Shepway Local Development

Framework (LDF)

Core Strategy for planning

Scrutiny 13th December 2011Scrutiny 13th December 2011

Contents1. Introduction

• Overview – progress and key features.

• Key cabinet resolutions to date

• Timescale for Core Strategy submission/examination in agreed LDF

• National policy/ plan soundness

• Submitting the Core Strategy

• Summary of public engagement.

2. Representations received: summaries– Key organisations

– Towns/parishes

– Comprehensive objections

– Site representations

3. Recommendations to Cabinet

Overview - Progress to Date

• Issues and Options consultation winter 2008

• Preferred Options consultation process –

June/July 2009

• Site specific consultations – Autumn 2010• Site specific consultations – Autumn 2010

• Cabinet Agreement of Core Strategy Proposed

Submission document and period for public to

make formal representations – July 2011

Overview: Plan’s Key Features

• Target for amount of development:– 8000 new homes and 20ha of new employment 2006 to 2026,

– to provide economic and social development balanced with environmental and infrastructure capacity.

• Strategy for main areas for new development:– Towns and villages (settlement hierarchy)

– Strategic sites – Folkestone Seafront, Shorncliffe Garrison, Folkestone Racecourse (major land allocations)Folkestone Racecourse (major land allocations)

– Broad locations – Sellindge, New Romney

• Guide for planning applications:– Affordable housing, residential type/size, green infrastructure, rural and tourism growth, water and coastal management policies

– Area policies for Folkestone Town Centre, Hythe and New Romney.

Cabinet 13th July 2011

Report C/11/16

• Approved Shepway LDF Core Strategy

proposed submission document

• Agreed that it was ‘sound’

• Noted process for making any significant • Noted process for making any significant

changes

• Agreed that a public participation process be

undertaken – 29th July to 23rd September 2011

Cabinet 2nd November 2011

Agreement of Local Development scheme with

timetable for Core Strategy

• Submission to Planning Inspectorate – January

2012

• Pre hearing meeting – within 6 weeks of • Pre hearing meeting – within 6 weeks of

submission

• Examination in Public – May 2012 (14 weeks)

• Inspectors report issued - September 2012

• Adoption – Nov/Dec 2012

National Policy and Soundness

• Core strategy produced against a changing policy/legislative background.

• Many changes introduced increase the need for local plans.

• NPPF to consolidate existing guidance – draft published July 2011: Adoption expected April published July 2011: Adoption expected April 2012.

• Draft NPPF assessment in Appendix 2– Further work being undertaken by Planning Advisory Service

– Additional check using soundness ‘toolkit’

What must be submitted to the

Planning Inspectorate?

• Shepway LDF Core Strategy document.

• All representations received from the public in the period to comment on the 2011 document, and a summary of the issues arising

• Evidence base, including: • Evidence base, including: – Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat Regulations Assessment.

– Technical studies and site-specific info.

• Documents on consultations:– LDF Statement of Community Involvement (2007)

– Core Strategy Statement of public engagement.

Summary of Public Participation 2011

•29th July to 23rd September 2011– Core Strategy and supporting documents available on-line, public libraries, local Council offices across the District

– Adverts in local press at different stages in the process

– 800 letters sent out, plus reminder emails etc– 800 letters sent out, plus reminder emails etc

– Individual meetings with town and parish councils (plus general meeting on 12th

September 2011)

– Presentation to KCC Cabinet

•Representations now processed and available on-line or in hard copy

Statement of Engagement

To be submitted with Core Strategy document

and to include :-

• How the public was involved

• Number of organisations and individuals who

made representations. (Approximately 160 sets made representations. (Approximately 160 sets

of representations with just under 1000

comments).

• A summary of the main issues raised.

Summary of Representations

Key Stakeholders/ Organisations

Kent County Council - General support with specific amendments requested and agreed, not requiring significant changes.

Neighbouring Local Authorities – Broad support with a request for cross boundary delivery mechanisms being clarified.mechanisms being clarified.

The Environment Agency – Overall support subject to minor clarification in relation to water efficiency and flooding.

Key Stakeholders/Organisations

English Heritage – Broad support subject to

amendments to ensure sufficient weight is

placed on the protection of historic assets.

Natural England - Detailed comments, clarified

through further discussion that will be used to through further discussion that will be used to

develop a revised green infrastructure policy

(CSD4)

Primary Care Trust (NHS) – Overall support,

document sound.

Key Stakeholders/Organisations

Water supply companies – Support for the water supply measures from Veolia

Southern Water – Concern over a lack of policy on waste water infrastructure to be addressed through amendment to supporting text.through amendment to supporting text.

Kent Police – Comments seek further detail on crime and disorder implications and can be addressed through additional referencing within text.

Key Stakeholders/Organisations

Highways Agency – General support, issues being addressed through update of traffic model and clarification

Homes and Communities Agency – Support the Core Strategy and welcome the Sellindge masterplan process, and approach to supporting masterplan process, and approach to supporting affordable housing delivery.

Chamber of Commerce – Support proposals.

Town and Parish Councils

Number of representations focussing on issues

of local concern with fundamental objections

from :-

• Lympne Parish Council – Concern over the

development within western part of proposed

strategic corridor, but interest in a strategic corridor, but interest in a

Neighbourhood Development Plan

• Lydd TC – Insufficient long term vision for Lydd

• Stanford Parish Council – substantial objection

to Folkestone Racecourse.

Comprehensive Objections to ‘soundness’

Some representations objected to all or most of the Core Strategy: Protect Kent, Kent Downs AONB, wildlife charities, SECN, plus certain landowners not featured in the document.

•Coverage of environmental/flood protection policies

•Operation and provision of green infrastructure policy details and protection/enhancement of European details and protection/enhancement of European habitats.

• Justification of overall housing target and affordable housing provision.

• Process: Insufficient community engagement

Comprehensive Objections to ‘soundness’

•Definition and purpose of the strategic corridor: to inform strategy.•Also, landowner comments e.g. Lympne Lympne (objections to omission of Former Lympne Airfield as an allocation), Hythe and others dealt with below.

Sites Representations

Objections on

infrastructure/

delivery grounds,

and its

sustainability as a

community •Stanford Parish

Council –

Folkestone Racecourse

Council –

substantial

objection to Policy

SS8 which

promotes

development of

Folkestone

Racecourse.

Sites Representations

Folkestone Racecourse

Additional land put forward (often on the basis of site access opportunities)

– Holiday Extras seek inclusion of adjoining land within the allocation and revised access arrangements.arrangements.

– Site to north west of railway/Stone Street put forward as an alternative.

– Alternative employment/housing allocation (700 homes) on land to SW of M20 J11.

– Small site extension proposed to south of A20.

Sites Representations

Sites Representations

Objections from

residents on

infrastructure/

delivery grounds,

including on

proposed transport

Risborough Barracks

proposed transport

improvements

•Amendments put

forward by MoD in

response•No additional land put

forward.

Sites Representations

Some comments

on future of

port/rail use

•No additional land

put forward but

comment by

Viscount

Folkestone about

Folkestone Seafront

Folkestone about

connectivity with

town centres

through their land to

the north.

Sites Representations

New Romney

Alternative Sites

New Romney

• Comments on level of housing development in the town/ Romney Marsh and flood risk

• Landowner comments (although only a broad location proposed):– RM Potato Company site – revised approach to – RM Potato Company site – revised approach to delivery, timing and infrastructure contributions

– Expansion of broad location to south/west of Ashford Road.

– Expansion of broad location to west of Cockreed Lane.

Sites Representations

Alternative Sites

Sellindge

• Comments on the delivery of the policy (infrastructure and community benefits v. level of development).

• Landowner comments (although only a broad location proposed):location proposed):– Eastward focus of broad location sought.

– Expansion to west of broad location sought.

– Two additional parcels identified outside the broad location.

– Policy changes within core area.

Recommendations to Cabinet.

• Agree the primary matter arising from public representation process raise no fundamental issues of plan ‘soundness’.

• Non – material changes to be made by Head of Planning Services in consultation with Cabinet Member for Planning.

• Agree submission of Core Strategy to the Secretary of • Agree submission of Core Strategy to the Secretary of State.

• Note NPPF compliance and test of soundness processes.

• Agreement of process for minor changes at EIP

• Note representation made on Proposed Submission document