Skip to content
Do It Online   |  Planning   |  Council tax   |  Bins and recycling   |  Parking and roads   |  Housing

We are currently updating our payment system. You may notice some changes in the forms that you use to pay for things like licences and your council tax. If you have any questions, please contact our customer services team.

Contact Planning Services

Summary of main issues

LDF Regulation 18(4)(b) statement - summary of main issues

The table below lists the main issues referring to Regulation 18(4)(b) Statement

Respondents Summary of Comments Swale Borough Council analysis Action notes for development brief

1. Principle of development

Claire Webb (5); James Mitchell (7); Mrs Meadows (8); D.J Rose; S A Richards (11); Alan Whyte; Margaret Meinertzhagen, (15); Mr and Mrs Hurrell, (16); Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26); Louise Hopkins (29); Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34); R.G Tedman (51)

Object to the general principle of development, loss of vegetation, flooding issues, increase in traffic, insufficient local services, loss of access to countryside, impact on views and enjoyment of peaceful countryside setting; impact on health and well being of residents; deliberate destruction of open spaces which can be avoided should never be undertaken;

Policy H10 of the 2008 Local Plan allocates 18ha of land at Stones Farm for approximately 600 dwellings. Accordingly, the principle of residential development at Stones Farm was established following an independent inquiry held by a Government Inspector 2006/07. Accompanying policy C5 allocates at least 15ha of adjoining land as public open space.

The purpose of the development brief is to guide the preparation of subsequent, more detailed, planning applications, including addressing matters in relation to flooding, access to services, highway safety and so on.

No planning application has yet been submitted.

No change required

Terry Trott (22); Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell, (26); Mr D Hawkins (45); Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land which will be needed to pursue vital environmental policies and grow local food. Green belt should be kept for the growing of food.

Acknowledge that this site will be lost for agriculture. However this issue of principle was considered by the Local Plan Inspector (33.26). The allocation of land at Stones Farm was established following an independent inquiry held by a Government Inspector 2006/07.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Site should be withdrawn pending adoption of the Core Strategy

Eric Pickles MP announced the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect on 6 July 2010. Chief Planning Officers were advised that adopted local plans will continue to provide the statutory planning framework for the time being. Preparation of the development brief is a requirement of the adopted Local Plan policy for the site and the Council is unable to visit questions of principle via its preparation. This could only be done via a planning application, or most appropriately via the preparation of the Councils Local Development Framework. In this regard, the Borough Council is in the final stages of preparing an issues and options consultation document for the Core Strategy and in this context, this will be the appropriate time for the Borough Council to decide what housing targets should come forward.

Against the housing targets of the Adopted Local Plan there remains a need to progress its housing allocations to maintain the supply of land.

No change required

2. Housing numbers

Sittingbourne Society (12); Stephen Lamey, (14); Andrew Tomes (1); John Shepherd, (20); Liz Trott (21); Terry Trott (22); Joe and Nicola Bennett (37); Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26); Rob and Ali Corbel (28); Louise Hopkins (29); Margaret Edwards (30); Mrs and Mr S W Edmead and Miss N Shilladay (32); Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34); Mr and Mrs Carey (38); Mrs Ayres (39); Miss Harthill (41); Mr D Miles (42); Mrs S Miles (43); Miss K Miles (44); Mr D Hawkins (45); R.G Tedman (51); Bapchild Parish Council (46); Mrs K Murphy (19); Mr J Murphy (36); Tonge Parish Council (52)

Assumptions regarding housing numbers are based on the abolished South East Plan and outdated Local Plan. The basic assumptions regarding Stones Farm should be re-appraised. If the five year housing land supply is based on the ability to meet the long term housing targets that have been abolished, this does not now necessitate the delivery of the same housing land supply

Eric Pickles MP announced the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect on 6 July 2010. Chief Planning Officers were advised that adopted local plans will continue to provide the statutory planning framework for the time being. Preparation of the development brief is a requirement of the adopted Local Plan policy for the site and the Council is unable to visit questions of principle via its preparation. This could only be done via a planning application, or most appropriately via the preparation of the Councils Local Development Framework.. In this regard, the Borough Council is in the final stages of preparing an issues and options consultation document for the Core Strategy and in this context, this will be the appropriate time for the Borough Council to decide what housing targets should come forward.

The Local Plan is recently adopted (February 2008) and has recently been approved by the Secretary of State for extension until it is superseded by the Local Development Framework. Against the housing targets of the Adopted Local Plan there remains a need to progress its housing allocations to maintain the supply of land.

No change required

Mrs Ayres (39); Miss Harthill (41); Mr D Miles (42); Mrs S Miles (43); Miss K Miles (44); Mrs K Murphy (19); Mr J Murphy (36)

Steve Quartermain, Chief Planning Officer for Local Planning Authorities, has stated that where LPAs have not yet issued decisions on planning applications in the pipeline, they may wish to review those decisions in the light of new freedoms following the revocation of Regional Strategies ¦ LPAs with responsibility for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area, and identifying a long term supply of housing land without the burden of regional housing targets.

Eric Pickles MP announced the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect on 6 July 2010. Chief Planning Officers were advised that adopted local plans will continue to provide the statutory planning framework for the time being. Preparation of the development brief is a requirement of the adopted Local Plan policy for the site and the Council is unable to visit questions of principle via its preparation. This could only be done via a planning application, or most appropriately via the preparation of the Councils Local Development Framework. In this regard, the Borough Council is in the final stages of preparing an issues and options consultation document for the Core Strategy and in this context, this will be the appropriate time for the Borough Council to decide what housing targets should come forward.

In respect of 5 year housing land supply Steve Quartermain has stated: Local planning authorities should continue to use their plans to identify sufficient sites and broad areas for development to deliver their housing ambitions for at least 15 years from the date the plan is adopted. Authorities should also have a five year land supply of deliverable sites.

Against the housing targets of the Adopted Local Plan there remains a need to progress its housing allocations to maintain the supply of land.

No change required

Mr and Mrs Carey (38); R.G Tedman (51)

Concerned that housing will be left unsold, in the current economic climate. Local estate agents report that there is no surge in property demand.

These are matters for the developer. If there is no housing market, then the development will not proceed. It should be noted that housing developments have long lead-in times.

No change required

Mr and Mrs Carey (38); Miss Harthill (41); Mr D Miles (42); Mrs S Miles (43); Miss K Miles (44); Bapchild Parish Council (46); Mrs K Murphy (19); Mr J Murphy (36); Tonge Parish Council (52)

Stones Farm was only included in the Local Plan to make up a possible housing shortfall.

At the time of the Local Plan Inquiry land at Stones Farm was put forward as a means of addressing the then predicted housing shortfall of 230 dwellings against the then Structure Plan requirement, to come forward after 2011.   Local development plans continue to be updated on a rolling basis and at each review, the housing land requirement is reviewed.

Against the housing targets of the Adopted Local Plan there remains a need to progress its housing allocations to maintain the supply of land.

No change required

Mrs K Murphy (19); Mr J Murphy (36)

In the last 5 year plan (the Councils 2009 SHLAA) only 110 dwellings at Stones Farm were included.

The Councils 2009 SHLAA suggested that just 110 dwellings of the 600 proposed at Stones Farm are likely to contribute towards the Councils five-year housing land supply (see site SW/330), with the remaining 490 dwellings being provided over the next 10 year period.

No change required

Miss K Miles (44); Mrs K Murphy (19); Mr J Murphy (36); Tonge Parish Council (52)

Concerned about the timing of this site coming forward in relation to the Core Strategy, which will hopefully provide a clearer picture on whether the SNRR will go through the site, and in terms of setting its housing requirements

Preparation of the development brief is a requirement of the adopted Local Plan policy for the site and the Council is unable to visit questions of principle via its preparation. This could only be done in the event of a major new material consideration arising during consideration of  a planning application, or most appropriately via the preparation of the Councils Local Development Framework. In this regard, the Borough Council is in the final stages of preparing an issues and options consultation document for the Core Strategy and in this context, this will be the appropriate time for the Borough Council to decide what housing targets should come forward.

Following the KCC consultation on the alignment of the SNRR it has been minuted that the Borough Council supports the principle of completing the SNRR, but considers that further work is required on route options and their assessment. This decision was taken having regard to the Stones Farm allocation.

The Borough Council has not committed itself to favouring any route at this time. Accordingly, it is too early to say whether or not the future route of the SNRR will pass through land allocated as Public Open Space. Given the differing timing of the housing allocation and the SNRR, the development brief does not directly take the SNRR into account. However, it does not prejudice any future decision on the road. KCC Members have yet to consider the consultation response to the SNRR and resolve how to proceed. In any event, it will be for KCC to resolve route issues and the associated hurdles that may arise.

No change required

3. Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road

Andrew Tomes (1); David Moor (2); Gavin Knight (3); Sittingbourne Society (12); Terry Trott, (22); Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26); Rob and Ali Corbel (28); Louise Hopkins (29); R.G Tedman (51); Tonge Parish Council (52)

No detail has been provided about links with the SNNR/relief road which should be built before further development takes place as existing traffic situation will become worse.

Will the relief Road be built and where will it be built? The SNRR consultation does not sit comfortably with the maps in this development brief.

Consultation on the Stones Farm development brief is separate to the consultation by KCC on the SNRR. Put very simplistically Stones Farm could be considered in isolation, mindful of the fact that the SNRR is on the horizon. Routing development is at a very early concept stage. Stones Farm cannot therefore incorporate details of the SNRR. However, it can make an informed judgement as to where potential crossover may take place. In this regard if/when the SNRR ever comes forward in the form shown at its consultation stage its construction would not be thwarted by the then completed Stones Farm scheme ie no houses would need to be demolished if a SNRR-SA link was required then this could be achieved, with some alterations to the proposed A2 access into Stones Farm.

Details of the KCC consultation on the remaining section of the Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road were reported to LDF Panel in June this year. While the SNRR and Stones Farm development are geographically associated, it should be noted that development at Stones Farm is likely to take place over the next 10 years or so, whereas the relief road is unlikely to be delivered over that period. Accordingly, it is not for the Stones Farm development brief to seek to resolve issues surrounding the SNRR. None of the various routes put forward by KCC for the road affect the developable part of Stones Farm (the part where housing building will take place). Furthermore, the development of the site is not dependent on the prior provision of the relief road (as confirmed by the Local Plan Inspector).

No change required

Sittingbourne Society (12); Stephen Lamey, (14); Andrew Tomes (1); Kay Murphy, (19); Liz Trott (20); Joe and Nicola Bennett (37); Rob and Ali Corbel (28); Louise Hopkins, (29); Margaret Edwards (30); Mrs and Mr S W Edmead and Miss N Shilladay (32); Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34); Mr and Mrs Carey (38); Mr R Miles (40); Mr D Miles (42); Mrs S Miles (43); Miss Kerry Miles (44); Mrs K Murphy (19); Mr J Murphy (36); Tonge Parish Council (52)

There is a requirement for the provision of 15ha of public open space to be retained in perpetuity. Provision of the SNNR will result in the reduction of Public Open Space and harmfully intrude into the residential amenity of Stones Farm residents. Concerned about the impact of bridging across the railway line and potential costs in legal bills and resolving planning issues. As the countryside gap will be breached and divided up by a road, work on Stones Farm should be postponed until the results of the SNRR consultation are known and a proper joined up plan formulated. Why is the Council abandoning the proposed public open space in perpetuity? Is it legal?

Following the KCC consultation on the alignment of the SNRR it has been minuted that the Borough Council supports the principle of completing the SNRR, but considers that further work is required on route options and their assessment. This decision was taken having regard to the Stones Farm allocation.

The Borough Council has not committed itself to favouring any route at this time. Accordingly, it is too early to say whether or not the future route of the SNRR will pass through land allocated as Public Open Space. Given the differing timing of the housing allocation and the SNRR, the development brief does not directly take the SNRR into account. However, it does not prejudice any future decision on the road. KCC Members have yet to consider the consultation response to the SNRR and resolve how to proceed. In any event, it will be for KCC to resolve route issues and the associated hurdles that may arise.

15ha of land will be made subject of a Section 106 Agreement to ensure that a mechanism is in place to transfer the land to the ownership of the Parish Council as public open space, with maintenance to be provided by the Borough Council. The development brief advises at paragraph 7.17 that this Agreement should include a mechanism for transfer to KCC if needed.

No change required

Mrs Ayres (39); Mr R Miles (40); Miss Harthill (41); Mr D Miles (42); Mrs S Miles (43); Miss K Miles (44); Mrs K Murphy; Mr J Murphy (36)

FOI request has revealed contradictory evidence from the Borough Council

1. the proposed alignment of the Bapchild link road (SNRR “ my emphasis)  could have a fundamental bearing on the development of Stones Farm

(James Freeman (Head of Development Services 19.01.10)

2. a Transport Assessment will be required to assess the impact of development on the A2 (James Freeman (Head of Development Services 16.12.09)

3. the local plan Inspector stated that I am satisfied that the full transport assessment will provide the necessary evidence to more clearly establish the development limit of the site, up to a maximum of 600 dwellings set out in the new policy. The planning department has stated that this issue could be covered by a development brief.

The Council suggest that this site can be development in accordance with the local plan and retrospectively ignore these policies in the future. Is this legal?

In response to the points:

1. At the time of James Freemans letter (January 2010) options were being worked up by the landowner showing various potential routes for A2-SNRR links and configurations of housing and open space layout. It was clear therefore that the SNRR (actual route or link route) could impact on the development at Stones Farm.

2. The Council advises that a Transport Assessment will be required. Paragraph 4.21 of the development brief confirms that a Transport Assessment will be required at planning application stage.

3. Confirmed. The Inspector flagged up the need for a Transport Assessment and this requirement has been incorporated into the development brief.

Consultation on the Stones Farm development brief is separate to the consultation by KCC on the SNRR. Put very simplistically Stones Farm could be considered in isolation. However, mindful of the fact that the SNRR is on the horizon, although routing development is at a very early concept stage, the development brief has sought to incorporate flexibility in this regard. If/when the SNRR ever comes forward in the form shown in the KCC consultation stage, its construction would not be thwarted by the then completed Stones Farm scheme ie no houses would need to be demolished at if a SNRR-A2 link was required. This could be achieved with some alterations to the proposed A2 access into Stones Farm.

Following the KCC consultation on the alignment of the SNRR it has been minuted that the Borough Council supports the principle of completing the SNRR, but considers that further work is required on route options and their assessment. This decision was taken having regard to the Stones Farm allocation.

The Borough Council has not committed itself to favouring any route at this time. Accordingly, it is too early to say whether or not the future route of the SNRR will pass through land allocated as Public Open Space. Given the differing timing of the housing allocation and the SNRR, the development brief does not directly take the SNRR into account. However, it does not prejudice any future decision on the road. KCC Members have yet to consider the consultation response to the SNRR and resolve how to proceed. In any event, it will be for KCC to resolve route issues and the associated hurdles that may arise. Accordingly, it is too early to say whether or not the future route of the SNRR will pass through land allocated as Public Open Space

No change required

R.G Tedman (51)

No justification for development, except to defray costs of the SNRR

Stones Farm has been justified as part of the Councils Adopted Local Plan to meet the development needs of the Borough. Policy T2 requires development likely to generate traffic which will access Sittingbourne town centre to contribute towards the provision of the remaining sections of the SNRR. Development at Stones Farm will help to defray the cost of the SNRR, which in turn is needed because of the demand for housing to meet need in the Borough.

No change required

Protect Kent/CPRE(48)

The consultation route put forward by KCC profoundly compromises the role and purpose of the open space component at Stones Farm and would fundamentally alter the dynamic of the whole Stones Farm development (housing and open space). The development brief dismisses the relationship between the Stones Farm development and the SNRR “ paragraph 3.21.

While the SNRR and Stones Farm development are geographically associated, it is not for the Stones Farm development brief to seek to resolve issues surrounding the SNRR (which is still at concept route-planning stage).

None of the various routes put forward by KCC for the road affect the developable part of Stones Farm, although it is acknowledged that if the SNRR goes ahead in its consultation form, it will comprise the allocation of public open space.

KCC Members have yet to consider the consultation response to the SNRR and resolve how to proceed. In any event, it will be for KCC to resolve route issues and the associated hurdles that may arise.

No change required

Protect Kent/CPRE(48)

Object to the flexibility outlined at paragraph 7.17 about future potential transfer of land. This is an untenable position, contrary to the provisions of the Local Plan which promotes housing and open space as interdependent components of the same development, with the open space providing mitigation to ensure that the countryside gap is retained.

Flexibility has been designed into the development brief because of the uncertainty over the timing of the SNRR and the need not to prejudice any potential future road building project.

No change required

Protect Kent/CPRE(48)

It is minuted that the Council favours a more westerly alignment of the SNRR, which conceivably could include routes through the housing development. Need to make a clear policy choice between housing at Stones Farm and the completion of the SNRR. In the case of the former all references to safeguarding land should be removed and if the latter, the development brief should not be approved and the future use of the land considered through the core strategy. Landscape buffer will not provide sufficient mitigation for loss of open space. No amount of mitigation will hide the fact that a major road will be in the gap.

This is not the case. It is minuted that Swale Borough Council supports in principle the completion of the SNRR, and that there is a need for SBC/KCC to work together on route options. On a without prejudice basis and in response to the specifics of the KCC consultation SBC has suggested that further consideration be given to a westerly re-alignment of the western arm of the SNNR-A2 link, towards the Stones Farm allocation (but not through the housing allocation).

References to safeguarding for the SNRR are included in the development brief in the interests of openly addressing the fact that KCC may continue to promote the consultation route of the SNRR. Matters relating to loss of open space and mitigation will be for the Borough Council to pursue with KCC in its role as consultee to the road plans.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Comments are attributed to KCC about the relationship of Stones Farm and the SNRR “ the proposals are inextricably linked; too simplistic for Stones Farm to ignore the SNRR; would prefer to delay Stones Farm to better integrate with proposals for SNRR

KCC has advised that Stones Farm will not necessarily help to resolve the detailed route of the SNRR. KCC will need to manage mitigation, so the linkage referred to includes for instance, tree planting. Any planting now will result in significant specimens that make a difference if/when the road comes along. KCC acknowledge that the SNRR proposals are not part of the Stones Farm consultation. The advice from KCC concludes that would it not wish to unduly influence any housing delivery targets that apply to the Borough Council.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

The Local Plan Inspector advised that serious consideration needs to be given to the best route for the final section of the SNRR before committing to detailed design of the housing area.

Mindful of the fact that the most up to date routing option for the SNRR is as portrayed in the KCC consultation, the development brief shows housing set behind a part-bunded landscape buffer, to mitigate against the SNRR and soften the impact of the housing into the surrounding landscape. As KCC routing plans evolve, the detailed design of individual phases of the housing scheme can be considered.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Sufficient land should have been provided to accommodate the road and associated works. Without additional land, the SNRR cannot be built on this site.

Provision of the SNRR in the countryside gap will reduce the amount of land that is available as public open space. However, when the landscape buffer is taken into account, more than 15ha of land is being provided, so a degree of compensatory land is being offered now.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Concerned that the SNRR may ultimately be routed through land identified for house-building. The local plan Inspector stated that there was potential to combine a spine road serving Stones Farm with an eastern section of the SNRR (33.10).

The arrangement was mooted in option testing, which was the subject of the consultation period organised by the landowner, and subsequently ruled out on grounds of noise disturbance. It has been minuted (in response to the KCC-SNRR consultation) that on a without prejudice basis that with regard to the proposed western arm of the A2-SNRR link the Borough Council would favour a more westerly alignment towards (but not within) the housing allocation.

Comments attributed to the Local Plan Inspector refer to the state of flux in respect of the routing of the SNRR.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Concerned that Swale Borough Council has concerns about the routing of the SNRR on Stones Farm (19.01.10)

This advice was given direct to the landowners agent in a letter from the Head of Development Services. It flagged up issues of concern at a time, including the fact that the SNRR (route currently unknown) could have a fundamental bearing on development at Stones Farm and that the evolving development plan may need to be subject to change.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Object to comment (in the consultation statement) that the SNRR does not constrain the layout of the open space or housing allocation

If the SNRR was to take the route currently shown it would not cut across the housing allocation. Land would remain for public open space.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Contributions to the SNRR should not be delayed to the 500th dwelling. Policy T2 does not restrict contributions to the SNRR alone, but to other transport infrastructure aimed at alleviating town centre congestion

Noted. For that element of the contribution related to other transport infrastructure aimed at alleviating town centre congestion an earlier trigger point for payment will be expected.

Amendment required

Mrs K Murphy (19); Mr J Murphy (36)

Note that KCC acknowledges that a better job could have been done in organising consultation on housing and road building plans and that confusion may have arisen. Ask that SBC clarifies this confusion

The Council agrees that the timing of the landowners consultation was not ideal in terms of the then forthcoming KCC consultation on the SNRR. The Councils consultation on development brief has properly followed the KCC consultation and the brief makes clear the relationship between the housing allocation and the SNRR.

No change required

Mrs K Murphy (19); Mr J Murphy (36)

Note that KCC state that S.106 discussions have not taken place in detail. There have been discussions direct with Kent County Council/developer about possibility of providing part of the SNRR with their development, but differing timescale and lack of an agreed route meant that this could not be progressed. Ask that SBC clarifies this confusion

In the interests of ensuring that the Stones Farm development did not prevent provision of the SNRR there will have been tentative discuss/negotiation direct between landowner and KCC to establish potential routing issues. In an ideal world KCC would prefer that contributions to the SNRR be given in kind (ie sections of the road be built by the developer), rather than securing a financial contribution for the work to be undertaken. In the event, because of the timing of the two projects ie a route has not been agreed for the SNRR, this has not been possible. To do so at this stage may result in a length of road that does not link up to the eventual route of the SNRR.

No change required

Tonge Parish Council (52)

Tonge conservation area must be protected

Noted and agreed (see minutes to SNRR consultation report to LDF Panel)

No change required

4. Traffic

Andrew Tomes (1); David Moor (26); Bapchild Parish Council (46)

No detail has been provided about the junction arrangements at Foxhill (and potential SNNR-A2 link). The proposed layout will increase accidents on the A2. Concerned that matters of detail are to be put off until planning application stage, which may result in significant departures from what is currently proposed. What interim arrangements will be put in place during the construction period?

The current consultation is on a development brief for Stones Farm. A development brief isn't a planning application, but bridges the gap between the broad brush allocation of land in the 2008 Local Plan and any future planning application (which can be in outline, and followed up by reserved matters; or submitted in full).

As it stands the development brief requires detailed access proposals to be included at outline planning application stage (see paragraph 5.4), this will need to include interim access arrangements during construction. In the event that there was a need to alter aspects of the development brief in the light of more detailed examination, this could be addressed in subsequent planning applications.

Additional wording at paragraph 5.4 to include reference to the need for interim access arrangements to be included.

Terry Trott (22); resident, Morris Court Farm (25); David Moor, (2); Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26); Rob and Ali Corbel (28); Margaret Edwards (30); Mrs and Mr S W Edmead and Miss N Shilladay (32); Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34); Mr and Mrs Carey (38); Mrs Ayres (39); Miss Harthill (41); Mrs S Miles (43); Mr D Hawkins (45); R.G Tedman (51); Bapchild Parish Council (46); Mrs K Murphy (19); Tonge Parish Council (52)

No full traffic assessment is yet available. How can an assessment be made as to whether the A2 can cope with additional traffic? Volume of traffic will be huge and cause congestion, noise, pollution and disruption.

Bypass should be built before building work takes place. Query when this will be, having regard to current financial situation.   Concerned that mitigation measures on the A2 were not given more weight.

Development at Stones Farm will increase traffic on the A2. At the time of the Local Plan Inquiry a Transport Assessment was submitted. The Local Plan Inspector acknowledged that the Highway Authority had confirmed that 600 dwellings could be safely accommodated on the existing highway network, as long as appropriate mitigation was provided. At paragraph 4.21 of the development brief it is stated that a transport assessment and travel plan will be required on submission of the outline planning application. As no planning application has yet been submitted, there has been no requirement to submit a Transport Assessment, as this stage. The Transport Assessment will inform what mitigation will be required on the A2 and at what stage this should be implemented, in the interests of controlling traffic flows.

No change required

Mr D Hawkins (45)

With subsequent amendments housing numbers may rise, resulting in more traffic.

The capacity at Stones Farm has always been described as being around/approximately 600 dwelling. This gives a degree a flexibility (up or down) in respects of eventual numbers. In the event that there was a significant departure in numbers upwards, any such number would need to be tested in terms of traffic movements and as a matter of principle in relation to a Departure from the Development Plan requiring formal notification and consideration. To date there has been no indication that in excess of 600 dwellings would be built.

No change required

Highways Agency (26)

The Highways Agency may require an assessment of impacts of the development traffic on the A249 and M2 (and any appropriate mitigation measures)

Noted. Reference is made to this at paragraph 4.21 of the development brief.

No change required

David Moor (2)

Need to know where the access road to the Kent Science Park will join the A2 and how the SNRR will cross the railway line.

Matters relating to the Kent Science Park will be for the Core Strategy to address in the first instance. Matters relating to the routing/building of the SNRR will be for KCC to resolve. On the subject of the relationship of Stones Farm and the SNRR, please see section 3 above

No change required

Mr and Mrs Dart, (31)

No detail has been provided as to how houses on Fox Hill will be screened from the new road junction (glare of headlights)

This matter of detail will be considered at  planning application stage as part of the work on the detailed design of the new road junction.

Include additional wording at paragraph 5.4 to also include landscape screening and intrusive headlights.

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Concerned about impact of another set of traffic lights on A2 (speeding drivers vying for position at the Swanstree Avenue traffic lights)

This will be addressed in the Transport Assessment.

No change required

5. Site layout and design

Sittingbourne Society (12); Stephen Lamey, (14); John Shepherd, (20); Mrs and Mr S W Edmead and Miss N Shilladay (32); Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34); Mr and Mrs Carey (38); Miss Harthill (41); Mrs K Murphy (19)

Development is at too high a density and not in keeping with Bapchild. Sittingbourne has too many high density housing development already. Urban densities of 30-55dph are not acceptable in this rural setting (in a countryside gap)

The housing allocation at Stones Farm is an urban extension of Sittingbourne and as such relates well to the pattern of development. However, in recognition of its relationship with the countryside and Bapchild figure 24 indicates that the outer edges the development will be low-density (to minimise visual impact), medium density within the core of the site (while still delivering a high quality urban development) and higher density in the vicinity of the proposed local shops. By grading development in this way the visible edges of the development will be tempered to address the adjoining existing residential development and the proposed public open space. High quality design, layout and landscaping will be required in accordance with all Local Plan policy, regardless of density of development.

No change required

Sittingbourne Society (12)

Space should be allowed for front gardens and road of sufficient width to cater for emergency vehicles, even with parked cars.

These are detailed matters to be considered at planning application stage.

No change required

David Moor (2); Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34); Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Concerned that Peel Drive will used to access the A2. Extra obstacles in Peel Drive will impede access by the disabled. Pleased to see vehicular access has been withdrawn, but remain concerned about bus routes/emergency access.

The development brief shows that access to Peel Drive will be limited to pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles only, so no general traffic will be capable of passing along Peel Drive. No access will be available for buses. Emergency access is required to facilitate access/egress during periods of unforeseen circumstances where residents on Stones Farm would otherwise be trapped on site or emergency vehicles unable to respond in a life-threatening situation.

No change required

Tony and Pam Pardoe (4)

Note and welcome that previously proposed link to Tonge Country Park has been deleted (para 2.5), but concerned that relevant text at figures 17 ad 18 (paragraphs 4.51 and 4.55 refer) have not been updated.

This issue was raised at consultation draft stage and is a drafting error. The symbol denoting potential new pedestrian/cycle link in the vicinity of Tonge Country Park should not have been included in the consultation documents.

Figures 17 and 18 to be amended

James Mitchell, (7); Mr and Mrs Hurrell (16); Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34)

One of the two pedestrian/cycle links from Gladstone Drive appears to go through a private garage compound and the other through Lansdowne school, which is not acceptable. Object to proximity of link to adjoining housing

This issue was raised at consultation draft stage and is a drafting error. It was intended that all figures be amended to show a pedestrian link only via Gladstone Drive (north end). Unfortunately, the link via the garage court has appeared in error. Pedestrian/cycle linkages will allow permeability between the existing and proposed estates allowing mutual beneficial access to local shops and a significant area of public open space. The detailing of the link will be considered at planning application stage to ensure that issues surrounding residential amenity are carefully assessed.

Figures 17, 18, 22 and 25 to be amended

Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26)

Clarity is needed on what is meant by three storey

Three storey is defined at paragraph 6.20 as two storey, plus attic storey

No change required

Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26)

Concerned about impact on the local community “ light pollution, noise, overlook Bapchild

These matters of detail will be addressed at planning application stage

No change required

Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34)

Impact on privacy and daylight

These matters of detail will be addressed at planning application stage

No change required

Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34)

Query boundary treatment between existing and proposed dwellings

This is a matter of detail and will be addressed at planning application stage

No change required

Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34)

Object to provision of open space (play areas) within the development. Will attract youths and not be a safe place for children and families. Not considered a safe area for dogs to be exercised.

A hierarchy of open space will be provided within the development (jn accordance with established Local Plan  policy) from door step play areas for young children to large equipped play areas. By providing a range of spaces for all residents a good balance will be in place between built and open areas. Dog walkers will be able to make use of the countryside gap and the network of footpaths in the countryside beyond.

No change required

Natural England (50)

Supportive of developments which incorporate green infrastructure within the design and create links to natural green space.

Noted

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Believe that the precise boundary of the housing development (as required by policy H10 to be set in the development brief) can only be determined by ruling out the possibility of the SNRR crossing the site. The development brief fails to meet this requirement

The extent of built development is identified in figure 19 which shows a concept drawing for the preferred option (page 29). The only known with regard to potential routing of the SNRR is the route as consulted upon by KCC. This may well be subject to change, but there is no indication to date that the SNRR will pass through the housing allocation.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Three storey dwellings will have an impact due to the topography of the site

The brief advises that these will be sited in appropriate less visually intrusive parts of the site and in any event will be specifically assessed during the planning application stage.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Unacceptable to have balancing ponds in the public open space. All aspects of development should be sited within the housing allocation

Locating ponds in the public open space serves a more useful function in linking (in biodiversity terms) with the ponds and streams at Tonge, which topographically are located at the bottom of the hill.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Concerned about alignment of the urban edge of development. There needs to be an actual gap between the development and Bapchild. Is there a better alignment? Why does it bend into the open space?

The proposed country park provides an area of public open space within the countryside gap, separating development at Stones Farm from Bapchild. The urban edge appears to bulge into the open space because the access to the site has been more westerly sited on the A2 frontage. North of the bulge, the boundary is set some distance west of the local plan indicative line which actually increases the width of open space at this point.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Would like to see more specific details in terms of policy C3 (open space serving the development), especially children's play equipment “ what is planned and when it will be provided

Matter for Section 106 Agreement

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Shops located on Stones Farm are unlikely to have an impact the Peel Drive Stores and if a different type of business may be attractive to Stones Farm development and the Vincent Estate

Noted

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Landscape buffer should be completed at the start of the development, at the same time as the spine road, rather than waiting three years (for the 100th dwelling to be occupied)

Phase 1 of the proposed development includes phase 1(a) landscape buffer, public open space (countryside gap) and formation of a new junction at Fox Hill; and phase 1(b) construction of 150 dwellings. Surplus soil from the new junction and first 100 dwellings will be used for the part-bunded landscape buffer.

No change required

6. Countryside gap

Stephen Lamey, (14); resident, Morris Court Farm (25); R.G Tedman (51)

Insufficient gap will remain between Sittingbourne and Bapchild (even with the proposed country park).

Policy C5 allocates at least 15ha of adjoining land as public open space, which is considered sufficient to protect the character and village identity of Bapchild.

No change required

Kevin Jones (27)

The countryside gap must be retained to protect the eco-system of wetlands at Tonge Mill from possible intrusion by roads/other building projects in the future.

This is achieved by the development brief. Impacts from any impediment of a future SNRR are matters for later consideration.

No change required

Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34)

Clarification sought on whether the 15ha is open space or countryside gap

This land has a dual purpose. Providing public open space (a country park) and a physical gap between Sittingbourne and Bapchild, to prevent the two settlements merging into one another.

No change required

Mr and Mrs Carey (38)

Bapchild will be swallowed up, like Iwade and Kemsley

The purpose of the countryside gap is to retain Sittingbourne and Bapchild as separate entities. A viable gap is considered to remain.

No change required

Mr D Miles (42); Miss K Miles (44); Mrs K Murphy; Bapchild Parish Council (46); Mr J Murphy (36)

Policy C5 will be undermined by a Section 106 agreement being entered into allow land to be transferred to Kent County Council for the SNRR/A2-SNRR link road. Land will not be retained as open space in perpetuity as a permanent gap between Sittingbourne and Bapchild. How can the development brief supersede the Local Plan Inspectors binding report? Agreement breaches the Borough Councils own policies and may be unlawful.

In the first instance the land will be transferred to Bapchild Parish Council, but maintained by Swale Borough Council (paragraph 7.16). Mindful of KCCs unresolved plans for the SNRR, a safeguarding mechanism is proposed to allow the land to be transferred from the Parish Council to KCC should (if) the land be required for the SNRR and associated work (paragraph 7.17). In this way wide transportation issues will be capable of being addressed if/when the situation arises in the future. That land not required for road works will remain in use as public open space.

Amend paragraph 7.16 to clarify the future retention of land as Public Open Space

Natural England (50)

15ha of land provides an opportunity for the creation of BAP habitats

Noted

No change required

Protect Kent/CPRE(48)

The allocated open space/countryside gap is essential mitigation, necessary to make the housing development acceptable. Policies C5 (allocation of land for open space in perpetuity) and E7 (important local countryside gap) are not acknowledged in the brief as being of equal importance “ paragraph 3.5.

The situation regarding the SNRR has not yet been resolved by KCC. At the time of considering the merits of this SPD against development plan policy, land identified under C5 will be made available as public open space/countryside gap.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Potential breach of policy C5, which will pose a significant obstacle in adopting the development brief as SPD

The situation regarding the SNRR has not yet been resolved by KCC. At the time of considering the merits of this SPD against development plan policy, land identified under C5 will be made available as public open space/countryside gap.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Misrepresentation from the Council that compensatory land be made available to top up any shortfall in open space, arising from the SNRR

This is a matter for SNRR led work. It would be remiss of the Council not to seek compensatory arrangements for any land lost as public open space.

No change required

7. Nature Conservation

RSPB (23)

Detailed comments are provided on the submitted Habitat Regulations Assessment. The protection of European sites (SPA/Ramsar) from recreational pressures is a complex and evolving area. Welcome the requirement for mitigation, however, subsequent planning applications will need to be assessed in relation to latest understanding and mitigation measures. Further measures (such as access management) may be required.

Noted

SPD to be amended to take account of RSPB comments and reference to be made to the role of the Core Strategy in addressing residual in-combination effects arising from the development of Stones Farm.

Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26); Louise Hopkins (29); Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34)

Impact on wide life and local environment

General concern is noted. The Council is being guided by Natural England and others on this issue.

No change required

Integrated Strategy and Planning Division, KCC (33)

Note that further ecology studies will be undertaken prior to submission of the outline planning applications. As the whole development may take 10 years to build, every phase should have updated surveys.

The open access area next to Tonge Stream is being designed to incorporate areas for biodiversity. This could link in to other areas of open space within the development.

Noted

Amend brief to confirm that outstanding surveys be undertaken on a phase by phase basis (para 5.26)

Natural England (50); Kent Wildlife Trust (47)

The North Kent Planning Group (established by English Nature) acknowledges that bird datasets are inadequate to conclude that recreational disturbance is not causing significant impacts on migratory and over-wintering birds for which the SPA is designated. Further studies are needed (this winter) to assess impact of Stones Farm individually and in-combination with increased development in the Thames Gateway, in this estuarine location. Will not be able to conclude views on this matter until the North Kent study has been completed. The SPD and HRA should be amended to reflect these uncertainties

Noted

Amend SPD to reflect uncertainties on impacts on the SSSI. SPA and Ramsar sites

Kent Wildlife Trust (47)

Suggest that developer contributes to the funding of the outstanding winter surveys. Commitment should be given to providing a contribution to any further mitigation such as wardening or access arrangements

It would not be appropriate to seek contributions from the developer in this regard. Issues regarding further mitigation and so on will be dealt with at planning application stage.

No change required

Kent Wildlife Trust (47)

Provision of cycle routes that could link up with the SNRR bridge over the railway line and provide increased access to the national cycle route. This route runs into the SPA and will provide a direct route into it for cyclists and walkers. The proposed cycle link should be removed to ensure that access to the SPA remain problematic

The Council has a range of issues to balance. It would be remiss of it to set aside sustainability goals (reduced reliance on the car), on the grounds that it would contribute to recreational pressures on the SPA. In terms of the SPA impacts in general the landowner has committed to the formation of SANGs, giving an alternative recreational experience, closer to home.

No change required

Kent Wildlife Trust (47)

Welcome 15ha open space and landscape buffer. Wet woodland and water habitats should be conserved and safeguarded from too much recreational pressure. Permeability and linkages for wildlife (bird and bat boxes etc) should be designed into the built environment. Need to investigate presence of the water vole, and potentially reptile population size.

Noted

Incorporate into development brief

8. Infrastructure

Southern Gas Networks (9)

Plans have been provided showing those pipes owned by Southern Gas Networks in its role as a Licensed Gas Transporter. Other pipes may be present. Safety advice is offered.

Noted

No change required

Margaret Meinertzhagen (15); resident, Morris Court Farm (25)

There are serious ground water issues. The whole Tonge area is served by natural springs and the land is naturally damp. Concerned about how surface water will be disposed of as local properties and roads have experienced flooding. Tonge Mill Pond sluice is ancient and needs to be maintained

There is a finely balanced water environment in the area, where for example sewers overflow during periods of heavy rain. Further investigative work will be required before a detailed design can be prepared for foul and surface water disposal. The draft development brief provides a broad outline only of the likely arrangements. A balancing pond will be built. This will hold surface water from the development. Flow from this pond to the Mill Stream will be controlled by the Environment Agency. Issues relating to the Tonge sluice are private matters for the landowner to address.

No change required

Environment Agency (17)

Pleased that earlier advice has been incorporated into the document. Support use of SUDS, however groundwater depths and soakage rates may constrain where infiltration SUDS is acceptable on site. There is risk of direct discharges to groundwater in some locations, which would be unacceptable

Noted

Amend SPD to acknowledge comments of Environment Agency

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Will traps or natural filtration with reed beds be use din the SUDs. Wish to ensure no environmental burden on Tonge Stream

Noted

Confirm in SPD

Southern Water (18)

As well as upgrading the Fox and Goose foul pumping station there will also be a requirement for extensive upgrading down stream to accommodate additional flows

Provision of water supply will require a contribution to the Sittingbourne strategic water main, through the requisition procedures of the Water Industry Act.

SUDS are not necessarily adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Where they cannot be adopted there should be adequate measures for long term maintenance.

Noted

Amend SPD to incorporate comments of Southern Water

Resident, Morris Court Farm (25)

Request that effective systems are installed as properties in School Lane which were linked into the main system 10 years ago have blockages.

Noted. Work will be undertaken to industry standards.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Existing network is insufficient to deal with any heavy rainfall leading to regular flooding on the A2 and repeated issues with the pumping station which lead to untreated sewage spilling out along the north side of the A2. Hope that major upgrade will satisfy the proposed development and existing problems.

Noted. See Southern Water comments

Amend SPD to incorporate comments of Southern Water

David Moor (2); Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26); Rob and Ali Corbel (28); Mrs and Mr S W Edmead and Miss N Shilladay (32); Miss L Russell and Mr S Latham (34); Mr and Mrs Carey (38); Mr D Hawkins (45); R.G Tedman (51); Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Query whether there will be adequate supply of electricity, gas, water, drains, telephone, cable TV and internet. Has sufficient account been taken of the carbon footprint of the development? Will there be sufficient access to medical services, social services and schools?

The development brief confirms matters relating to infrastructure at paragraphs 4.37 to 4.44.

Matters relating to sustainable design and construction are discussed at paragraphs 6.29 to 6.50.

The development brief provides detail on expected developer contributions (social services and school places) at chapter seven.

No change required

Integrated Strategy and Planning Division, KCC (33)

There is likely to be a requirement for developer contributions towards education, adult social services, library and youth services. Assessment will be reviewed and clarified at the time of planning application submission. The SPD currently states that a site for a school is not required, but this may change if development doesn't commence for 10 years “ a degree of flexibility will be required.

Noted. It is envisaged that once this SPD is approved, outline planning applications will be submitted shortly afterwards. Current advice from Kent County Council is that there is no requirement for a new school. KCC will need to make an assessment in terms of developer contributions towards additional school place once planning applications are submitted..

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Seek reassurance on timing and delivery of key improvements to the two local primary schools and other community facilities. If not provided in a satisfactory timeframe residents will be forced to travel outside Bapchild to educate children, which will impact on traffic movements

For planning application stage

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Query why no community hall is proposed. Facilities at East Hall Farm may not built, or be accessible if the SNRR is not built.

Facilities are proposed at East Hall Farm and exist at Bapchild. Based on need, local capacity to manage such a facility and impact on viability of other venues it is too early to conclude whether  there is a clear need for a community hall at Stones Farm

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Space should be set aside for ball games

Under policy C3 space will be set aside for play, to serve the proposed development

No change required

Mr and Mrs Carey (38); R.G Tedman (51)

Water is already in short supply

Southern Water has advised that the Fox and Goose foul pumping station will need upgrading. There will also be a requirement for extensive upgrading down stream to accommodate additional flows. Provision of water supply will require a contribution to the Sittingbourne strategic water main, through the requisition procedures of the Water Industry Act.

No change required

R.G Tedman (51)

Site lies within a flood zone, part of which is designated high risk.

   

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Traffic management may be required in Bapchild before the occupation of the 500th dwelling

The need for and timing of mitigation will come from the required Transport Assessment.

Amend table 7.7 to allow flexibility in terms of interpreting the required Transport Assessment

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Safeguarding land for community facilities/retail development should be extended beyond the 450th dwelling

Noted

Amend development brief to safeguard land beyond 450th dwelling

9. Other

Civil Aviation Authority (6)

Do not wish to comment

Noted

No change required

Kay Murphy (19)

What date were negotiations on a Section 106 with SBC/KCC started?

No negotiations have been entered into in respect of the SNRR. Pre-application discussions will have taken place between the Stones Farm agent and KCC with regard to school places, adult social services, libraries and so on.

No change required

David Moor (2)

Bapchild Cricket Club will lose its facilities.

The proposed works at Stones Farm do not impact on the Cricket Club. This is something that will need to be factored in to routing options for the SNRR.

No change required

Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26); Mr and Mrs Carey (38)

Welcome commitment to sustainable design and construction. Code Level 4 should be a minimum aspiration.

Development will increase carbon footprint

There is a mandatory requirement to reach Code Level 6 by 2016, likely that approximately 300 dwellings will be built to this standard. Accelerating attainment of Code Levels (as sought by SBC Guidelines) before 2016 will be dependent on the advancement of technologies and more ambitious local priorities set by the Council via the Core Strategy.

No change required

Natural England (50)

Disappointed that proposals for a biomass CHP have been discounted, especially as Kent has large reserves of underutilised coppice woodland.

This issue has been tested with the landowner. The infrastructure required to support biomass CHP is such that the layout of the development would need to be fixed from the outset. It is the nature of housing schemes that layout will evolve as phases come to fruition and while CHP would be desirable, in terms of developing technologies it is better suited to fixed schemes such as commercial developments.

No change required

Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26)

Noise and vibration work is inaccurate

The Noise and Vibration Assessment undertaken on behalf of the landowner takes into account the (as then presented) proposals by KCC for the SNRR and concludes that dwellings should not be located within 10m of the railway. KCC has also completed a noise study in relation to the SNRR and will need to be satisfied this work is accurate. A landscape buffer (with bund) is proposed at the edge of the development to safeguard future residents from potential impacts in the event that a road is built in this vicinity at some future point in time.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Concerned that dwellings in the future could be impacted by noise and vibration from the SNRR, if located on the development side of the landscape buffer

As far as the Council is aware, there are no proposals for the SNRR to be routed in this position. Any further development in routing options will need to be thoroughly tested.

No change required

Miss Thomas and Mr Ansell (26)

No information on ground modelling. Will soil be lost on site by ground raising?

A landscape buffer will be formed between the housing and open space and at the same time minimise journeys by construction traffic taking material to landfill.

No change required

Integrated Strategy and Planning Division, KCC (33)

The site has high archaeological potential relating to prehistoric, Roman and medieval remains. Policies in PPS5 should be applied, which could include the need to preserve in situ (and therefore impact on design of new build areas). There are also potential sense of place and local identity benefits from the wider heritage of the site which could be stressed in the document. The Swale Heritage Trail may benefit from enhanced interpretation and presentation. There is a general opportunity to present and interpret the archaeology of the farmland and nearby heritage sites as part of the future development, as well as an opportunity to preserve the lines of historic features such as parish boundaries, trackway and hedgerows within the new layout

CgMs has undertaken a desk-based assessment for archaeology on behalf of the landowner (March 2006). This study concludes that at least an eighth of the has been subject to Brickearth extraction, a process that will have resulted in the destruction of any post Palaeolithic archaeological evidence in these areas. The study site is thought to have only a low to moderate potential for Palaeolithic evidence. The area probably retained its woodland cover until the Bronze Age, and therefore there is a low potential for the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods and a moderate potential for Bronze Age evidence. There is a high potential for Iron Age and Roman settlement, funerary, and agricultural activity in areas of intact Brickearth in the central, southern and eastern parts of the site. On the south the site partly fronts onto a known Roman Road.

There are no statutory designations relating to archaeology which preclude the future development of this site and in the event of a planning application being submitted, it is anticipated that archaeological issues can be dealt with by the inclusion of a planning condition to secure archaeological mitigation measures.

It is concluded that archaeological issues can be covered by the normal procedures and that the model condition set out in Circular 11/95(model 55) is appropriate in this instance

No change required

Head of Housing Services, Swale Borough Council (35)

Welcome many references to affordable housing. The brief contains the basic affordable housing requirements, negotiation will be required on matters of detail. Welcome extra 20% lifetime homes provision for the market housing.

Noted

No change required

R.G Tedman (51)

Initially all LPAs need to consider brownfield sites. Why is Swale the worst Borough in the whole of the Thames Gateway for building on Greenfield sites?

Unlike other Thames Gateway areas Swale is predominately rural with less brownfield land opportunities. The former Structure Plan target for the development of such land was lower, reflecting this. In short, Swales overall housing target numbers in relation to available brownfield opportunities, produces a higher rate of development on greenfield land.

No change required

Sport England (49)

Concerned that development brief does not provide adequate certainty that demand for sport will be met. This concern is heightened by the fact that at paragraphs 3.15, 6.9 and 6.10 it is stated that playing fields may not be needed.

A hierarchy of open space will be provided in accordance with policy and as informed by the Councils Open Space Strategy which is based on a PPG17 Assessment of existing open space within the Borough. Early indications are that Stones Farm is well served by existing formal sports provision within 800m of the site, so informal open space may be provided in lieu of formal provision.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

SPD refers to a 10-15m wide landscape strip, should be 15m wide throughout. Why is bunding and semi-mature trees only to be used in parts? A minimum height and width should be stated. Should be constructed at the outset and not wait until the 100th dwelling.

Construction of the landscape bund will not wait until occupation of the 100th dwelling, but should be complete by then. Soil moved in connection with forming the junction with the A2 and the first houses will be used to construct the bund. Bunding and semi-mature trees will be used in parts in recognition of the cost/failure rate in semi-mature trees, the need to linkages to the open space beyond and in the interests of visual amenity.

Amend SPD to state minimum height and width of landscaped bund

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Residents will endure a decade of building at Stones Farm and then further disruption with the SNRR. Site should be delayed, so that both issues can be considered through the Local Development Framework process.

There will always be an element of disruption in building projects. It remains the case that there is a continuing need for new housing, even just to meet current forecast trends of household formation and in-migration. There is also considerable need for affordable housing in the Borough.

No change required

Bapchild Parish Council (46)

Parish Council wish to obtain legal ownership of the open space, to ensure its continued use in perpetuity. All works will need to have been taken to a satisfactory standard. Query whether there will be a delay in handing over the open space, pending an agreed road alignment.

It is intended that the public open space will be transferred to the Parish Council. Checks will be in place to ensure that work is carried out to a satisfactory standard.

No change required

Mrs K Murphy (19); Mr J Murphy (36)

Question integrity of the consultation process. Any changes relating to these 15ha that don't form part of the Council information for public consultation and are declared afterwards, could mean that the consultation process is invalid.

This issue is subject of a Freedom of Information Request. KCC has not yet reported on the outcome of its consultation on the SNRR route, and so no route has yet been finalised. The development brief has been drafted in response to the best information available at the time, but no confirmation can be given as to eventual routing at this time. Best endeavours have been taken to ensure that if the route goes ahead as currently planned that as much open space is retained as possible.

No change required

Tonge Parish Council (52)

Support detailed matters raised by Bapchild Parish Council

Noted

See appropriate comments

Feedback form:
Was this information helpful?
Thanks for letting us know your views!
This feedback will be used to improve our online service. We cannot respond to specific requests.
Yes
It's good but
No  
How can we make this section better?
A to Z of Services :
A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z