Join our Demonstration!
We invite you to join us for a peaceful, family-friendly demonstration against the plan to develop Princes Parade. We are protesting against the diversion of the coast road, the loss of wild space and wildlife habitat and the urbanisation of Princes Parade.
Save Our Road
Save Our Wildlife
Save Princes Parade!
Sunday, 15 August 2021
11.00 am Meet at the car park by the play area and Seapoint Canoe Centre.
From 1.00pm till 5.00pm There will be a “Celebration of Princes Parade” hosted by The Fountain, Seabrook CT21 5RT – featuring Jack Pound and the Rattlaz and Carol Grimes. There will be a BBQ, children’s activities and much more…
Accompanied children encouraged, animal fancy dress optional (prizes for best dressed!).
Please bring banners, placards and something to make some noise! We will walk along the seafront and along the canal for a short distance.
For more information please message us on Facebook @SavePrincesParade or email firstname.lastname@example.org
We do not agree the area will benefit from the proposed scheme which will see the coast road moved harmfully close to the canal with a high risk of pollution and which will decimate the wildlife living at the site.
Wildness and nature will be replaced by tarmac and buildings.
What’s the cost of building on a landfill site?
At the FHDC council meeting on July 21st Councillor Jim Martin questioned Council Leader David Monk on the viability of developing Princes Parade in the light of the site investigation report on the contamination of the former land fill site.
You can also download a copy of the full report to which Councillor Martin is referring here.
The full webcast of the council meeting can be found on the council’s website here.
What’s happening to the badgers at Princes Parade? (updated)
There’s a “planning application” (reference 21/1209/FH) on FHDC’s website relating to the fate of the badgers living on the land earmarked for development at Princes Parade and it appears to suggest that the council are planning to create an artificial sett for badgers displaced by the new development. There are already many objections to the plans as this article from KentOnline points out.
You can find full details on the FHDC planning portal here. Among the many interesting documents filed are this one, (the badger survey report) and an unredacted version of the Ecological Method Statement.
If you have strong feelings about the welfare of the badger population and would like to send in your own comments or objection, you can do so by following this link,
The deadline for comments is August 6th.
For your information, here is our own objection:
We are submitting this objection on behalf of our 616 members. Our objection to this planning application is as follows:
- The public do not know what the current position is in relation to the badger population as that part of the details have been redacted. This is unacceptable if the public are to make informed comment. Clearly KCC find it so, as they have asked for this information. It should also be made available to the public if the Council is going to rely on it in writing their report. It is a legal requirement.
- The details refer to sett A being retained at the western end of the site, and a new sett B created in this area. The layout of the western end of the site is unknown, both in terms of the position of the road, and whether it is still the intention to have the attenuation pond in this area.
- If the badger setts are in close proximity to the road there is the risk of badgers being hit by vehicles as they cross the road which is a highway safety issue.
- If the attenuation pond is in this area, the land will be too wet for the badgers to want to inhabit setts, generally they build in dry banks.
- Under the application this western area will cease to be overgrown and will become public open space. The manicuring of this area would reduce the badgers food supply, which would make this area unattractive to them.
- The use of this area as public open space will attract people and dog walkers which would make the area unattractive to badgers.
We have also noted an objection to the plan by the East Kent Badger Group which points out:
“Being the local badger group we have a great deal of local knowledge concerning badger distribution in the Princes Parade/Seabrook area. At no stage have we been consulted, and the position of the proposed artificial sett is based on pure convenience rather than scientific knowledge. For example we are not aware that any ecological studies have been made to determine whether or not the badgers at the existing Princes Parade site use this area of the site already. We are also concerned that the site is too close to proposed roads and makes the animals which will use the sett vulnerable to road traffic accidents. In addition it is normal practice to acquire local sett records as part of a biological record search for applications such as this one. As a group we hold all relevant records, and bodies that enquire of the Kent and Medway Biological (KMBRC) records centre are automatically redirected to us, as they do not hold full details of badger records. To date we have received no such enquiry from any party associated with the proposed development, and as a result we feel that it is extremely unlikely that the proximity of adjacent social groups has been considered in terms of the siting of this proposed artificial sett.”
BAM Construction Report
The report on the findings of the site investigation works that have been taking place on the land at Princes Parade has been published on the the Council’s website.
The report is 489 pages long and can be found under planning application number 21/1209/FH on the F&HDC’s planning portal.
(You can also download a PDF copy of the report by clicking here.)
The planning application, 21/1209/FH under which the report can be found, is an application for the ‘Formation of a new badger sett, including earthworks’. The deadline for comments on this planning application is 16th July 2021.
We will be looking at the details of the report and the planning application and will be submitting comments as appropriate. Please can we encourage you to do the same.
Petition for Public Inquiry into Road Closure
Conservative Kent County councillors Rory Love and Andrew Weatherhead have launched a petition calling for a public inquiry about the stopping up of Princes Parade.
We believe this is worthy of our support so please sign and share this petition as much as possible. It is worth sharing on all social media platforms and in groups you may belong to. Please tell your friends about it too.
Signatures from “interested parties” are welcome so while it would be expected that most are local, the petition could be strengthened by wider support. This petition has a different focus from the previous Save Princes Parade petition and is less restricted.
The petition has passed the 4,000 signatures milestone – let’s get it to 5,000+!
Please sign by clicking the link below:
Surface water strategy is now “draining onto the beach”
A revised ecology statement reveals that F&HDC has changed its strategy on the thorny issue of surface water drainage from the proposed development at Princes Parade. Instead of ultimately draining into the Royal Military Canal, it is now proposed to run off onto the beach!
5.6 The hybrid planning application examined two potential drainage strategies, one draining into the canal and one draining onto the beach. Both of these strategies were subject to EIA screening and considered acceptable in environmental terms. The planning application as approved included a drainage strategy into the canal. Subsequent to the planning application being approved this strategy has now been re-visited and a strategy for draining onto the beach is now proposed.
You can download the full revised Ecology Method Statement from the council’s ecologists, Lloyd Bore here…
Note: the report is heavily redacted in parts.
Land plus cash confirmed for new pool at Martello Lakes
At the planning meeting which took place on 25th May 2021 it was confirmed that the S106 contribution from the development at Martello Lakes will include a cash contribution of over £5m* for the construction of a new Leisure Centre – whether or not it is built there on a plot provided at virtually no cost by the developers.
Hythe resident Mark Brophy addressed the meeting to seek clarity over the confusion that has surrounded the matter especially after council leader David Monk claimed it was an either/or situation. Cllr Jim Martin also sought, and received, confirmation from Llywelyn Lloyd, the Chief Planning Officer, that the S106 agreement made it clear that the cash contribution for leisure facilities would apply whether or not they were built on the 1.6 hectares land provided by the developers at Martello Lakes.
*index linked £3.2m – which becomes due when the 250th home is completed at Martello Lakes (previously known as Nickolls Quarry)
Full details of the planning meeting are on the council’s website here…
Stopping up and redirecting Princes Parade
If you responded to the consultation regarding the proposal to “Stop up” and divert Princes Parade you should have received a notification from F&HDC’s Tim Madden to the effect that the consultation is over and the responses will now be considered.
There is a link to this report, commissioned by the council, from Buckles Solicitors.
Having objected to the planning application (over 700 objections in total) and been on the losing end of an extremely tight judicial review of the planning process, objecting to the stopping up order is the last single democratic process within which we can prevent the development as designed taking place.
We have asked a transport consultant to look at the report for us and will be getting that feedback in the next week or so.
In the report the several hundred objections from the public have been “categorised” into ten themes and Mr Madden writes that the response to “the theme(s) relevant to your specific objection” can be found within the report.
The report reduces the relevant objections to two main categories and is worded in a way that strives to undermine all the objectors’ points and persuade them to withdraw them.
1 The “necessity test” Is the stopping up and diversion of the road necessary for the development as defined by the planning permission granted?
All those who objected because the Leisure Centre and associated development could have been achieved without the stopping up/redirection of the road had the foundations of their objection swept away when the council awarded itself planning permission – with plans that included the new shape of the road, thereby assuring itself that the “necessity test” would be passed, regardless of the fact that the aims of the scheme could be achieved without diverting the road away from the sea front and along the bank of the canal.
2 The “merits test” Remember that this report is not unbiased or independent. Its purpose is to set out the council’s case for the Stopping Up Order and reduce the credibility of the objections to avoid an inquiry being held by the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport into the application.
The public’s response to the consultation was clearly and overwhelmingly against the order. Buckles’ own assessment of the responses include:
adverse impact on the setting of the Royal Military Canal was raised by 175 repondents; on the traffic flow by 136; on the environment and wildlife by 122; loss of seafront highway amenity by 148.
The 169 who objected that the order was not necessary for the development had already been dealt with when the council as applicant and planning authority awarded itself planning permission.
Four (4) respondents supported the application.
Unsurprisingly, Buckles want you to accept their view that the “merits test” has also been passed.
If you have received the email please take time to reaffirm your objection to the stopping up order by emailing email@example.com. Although you cannot raise any new objections you can take the opportunity to reinforce your original points and we would encourage you to do so. If you don’t respond your objection will not be withdrawn.
If you choose to respond, please copy in the case officer at the Department for Transport, firstname.lastname@example.org, quoting Reference: NATTRAN/SE/S247/3254.
Click here to read the Save Princes Parade Campaign’s comments on the Council’s response to the objections to the stopping up of Princes Parade.
(Responses were due to be made by 4pm Monday 7 June 2021.)
We will continue to fight the stopping up and diversion of Princes Parade as we will any development on Princes Parade.
Plan showing F&HDC’s proposed development and the realigned road. Click here to see a larger image (opens in a new browser window).