new "Starting Gun."
[Contact methods retained (below) just in case]
· Online at: THIS LINK - opens the exact page or http://pa.midkent.gov.uk/online-applications/ (General Entry page). You may find you have to re-register on the Portal as several of us have been removed due to new Data Protection requirements! Get in early to create your new profile! Otherwise you will wait forever for an email to update your password, etc!
· Email firstname.lastname@example.org - if your objection has images or heavy formatting that you think is important. The Planning Portal strips out formatting rendering it as plain text. In that case, save your comments as a PDF and email it to this email address.
· Write to Mid Kent Planning Support, Maidstone House, King Street, Maidstone ME15 6JQ - Case Officer - Andrew Spiers
- Keep track on-line:
The application number and site address - 19/505036/OUT | Outline application for the erection of up to 86 residential dwellings, including 50% affordable housing (Access being Sought). | Land South Of London Road Teynham Kent ME9 9QJ. To view the details and see comments received - USE THIS LINK.
- Keep track through e-mails:
I maintain an email group (let me know if you want to add your email address, let me know - email@example.com
- Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council Objection Letter, 11th November 2019
- Lynsted with Kingsdown PC flier sent out 3rd November
- Court of Appeal Judgement (12th September 2019) reinforces the obligation on Local Authorities
to apply the test of "cumulative impact"where AQMAs are declared and reject Proposals
that seek to avoid this responsibility under cover of "mitigation" (miles away!). PDF Copy of the Judgement.
MEASUREMENT OF POLLUTION LEVELS AND THE TIME IT LASTS = "HARM"
Higher pollution leads to more harm, more quickly.
SBC only measures NOx at a time when we have got very high levels of VOCs, PM10 and PM2.5.
THE A2 IS NOT A TRUNK ROAD - STOP PRETENDING IT IS!
ALL development approvals that join the A2 must logically add pollution to the AQMAs. We are already living with harmful levels of pollution from heavy and often congested traffic.
PLANNING FOR POLLUTION
This website does not argue against housing; it does argue for housing in places with sensibly thought out infrastructure and with the least harm to the health of residents, visitors and workers.
Councillors & Officials have argued that they can deliver 'housing without more pollution'. They can only say this because they only measure NOx from combustion - engines are burning cleaner. SBC ignores three other toxic pollutants identified as harmful by Central Government (see Pollution Diary). So, SBC simply rolls over to Developers who always say that pollution (NOx) impacts from each development are "insignificant". This is not true if all pollutants are discussed. Perhaps the new Council will get on the front foot in delivering on health issues for their Residents?
SBC have ignored Government policies that link increases in housing with increases in harmful pollution - especially in AQMAs. The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) tells all Local Authorities that they must take into account the "cumulative impact" of all housing approvals where traffic will increase in existing AQMAs. SBC's behaviour undermines Government policies on reducing pollution at a local and national level. The Court of Appeal has made abundantly clear the overriding importance of pollution, cumulative impacts and planning decisions in its judgement of 12th September 2019.
TOXIC MIX APPROVED FOR CONSUMPTION BY YOUR COUNCIL
This website grew from ad hoc entries into the www.lynsted.com website - hopefully this new site allows for better structure and clarity. Please let me know if you have suggestions for changes or additions.
Innovation around Facebook. I am instinctively suspicious of Facebook but I have decided to try a Facebook Page in support of this website - https://www.facebook.com/Aqma5a2. My intention (so far) is to share ideas about vocabulary used in planning and pollution. Perhaps also pick on interesting ideas from the news or policy-makers. For those of you who don't 'do' Facebook, I have added a page to this site in which Facebook posts will appear from time to time. Go to my web-page for non-Facebook peeps.