After councillors gave it the go-ahead last winter, developer Corinthian Homes agreed a multi-million pound infrastrucutre improvements with Canterbury City Council to get the plans signed off.
The 550-acre plot is now set to have two new primary schools, offices, community spaces, sports facilities and a health centre, with Corinthian warning the project could take up to 20 years. There is no mention of improved water & sewage improvements with the local water company to prevent more discharges into the sea, only a short piece on a new “state-of-the-art” wastewater treatment works when 150 of the 4,000 houses have been built.
This is controversial in itself, as the approval of the plans gives Corinthian full permission for the first 140 homes – while the remainder have received “outline” approval, meaning they will be subject to further, more detailed applications.
The controversial Mountfield Park, set for the south of Canterbury, has faced a multitude of objections from locals, a High Court battle and lengthy delays.
The largest investment will be £20 million reserved by Corinthian for the building of two new two-form entry primary schools on the land.
According to plans, this will be split into two phases, the ‘Northern Primary School’ would be built first, with contributions from the developer paid in installments based on how many homes are occupied – providing constant funding for Kent County Council (KCC).
A ‘Southern Primary School’ would soon follow, with KCC and Corinthian still workin out who would be responsible for the erection of the buildings.
A new junction will be created on the A2 close to the top of New Dover Road.
It will contain off-slips bringing both Londonbound and coastbound traffic into the development.
The pollution issues at the Stodmarsh nature reserve have held up many new-builds across the district, with developers having to come up with plans to manage wastewater treatment.
Fears over the quality and volume of water to be discharged into Lampen Stream from Mountfield Park, and questions as to who will be responsible for an on-site wastewater treatment works, were raised last year.
The plans have proved controversial with environmentalists, with more than 200 letters of objection to the local authority.
Many of them cited the loss of rural and agricultural land, the impact it will have on the “identity” of Bridge village, the development being out of character with the area, and fears of urban growth.
Despite this, council officers recommended the committee approve the project, saying it would “have a significant positive impact upon the district’s economy”.
The council planning committee voted to include an additional condition, that a planning sub-committee must meet every six months to monitor the development – including meeting with affected local residents.
It is set to start meeting before the end of the year, with promises made after May’s elections of getting the committee together within six months.
