There was quite a crowd outside the Dover District Council buildings on Thursday when the planning committee met to decide the fate of the Betteshanger Country Park wave pool and hotel proposed by Quinn developers. Given the controversial nature of the plan, it’s not surprising that a few were demonstrating in favour, but it’s fair to say that the campaign against, supported by Friends of Betteshanger Park, was larger and very vocal. The other demonstrators, those in support, numbered around 40 wearing blue t-shirts, seemingly supplied by Quinn Estates. I wouldn’t like to hazard a guess as to how many were on company time.
Arguments for wildlife
Local people will know by now that the proposals were approved after a lengthy meeting when local people and environmental groups were given a chance to speak (mostly against) to show why the development would have adverse effects. RSPB was concerned about the threat to an important colony of turtle doves. Buglife represented the interests of fiery clearwing moths, creatures only found in Kent, and Sussex emerald moths. Kent Wildlife Trust expressed their opposition on the grounds of these rare insects, not to mention the lizard orchid.
If you read the objections in the DDC Planning Portal – there are over 1,200 comments on each of the hotel and surf pool applications, most of them against – you will know that a major issue for many local people as well as national environmental groups, is the effect on wildlife. Rare lizards, land snails, beavers, and skylarks, all a vital part of our natural heritage, have been recorded. Friends of Betteshanger, “a voice for the wildlife of Betteshanger Country Park”, has 1,300 members in its Facebook group, an indication of the level of interest.
The advice of the planning officers
And yet the council planning committee was advised by its officers, experts in planning policy and law, to approve both applications, which they proceeded to do, by a large majority.
Do environmental considerations not matter at all? What about local opinion?
We are told that both are important and yet it would appear that local democracy cares as little as national for either the future of our fragile world or what people actually think and feel.
I’ve been looking at how this system actually works. It’s very interesting. The planners have to look at what is called “material considerations”. We could take that to mean the facts, in fact the facts on the ground! So, for example, now that these developments have been approved and assuming work actually starts on them, they will become “material considerations” themselves. They indeed occupy a small part of the country park, but let’s say a developer wishes to build more leisure facilities, or another housing estate, on another section of the park. One of the material considerations will be that a hotel and a wave pool already exist there.
And of course, one thing developers are specialists at is “material considerations”.
A former coalmine that became a nature reserve
I think we should go back a bit in time, to understand how we’ve arrived at this point. When I first came to live in East Kent in the 1980s, I was amazed and excited to be living in the Kent coalfield, which had some of the richest and deepest coal seams in England. Of course. that wasn’t to be for long – a whole story is attached to that which others can and do tell much better than I could. Following the closure of the Betteshanger Colliery in 1989, eventually the South East England Development Agency began regeneration, with government money. A mining museum and visitors’ centre was planned and, with permission for this, came the requirement for DDC to declare the park a nature reserve.
The country park sold to Quinn Estates
No one seems very clear on why this never happened. But it didn’t and after SEEDA was abolished in 2010 under austerity restrictions of the new government, ownership was transferred to Hadlow College. Sadly, Hadlow College went into administration and, in 2019, the country park (formerly the spoil heap) and Betteshanger Sustainable Park (formerly the pit-head) were sold to Quinn Estates. Although the park was never declared a nature reserve, a great deal of public money had been invested into bringing the former spoil heap to the condition it is in today, where wildlife thrives and people can wander at will in the open air. There were restrictive covenants on what could be done on the land. If, like me, you’ve ever bought a house with restrictive covenants, you will know that ordinary folk have to abide by them.
However, to cut a long story short, Quinn Estates applied for permission to build a 120-room hotel and spa and a surfing pool, and DDC approved it because none of this history matters.
At this point, I want to defend the councillors. They take their elected positions very seriously, are given some training in planning law and know enough to be guided by their expert officers. They work hard for the community – planning meetings are often long and gruelling events and it is often a thankless task. They must abide by planning law – failure to do so will put the council at risk of hugely expensive lawsuits.
And there are considerations other than the wildlife and the opinions of pressure groups whether local or national. Dover District needs tourists and lacks sizeable high-end hotels. An unusual attraction such as the wave pool may well bring in tourists and create jobs. It’s also a facility that many local people will enjoy – if they can afford it.
In whose interests does the planning system function? And, if the plan had been rejected, what next? Where would the money come to keep the country park functioning as just that? DDC is managing to avoid bankruptcy at the moment but that doesn’t mean there’s money to spare.
It’s an unedifying saga but one that should, I think, cause us to question the whole planning system. Does it really work in our interests? Or in those of developers such as Quinn Estates, who know so much more about material considerations than we do?
Mitigations to provide alternative habitats
I now need to add that the permission, refused last July, was only granted this time around with a number of “mitigations” demanded by Natural England, a government body tasked with protecting and restoring the natural environment. A mitigation is designed to reduce harm, so that rather suggests that harm there will be. But Quinn Estates are required under these mitigations to provide alternative habitats for the rare and endangered species I wrote about at the beginning of this article, and to show that they will be effective. Some of these will need years to take effect and be shown to be working, since they haven’t been tried before. The progress of this should come before the planning committee each year for the next seven years. Meanwhile building can’t take place.
I have the impression that Friends of Betteshanger are sceptical about these mitigations. So am I. We can hope. If we care about endangered wildlife, and if we value open spaces, we will need to be vigilant.
The history of the country park is hardly reassuring.
