Author: Lesley

The draft Policies and Places Local Plan will be subject to another 6 week public consultation starting 5 Feb 2018 to 19th March (this was supposed to have happened last autumn). It will then be submitted to the Planning Inspector who will carry out an examination in public.

The documents will be published on 5th Feb on this link

https://shepway.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan/places-and-policies

and you will be able to comment online here:http://shepway-consult.objective.co.uk/portal or by email planning.policy@shepway.gov.uk or by post to the council offices.

Unlike the previous consultations your comments will have to relate to the “soundness” of the local plan . To be sound the local plan must be

1. Positively prepared
2. Justified, effective
3. Consistent with national policy

As far as we know Princes Parade is still allocated as a development site in the draft plan despite the high number of objections from members of the public as well as Historic England and the Heritage Dept at Kent County Council. We are hoping that the consultation documents will set out the council’s justification for ignoring these comments.

Although the council has now submitted a planning application to itself for Princes Parade, it is important that we try to get Princes Parade deleted from the local plan because if it is still in there when the local plan is adopted any subsequent application will be granted planning permission almost automatically. For that reason we urge you to also look at the other sites in the district which have been allocated in the plan.

There will also be another public consultation starting soon – this time on Shepway’s Revised Core Strategy. This is the document which sets out the overall strategy on which the Local Plan has been based. You can see this document here http://www.shepway.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s25986/2018_01_17_CS_Review_Appendix_1.pdf with the revisions in red. As you will see some of the revisions relate to increases to the annual targets for new homes – 633 compared with the figure in the current Core Strategy of 350. (The Government have recently set a min target for Shepway of 490.) The other big change to the Core Strategy is the inclusion of Otterpool as a major strategic development site ie as a way of achieving the new annual target.

We will publish guidance to help you respond to the PPLP once we have had a chance to read the documents.

 

You can read the full decision here: uksc-2016-0188-judgment (1).

Particularly interesting are paragraphs 60 and 62 :

60. Finally, with regard to Sales LJ’s concerns about the burden on members, it is important to recognise that the debate is not about the necessity for a planning authority to make its decision on rational grounds, but about when it is required to disclose the reasons for those decisions, going beyond the documentation that already exists as part of the decision-making process. Members are of course entitled to depart from their officers’ recommendation for good reasons, but their reasons for doing so need to be capable of articulation, and open to public scrutiny. There is nothing novel or unduly burdensome about this. The Lawyers in Local Government Model Council Planning Code and Protocol (2013 update) gives the following useful advice, under the heading “Decision-making”:
“Do make sure that if you are proposing, seconding or supporting a decision contrary to officer recommendations or the development plan that you clearly identify and understand the planning reasons leading to this conclusion / decision. These reasons must be given prior to the vote and be recorded. Be aware that you may have to justify the resulting decision by giving evidence in the event of any challenge.” (their emphasis)

62. The Model Council Planning Code and Protocol, already referred to (para 60 above) contains under the same heading the following advice:
“Do come to your decision only after due consideration of all of the information reasonably required upon which to base a decision. If you feel there is insufficient time to digest new information or that there is simply insufficient information before you, request that further information. If necessary, defer or refuse.”
This passage not only offers sound practical advice. It also reflects the important legal principle that a decision-maker must not only ask himself the right question, but “take reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly” (Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014, 1065B). That obligation, which applies to a planning committee as much as to the Secretary of State, includes the need to allow the time reasonably necessary, not only to obtain the relevant information, but also to understand and take it properly into account.

 

Shepway DC have a Planning Code of Good Practice which is based on the Local Government Association’s Guidance Note. You can read it in appendix 1 on the link below.

Worth having a read of the whole document but these paragraphs are particularly interesting:

“Don’t fetter your discretion and therefore your ability to participate in planning decision making at this Council by making up your mind, or clearly appearing to have made up your mind (particularly in relation to an external interest or lobby group), on how you will vote on any planning matter prior to formal consideration of the matter at the meeting of the planning authority and of your hearing the officer’s presentation
and evidence and arguments on both sides.
Fettering your discretion in this way and then taking part in the decision will put the Council at risk of a finding of maladministration and of legal proceedings on the grounds of there being a danger of bias or predetermination or a failure to take into account all of the factors enabling the proposal to be considered on its merits.
• Do be aware that you are likely to have fettered your discretion where the Council is the landowner, developer or applicant and you have acted as, or could be perceived as being, a chief advocate for the proposal. (This is more than a matter of membership of both the proposing and planning determination committees, but that through your significant personal involvement in preparing or advocating the proposal you will be, or perceived by the public as being, no longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its
planning merits.) “

We were hoping to take a bit of time off the campaign over Christmas but we couldn’t let Damian Collin’s column in today’s Express in support of the Princes Parade project go without comment. When the project was first proposed he claimed he couldn’t get involved because it was a planning issue. At the time it wasn’t – Shepway were just looking at it from a landowner point of view but now it clearly is a planning issue so how can it be right that he is publicly promoting it? Has he not read any of our emails setting out the reasons why we object? Should he not at least acknowledge our concerns about the loss of green open space etc?

 

 

The Environment Agency have not objected to the planning application but have proposed a number of conditions. You can read their comment in full here: Environment Agency Comments

This is the response to our letter requesting that the Secretary of State calls in the planning application:

It is the Secretary of State’s policy to wait for the local planning authority to assess an application before he considers whether to intervene. If the Council resolves to grant planning permission (but before it issues the decision), the Secretary of State will consider your request to call in. 

The South East Kent Clinical Commissioning Group has commented on the planning application. They have requested an upfront s106 contribution of £151200 to allow an extension of the Oaklands surgery to deal with the extra demand. They note that other developments have been allowed in Hythe with no such contribution which has impacted on the practices in the town such that there is no spare capacity. They list the risks of not requiring the s106 contribution. But what they don’t address is how the proposed extension of the surgery will be staffed.

Historic England have submitted their objection to the planning application and it has finally appeared the council’s website.  Well worth reading.  Historic England Objection Letter

The archaeology department of Kent County Council has submitted a comment to the planning application that says that the harm to the historic environment provides sufficiently strong grounds for the application to be refused.

They say that it is not enough  to consider the impact of the development on certain fixed views as the applicant has done. Instead the assets setting needs to be considered “in the round” looking at a range of views, environmental factors and mental links that are understood together.

They believe that the harm that the scheme would cause is higher than the applicant’s assessment of “limited to moderate harm.”

They acknowledge that the provision of a new leisure centre is an important public benefit which could be balanced against the harm to the setting to the canal but point out that the leisure centre could be built elsewhere. They say that the proposed improvements to the canal itself are not sufficient to balance the harm to the canal caused by the development and in any case do not pass the test of being directly related to the development as they could be delivered independently of the development.

The say that the contribution the development would make to Shepway’s housing need is small.

And they conclude by pointing out the great weight that the NPPF places on the conservation of the Royal Military Canal as a designated asset of the highest significance.

You can read the full report here:

KCC Archaeology Comment