appendix 5 – list of all comments · appendix 5 – list of all comments this appendix contains...

61Appendix 5a – Comments from groups

APPENDIX 5 – LIST OF ALL COMMENTS

This appendix contains feedback received by hand, postand email from the start of the consultation period until theend of 2016. The feedback has been anonymized by theremoval of name and address information and anyadditional personal information within the feedback that mayunintentionally lead to the identification of an individual.

Blean Parish CouncilInitial Response from Blean Parish Council September 2016

This first response has been written after consultation withthe Parish Councillors and attendance at two presentationsheld by the University of Kent.

Blean Parish Council welcomes the publication of theConcept Master Plan, it has given an opportunity to enterinto dialogue with the University and has ended speculationand rumours. At first sight the plan would appear to havesevere implications to the village and the Tyler Hill Road,however at this point in the consultation we should bemindful that this is a conceptual plan – not a concreteindication of potential developments in our parish.

The Northern Holdings [as named by the University] are, toa greater extent, agricultural in nature and reflect the ruralaspect surrounding the village of Blean. Blean ParishCouncil have, and will continue, to strongly oppose, thebuilding on and the loss of agricultural land in and aroundthe village. The land provides a positive rural borderbetween Tyler Hill village and Blean village.

The area is served by a rural road, in places very narrow,named Tyler Hill Road. This road is not able to sustain anyfurther traffic without causing danger to pedestrians,cyclists, farm vehicles and cars. This was illustrated recentlywith the Stagecoach bus diversion along the road,numerous skid marks, near misses and a considerabledisruption to the quality of life for the residents of both

villages took place. Blean Parish Council would stronglyoppose any development that impacted on the traffic usingthe road.

Due to the conceptual nature of the Master Plan there hasbeen much speculation regarding wordings such as ‘Parkand Ride’, ‘shuttle bus services’ and ‘utilising existing publicroads’. All of these aspects if taken forward would have tobe the subject of discussion with Blean Parish Council,Hackington Parish Council and Canterbury City Council. Itshould also be acknowledged that any move forwardregarding development in this area would have to beaccurately tested through Traffic and TransportAssessments, Ecological Impact Assessments,Sustainability Assessments etc. and further publicconsultations.

To summarise, Blean Parish Council do strongly oppose anychange in the usage of Tyler Hill Road from its present linkbetween the villages and as a means of access to theagricultural land bordering its sides. We would stronglyoppose any development in and around the historicbuilding of St Cosmus and St Damian in the Blean Church.We would also be strongly opposed to any ‘carpet’development along the boundaries of Tyler Hill Road. Wewould be strongly opposed to any development, be itbuilding or transport links, that disrupted the ecologicalbalance that exists at present.

In conclusion, although the above outlines our potentialopposition, Blean Parish Council would welcome theopportunity to continue in an open dialogue with theUniversity of Kent regarding all proposals for the NorthernLand Holdings. It is our hope that a balanced expansion ofthe University which would benefit the community of Bleanand open up new opportunities for recreational, cultural,sport, economic and educational activities for all, can beachieved.

Hackington Parish CouncilResponse from Hackington Parish Council on the Universityof Kent Concept Master Plan Consultation Final ReportStages 1, 2 & 3 dated November 2015.

Hackington Parish Council has considered the abovedocument and submits this response to the consultationprocess. The Council appreciated the opportunity toconsider the various elements behind the Master Plan at theformal presentation held at the University Business Schoolon 7th September 2016 and appreciates that it is clearly ata very early ‘Concept’ stage.

Given that the University has confirmed that the submissionto date is an indication of what could be considered overthe long term strategic development of the Universityowned land, potentially covering a 50-year period.

Accepting this early ‘visionary’ approach, the key commentsof the Council are considered thus:

• The Masterplan that is in circulation is very much aninitial ‘Concept’ at this stage and has not addressed anyenvironmental or land use based assessment duringthis stage and that these would be required in the eventof a planning application being submitted;

• The Council appreciates that the continueddevelopment of the University is strategically importantto Canterbury City and brings many benefits to the localbusiness communities within the District;

• The Council accepts the fact that a change in thinkingrelating to architectural developments within theUniversity lands is a worthwhile exercise;

• The Council supports the concept of maximising thepotential for both educational and commercial interestsof the University within the existing campus footprint asdescribed in the ‘Campus Heart’;

APPENDIX 5A – COMMENTS FROM GROUPS

62 University of Kent / Concept Masterplan Consultation Statement

• The Council appreciates the development of the‘Parklands’ concept in order to protect and enhance thewider open spaces to the south of the existing Campusprovided that any environmental, landscape andconservation aspects are fully assessed and anynegative impacts adequately managed. The Council isconscious that the present document seeks to includedevelopment, in some form, on lands to the east ofGiles Lane and St Stephens. At this stage, this is onlybriefly commented upon and appears to be an‘Extended Campus Heart’ (as indicated on Page 93 ofthe Plan). Very clearly, the Parish Council would seek tolimit any extension on to the existing greenfieldlandscape until such time as the existing Campus isfully developed in line with the Campus Heart concept.

• In relation to the ‘Northern Landholdings’, the potentialend uses for this area are less clear and Farrell hasindicated some creative thinking around satellite hubs,transport links, research and potentially commercialactivities. Some of these could develop into smallersatellite developments linked to the wider Universityresearch opportunities – including, as an example, linksto the rural economy. However, any such developmentwould require detailed assessments covering potentialhighway impacts, environmental and biodiversityaspects and any further technical assessments thatwould be required to support a future planningapplication. We expect therefore that any potentialdevelopment within the Northern Land Holdings wouldbe the subject of detailed scoping exercise, determinedby Canterbury City Council as the Planning Authority.

• The Council has concerns as to the inclusion of anumber of aspects relating to both pedestrian andvehicular movements between the Campus and anysuggested ‘satellite’ sites within the Norther LandHoldings and whilst we support the potentialdevelopment of rural economy research and

development ‘hubs’, there is simply too little detail withinthe Concept Plan to provide any level of consultationresponse.

• The Council has accepted that the inclusion of a ‘Parkand Ride’ facility near Blean was, as is stated in yourletter to us, wrongly presented and was actually meantto suggest some form of linked transport systembetween these outlying areas and the Campus itselfand not a ‘Park and Ride’ facility like others around thecity.

• The Plan currently recognises that extension ofUniversity interests in to the Northern area “is notconsidered viable or a desirable part of the growth ofthe University in the short to medium term” (Page 102)and we therefore see no reason to support the inclusionof this element within any strategic Planning documentat this stage.

SummaryIt is very evident, from the presentation attended by HPCCouncillors that the currently circulated Master Plan is in adesign concept stage. The presentation made it very clearthat there have been no technical assessments on anyenvironmental impacts that could be generated by theproposals and therefore there remains an obligation toundertake appropriate assessments in order to assessexisting characteristics and potential future impacts. Thiswill include all of the usual assessments including but notlimited to highway, ecology, landscape, hydrology and floodrisk etc. as part of any future planning application.

Hackington Parish Council is very aware that thestakeholder engagement process relating to residentswithin Tyler Hill fell very short of what we should expect andthat the intended circulation of the proposals did not takeplace. HPC recommends that this is very clearly addressedat the next phase of consultation including the potential to

hold direct consultation meetings with Tyler Hill residentsand Hackington Parish Council.

The Council does not support the case that any element ofthe proposed University lands require inclusion in thecurrent Canterbury City Council District Plan (presently at avery advanced stage) and seeks to ensure that anythingthat is proposed in the longer term does not benefit fromany supportive document in terms of District or CountyPlanning.

The justification for any development within the NorthernLand Holdings requires full justification in terms of a Caseof Need argument and, particularly, in relation to highwaysand land use policies. In particular, any proposed increasein traffic movement on Tyler Hill Road will need to berationally justified against a backdrop of an initial almostwholly hostile reaction to the proposals for the NorthernLand Holdings as expressed in the Masterplan.

St Stephens Residents AssociationAs Chair of the St Stephens Residents Associationcommittee, I would like to make a series of commentswhich I believe represent the views of our group:

We welcome the aspiration mentioned on page 75 of theMaster plan to ‘ ...enable the creation of the UK’s BestGarden Campus... and allow its development as a walkableenvironment’

We believe that it is important to maintain a ‘green gap’policy so that the ‘Parklands’ act as a ‘landscapedemarcation from the City’ (p94). In that respect, we wouldnot want to see further inappropriate development of thesouthern slopes. It is noted that any new buildings will bedesigned as ‘pavilions in the landscape’ (p94) andwondered if the proposed conference centre that has beenmentioned on previous occasions as a long-term plan for

APPENDIX 5A – COMMENTS FROM GROUPS (CONT)

the University could be based around the BeverleyFarmhouse as part of its preservation and enhancement asa historic site. (p 94) This would enable the green setting ofthe southern slopes or ‘parkland’ to be preserved.

We are pleased that ‘the proposed rethink of the campusheart will ... offer the opportunity to develop more(residential) accommodation through a more efficient use of space’ as we would prefer more purpose builtaccommodation to be available on campus in order toreduce the high concentration of private housing in ourneighbourhood used as student accommodation.(ie, HalesPlace) The accommodation on campus needs to beaccompanied by sufficient car parking spaces to relieve theuse of residential streets for all day parking by members ofuniversity staff and students. (Residents of ManwoodAvenue have mentioned that they are bothered by this)

We would welcome a new station entrance in Roper Road ‘to the north side of Canterbury (West) station’ to helprelieve traffic at the St Dunstan’s level crossing and ‘avoidthe bottleneck of the existing pedestrian tunnel underthe...railway line’.

St Michael’s Road Area Residents’AssociationResponse to the University of Kent Concept MasterplanAugust 2016

We appreciate the opportunity to comment at this earlystage of developing a Masterplan for the campus of theUniversity of Kent and we are pleased that representativesof our Association were invited to a preview of theMasterplan exhibition. As close neighbours our membersare inevitably affected for better or worse by decisionsmade by the University management. While individualresidents will wish to make their own representations we will

confine our comments to issues that affect the majority ofour members.

We welcome the intention to conserve the Southern Slopesas parkland. We believe that the southern aspect of thecampus ranks among the University’s greatest assets. Theenvironmental features and views from the various aspectsare virtually unparalleled on UK university campuses. Acommitment to protect these features is welcomed andcould be strengthened.

A concerning feature of the University’s vision of theparkland is its persistent intention to build a ‘conferencinghotel’ and ‘pavilions’ on that section of the Southern Slopesreferred to as Chaucer Fields. Although manifestly scaleddown from previous proposals, which received hugenumbers of objections at the planning application stage, wecontend that development on this section of the parkland isinappropriate. Reference is made in the Masterplan to thework of Capability Brown at Stowe. However, the designs ofBrown were intended to enhance and develop vistas. Hisgenius lay in how he was able to vary the vistas across alimited landscape. Currently, Chaucer Fields serves as adelightful enhancement to the existing grassland, bluebellwoods and trickling streams that grace the SouthernSlopes. Occupying possibly the most historic part of thecampus, the remains of orchards and the unusual doublehedges (markers of the ancient boundary between StStephen’s and St Dunstan’s parishes) are merely the mostobvious traces of the previous character of the land. Wesuggest that this, together with the ancient farmhouse nowpart of the University buildings should be better recognisedand enhanced. Needless to add that the diversity inlandscape produces diversity of habitat which, in turn,encourages greater diversity of species, a feature whichmay be more apparent to those of us who live in the vicinitythan those who commute in to work here. The suggestion of

wildflower meadows elsewhere in the Masterplan is one thatwould sit easily in this area and enhance views alreadyrecognised as iconic across a diverse pastoral landscapetowards the cathedral. Again, the contrast with the viewsacross the green, tree- rimmed landscape of the SouthernSlopes below Eliot College would be true to Brown’s intent.It would be overlooking this latter part of the slopes that any‘pavilion’ type structure would be appropriate in the style ofCapability Brown- and maybe this should be borne in mindwhen the time comes to replace the existing collegebuildings which, we are informed, are reaching the end oftheir serviceable lifetimes.

We welcome the intention to concentrate further buildingtowards the centre of the campus while commenting thatattention needs to be paid to the impact of any furtherbuildings on the skyline. The ridge above the city is alreadybecoming increasingly cluttered with incoherent styles ofuniversity buildings, visible particularly in winter when thefoliage screen is less effective.

The proposal to use the ‘bomb crater’ as a theatre isintriguing and attractive, providing that the structuresfacilitating this are temporary; for instance such as thoseused at ancient monuments by the National Trust, EnglishHeritage etc. Such temporary structures would not requirepermanent changes to the natural environment around theEliot footpath.

We are concerned about the proposal to open up the routeof the disused railway line to the south of the Universitytowards the City. A vehicle route along the route of the Craband Winkle line appears to us to be impractical,necessitating as it would the demolition of several housesand gardens in Beaconsfield Road and the reconstructionof the missing railway embankment across BeaconsfieldRoad, not to mention severe disruption and loss of privacy



to residents whose homes and gardens back on to thishistoric route. Further, this would open an additional corridorof disturbance through a residential area. In any case,increased vehicle access from this direction would putenormous pressure on a narrow access route at the point ofBeaconsfield/Forty Acres Road.

In conclusion we are pleased to be in dialogue with theUniversity over the future of these important issues which willaffect us and Canterbury as a whole. We look forward tocontinued participation and would welcome a greater role forthe local community to be involved in responsiblestewardship of this land.


Views across Chaucer Fields

Images supplied by St Michael's Road Area Residents' Association


Canterbury Society and Crab and WinkleLine Trust and the Canterbury HeritageDesign ForumUniversity of Kent Concept Master PlanPresentation by Architect John Letherland, at UKC on 26 July 2016

Present19 representatives from Canterbury bodies including theCanterbury Society and Crab and Winkle Line Trust

Robert Palmer, Craig Webster, Clive Bowley, Val Harris,Janet Scott, Aldwyth Garside and Paul Bennett, all

members of the Canterbury Heritage Design Forum.

IntroductionSet up in 1965, and now celebrating its 50th anniversary,the University of Kent is reappraising its estates strategy,and commissioned Farrells to undertake a concept MasterPlan.

The aim is to review its estate and wider land holdings andplan for another 50 years. There needs to be good qualitystudent and staff accommodation.

The 1965 Holford Master Plan took advantage of the hilltoplocation through distributing the original college buildingsalong the ridgeline. This allowed dramatic views.

There has been rapid expansion over the last decade andthis has spread beyond its tighter original boundaries. Thishas resulted in a low density and dispersed campusenvironment which does not provide shelter from theelements.

Images supplied by St Michael's Road Area Residents' Association

The continuous outwards growth and sprawl of the campusarea has led to a decreasing green periphery leavingempty pockets of space in the centre of the campus.Therefore, there is opportunity to accommodate growthwithout further sprawl.

The dilemma is to allow for future capacity needs and howto enrich the campus in the process. The Plan is aboutcreating quality public realm and being part of Canterburyand support the aims of the City to retain graduates.

Student numbers2015 saw a removal of the student cap and this allowsgreater competition amongst Universities. Canterbury isranked in the top 20 Universities but it is still in greatcompetition to attract students. There are over 6,500 studentrooms on the Kent and Medway campuses (which is quite ahigh number) and 15,000 students overall.

In answer to a question it was confirmed that many of thefounding colleges/buildings are no longer fit for purpose,and in the short to medium term the university still seesitself as a residential university – but there is a need to beflexible and think about how land and/or the buildings could

be used, if things and priorities change.

The development proposalsDevelopment is to be focussed in strategic areas to createaccessible, inclusive and efficient cores.

It is important to understand patterns of movement (bypedestrians, vehicles, buses and cycles) to develop aproposal to enhance the campus.

Rather than pursuing a policy of horizontal expansion andspreading, the opportunity to consolidate the heart of thecampus where possible will be undertaken.

Key points:• To exploit the under-utilised space between the Jarman

building and Darwin College• Redevelop several buildings nearing the end of their

practical life into higher density up to date facilities(without needing building taller than currently existing)

• With the density uplift this can accommodate both thecommitted and medium term projects and theadditional 2000 planned bed spaces

• Intensification offers savings in energy, maintenanceand management costs

• The creation of high quality external environment – thecurrent spaces are all very homogenous with all areaslooking the same

• The objective behind the Master Plan concept is tocreate the UK’s Best Garden Campus

• Funding in the short term will constrain development

SignageIt is currently hard to find your way around campus so as aresult there are a lot of signs. A greater coherence in thelayout will reduce the reliance on signage.

Car parkingThe campus is dominated by cars

Giles Lane is used as a rat run and is in poor state

Car parking is puncturing the campus heart

Car parks are to be pushed to the edge of the campus –this will unlock significant development capacity within theheart and deliver a safer walking environment.

ViewsThere is tension between the University and the City. Theviews will be nurtured – the views of historic Canterbury area feature of the Campus and a selling point.

Proposal ideasThe overall site is divided into three district character areas:

i The Campus Heart – sympathetic growth and placemaking, to develop more academic and residentialaccommodation through more efficient use of space (agradual replacement of buildings as they reach the endof their useful life)

ii Parklands – (the outer campus) – develop as alandscape resource.

iii The Northern Land Holdings – ideas for thedevelopment of a ‘satellite campus’ that will provide atemplate for further development and enable growth forthe next 50 years

The Master Plan starts by establishing a simple grid ofstreets, spaces and places based around a main east-westroute along the ridgeline, which will connect between theWhitstable Road and St Stephen’s Hill.

In addition, a main north-south route will be establishedalong the Crab and Winkle Way which connects betweenthe city centre and Tyler Hill Road in the Northern LandHoldings.

Links into the surrounding Parklands will emanate fromthese two principal cross routes.

This approach will establish a clear and simple connectivitythroughout the whole campus.

Campus Heart• The proposal pushes car parks to the periphery of the

campus heart or even completely outside of it.• Two Gateway Squares will be developed along the

primary East-West route – the first new square will be atthe junction of University Road and Giles Lane at the


heart of the campus. The second square will be locatedat the east end of the Campus Walk at its junction to StStephen’s Hill – this will form a new Eastern pedestrianentrance to the Campus.

• Between the two squares the “Campus Walk” will serveas the main pedestrian way through the core.

• In addition, two secondary north-south routes will crossthe Campus Walk

• The two new Gateway Squares and Campus Walkshould be lined with shops, cafes, cultural and leisurebuildings, student services and other active frontages.

Chaucer Fields and ParklandsThe proposal is for the Parklands and the historic buildingsto be preserved and enhanced.

New streets will emanate from the Campus Walk in to theParklands.

Northern Land HoldingsDispersal if University facilities in the Northern LandHoldings is not considered viable or desirable as part ofthe growth of the University on the short to medium term.Consolidation and intensification of the Campus Heart isthe fundamental initial growth.

In developing the Northern Land holdings, in order to retaina physical separation from the campus hear and Parklands,a new link between Tyler Hill Road and the Campus Heartwill be created. Three different ways to create a convenientlink could be:

• To upgrade the Crab and Winkle Way and widen it froma pedestrian and cycle route to take vehicles

• The dis-used rail line which runs to the west of StStephen’s Hill could be acquired and upgraded for re-use

• A completely new and direct street could be createdthrough the existing fields.

Further consultationThis is just a concept for a Master Plan – there is still a lot ofwork to do.

The University is to consult at other meetings with otherstakeholders, residents’ groups and also to hold two publicexhibitions:

At the Abode Hotel, Canterbury on 2 and 3 August 2016,and Blean Village Hall, 12 and 19 August 2016

Q&A and comments from the floor• Everyone was very pleased that the University has

created this concept Master Plan – it is very welcomed• It is very pleasing to see its urban design and principles

of space and layout• Building on the southern slopes – there is still some

severe reservation about building here – if thedevelopment is to have a hotel or a building in ChaucerFields it must be a very high quality building and bevery special and have a budget to match its superblocation

• People of the City feel like the Chaucer Fields should bekept undeveloped and not built on – it is a gap betweenthe campus and the City.

• Canterbury Archaeological Trust has done someEnvironmental Statements including of Chaucer Fieldsand Turing College – there are patterns in thelandscape already that can be drawn on, for example,the ancient field system to the south and the Crab andWinkle Line.

• Also, if there is any building on the other side of StStephen’s then these would be building over historic tilekilns.

• The built environment needs coherence andsympathetic materials – it needs one material to bring itall together.

• There is a need to think about the roads a little more• Landscape considerations are very much appreciated• The active frontages are linked• Wildlife input will obviously need developing if not done

already.• Art could be used to identify spaces.• The original builder of the Joyce Green hospital had

some different botanical trees- something along thoselines might be a possibility to consider

• Electric buses to help disabled in from the outer carparks would be great.

• The Colyer-Fergusson music hall and GulbenkianTheatre do need to retain parking outside nearby.

• The CCCU proposals for new development of the oldprison site incorporate an outside seating space thatcould also work and be incorporated into UKC.

• The University could help deal with the businesses ofCanterbury – with innovation centres and businesscentres – and possibly an energy centre. (We believethe proposals include small individual business centreslocated on a few sites on the land holdings north of themain ‘core’ area.)

• Representatives of the Crab and Winkle Line Trustappreciated the Master Plan and the consultation. Theysupported the relocation of the car parks and a greateremphasis on pedestrians and cyclists. In 2000, the Trustgot engineers to do a survey of the tunnel that runsunder University land – the resulting findings advisedthat it would be relatively easy to re-open this tunnel, asit is filled with a soft concrete. To re-open the tunnelwould be of benefit as an access, it would open-up anhistorical element and it would also take off the currentsteep gradient.



SPOKES East Kent Cycle CampaignDear Sir/Madam,

University of Kent Master Plan – Response from SPOKESEast Kent Cycle Campaign

SPOKES are an active campaign group set up toencourage cycling and publicise its benefits. We are basedin the East Kent area of the UK but have an interest in betterconditions for cyclists everywhere.

The objective of SPOKES is to promote cycle use by peopleof all ages and abilities. An overriding criterion from ourperspective is whether as a parent you would be happy tosend your 12-year old son or daughter out on a dailyjourney by bike unsupervised on a given route. We do notunderestimate the care needed in balancing the competingdemands for road space, but SPOKES seek to ensure theneeds of cyclists are considered in full.

Spokes has contributed to a great many active transportschemes in East Kent including the Crab and Winkle Waywhich crosses the University property. Spokes often takesas advisory role in local council planning decisions. Spokesmembers also speak at planning meeting for or againstproposals based on their inclusion of sustainable transportinfrastructure. We have regular communication with councilmembers and officers. Our committee includes an exuniversity lecturer and other members who regularly use theexisting cycling and other facilities at the University.

We have studied the University of Kent, CanterburyConcept Master Plan and have formulated the followingresponse.

It is very welcome that the University has decided to sharethe long-term plan at such an early stage. From asustainable transport perspective, it is very exciting as itgives the opportunity to explore ideas with the knowledge ofhow they might fit in with the bigger picture over time.

We agree with and support your 10 high level objectives. Ofcourse, we are particularly interested in your fifth objective‘REINFORCEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY’S REPUTATIONFOR EXCELLENCE IN ALL ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABILITY’.SPOKES would very much like to be involved with the plangoing forward. We would be very happy to discuss furtherany of the points we have raised in this response. We thinkthat our local knowledge, and also experience in localplanning and sustainable transport projects, will particularlyhelp with the delivery of objective 5. By its nature, we thinkthat a campus that prioritises sustainable travel will alsodirectly contribute towards many of the other objectives,particularly 3,7,8,9 and 10.

Although the Concept Master Plan is very high level wehave addressed some aspects of the report in some detail,this is because we think that it is relevant to the largerpicture even at this early planning stage.

Canterbury has a slightly higher cycle commuting rate thanthe average for the county of Kent, 2.7% vs 1.7% [1 –Canterbury District Transport Strategy 2014-31 – page 9].This may well be partly attributable to the contribution madeby the University in allowing sustainable routes to passthrough its property as well as providing cycling facilities onsite such as secure cycle parking and segregated cyclepaths. However, the level of cycle commuting is much lowerin Canterbury than it is in some other cities such as Oxfordwith 17.6% and Cambridge with 29.9% [2]. On thecontinent Groningen in the Netherlands has between 31

and 55%, and Freiburg in Germany has between 13 and28%. Although improvements have already been made,there is clearly a lot of potential for further improvement.

With substantial planned residential development to thesouth of Canterbury and lack of space or public appetite towiden or build more roads, there is talk of achieving atransportation modal shift. This is so the growing populationwill be able to travel around Canterbury without causingfurther congestion. The plan mentions the symbioticrelationships between universities and their host cities. Thefuture development of the University, as it has been in thepast, could be a big driver of this modal shift.

The plan mentions an increasing of density rather than asprawling development. From a sustainable transport pointof view this makes it more attractive for people to travel viafoot or bicycle within the campus as potential journeys areshorter.

The plan mentions ‘an efficient and clear mental gap’. Thisis very important not only for pedestrians but also for peopleon bikes. People often get lost trying to follow the existingroutes through the University, it would be great to have cleardirect routes, such routes not only easy to remember butoften shorter.

Current campus road infrastructureWe agree with the assessment that the plan makes aboutthe current road infrastructure within the University campusand how it is used. We agree that the current campus is“Dominated by roads, vehicles and by car parking”. It is aprime example of somewhere that was built in an era whenthey thought that the private motor car would become thesolution for nearly all travel requirements. We agree with theplans aim to ‘Tame’ the existing roads.


The following paragraph from the report is a very accurateappraisal:

“Motor vehicles tend to dominate the campus layout – carparks infiltrate into the very heart of the campus and thecampus roads are not particularly urban, but are often busyand host fast-moving traffic. The appearance of the roadsdoes nothing to discourage high speeds, and they aresubject to rat-running by non-university motorists withconsequent impact upon surface repair.”

Further, in an effort to make Giles Lane safer forpedestrians, extensive railings have been installed at theedges of the road to try and corral pedestrians to the near-by pelican crossing. This ignores the natural desire line ofthe pedestrians but also serves to give drivers the illusionthat the road is safe and they can therefore drive faster. Thiseffect is described in risk compensation theory. Because ofpotentially faster moving traffic and lack of safe escaperoute, the risk of getting squashed against the railings,makes cycling along the road even less attractive. Theconsequence of this is that people on bikes tend to use thepavement where there is no cycle path available.

Current active travel infrastructureFrom the north NCR1 enters University near Tyler Hill roadand exits from the Campus at Whitstable Road, the plandoes not mention this westerly route that NCR1 takes in toCanterbury (page 45). The plan does mention the Crab andWinkle link that branches from the main NCR1 route at ParkWood Road. It is routed along Park Wood Road, then ittravels along alternate sides of Giles Lane, down the side ofUniversity Road where it follows the service road to EliotCollege, here it becomes a segregated pedestrian/cyclepath down the hill to Lyndhurst Close. It then FollowsSalisbury Road and St Michael’s Road down to

Beaconsfield Road where it crosses and doglegs back tothe side of the Crab and Winkle Embankment. It thenpasses over Beverly Meadow. Joins the St. Stephens Pathway (Cyclists should dismount here) which emerges near toStation Road West. There is also a piece of segregatedpedestrian/cycle path that goes from the edge of the ParkWood accommodation to the Gym.

The current infrastructure is a credit to those who fought forit and is well used. However, it is very disjointed andinconsistent, and could be greatly improved. There aremany accounts of people getting lost when trying to use it.It is encouraging that the plan recognises the need tocreate ‘an efficient and clear mental map’.

The present Crab and Winkle Way route is quite effective forpedestrians and cyclists, it’s incredibly busy in the morningsand evenings. This plan mentions the hazard of cyclesgoing fast down the hill but this section already hassegregation between cyclists and pedestrians, we think thatreporting of the hazard here may be an exaggeration.Straightening and enhancing this route and clearly joining itin at the Campus will however be very welcome.

Cycle parking has improved greatly over the years withopen, enclosed and lockable bike storage in many places,often in very prominent places and close to the buildingsthey serve. This send out a clear message to all theconvenient, secure cycle parking is available and thatpeople are using it.

Current routing of NCR1The routing of NCR1 away from the original Crab andWinkle Way was no doubt because of the land ownership at the time of its construction. However, its current routingdoes have some advantages.

• It runs closer to the more populous area of Blean andRough Common vs the less populous Tyler Hill.

• There are a number of routes that join it to Blean.• It runs right behind the Blean Primary School and The

Oaks Day Nursery.• It joins directly with Whitstable Road opposite Kent

College where the main NCR1 route then goes back off road into Canterbury (not mentioned in the plan).

• As well as cycle commuters, this section attracts quite a few parents from both Blean and Canterbury to theNursery and School. They walk or cycle with theirchildren.

Routing of the Crab and Winkle Link across campusAs mentioned before the Crab and Winkle Link is routedalong Park Wood Road. Despite Park Wood Road being a20MPH zone it is particularly busy and not that attractive tonormal people who may wish to cycle. It attracts a lot oftraffic in the morning to Blean School and to The Oaks DayNursery. Could the segregated pedestrian/cycle path thatgoes from the edge of the Park Wood accommodation tothe Gym be extended at each end to form a motor trafficfree East/West segregated cycle pedestrian route? It couldfork at the Gym and join the existing Eliot Path via a newToucan crossing (if cross traffic remains), the other forkcould also carry on through the centre of the campus to theaccommodation to the East. Here it could cross and joinwith the path from the original Crab and Winkle RailwayRoute. This in-turn could form part of the proposed eastwest routes like the ‘Campus Walk’.

Tyler Hill Road – Northern Hub proposalsThe plans indicate that this road may become access forthe satellite developments, for access to a park and ride,and even access to the existing campus. This road is verynarrow and twisty, there is no foot path. At each end, it is



flanked by properties so it appears there is very little scopefor widening or adding a footpath. This road is already a rat-run as it is the first opportunity to transfer between the Eastto West of Canterbury when approaching or leaving via theNorth. Will it be expected to take extra traffic? Could analternate route be found? Further, allowing traffic in from thenorth may make this trip easier for people commuting bycar in to the University. Or even using it as access toCanterbury beyond if that was possible.

Page 97 states that: In developing the Northern LandHoldings, this physical separation will necessitate thecreation of a new link between Tyler Hill Road and theCampus Heart. If the Northern Hub is occupied byindependent business then, do they need to have motovehicle access to the main campus? What is the expectedtraffic generation Northern Hub proposals? Is it sufficient assuggested on 5 of the report, to use existing publicroads to service the Tyler Hill Road developments.

When developing transport systems that encouragesustainable transport a proven successful approach is touse the carrot and stick approach to car use. Safe, directroutes are made available for active travel. Conversely,routes are made more indirect for cars. The plan includesthis principles in moving car parks to the edge andproviding walkways. This principle has been used in townswhere cross town motor traffic is stopped, you have to driveout and round, whereas active travel is allowed directroutes. Instead of having motor vehicle connection to thecampus there could just be sustainable traffic free routeslike the existing NCR1 and that original Crab and WinkleLine path. This could achieve less induced demand on Tyler Hill Road (motor traffic using the new link to accesscampus), and encourage trips from the Tyler Hill Road tothe main campus, or Canterbury, to be made on foot or bybike. Of course, disabled drivers could still drive round via

the existing roads and into one of the central disabled onlycar parks, giving them a clear advantaged over able bodieddrivers who would have to park on the edge and walk.

By connecting the northern hub to the campus by roaddoes it become part of one big super campus and part ofthe building density calculation? It would lower the overalldensity of the campus which might be seen as being atodds with the desire to increase the building density ratherthan sprawl out.

The upgrading or building of a road near the Blean Churchor Sarre Penne or on the ‘Ancient Salt Road’ that connectsthem (now NR1), could be environmentally andarchaeologically sensitive. SPOKES are aware that in thearea around Blean Church the farmer is not allowed toplough deep because of archaeology – Blean Manor ofHemo de Crevecoeur. Putting a ‘road’ with decentfoundations and the sports buildings there would alsorequire serious investigation before diggers ventured ontothe land. [5 – The Blean: The Woodlands of a CathedralCity by the Blean Research Group P49 Ch 5].

These areas of environmental and archaeological sensitivityshould be considered carefully and any developmentshould be carried out in a careful manner whilst stillmeeting the high-level objectives of the plan.

If the current NCR1 route was converted to a road theneven if it had segregated cycle/walking paths it would stilllose a big part of its current inherent safety. If parents wereable to use this new road it would attract a lot of school runcars. Using the original crab and winkle route would add2km to the journey from Blean to the School and/or Nursery.The car would have a clear advantage in terms ofconvenience.

Currently where this section runs between the BleanChurch and private house it is too narrow for a road. So, itlooks like the road would have to deviate here. Perhaps ifthis road was deemed necessary then the optionsuggested in the plan of building it away from the currentNCN1 and Blean Church, and also the original route of theCrab and Winkle railway line, could be taken.

Is the section of currently shared use cycle/foot path fromWhitstable Road to the end of the Park Wood road (NCR1)also being considered for upgrade to a road? As mentionedbefore this is very popular with parents and school childrenwalking and cycling to the Blean School and Oaks DayNursery.

If development does proceed along Tyler Hill Road thencould the University please work with KCC to reduce thespeed limit for this road and consider other improvements,like pavements or an alternative traffic free route. Asmentioned, this road is narrow, twisty and it also has aninappropriate 60MPH speed limit, it crosses the Crab andWinkle Way and is also used by walkers from the localvillages.

Finally, is it necessary to build the northern hub along TylerHill Road, could space be found within the current campusby a further increase in density or by using the land holdingto the east of St. Stephens Hill?

Reinstate the Original Crab and Winkle Route andPreserve the existingAs mentioned the current NCN1 route has a number ofthings going for it. However, adding the original railway lineroute for walking and cycling could be of great benefit.


• Tyler Hill Village would get a traffic free link intoCanterbury, currently there is no safe route for cyclists ofall ages and abilities.

• There are plans for a Crab and Winkled Style route toHerne Bay, this Tyler hill route would make it moredirect. The local plan shows one potential Herne Bayroute coming in from the East of Canterbury Hill,however there is another route that would bring cyclistsinto Clowes Wood from Herne Bay [1 – CanterburyDistrict Transport Strategy 2014-31 – A291 To ClowesWood p147].

• Some university staff and student would have a moredirect and safer route into work.

• Some non-University commuters would have a moredirect route.

• The two routes would provide university staff andstudents an amazing recreational resource. Many walkor jog or cycle into Clowes Wood for recreationalpurposes. This would help in the aims of creating “THEBEST GARDEN CAMPUS IN THE UK” and“REINFORCEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY’SREPUTATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN ALL ASPECTS OFSUSTAINABILITY”

• By providing routes that are popular not only with theuniversity staff and students but also non-universityusers the University is helping to mitigate some of themotor traffic and other disturbances that the Universitygenerates. This benefits both the University and thelocal community.

Herne Bay to Canterbury Cycle RouteUniversity Land Holdings to the East of St. Stephen’s Hillare adjacent to the proposed main route of the Herne Bayto Canterbury route proposed in the transport plan [1 –Canterbury District Transport Strategy 2014-31 – Herne Bayto Canterbury (REF 19) (3 of 3) p143, A291 To ClowesWood p147]. This might present some opportunities:

• The University could help to drive the implementation ofthe path forward, the Crab and Winkle to Whitstable isvery popular, particularly with university staff andstudents, the roads between Herne Bay and Whitstableare not attractive for cyclists so a Herne Bay routeshould be just as popular. Herne Bay’s population isapproximately 30% larger than Whitstable’s.

• This path and/or development could be joined by atraffic free route into Hales Places, Hales Place housesquite a few students. (Subject to further land availability)

ParkingThe plan mentions that parking will be moved to the edges.We support this idea in principle but have a few questionsat this stage.

• There is already a car park at the end of Park WoodRoad, it is incredibly popular as it provides a convenientdrop off point for Blean Primary School and the OaksDay Nursery. It is already at the edge but access to itrequires driving through the middle of the campus, howwill this be addressed buy the plans?

• Is there an overall plan to reduce or maintain thenumber of parking spaces despite growth in peopleaccessing the site? Growth in parking spaces is likely toinduce demand, Canterbury is already very congestedat times. These plans should seek to maintain or reduceoverall parking, not increase it.

• How will disabled drivers be catered for? Will they haveparking that is close to the centre? On Page 86 theredoesn’t appear to be disabled parking anywhere nearthe Gulbenkian Theatre, Cinema, and Colyer FergusonConcert Hall all of which hold events that are open tothe general public including disabled drivers. Currently,the number of disabled driver spaces for events is mostinadequate and inconsiderate parking is rife. How tillthis feature of central campus be dealt with?

• On Page 80, some of the parking appears to be movedto the parkland between the Campus and the City.Would this compromise the parkland?

• Exactly where will the car parks on the edges go?

Park and rideA park and ride for the north of Canterbury does soundattractive. If traffic modelling show that this will lead toreduced (or not increased) congestion levels in the Centreof Canterbury then this is a good idea. However, shouldaccess to this be from Tyler Hill Road or could it be fromBlean Road / University Road of Giles Lane? Could a newway to it be created?

Can it be confirmed that the Park and Ride would be opento the public? Will it give the public access to Canterburytown centre of just the University?

Using space around Tyler Hill Road for car parks begs thequestion of how those car parks will be accessed by traffic.From the north, there are two main flows of traffic; one tothe West on the Whitstable Road (Faversham, Whitstable)and one to the East Hackington Road (Herne Bay / NorthThanet). Where these car parks are placed will influencewhere these flows get re-directed. Further, there are alsosimilar if not greater flows of traffic from the south, if theseflows are directed to the northern car parks then Tyler HillRoad, Whitstable Road and Canterbury Hill wouldexperience increases in traffic. As mentioned above, TylerHill road is not currently suitable and upgrading wouldrequire extensive work. Perhaps the car parks could bedistributed to the East and West. The Easterly car parkcould be to the East of St. Stephens Hill, the Westerly carpark may be harder to site. This East/West split of car parkcould reduce the need for University generated traffic totravel East/West along Tyler Hill Road. Walking distancescould be reduced and existing bus routing could be



enhanced to give quick links to town. These East/West carparks may well be closer to the campus heart than thenorthern car parks and may therefore not require a shuttlebus service to campus.

Bus routingWe noted that on page 95 of the report that there is apicture of a coach on the proposed sustainable route fromthe campus into Canterbury which follows the original Craband Winkle Railway Line. The proposed route here is just tothe west of the existing segregated cycle/foot path whichcomes down from Eliot College to Lyndhurst Close. Thisroute is already incredibly popular with pedestrians andpeople on bikes. SPOKES would strongly encourage thisparticular route to remain motor traffic free. We would alsolike to see it follow the original railway line if possible. Wewould be interested to see more detail if fast-track busroutes or similar if they are proposed. Currently the routefrom the bottom of Eliot Hill via bus to the City would bemuch harder to gain acceptance or engineer than a purelyactive travel route. The active travel route is already thereand successful, there could be a number of options toenhance it with varying cost and complexity.

Giles Lane adoptionSPOKES supports the idea that Giles Lane is adopted bythe University if this would enable the University to lower thespeed limit to a maximum 20MPH and also decide ifthrough traffic is allowed to continue.

Giles Lane/University Road through trafficIt appears from the high level conceptual drawings thatGiles Lane may no-longer allow traffic across the campus.SPOKES would want to encourage this idea.

• If it is not already the case, could closing the narrowwestern section from Whitstable Road to UniversityRoad to motor traffic be considered?

• Any roads on the campus should have an absolutemaximum speed limit of 20MPH, 10MPH is alreadyapplied to some service roads.

• The section which runs past the Gulbenkian has nosegregated cycle path, could one be added?

• This section also has extensive barriers along eachside, could these be removed?

A proven method of reducing motor traffic use if by filteredpermeability [6- Steve Melia]. Through routes are closed tomotor traffic but kept open for other forms. Cars trips arereduced, not just redirected, because they are made harder(Vanishing Demand). The reduction in motor trafficcombined with a direct route makes active travel moreattractive. Wil the detailed plans examine how much non-University traffic passes along Giles Lane / University Roadand to think about if the University could be closed toEast/West private motor through traffic? Depending on howmuch of the current traffic simply passes through and theideas already in the plan of moving parking to the edgedthere may be potential for a complete transformation in theenvironmental quality at the centre of the campus in termsof safety and air quality.

The plan shows how the new ‘Gateway Squares’ will becreated. These look to be a great improvement on theexisting road infrastructure and may address our concernsabove. However, careful consideration should be given tohow these squares are implemented. Will they use theprinciples of Shared Space of Filtered Permeability?Shared space has become a popular tool but it does notalways work out and it is attracting some controversy andopposition. Guide Dogs for the Blind have some useful

resources on shared space [4]. Shared spaces can fail toeliminate rat running and produce environments that are stillvehicle dominated like Exhibition Road in London, this hasresulted in the improvements for non-motorised traffic beingmuch smaller than was initially anticipated. Clearly, the St.Stephens Hill Gateway Square would have to allow throughtraffic, but the University Road/Giles Lane gateway mightnot have to.

Active travel within the campusIt is very welcome that the plan talks about creating strong,defined pedestrian and cycle routes. The plan also statedthat the pedestrian will be king, this is also very welcome.However, it does not give many details about how cyclingwill be catered for.

The plan goes into some detail about walking and driving.Cycling sits in the middle and offers some of the benefits ofboth. This is why it is currently booming in popularity incities where good facilities are provided. This not only helpswith local pollution, health and sustainability but it is anincredibly efficient way of moving large numbers of peopleacross cities very quickly, it is often the quickest form oftransport in a busy city.

Commuters need to be able to cycle right up to theirbuilding, as many already do. Trips within campus need toalso be possible by bicycle. A cycle user may cycle in fromhalls to a lecture, park outside, then cycle into townafterwards. Similarly, a member of staff may cycle in fromWhitstable along the Crab and Winkle, across campus totheir building, then cycle into town at lunch time. Indeed, abig benefit is being able to cycle from door-to-door. Whenthis aspect is limited or interrupted the attraction of cyclingis reduced. For cycling to be an attractive proposition for


regular people to consider as a transport option, it’s fullbenefits need to be realised.

If cycling infrastructure was limited and cyclists were forcedto walk from external bike parks this slowing of their journeyremoves one of the key attractions of cycling. TheUniversity has already, despite the problem of the busyroads, achieved a cycleable campus, with key segregatedcycle routes, cycles not being actively banned from sharedspaces and a number of secure, highly visible cycleparking facilities close to the buildings they serve. Themaster plan must build on this to achieve its sustainableobjectives.

The gateway squares and campus walk sounds like anexcellent idea. It is very important that cycling is allowedhere as well as along the main east-west route along theridge-line. Indeed, it should be allowed along all the maineast west and north south routes. How this is achieved willrequire a careful assessment of the use of shared andsegregated facilities. Current, best practice as well asinspiration from existing schemes should be drawn upon.

Hopefully the position of and route between car parks willstrongly discourage (or make impossible) the use of carsfor cross campus travel. Interestingly, it has been reportedby bus drivers, students currently use the buses to crosscampus! The distance or some other factor must put themof walking. Wouldn’t cycling be better for them and the airquality? Is this lack of desire to walk or cycle because thecomplex routes that paths take? A lack of clear mentalmap?

Delivery of goods to and within the campusCurrently many of the building around the campus havetheir own service areas to accept deliveries. Perhaps a

study could be carried out to see if a central distribution hubof hubs could be created. Cargo bikes or electric vehiclescould be used for last stage delivery within the campus. Thiswould not only reduce the need for large vehicles topenetrate multiple destinations within the campus but wouldalso free up space used by the present service roads forwalking, cycling, public space or increased building density.

Sustainable travel routes beyond the campusAs mentioned before, the ‘Crab and Winkle Link’ takes quite acomplex route to the West Station and the City CentreBeyond. Despite this the route is very popular with bothcyclists and pedestrians. It is a major route for students anduniversity staff as well as city centre commuters and schoolchildren. It would be great if the master plan could contributehere.

• As the plan suggests; route the pedestrian path/cycleroute back down the St. Michael’s embankment, this isnot currently practical due to the location of privatehouses in Beaconsfield Road.

• The plan also mentions the proposed Roper Road StationEntrance. Could the University help to make a bridge overthe railway line here that included cycling and walking?Enhancing the cycling and walking options for its staffand students well into Canterbury and therefore loweringthe attraction to driving in to campus? This bridge wouldbypass the St. Dunstan’s level crossing and pedestrianonly St. Stephens tunnel. Canterbury City Council’s JointTransport Board is currently discussing the potentialRoper Road Entrance.

• The potential Canterbury West Station Roper Roadentrance may also have some potential for a fast-track/shuttle bus service to the campus. Again, avoidingthe St. Dunstan’s level crossing.

• Foot and cycle travel between Tyler Hill and Bleanvillages to each other and the Crab and Winkle Way,due to the narrow Tyler Hill Road is currently risky, therehave been a number of recorded accidents. Could themaster plan include a traffic free route here? It may gosome way to mitigate some of the other effects of thescheme.

• As mentioned before, the University could help drive theplanned traffic free route to Herne Bay.As well as park and ride, how about considering parkand pedal?

• If shuttle buses are implemented, could they have racksfor bikes?

• Taming of St. Stephens Hill at and beyond theproposed gateway square. There have been accidentshere including a fatality in recent years.

• Taming of Forty Acres and Beaconsfield Road. TheCrab and Winkle Link and other paths cross here.School run and commuting traffic can be fats.

• The land holdings to the East of St. Stephens Hill whendeveloped, could have a new connection to theproposed Sturry A28 bypass road. This could feed alluniversity traffic from the Thanet direction straight up tothe new University car parks, rather than it having tocome in on the Sturry Road via Kingsmead or BroadOak Road and often rat running through Hales Placeresidential streets to avoid traffic at Kingsmead or thelevel-crossing at St. Stephens Road.

Potential for cycle hire / cycle shop on campusThere is already a cycle hire facility by the Park Woodresidences. Canterbury also has a few other cycle hirefacilities:

• Kent Cycle Hire – https://kentcyclehire.com/ (Limitedhours of operation)



• biketart – www.biketart.com/bike-hire-i47• Brompton Dock at Canterbury West Station –

www.bromptonbikehire.com/• Dr Bike and Bike Hire at UoK –

www.facebook.com/DrBikeatUoK/ (Occasional orLimited hours of operation)

The current Bike Hire facility does major business at andshortly after the start if term in October and at the start ofother terms too. The University Sustainable transport officer(Teresa Curteis) could help here.

The plan could give such facilities centre stage in thedevelopment. Services like those listed above could bebrought into the centre of campus and operated withnormal shop opening hours.

SummaryWe feel that this plan offers an exciting opportunity for bothactive and sustainable transport not only within the campusbut for Canterbury and surrounding towns. SPOKES are inagreement with the high-level objectives of the plan. Wewould be grateful if you would not only consider ourcomments at this stage but also involve us with the plangoing forward. We are very happy to meet and discuss indetail any of the issues we have raised, or indeed any othersustainable/active travel ideas that may arise.

As the plan progresses we would welcome more detail inthe following areas:

• Explore with other developers, Canterbury City Council,and Kent Country Council how a co-ordinated plan todrive modal shift toward active and public transportwithin the Greater Canterbury area in order to efficientlytransport more people in the available space withoutmajor disruptive road building scheme.

• More mention of cycling within the campus and how itwill allow uninterrupted door-to-door cycle commuting.

• Mention of both routes taken by NCN1.• How the Crab and Winkle Link will be preserved and

enhanced.• Best practice use of segregated cycle/pedestrian

routes where appropriate.• Mention of cycle parking locations, current or planned.• Bringing cycle retail, repair, hiring facilities into the

centre.• Exactly how Gateway Squares sill work, will they used

shared space or filtered permeability.• Traffic generation projections for the northern hub.• Re-consideration about the need to connect the

northern hub by a new road that takes motor vehicles.• Detail on the positioning of park and ride car park(s).• If park and ride will be available to the general public to

access the campus and Canterbury beyond.• Adequate provision for disabled drivers in car parks

next to key buildings.• Evidence that any new roads will not create new rat-

runs.• Projection of generated traffic for more populated

campus, and how this fits in with potential trafficgenerated by other developments around Canterbury.

• Detail on car park capacity and how this will or won’tcause more private motor vehicle use by induceddemand.

Thank you in advance for considering our response, welook forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,SIGNATURE

Matthew BanburyOn behalf of SPOKES East Kent Cycling Campaign

References1 Canterbury District Transport Strategy 2014-31

https://www.canterbury.gov.uk/media/949413/Canterbury-District-Transport-Strategy-with-addendum.pdf

2 2011 Census Analysis – Method of Travel to Work inEngland and Wales Reporthttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766 299766.pdf

3 Cycling Mode Share Data for 700 Citieswww.cityclock.org/urban-cycling-mode-share

4 Shared Spaces Research by Guide Dogs for the Blindwww.guidedogs.org.uk/supportus/campaigns/streets-ahead/information-for-the-street-designers-and-councils/reference-documents

5 The Blean: The Woodlands of a Cathedral City by theBlean Research Group P49 Ch 5

6 Urban Transport Without the Hot Air – Steve Meliawww.stevemelia.co.uk/transport.html

SPOKES objectives1 To encourage cycling and publicise its benefits for the

community and for individuals.2 To ensure that local authority and government policies

actively encourage cycling and make full provision for itas part of an overall transport strategy through which allmembers of the public can enjoy cheap, safe andenvironmentally sound travel for work and leisure.

SPOKES East Kent is affiliated to the Cyclists’ Touring Cluband Cyclenation


The Blean, Hackington and Tyler Hill SocietyThe Blean, Hackington and Tyler Hill Society, ***** ***** ********** *****1, met last night and discussed the University’sMaster Plan. We found it ironic, not to say hypocritical, forthe University to state in the plan that one of its objectiveswas to respect ‘the setting of the countryside’ while at thesame time proposing to damage the countryside by theconstruction of innovation centres along the rural Tyler HillRoad. It would appear that the University, while seeking to‘green’ its own campus by closing its car parks, is preparedto shift its traffic to the green gap between Blean and TylerHill, thus urbanising what has always been a pleasantcountry road.

Crab and Winkle Line TrustI have read your comprehensive master plan for theuniversity with great interest. As the ***** ****2 of the Craband Winkle Line Trust (a registered charity) **** **** ****3, Ihave had many positive conversations with UKC staff,including a former Vice Chancellor, over many yearsregarding the route of the old railway line that runs throughand under your land.

I would very much like to continue that dialogue as youdevelop your thinking and consult on your plans for theuniversity in the future. In particular, trustees and I wouldlike to discuss how you intend to use the existing Crab andWinkle Way as a connection to your proposed northerndevelopments, how you might also bring in the currentlyovergrown route of the original line to the north as apotential footpath and cycle route to improve access andsustainability, how you might capitalise on the nearly 200-year history in the tunnel (the world's first ever passengerrailway tunnel) beneath your buildings, including its northern

and southern portals, and how the Crab and Winkle LineTrust and our members across the district and beyond canwork effectively with you to develop a detailed scheme thatwe can publicly support.

I very much look forward to hearing from you.

Crab and Winkle Line TrustAs *****4 of the Crab and Winkle Line Trust, we welcome theoverall approach, particularly the prioritisation ofpedestrians and cyclists, rather than car users. The focuson the Crab and Winkle link itself is right and we wouldencourage that – though these routes need to focus on non-car users. There are more opportunities to use the tunnelunder the university too. It is part of Canterbury’s industrialheritage and a potential attraction for the university too. It istechnically possible to open it.

But the most important thing for us would be to retain andprioritise even more the off-road cycle route betweenCanterbury and Whitstable which is already voted regularlyas one of the top 10 in the country.

Kent Wildlife TrustPlease add my contact details to your database for futurecorrespondence and any future stages of consultation forthis concept masterplan.

Kent Wildlife Trust would like to be involved in any futureconsultation exercises.

We would like to express our disappointment at this stagethat this masterplan is based only upon an urbandesign/architectural approach. There is no reference madeto the need for an assessment of the biodiversity value of

the area covered by the masterplan. There is also noreference to the need to evaluate this or indeed to embraceand enhance the biodiversity value on site. This would beexpected in any planning process or submission to theLocal Planning Authority and any omission wouldcontravene the National Planning Policy Framework.

There should also be reference made to the Local WildlifeSite, CA15, present to the west of the landholdings and theconsiderable amount of ancient woodland within themasterplan area.

We look forward to contributing further at the earliestopportunity.

Council for the Protection of Rural EnglandI write as *****5 of the Canterbury branch of CPRE. CPRE isa National Organisation that for 90 years has beencampaigning to protect the English countryside.

We are concerned that you are no longer acceptingcomments on this Plan, despite having failed to send yourleaflet to people in the CT2 area (which includes membersof my committee). You also publicised the wrong date foryour public meeting at Blean, resulting in a very smallattendance on the correct date. It is hardly surprising thatyou have had such a limited response from the public andfrom amenity bodies such as ourselves.

In the circumstances, it would in our view be wrong for youto proceed with the next stage of the Plan on the basis ofsuch a flawed attempt to engage the public. We thereforerequest that you start the consultation again in a propermanner, and ask that you kindly confirm this will be done.


1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Personal information redacted to protect an individual’sidentity.


We should also mention that we are reliably informed thatSerco has been removing notices drawing attention to theplan erected locally mostly on private property, presumablyfollowing dialogue between you and the City Council. Wehave seen the notice which seems to us to be inoffensive,and which merely alerts people to the Plan, which is whatyou were supposed to have done. Can you please instructSerco/the City Council not to remove such notices fromprivate land in the future?

My committee has only just seen the consultation documentand we will wish to comment. We will try to do this in thenext 4 weeks. I trust that, with the time required for therepeat consultation, this will be in time to meet yourdeadlines.


appendix 5 – list of all comments · appendix 5 – list of all comments this appendix contains...

Documents