Latest FoI/ERI request

Thanks to the hard work of some of our supporters we have now obtained a further 9 documents via FoI/ERI request – see the link below.

We would particularly draw your attention to the two fee notes from Tibbalds which say:

“Shepway is not yet certain about the range of uses that the site could accommodate, although it is clear that the principal use would be residential. Other uses could include a leisure centre and the relocation of the Hythe and Saltwood Yacht Club. Open space will need to be incorporated, especially to protect the setting of the Royal Military Canal, Initial soft market testing with a developer has confirmed a positive view of the site’s potential for residential.”

and

“A primary school and a sports centre have both previously been considered for the site, but it is now thought unlikely that these will come forward.”

No doubt Shepway will argue that things have moved on since then since clearly they are now working on plans for a leisure centre but given that they still have not proven that the facility will be financially viable it is understandable that some people still believe the leisure centre won’t materialise.

We would also draw your attention to the Historic England letter dated 2.6.16. This raises similar points to their response to last November’s local plan consultation which Shepway seem to have more or less ignored in the latest draft of the local plan

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/princes_parade_briefinstructions?nocache=incoming-1022456#incoming-1022456

Meeting with the Planners

As we don’t like Shepway DC holding secret meetings about Princes Parade we want to be upfront about the fact that a couple of us and our Planning Aid adviser this morning had a meeting with some of the planning officers at Shepway. The discussions were quite technical about things such as the interaction between the determination of the planning application and the examination of the Local Plan. The way things are looking the two are likely to be taking place at more or less the same time which could be interesting.

As we already knew the planning department has provided the land owning department with pre application advice. As far as the planners know the intention is still to submit the application this month. As a result of the pre application discussions we now believe that the open space has been moved back to the western end of the site ie next to the golf course rather than being interspersed between the housing.

If you still have old plans on display in your window can you please take them down and replace them with a poster from our website.https://saveprincesparade.co.uk/poster/

Judicial Review

There was an interesting story in this week’s Express. Residents of Densole have launched a judicial review over plans to build an eco holiday park on the Kent Downs. Planning officers recommended refusal but the councillors overruled them. The residents claim that the councillors did not properly address planning policy considerations designed to protect AONBs. We will be watching this case carefully as we may have to consider a JR for Princes Parade if Shepway don’t follow the proper process. JRs are expensive so if you are able to pledge any money towards the costs please send us an email info@saveprincesparade.org. We won’t be collecting the money unless and until we know exactly what the legal action would be.

Shepway’s New Facebook Page

A new Facebook page has been set up – Princes Parade Now – which is very much in favour of the development. Although it doesn’t say so, it is clear that the page has been set up by either the council or its PR consultants as the website address is Shepway’s Princes Parade website. When we posted a comment about this it was deleted and we were blocked. Fortunately someone else has repeated the comment so visitors to the page will know the truth. But how can it be right that Shepway is using council tax to pay for this propaganda? Where is the transparency? And given that they are both landowner and planning authority how can it be right that they can put something this biased in the public domain?

Councillors to Visit Hart Leisure Centre

The minutes of last week’s Overview & Scrutiny Meeting  are here:

http://www.shepway.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx…
They include this:
“Examples of leisure centres – it is anticipated that members of the Princes Parade Working Group, Overview and Scrutiny Committee and officers will visit the Hart Leisure Centre in Hampshire which is of a similar size to the proposed development.”

But the Hart Leisure Centre has many more facilities than are proposed for the Princes Parade leisure centre as these links make clear:http://www.strategicleisure.co.uk/new-23m-hart-leisure-cen…/
https://www.everyoneactive.com/centre/hart-leisure-centre/

We have contacted cabinet members and some officers with the suggestion that wherever the new leisure centre is built, the business should include a proper consultation with the public about what we would facilities we would like to be included. Surely this should be the first stage in any financial viability study or else we could end up with an expensive white elephant. Note that Dover DC id exactly that when they were putting together the plans for their new leisure centre and have published detailed reports on their website. Not all the facilities the public wanted were affordable but that is clearly explained in the report for all to see.

 

Pre Application Advice

We’ve just had a response from Shepway to our Freedom of Information request for the pre application advice the council has given itself:

“I am writing to inform you that we have searched our records and the information you requested is not held by the council. Pre-application advice has not been given; therefore Regulation 12(4)(a) applies to your request. Regulation 12(4)(a) provides an exception to the duty to disclose information when information is not held.”

Really?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pre_application_advice_re_prince?nocache=incoming-1009432#incoming-1009432

 

Hythe Pool Subsidy

At yesterday evening’s full council. Councillor Len Laws asked about the subsidy the current swimming pool receives from the council. Councillor Pascoe’s answer to Len Laws question about annual subsidy for the Hythe pool was that the sums amounted to the difference between income and expenditure. Periods of long closure and cost of repairs had a major impact. Thus 2014/15 the subsidy was £287,980; 2015/16 it was £342,789; 2016/17 it was £501,284. He couldn’t come up with a figure for 2013/14 when the pool was open all year with no major repairs.

Save Princes Parade has never doubted that the current pool costs the council money and we would support a new facility in the right location. However we don’t think think Princes Parade is the right location for a number of reasons including that ground conditions make it a very expensive site to develop.

However the council has still not proven that the proposed new leisure facility will not also need a big subsidy. At the cabinet meeting also held yesterday evening the members voted to accept the recommendation which included commissioning a report of the business case for the leisure centre but no one raised the question of why this will be done after the submission of the planning application and after they have spent around £500k preparing that application.

 

Relevant Council Meetings Next Week

Just to remind you that there are 2 relevant council meetings next week. Cabinet is at 5pm on Wednesday and they will be discussing the pay & display for Princes Parade and Sandgate Esplanade as well as the Princes Parade Development Project Strategy and the latest version of the Local Plan. The last 2 items are also on the agenda for the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on Thursday at 7pm. Please try to go along to these meetings – having people in the public gallery should remind the councillors why they are there.

Reply from David Monk re Contamination

A reply from David Monk in response to a query about the contamination on Princes Parade:

“Thank you for your query. I can confirm that that the issue of contamination will be addressed in detail in the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the, soon to be submitted, planning application within a chapter covering geo-environment , land contamination and ground conditions. This document will include a number of suggested remediation measures..

The information within the ES will be reviewed by the Environment Agency, as part of the statutory consultation process, and it is anticipated that they will suggest that a number of planning conditions be included as part of any planning permission. It is anticipated that such conditions will require further investigative work prior to the commencement of the development in order that the necessary remediation measures may be agreed and finalised. Such conditions are likely to require further survey work to be undertaken to establish, in more detail, the extent, scale and nature of the contamination as well as providing a further assessment of the risks to the following :-

Human health;
Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,
woodland and service lines and pipes,
Adjoining land,
Ground waters and surface waters,
Ecological systems,
Archaeological sites and ancient monuments.

Once this assessment has been undertaken it will be is necessary to a submit, to the Local Planning Authority for their approval, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. Such a scheme will need to include details of all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, a timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan.

Following the implementation of the remediation scheme, and prior to commencement of the main development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works and the effectiveness of the remediation will need to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report will need to include the results of any sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It will also need to include details of longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages and maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and the mechanism for reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

I trust that information is of assistance and reassures you that there are sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that the scheme will not pose a risk to the health and safety of local residents and visitors to the area.”