This is going to be a shorter Blog! I think I may have tested many people’s capacity to absorb complex information to the limit with the last one! I’ve got a couple of night time views from the fields in this one (a) because these have barely featured at all in the rich Google images library relating to the fields that has emerged over the past couple of years; and (b) simply because the only chance I have had to be on the fields with a camera recently has been after night fall. Please remember – the beautiful juxtaposition of the Cathedral and other historic and significant buildings (such as Westgate towers, St Dunstan’s church, and now the new Marlowe Theatre) with velvety darkness will be lost forever if the high rise sprawl represented by the proposed Chaucer Conference Centre proceeds. The ‘buffer’ supposedly retained under the 2012 plan as a ‘concession’ is frankly pathetic in size compared to the majestic scale of the current unspoilt space there. And light from the ‘development’ would necessarily spill over, effectively connecting the campus to the northern edge of the city. The distinction between campus and city would be lost. Light pollution would be ubiquitous, and opportunities for people with limited mobility or transport options in the densely populated northern part of the city to stargaze conveniently will be lost forever. But…. I digress and I said I’d keep it short! So here goes:
1. Keynes III Pending Planning Application
Thanks for your feedback on the last Blog, which had suggested that people consider writing in with views on the 2012 Keynes III Planning Application. It does seem like many people are really torn on this: they are united by their resistance to the Chaucer Conference Centre, at the same time it is recognised that moving the student blocks northward is less appalling than situating them on the unspoilt Southern Slopes further south, as per the 2011 proposals. As described before, SCF have not encouraged people to object. Morever, people who don’t live extremely close have not had formal notice of the proposal. That is to say, most have not been prompted to offer written representations by Canterbury City Council who, following existing practice, have defined ‘neighbours’ in a limited way, and not written to anyone south of University road. (They advise me that just 40 addressees have been notified about the current application).
Personally, I will still be writing submitting objections. You don’t need to have received a letter from the Council: anyone can do this (see the information on how in the last Blog). However, in the light of an exchange with Richard Norman of SCF, I have decided to modify the grounds for my objection, and raise 4 points rather than 5. I now think it unwise and hazardous to try to link this particular Planning Application to a ‘Master Plan’, because if this were to be done, the latter would necessarily be rushed and of poor quality, and could lock us in to premature decisions. It would take time to do this properly, because it needs to meaningfully involve engagement with affected parties if it is to be credible. And affected parties would include University people, as well as the host community, especially people living in Canterbury, Blean and Tyler Hill, so the process would need to be time consuming and extensive. If you want more background on this, the exchange with Richard Norman is public, and can be viewed in the ‘comments’ at the foot of the last Blog.
Accordingly, these and only these will now be my grounds for objecting:
1. The University has demonstrably failed in its Keynes III application to make a convincing case that alternative, more appropriate sites, including those earmarked in the District Plan, cannot meet the need for student accommodation. This is, first, because each of the alternatives, presented in turn and in isolation from one another in the submitted documentation, involve unsubstantiated assertions about cost and logistical feasibility; and second, the University has failed to consider possible approaches which involve the provision of the necessary accommodation by combining developments across more than one alternative site. In sum, it has failed to ‘join up’ its analysis.
2. The Keynes III development cannot reasonably be considered out of the context of a more developed account of the plans for a ‘business innovation park’ or ‘science park’ north of University road, near to Beverley Farm and the Canterbury Innovation Centre in its immediate vicinity. At the moment, it is unclear to almost everyone what this ‘park’ will involve, and there is certainly little information in the public domain.
3. The University’s claims about the level and nature of demand for student accommodation which underpin the Keynes III Planning Application do not adequately account for the true characteristics of its current student body, nor the likely effects of the new fee environment on domestic undergraduates’ choices. This is because the University is not merely a ‘residential University’, as is currently claimed, but in practice caters significantly for students who choose to commute from outside the immediate vicinity (that is, while living neither on campus nor in the city of Canterbury, but further afield) Moreover, the new fee regime is set to render the representation of the University as a essentially a ‘residential University’ increasingly inaccurate and outdated.
4. The Keynes III development may involve the loss of land, some of which can be described as ‘playing fields’. By apparently failing to make commitments to secure ‘like with like’ provision, the University may be violating national regulations.
Please note, if you wish to write, the deadline is TOMORROW although the Council have kindly indicated that representations after this deadline but before the determination of the decision (perhaps early in 2013) will all be taken into consideration by the Planning Management committee
2. English Ceilidh: 8 December, 7.30 pm onwards, St Stephens Junior School
On a lighter not, there’s already been significant interest in this, and it seems set to be a great evening. Please do try to come if you can. I am pleased to be able to tell you that not only will you get a discount from Murray’s General store at the Good’s Shed if you show your Ceilidh tickets. Now Clive Barlow, of Press Wine Services, has kindly confirmed he is also offering a discount on his excellent wine if you these tickets are shown. For more on Clive, his expertise and philosophy, please go to his profile at the Institute of Masters of Wine
If there are any other Goods Shed people who wish to offer a discount to Ceilidh attenders, please let me know! The Goods Shed management and staff have long been supportive of our cause, and we are most grateful. This is just the latest way of expressing their support.
3. Student vote urging Kent Union to campaign to protect Chaucer Fields ongoing
I wanted to finish the Blog by wishing those involved with this effort good luck. The odds are stacked heavily against them, for all the reasons discussed in the previous Blog, but now I know more about the process, I think there’s may be additional reason too. The vote on the issue is buried at the bottom of a long list of issues, and may well escape the attention of potentially interested but very busy students. But – hats off to them for taking the initiative, and showing that commitment to our unspoilt green space can potentially be something that unites students and the rest of us. The on-line vote is currently ongoing until wednesday, please see Kent Union Zone information for more details.
all the best
Chaucer Fields Picnic Society