The discredited plans are back : Please respond!

Welcome to the Chaucer Fields Picnic Society Blog! Our fields have witnessed winter snow, the blooming of spring, and the heat of an exceptional summer since the last Blog appeared. I’ll intersperse some images in the text to capture some of the variety across the seasons this year in what follows (as well as providing a much more depressing image – see below!).

snow 745c

We are now moving towards autumn, and the fields and woodlands have that transitional feel.  As the natural cycle has progressed, in what direction have we moved in terms of  the future prospects for this wonderful shared green space? With the University authorities failing to meet their promised timeline regarding stage 2 of the Masterplan, members of the local residential and University communities could be forgiven for beginning to hope that serious learning was at last taking place.  Perhaps the pause reflected not the usual institutional inertia, but instead, a willingness to listen to the feedback received through multiple events, processes and arenas over the last 7 years? In terms of the “Stage one” Masterplan process most recently, had the University authorities at last recognised that development here would undermined the integrity of the entire process, contradicting the stated principle of focussing development on the centre of campus? After years of denial about the environmental, social and heritage value of the fields in their unspoilt form, had the penny finally dropped that this was and is a special and much loved place to be cherished, and not destroyed?

36805883_952264561601631_2657553122259369984_n

Alas, we have found out this month that nothing could be further from the truth. As has become clear , the dismissive and condescending position taken towards community sentiment, reported in the previous Blog, has been in evidence once again.  Mass opposition fed back to the University at every opportunity offered  last year  documented clearly in the University authorities’ own consultation report is being ignored, and expert opinion disregarded. (This was expressed a year ago at “Conceptual Master Plan” consultation events,  a “spatial” expert group including professionals from local government and civil society, and a staff group convened at the last minute).  Directly contradicting this input, an  option of positioning  a “Conferencing Hotel” and related facilities on the fields has not been shelved. Instead, it has been retained as part of “stage 2” of the “incremental” Masterplan process.

36753003_952269518267802_3045901732996448256_n

 

Those who follow this issue closely may notice in the image below, taken from the “stage 2” option plans now belatedly revealed , that this version of  the plan would position the buildings slightly to the west of where  they had been situated in  the “stage 1”  version of 2017, a little closer to Chaucer College. But it  is crucial to note that the latest plans retain the same disastrous scale, continue to contradict the stated intentions of the Masterplan, and would have essentially the same potentially catastrophic environmental, social and aesthetic impact on our fields as the “stage one” version.

Sept 2018 consultation - map of conference centre

Raising this issue since the news broke, I have found those in the local and university community who have put time and effort into responding to the University authorities over the years are now  feel betrayed and affronted. This action is seen as demonstrating  a complete failure to listen or attempt to even begin to understand what is at stake. Many find this especially galling as the University is meant to be a learning institution where, if anywhere, we should expect to find an ability to move on and learn from past mistakes.  The retention of these plans within “stage 2” of the process is viewed as symptomatic of a profound rupture between remote, inward-looking University authorities on one hand, and the University community of teaching/professional staff and students at large on the other, which in turn overlaps symbiotically with the local residential community. (Many staff live locally, and many University alumni settle in the city when their studies are complete.)

snow 781c.jpg

So, overall this latest “stage 2” development is being taken to confirm a depressing pattern of continuity with the past: the same old habits of disregard for the communities who host the university and make it function; and the perpetuation of exactly the clumsy,  incoherent and damaging muddling through approach that the Masterplan process was meant to prevent. Similar perspectives can also be found in organisations representing local civil society and expert opinion in the community more broadly.

snow 853c.jpg

For some, this is even a depressing sign that the University has “lost the plot” entirely in terms of its mission and social/educational responsibilities. In both social media and out and about in the District,  it is now increasingly common to hear people claim that the University is functioning as a predatory for-profit developer in all but name. It is believed to be seeking to exploit the land, originally bequeathed to it by the local statutory authorities for educational purposes fifty years ago, for narrow financial gain.  And it is thought to be hiding behind the mantle of its status as a charitable educational institution with empty rhetorical claims, as exemplified recently by its circulation of “commUNIty” newsletters. On this view, such material claiming “learning” has taken place is seen as disingenuous window dressing, cynically designed to distract, divert and deflect attention from the University authorities indefensible “expansion at any cost” practices.

36826314_952265804934840_4188847274115203072_n

Understandably, given this perspective, many can see little point in re-engaging with yet another round of consultation. What’s the point? Why should they do so, if the process is essentially a sham? I don’t doubt many people are  exasperated! If you share this frustration – why bother making an input? The reason is simple. If we succumb to consultation fatigue and fatalism, this will be spun as acquiescence and acceptance by the University authorities, and this, in turn increases the probability that this wonderful shared green space with be lost forever. We cannot assume previous inputs into consultations processes, fora and dialogues will be given any weight at all: indeed, the track record to date suggests exactly the opposite.

snow 759c.jpg

So, it is crucial that as many people as possible come forward yet again, and express (or re-express) their views and commitments once more. This may feel like this is collectively banging our heads against a brick wall. But if we do not do this, and development here is then permitted, all the efforts and energy expended in defending the fields up until now will have been for nothing.

36867426_952269981601089_9099346523946221568_n

So please do turn your attention to the Masterplan issue!  How can you do this? Unfortunately, the current stage of the process has not been well publicised. No prominence has yet been given to it on the University’s websites or communicative media at this key stage, with information buried in obscure places. While as to dissemination to local residents via the “CommUNIty newsletter“, these were made available in mid summer,  when many people were away, and so far ahead of the events next month that it is unlikely they will have been registered with many.

36780844_952264204935000_5736682131006947328_n

However, what we now know is that there are two ways to express your views. First, for locally based people, there are 4 events which you can attend:

  • SATURDAY 6TH OCTOBER 10.00  – 16.00 at WESTGATE HALL CANTERBURY
  • THURSDAY 11TH OCTOBER 14.00 – 20.00 at TYLER HILL MEMORIAL HALL
  • FRIDAY 12TH OCTOBER  14.00 – 20.00 at BLEAN VILLAGE HALL
  • THURSDAY 18TH OCTOBER 10.00 – 16.00 at : DARWIN COLLEGE CONFERENCE SUITE on the eastern side of the University’s Canterbury campus.

Please look at the  timings and dates carefully: If you can’t make the one in Canterbury two weekends from now, please note that the alternative options are close by, including 2 which run until 8pm during the week that follows.

snow 634c

Second, many readers of this Blog do not live locally, and a lot now live abroad.  If you are in this position, it appears that you can still email your feedback. The  email address – masterplan@kent.ac.uk  is provided on the Masterplan website here. (The website resources in relation to this process have been poorly organised, seem to have moved unpredictably between different addresses over time, and are hard to navigate.  But the information above seems to be accurate at the time of writing).

36784771_952266048268149_7627987279201435648_n.jpg

If you go the email route, please can I suggest that you request an email acknowledgement and ask explicitly how your input will be used? I say this, because this is not clear from the University’s masterplan website. But if you are being generous enough with your time to make a contribution, you surely deserve at a basic minimum this sort of recognition and response.  Comments will be added to this Blog, or included in a later Blog, if any clarity is subsequently offered by the University authorities on this matter.

snow 749c

Finally, please do feel free to mine the CFPS Blogs to inform your perspective and support your contributions. Although I suspect most of you will not need to do so, as you have plenty to offer based on your own experience and knowledge!

All good wishes

Chaucer Fielder

Chaucer Fields Picnic Society

 

 

 

Advertisements

2017: one step forward, two steps back

Festive greetings!

It is once again time to offer seasonal greetings to readers of the Chaucer Fields Picnic Society Blog! As has become customary, we use the evocative image of “Balloons over Canterbury” to communicate the idea that our fields are a fundamental  part of our city’s aesthetic, social and environmental heritage, treasured by the local and University communities alike. With its wartime provenance, the image emphasises not only the deep historical roots of this widely shared and valued commitment – stretching back to before the University was established –  but also the extent to which recognition of such a wonderful legacy is especially important at times of threat, discord and uncertainty

balloons-over-canterbury

It would have been great to have been positioned to kick off the Blog with a picture more suggestive of harmony and tranquillity. Readers will have noticed that in recent months, there have been some signs that the University authorities were at last beginning to register the significance of this place as an unspoilt shared green space to its own community, and of course way beyond that. However, sadly the most recent Statement to be released, last month, shows that a major opportunity has been missed by the University authorities to catch up with the thinking of the host community, expert knowledge, and the perspectives of their own people (staff and students), by unconditionally ruling out development on the fields in perpetuity.

chaucerfieldsautumn 368cr

So, the fight must continue. This is because the latest Statement explicitly tries to keep development of the fields on the agenda: as we shall see, it  seeks to leave the University authorities an entry point to pursue development here in the future (an implied ‘window’ from the late 2020s onwards, a possibility discussed in the previous Blog). This is really a form of  denial in two senses: it involves the persistence of a dismissive attitude to the evidence on the Southern Slopes’ value as unspoilt shared green space; and it exhibits indifference to the extent to which development here would undermine the entire coherence and logic of the emerging campus Master Plan.  In this sense, 2017 has been a year of confusion and inconsistency on the part of the University authorities,  and as a result, we find ourselves in the “one step forward, two steps back” situation which gives the current Blog its title.

chaucerfieldsautumn 174

In the rest of this Blog, we first explain how a step has been taken forward with the latest stages in the ongoing “incremental” Masterplan development process. But we then have to point out how the latest document to be released “Canterbury Campus Masterplan/Step 1: Strategic Spatial Vision Consultation Statement” embodies the extent to which the University authorities are, in spite of this, ultimately still failing to make a break with the troubled recent past regarding Chaucer Fields/the Southern Slopes (or, to use Masterplan language, “Parklands”).  The Blog is interspersed with some recent images of the fields in the usual way.

chaucerfieldsautumn 309

Stepping Forwards…

Credit where credit’s due. As part of the latest consultation exercise initiated in the summer, working through its external consultants (CMA Planning and John Leatherland limited), and facilitated by its own central Corporate Communications Directorate, the University first of all provided opportunities for relevant external expert input into the development of a “Spatial Vision” via a Workshop (see previous Blog for more details). Significantly, this led to a major gain in transparency with the August publication of the Workshop Report which clearly demonstrates the durability of the long held commitment amongst stakeholders to preserving Chaucer Fields/the Southern Slopes as unspoilt space by explicitly ruling out any development there.  As the previous Blog showed, this report demonstrated unambiguous affirmation of the collective view that no buildings should ever be located here.  Such key stakeholders as representatives of Canterbury City Council, Kent County Council, local civil society organisations, and the President of Kent Union (the union for University of Kent students) all affirmed this position.

chaucerfieldsautumn 429

Second, apparently in response to the incredulity expressed at the time that the process has not involved the University’s own staff, an additional, internal, event was  convened the following month. At the request of staff participants, this was also then openly published as the “Staff Focus Group” report , representing a positive move in terms of communication and freedom of information.  The Focus Group ranged over a number of issues relating to the Master Plan, but for brevity’s sake, we will focus here only on the directly relevant material. Below, for ease of reference, we reproduce in full the passage relating specifically to Chaucer Fields/the Southern Slopes.

“there should be no development on the Southern Slopes – to do so would be inconsistent with notions of consolidation and intensification of the Campus heart [a core principle of the Masterplan]; it would also be seen as provocative and misguided by local residents as well as staff, students, local public authorities and relevant charities and societies, who evidently value the enviromental/heritage character of the landscape and the wide range of activities it permits in its unspoilt form. It would be deeply counter-productive to ongoing efforts to foster strong ties between the University and these constituencies to continue to threaten it with development” (Staff Focus Group, p. 5)

The statement captures the staff group’s shared commitment towards the unspoilt fields and slopes, and demonstrates an awareness of how the issue has become a high stakes one, deeply interwoven with the University’s reputation and image. It is also important to register here that this statement exhibits common cause from attendees coming from across a diverse set of University’s departments, with participants included academic staff as well as senior non-academic staff members. As such it goes beyond the motion in favour of protecting the fields agreed over 5 years ago in a vote of the University and Colleges Union (UCU), because the latter is primarily an organisation for academic staff (see this CFPS Blog from spring 2012 for more details)

chaucerfieldsautumn 539

This affirmative material from both the external expert working group and the internal staff focus group has now  been reproduced in the “Canterbury Campus Masterplan/Step 1: Strategic Spatial Vision Consultation Statement” published last month. This report also strengthens further the case for the protection of Chaucer Fields/the Southern Slopes via the incorporation of additional written comments, over and above those put forward at the august and september events. Unsurprisingly, there is “strong endorsement” for “not building on Parklands” from the St Michael’s Road Residents’ Association (p. 18), representing many residents who live closest to the fields. But there is also amplification here of the point by Kent Wildlife Trust, expressing  their “concern that development does not appear to be ruled out for the area of Chaucer Fields, semi-natural grassland of high cultural value to the local residents and not without nature conservation interest. There is no mention of the Ancient Woodland on the site or the Local Wildlife Site, both requiring protection within the planning system” (op cit., p. 31; emphases added).  This is important because KWT is a  highly regarded charity which operates at the county level,  and this feedback builds on concerns it had already expressed at earlier consultations.

chaucerfieldswinterandgrinchjk 006

 

…then stepping backwards again!

However, unfortunately, these advances are then effectively negated by the way in which the University authorities choose to respond to these views within the same Consultation Statement report. In this document, the Expert Workshop’s recognition of the high value of the unspoilt fields/slopes are greeted with vague, non-committal language – the words “noted” and “acknowledged” recurring at various points in the tables which juxtapose community comments and University authority responses. This is weak and uninformative, showing that while the articulated views have been logged, there is no sense of learning from the process in terms of reflecting on the significance of these commitments, or showing any willingness to express the consequences in actual policies and practices . An opportunity to respect the views put forward, and rule out development on the fields, has been squandered.

chaucerfieldswinterandgrinchjk 035

More worrying still, the dismissive nature of the University authorities’ response to the analysis expressed in the Staff Focus group, as quoted above, goes even further. Here, the response does not merely avoiding saying anything with meaning and substance. It actively confirms, in no uncertain terms,  that old habits of thought  – and potentially action –  are still driving the process. The key passage here is as follows:

“Some development of the Southern Slopes may be necessary, including providing funding for landscape enhancements. to be explored in the Options” (op cit, p. 26, response bullet point 2)

The chosen tone and form of words in this response is deeply disappointing. Not only does it fail to rule out development on the Southern Slopes, but it actively confirms that it could be carried through as a possibility into the next stage of Masterplan development, presumably in keeping with the idea of a ‘window’ for building projects here emerging from the late 2020s onwards (see the previous Blog). Second, not even a cursory attempt is made to provide a rationale for this potential decision, in the context of the Masterplan’s philosophy and proposed principles, or indeed at any level (in contrast to the “responses” offered in relation to much of the other feedback elsewhere in the Step 1 Consultation Statement). This undermines the credibility of the wider process, because it seems to show that that the University authorities either unable or unwilling to take their own Masterplan’ s principles and processes seriously.

chaucerfieldswinterandgrinchjk 090

Third, in the turn of phrase “may be necessary”  – with no attempt at explanation –  we see the authors of the University authorities’ response retreating symbolically from any meaningful notion of collaborative engagement at all.  It suggests the University authorities are, even now, trying to unilaterally take a superordinate position in relation to other stakeholders, including in relation to Canterbury City Council. This is damaging because it is at the level of this elected local authority were the planning process vests  statutory responsibility for determining matters of need and necessity, as embodied through the District Plan process. In this way, we sadly seem to see the University authorities’ old, pre-Masterplan, top down and paternalistic  “sense of entitlement”  reappearing.  Fourth, the use of the phrase “landscape enhancements”, as discussed in an earlier Blog, seems to be discursive cover for the construction of buildings: it is obfuscatory, and is ultimately just development expressed in more fuzzy language, to give the University authorities a potential licence to build as they please.

chaucerfieldswinterandgrinchjk 138cr

It is important to remember that it is this arcane style of making policy, mixing up ambiguity and evasiveness,  which led to the chaotic ad hoc pattern of campus development in the past. It is a throwback formulation which exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of how things can and must change under the new planning framework. It entirely misses the  point of the Masterplan process in seeking to move towards a clearer, properly meaningful and responsive style of engagement, and to avoid arbitrary, ad hoc and unaccountable decision making.  This is, then, potential repeating of the mistakes of the past is the very situation which the Staff Focus Group warned the University it should make every effort to avoid, if it is to develop a more constructive relationship with the host community and its own staff and students in relation to campus development in the future (see “Staff Focus Group report”, p. 3, comment 3)

chaucerfieldswinterandgrinchjk 107cr

 

A final note: timing and prospects

Where does all this leave us? If we look at the overall process plans as presented at recent events, we have a series of further delays in getting beyond stage 1: by now, we were expecting to have seen not just a Stage 1 Consultation Statement, but also the publication of a range of Stage 2 “Option Studies”, and for a consultation on these “Options” to be have already been completed! These next steps were originally timed to allow a draft, single Framework Masterplan to be in place for further consultation from January 2018, leading to further consultation,  finalisation and publication in late spring/summer, and adoption by Canterbury City Council  – and linkage to the all important District Plan – in September 2018.  Presumably the slippage in moving from Stage 1 to Stage 2 means that this none of this will be achieved on time.

chaucerfieldswinterandgrinchjk 204

Yet however the timelines is revised, the year ahead will be an crucial period for the fields. It is during 2018 that we will see whether the University authorities continue to operate in denial, pushing blindly for potential development, as they see fit, of the Southern Slopes; or whether they finally show themselves capable of recognising the damage that is being done by keeping this option in play. for there is still a chance to rule out development here. If it were to do this, it would bring the approach properly back  into line with the Masterplan’s own philosophy and principles; and demonstrate recognition of  the commitments and values of the University community, the host community, and  local public authorities. It is upon whose goodwill and trust of all these stakeholders, after all, that the University’s future ultimately depends.

Stay vigilant! Watch this space! Happy christmas and new year to all!

Best wishes

Chaucer Fielder

Chaucer Fields Picnic Society

 

 

The conferencing hotel master flaw

Our fields, the trees and woods that connect with them, and  the hedges which interweave with and cut across them in such a wonderful mosaic, are now moving in full ‘midsummer mode’. This is the time of year when the fields are in many ways most alive with insect life, while the dawn and dusk choruses of its birds are still striking. As ever, it is great to be able to see all this natural energy being witnessed and experienced by large numbers of people,against the spectacular back drop of views of the Cathedral, and of the wider cityscape.

ten

Whether walking, running, cycling, playing or pursuing pastimes and hobbies, this is a shared green asset of extraordinary value in its current unspoilt condition.  And of course – picnics are much favoured too! Indeed in  the customary way, I have interspersed some photos here from the most recent collaborative picnic between the Chaucer Fields Picnic Society, the Abbot’s Mill Project, and Canterbury Greenpeace. This took place on Dover Down field earlier this month. Many thanks to musicians from across the Canterbury District but also from as far afield as Spain for their contributions, including the Native Oyster Band, Double Crossing,  Robert Rawson, and Elderberry Wine.

 

one

 

Ongoing Consultation process: University master plans for Canterbury campus

This Blog is being written as the consultation process in relation to the University’s new “Conceptual Master Plan” (developed under contract to the University by the London-based architects Farrells)  proceeds. This is intended as an ideational stepping stone towards the substantive, more specific Master Plan which the University is required to submit as part of the pending Canterbury City Council District Plan finalisation process. Since the last Blog, some information on the timing of this process has been provided:

  • The ongoing Conceptual Master Plan consultation process, although no deadline has been formally specified, is expected to continue until the end of this month, and possibly into August
  • There will then be “further technical and design work”, which means translating the Conceptual Master Plan into the substantive one required by Canterbury City Council for District Plan purposes. This will take place over the second part of the summer.
  • A (substantive) Master Plan draft will be presented for consultation in ‘the autumn’. (no date yet released)
  • In ‘spring 2017’, a final version will be submitted to Canterbury City Council (again, no actual date released).

twojpg

 

What is already known about the Conceptual Master Plan? Material can be found at https://www.kent.ac.uk/masterplan/

You are urged to look at this for yourself. At a general level, there is much to be welcomed in these documents. For example, in terms of the suggestion that significant development activity can and should be concentrated on the central campus, which, it is argued, must be shaped to foster a more coherent and well structured sense of place.

three

Crucially, an effort is also made by Farrells to develop publicly defensible “design principles” to ensure that this and other priorities can be followed through. These other values include recognition of the  overall contribution of the Canterbury campus as a green asset, and a heavily emphasis on the imperative of protecting the magnificent unspoilt vlews of the cityscape available from campus.  Interestingly, it is implied in the presentation of the materials that these “design principles”  are already adopted by the University authorities: at various points, ownership of them is stated on the University websites.

four

 

In terms of more specific intentions, because it is at the conceptual stage, much is fuzzy and vague. Unfortunately, however, one aspect stands out a as a striking anomaly in the context of the aforementioned  “design principles”. This is the incorporation in the documents of the old idea of establishing a “Conferencing hotel” away from central campus  – in the heart of the currently unspoilt Chaucer Fields and wider Southern Slopes (now relabelled as part of “Parklands”). There is also an additional building situated to the North East of the fields, in this case without any at all explanation (south west of Keynes bus stop).

 

fivejpg

 

On what basis can we say the notion that a “Conferencing hotel..could be considered”  on the fields (the form of words used during presentations on the plans) is an anomaly? This will be painfully obvious to members of the local community and the University community at large, but for the avoidance of doubt, the following observations can be made:

  • the intention to keep alive  the idea of developing on these fields is inconsistent with the Conceptual Master Plan (CMPS)’s own design principles, including the idea that development should be focussed ‘at the heart’ of the campus, and that it is crucial to “safeguard existing views of historic Canterbury”
  • the CMP’s idea of potentiually locating development on these  fields directly contradicts Canterbury City Council’s proposal to give the the fields enhanced protection as expressed through the “Green Gap” status specified in the pending District Plan
  • the idea of developing  on the fields in this way is conspicuously out of line with a wide range of established indicators of local and university community (staff and students) priorities and values. As such, if pursued in practice, it would be a massive own-goal to the University authorities in terms of managing its public face, and its internal and external relations. It would undermine the credibility of any claims it might wish to make about its willingness to listen to, and work with, these  communities.

 

six

If this seems overstated, it is important to remember that the University authorities have repeatedly been told – through wide ranging, strong reactions to the 2011 Planning Application, voting in University-based arenas for staff and students, and a further consultation (which ultimately led to the Turing college (Keynes III) development north of University road) – that both  the local and University communities are committed to retaining this land as unspoilt shared green space. What is more, the plan for “Green Gap” status, mentioned above, shows how this commitment has been recognised and embraced at the level of the democratic body representing Canterbury District as a whole. That is to say, Chaucer Fields as unspoilt shared green space is seen by elected local government as of high value not just for Canterbury, but for Whitstable, Herne Bay, and the surrounding villages – it is a priority for the District as a whole, and not just a matter for Canterbury.

seven

Morever, the Village Green Application completed earlier this year generated a vast body of evidence that these priorities go hand in hand with recognition of the fields  in their current form as exactly the sort of  high value “green asset” which needs to be protected. As unspoilt shared green space, the land has been shown to have been used for recreation, leisure and other pursuits for many decades in a way which would be compromised and undermined by any such development. Indeed, lawyers acting for the University were forced to concede  this pattern of land use within the VGA process: Even though the overall outcome was not to grant village green status, that process incidentally generated a mass of material demonstrating the high value of the land in its current unspoilt state, which the University authorities had to accept.

eight

Do you agree that this aspect of the Conceptual Master Plan is a mistaken, retrograde idea? Whether you do or not,  please consider expressing your  view, and  your overall reaction to the Conceptual Master Plan, in the ongoing consultation. You can do this by going to https://www.kent.ac.uk/masterplan/contact.html or by emailing masterplan@kent.ac.uk

nine
To ensure that your view on the CMP will be  considered, it is probably wise to respond by the end of this month.
With best wishes
Chaucer Fielder
Chaucer Fields Picnic Society

 

Campus Master Plan and Picnic News

stodmarshmainly 123

Chaucer Fields and the wider Southern Slopes are currently at one of their seasonal highpoints, reflecting all the vigour and freshness of late spring and early summer. The bluebells season is over, but dramatic displays of flower, both native –  in particular  mayflower (hawthorn) –  and non-native – especially, sweet chestnut blossom –  are amongst the most striking manifestations of all this life and energy. And the foliage of the many trees to be found here is tantalisingly fresh and lends the fields a feeling of promise and expectation  As usual, I’ve included recent photos in this Blog to capture some of the seasonal flavour of the moment.

13221493_561974070630684_5298691676133018138_n

What’s next on the agenda for our fields, in the aftermath of the Village Green decision (see previous Blog?). We’ll report here an important development in the expression of the University’s evolving policy position which as significant implications for this place  – the first systematic initiative to share its plans for the Canterbury campus as a whole (including the unspoilt Slopes); and give some information on the traditional Chaucer Fields Picnic Society picnic, upcoming a little later in the year than usual.

13245319_561973250630766_1750564548144599765_n

University Campus “Conceptual Masterplan” presentations

One of the likely requirements of the pending Canterbury City Council District Plan – still under review after a series of delays, but likely to be settled and formalised within the next couple of years – is that the University publicly present a “Master Plan”. The rationale is to help alleviate some of the uncertainty suffered by both the local and University communities in recent years concerning intended patterns of development in the long run.

stodmarshmainly 062.jpg

After a period of  opacity  concerning whether or not the Estates Plan, signed off formally by the University Council at the end of 2015 after some revisions, would be made publicly available as part of the response to this expected legal requirement, it has now become clear that this will not happen. However, the good news is that the University is choosing to respond by engaging with both the staff component of its own community, and the wider constituency of local interests and experts. This is by sharing a draft of its “Conceptual Masterplan” as developed under contract by the well known London-based architects Farrells, and inviting feedback in the days and weeks ahead, through a series of consultation events.

chaucerfieldsandallot 069

On a website launched over the last week. the University’s  corporate communications directorate suggests that the “Conceptual Masterplan….contains ideas on how best to develop our campus to meet the needs of the University as well as deliver long-term benefits to our local communities, and improve our intellectual, physical, economic and cultural connections with the city of Canterbury.”   The bulletin goes further to say that the University would like to encourage attendance, and to receive comments.

stodmarshmainly 085

At the time of writing it is known that the process will formally begin tonight with  presentations to Canterbury City Councillors; and that a presentation for local neighbourhood groups – essentially meaning the residents’ associations closest to campus – will follow tomorrow. There will then be a two-stage process of engagement with University staff: first, one of the responsible architects,  John Letherland, will present the plans at 2-3pm tomorrow in the Gulbenkian Cinema; and second, an exhibition, featuring highlights of the “conceptual masterplan”, with be available for viewing in the Colyer-Fergusson building from 2pm tomorrow until 4 pm on friday. Because the John Letherland presentation coincides with industrial action by the University and College Union (today and tomorrow),  a request has been made that the presentation be recorded so that members taking action may also benefit from access to this opportunity.

stodmarshmainly 195

Finally, it is also expected that there may be additional events allowing others to respond to the “conceptual masterplan” too. That is to say, presentations or exhibitions for the benefit of interested parties who have not already been included in the schedule specified thus far (people who are neither University staff, District Councillors nor involved with proximate residents associations) are likely to take place as well. When more information on these further processes are available it will be presented on this Blog.

13226906_561974427297315_1691092731798510709_n

This consultation process is welcome in principle, and is being seen by many in a broadly positive light. However, it is important, to stress that it will only ultimately help to address the fundamental issues of transparency, uncertainty alleviation and the strengthening of relations between the University authorities, the wider University community and the local community, and achieve the right level of green asset protection under certain conditions.

  • Does the  content of the “Conceptual Master Plan” indicate in principle that the overwhelming consensus in favour of protecting the unspoilt environmental, natural  and green open space assets for which the University acts as a steward – including the unspoilt Chaucer Fields and the Southern Slopes – have at last been acknowledged? Are protections for these assets actively designed into the “conceptual” framework, or some supporting/related documentation,  to ensure the mistakes of the past will not be repeated?
  • Are clear arrangements in place for specifying the relationship between the architect-led “Conceptual Master Plan” as currently under consultation and the ultimate, substantive “Master Plan”  – as expected to be required for the purposes of planning law under the pending District Plan – in the years ahead?
  • Are there well planned arrangements to ensure that the actual implementation of the substantive Master Plan proceeds in a transparent and inclusive way? Are there arenas in place to ensure that the University community and the local community are given clear, ongoing opportunities to shape the development process as it unfolds, and so avoid a relapse into ad hoc, occasional consultations which both exacerbate uncertainty, are run the risk of being dismissed as tokenistic?

13237641_561973073964117_3477567041674067478_n

It is to be hoped that answers will begin to emerge in relation to the first of these considerations over the weeks ahead. However, it is still far from clear whether the second and third conditions will be met. The timeframe for these developments will be measured in years. It will only be if transparency is embedded in procedures and pursued in a sustained way, and if foresight and a genuine, enduring engagement by the University authorities with the communities upon which they depend demonstrably unfolds, that commentators will feel able to view this initiative as a meaningful step forward.

stodmarshmainly 233

 

Picnic News

On a lighter note,  everyday enjoyment and appreciation of Chaucer Fields and the Southern Slopes continues to happen as it has done for decades (and probably centuries)! To celebrate and heighten awareness of these practices (now conceded as significant by the University in the context of the Village Green application), our usual picnic will take place this summer, albeit slightly later in the year than normal: 3rd July, 1 – 5pm.

stodmarshmainly 096

As usual, the picnic is in collaboration with Greenpeace Canterbury and the Abbots Mill project, and is supported by the Save Chaucer Fields group. We have already confirmed a good musical line up, including Richard Navarro and Double Crossing. Storytelling, as usual, is also planned. But these are a whole range of other options too.

stodmarshmainly 003

One advantage of  the later-than-usual timing is that the grass will almost certainly be cut!  This means that alongside the usual activities which can proceed however long the grass- tree climbing, hide and seek, kite flying, frisbee etc – there’ll be chances for more formal sports and pastimes. Cricket, football, rounders and martial arts are amongst the activities which over the years have been undertaken on the relatively flat part of the fields at the southern end, so let’s hope for good weather to allow these things to happen on the day.

Best wishes

Chaucer Fielder

PS For those of you who use Facebook, please consider indicating your planned attendance/interest on the Abbot’s Mill events page (see Blogroll, above).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chaucer Fields – the case for opposing Keynes III and other matters

Dear all

Note: If too busy to read this long Blog in full , please scroll down to the section entitled

“The Keynes III proposal: rationales for Planning objections”!

Autumn foraging preamble

Ancient path from Cathedral to Blean church, late autumn

Chaucer Fields now have that late autumn feel. Some trees have lost their leaves entirely, such as one of the English Oaks next to the ancient pathway leading from the Cathedral to Blean Church (see above).While others, particularly the Red Oaks in Beverley Boughs, are variously showing interesting combinations of colours (see below).

Autumn colours,  view of Beverley Boughs from within Dover Down field

This time of year is also a good one for foragers. The most obvious opportunities to gather nature’s bounty have passed with the blackberry and apple crop well and truly over for some time. But even now, there are at least three other ways in which we can all share what our fields have to offer. First, the abundant hawthorn berries may be on their last legs, but can still be gathered for culinary purposes! Second, sweet chestnuts such as those which can be found at the heart of the fields – where Dover Down Field and Bushy Acres join (next to the old cart track where the hedges meet) – are excellent in casseroles! And thirdly, foraging is not necessarily only about food. For example, at this time of year,  the several horse chestnuts on the fields offer local children conkers galore!

Some chestnuts are still around and can be foraged for cooking

It would be fun to write more about each of these – and I have some tried and tested recipes up my sleeve involving the edible ingredients mentioned above if anyone is interested! However, more immediately important is to make sure people are aware of unfolding developments in relation to the current Planning Application process. Please recall, as reported in a previous Blog,  that the University chose this summer to promote both the Keynes III undergraduate student accommodation blocks and the Chaucer Conference Centre/Hotel  plan (the enlarged hotel proposal) together  – at the private preview and public exhibition events in September). But then it chose to  separate them for the purposes of the Planning Application process. We have a planning application for Keynes III now pending and with the Council. There’ll be a seperate one, probably in March 2013 or soon thereafter, for the Chaucer Conference Centre/Hotel.

The Templeman Library Development (yes – it is relevant!)

To make matters yet more complicated, there is currently also a Planning Application with Canterbury City Council for what seem  – to me at least – to be well thought out and imaginative plans for the Templeman Library, for which the University should be applauded. Others are expected to follow shortly in relation to other planned development on Campus, but because the University has failed to develop a Master Plan, the timing of these other plans is unknown (an avoidable problem – see below).   Concerning the Templeman, it is now beginning to emerge that this plan envisages not only the most obvious forms of capacity expansion you would expect for a modern library of this kind. Also planned under the flexible mode being proposed is a new capacity for hosting conferences outside term time (using a 250-seater lecture theatre, 8 seminar rooms for break out sessions. These would be used for teaching (and study space overspill) in term times, but at other times they  will not be needed for internal needs, and can be used for conferencing, with a range of catering facilities conveniently on hand ).

This weakens the case for the conference element of the proposed mass Conference complex anywhere on campus, and suggests the need for more modest facilities to enhance the University’s conference ‘offer’.  A good deal of any future demand existing in the District for such a facility could now be met by intelligently combining the use of the Templeman’s exciting new planned facilities with the great variety of accommodation and conferencing options already available on other parts of campus. This includes, for example, those at Darwin college, and excellent facilities for residential conferencing at Chaucer College, which seem to be under-utilised,  currently used from time to time for spill-over redirected from within the University. (Perhaps some expansion of the conferencing capability of Chaucer College could also be re-considered, although I understand the scope for this is limited because the Japanese foundation which runs this establishment does not wish to develop on a large scale. But a modest enhancement, in partnership with the University, could be considered.)

There are also possibilities off campus. There are  a range of sites in the city in which the University could readily consider investing, but has apparently chosen to overlook to date. But let’s also not lose site of the offer of excellent independent operators in the city, with whom the University already has contracts, like Cathedral Lodge. Conferencing needs currently not met by the existing ad hoc arrangements could be met by more systematic, carefully planned and extensive partnership arrangements. This would leave only a residual need, which could be met by  more modest conference development on a much smaller scale than that proposed under the ‘Chaucer Conference Centre’ plans.

Chestnut tree at the heart of Chaucer Fields

The essential point is that we can only understand conferencing needs by taking into account the full range of University-related existing facilities and contracting arrangements, on campus and off it. And crucially it seems to me these collaborative ways of increasing capacity were not  reviewed in the report being used to justify the claim that a massive development is now required. This is hardly surprising, since the report was written by marketing group “Hotel Solutions”, a London-based multi-national consultancy, without the inclination, time or local knowledge needed to identify, let alone analyse, such partnership possibilities.

But – back to the Library specifically: The Library Planning application is case CA//12/01831, which can be found on the Council’s Planning Application website or go straight to the proposals by following this link. The University is commendably conducted this as a very open process of engagement with the University community itself, and involved a mature ongoing dialogue with Canterbury City Council. This is a refreshing contrast with its handling of Chaucer Fields. It is good news for those of us who believe in transparent governance and decision making, and shows the University is, when it chooses. able of engaging with the community and the Council in a mature way. I’ll be writing to Canterbury City Council in to support the Library proposals, subject  to the condition that a publicly shared Master Plan to put this development in the context of the Campus as a whole, is urgently made available (see below).  By the way, I will also suggest when I write how important it will be to make sure the needs of University students and staff are not compromised by external conference use of library space, since the learning and research needs of University people must always be fundamental, and study space has been a key issue in the past. Anyway, the deadline for written representations on this particular application is 19 november – so please do make your views known if you feel this is appropriate, by reviewing the case materials, and writing to development control at Canterbury City Council (see address below).

The obvious, urgent need for a Clear, Comprehensive UKC Campus Master Plan

It is  frankly a no-brainer that  these and other University-led developments, which are closely related and functionally affect each other on and off the increasingly diverse and complex UKC campus, need to be scrutinised together. This is the only way that their inter-dependencies can efficiently and effectively be taken into account and managed to good effect. The example of the joint emerging conferencing capabilities discussed above evidently illustrates the case for a much more joined-up and publicly transparent planning approach. It makes you realise that a clear and comprehensive Master Plan of the University’s various emerging and pending development projects is now needed as a matter of urgency, so that these sorts of connections can be made explicit and analysed in the round.  At the moment, by withholding a clear statement of what its overall (on and off campus) development intentions are at present, the University is not only needlessly perpetuating uncertainty about the future in its own community and the host community too, especially in places abutting the edges of campus  It is also risking its reputation for transparency in decision making.

And aside from the obvious economic and technocratic reasons for looking at pending and current developments jointly, there is also an important “micro political” dimension to all this. That is in the sense that absent a Master Plan, the impression seems to be being left to some observers that ‘back room deals’, as opposed to publicly justifed and defended decisions, are playing an unhealthy role in driving priorities. At the moment, there are even unsubstantiated rumours circulating that  plans for  buildings on campus are being developed under a veil of secrecy and deliberately left vague, so that those who want such facilities developed are ‘on side’ with the Chaucer Conference Centre proposals. This is apparently believed to be on the understanding that if they don’t ‘rock the boat’ in relation to those proposals, they are more likely to see their favoured facilities build. I do not know if there is any truth in these claims. But I do know that this state of affairs is avoidable via a transparent Master Plan.

Inside Beverley Boughs, November 2012

In summary, I think the main advantages of a shared and inclusive Master Plan indicating clearly the current plans of the University, would be that:

  • the dangers of  inward looking, anti-democratic patterns of communication driving development priorites could be minimised, – and be seen to be minimised; and
  • the University’s reputation as a public institution with responsibilities for communicating with relevant communities about its activities would be salvaged

I believe such an open approach is actually the least we should expect in the twenty first century from a powerful local nonprofit institution. Let’s remember it is an exempt charity benefitting from a myriad of tax and other policy privileges and subsidies, and meant to be accountable to a wide range of stakeholders: its approach to planning should reflect this.

University “Statement of Consultation” made available

Unfortunately, the closest we get to engagement with the democratic process in relation to Chaucer Fields at the moment (that is, until its treatment in Canterbury City Council’s District Plan is revealed, and elected Councillor’s vote upon this case in Planning) is the documentation prepared for the Keynes III Planning Application.  Despite its surface focus on Keynes III, as we’ll see below, it does relate to Chaucer Fields too. As part of its efforts to defend its approach in the context of the statutory planning process, the University has now had no option but to submit a report of the recent promotion events and ‘consultation’ available to Canterbury City  Council, who in turn have posted it on the case website. Although the planning applications are now split, this first application refers to the consultation in relation to both elements. This document has materialised some time after all the other required documents were posted (with no explanation for the delay, incidentally). Strangely, it has not, at the time of writing this Blog been made available on the University’s own Corporate Communications website relating to developments If you want to review it, it can be now be found alongside the myriad other planning materials needed for the Planning Application, CA//12/01887, at Canterbury City Council’s Planning website

It has to be said that this is a peculiar and partial document. It adopts an uninformative approach, noting the events, reproducing materials already otherwise available to boost the size of the report, and with just one table reporting on the feedback received, which was presumably the point of the exercisel  Please do form your own view about how useful this is if you have time by reading the report in full. But in my opinion it is yet another opportunity missed. Why? The report’s authors had a chance to communicate clearly its rationale for the modified approach, interpret as well as report on the findings, and express in a balanced way what they have learned from the host community as a result.

I believe they have demonstrably failed to do all this. First no explanation as to why the University have not re-situated the conference centre/hotel proposals, as well as those relating to student accommodation blocks,  away from Chaucer Fields is offered. The document simply parrots  the mantra ‘the University remains of the opinion that the Chaucer Fields site represents the most appropriate location within the campus to deliver a conference hotel’ (Executive Summary, op cit, p. 0). The problem is that this is asserted  without any explanation or explicit line of reasoning as to why it believes this currently unspoilt place must be ‘developed’! This weakness in the University’s position has also been recognised by the Canterbury Conservation Advisory Committee – see the previous Blog. There is also still no explanation of any sort as to why the premise that the developments needed to be co-located has been abandoned. (In 2011, it was emphasised that both components must be developed side by side, but there is silence in this report concerning what has changed since then)

Looking east from western part of Dover Down field

Second, there is no recognition on the collapse of feedback from the local community. The number of responses over time has collapsed from around 260 in 2011 (the “Local Dialogue” report on the original proposals)  to just short of 100 now, and less than a third of those refer to the Chaucer Fields site. The report is even presented as ‘successfully raising awareness’. But given the thousands of leaflets distributed, and the efforts of the University’s Corporate Communications website to present the case, this is a very poor level of engagement.  I personally think  the low response levels likely reflects the extent of community’s disillusionment with, and distrust of, University-led consultation in relation to the Chaucer Fields site, as inherited from last year. Based on the 2011 experience, many have reasoned that there is little point in responding –  when the University is expected to simply disregard what it is told about community sentiment, because it appears bent on ‘developing’ Chaucer Fields, and potentially the wider Southern Slopes.

Third, as noted above, the only material on the content of this limited feedback, expressed in reductionist tabular format,  is presented in an eccentric fashion. And unfortunately, unlike the “Local Dialogue” report, in which, commendably, respondent’s own words were made available in full in a supporting appendix, the reader has no way of assessing these comments in the round with this document.

Take a look at the table below. It extracts from the ‘Statement of Consultation’ summary table the feedback received as reported specifically in relation to the hotel/conference proposals (see the full report for material on Keynes III). It is noticeable that even the two responses categorised as ‘supporting’ the ‘Chaucer Fields Conference Hotel Proposals’ are actually referring to the idea that a need for such facilities exists in the abstract, rather than expressing a belief  that they should be build in this particular place. In fact, the only explicit response in favour of this place is categorised as ‘partial support’, because it requires ‘proof that no other site is available’. Yet – as previous CFPS Blogs have shown, of course, no such evidence has been forthcoming from the University (also, see below for the suggestion that this oversight should be considered  grounds for withholding Planning Permission).

Source: Statement of Consultation submitted with Keynes III Planning Application, p. 5

Additionally, other statements cited as representing  ‘partial support’ for the ‘Chaucer Conference Hotel Proposals’ in fact  essentially express reasons for basic opposition to it! This includes two respondents who explicitly rejected the Chaucer fields site  by commenting that ‘the building should be to the north or on the sport fields’. I too would agree with exploring those options properly (see below) – although would recognise the need to insist on the replacement of any lost sports fields, And I would hardly be judged as in ‘partial support’ of this plan!

As acknowledged earlier, any attempt to re-interpret these findings is going to be fraught, because, unlike in 2011, we don’t know what respondents actually said. But we can have a reasonable stab  at doing this in an indicative way.  I would suggest a more defensible figure of the proportion who have on balance been persuaded, recategorising responses like the example given, would be something closer 20%. So – on this more balanced reading, the exercise seems to have  found that around 80% of those who engaged were against the proposal. If we then factor in the point already made about the evident resistance to participating in a University-led consultation at all from precisely some of the people who are most opposed to it, the figure would begin to become comparable with earlier  findings of widespread, systematic and deep opposition to Chaucer Fields development. For example, it would be in line with the community feedback found in the “Local Dialogue” report of 2011 mentioned above, where a review of the Appendix of actual responses reveals principled opposition at over 90%.

The Keynes III proposal: rationales for  Planning objections

It has been emphasised in the above that the promoters of the Chaucer Fields/Southern Slopes ‘development’ option can take no comfort at all from the feedback they received during September’s events. Indeed, the opposite is true: the evidence confirms the remarkable extent of opposition and resistance to the loss of this unspoilt space in the host community.

However, I would concede that significant numbers of people in the local community currently feel very differently about the Keynes III proposals. As you will recall if you have followed this issue this development, previously part of the Chaucer Fields megasite, is now proposed for construction elsewhere. If allowed to proceed,it would be situated north of University road, next to the recent Keynes extension already functioning, and so not on Chaucer Fields itself . Why, then, might you be concerned about this?

In this regard, can you first of all be encouraged to review the position set out by SCF on this matter. If you live locally, you may have received their November newsletter through the mail. Otherwise, their clear statement has now been uploaded onto the landing page of their website (see Blogroll, above). You can see here that SCF themselves are not opposing the Keynes III development –  essentially simply because it is away from Chaucer Fields, and not on  the currently unspoilt part of the Southern slopes (south of University road).

I believe, however, that there are potential grounds for objecting to the proposal. As reported in an earlier Blog, it seems obvious to me what the scheme’s promoters are trying to do: get the “Keynes III” proposals accepted early in 2013,  so as to allow it to start construction on the project around March 2013 (as per the timetable discussed in earlier Blogs). At around this moment, my guess is that it would then intend to submit the Chaucer Conference Centre proposal, claiming that no alternative sites were available. This  not least because the onset of Keynes III’s construction would at precisely that moment be demonstrably ruling  out the option of using that space for this development!

But there is an alternative. If ‘Keynes III’ were not to proceed, modest conference facilities could readily be built  north of University road, at, or close to, the site which is now being specified for ‘Keynes III’, adjacent to or overlapping with the proposed ‘business’ or ‘science’ park instead. But how would student accommodation needs then be met? I personally favour a combination of Giles Lane car park and Park Woods, although there are many other alternative ways of using sites, or combining them to meet accommodation needs  which the University has evidently failed to explore (see below).

If you are thinking on the same lines – and many people do seem to be on the same page with this issue –  the problem we face is that presenting the case in this ‘common sense’ way does not go with the grain of what are considered relevant ‘considerations’ in the Planning process. So, a way needs to be found to express this argument in a way which is, in fact,  potentially compatible with Planning ‘considerations’.

Looking northwards from the bottom of Dover Down field, sunny november day

I believe there are five reasons which may be worth proposing, and which could conceivably be seen as relevant by the planning authority (Canterbury City Council).  Three of these build on the suggestions set out in this and earlier Blogs, and the first two are, I believe, in line with the thinking of the Canterbury Society (see Blogroll);the Canterbury Conservation Advisory Committee (representing expert opinion across the District); and principles recently set out by Natural England (see its submission to the latest consultation). The other two of them are more novel.  I would welcome comments from readers as to the value of these potential objections, and also whether there are other considerations which should be taken into account as well. For example, I have not had a chance to look in detail at heritage and environmental considerations, because of the impenetrable and non-navigatable character of the relevant documentation. But there may well be reasons here for contesting the University’s case here too.

So, here are the five reasons:

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 holds true in two senses.

First, it is because each of the alternatives, presented in turn and in isolation from one another, involve unsubstantiated assertions about cost and logistical feasibility. Indeed, there is very little here beyond the superficial material presented to the Council in the 2011 Planning Application, to which the Council reasonably responded in its draft report that a much more searching analysis was clearly needed. Given that keeping with development on some of the alternative sites would allow the development to stay within the constraints of the District Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires developments to stay on already spoilt and developed land, other than in truly exceptional circumstances. The Keynes III proposal is on an unspoilt green field site, albeit without high local amenity value, and the case for exceptionality has simply not been made. So, development here would be incompatible with both the NPPF and the District Plan.

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: it has failed to ‘join up’ its analysis. For example, the last CFPS Blog suggested that if part of the development were located at Giles Lane Car Park, and part were located at Park Wood, the problems associated with each site when considered in isolation could be offset against one another to overcome the difficulties emphasised by the University. But this particular combination of possible sites was just one, perhaps the most obvious, example. The University should have looked at the full range of combinations in an effort to develop options which do not violate the District Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The University should not be granted planning permission for Keynes III or related applications until it has shared with its own University community (including staff and students), Canterbury City Council, and the local community a comprehensive, clearly specified, publicly defensible and professionally presented Master Plan for development purposes.

Planning decisions on the Canterbury campus are increasingly related to one another in numerous complex ways as the University seeks to diversify its resources and widen its reach. In this context, development decision making which is not properly joined up by a Master Plan, and seen to be coherently interrelated, will  increasingly evolved in ad hoc, fragmented, piecemeal and inefficient ways.  As long as the University fails to share a comprehensive overview of its plans with its own employees and students, and with local people, this pattern will steadily worsen.

3. 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. If the ‘park’ is intended to allow for the development of commercial activity and trading only indirectly related to the University’s mission, then inside this ‘park’  is the obvious site for any revenue-maximising hotel element of the proposal, which would be dealing with transient visitors. (Keith Mander has explicitly stated to the CCAC, in minutes available for public scrutiny, that the purpose of the hotel element of the proposal is nothing more than income generation). On the other hand, activity related directly to the University’s core mission – student residential facilities (to the extent they involve supportive infrastructure for, and nurturance of, committed students over several years) and conference facilities (used for the advancement of learning rather than for commercial gain) would logically be located outside the business innovation park. The University needs to be much clearer about how its plans relate to these key distinctions, and the boundaries of, and focus of, the intended ‘park’, which are currently chronically unclear.

4. 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.

Regarding the former, while it seems to be implicitly claimed that the University should act as if it were purely a ‘residential University’ when it makes planning assumptions, this representation of its functioning has become a misleading simplification. Significant numbers of undergraduate and postgraduate students are local people or are at least within commuting distance, and are choosing to live at home while studying in Canterbury (for example, residing elsewhere in the District, in other parts of Kent, or in South London). They neither required campus accommodation, nor make claims on accommodation in Canterbury, and are therefore not a ‘problem’ to the extent the University assert, although those who use cars obviously add to pressure on parking space. As to the new fee environment, the monolithic ‘residential University’ assumption may be becoming increasingly out of date. With the costs encountered by potential students rising, we can expect increasing numbers to choose to reside at home and commute to limit living costs. The University should recognise that reality in making planning assumptions.

5. 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.

Current and future users of the open space set to be occupied by Keynes III – including University students and staff pursuing sports and recreational activity, as well as local people, would be adversely affected by the development. While this land does not seem to exhibit the same intense patterns of amenity use as the Southern Slopes further south, it may involve significant activity from planning perspective. Its development could be incompatible with Sports and Recreation policies both nationally and locally.

If you agree with me in relation to some or all of these reasons, please do consider expressing your view to Canterbury City Council over the next 10 days If doing this, please remember to:

  • include your address on the letter or email
  • Refer to the case number, to repeat, this is CA//12/01887
  • Set out clearly those reasons you believe mean that Planning Permission should not be granted
  • Address your letter or email to development.control@canterbury.gov.uk  as well as to Katie.Miller@canterbury.gov.uk
  • Make sure you send your letter or email before 26 November (a week on monday)

As I say, please do get in touch  – chaucerfieldspicnicsociety@gmail.com –  if you believe other grounds for objecting are also relevant, and those perspectives can then be made available to the CFPS readership

Kent Union Community Zone Initiative

So much for the Keynes III Planning Application. I’ve also got some news relating to students. You’ll be aware that in the past, individual students and some individual student societies have been keen supporters of efforts to protect and respect these fields. Many continue to express their commitment. However, there’s now a chance that this important support can feed into a stance on the issue from Kent Union, the union representing students at the University of Kent
Ayla Rose Jay, a newly elected ‘Your Community’ committee zone member at Kent Union, is taking the initiative here, as some of you may have noticed on the SCF Facebook site (See Blogroll, above).  She has put forward the idea that Kent Union should move from not articulating any view on the matter  – its position at the moment – to actively campaigning to save Chaucer Fields (and protect the Southern Slopes). Sometime in  the week of  26th November there will be an “All Student Vote” in which the students will get the chance to vote YES in support of the Union campaigning to save Chaucer Fields. If this all Student Vote is successful, it will become Union Policy to actively lobby for the saving of Chaucer Fields, which could wield a lot of weight for the cause.
Over the next two weeks Ayla and fellow students  will be campaigning  to get the message out there and encourage the students to vote. In my opinion, they  face a seriously uphill struggle for at least four reasons. First,  my impression is in terms of its priorities, practices and routines, Kent Union in recent years seems to have concentrated on service delivery. With a few exceptions, it has tended not to facilitate engagement with   issues which do not relate in some immediate and obvious way to the consumption of education, leisure or retail services. This is of course important work, but it does mean that activism of the type Ayla is so bravely seeking to catalyse is perhaps not currently embedded in the Union’s modus operandi and culture as strongly as it is in other Universities, or indeed historically.  Second, only a relatively small proportion of students apparently actually vote for their representatives in the well established Kent Union officer election process. So it is going to be very difficult to encourage voting on a much less familiar issue as a one-off! Third, this is a busy time of year for many students, and many are preoccupied with coursework and assignments. Fourthly, the issues are really complex, and I have found learned professors and experts on public policy find it very difficult to understand and reflect confidently upon them. For younger minds with less experience, this must seem truly daunting!
Nevertheless, it is surely worth a try. And we know from the surveys of public opinion regarding the balance between open green space and ‘development’ commissioned from Ipsos Mori by Canterbury City Council that the student population in Canterbury (across all local higher education institutions) tends to share many of the same aspirations to respect and nurture our open space as non-students in the community . Also, in my opinion  involvement in these sorts of efforts is really worthwhile, even if the desired outcomes may be incredibly difficult to achieve. I think we all should be grateful to Ayla and her colleagues, and try to offer appropriate advice and support as best we can.
Upcoming Fundraising Event – Colloboration between CFPS and SCF

Most of the above has been pretty heavy stuff! But I can end the Blog on a lighter note with confirmation of a collaborative community event which we hope wil attract anyone who cares about this issue, be they residents, staff, students or visitors. From 7.30pm onwards on 8 December, we are holding an English Ceilidh at St Stephen’s school. (We call it an ‘English Ceilidh’ to emphasise that the music and style of dancing is predominantly English rather than Gaelic, although of course the word ‘Ceilidh’ is Gaelic).  Please come along to support the cause, and have fun – the dancing is great to join in, but is not compulsory! You can still enjoy great company, and listen to traditional music (mainly English, with a bit of Irish thrown in) from local group Roystercatcher(s). Please see the image below, and if you can, download it at  Christmas Event 2012 and display it prominently! But a couple of things to add to that:

  • Do email me (chaucerfieldspicnicsociety@gmail.com)  if you haven’t managed to get a ticket from the people listed below, they are all very busy and may not always be available. Please send me a message at  including a contact phone number and the number of tickets, and I’ll pass on your request by email to the SCF Fighting Fund team
  • Please note that Murray’s General Store at the Good’s Shed near Canterbury West train station will be offering a 10% discount on all beverages (alcoholic or otherwise) purchased for your consumption at this event. I recommend sharing one of the local beer kegs, but there are plenty of other options.  To qualify, all you need do is show Lee or his colleagues your Ceilidh ticket!
  • If this is a new sort of event for you, don’t be deterred. It will be presided over by a ‘caller’ with over 20 years experience, and you will pick up the dances as you go along!

That’s all for now
best wishes

Chaucer Fielder

Chaucer Fields Picnic Society