Category: News

As you are aware, the Places and Policies Local Plan public consultation is open until 19^th March and Princes Parade is included in the Plan as a development site. Even though a planning application has already been submitted for the site, it is important that as many people as possible also submit objections to the PPLP. You have probably taken part in previous Local Plan consultations and maybe feel that your comments have been ignored. However, this time your comments will be passed to an Independent Planning Inspector so it is vital that you make them again.

The process looks a bit daunting but don’t let it put you off. We have posted some guidance here.

We are also running a session on Saturday March 3^rd at the Red Lion in Hythe to talk you through the process. Places are limited and you need to book in advance by contacting us on info@saveprincesparade.org. If you have a laptop or tablet please bring it along.

You can read a summary of the previous comments and how the council have incorporated them (or not) here:

https://www.shepway.gov.uk/media/4832/02-Urban-Character-Area/pdf/02_Urban_Charater_Area.pdf

And you can find a lot of the supporting documents including the open space strategy and the heritage strategy here:  https://www.shepway.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan/places-policies/evidence

At our request Shepway have now published the correspondence between the applicant and the planning officer ie what appears to be a note of a meeting and an email from the planning officer. You can read them on the documents section of the planning application https://searchplanapps.shepway.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=OV593HNZKSO00

You can read the note here Applicant’s Note 13.11.17 and we have copied the contents of the email here:

Hello Dave,

 

Yes, the areas that need to be addressed are as set out in Matt Shillito’s note, alongside:

 

1)    Addressing the impacts upon the wider heritage asset chain (the link between the RMC, the adjacent fortifications and so on as a strategic defence). A response that deals with both HE and KCC Archaeology comments where they don’t overlap would be beneficial;

 

2)    The issue of lighting has been raised in communication with KCC EAS and is of concern to me also, as the site is intrinsically dark and any introduction of lighting will impact upon this and the adjacent Local Wildlife Site. Whilst the ALC site – the detailed application – has more detailed conclusions drawn due to a conceptual lighting design strategy produced by the consultant, this is the less sensitive end of the site due to the proximity to more dense urban development (flats, the A259, the PFS). I have strong concerns regarding the impact upon the outline area of the site, as within technical Annex 9, section 7.2, it is acknowledged that the long term operational impact assessment is limited:

 

 

Further, the concept exterior lighting scheme diagram (appendix 3 of the same document) only shows the eastern end of the site. I am uncomfortable with this aspect and would seek clarification of how future lighting from the houses, the likely desire to have lit public areas and also the possible desire to have highway lighting (I think I am correct in stating that this could be installed at a later date under the Highways Act and could therefore introduce the tall lighting that is expressly suggested to be avoided within Technical Annex 3: Ecology) can be addressed and mitigated for? The submitted information is not currently sufficient for us to be satisfied that the development will avoid a negative impact and this needs to be addressed prior to the determination of the planning application.

 

3)    The KCC EAC highlight that at least one wintering bird survey should be carried out.

 

4)    With regard to the local lettings plan, would it be possible to have some detail on how this would function, please?

 

5)    Following the additional response from NHS SKCCCG, please could you address the questions raised therein, regarding the operational specification of the leisure centre and how this would fit in with possible community health and wellbeing benefits.

 

6)    The additional work set out in the RPS document, beyond that required by Idom Merebrook / Pater Radmall Assocs

 

7)    The issues raised by the EA on foul and surface water drainage, as well as the 25m buffer zone

 

If you would like to read some background on Local Plans before taking part in the consultation which opens next week , we recommend that you read the excellent CPRE leaflet “Planning Explained” which is available on this link. We are at step 5 on page 44. Note that it suggests that if you have made a comment in an earlier consultation but don’t feel that it has been taken into account, you should make the point again as the Planning Inspector will see all representations made at this stage. You will need to state whether or not the plan is “sound”. This leaflet attempts to explain what that means. https://planninghelp.cpre.org.uk/resources/publications

We asked Ben Geering , Head of Planning at Shepway if he would consider publishing the correspondence between the applicant and his department and this was his reply:

“We do not usually publish correspondence between case officers and applicants online however have no concerns in doing so – I will ask the case officer to make the email request for additional information public on the application file.
Regarding the viability information – this is part of the request for further information we are waiting a response to.
Once further information is received the application will be reconsulted on.”

 

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?