Update: Climate Emergency, the Masterplan final draft and continued threats to the unspoilt Southern Slopes

Dear all

Its been nearly 9 months since the last CFPS Blog – I hope in the meantime you have had a good spring and summer! After some wider context setting remarks, considering the  Climate Emergency situation, this Blog is primarily comprised of the feedback that I was invited to give in response to the campus Masterplan.

Why are you reading this now? I have waited to write this until news about the Masterplan which could usefully be shared had emerged. You may recall we were told that the final draft of the Masterplan was going to be finalised by the University authorities and signed off by Canterbury City Council in January/February. Instead, the final draft was not made available until April, and the content of one of the key supporting documents, relating to the crucial stakeholder meeting on the conferencing hotel in November 2018, was only settled last month (August 2019).

So where are we in terms of this tortuous process? At the moment it seems the final draft Masterplan and supporting documentation is considered to be provisionally ready but has not yet formally been submitted to Canterbury City Council. At the time of writing, despite repeated requests for clarification, we have not been told when the material will be considered to have actually been finalised from the perspective of the University authorities, and when it will thereafter be submitted. Nor has the nature of the review process that will then be undertaken by Canterbury City Council before the Masterplan is agreed (and linked with the CCC District Plan, the key document for planning purposes up until 2031) been made known. This opacity about the process is  confusing and disappointing.

However, at the same time, there is a very positive side effect to the failure to deliver the plans within the promised timeline. This is because of the (belated but welcome) declaration of the Climate Emergency by Canterbury City Council, in July 2019, which dramatically alters the entire policy context, and must require all stakeholders to re-consider any pending plans in their entirety before they can be credibly fully finalised. So what can we expect? Presumably the University authorities will themselves soon recognise the Climate Emergency (it is surprising this has not yet happened) and thereafter they will have to revisit the Masterplan with Climate Emergency considerations in mind. If they do not do this, any forthcoming statement regarding the Climate Emergency will appear empty and tokenistic. For its part, Canterbury City Council, now committed by a number of decisions made in July to review all relevant policies against this frame of reference, on receiving the submitted Masterplan, will need to scrutinise it with great care and precision. Again, not to do so would make a mockery of their publicly stated Climate Emergency position. The CCC review may be expected to include environmental factors  which extent well beyond those which the University itself may be willing to voluntarily embrace, and it will be important that the University and CCC work in meaningful partnership  together to achieve the relevant environmental public policy goals accordingly. .

Climate Emergency issues of this type relate to the entire campus plan. However, the rest of the Blog focusses primarily on the unspoilt Southern Slopes and its wider setting (dubbed “University Rise” in the final draft Masterplan), looking at some very specific ‘devils in the detail’ which have only crystallised  at the final stage, and are now to be found in the final draft. These important issues were not considered properly in the ‘soft focus’ consultation of summer 2018, as will be shown below, and so need to be highlighted here, and subjected to full debate and deliberation as part of the broader process outlined above. The threats that stand out above all others can be identified here are as follows:

  • the development of a 150-space car park of wholly unproven value, undermining the green “wow” factor experienced on entering campus from Whitstable road, by sacrificing the currently green open space close to Chaucer College and the Innovation Centre. To pursue this development would be going backwards from the status quo ante in terms of ecological credibility, show imagination failure in terms of the opportunities for green heritage consolidation the landscape presents, and be an unmitigated disaster in terms of substantive environmental good practice.
  • the potential creation of a massively expanded commercial business zone north of University road and south of Keynes and Turing colleges, stretching from the Innovation Centre at the western end to a point close to the current location of Keynes bus stop (“Beverley court” in the new Masterplan language) to the East. The status of this landscape is presented very confusingly  in the Masterplan, as will be shown below. But the existence of such a zone would seem to be the de facto implication of treating “Beverley court” as the “point of arrival” for the conferencing hotel, for example, as is being suggested. It seems it is envisaged that Beverley farmhouse would be geared to function merely as an adjunct to this massively enlarged economic zone, showing contempt for the great historical and symbolic significance  – for the University, and for Canterbury –  represented by  this farmhouse and its setting.

Alternative, positive suggestions –  more in keeping with the pro-environmental aspects of the Masterplan already in place, and anticipating the sorts of issues likely to become salient as the Masterplan proposal are examined in the context of Climate Emergency  – by the University, and then by Canterbury City Council – are presented below. It is hoped it may contribute to the wider discussions which are set to unfold in the months ahead.

As is customary, the text is interwoven with images from the most recent annual Chaucer Fields Picnic Society picnic. this took place in July. This was a joint collaborative picnic with the usual partners – Greenpeace Canterbury and the Abbot’s Mill Project – but also involved Extinction Rebellion. Hopefully you will enjoy, and reflect upon, these images

All best

Chaucer Fielder

Chaucer Fields Picnic Society

 

RESPONSE TO UNIVERSITY OF KENT MASTERPLAN FINAL DRAFT

 

  1. General response: Lesson drawing opportunities and implications

The following developments represent major breakthroughs associated with the Masterplan process by comparison with the status quo ante.

  • The existence of the Masterplan due to its linkage with the CCC District Plan, at last will produce a legally enforceable and coherent frame of reference for policy and planning regarding campus development until 2031. Many have been arguing for such a plan to be put in place for some years, since without it, the development of the campus has demonstrably been haphazard, ad hoc, piecemeal and at times chaotic
  • The Masterplan includes, at long last, systematic recognition that Chaucer Fields/the Southern Slopes have exceptionally high value to both the local and university communities, for environmental, heritage, social and cultural reasons, and should be respected and treasured accordingly. It is highly regrettable that the University authorities, between 2010 and the end of 2018, devoted so much effort and expended millions of pounds of University funds in seeking to pursue an agenda of building development here. Many opportunities for substantial, progressive financial commitments in other areas of university life have been lost as a result. Moreover, the University authorities only stepped back from such proposals at the very last part of the final stage of Masterplan consultation under great pressure from the university community, from the local host community, and from a range of expert groups
  • There has, however been an upside to the 8-9 year collective struggle to protect this space. Tremendous energies have been unleashed and commitments revealed by the processes of group interaction, solidaristic community building, and awareness raising cutting across the local and university communities associated with these efforts. The legacy of knowledge and capacities embodied in these groups should now be used to provide input, resources and guidance to inform how the space can be protected and nurture in the years ahead.

Hence, lessons must be learnt from this experience. There must be no further attempts to unilaterally force through campus development against overwhelming bodies of compelling evidence and argument in similar situations. Obviously, the Masterplan itself has a key role here, but we need to recognise that this is time limited.  After 2031, the current Masterplan and District Plan will need to be replaced, and there is therefore the potential danger of reversion to earlier dysfunctional and counterproductive practices. Accordingly:

  • Protection in perpetuity: In the case of the unspoilt Chaucer fields/the Southern Slopes, it is now imperative that the University authorities voluntarily underscore its new found recognition of the value of this space. It should be accorded special protected, legally mandated status from the current time until beyond 2031: that is, in perpetuity. The University should work with Canterbury City Council, legal and planning experts, and the groups which have fought for many years to secure recognition of its value, to devise a scheme whereby the land is rendered secure with full legal protections against all future development. Land to the north west (above Chaucer College) should also be incorporated to extend and enhance the protected area, since the claims that  “University Avenue car parks” are needed cannot be justified (see section 2.3 – 2.6 below).  This land should be afforded protections at least equivalent to those traditionally associated with village green status.
  • Climate Emergency More generally, the content of the Masterplan has been developed over several years. Its parameters were set prior to the crystallisation, by 2019, of a consensus within relevant policy communities that we are now experiencing a full blown Climate Emergency requiring a response in many areas of local policy and practice. This has now been recognised by the relevant planning authority in law, CCC, and should frame its approach to planning matters, including decision making in relation to the interpretation of the District Plan and the Masterplan. Accordingly, the University authorities, working alongside relevant civil society and expert groups from the university and local host communities, should work with CCC to ensure full “Climate Emergency compatibility” is built into the Masterplan, most obviously in the light of CCC’s recent commitment to embed such an orientation within its own overarching policy approach (as set out in CCC decisions in July 2019). The frameworks agreed to facilitate this process at the design stage (that is, ongoing Masterplan finalisation) should be accorded a durable institutional structure and help enable, constrain and constitute the implementation of all campus development between 2019 and 2031. The ability of this collaborative framework to achieve appropriate  Climate Emergency responses should be kept under review during this period as part of such a partnership, and its agenda and modus operandi should be adapted as necessary from 2032 onwards.

 

  1. Particularities of the Masterplan “final draft” (April 2019) : “University Rise”
  • This section focusses on the material in the Masterplan relating to “University rise”. However, in passing I would suggest there is one anomaly in the earlier more general material: on p. 17 it is suggested that the first of 12 “overall purposes” of the Masterplan is to “harness the role of the University as an economic driver…” It seems bizarre to situate the achievement of economic advantage at the top of this list. The University, the city and the region of course have an important economic dimension to their functions and activities. But in both cases, legally, ethically and constitutionally, economic development is a means to wider public interest ends, and not a primary purpose in itself. Obviously, in the case of the University, these public facing objects and mission relate to education and research, with an increasing emphasis on the civic dimension. Commercial economic activities must always be subordinated to these goals, and this needs to be reflected in the way the Masterplan is ‘scoped’ at the onset to ensure coherence is achieved in the document. Accordingly, I suggest this point is modified, expressing economic processes as valuable and supportive activities rather than intrinsic ‘purposes’; and that the point is resituated much further down the list of priorities specified in this paragraph.
  • The decision to re-situate the proposed conference hotel from south of University Road within the unspoilt Chaucer fields/Southern Slopes to north of University Road, in proximity to Turing college (and posited in this draft as an option from 2022 onwards) is welcomed. It is broadly in line with the evidence and arguments presented by CPRE (Protect Kent), the Chaucer Fields Picnic Society, the Save Chaucer Fields group, the Canterbury Society, the Canterbury City Council councillor in attendance, and relevant local residents’ groups at the special meeting convened to discuss this issue on 7th November 2018. However, the proposals re “Beverley Court”, linked to the positioning of the hotel north of University Road, were never properly tabled or discussed during the consultation process. (This is because the version of the Masterplan made available for consultation in summer 2018 assumed the conference hotel would be situated on Chaucer fields, and any references to “Beverley Court” made at that time were vague) This lacuna is discussed at paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 below.
  • A key proposed development at “University Rise” is for a 150-vehicle “University Avenues car park”, spanning University road, in close proximity to the Innovation Centre and Chaucer College. In this case, during the consultation process, a great deal of confusion was generated by the circulation/posting of different versions of plans and maps, some which included these car parks, and others which did not do so. This seemed to be partly because there were different versions of the Masterplan at different points in time, and partly because the maps highlighting “development” over and above existing parking and building failed to categorise parking as “development”. It is crucial to emphasise, therefore, that the summer 2018 consultation process cannot be seem to have been clear with consultees about the nature of the car park proposals, and indeed, as auggested in section one, a better use of this part of campus would be to use it to further extend and enhance the unspoilt landscape of Chaucer fields/the Southern Slopes to the South/East.
  • It is not clear from the Masterplan how the overall level of ‘need’ for car parking space has been determined. A sensible first step would have been to make available to consultees during the summer 2018 consultation process the planning and modelling assumptions regarding car parking space, presumably linked closely to projections about staff numbers, current and expected levels of car utilisation amongst staff, and the needs of other users. Because of levels of uncertainty on this point, it would be a sensible step to model a range of scenarios, embodying different assumptions and modelling approaches, and subject these to critical scrutiny. Different projections would be reflected in different patterns of ‘need’, and this might allow a more environmentally sensitive, lower level of car parking capacity to be build into the core plan. Alternatively, a range of scenarios could be retained and kept under review, providing flexibility in terms of options for the future as levels of “need” evolve. Presenting a singular, determinate plan in relation to this aspect of activity seems to be excessively rigid and fails to recognise the degree of uncertainty associated with vehicular use between 2019 and 2031.
  • Even assuming, however, that a review of car park planning and modelling approaches, supported by appropriate consultation processes, were to lead to a projection of overall campus-level ‘need’ of a similar order of magnitude to the quantifications contained in the Masterplan final draft, there is no clear coherent case made for a “University Avenues car park”.
  • The proposed screening at these car parks (p. 201) is missing the point that this land which currently functions as valuable undeveloped open space at a key moment of entry onto the campus. This would be destroyed as screened car parks are developments, and they necessarily remove green open space. The obvious, positive alternative would be to retain the land in unspoilt open form but actively enhance the liberating sense of framed green open space it facilitates by careful planting and nurturing. This is fully in keeping with the ideas expressed in the Masterplan concerning how entry to campus should be experienced (p. 131). Indeed, an opportunity is being missed here to go further. Sympathetic connectivity could here be readily be achieved with the environment enhancing landscape measures the Masterplan envisages regarding Chaucer Fields/ the Southern Slopes to the south. Hence, the plan should encourage unspoilt space expansion from below, fostering the northwards reach of orchards, hedgerows, and field structure, and strengthening the impact of the historical legacy of the past associated with that precious landscape.

This would not only avoid destruction, but actively create an immediate, positive impression in terms of tranquillity and semi-natural beauty. (To use the language favoured by marketing consultants at the 7th November meeting, an enhanced green ‘wow’ factor, but now actively extending ‘upwards’ the legacy of Chaucer Fields/the Southern Slopes to shape visitors’ first impressions to good effect)

  • The two claims (p. 136) made in support of this location do not stand critical scrutiny. First, it is stated that ‘the strategic location will ensure that car users in future leave their cars close to the perimeter of campus’, yet the conferencing hotel car park, Giles Lane and central campus car park will contradict this suggestion. (That is, the issue of car park centrality or otherwise is a judgement call involving the striking of a reasonable balance, not an absolute commitment. It seems especially incongruous that the proposed conferencing hotel car park available for commercial users would be exempt from this ‘principle’!). Second, it is stated that ‘the short journey into the campus heart will quite easily be undertaken by public transport, walking or cycling’. This claim of convenience does not accord with existing patterns of use evident on campus, wherein staff reveal by their behaviour a strong preference for parking with greater proximity to their particular places of work within campus. All in all, if car park peripherality is to be retained as a consideration – which sounds reasonable if interpreted pragmatically – it would best be fostered by removing the plan for a “University Avenues car park”, and instead strengthening the balance in favour of other ‘peripheral’ car parks, in combination with measures to constrain and limit car use as much as possible more generally.
  • However, even if such campus parking spaces are proven to be ‘needed’ (assuming the overall level of car parking ‘need’ expressed in the Masterplan has been shown to be robust) – then these could be allocated elsewhere. It would be possible:
    • To make incremental increases to existing and new car parks situated in other places on campus, to generate up to 150 spaces elsewhere. Adjustments at the margin to the  capacities of  other car parks would  not involve the same opportunity costs as those associated with the “University Avenue car park”, since they tend  not to involve the loss of high environmental and heritage value landscape, nor do they benefit from proximity to unspoilt landscape, and involve the same ‘strategic’ role in relation to campus entry. They also do not have equivalent weaknesses in terms of viability and practicality associated with it. The relevant map (pp. 196 – 197) suggests space is available in proximity to these other car parks; and the text of the Masterplan (p. 202) implies this would be topographically feasible.
    • To introduce elements of ‘sharing’ to any car parks which it seems are currently envisaged as being off limits for university staff /their visitors. Most obviously, assuming that the proposed conferencing hotel were not fully booked throughout the year, the associated car parking would have capacity. These surplus spaces could be used for staff/other visitor parking purposes (this is also in the spirit of the ways in which ‘synergies’ and envisaged in relation to the use of buildings). If this ‘sharing’ approach were done competently, it would not impinge of the use of the car park by hotel attendees. Such a ‘joint use’ scheme could also potentially operate in relation to the existing Chaucer College car park (just as there are precedents for University use of Chaucer College’s accommodation and internal facilities), although excessive peripherality would be an issue.

 

  • In relation to Beverley Court, once again, there was a lack of clarity during the summer 2018 consultation exercise concerning the intentions in relation to this space. It would be hard to claim that there has been sufficient engagement on this proposal, as it was poorly defined at the time. It appeared on maps fuzzily, with different colourations on alternative maps and representations, and ambiguously in relation to the extent to which it would involve development or otherwise. This opacity concerning its character even recurs within the current Masterplan document. On some maps, it is presented in such a way as to imply the ‘court’ would also involve buildings and associated structures; while on others its contours are indeterminate.
  • The text in relation to this structure says that it would serve to ‘symbolise visitor arrival at the new conferencing hotel…. as well as [offering] a new viewing platform created to provide a view of Canterbury and the Cathedral’ (pp. 136 – 137). This does not make sense, since at this point on University Road, the visitor will not have arrived at the hotel! The hotel is envisioned as being contained with an area of land further to the west, and the motorist would still have some distance to travel before arrival. At this point in their journey, they are still on the main university campus. A more appropriate system of signification would involve understated but clear signage guiding the motorist towards where the hotel is in reality located; and the location of indicators of ‘arrival’ when they have actually reached their destination. The current proposal would create considerable confusion as to the relationship between land appropriately used for core University purposes, and land demarcated for subsidiary commercial or quasi-commercial use (the hotel’s business activity). It seems to imply the existence of a massive business zone here, below Keynes and Turing colleges,  stretching potentially from new car parks to the west, to the current location of Keynes bus stop to the east. With regards to the proposal of a ‘viewing platform’, this is simply unnecessary. There is no need for a ‘platform’ to see the cityscape and setting, because the topography of the landscape allows the viewer to see it unassisted to excellent effect. Accordingly, it would be more sensible to ensure the site proposed for the Beverley Court junction is simply not developed at all, but retained as an integral undeveloped part of the associated landscape which stretches, unspoilt, up to the southern edge of University Road.

 

  • The Amphitheatre proposal, in the clay-pit next to Eliot pathway, has been discussed intermittently over several years, has been retained in the Masterplan. I believe that there are mixed views about the viability and desirability of this proposal, but as far as I am aware, those who do support it in the local community seem to do so under rather specific conditions. In particular, the belief is that any such structure as could be considered in keeping with the setting and legitimate only if it involves a seasonal, temporary structure, similar to that used at English Heritage properties for outdoor performances. The statement in the Masterplan (p. 136) that it would be used ‘as meeting/teaching space …outside the summer months’ is hard or impossible to reconcile with such an English Heritage style approach, and so there will need  be a clarification/ a rethink on how this site could be appropriately used.   

 

  • The proposals in relation to Beverley Farmhouse are deeply problematic, especially in the context of the Masterplan’s more general recognition of its importance for the landscape prior to the foundation of the University – a legacy which the Masterplan to its credit seems to seek upon in its overarching narrative of continuity with the past. On p. 184 it is suggested that “the introduction of a hotel and conference centre nearby …will provide an opportunity for Beverley Farm house to develop its existing overnight accommodation into a boutique adjunct to the hotel and perhaps also a restaurant in this unique historic environment” (see also p. 136). It continued to serve academic purposes for some time. So, the logic in the Masterplan final draft is perverse. If continuity and connectivity with the past is really sought, the most obvious connections with what is most distinctive, interesting and valuable about its historical origins and contributions relate to entirely different activities.
  • The relevant historical links are (a) its role as a farmhouse supporting and servicing an unspoilt semi-natural landscape and setting; and (b) its pioneering role in the early years of the University. In his history From Vision to Reality, Graham Martin points out that the farm “served as the nerve-centre for the embryonic university (1990, p. 78). It went on to be used for academic purposes for many years. To acknowledge and respect this legacy, it would be important to utilise the building for the purposes of education and learning, in ways which connect sympathetically and deeply with the setting of the still-unspoilt landscape below it (to the south).
  • Obvious ways to achieve this connectivity would include deploying Beverley Farmhouse as a ‘hub’  for both internal and community facing education and research purposes. This could be historically oriented, but also forward looking. It would be looking to the past with an agenda relating to historical environment development, heritage, landscape and horticulture (and multi-disciplinary Kentish studies more generally); looking to the present, by providing information and support in relation to the many leisure, sport, musical and creative activities that are continually taking place on the landscape below, involving both the university and local communities;  and looking to the future by connecting with the ideas in the Masterplan for actively strengthening the  valued characteristics of this landscape. In the context of the current Climate Emergency agenda, it could be linked to the wide range of educational and research activities now emerging on campus which relate to this issue.
  • Furthermore, in terms of structuring and punctuating the visitor’s experience of entering the campus from the western side, the presence of such a locally and internationally oriented beacon of education & learning activity would help to balance out the impression that the University’s focus will have become narrowly reduced to the pursuit of commercial goals. Under the existing plans, the traveller would observe first the Innovation Centre, geared towards economic development; Beverley Farmhouse functioning as an accommodation and catering enterprise; and then the hotel, operating along the same lines but on a much larger scale. This pattern of use would tend to suggest to any such traveller that that the University will have become excessively focussed upon the pursuit of financial gain. Visibly and proudly protecting Beverley Farm for the pursuit of education and learning purposes would counter this sense of tedious subordination to business goals, highlight the University’s fundamental objects and mission, and suggest a healthy diversity in activities at this key point of entry to the campus (the moment when the visitors’ important first impressions are shaped). As such, this revised pattern and use would also be in line with the Masterplan’s own ‘design guideline’ that ‘building uses should vary and enrich the existing pattern of uses’ (p. 137) but now applying it imaginatively to the buildings themselves, and their spatial context southward.

  • The suggestion that University Road, as “University Avenue”, should be tree-lined is interesting, and has real appeal. But once again it should be noted that this idea was not really presented systematically and coherently as part of the proposals in the 2018 consultations. One of the obvious difficulties with the proposals here are that they do not account for the actual patterns of vehicular use. There is apparently no acknowledgement in the document that road users compromise not only cars and bicycles but also public transport specifically in the form of double decker buses. Many double decker users (and their numbers will increase as the shift towards public transport is encouraged) specifically choose to travel on the top deck of buses in order to command the most comprehensive view over Chaucer fields/the Southern Slopes while travelling. It would therefore be important to establish whether it is feasible to ‘tree line’ this route in such a way that these passengers’ views are not obscured, just as it will be important to ensure that ground level road users’ views are also not constrained by any such introduction of trees to this route.

  • In relation to Chaucer fields/the Southern Slopes south of University road, the positive approach to environmental and heritage considerations in the Masterplanise to be welcomed. They go with the grain of a great deal of sentiments expressed, and arguments made, by the local and university communities alike over many years. However, alongside the general value of extending this approach to the north west (instead of “University Avenues car parks”, see above), two further specific suggestions can be made:
  • To encourage a discursive sense of connectivity with the past, and signify recognition of the enduring significance of this land’s historic role for Canterbury, the historical terms used to identify relevant fields and places should be actively revived. Most obviously, research involuntarily funded by the University in 2010/11 (because required as part of the original planning application at the time) revealed evocative historic names. For example, the intended development site had been known as Dover Down field in the eighteenth century. This and other relevant historic terms, should be actively brought back into play in (re)naming the landscape. enhancing its ‘legibility’ while at the same time avoiding the imposition of terminology ‘top down’, insensitive to the locality’s past.

  • To foster a practical connection with earlier decades, the legacy of resonant activities should also be actively built into the Masterplan:

 

  • The native hedgerow student project developed under DICE guidance at the start of the millenium, should be identified, nurtured and extended, now combining student with local community involvement. This would be in line with the more general proposals for hedgerow development, but now linked creatively to involvement, learning and community building, rather than seeing as only a matter for professional staff.
  • An important activity undertaken on this and proximate land in the first part of the twentieth century (prior to both the University’s foundation and the building of residential accommodation north of 40 Acres Road) was the horticultural work at Mounts Nursery. It would be interesting to discuss the establishment of a rose garden, or some such similar essentially open space, to connect with the legacy of rose growing here. “Roselands “, it seems, was an important part of the Nursery in the 1930s.[1]

[1]See https://blogs.canterbury.ac.uk/cafa/mount-sons-nursery/;  https://vimeo.com/283205600  This footage shows greenhouses were used extensively here too, but it is not suggested that these be reinstated, as they would compromise the open space value of the landscape.

 

Stage 2 Masterplan Final Feedback resources

Dear all

Once again, please forgive the lack of images of our shared fields and woodlands on this occasion – when time is of the essence!

Introduction

This Blog provides a very brief update, but is primarily a vehicle to provide resources and information for anyone still finalising their feedback for the ongoing Masterplan stage 2 consultation process. The deadline for your email submissions has been set at Friday 26th October. Please send to masterplan@kent.ac.uk .

Please see the previous Blog for a detailed discussion of what was learned from the first Stage 2 consultation event (at Westgate Hall). What has happened since? The subsequent 3 consultation events followed the same formula, finishing with the Darwin conference suite event on thursday. All exposed the same combination of incoherence and opacity, missing information, and raised broadly the same issues as the first event.

Sadly, despite repeated requests, at the 4 face to face events, that the ‘expert reports’ regarding the grounds for the conferencing/hotel decisions should be made available for discussion and debate, these materials continue to be withheld.  What is at stake here, but shrouded in mystery,  is (a) the justification for the case for a hotel on this campus; (b) the out-of-the-blue claim that the facility should be run for financial gain (profit maximisation) in line with the preferences of ‘corporate interests’, rather than integrated in a supportive way into the University’s education and research infrastructure; and (c) the  evidence for and against  situating any such development specifically on Chaucer Fields/the Southern Slopes, rather than elsewhere  ( Of course,  as soon as these materials are made available, they will be uploaded to this website.)

Furthermore the University authorities’  Masterplan website has been in a state of confused flux during the consultation period. For example, a key document was initially posted, withdrawn and then re-posted in revised form without explanation; more generally, information has been added and modified, again, without any account being given of the grounds for such apparently ad hoc actions. This classic ‘moving goalposts’ scenario –  well known to be associated with poorly designed, lightweight consultation exercises disconnected from the communities they are meant to serve –  is, sadly,  a  familiar scenario, in line with previous ‘consultation’ efforts evident since 2011 in relation to Chaucer Fields and the Southern Slopes.

Official Masterplan documents

This shambolic pattern is frustrating, but it is therefore especially important that you visit the site as it is now, rather than rely on your memory of earlier versions, in reflecting on how you want to express your feedback:

Canterbury campus Masterplan

One of the important documents added late is here:

Framework Materplan exhibitionversion20oct     [large document]

The section of the Exhibition summary relating to chaucer fields/the southern slopes has been pulled out here, for your convenience:

university risep16of21     [single page]

Note that this shows that the proposals include not just the hotel south of University road, but large overground car parks in the immediate vicinity to the north and west.  It also shows a structure identified as “Beverley Court” close to/south of Keynes bus stop  (apparently unmarked  in materials made available earlier in the process).

If possible, please do refer to other parts of the full “Exhibition summary” document in framing your feedback. In particular, if you look at p.8 of that-  which refers to the results of the stage 1 feedback –  you can see that the plans for “University Rise” directly contradict a number of  the lessons which the University authorities claim they have been responsive to, in relation to: concentrating development at the centre of campus; ensuring the integrity of the green gap;  the importance of good community relationships; and fostering green infrastructure and environmental sustainability. Reading the material in this context demonstrates how the proposal to sprawl south of University Road entirely undermines the intelligibility, coherence, and basic credibility of the Masterplan.

Community Perspectives

For a summary from CFPS, please see:

Chaucer_Fields_green_heritage_revised_twice_district_plan_map_2sidescorrected-docx

If you are looking for wider inspiration on how to express your feedback, you can draw  on the reservoir of actual statements used by local residents, staff, students, and voluntary groups over the years –   you could look at the following sources:

  • Vox populi 1: consultation sentiments summarised in 2011/12 concerning the landscape/green gap values associated with the Southern Slopes can be found at consultationstatement2011-12extract
  • Vox populi 2: a full inventory of sentiments expressed by individual consultees about the “Concept Masterplan” overall, in 2016/17,  had to be collated and can be found at master-plan-consultation-appendix-05b

In the specific case of University Staff, you may find it useful to be reminded of the ucu motion approved by members feb 2012, supported by a huge majority of  University and Colleges Union members in 2012. (Please note that the 6th point is no longer relevant, but the other points have all  been significantly strengthened in the light of the evidence generated since, especially through the quasi-judicial village green public enquiry); and more recently, do read the fully confirmatory Staff report, staff-focus-group-sept-2017.

Finally, in the specific case of  University Students, who have helped to energise the campaign at this crucial stage, please see:  this CFPS Blog from the time of the 2012 campaign, with reference to the All Student Vote; and please note that the President of Kent Union, as part of the stage one Masterplan expert workshop in 2016/17, expressed commitment to the unspoilt Southern Slopes as part of the expert-spatial-vision-workshop-report-2017. You could also find the following template, proposed by students and precariously employed staff, useful: precarious@kentuni template

Please do submit your feedback over the next 6 days! All strength to your elbows!

All best wishes

Chaucer Fielder

Chaucer Fields Picnic Society

PS It has emerged that some of the links from the initial years of the campaign on the “Blogroll” were no longer working, including Concrete Lung/Richard Navarro, the Lantern Night and the KM report, and Hedgerow Havoc. These are now fixed or replaced: those have involved in these creative projects have been keen to support the continuing fight to protect our green heritage, so please do enjoy these ‘historic’ clips!

 

 

 

Emergency Blog UPDATED AFTER WESTGATE HALL EVENT

Dear all

This CFPS Blog necessarily takes a stark form! None of the usual colourful images!

[PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO GREEN FONT TEXT FOR UPDATE OF 6TH OCTOBER IN THE LIGHT OF WESTGATE HALL EVENT]

FURTHER UPDATE: THE MASTERPLAN TEAM HAVE BELATEDLY INDICATED A SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK (INCLUDING EMAILS): 26TH OCTOBER

Its purpose is to provide information for those who wish to submit their feedback into the crucial step 2 of the University of Kent’s Masterplan consultation process, which is currently ongoing (the “Framework” Masterplan).

It is important that as many people as possible resist consultation fatigue and fatalism, and express their views. For the outcome is going to shape the landscape and environment inside and around the Canterbury campus for decades into the future.

The reasons this sort of elementary  information is needed here, sadly,  reflect multiple failures in the way the University authorities and their “Masterplan Team” are choosing to conduct the process. The most obvious failures are as follows:

  • Basic information on what is covered in the Masterplan at this crucial stage is only being made available to anyone who happens to be  able to attend one of 4 face to face events; or who was invited to a single “stakeholder” presentation last month. The former events  have been poorly advertised and  their content and method have not been explained, while the basis for invitation to the latter is obscure.
  • The “stakeholder presentation” was made publicly available temporarily on the Masterplan website. But it were then withdrawn  – with no explanation offered. 8TH OCTOBER UPDATE: THIS PRESENTATION, REVISED,  HAS NOW BEEN UPLOADED AGAIN TO THE MASTERPLAN SITE.  THIS IS AFTER PRESSURE FROM INTERESTED PARTIES, BUT STILL WITHOUT EXPLANATION FOR ITS EARLIER WITHDRAWAL 
  • The “Masterplan team” has failed to indicate whether or not student or alumni feedback on the plans at this stage is welcome. 8TH OCTOBER UPDATE: IT HAS BEEN BELATEDLY INDICATED THAT SUCH FEEDBACK IS PERMITTED, BUT NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THESE GROUPS IN THE USUAL WAY USING EMAIL LISTS ETC TO ACTIVELY ELICIT VIEWS
  • The  “Masterplan team” has also been unable or unwilling to indicate how the feedback it gathers at the 4 face to face events, and by email, will be used to inform the plan’s development. Unlike step 1, at which  a healthy and open dialogue with a range of stakeholders was beginning to emerge, with the current step 2 the process has become closed and  opaque. We are merely told there will be a ‘consultation statement’. 8TH OCTOBER UPDATE: AGAIN, UNDER PRESSURE, IT HAS BEEN INDICATED THAT THE CONSULTATION STATEMENT  FOR STAGE 2 WILL TAKE THE SAME FORM AS THE STAGE 1 STATEMENT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO WORKSHOPS AND FOCUS GROUPS IN STAGE 2, WHICH WERE KEY MOMENTS OF DIALOGUE IN STAGE 1 IN AFFIRMING THE SHARED AND STRONGLY HELD BELIEF AMONGST  THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY, LOCAL RESIDENTS AND LOCAL CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS THAT THE UNSPOILT FIELDS SHOULD NOT BE BUILT UPON. 

This combination of poor organisation, information hoarding, and opacity,  and the absence of any commitment to transparency and openness in sharing the results – AND NOW, TO ADD TO THE DYSFUNCTIONAL MIX, MOVING GOALPOSTS –   is simply not acceptable.

So to help shine a light on what is really happening, you can find some of the missing/withdrawn information here:

The above is a large multiple page file. If too large, two key pages in relation to Chaucer Fields/the Southern Slopes have been extracted for your convenience:

  • For a “before (unspoilt) &  after (developed)” comparison of “University Rise” which is the proposed “character area” relating to Chaucer Fields/ Southern Slopes, extracted from the stakeholder presentation, go to: university rise p21of39
  • For a map showing “capital projects” which puts the “conferencing hotel” in context of other building projects proposed elsewhere on campus, extracted from the stakeholder presentation, go to: hotel anomaly p37of39

Finally, a problem with the above materials is that they do not sufficiently highlight how the proposals have a cumulative effect,  involving the co-development of both the conferencing hotel “capital project” and overground car parks, in close proximity. To see this more clearly, and for an accompanying, short summary of the issues involved, go to the information document drawn up by the CFPS: Chaucer_Fields_green_heritage_revised_twice_district_plan_map_2sidescorrected-docx

Because of the opacity surrounding the pending ‘consultation statement’, it is important that where possible people making submissions share them with the Chaucer Fields Picnic Society. Please keep  a copy of any feedback form you submit at the Face to Face events (use a phone camera, perhaps?) . And please share any email you send to the Masterplan Team too (use cc or bcc):

Please use the email address:  chaucerfieldspicnicsociety@gmail.com

UPDATE OF 8TH OCTOBER: PLEASE NOW MAKE SURE YOU EMAIL YOUR FEEDBACK BY THE BELATEDLY ANNOUNCED DEADLINE OF 26TH OCTOBER.

The CFPS is sorry to add a further layer of complexity to this already convoluted process. But there seems to be no other way of ensuring that the actual voices of people are expressed and heard openly, rather than being lost, stifled or deflected in a bland and uninformative ‘statement’ from the University authorities/Masterplan Team.

Finally, it is important that the voices of all are heard. This must include students and alumni. Please do offer your feedback, even though the Masterplan Team has not actively sought your views thus far .

Thank you for your help with this!

Best wishes

Chaucer Fielder

Chaucer Fields Picnic Society

**STOP PRESS – UPDATE POST  FACE TO FACE DISCUSSIONS AT WESTGATE HALL**

FURTHER UPDATE : THE MASTERPLAN TEAM HAVE BELATEDLY INDICATED A SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR FEEDBACK (INCLUDING EMAILS): 26TH OCTOBER

From the Westgate Hall event today (6th October), The following  key points stand out:

1. A positive point to start! By simply including a ‘students’ and ‘alumni’ category on the event’s feedback form (although the form itself is poorly designed see feedback form from westgate hall) the Masterplan Team have at last acknowledged that their perspectives are relevant. (If you want to use this form in  email responses, presumably you may do so: the Team seemed confused on this point, but have agreed to make it available on their website in the near future: please remember to copy your emails to chaucerfieldspicnicsociety@gmail.com). Building on this, it will be important to push for a broadening of the consultation process to meaningfully include these key stakeholders. In particular, it is obviously ridiculous to expect alumni, based all over the globe, to attend consultation events over a few days in Blean, Tyler Hill or at the University campus.  The logical next step is for the consultation to systematically deploy other modes of communication. (However, if genuine outreach via non-face to face, electronic means is to proceed, it will be important to watch closely exactly how the process is conducted. Which information is provided as background? How are the core issues framed? And which questions are posed?)

2. More depressingly, the ‘intended direction of travel’,  in the run up to the final submission of the Masterplan to Canterbury City Council (in c. 2 months time) is  crystal clear from today’s event. The University authorities intend to force through the Conferencing Hotel on Chaucer fields/the Southern Slopes if they possibly can by downplaying and belittling the opposition, and making unverified, vague claims about the extent of active endorsement. In particular:

  • To legitimise this steam roller approach, as per local media responses last week from a University spokesperson, as yet unidentified “experts” from the for-profit hotel sector and unknown segments of the business community are mysteriously being evoked and said to “know best”. Their perspectives and priorities (despite the obvious vested interest they have in any such development) are apparently intended to trump all others, whether inside the University community, or outside it.
  • To deflect and belittle opposition to the Conferencing Hotel (again, as per media statements),  “concerns” are ritualistically acknowledged, but claimed to be essentially limited to a small group of  local residents living in close proximity (implicitly identifying such people as self-interested NIMBYs)

As readers of the Blogs presented here over the past 7 years will know, portraying the situation this way is  a travesty, and involves a misrepresentation of the sentiment of the wider local residential community on this issue. It also attempts to airbrush out the extent of resistance to this destructive agenda within the University community and local civil society, and generally obscures more than it eludicates. 

Accordingly some challenges were made to the plans’ promoters today to create a reality check for this oddly circular and ill informed narrative. Some fairly straightforward questions were  posed to the Masterplan Team and its consultants. The results were as follows: 

  1. When advised that  local residents’ sentiments were not sensibly understood simply as narrow NIMBY-style “concerns”, but were clear and deeply held convictions within the local residential community across the City and wider District, there was a weak acknowledgement that some people not living directly alongside the Southern Slopes might hold oppositional views too. But when reminded that commitments to protect the fields as  unspoilt shared green space were also widely held yet more broadly –  through the University community at large (staff and students), in local civil society groups, and in local government itself – there was no acknowledgement at all. It can only be concluded that those involved are either unaware of, or essentially in denial about, the true situation in key respects –  despite the mass of affirmative evidence now available.
  2. When asked why  shadowy “experts” from “the hotel and conference sector” etc.  had not transparently fed their perspectives into stage 1 of the Masterplan process, in 2017, like other interested parties (via open consultation and contributions in workshops),  or why these obscure claims had not been tested through discussion and debate, no answer was given.
  3. When questioned on why “experts in the hotel business” and the “business community” had the competence to unilaterally determine a complex decision with many economic, social and environmental dimensions, no answer was forthcoming either. (It should also be remembered the University does not exist legally, constitutionally or ethically for financial gain or to pursue growth per se,  but instead is meant to be geared essentially towards achieving collectively agreed, nonprofit socio-educational objectives ) 
  4. When queried about the substantive basis for the claim  that a Conferencing Hotel on campus was  required, let alone that there was no alternative but to build it in the Chaucer Fields/Southern Slope green gap, there was obfuscation, with vague and elusive evocations of “the University believes…[etc]” instead of pointing to any clear evidential basis or defensible policy framework
  5. When challenged on which alternative sites for hotel development on campus had been considered, and for information on the grounds (economic, social, environmental etc) upon which these alternative sites had been dismissed by  so-called “experts” or their allies within the University authorities, no answer was forthcoming either.
  6. When asked why development was to be encouraged on the periphery of the campus, directly contradicting the core Masterplan purpose of concentrating development on central campus, no discernable response was forthcoming.   

The above characterisation of the University authorities’ position in evidence today, as involving denial, obfuscation and deflection,  might seem exaggerated. However, a sense of this position can even be gleaned by looking at their own texts. By simply reading and reflecting on the content of the “Hotel and Conference Centre flyer”( pro-CF-hotel propogandafrom westgate hall ) positioned alongside the table with feedback forms at the event, a flavour of this approach is apparent.  The patronising language deployed orally during  the event is echoed in this document (on page two). But it is also worth thinking about what  the use of images,  juxtaposed on the first page, tell us about the agenda of the University authorities.

The clear intention of this imagery is to foster fear-based deference and gratitude (“things might have been so much worse!”) because the 2018 proposal is not as appalling as the failed 2011 plan (inclusive of student accommodation tower blocks).  This is a nonsensical frame of reference: the failed first proposal is utterly irrelevant, and had to be withdrawn because it was a monstrosity and faced  mass opposition inside and outside the University. This was not a “benign”, voluntary decision by “listening”  University authorities, but an unavoidable withdrawal and humiliation for them because the proposal stood zero chance of getting planning permission. 

As ever, the only truly relevant comparison is with the unspoilt fields as they exist now. The question should always be  framed as: what are the considerations in choosing between the unspoilt woods and fields as shared green space on one hand; and any “development” which undermines this precious legacy on the other. In other words, do we want to retain the integrity of the green gap and all it embodies, or is it dispensable in the name of “development”? This way of looking at the issue is the only one which is defensible, given what we now know about the true nature of the local public interest after 7 years of debate, contention and controversy.