‘Get out!’ Protester told to leave meeting as plans for mini-estate rejected

A protester was ordered out of a council meeting as emotions ran high over fears about potential deaths at a junction serving a new housing development. The clash at the Dover District Council planning meeting came during a debate on an application for 17 homes in Wingham, near Canterbury. The drama unfolded when the discussion turned to concerns about a pedestrian crossing on Preston Hill near the busy A257 Gobery Hill, the main road running through the village.

Protesters argued the position of the crossing is dangerous, believing a nearby hedge would block the view between pedestrians and drivers. But as a legal advisor told councillors they could not justify rejecting the scheme, Mark Havard stood up from the crowded public gallery to interrupt. As he argued in the chamber about the issue surrounding road safety, planning committee chairman Michael Nee finally told him: ”Get out.



Will you please remove yourself from the chamber? You’re embarrassing yourself.” Mr Havard then walked out. Speaking after the meeting, an unrepentant Mr Havard told KentOnline: “A 12-year-old boy would say it is dangerous.

“And yet you’ve got grown-ups spending money over five years trying to get this application through. “I was just telling the truth. People will get killed there, that’s why people are emotional about it.

” But despite lengthy discussions in the chamber and evidence presented that the proposed position of the crossing was safe, councillors voted five-to-one to reject the application. Planning officers had recommended approval of the application at the meeting last Thursday evening. Councillors were told that four expert reports, including from Kent County Council and independent auditors, examined the site and deemed the planned crossing safe enough.

Ahead of the decision, some 244 letters objecting to the scheme had been submitted to the council’s planning portal. At the meeting, committee members said they felt it could not be guaranteed that the hedge would keep being trimmed to provide clear views. As it is on private land they believed it would depend on the owner keeping it cut, otherwise KCC would have to step in, using its own workers.

Protester Mark Gardiner, of the Wingham Conservation Group, told the committee: “We are going to have to be certain this crossing is safe for thousands of future crossings, by pedestrians who may not pay attention, mothers with prams, people in wheelchairs and children on their own. “This is the only available pedestrian crossing route to and from this development, next to a notorious and dangerous road junction. “The safety of pedestrians is in the sole hands of this committee.

” Cllr James Back (Con) added: “We are not the people trying to get across that road, especially at night.” Cllr Martin Porter (Con) said: “From March to September hedges grow prolifically. “Also, the A257 has claimed six lives in the last five years.

All I can see is with this, cars being dumped at that end. Someone has got to be accountable for the next death. “The road is dangerous and dumping more cars there is ridiculous.

” Andrew Wilford, head of land and planning for applicants Esquire Developments, told the committee: “It has been determined that the full visibility splay can be achieved wholly within highway land, subject to the present overgrown hedge being trimmed. “This is very straightforward and a common occurrence throughout Kent. Vegetation is regularly cut back by highway maintenance teams where it is necessary.

“There has been no dispute that the long-term management of the hedge will be secured and undertaken by KCC Highways. “There is no requirement to rely on third-party private landowners to maintain the hedge. “If the hedge were not to be managed correctly this would be quickly identified by the local community who would raise this with KCC and appropriate action would be taken.

The matter becomes self-policing.” The wrangle over this site goes back several years . Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal .

A very similar application for 15 houses by another developer was rejected on appeal by a planning inspector in 2020, again over highway and pedestrian safety concerns. Developers are required to provide safe access for pedestrians from new housing to local amenities. Esquire says it had planned the new crossing to meet that but villagers were concerned about its safety and effectiveness.

.