top of page


By Harold Goodwin, Stephen Atkins and Matthew Hatchwell

Faversham people understand what is special about our town and we want to keep it that way for our children and grandchildren. It is our responsibility to look after our natural and cultural heritage ad to allow it to thrive and prosper.

Towns grow naturally, our children want to be able to live here and most of us want them to be able to find homes to start their families at prices which do not cripple them with debt. Our extended families are an important part of our culture. As life expectancy increases we need more housing units to accommodate our children and grandchildren. Faversham has grown in size faster that its population, houses have got larger and more expensive.

St Mary’s, St John’s and Park Road are popular, great small starter homes and terraced streets which have contributed, and still do, to Faversham’s identity. In recent years they have become unaffordable for most people employed in Faversham. These terraces were built in the nineteenth century by local builders for local families. Before and after the last world war Faversham Borough Council built some housing for local people of exceptional quality, now sought after at prices beyond the reach of many Faversham residents.

The last time Faversham grew as rapidly as it is today was with coming of the railway. There is understandable resentment at the imposition of new housing on Faversham by national government.

There are two issues, related but very different. There is an issue about how many new homes Faversham is expected to accept and there is an issue about the kind of housing being built. The Bysing Wood estate when it was built in the seventies included locally affordable terraced housing and smaller units for the elderly and those living with disabilities. On the west side of Love Lane is eighties housing with some terraces, small semis and much if it social housing, most of which has been sold into private ownership. To the east of Love Lane the volume housing developers are building for sale and there is very little locally affordable housing being built. Kiln Court and Osborne Court, former Care Home and Social Services buildings being sold by KCC for the highest price they can achieve. This land is unlikely to go for social housing or community use. Another loss.

The new estates are built to maximise the return to volume developers, they do not meet local housing need. Some Faversham families are moving out to the larger houses vacating properties in the town but house prices are unaffordable for many local people for whom even the government’s affordable housing at 80% of market price or rent is unaffordable.


Faversham is a market town at the heart of the Garden of England. Like other towns and landscapes in the British Isles, it has been shaped by human settlement beginning around 10,000 years ago with the arrival of pioneers across the land bridge from continental Europe. At the same time, those early settlers and their descendants depended on and adapted their livelihoods to the landscapes and natural resources that surrounded them. In the case of Faversham, the line of springs fed by water from the chalk beds of the North Downs would have been one of the attractions of this landscape. Those springs feed the chalk streams like the Westbrook, Cooksditch and numerous other small watercourses that are still a feature of this stretch of the north Kent coast.

Thanks to its coastal location, those first settlers in this area would have had access to seemingly inexhaustible food supplies in the form of oysters from the Swale, eels and other fish in freshwater streams and ponds, and wild animals from the forests that covered the landscape. Today, there are few native oysters left in the Swale. They have been largely displaced by the introduced Pacific, or rock, oyster. And the European eel is critically endangered due to overfishing and the illegal wildlife trade.

Faversham’s location at the head of a navigable creek and proximity to nearby oak forests made it an ideal location for a port and centre for shipbuilding. In the late 17th century, the town was the leading port in England for the export of wool. A combination of natural characteristics – easy access from the sea, a copious supply of charcoal from nearby woodlands, and watermills driven by the Westbrook – was also behind Faversham’s emergence as an important producer of gunpowder.

The soil between the North Downs and the Thames Estuary is extremely fertile and helped earn Kent its reputation as the Garden of England. Fruit farming remains central to the local economy and the same soil is well-suited to brick-making. Brick-earth from brickfields around Faversham, mixed with chalk from nearby chalk pits and mud from the Swale provided the raw materials for the stock bricks that enabled the rapid expansion of London and the railways in the 19th century. The edges of the old Kingsfield brickfield, which extended from Cross Lane south to Watling Street, are still clearly visible in many places. Local chalk fed an active cement industry in Faversham until the 1960s.

Today, the wounds inflicted by the Industrial Revolution have largely healed over and been assimilated into the land- and townscape in the same way as earlier human impacts. Large areas of the North Downs and Swale are protected as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Site of Special Scientific Interest, and contribute to the local economy as attractions for tourists, walkers and birdwatchers. Seahorses have returned to the Thames Estuary.


So far, so positive. As Faversham grows, however, it is a major challenge to maintain the bonds between humans and nature that characterise our community. For example:

  • How can we maintain Faversham’s unique sense of place in the face of housing developments that interrupt the historical, visual and physical relationships between the town and its surrounding landscape?

  • Can we mount a campaign to get housing for local families on the KCC land at Kiln and Osborne Courts or must we accept the loss of these social assets?

  • Are we prepared to see the flow of water in our chalk streams reduced even further as a result of the additional abstraction that will be necessary to supply thousands of new houses?

  • Will we accept the continued – and probably increased – pollution of Faversham Creek by partially-treated wastewater from Southern Water’s sewage works? And the continued discharge of untreated sewage from storm tanks into chalk streams?

  • How can we re-think our transport policies and infrastructure so as to increase active travel and reduce our dependency on private vehicles that sit idle by the side of the road 90+% of the time?

  • How can we use the planned upgrade of the Brenley Corner junction to re-establish links for wildlife, pedestrians and cyclists to the ancient Blean woodland and Canterbury beyond?

  • Can we build a coalition of partners to design and implement a Nature Recovery Network for the north Kent landscape that improves connectivity between remaining blocks of natural habitat, reduces fragmentation, and provides a framework for rewilding?

  • How can we ensure that new housing in Faversham is built to the highest standards and responds to local needs rather than the algorithm-driven demands of central government in Westminster?

  • The reality is that there is very little land other than agricultural land available for building in Swale. The Duchy development has become the focus of local anger but all the developments in south east Faversham are on quality agricultural land, part of the fruit belt and essential to our children’s future as population growth and climate change reduce food yields around the world.

A map of promoted sites that have been put forward as possible development sites for planning approval


There is much rhetoric about localism, it mostly just that, rhetoric. We can have more influence within our parish boundary through the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and we get to vote on that. We do not get a vote on the Local Plan for Swale.

Central government publishes a National Planning Policy Framework, the infamous NPPF, which is effectively a set of regulations with which Local Planning Authorities and Neighbourhood Planning groups like Faversham Town Council are required to comply. When our prime minister declared at the party conference that he did not want to see housing built on green field land and various statements about levelling up are merely rhetorical. This rhetoric is not evident in the latest NPPF (July 2021), and that is the rule book we all have to follow.

The NPPF rule book is written by the government of the day and it is enforced by the National Planning Inspectorate. Any developer unhappy about decisions made by Swale on their planning application can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and Judicial Review. The Planning Inspectors are enforcers of the NPPF, they are not neutral arbiters between the community interest and the developer. Faversham has been there. Have you forgotten Perry Court? That development breached A2 boundary to the town and opened the risk of housing to the M2. The proposed North Street development and application at Brogdale will breach the M2 boundary if they were to be supported on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. If Swale lost then we would have to pay the developer’s costs.

There is a planning application in for Abbey Fields for 180 houses. The Faversham Society has argued that this development would do substantial harm to the rural setting of Faversham on the marshes and place housing over an area of land important to many Faversham residents for recreation and heritage. If the precedent is established it is likely that the land as far as Thorn Creek would be developed over the next twenty or so years, even an additional 180 houses would seriously increase traffic on Abbey Fields and the pinch point where it joins Whitstable Road. Central to arguments to reject his planning application is the argument that this land is not needed for housing because of allocations in the emerging Local Plan. You can  find the Faversham Society’s closely argues objection on its Policy Blog on the website.

Developers want to build at Faversham because of the sale prices, and margins, they can achieve. The evidence is in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) map, we should not forget about the danger of the Gladman’s application at North Street. The Faversham Society spend several months making an assessment of the sites and we encouraged our members to contribute to it, if you are interested, it is still on the Society’s website.

Both of Swale MPs are opposed to more housing being built in their constituencies. In September 2002, Gordon Henderson representing the west of Swale wrote with nine other governing party MPs to the Housing Minister objecting to the “inherently unreasonable” housing number demands arising from the application of the standard method for calculating them based on national data. Faversham’s MP, Helen Whately, did not sign this letter. We know of no local authority that has achieved a reduction in their government-imposed housing target, and an Inspectorate approved local plan is our only defence against unwanted speculative development and inspector led planning.

The Minister for Housing spelt out the risk in the House of Commons on 23rd November: “The challenge for all authorities, however, is to get an up-to-date plan in place. We might say that, in the land of no plan, the local housing need number is king. If there is no set number in an up-to-date local plan, it is quite possible for developers to submit speculative development applications to local authorities. The local authorities may choose to turn them down, but if they have no number in their plan, the local housing need number is the default that the Planning Inspectorate will look at. It is entirely possible that the Planning Inspectorate will overturn refusals sent down by local authorities that do not have up-to-date plans or targets, and will instead look at the local housing need target. It is incumbent on local authorities that wish to protect their communities and avoid speculative development to get up-to-date plans in place.”Our best chance of getting a reduction in the housing target for Swale would be through pressure from MPs and the public on the national government. National government is responsible for the housing targets imposed on Swale. Central government is not going to alter the standard method to bene t one district. Demanding the Swale challenge the number is not going to make a difference that demand should be made of our MP. The government introduced and then abandoned new targets, which would have required Swale to build 400 more houses per year, but they have consistently refused to abandon the standard method target on 1,038 houses per year. We know of no example nationally where a local planning authority has successfully challenged the standard method. The standard method numbers are minimums. As the planning consultancy Lichfeld’s has pointed out “The White Paper – Planning for the Future – put forward proposals for Government to set binding housing requirement  figures for individual local plans that would take into account supply, policy and environmental factors, but these provisions do not yet exist, and are unlikely to do so for some time.”

The last paragraph contains a common error. Swale does not build houses, they are required to give permission for developers to build houses. The developer may choose to “land bank” the permission doing just enough to keep the planning permission alive but not delivering the housing necessary for Swale to meet its target. The developers are much more powerful than Swale’s planners, they have considerable influence over whether Swale delivers its housing targets. And if it doesn’t then developers appeal and planning power passes from Swale to the Planning Inspectorate and they are required by national government to be pro-development. The developers are in a powerful position, they do not have to build, but Swale has to have the houses built to meet the central government imposed targets. The developers have the whip hand because the penalties for Faversham residents if we get inspector led planning, are worse – remember Perry Court. Swale planners can argue for a better mix of housing, better layout, more sustainable greener houses and infrastructure contributions but the developers do not have to build. Our planners have to encourage them to build. If Swale does not achieve the targets set for us by central government then developers can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and they will decide in favour of the developer if Swale is failing any of the four tests.

  1. Swale must have a plan which is “prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable”;

  2. The plan must be “consistent with national policy”;

  3. Contain a “five year supply of deliverable housing sites”; and

  4. Meet the “Housing Delivery Test”

Remember failing any one of these tests can result in Inspector led planning.


There’s one solution that all these challenges have in common: political engagement. Outdated building standards and the sky-high housing allocations for Swale are set in Whitehall. The low standard of wastewater discharged into Faversham Creek by Southern Water is set nationally by DEFRA and monitored by the Environment Agency whose budget has been cut by 50% since 2010. Natural England’s budget too, and capacity to fulfil its regulatory role, have yet to be restored to pre-2010 levels. And the Brenley Corner upgrade is a national infrastructure project led by Highways England. In order to secure the future we want for Faversham, we must:

  • We can campaign for the houses to be built elsewhere in Swale, but if we do, we should say where.

  • Lobby our Members of Parliament. The governing party is imposing these housing targets on us

  • Support political candidates who undertake to raise standards, restore budgets for regulatory agencies, and favour localism over the dictates of central government;

  • Join local and national pressure groups to push for change;

  • Establish alliances with like-minded people and groups around the country;

  • Make our voices heard locally, even if it takes us outside our comfort zones.

If we do not engage politically, we have only ourselves to blame when the outcomes are not what we want.

A map of the area promoted by the Duchy of Cornwall for a development to the South East of Faversham.


Our town has many families who have lived here for generations and those extended family networks provide mutual support. Faversham’s extended families are being broken up by the inability of many young people to afford housing in the town. We have people couch-surfing, married couples living separately back with their respective parents while they save money for a deposit to start a family in their mid-forties, overcrowded families and people living in sheds.


There is rightly anger about too many houses being built in Faversham and too much agricultural land being consumed. The wrong kind of houses are being built. We need more terraces like those in St Mary’s. St John’s and Park Road for our community. Prices there have risen beyond the reach of most Faversham residents wanting to start a family. Building for those already living in Faversham does not increase the need for doctors and schools. The hidden homeless living in sheds and overcrowded houses are already here, often “couch surfing” without a bedroom.

National government’s planning guidance for local authorities requires them: “to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being.”

Housebuilders have not been building the homes that local people need. They favour four bed homes which are more profitable and for which there are high levels of demand from inward migration from higher-value areas, local households cannot compete with the relative wealth of these buyers. Local people are compelled to move out of Faversham to find housing they can afford. This disrupts community roots, smaller houses, for which there is the highest level of housing need, are not being planned or built to meet the levels of demand evidenced in our housing needs survey for seniors, singles, key workers, and young families. It also limits options for downsizers looking to free up family homes that are too large for them. We need more terraced housing for start homes; much loved in Faversham for their sense of community.

No one bed homes have been built in Faversham over the last five years and only 75 two-bed homes just 7.3% of the total. This is an inefficient use of development land which is a scarce and diminishing resource. Obviously, you can build two, two-bedroom homes on a four-bed plot. Crest Nicolson’s application for Phase 2 at Lady Dane proposes an unbalanced mix with too many four and five-bed homes. There are no one-bedroom units and only six two-bed units (7%) for market sale. We have objected to their planning application.

We know of married couples living apart back with their respective parents saving for a deposit so that they can secure a home to start a family in their forties.


  • We can press the Swale planners to demand a more appropriate mix of housing with many smaller properties that can be afforded by local people.

  • We can convert existing redundant property to create smaller housing units, flats and single storeys ground floor accommodation for the elderly and those living with disabilities.

  • If we can persuade Swale or KCC to gift us land, we can build “21st century almshouses”, starter homes available for generations to come for local families and smaller single-storey homes for older people wanting to downsize and those living with disabilities.

The mix of new house sizes in recent developments


A Community Land Trust is a community-based organisation run by volunteers seeking to provide genuinely affordable housing for local people. By retaining an equity share in each property, it remains permanently affordable, benefitting many generations of residents. They are non-profit, community- based organisations run by volunteers to develop housing, workspaces, or other assets (including pubs!) that meet the needs of the community and are owned and controlled by the community in perpetuity. They are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and cannot pay dividends to shareholders.

The Faversham Community Land Trust was established in 2019 and commissioned a professional survey of housing needs published in 2020 – you can find a copy on our website. If you have energy, skills or land to contribute, please join us.

We now have close to 200 members. Please join us if you want to see more genuinely affordable accommodation for local people. We are not campaigning for more housing; we are campaigning for housing that meets local needs.

For more on our objections to Crest Nicolson’s Phase 2 Lady Dane planning application, our Reg18 (see introduction to next section) representations, our other efforts to secure genuinely affordable housing for local people and to join us, please go to our website or Facebook page.


By Eddie Thomas and Chris Wright

Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Faversham Town Council or the Swale Borough Council.

What’s coming down the road is change, and it will arrive sooner than we think. Climate change is looming, energy will be in short supply, and there won’t be much funding for roads. To put it bluntly, year-on-year traffic growth is no longer sustainable. In any case, building roads is not the answer, because road improvements create traffic – they allow us to drive further and more often, so the traffic load continues to rise until they jam up again. In future, we’ll need to handle traffic differently. It will be painful for some, and a blessing for others. Faversham faces three challenges. First, the town is severed by two railway lines, by the M2 motorway, and Watling Street, all of which act as barriers to north-south movement that discourage walking and cycling. The second issue is piecemeal housing developments, most of which are inaccessible except by car. They add to the traffic load, they don’t join up, and they don’t facilitate walking or travelling by bus.


The third issue concerns Watling Street. As housing estates extend towards the south, Watling Street will become a central boulevard that serves a wider purpose: movement for everyone, not just cars. At present, children are exposed to air pollution, noise, vibration, dirt, splash, and a dismal footway environment on their way to school in Ospringe. Ironically, the A2 is too narrow to carry HGVs in opposite directions at the same time: it is not, and never will be, a practical lorry route. Further east is the concrete bridge that provides the only pedestrian access to the Abbey School, which is not accessible to parents with pushchairs, cyclists, or disabled students. This must surely be put right.


The picture seems bleak, but a brighter future is in sight. We can improve our quality of life by slowing down the traffic, re-purposing Watling Street, and enabling people to walk and cycle with less intimidation from moving vehicles. Whatever housing development is allowed, we want the streets to dovetail into the local environment so buses can move freely from one area to the next, and encourage ‘active travel’ by residents on foot or by bicycle. Faversham can be a walking town.

Already, initiatives are under way, including the Twenty’s Plenty scheme, the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), and the Neighbourhood Plan. Here, we’ll just touch on the Twenty’s Plenty scheme.


In our view, a 20mph speed limit is the first step. We are fortunate because in 2015, a Community Group campaign laid the groundwork for the present scheme. Using signs and road markings together with planters at ‘gateways’ on the periphery, it has gained public support and is expected to be made permanent soon. Additionally, our Town Council is campaigning for ‘informal’ pedestrian crossings at critical locations, with the road narrowed down by adjusting the kerb-lines and adding road markings that act as a visual signal for drivers to slow down.

To summarise, changes are on the way. They are partly dictated by circumstance, but new technology will help to deliver a cleaner and more attractive environment. It won’t be easy to manage but it will be worthwhile.

• Already, initiatives are under way, including the Twenty’s Plenty scheme, the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), and the Neighbourhood Plan • A 20mph speed limit is the first step • Faversham Town Council is campaigning for ‘informal’ pedestrian crossings at critical locations •


By Harold Goodwin

The Neighbourhood Plan has enabled us to look at regenerating some of our neglected heritage assets for community and economic benefit. The regeneration of the Faversham Creek basin around the Swing Bridge is long overdue. The Neighbourhood Plan has provided an opportunity to encourage regeneration with community, leisure, recreation, and tourism uses. Alan Thorn’s St Ayles Skiffs and the new Cinque Ports Rowing Club show what could be delivered on the upper creek. Children used to swim in the creek, and until about ten years ago, the annual raft race was a highlight of the year. We need to press Southern Water to stop polluting our creek if swimming and the raft race are to be possible in the future.


After local government reorganisation in 1972, Faversham was absorbed into Swale in 1974 and governed from Sittingbourne. Ownership of Town Quay passed to Swale. The quayside is an important recreational and heritage space in Faversham. The former1911 pump house with attractive architectural detailing houses a boxing club. The II* listed timber-framed town warehouse built by the Corporation of Faversham in the early fifteenth century, named after the ship supplied by the town for the Cinque Ports fleet sent to fight the Armada in 1588, has until recently housed the Sea Cadets.


The Creekside Boxing Club is one of Faversham’s treasures, too often ignored. The Club has worked with several generations of Faversham boys, lads and men to build self-respect and confidence. Creekside Boxing needs better accommodation – it needs space for a full-size boxing ring and male and female changing rooms and showers, and more space for gym equipment.

The Creekside Boxing Club in the former pumping station is alongside TS Hazard


The Town Warehouse, TS Hazard, dates to 1475 and in Swale’s ownership, has fallen into disrepair and is now in a deplorable state. With roof tiles missing, it is very vulnerable to wind and rain, and bits of tile are falling inside and out. The Sea Cadets have moved out. There is mounting concern about the safety. of the roof tiles at the south hip and the risk of them cascading onto the pavement and road.

TS Hazard is an essential part of our town’s heritage, and some locals have been working to create a Friends group to develop it as a heritage quarter. Faversham is the northern gateway to the Cinque Ports and has maritime links with the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich and the Chatham Historic Dockyard.

TS Hazard on Town Quay. The Town warehouse built in 1475. Now in a state of disrepair as shown in the views of slipping roof tiles and general lack of maintenance


One of only 240 chalk streams globally, the Westbrook flows into Stonebridge Pond and the creek. The pump house on Town Quay would make a fine natural heritage interpretation centre for schools and visitors presenting the geology and wildlife of the whole watercourse from tributaries at Otterden, Stalisfield, and Throwley through Lorrenden and Water Lane to the creek and the Swale.


The Grade II listed Engine Sheds to the east of Faversham station have been neglected for years. The Faversham Community Land Trust is working to open them up for heritage and community use and to provide a pedestrian and cycle route from the new developments east of Faversham to the town centre and the station.

The Faversham Neighbourhood Plan gives us an opportunity to create more community space and to regenerate some of the derelict areas.

The brick engine sheds (Grade II listed ) at the rail junction to the east of Faversham station. They are visible from the footbridge.

The Swale Local Plan Verses the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan What’s the difference and why does it matter?

By Cllr John Irwin

In the October 2020 edition of the Faversham Eye, I wrote of the Housing Tsunami threatening Faversham. One year and one abandoned Local Plan Reg 19 Consultation later, the beast of public opinion has finally awoken from its slumber and an effective opposition is forming.

As much as this spirit of defiance fills me with a hope that our community is finally ‘rising up’ to engage in determining its own future, a small part of me fears for our very own project, the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan may suffer collateral damage in the battles to come. Why? Because despite our efforts many of our residents still do not understand the difference … and the difference does indeed matter.


Firstly, let’s consider the similarities. They both are concerned with development, and both have Plan in their name.

KCC owns land at Kiln Court and Osbourne Court vacant for many years and now derelict. A brownfield site that should be made available for community-led locally affordable housing. 6.8 acres could accommodate 100+ to meet local housing needs.


Now let’s consider the differences. The Faversham Neighbourhood Plan will work to support the development of ‘community led’ truly affordable housing, not just the ‘affordable housing’ provided by private house builders as a concession for planning permission. We will designate and protect our cherished Local Green Spaces from the prospect of future unwanted speculative housing development, not propose de-designation of a Local Green Space such as Faversham Cricket Club for the convenience of a developer. We will Identify under-utilised brownfield sites that may be suitable for sympathetic development, not propose building on Grade A agricultural land and orchards. We will seek to protect and enhance our heritage assets and build our visitor economy, not let them fall into shameful disrepair like TS Hazard. We will support economic growth and improve the vitality of Faversham Creek and our Town Centre by allocating brown field land for mixed use development, not by allocating land for a new out of town supermarket.

So clearly there is a difference. But what is it that makes Faversham Neighbourhood Plan really different from the Swale Local Plan?

Faversham Neighbourhood Plan is locally led by a Steering Group consisting of resident Town Councillors and Community Representatives, not by a Local Plan Panel, chaired by someone who campaigned against development in the West of the Borough. And finally? The Neighbourhood Plan will be voted on by the residents of Faversham in a referendum, not in a council chamber in Sittingbourne.

Kiln Court, Lower Road, Faversham. 3.42 acres

The Faversham Town Council Response to the Swale Borough Council Local Plan Review Regulation 18 Consultation

On the 22nd November, 2021, Faversham Town Council passed the following motion: Faversham Town Council is opposed to Swale Borough Council’s favoured option in the Regulation 18 consultation, namely Option 3. Faversham Town Council feel that none of the options are appropriate in meeting our local housing need, specifically the need for affordable housing. Faversham cannot accept a greater volume of housing without mitigation of significant constraints around transport and air quality, clean and waste water and the climate and biodiversity including the use of BMV agricultural land.

The full response to the consultation is available on the Town Council’s website.

Osbourne Court, Lower Road, Faversham. 3.35 acres.

Photos show Kiln and Osbourne Court – KCC owned sites, now derelict, that should be used towards meeting our need for community led affordable housing. Currently on the market to the highest bidder.



On the 22nd November, 2021, Faversham Town Council passed the following motion: Faversham Town Council is opposed to Swale Borough Council’s favoured option in the Regulation 18 consultation, namely Option 3. Faversham Town Council feel that none of the options are appropriate in meeting our local housing need, specifically the need for affordable housing. Faversham cannot accept a greater volume of housing without mitigation of significant constraints around transport and air quality, clean and waste water and the climate and biodiversity including the use of BMV agricultural land. The full response to the consultation is available on the Town Council’s website.

bottom of page