summary of consultation representations and draft sbc ......the swale borough local plan part 1...

1

Summary of consultation representations and draft SBC responses: General comments Bearing Fruits 2031: draft Local Plan (August 2013)

Rep ID Full Name Organisation Details

Support / Object

Document Part

Document Section Summary of Consultees Response SBC Response

LP30 Lucy Brown

I object to this part of the draft Local Plan

Bearing Fruits: The Swale Borough Local Plan Part 1 August 2013

Objects to the Local Plan overall for the following reasons:

• Not user friendly and difficult to access relevant information

• Map showing proposals (linked to details of planned changes) not included

• The local plan is a document with a range of audiences, from the general public to planning lawyers. Whilst it aims to be clearly worded it is also a quasi-legal document which set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the borough over the next 20 years, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and infrastructure – as well as a basis for safeguarding the environment, adapting to climate change and securing good design. It is also a tool in guiding decisions about individual development proposals. As such it is a complex document. Despite this complexity, the document is clearly set out. For example, Chapter 6 sets out the locations for new development and longer term opportunities with major allocations including concept plans.

• The adopted version of the Local Plan will contain a Proposals Map which will include details of what is proposed in map format. At this stage of the planning policy process interested parties should refer to Appendix 1 of Bearing Fruits 2031 which contains all the Proposal Map notations including allocations from the 2008 Swale Borough Local Plan and major extensions to settlements.

No Change Proposed

LP32 Mrs Alison Heine

I object to this part of

Bearing Fruits: The Swale Objects to the Local Plan for the • The local plan is a document with a

range of audiences, from the general

2


Support / Object

Document Part


the draft Local Plan

Borough Local Plan Part 1 August 2013

following reasons:

• Document too long and complex to be easily understood and to enable easy public consultation.

• Limehouse questionnaire doesn’t give opportunity to comment on the Local Plan. Also, questions why Limehouse only gives 3 choice of response – support, object or unqualified support. Why can’t an unqualified objection be given and what is difference between support and unqualified support?

public to planning lawyers. Whilst it aims to be clearly worded it is also a quasi-legal document which set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the borough over the next 20 years, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and infrastructure – as well as a basis for safeguarding the environment, adapting to climate change and securing good design. It is also a tool in guiding decisions about individual development proposals. As such it is a complex document. Despite this complexity, the Council feel the document is clearly set out.

• Limehouse gives a choice of 3 responses: support, object and qualified support (there is no option for unqualified support). This choice allows for a full range of responses. If a consultee is in full agreement with an aspect of the Local Plan the response would be support. If a consultee largely agrees with an aspect of the Local Plan, but has some reservations, the response would be qualified support and their reservations should be set out in their response. If a consultee objects to an aspect of the plan then the response would be to object. When a response is to object, the Council would always advice that full reasons should be set out.

• This representation is correct that it is not possible to simply comment on the Local Plan. A decision on whether a support, object or qualified support would need to be made by a consultee. If a comment is

3


Support / Object

Document Part


largely positive with some reservations then qualified support would be the appropriate response. If a comment is negative an objection would need to be made and reasons set out.

No Change Proposed

LP52 Mr Alan Bengall




• The exhibition venue at Thistle Hill Community Centre was only open at very limited and unspecified times making consultation very difficult.

• Not everyone with an interest in the Local Plan has access to the website.

• The exhibition was neither informative nor comprehensive.

• The opening times of the Thistle Hill Community Centre had not been made apparent when booking this venue. The Council apologises for the inconvenience caused.

• The Council agrees that not everyone with an interest in the Local Plan has access to the website. That is why, during other stages of the consultation period, the exhibition was also available to view at Castle Connections and at Sheppey Gateway. All libraries and Council offices also hold copies of the full document, Bearing Fruits 2031, for those without internet access to use.

• The Council agrees that the exhibition was not comprehensive, but it was not intended to be so as it would have been impossible to display over 400 pages of the Local Plan in an exhibition. The exhibition set out the big picture of the Local Plan, the Key Diagram and key development sites across the borough. The Council believes the exhibition served as a signpost to the full Local Plan document for those interested in the issues and as such was as informative as a concise exhibition could have been.

No Change Proposed

LP65 Mrs J I object to Bearing Fruits: Objects to the Local Plan overall for • The Council disagrees that the

4


Support / Object

Document Part


Bengall this part of the draft Local Plan

The Swale Borough Local Plan Part 1 August 2013

the following reasons:

• The consultation period is too short to allow the public to digest.

• Access to the exhibition at Thistle Hill Community Centre was inadequate.

• The exhibition itself lacked detailed information including details of a proposed footpath through the existing orchard.

consultation period is too short. 6 weeks is considered to be sufficient time for public engagement and for representations to be prepared. The current consultation on Bearing Fruits 2031 follows a consultation on the previous draft of Bearing Fruits in March 2012. Experience of this, and previous consultation exercises, has shown that 6 weeks is an adequate period of time for consultation. There will also be another opportunity for the general public to comment on this document at the submissions stage consultation.

• The opening times of the Thistle Hill Community Centre had not been made apparent when booking this venue. The Council apologises for the inconvenience caused.

• The Council disagrees that the exhibition did not contain enough detailed information as it was a roving exhibition which was shown in a variety of locations across the borough and which set out the big picture, a Key Diagram and key development sites for Swale, not all the information set out in the 400 page Local Plan document. Details such as footpath locations are not appropriate for an exhibition on this nature. However, one of the exhibition panels showed development proposed for the Isle of Sheppey, including that at Barton Hill Drive (to which it is assumed this representation is referring) and the final panel clearly set out what the general public should do if they wanted to find out more (ie access the full document online or at Council Offices and local libraries

5


Support / Object

Document Part


and make representation to the Council).

No Change Proposed

LP115 Mrs Joyce Roullier



• Consultation period started during the summer holidays and is not long enough to allow as many local people as possible to comment – it should be extended.

• The Council disagrees that the consultation period is too short. 6 weeks is considered to be sufficient time for public engagement and for representations to be prepared. The current consultation on Bearing Fruits 2031 follows a consultation on the previous draft of Bearing Fruits in March 2012. Experience of this, and previous consultation exercises, has shown that 6 weeks is an adequate period of time for consultation. There will also be another opportunity for the general public to comment on this document at the submissions stage consultation.

No Change Proposed

LP122 Mr Layne Strong



Objects for the following reason:

• Swale's Environmental Services are not coping at present with the fly tipping, graffiti and other criminal activities in the area. Despite frequent complaints none of these issues have been resolved. How will the existing over-stretched services cope with over a thousand new families in the area?

• All new development will be required to have the necessary supporting infrastructure and this includes additional Environmental Services. This will be financed through the additional Council Tax Revenue and government funding that new housing will bring.

No Change Proposed.

LP176 Mr Paul Hutchinson

I am giving qualified support to

Bearing Fruits: The Swale Borough Local Gives qualified support for the

• The Council disagrees that false optimism is given for the future of Sheerness Port. The Local Plan sets out

6


Support / Object

Document Part


this part of the Local Plan

Plan Part 1 August 2013

following reasons:

• Local Plan is an improvement on previous plans and opportunity to comment is welcomed. The overall vision is sound and the policy for a reduction in the overall growth in housing numbers, against national policy is to be applauded.

• However, concerned that false optimism is provided over the future for Sheerness Port and that local transportation infrastructure issues have not be adequately acknowledged or addressed. Fears that continued development, on Sheppey in particular, will be to the detriment of residents.

• A copy of responses to consultation will be forwarded to the local Member of Parliament and the Councillors for Halfway.

the regeneration potential of the Sheerness Port whilst at the same time acknowledging the delivery of this complex project is by no means certain.

• The Local Plan acknowledges the issue of transport infrastructure and the impact of development on transport has been assessed through a transport model. This has concluded that there will be additional pressures on the highway network and further investment will be necessary in order that new development is compatible with existing local residents.

• Noted.

Noted. No Change Proposed.

LP182 Mr Alan Bengall




• Explain why housing at West Minster, in Sheerness, which was demolished in the 1960s with the promise of rebuilding the community, is still derelict. The Local Plan makes more promises to rebuild

• The housing that the Council understands is being referred to here was cleared in a process of demolishing substandard homes which were also at flood risk. The site is owned by the Council who are currently marketing it for commercial development, which will be more appropriate for this location.

7


Support / Object

Document Part


communities while old ones have not been fulfilled.

No Change Proposed

LP184 Mr & Mrs D Jenkins



Objects to the Local Plan for the following reasons:

• Bearing in mind time and money spent the consultation is inadequate and does not provide enough detail eg which housing, schools, roads and locations will be affected.

• In order to fulfil the Council’s mission statement ‘Making Swale a better place’ a current survey of Council services should have included reference to Bearing Fruits 2031. Why did it not?

• The consultation period of 6 weeks is considered to be sufficient time and enables the Council to move the Local Plan process forward as quickly as possible. It is not possible to avoid all school holidays as this would have meant further delays at a time when there are major changes in national planning policy. The National Planning Policy Framework requires a major boost in house building to meet population expansion, which is actually far greater than even this Swale local plan is allowing for. Without an up-to-date Local Plan and supporting housing land supply, Swale Borough Council is in a weak position to defend itself against planning applications for development in all but the most sensitive ecological and landscape areas.

• The survey of Council services is a customer services related survey and not directly related to the content of the draft Local Plan. It was never intended to be a joint consultation.

No Change Proposed

LP262 Mrs Trish Codrington

Parish Clerk Minster-on-Sea Parish Council




• Lack of protection to existing residential amenity is a serious concern which undermines the protections

• The Council appreciates views and recognition of the importance of the Local Plan, but the draft Local Plan does contain adequate policies to protect the natural environment, whilst balancing this with the need to provide much needed new housing. All representations will be considered by members of the Council’s

8


Support / Object

Document Part


and safeguards offered by the planning system. Local Plan is most significant tool for future planning. At present will irreversibly destroy natural assets and the open countryside. Minster Parish Council will not stand by and allow this without doing its utmost to defend interest of the community it serves. It urges those responsible to think again.

Local Development Framework.

No Change Proposed.

LP368 Mr Matthew Brown



Objects to the Local Plan overall for the following reason:

• Consultation period inadequate, access difficult and document difficult to comprehend. Is it a criterion that only most educated is entitled to an opinion?

• Website times out before adequate time for detailed explanation can be made.

• The consultation period of 6 weeks is considered sufficient and enables the Council to move the Local Plan process forward as quickly as possible. Access to the document was possible on-line and in libraries and local council offices throughout the consultation period. There were some difficulties accessing one of the exhibitions at Minster and the Council apologises for this, however, overall the consultation was accessible. This is reflected in the1,500 responses.

• The document aims to be understandable; however it is necessarily long as it deals with a large range of complex subjects. Future editing will aim to make it as comprehensible as possible, bearing in mind the complexity of the subject matter.

• The website should not have timed out at all as this is not how it is designed to work. Apologies if this did happen. Saving a response as a draft would be a

9


Support / Object

Document Part


further method to prevent any loss of work.

No Change Proposed.

LP401 Rose Freeman

The Theatres Trust




• Document too long and repetitious.

• Document is a complex document so is necessarily long. However, it will be edited as much as possible for the Submission version, bearing in mind the complexity and volume of the subject matter.

No Change Proposed.

LP440 Ms Hilary Whelan




• Inadequate publicity and availability

• Consultation period too short and badly timed over the summer holidays

• Plan and comment process are unduly complicated

• Two days before the consultation closed there had only been 50 commentators - does not inspire confidence in breadth of consultation process

• The consultation publicity and period of 6 weeks is considered sufficient. It is not possible to avoid all school holidays as this would have meant further delays at a time when there are major changes in national planning policy. The National Planning Policy Framework requires a major boost in house building to meet population expansion, which is actually far greater than the Swale local plan is allowing for. Without an up-to-date Local Plan and supporting housing land supply, Swale Borough Council is in a weak position to defend itself against planning applications for development in all but the most sensitive ecological and landscape areas. It was thus necessary to move the Local Plan process forward as quickly as possible.

• Access to the document was possible on-line and in libraries and local council offices throughout the consultation period. A roving exhibition was also used to publicise the draft Local Plan. There were some difficulties accessing one of the exhibitions at Minster and the Council

10


Support / Object

Document Part


apologises for this, however, generally feel that the consultation was accessible. This is reflected in the high response rate of around 1,500 responses.

• The document aims to be understandable; however it is necessarily long and detailed as it deals with a large range of complex subjects.

• There was a variety of methods by which to respond to the consultation, including replying using the Council’s online portal (a well-recognised system, used by Councils and agencies across the country), by email or by letter.

No Change Proposed.

LP546 Mr David Hawkins




• Consultation period not long enough for document of such length and complexity – overlaps with holidays so in effect only three weeks. Was the time frame chosen to be sure that fewer people would raise objections?

• This is the third of such consultations documents. Take times for Council staff and for private companies doing associated research. What is the cost this consultation to Swale Borough Council taxpayers?

• The 6 week period provided by the consultation is considered sufficient. Council needs to move the Local Plan process forward as quickly as it can and such the consultation period was an appropriate length of time. There has been a major change in national planning policy in the last 18 months and this context is still changing. The National Planning Policy Framework requires a major boost in house building to meet population expansion, which is actually far greater than even this Swale local plan is allowing for. Without an up to date Local Plan and supporting housing land supply, Swale Borough Council is in a weak position to defend itself against planning applications for development in all but the most sensitive ecological and landscape areas.

• The changes the government have brought about in the National Planning

11


Support / Object

Document Part


Policy Framework have meant that this extra consultation period was essential. The document and its consultation has been carried out in as cost effective a way as possible.

No Change Proposed.

LP626 Mr John Crosland

I am giving qualified support to this part of the Local Plan


Gives qualified support to the Local Plan overall for the following reason:

• Impossible to comment on whole document or express support or objection on vital matters such as housing and infrastructure. However, reiterates point made in previous consultations that more emphasis should be given to Sittingbourne’s stagecoach era – which spanned several centuries. Disappointed to note only one reference to Sittingbourne’s existence being due to its strategic location on the historic pilgrim and coaching routes.

• No reason is given for the consultee not being able to comment on vital issues of transport or infrastructure - maybe this is related to the length of the document which is due to the complexity of the issues within.

• One reference to Sittingbourne's coaching past is felt to be adequate in a document which is already fairly long.

Noted. No Change Proposed.

LP761 Mr Beverley Willis

Bredgar Parish Council




• Draft Local Plan policies should be based on current/ relevant traffic assessment.

• M2 J5 must be top strategic network priority. M2 J5A left in

• A transport assessment was conducted for Bearing Fruits 2012 and the development targets in Bearing Fruits 2013 had changed little between these two versions. A review of the transport model will be prepared to accompany preparation of submission version of the local plan.

12


Support / Object

Document Part


/ left out should be removed from draft Local Plan.

• Sittingbourne Southern Relief Road should be completely removed from draft Local Plan

• Sheerness Port regeneration should be a core strategic policy.

• Draft Local Plan cannot contain undefined housing allocation.

• Kent Science Park development should be limited to within existing security fence except where extant planning approvals indicate otherwise, but which approvals should, upon expiry, be subject to development policy review.

• Removal of references to Area of Future Change and clear definition of substantiated policies.

• The policies relating to Kent Downs AONB should be strengthened to clearly include and value all of the areas within it.

• Definitive, long-term solutions for Junction 5 are unplanned at present due to their financial and technical viability. However, the opening of a new link between the motorway and eastern Sittingbourne will be explored in the longer term as an 'areas of future change'.

• The Council looks favourably on the regeneration of Sheerness Port and has included it as an ‘area of future change’ as it is not currently deliverable. Proposals to secure the regeneration of this area will trigger a review of the Local Plan.

• There are no undefined housing allocations in Bearing Fruits 2031. Saved allocations from the 2008 Plan will be incorporated into the Submission draft of the Local Plan.

• The Council support the expansion of the Kent Science Park within the constraints set out in policy AFC 2. More detail on this is provided in the response to LP 755 and LP 756.

• Reference to ‘areas of future change’ are a useful method to signpost the long-term direction of the Council.

• The policies relating to the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been agreed in general with the AONB Unit.

No Change Proposed.

LP832 Mr Brian Lloyd

Senior Planner Protect KENT

I am giving qualified

Bearing Fruits: The Swale Gives qualified support to the Local • Welcome the support received. Issues

related to housing and employment

13


Support / Object

Document Part


support to this part of the Local Plan


Plan overall for the following reason:

• Welcomes much of what is included in draft Local Plan, but feel housing and employment targets are too high.

targets are dealt with in the Strategy section of the responses for instance response to LP833.

No Change Proposed.

LP840 Mr Brian Lloyd

Senior Planner Protect KENT

I am giving qualified support to this part of the Local Plan


Gives qualified support to the Local Plan overall for the following reasons:

• Welcomes much of what is included but finds it unnecessarily long and complicated in places. Much of chapters 1 and 2 could be reduced. Plan as whole would benefit from substantial editing.

• Difficult to identify all sites proposed without using supplementary information. Would be much simpler to allocate all proposed housing and employment sites respectively in a single policy for each. This could be supplemented by site specific policies where necessary. Sites carried forward from 2008 plan should be re-allocated rather than simply referred to as ‘saved’.

• Welcomes support. The Council intends to edit the document as far as possible for the submission version.

• Saved polices will be included as new allocations in the submission version of the plan and allocations sections of document will be re-examined.

Change Proposed.

LP1093 Mrs L Jordan

Rodmersham Parish Council

I object to this part of

Bearing Fruits: The Swale Objects to the Local Plan overall for • All previous consultation comments have

been thoroughly considered by officers

14


Support / Object

Document Part


the draft Local Plan


the following reason:

• Feel previous comments from May 2012 have been largely ignored and set out concerns to the local plan again.

and members of Swale Borough Council's Local Development Framework Panel and amendments to the plan were made in the light of these representations received and the necessary alterations required as a response to the changing national planning regime under the National Planning Policy Framework.

No Change Proposed.

LP1342 Mr Phil Johnson




• Processing of on-line representations to the plan is very slow meaning that members of the public are not able to see others’ comments during the consultation or even the number of comments made. This is not open consultation and an explanation would be appreciated.

• The Council received around 1,500 representations to the Local Plan consultation. The online portal which the Council uses requires representations to be 'processed' before they are available to be viewed by the public. The Council aims to process representations as quickly as possible, but due to the volume of representation received, not all representations were processed during the consultation period.

No Change Proposed.

LP1343 Mr A Hudson

Chairman Bapchild Parish Council



Objects to Bearing Fruits for the following reasons:

• Dismayed that Council, regardless of public opinion and evidence, has rigidly stuck to original plans, with all fundamental aspects of the plan still in place. Council’s own admission is that key parts of plan are considered

• The Council considers that the Local Plan is an ambitious yet realistic approach to development in Swale over the coming 20 years. It believes its housing target and land allocations are reasonable in that they take into account a number of critical considerations including the realism of housing delivery and the viability of development in Swale.

• The Local Plan clearly sets out the transport strategies, the issues with the

15


Support / Object

Document Part


undeliverable within the plan period, but persist regardless.

• Some elements are seen by the Council as not strategically necessary for the delivery of the plan, but do form part of the wider strategy for the future of Swale – eg transport. Council has been unable or unwilling to discuss these issues during consultation, arguing that it does not have sufficient evidence. This makes it impossible for the public to fully consider these issues for the plan period and beyond.

• Council’s approach has been Decide, Announce, Defend. Almost none of the concerns raised at previous 2 consultations have been suitably addressed.

• In terms of Strategy we would note that Swale has:

• Some of the highest levels of deprivation in the Country

• One of the highest crime rates in Kent

• Is the largest town in Kent without a dedicated further education facility and consequently has a lower than average skill base

• Suffers from health inequalities with

transport network, details of the transport model and the investment needed in the transport network, concluding in policy CP 2 on Transport Infrastructure. Further work on transport modelling will be conducted in 2014 and the conclusions from this will be presented in the submission version of the Local Plan in 2014 for public comment. The County Council will also prepare a transport strategy for Swale in response to the modelling work.

• The Council does not agree that it has not addressed concerns raised in previous consultations. The preparation of the draft Local Plan has been an iterative process which has been amended considerably a number of times in response to representations within the context of changing government policy.

• The Council disagrees that the Local Plan does not address the issues highlighted in this representation. The Local Plan promotes a positive, yet realistic, approach to dealing with difficult issues and promotes working alongside other agencies to aim to deliver multiple benefits across the borough.

• The Council’s approach to meeting housing and development needs is a combined approach of providing for a range of allocations alongside supporting planning applications where they promote appropriate development. As the representation points out, there is a significant housing, affordable housing, job creation, education and transport infrastructure need within Swale and the positive, yet sustainable and realistic

16


Support / Object

Document Part


worse than average health issues

• Has inadequate provision of affordable housing due to the fact that housing is not affordable for the majority of residents

• Has below average use of public transport with high commuter rates

• Is vulnerable to climate change due to the potential flood risk associated with rising sea levels.

• We do not believe that these challenging issues have been realistically addressed in a sound and sustainable way with due regard to the environment.

• The Council continues to pursue policies which advocate large scale development as the solution to a range of issues including deprivation, affordable housing, job creation, education and transportation.

• These are much the same policies that Council has previously supported, but development of largest employment land provision in Kent did not deliver the jobs promised, house building

approach to growth, as set out in the Local Plan, and agreed by members, is deemed the most appropriate way forward.

• The Local Plan works within the wider national and international economy and cannot be expected to provide all of the benefits of a successful economy during a time of austerity. The Local Plan responds to the cyclical nature of the economy and is designed to be flexible enough to deal with growth as it emerges.

No Change Proposed.

17


Support / Object

Document Part


programme did nothing to make housing more affordable, education and deprivation have not significantly improved and it is questionable whether the previous transport policy has resulted in improvements or simply created new problems.

LP1430 The Crown Estate

I support this part of the draft Local Plan


Supports the Local Plan overall for the following reasons:

• Opportunity to comment on Bearing Fruits welcomed.

• In order for Local Plan to be found sound it will need to be; positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy (NPPF). Set out recommendations to ensure soundness.

• The Crown Estate owns land on Sheppey covered by the Queenborough and Rushenden Masterplan SPD. Part of its estate is identified in Local Plan to deliver new employment as part of wider regeneration proposals. Also owns site at Belgrave Road, Minster, identified as potential housing allocation (Policy A9). Further information provided in Section 6 of Crown Estate statement.

• Noted (See responses to Policy A9 in respect of Belgrave Road).

No Change Proposed.

18


Support / Object

Document Part


LP1458

Hallam Land Management Ltd




• As a promoter of large scale developments in Swale, and in light of concerns expressed in other sections of their representation, Hallam Land Management Ltd request opportunity to appear at Local Plan Examination, including in relation to Duty to Cooperate issues. Wish to be advised of progress on Local Plan.

• As Hallam Land Management Ltd has responded to the consultation process their details will be included in the Council's database and they will be updated as to the next consultation stage on the Local Plan. For more frequent progress updates, Hallam Land will need to keep in touch with the Council's website, in particularly the agenda and minutes of the Local Development Framework Panel and any update to the Local Development Scheme. If Hallam Land wishes to appear at the Public Inquiry they should request this at the Submission stage.

No Change Proposed.

LP1464 Ms Jackie Westlake

Faversham Town Council




• Consultation not user friendly – difficult to navigate and page numbers in overall document does not match separate documents. This should be improved if web-based system is to be used.

• Document is very bulky yet still does not contain all evidence. Recommends that final plan restricts itself to planning policy and not include all the evidence and explanation of current version.

• Plan would benefit from key plans identifying sites in same way as current local plan.

• The overall policy objective for

• Consultation portal is one that is used nationally and is regarded of high quality, though agree some discrepancies with page numbering do seem to have occurred. These will be investigated and if resolvable will be addressed in the next version of the document.

• The Local Plan 2031 is necessarily a long document, due to the amount of background needed, the detail required in setting out the strategy, core and development management policies and locations for new development and longer term opportunities. The document will be edited as far as possible for the submission version.

• The adopted version of the Local Plan will contain a Proposals Map as with the currently adopted Plan. However, the cost of producing a map of this detail with each consultation version precludes this

19


Support / Object

Document Part


Faversham - ‘organic and unforced growth' and ‘that the .... historic importance of {the town}..... should be the primary factors influencing growth' - is considered by the Town Council to be the right policy for the town.

• Paragraph 4.2.16 speaks of encouraging office provision in Faversham. Does not seem to be specific policy or any site allocations to achieve this.

• Site specific policies for land at Selling Road and land at Graveney Road refer to existing policies B18 and B19 respectively. It would make more sense for all policies to be in the new plan without a need to refer to the existing plan.

• Main issues for Town Council appear to be whether or not new development sites should be allocated at Oare and/or Love Lane, whether land at present allocated for employment use on Western Link should be allocated for residential use, effect of new development on west side of the town on the road network and effect of the completion of Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road on road network.

approach. The Key Diagram gives a broad indication of development sites and each allocation is accompanied by a map. This is considered adequate for a consultation document.

• Welcome comments on objective for Faversham.

• Office provision in Faversham will be encouraged through development management decisions.

• The submission version of the Local Plan will contain all policies within the document itself.

• Agree with Town Council’s analysis of the main issues for Faversham within context of Local Plan.

No Change Proposed.

20


Support / Object

Document Part


LP1482 Mr A Trim

Chairman Norton Buckland & Stone PC




• Note that owners of Norton Ash Garden Centre site have made a representation on the plan that their site should be allocated for housing development. Note that consultation period has been extended. Not sure if these events are related.

• During the consultation period there was a technical problem with the online consultation portal. In order to give the public time to respond to the consultation after the technical problem was resolved the consultation period was extended. The extension was unrelated to any particular representations made on any site.

No Change Proposed.

LP1552

Owner of land at Quinton Road

c/o JB Planning Associates




• Has significant interest in land north of Quinton Road – and committed to working with Swale Borough Council and other local landowners to bring forward new sustainable community and neighbourhood and deliver objectives of sustainable development as set out in NPPF. Overall supportive of plan and its direction and welcome inclusion of Quinton Road allocation.

• However, has concerns: that Council is underestimating housing capacity and development potential of the land; that Gypsy and Traveller pitches are required; that Supplementary Planning

• Welcomes overall support. • Concerns over site at North West

Sittingbourne will be dealt with in response to LP 1553. Swale welcomes on-going discussion with developers of Swale's allocations.

• Noted.

No Change Proposed.

21


Support / Object

Document Part


Guidance is needed; quantum of open space; sustainability and environmental performance requirements; access; level of anticipated planning contributions (details set out in Quinton Road section of plan)

• Would welcome opportunity to discuss representation with officers at Swale and have excellent experience of Examinations in Public.

summary of consultation representations and draft sbc ......the swale borough local plan part 1...

Documents