Green Belt land no longer the focus of Gravesham council's development plans

But campaigners question the cost of the “shambolic” consultation

A dramatic u-turn over controversial plans to build on Green Belt land has been made after huge public outcry.

But despite welcoming the reversal, angry campaigners have questioned how much the “shambolic” consultation into the Gravesham plans cost and accused leader of the Labour-run borough council, John Burden, of a serious error in judgement.

Cllr Burden unveiled the contentious proposals last year, which outlined the development of up to 920 new homes on Green Belt land in areas including Meopham, Istead Rise and Culverstone as part of the area’s draft Local Development Framework.

Thousands of people wrote to the council opposing the plans and in a shock u-turn Cllr Burden recommended they be scrapped.

Cabinet member for environment at Kent County Council Bryan Sweetland called the saga “embarrassing”.

The Tory questioned how much the process had cost and accused Cllr Burden of “playing politics”.

“He must be smarting after one of the most humiliating u-turns we have seen in local politics for many years,” he said.

“Knowing that his plan to build over Gravesham’s Green Belt would not stand up to public examination, he has backed down saying “I have listened to the people”.

“We should be asking why he decided to drive though this unpopular plan in the first place, when thousands of people told him not to.

“But he did not listen, saying “I’m being forced to do this by the government” which the planning minister recently replied “that’s total rubbish”.”

He added: “Just how much is this Green Belt blunder going to cost?”

Gravesham council had initially defended the strategy, stating the authority had to find a robust plan to help it remain in control of planning issues.

But in a spectacular u-turn, Cllr Burden said he would recommend a new planning blueprint which would protect the Green Belt.

The sole exception to development in rural areas would be for much-needed housing for the elderly and care home facilities.

“We said we would listen and that this was a genuine consultation. We were obliged to put forward all the potential sites for development – even those we did not favour – and we took the flak from people who misunderstood our position,” said Cllr Burden.

“I hope those people – and the many who supported the consultation process – now realise that we have listened to the community and we have taken decisions in their best interests.”

Green campaigners from Protect Kent, the county’s branch of Campaign to Protect Rural England, welcomed the u-turn.

Senior planner Brian Lloyd said: “This is a major change of position and a great victory for the Green Belt and people power.

“It seems the council now accept that the brownfield sites are viable after all.”

But former Gravesham council leader Mike Snelling, who welcomed the reversal, questioned the cost.

“This is a very serious error of judgement. A totally shambolic consultation which succeeded in creating angst, anger, fear and actual blight in our village communities,” he said.

“Goodness knows how much this has all cost- an apology by the council leader to the residents would be entirely appropriate.”