Local Plan Review Consultation
Local Plan Review - Public Consultation from 8th February 2021 to 30th April 2021.
Swale Borough Local Plan Review (Regulation 19) Pre-submission Consultation.
This consultation is open from 8th February 2021 to 30th April 2021.
All Councils are required by the Government to revisit their Local Plans every five years. The most recent Local Plan (Bearing Fruits 2031), was adopted in July 2017 and sets out the development strategy for Swale to 2031.
Swale Borough Council are now consulting on a review which sets out the amount and location of new housing and employment development and the planning policies to guide development in the borough for the period 2022 to 2038.
Go to www.swale.gov.uk to find out further information. Please note, the document is available to download directly from the Swale Borough Council website, go to Local Plan Review, Planning and Regeneration and scroll down to Public Consultation.
Comments can be made via Swale Borough Council Consultation Portal.
or via Swale Borough Council Interactive Representation Form [PDF 225KB]. Please save a copy of this (as you write your comments) and email to Lpcomments@swale.gov.uk.
You can also print a copy of this form to complete by hand, and send it via post to:
Swale Borough Council
Parish Clerk 8th February 2021
UPDATE - 28th April 2021 - see below for Bapchild Parish Council response to Local Plan Review
FAO Jill Peet,
Planning Policy Manager,
Swale Borough Council,
Kent, ME10 3HT
Dear Mrs Peet,
Re: Bapchild Parish Council Response to The Swale Borough Local Plan Review (Reg 19)
Bapchild Parish Council would like to make the following observations:
1. In the Transport Strategy 2022-2037 under the Infrastructure Delivery Plan there is an entry for
a. Great Easthall link to Stones Farm with potential funding from KCC/S106.
Our local transport infrastructure is under pressure currently even before the additional traffic generated by Stones Farm comes on stream. Until these current problems, including the proposed road link to Lansdowne School, Swanstree Avenue traffic light management and existing traffic congestion are resolved we do not think additional roads should be constructed. The traffic data for this development was reported in 2017 based on 2014 data. A link exiting on to the A2 would increase traffic on an already congested road. Much more detail on this proposal is required to understand the impact this would have on Bapchild residents – would it be for local traffic only, a bus route, just for cyclists and pedestrians?
b. We would support the A2 Mitigation Strategy which would manage, together with Kent Highways, the flows of traffic on the A2 and the roads that feed on to it, especially where there are air quality, traffic congestion and road safety issues.
2. Air Quality: - We note the proposal for large scale housing and employment development with new road infrastructure in Teynham. Although these developments are not within Bapchild they would have a cumulative negative air quality effect on our area as the adjoining settlement. The wider impact of increased traffic on Bapchild would be immense.
3. Under the Swale Important Local Countryside Gaps January 2021, we note that the existing designated countryside gap in Bapchild is deemed to be robust and will not form part of the review. We would like therefore to emphasise the important aspiration that the proposed countryside park on the North side of the A2, Bapchild is designated as a countryside gap.
4. In the Sustainability Appraisal Review of the Swale LPR February 2021 we are pleased to note that ‘air quality is currently a priority issue for the Council. In addition, it is good to see Biodiversity and Climate Change mitigation prioritised when considering site selection all in relation to the 2030 net zero target.
5. Although not fully supportive of the housing numbers, we do understand the reasons why these have to be included due to central government pressure. It is a well written draft that embraces the need to preserve the environmental and historical needs of the borough.
The draft sets out parameters for developers to follow. There are concerns that even if the developers include these parameters within their application, who is going to ensure that they adhere to them? Section 106 agreements are amended, and conditions changed, withdrawn or discharged. From our experience, Swale Borough Council does not have a very good track record when it comes to enforcement so there is generally a lack of confidence in the system. We would mention the advice note from Swale Borough Council Conservation and Design, in response to the April 2021 EIA Scoping proposal for development west of Teynham, which echoes and reinforces the Parish Council’s concerns about impacts on heritage assets and traffic. We hope there will be sufficient resources to enforce what has been agreed in future planning permissions.
There needs to be better joined up coherent thinking with partner authorities such as KCC, Environment Agency, Flood Protection and others.
6. There are ongoing concerns that our
already overstretched and oversubscribed services such as healthcare, dentists,
schools, will not be brought up to standard even with new facilities or contributions
from the developers.
Bapchild Parish Council
28th April 2021