The battle of Lodge Hill (part 3)

I said that this would be a big week for wildlife and I am delighted to report some good news. 

Followers of this blog might remember that earlier in the year I wrote about Lodge Hill, a former military training school in north Kent, which is home to 85 singing nightingales and which was notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) back in March (see here and here).

The RSPB has been actively involved for over a year in the Examination of the Medway Core Strategy.  The Core Strategy sets out the plan for Medway for the next 15 years and it proposes Lodge Hill as the site for 5,000 houses and employment land.  In late May 2013, the RSPB attended a hearing, where those involved in the proposal had their chance to put the case for why planning for houses on the SSSI was, or was not a good idea.

I’m really pleased to report that the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is conducting that Examination, has now written to Medway Council, telling them that “the only reasonable course of action is for the Council to withdraw the Core Strategy” (see here). 

The Inspector considers that the scale of the impact on the SSSI would constitute “a significant adverse impact”.  She concludes that the policy allocating Lodge Hill for development is not in conformity with national policy, and that the Council’s plan is unsound.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is the national policy which the Inspector is referring to.  It doesn’t completely prevent development which damages or destroys SSSIs.  In exceptional circumstances such development could be possible (even if it may not be desirable).  But the NPPF contains important safeguards.  These are tests which ensure that special places are only damaged where there really is no alternative, and where the need for the development clearly outweighs the impacts on the SSSI and on the national network of SSSIs. In this case, the Inspector has listened to the evidence from all sides, and is not satisfied that the proposals at Lodge Hill can overcome either of those tests.

This is not a case of wildlife vs jobs and houses.  It is a question of good, sustainable planning vs a local authority who doesn’t want to change its plans.  The Examination hearings were particularly interesting, because my colleagues found themselves making the same points as several housing developers about the interpretation of the NPPF, the need to look at alternatives and the protection of the SSSI.  

Instead of taking on board the importance of the site for nightingales, and coming up with an alternative proposal, Medway Council has spent a year fighting the notification of the SSSI and pushing ahead with its plan in the face of opposition from both conservation organisations and housing developers.  We think now is the time to draw a line under the Lodge Hill proposal.  It is difficult to see how any rational planning authority could grant consent for a planning application, now that a government inspector has made it clear that the proposal is against national planning policy and that the benefits of development would not outweigh the harm to the SSSI. 

The message to Medway Council is simple:  come up with a new plan which will provide homes and jobs for the people of the Medway, whilst protecting the environment for those people and for future generations.