My speech about Lowfield St

Chair, thank you for allowing me to address the committee this evening.

The points I’m going to raise this evening are ones bought directly to me after consulting with my residents and it is their views that I am here to reflect this evening.

Firstly, I’d like to begin with what I see are some positive aspects of this application but in order to do that, I need to say the T-word…I am of course referring to Tesco.

I don’t want to dwell too long on them but we all remember the backhanded and duplicitous way in which they treated this Town. They didn’t engage with residents, they didn’t engage with elected members and they promised one false dawn after another. In that context it was inevitable that any new developer would be treated with caution.

To their credit, Meyer Homes and their consultants engaged local members last year and as a local member they have answered my queries and met with me on several occasion to discuss their plans. They also, at my request, held a community forum within my ward to listen to the concerns of residents and held consultation events at the Dartford Festival. Chair I’m sure I speak for members and residents in saying it represented a welcome change.

Now moving onto the application proper:

Chair I’m pleased to see provision of bicycle spaces (well above the level indicated by our Local Plan) and electric charge points and the introduction of a car club. This is an innovation that has really taken off in London and I believe this is the first application in Dartford that proposes to introduce such a scheme. Ultimately the long term solution to congestion and pollution will be to encourage people away polluting vehicles and to other modes of transport, so I’m pleased such measures in the proposal.

I’m also pleased that the developer has listened to concerns raised regarding the loss of trees within the vicinity and the commitment to replace the trees with semi-mature specimens early in the development, which I am pleased to see, has been added as a planning condition.

Concerns were also raised regarding the loss of historic buildings on Lowfield St. I accept that surveys reveal these buildings are now, unfortunately, beyond the point of refurbishment but I do understand the concerns from the Dartford Historical and Antiquarian Society who oppose full scale demolition. I am encourage that report mentions that reclaimed materials could potentially be used, and should this development be approved I would strongly urge for their inclusion.

Of course, Chair, the biggest benefit this proposal will bring, is an end to the 14 years uncertainty and the blight which Lowfield St has become on our town. I do not underestimate the importance the regeneration of this site, neither do residents. But after 14 years, our town deserves the right development, one that will enhance our community and I have some serious concerns about whether that this proposal can do that

Firstly Chair, the current plans, makes provision for 0.7 car parking spaces per unit which under current proposals will fall to 0.66 per unit across the completed development. I am also concerned by the loss of 110 spaces from Central car park. I accept that this will be mitigated by the Acacia Hall plans but if plans for development of the Town centre come to fruition then it is more car parking space not less than we need. Perhaps more pertinently, the figures are below that as set out by this Council’s own policies which states that town centre developments should have spaces on a 1:1 ratio.

The developer makes reference to the 2011 census that states that the percentage of car ownership is 42% amongst town centre residents. They also to point to a development in Norwich where car parking was underutilised. Chair, at the risk of stating the obvious, Dartford is not. In that same census Dartford as a whole has a car ownership percentage of 80.8% whilst Norwich has a percentage of 66.6%, so you would expect utilisation of car parking space to be lower.

Members will know that reality on the ground has significantly worsened since 2011. Ingram and Cranford Road are currently going through consultation for a CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) and Phoenix Place residents have recently submitted a petition for measure to help with their traffic issues. Simply put, residential roads in the area are already at their limit. If these assumptions are wrong, we’re going to make an already bad situation even worse.

Furthermore, the report references the previous 2011 application throughout but in particular regards to trip generation. The fact is that, as I have said, the situation is far worse than in 2011 and members know that traffic at Lowfield St is often as a standstill several times a week. Even if all the assumptions made around trip generation is correct, the fact is this development will only add to this problem.

It’s for that reason, I fear the impact on the Air quality and indeed Environmental Health share my concerns

‘Environmental Health of course has concerns about air quality in the town centre and has queried some of the assumptions to check these are correct’

I would therefore like to see strong measures in place for monitoring air quality levels after Phase 1 is complete, should the application be approved.

Chair I would now like to turn to the affordable housing element of the proposal.

Currently, the developer is proposing that 11% of the housing on the scheme is set aside to be ‘affordable’. As I understand this will include some set aside for council usage with the remainder set to be ‘shared ownership’ (part rent/part buy).

Personally, I am very disappointed by the low number. The Council’s own Local Plan (the document that sets out the standards the Council expects from each development) states that 30% should be reserved for affordable housing, this proposal fall way below that figure. Moreover, I am concerned by the lack of home to be made available to those who rent. With the remainder of the development set to be sold at market rate, I fear too many of these properties will remain out of reach of ordinary Dartford residents.

Perhaps my most serious concern with the development is whether there is the infrastructure in place to support it. Although the response from Clinical Commissioning Group (responsible for planning and commissioning health service in the area) does not raise an objection, the do state:

‘With no additional funding, already stretched services are unlikely to cope’

Despite assurances to increase capacity there is no firm plans for this to take place.

Furthermore a response from the Lowfield Medical Centre (although welcoming development of the ‘desolate’ site) states:

Many surgeries in Dartford town centre have already had to close their books due to lack of capacity and we ourselves are currently full at capacity with our current patient list’

Kent County Council has also raised concerns regarding the lack of capacity within our local schools:

‘The proposed development is forecast to give rise to additional pupils which cannot be accommodated within existing or forecast capacity in local schools’

In response the officer’s report does reference that a new primary school will be built on the Northern Gateway site and I am sure this will be welcome by Dartford residents. However, as many parents who need to send their children to schools outside the borough can testify, our education system is already oversubscribed.

I fear that the provision promised by the CCG and KCC will only meet existing demand and not with the growth that developments like these produce. Not only is that unfair to existing residents, it’s also unfair to people who want to make Dartford their home.

Chair, we’ve had fourteen years for progress to be made on this site.

Fourteen years of promises and let downs.

After fourteen years, the residents of Dartford deserve a development that is right for the community, one that is sustainable and one that speaks to the aspirations of our residents.