3. Economic and demographic change in Kent 1980 to 2004
3.1 Actual changes
In this section we present economic and demographic change in Kent as a reference
point backcloth against which to view the changes which may be more specifically
related to the Channel Tunnel and its associated projects. The second purpose is more
speculative. We use this to assess if there is any evidence that there have been any
changes in the time series for the Channel corridor that might be interpreted in such a
way. There is also a brief account of the various planning and regeneration initiatives
which have occurred in relevant parts of Kent and which may also be seen to have
been influenced by expectations related to the Tunnel.
It is evident that Kent has shared in the overall population growth of South East
England. Within the Channel corridor growth has been greatest in Maidstone and to a
lesser extent Ashford, but this growth seems to be paralleled in other parts of Kent
which are within easy commuting distance of Central London and the M25. It is
difficult therefore to discern any demographic impact of the Channel Tunnel.
Similarly employment change generally reflected the national and regional cyclical
patterns, but within Kent there were some marked differences in the levels of
employment (though less difference in the pattern over time) with stronger
performances in West Kent and weaker performances in the areas more remote from
London (for example Thanet). Within the Channel corridor there was evidence of
expanding employment in Maidstone, but reductions in employment in Dover
(associated with the loss of jobs in both the shipping industry and coal mining).
Similar results can be obtained from the assessment of changes in per capita GVA.
Overall it seems that there is no evidence that the Channel Tunnel and associated
projects have generated demographic or economic changes which set the Channel
Tunnel corridor apart from the rest of Kent.
Local development also depends heavily on land-use planning. Planning authorities
have a dual role: on the one hand they have the power to zone land uses through the
mechanism of local plans, on the other they are able to respond to applications by
landowners and from potential developers for planning permission to develop specific
sites. These two processes are not entirely independent because most specific
applications are made in the knowledge of the local plan and the planners’ knowledge
of developers’ aspirations will influence the local plan. The attitude of planning
authorities in Kent to the Channel Tunnel project has been very mixed. On the one
hand a number of authorities were hostile or at best defensive because they were
aware of the possible negative impacts especially in terms of employment, traffic and
environmental damage. So for example many of the responses within Dover and
Shepway were of this type and the County Council too was aware of public concern in
relation to the alignments chosen for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. A second type of
response can be described as constructively defensive as authorities accepted the main
elements of the Channel Tunnel project and were concerned to ensure that additional
measures were put in place to benefit their districts or to safeguard against perceived
harmful impacts. So for example Shepway, after initial hostility, pressed hard for exits
and links from the Cheriton terminal into Folkestone and Ashford pressed hard for the
location of the International Passenger Station. Thirdly, there were various
organisations which viewed the project positively overall but recognised that
significant additional effort and investment would be necessary if the potential