More on KentOnline
Name almost any development of any significance in Kent over the last few years and you’ll be certain to have heard a loud chorus of concern voiced over the environmental impact.
And, there’s no denying, the issues should be listened to and considered. It is, after all, never more important that we weigh up the impact of any scheme on the nature upon which we rely.
No one wants to see the green areas which define our local communities concreted over.
But there is a nagging doubt that every objection on environmental grounds in this day and age is simply a useful – and powerful – tool of the Nimby.
The Not In My Backyard opponents to everything from housing to commercial endeavours know that the Achilles heel to every proposal is that threats to natural habitat will trigger a knee-jerk reaction from many.
Yet we all live in homes which once sat on green fields; work in offices built on the same, drive on roads cutting through landscapes. Everywhere was green once upon a time.
Progress cannot be denied. It is the way of the world.
I’m far from convinced with the current government so far, but its move to stop such objections from derailing so many plans will be seen by many as sensible.
Now, before you all assume I’m advocating relentless housing or what-have-you across our most precious land, I’m not. Truly.
It is, obviously, inevitable that building anything comes at a cost to natural habitats. It’s finding the right balance that’s so important and not reacting using the environment card just as another tool in the arsenal to oppose anything.
What I am suggesting, is that we sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot by opposing development which could bring significant benefits to the county.
I know the London Resort – as a good example – had long outstayed its welcome with its constant delays before its overdue death recently – but, surely, the attraction could have been a valuable addition to Kent?
It would have put us on the map, created thousands of jobs and provided us with facilities on our doorstep.
Were the environmental groups who act as bandleaders for opposition up in arms when the peninsula was once home to a sprawling cement factory? I suspect not. The fact it was only designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest years after the resort proposals first emerged perhaps tells its own story.
But as the plans took so long, costing such ludicrous sums of money, the initial enthusiasm wavered and the environmental concerns began to get louder and louder until, ultimately, they proved the straw which broke the camel’s back. Manston Airport’s longed-for revival was held up for years with environmental concerns at its heart.
Of course, nature needs to be protected – we cannot just build willy-nilly to deliver whatever project is on a developer’s mind (however long the list of pros versus cons) – but we need to remind ourselves we live in a county where more than 70% of each and every district is undeveloped (according to Kent County Council). The vast majority are far higher, in fact (many above 90%). Developments only come to the fore if there is a perceived need for them - housing, jobs and so on. They’re not conjured up just to annoy the neighbours.
We do need to get to grips with the fact it is possible to protect our broader environment while also embracing opportunities to make this county even better. We’ve done it in the past – let’s assume we can do it again.