Swale Borough Council Statement of Community Involvement Submission Copy – May 2008 Regulation 28 Pre-Submission Consultation Statement

This document sets out the information required under regulation 28(1)(c)&(d) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) () Regulations 2004 for the purposes of submitting the Statement of Community Involvement to the Secretary of State for independent examination (Section 20 (3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). Consultation under Regulation 25 (Reg. 28(1)(c) statement) During June and July 2007 Swale Borough Council published the questionnaire ‘Helping Us to Listen to You’ which asked for consultees’ help in formulating the Statement of Community Involvement. The list of consultees is outlined in Annex A to this document. The main issues raised in this consultation included: 1. Consultees like consultation to be direct (eg letter or email) rather than requiring active participation. 2. If workshops or focus groups are to be used they must be appropriate. 3. Better use should be made of the Council structure. 4. Information should be brought to the public in locations that they use eg supermarkets, Post Offices. 5. Use of email and internet is effective, but those who do not, or cannot, communicate in this way must not be excluded. 6. We must engage sections of the community which are traditionally excluded eg young people, ethnic groups, faith groups, gypsies and travellers. 7. We must address the barriers to proper consultation including apathy, time constraints, mistrust, lack of information and understanding. 8. We must encourage developers to undertake more consultation with the local community prior to planning applications being made. These issues were addressed in the following ways in the Regulation 26 Draft Pre- Submission SCI, January 2008: 1. We have a database of people who are specific or general consultees or who have expressed an interest in the SCI. We write to them directly by letter or email at different stages of the SCI process to inform them of how to get involved. Chapter 1 of the SCI explains how there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to participation and our approach to creating and providing the opportunities to be involved need to be relevant, at a time when the views can count and using the right method for the right occasion. 2. Table 3.1 sets out how we will tailor our consultation techniques to the document being consulted on and the sectors we are trying to reach. 3. A commitment in paragraph 1.24 to agree a protocol with parish and town councils about how and where information will be distributed and how opinion can be fed back to the councils concerned. 4. A commitment in paragraph 1.23 to engage with our communities in locations convenient to them eg supermarkets, post offices, schools, community halls, district offices and healthy living centres. 5. Whilst we will use email, the internet and on-line consultation software we will continue to ensure that all our consultations include paper documents and we will accept the same in response (paragraph 1.28). 6. We aim to increase participation especially with harder to reach and hear groups including young people, the working community, minority ethnic and cultural groups, people with low literacy and disabled people (paragraph 1.27) 7. We recognise in paragraph 1.20 that there are barriers to better community involvement in planning and set out how we will overcome these, for instance by getting the right information to the right people. 8. Paragraph 4.4 encourages developers to involve the community and where appropriate to undertake pre-submission consultations in a form agreed with us. Table 4.1 sets out standards of consultations for applicants.

Consultation under Regulation 26 (Reg. 28(1)(d) statement) The Draft Pre-Submission SCI was subjected to formal consultation for a 6 week period from 28th January to 10th March 2008. The consultation was undertaken in accordance with Regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. The document, and a statement of the proposals matters, was available to view at the following locations: • Swale House, East Street, • District Office, Trinity Place, Sheerness • District Office, Alexander Centre, Preston Street, Faversham And at the following libraries: • Sittingbourne Library, Central Avenue, Sittingbourne • Teynham Library, 131 London Road Teynham • Boughton-under-Blean Library, Village Hall, Boughton-under-Blean • Faversham Library, Newton Road, Faversham • Minster-in-Sheppey Library, Worcester Close, Minster-in-Sheppey • Library, Railway Terrace, Queenborough, Sheppey • Sheerness Library, Russell Street, Sheerness The document and proposals matters were also available on the Council’s website and the document was available for view and comment using our on-line consultation software. Some 750 letters were sent to a wide range of community groups, developers, statutory and non-statutory bodies, and individuals, with over 100 documents circulated to specific consultation bodies parties (Annex B). Notices were placed in the local paper and press releases undertaken. The opportunity was also taken to give a briefing to the private sector liaison group. Representations made under Regulation 27 A total of 22 parties responded to the consultation resulting in 100 individual representations - 16 of the 22 were received electronically. All were from agents, landowners, and statutory bodies. The Schedule of Responses (Annex C) summarises the responses received on our draft SCI and includes our assessment of those responses and details the changes that we decided to make to the draft SCI as a result of this public participation exercise. The proposed changes to the SCI were approved by the Council’s Local Development Framework Panel and Executive and the respondents were contacted by email to let them know that the Schedule of Responses had been drawn up and could be viewed on our website and at council offices or that responses could be viewed through our on- line consultation software. The main issues raised in this consultation included: 1. Several of the respondents stressed the importance of consultation and how they wish to continue to be consulted on LDF documents. Some respondents requested that the stakeholders list be extended. 2. The Gypsy,Traveller and Travelling Showpeople community requested to be referred to specifically and a similar reference was made from the Disabled community. 3. Several respondent welcomed the SCI as a clear and easily understood document and welcomed the approach to more active consultation on planning issues. 4. Some respondents’ comments were outside the scope of the SCI. 5. Many respondents requested that we simplify/review technical language and make sure our meaning was clear at all times. 6. Some respondents requested that we make reference to further documents. 7. Some respondents requested that we highlight Regulatory requirements and prospective changes to the Regulations. 8. Some respondents felt that the document should reflect the input developers and landowners can have in influencing the evidence base. 9. Some respondents commented that the typeface was not always clear and easy to read and requested that the document be produced in different formats to be accessible to more people. 10. One respondent complained photographs within the document did not represent a cross-section of society. 11. One respondent was anxious to stress that the consultation requirements of the SCI on the part of applicants were not mandatory and could delay the planning process. 12. Some respondents questioned the resources available in our Planning Department to manage consultation effectively. 13. This issue of consultation overload was raised in responses. These issues were addressed in the following ways in the Regulation 28 Submission Copy SCI: 1. The request from respondents to continue to be consulted was noted in all instances, but no change to the SCI was required The list of stakeholders/consultees was only amended in one instance as it is not intended to be exhaustive, but illustrative. 2. It was decided to make specific reference to the travelling showpeople community (paragraph 1.27) and to include a specific paragraph on Disability (paragraph 1.27). 3. We welcomed the support for our document and were careful to make sure that any amendments made continue to be easy to understand. 4. All comments on the SCI were noted whether within the scope of the SCI or more generally, though obviously not all comments led to amendments to the document. 5. Technical language was reviewed and amended accordingly – eg paragraphs 1.6 and 1.33. and meaning was reviewed and made clear in other instances eg ‘Our Swale Community’ Image under ‘Local Communities’ and Table 4.1. 6. Where appropriate the SCI was amended to refer to other documents eg KCC’s ‘Vision for ’, but we were keen to keep the SCI general, rather than exhaustive in every regard. 7. Regulatory requirements and prospective changes to the Regulations were highlighted (eg paragraph 1.7). 8. The input of developers and landowners was highlighted by amending Table 3.1. 9. Font size was made larger where it appeared too small. A commitment to try to produce documents in other formats (eg large print, tape) when requested was made. This is in order to make documents more accessible to a wider section of the community. 10. A new photograph of a pre-application meeting was taken to better represent the make up of planning teams. 11. It was made clear that in Table 4.1 that these are ‘expectations’ for pre- application consultation and in paragraph 4.2 that disagreement with a public consultation process undertaken by an applicant would not be a reason for refusing planning permission. 12. The Planning Department does not anticipate the consultation processes outlined in the SCI to be a burden on resources, but indeed to lead to more effective planning. 13. Consultation overload was identified as an issue in the draft SCI and the document was amended to reflect this.

The following Annexes and Supporting Documents accompany this statement:

Annex A List of Consultees, Regulation 25

Annex B List of Consultees, Regulation 26

Annex C Schedule of Responses to the Draft Statement of Community Involvement – Pre- Submission Public Participation.

Annex D SCI Matters Legal Notice

Supporting documents Email to Respondents to Pre-Submission Public Participation SCI, dated 29th April 2008

Swale Borough Council Submission Stage Representation Form

Swale Borough Council Shaping Spaces and Places: Helping us make the right planning decisions – The Submission Copy Statement of Community Involvement May 2008

Swale Borough Council Shaping Spaces and Places: Helping us make the right planning decisions - Statement of Community Consultation, January 2008. This lists the public engagement undertaken prior to preparation of draft SCI.

Swale Borough Council Shaping Spaces and Places: Helping us make the right planning decisions – The Draft Statement of Community Involvement Pre-submission public participation, January 2008. This is the pre-submission draft of the SCI which was consulted on from January to March 2008.

Annex A List of Consultees, Regulation 25

A E Barrow & Sons Ltd Bapchild Parish Council

A H Osborne Baptist Church, Sheerness

Abbey School Barrow Grove Junior School

Acceptance Bethel Congregational Church

Action with Communities in Rural Kent Parish Council

Adscene Blain Pritchard (Accountants)

Adult Education Services Blean Parish Council

Affinis Design Blundells Ltd

Age Concern – Faversham BMM Western Ltd

Age Concern – Sheppey Bobbing Parish Council

Age Concern – Sittingbourne Bobbing Village School

Age Concern – Teynham Bolton Transport & M J Highways

All Saints C of E Church, Bapchild Borden CEP School

All Saints C of E Church, Iwade Borden Grammar School

All Saints Parish Church, Eastchurch Borden Parish Council

Amicus Group Boughton Under Blean Parish Council

Anicent Monuments Society Boughton Under Blean School

Andrew Harvey Bredgar CEP School

Ark Environment Group Bredgar Parish Council

Arriva Kent & Sussex Parish Council

Arts Council of England Brian Wicks (Architect)

Arts Council, South East British Gas Properties

Ashford Borough Council British Sign & Graphics Assoc

Association of Men of Kent, Faversham British Waterways

Association of Men of Kent, Sittingbourne British Wind Energy Assoc

Autowash Ltd Brocades Bridal Studio

B J Kerrison BT New Sites

Babtie Group Business & Professional Womens Club

Bapchild & Tonge CEP School Business Link Kent Ltd

Bysingwood Primary School Civil Aviation Authority

CABE CJS Design Services

Canterbury & Faversham Forum Clive Jacobs

Canterbury & Swale Education Bus. Pntshp Cllr K Ferrin

Canterbury City Council Commission for Racial Equality

Canterbury College Commission for Rural Communities

Canterbury Diocese Common Purpose Kent

Canterbury Road Primary School Communities and Local Government

Caravan Club Communities and Local Government

Caroline Lucas, MEP Community Interpreting Centre

Carr-Gomm Society, Faversham Community Prosperity

Carr-Gomm Society, Sittingbourne Connexions

Castle Point Borough Council Conservative Association

Caval Way Residents Association Construction Skills

Chair of Ethnic Forum Cook Associates

Chalkwall Coaches Co-Operative Group

Challock Parish Council Council for British Archaeology

Charing Parish Council Country Land and Business Association

Charles Campbell County Planning Authority

Chartham Parish Council CPRE

Chemical Business Association CPRE (Swale)

Cheyne Middle School Crime Prevention Officer

Chilham Parish Council CRUSE

Church in Society Cyclists Touring Club

Church Milton Community Assoc D J Hobbs

Churches Together in Sittingbourne Daniel Martin

Citizens Advice Bureau – Faversham Danley Middle School

Citizens Advice Bureau – Sheppey Dart Group Plc

Citizens Advice Bureau – Sittingbourne DATA

Citizens Right for Older People (CROP) Davington Primary School

Deborah Bartlett Environment Agency

Defence Estate Operations South Equal Opportunities Commission

Derek Wyatt MP Equalities Action Group

Detling Parish Council Essex County Council

Disability Advice Training (DISAT) Ethelbert Road Infant School

Disability Rights Commission F D Attwood & Partners

Disabled Persons Transport FACE

Doddington Parish Council Family Welfare Association

Doddington Primary School Faversham Animal Welfare

Dolphin Yard Sailing Barge Museum Faversham Chamber of Commerce

Dr J Leigh Faversham Community Church

Dunkirk Parish Council Faversham Disabled Club

Dunkirk Village School Faversham Enterprise Partnsh

E G Spree Faversham Labour Group

E H Nicholls Holdings Ltd Faversham Mothers Union

East Kent Area Education Officer Faversham Parish Council

East Kent Badger Group Faversham SEC

East Kent Council for Voluntary Service Faversham Society

East Kent Federation W Faversham Society

East Kent Gazette Faversham Society

East Kent Partnership Faversham Times

Eastchurch CEP School Faversham Town Council

Eastchurch Parish Council Faversham Townswomen Guild

Eastern & Coastal Kent PCT Faversham Umbrella

Eastling Parish Council Faversham Youth & Community Centre

Eastling Parish School Federation of Small Businessess, Kent

EDF Energy Federation of Small Businesses, Swale

English Churches Housing Group Fields in Trust

English Heritage Fire Safety Service

English Partnership Fordham Research Ltd

Forestry Authority Health & Safety Commission

Forestry Commission Health & Safety Executive

Forestry Commission Health & Safety Executive

Four Gun Field Action Group Health & Safety Executive

Freight Transport Association Health & Safety Executive

Friends Families & Travellers Helen Baldock

Friends of Faversham Creek Help the Aged

Frinsted Parish Council Hernhill CEP School

Fulston Manor School Hernhill Parish Council

FWA Family Centre Hi Kent Association

G Pilcher – Bobbing Car Breakers Highsted Grammar School

Garden History Society Highways Agency

Gateway Knowledge Alliance HM Railway Inspectorate

Go Ahead Rail HM Railways Inspectors

GOSE Hobbs and Foster Architects

Graham Setterfield Lower Halstow Parish Council

Graveney Primary School Lower Halstow School

Graveney Rural Environmental Action Team Lower Medway Int. Drainage Board

Graveney with Goodnestone PC Luddenham Parish Council

Green Party Luddenham School

Greenstreet Methodist Church & Kingsdown Parish Design Group

Groundwork Medway Swale Borough Council Lynsted & Norton School

Grove Park Community School Lynsted with Kingsdown PC

Grovehurst & Kemsley Res. Assoc. M McLeod

Gypsy & Traveller Law reform Coalition Borough Council

Halfway Houses Primary School Margaret Williams

Halstow Society Marine and Fisheries Agency

Harbledown Parish Council Marine Parade Community Centre

Hartlip Endowed CEP School Meadowfields

Hartlip Parish Council

Medway Health Authority Mr and Mrs A Bangle

Medway Swale Estuary Partnership Mr and Mrs D Highsted

Memorial Hospital Mr and Mrs S J Morgan

Mencap Sheppey Mr A P Andrews

Messers D, R, J and A Lawrence Mr Button

Methodist Church Mr D Rogers

Michael Gittings Associates Mr D Simmons

Mid & SE Kent CVS Mr Gore

Mid Kent College Mr J M Downes

Mid Kent Water Plc Mr Ott

Millenium Volunteers Mr R P Phillips

Milstead & Frinstead CAP School Mr W P Hunt & S A Bilney

Milstead Parish Council Mrs A Knight

Milton Court Primary School Mrs J Campbell

Ministry of Defence Mrs J Thomas

Ministry of Defence (Thurnham) Multiple Sclerosis Society

Minster Abbey Murston Infant School

Minster Baptist Church Murston Junior School

Minster College N J & C I Scott

Minster in Sheppey Primary School NACRO

Minster Parish Council National Farmers Union

Minster Residents Association National Federation of Self-Emp

Minterne Community Junior School National Grid Transco

Miss L M Horlock Natural England

Miss Smart Natural England (South East Region)

Moat Housing Association Neighbourhood Watch

Mobile Operators Association Network Rail

Molash Parish Council Network Rail

Mouchelparkman New House Youth Centre

Mr Baker Newington CEP School

Newington Parish Council Queenborough Town Council

Newnham Parish Council Rail Freight Group

NHS South East Coast Rail Link Countryside Initiative

North Kent Arch.. Excavation Society Ramblers Association

North Kent Chamber of Commerce Regional Housing Board

North Kent Rail User Group Regis Manor Community School

North Kent West College Richard L Baker

Norton Buckland & Stone PC Richard Lloyd Hughes

Norton St Mary Church Richmond First School

Npower Road Haulage Association

Oare Parish Church Robert A Clayton

Ospringe CEP School Rochester Diocese

Ospringe Parish Council Rodmersham Parish Council

Ospringe Village Preservation Society Rodmersham School

Otterden Parish Council Rose Street School

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Rotary Club of Faversham

Park Avenue Holiday Village Rotary Club of Sheppey

Paul Glover Rotary Club of Sittingbourne

Pentecostal Church Rotary Club of Sittingbourne Invicta

Police Architectural Liaison Officer Royal Mail Property Holdings

Post Office Royal Yachting Assocation

Property Advisers to the Civil Estate RSPB

Property Services Agency Rushenden Amenities Association

Public rights of Way Officer Rushenden CARE Project

Queen Elizabeths Grammar School Scared Heart RC Church

Queenborough Church Salvation Army

Queenborough Community Association Sarah Woollven

Queenborough First School SBC Community Scrutiny Panel

Queenborough Residents Action Gp Sea Cadet Corps

Queenborough Society Selling CEP School

Selling Parish Council Sittingbourne Society

Shan Dassanaike Sittingbourne Town Centre Forum

Sheerness Community Learning Centre Skillnet Swale

Sheerness Healthy Living Centre Society for Sailing Barge Research

Sheerness Heritage Centre Somerfield Stores Ltd

Sheerness Society South Avenue Infant School

Sheerness Society Envir. Issues South Avenue Junior School

Sheerness Times Guardian Dev Agency

Sheerness Youth Centre South East England Regional Assembly

Sheldwich Primary School South Eastern Trains Ltd

Sheldwich, Badlesmere & Leaveland PC Southend on Sea Council

Shepherd Neame Southern Water

Sheppey Archaeological Society SPOKES

Sheppey Chamber of Trade of Industry Sport England (South East)

Sheppey College St Bartholomew’s School

Sheppey Conservation Volunteers St Edward’s RCP School

Sheppey Evangelical Church St George’s CE Middle School

Sheppey Heritage Trust St Giles C of E Church

Sheppey Local History Society St Henry & St Elizabeth RC Church

Sheppey Matters St James, Isle of Grain Parish Council

Sheppey Volunteering Centre St John the Baptist Church

Sheppey Youth Action St Lawrence C of E Church

Showmans Guild of Great Britain St Mary of Charity CE (Aided) School

Sitt. Active Retirement Assoc. (SIARA) St Mary’s C of E Church

Sittingbourne Archaeology Group St Michael’s C of E Church

Sittingbourne Community College St Peter & St Paul C of E Church, the Street

Sittingbourne Enterprise Hub St Peter & St Paul C of E Church, the Vicarage

Sittingbourne Heritage Muesum St Peters Church

Sittingbourne Islamic Cultural Centre St Peter’s RC Primary School

Sittingbourne Retailers Association St Pauls Residents Association

Stacey Green Swale Tourism Association

Stalisfield Parish Council Swale User Forum

Staying Put Swale Volunteer

Stockbury Parish Council Swale Young Carers

Stoke Parish Council Swale Youth Forum

Stuart Garcka Swale Youth Projects

Sure-Start Sheerness Teynham Parish Council

Swale & Canterbury Business Partnshp Teynham Parochial CEP School

Swale Access Group Thames Kent Chamber of Commerce

Swale Advantage Centre The Architecture Centre

Swale CAMRA The British Horse Society

Swale Carers Centre The Brogdale Trust

Swale Childrens’ Fund The Georgian Group

Swale Community Against Drugs The Highways Agency

Swale Community Centres The Housing Corporation

Swale Council for Voluntary Service The Lorenden Trust

Swale CVS The Oaks Infant School

Swale Footpaths Group The Open Spaces Society

Swale Foyer The Ospringe Forum

Swale Friends of the Earth The Owner/Occupier, 1 Broomill Cottages

Swale Highway Unit/KCC NE Kent Office The Owner/Occupier, 1 Coultrip Close

Swale Lions Club The Owner/Occupier, 1 Ellens Place

Swale Minorities Policing Panel The Owner/Occupier, 1 Nelson Garden

Swale Museum Group The Owner/Occupier, 1 Oak Cottage

Swale PPA The Owner/Occupier, 1 Russell Street

Swale Private Sector Liaison Group The Owner/Occupier, 10 Bensted Grove

Swale Retailers Association The Owner/Occupier, 179 London Road

Swale Road Safety Association The Owner/Occupier, 18 Cumberland Drive

Swale Social Services The Owner/Occupier, 18 Tanners Street

Swale Sports Council The Owner/Occupier, 2 Gladstone Drive The Owner/Occupier, 20 Shurland Avenue Transco

The Owner/Occupier, 27 Clovelly Drive Transit Support Service Ltd

The Owner/Occupier, 3 Lewis Close Travelcare

The Owner/Occupier, 3 St Clements Close Tunstall CEP School

The Owner/Occupier, 3 The Retreat Tunstall Parish Council

The Owner/Occupier, 31 Hawthorn Road United Church Methodist URC

The Owner/Occupier, 33 The Lees United Reformed Church

The Owner/Occupier, 34 Queens Road University of Greenwich

The Owner/Occupier, 41 Canterbury Road Upchurch Parish Council

The Owner/Occupier, 42 Hawthorn Road Upchurch Planning Review Group

The Owner/Occupier, 42 Leysdown Road Victa Railfreight Ltd

The Owner/Occupier, 51 Playstool Road Volunteer Bureau – Sheppey

The Owner/Occupier, 6 Howard Close Volunteer Bureau – Swale

The Owner/Occupier, 6 Wilks Close Warden Parish Council

The Owner/Occupier, 61 Cliff Gardens West Minster Primary School

The Owner/Occupier, 96 Cliff Gardens Westlands School

The Owner/Occupier, Red Roofs West Minster Primary School

The Owner/Occupier, Sunnybank Westlands School

The Owner/Occupier, Underbarrow Westminster Community Project

The Pet Shop, High Street White Horse leisure

The Princes Trust Whitehill Methodist Church

The Rural Housing Trust Parish Council

The Theatres Trust Womens National Commission

The Victorian Society Woodland Trust

Throwley Parish Council World Society for the Protection of Animals

Thurrock Council Parish Council

Tonge Parish Council

Tourism South East

Trading Standards

Trading Standards, Mid Kent

Annex B Specific consultees List of Consultees, Regulation 26

Faversham Society Npower Fields in Trust Police Architectural Liaison British Gas Properties Officer Forestry Commission British Waterways Property Advisers to the Civil Friends Families and Travellers Estate CABE GOSE Queenborough and Rushenden Regeneration Gypsy & Traveller Law Reform Canterbury Diocesan Coalition Queenborough Society Centre for Ecology and Health & Safety Executive Regional Housing Board Hydrology Highways Agency Road Haulage Association Chemical Business Association Home Office Royal Mail Property Holdings Civil Aviation Authority KCC - Highways RSPB Commission for Rural Communities KCC (Land Interests & Service Scotland Gas Networks Prov.) Communities and Local Showmans Guild of Great Government KCC (Property) Britain

Communities and Local KCC Gypsy Liaison Unit Sittingbourne Town Centre Government Forum Kent & Medway Strategic Construction Skills South East Coast Ambulance Kent Wildlife Trust NHS Trust Country Land and Business Assoc. Lower Medway Int. Drainage South East England Dev Board Agency County Planning Authority Maidstone Borough Council South East England Regional County Planning Authority Assembly Medway Council CPRE (Kent) Southern Water Medway Primary Care Trust CPRE (Swale) Sport England ( South East) MEP Crime Prevention Officer Swale Access Group Mid Kent Water plc Defence Estate Operations Swale Footpaths Group South Mobile Operators Association Swale Highway Unit Disabled Persons Transport Mr D Wyatt, MP The Crown Estate Eastern & Coastal Kent PCT Mr Hugh Robertson, MP The Housing Corporation EDF Energy National Grid Transco The Planning Inspectorate English Heritage Natural England Transco Environment Agency Natural England Womens National Commission Equality and Human Rights Network Rail Commission

Annex B General Consultees

Forum A Bray Attwood Trust Canterbury College A E Barrow & Sons Ltd Autowash Ltd Canterbury Diocese A J Dutton B Bond Canterbury Road Primary A V Heather B Rusted School

Abbey School B E Baldock Caravan Club

Abbott Laboratories B S Goodhew Carr Gomm Society

Action with Communities in Bapchild & Tonge CEP School Carr-Gomm Society Rural Kent Baptist Church Carter Jonas Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd Barrow Grove Junior School Castle Point Borough Council Adult Education Services Bell Cornwell Partnership Catamaran Yacht Club Age Concern - Faversham Bethel Congregational Church Cavel Way Residents Age Concern - Sheppey Association Blain Pritchard (Accountants) Age Concern - Sittingbourne Chair of Ethnic Forum Bloomfields Ltd Age Concern - Teynham Chalkwell Coaches Blundells Ltd Agenda UK Ltd Cheyne Middle School BMM Weston Ltd All Saints C of E Church Chris Thomas Ltd Bobbing Car Breakers All Saints C of E Church Church in Society Bobbing Village School All Saints Parish Church Church Milton Community Bolton Transport & M J Assoc. Alliance Environment & Highways Planning Ltd Churches Together in Borden CEP School Sittingbourne Amicus Group Borden Grammar School Cinque Ports Leisure Ltd Amusement Catering Equipment Society Boughton-under-Blean School Citizens Advice Bureau - Faversham Andrew Martin Associates Bovis Homes Citizens Advice Bureau - Angela Chivers Bredgar CEP School Sheppey

Angela Hirst British Amusement Catering Citizens Advice Bureau - Trade Association Sittingbourne Ark Environmental Group British Sign & Graphics Assoc Citizens Right for Older People Arriva Kent & Sussex (CROP) British Wind Energy Assoc Artlab Developments Ltd Cllr Susan Latter Broadbent Partnership Ltd Arts Council of England Cllr A Crowther Brocades Bridal Studio Arts Council, South East Cllr J Disney Broomhill Gospel Hall Trust Association of Circus Cllr J Wright Proprietors Business & Professional Womens Club Cllr K Ferrin Association of Independent Showmen Business Link Kent Ltd Cllr Thomas Gates

Association of Men of Kent & Bysingwood Primary School Cluttons Kentish Men C Gardiner Cluttons Association of Men of Kent & Kentish Men C W Martin Cluttons

Atisreal Canterbury & Faversham Cluttons Community Interpreting Centre E J Arnold Federation of Small Businesses

Community Prosperity East Kent Badger Group Five Opposition Group

Connexions East Kent Federation W I Fordham Research Ltd

Conservative Association East Kent Partnership Forestry Commission

Co-Operative Group Eastchurch CEP School Four Gun Field Action Group

CPRE (Swale) Eastling Primary School Freight Transport Association

CPRE (Swale) Edward Senior Friends of Faversham Creek

Creative Environmental Emerson Group Fulston Manor School Networks English Churches Housing Fusion Online Ltd CRUSE Group FWA Family Centre Cyclists Touring Club English Courtyard Developments Ltd G Lawrence D Irwin English Partnership G J Cooke D Simper Entity Group Ltd G L Hearn Ltd D & W Barling Ltd Equalities Action Group G R Swann D E Dinham Essex County Council Garden History Society D G Robertson Ethelbert Road Infant School Gateway Knowledge Alliance D J Diffey Eveline Bateman General Practice Investment D J Ongley Corporation Ltd F D Attwood & Partners D R J Lawrence George Wilson Holdings FACE Dalemarch (Sheppey) Ltd Gillcrest Homes Ltd Fairview New Homes Limited Danley Middle School Gillian Edwards Family Welfare Association Dart Group plc Glenny Faversham Animal Welfare David Lock Associates Go Ahead Rail Faversham Chamber of David Lock Associates Commerce Graham Warren Partnership

Davington Primary School Faversham Community Church Graveney Primary School

Davington Primary School - Faversham Creek Consortium Graveney Rural Environmental Governors ActionTeam Faversham Creek Management Dawn Doorey Co Ltd Greenesite Homes Ltd

Deborah Bartlett Faversham Disabled Club Greenstreet Methodist Church

Denmaur Papers plc Faversham Enterprise Groundwork Medway Swale Partnership DHA Planning Grove Park Community School Faversham Labour Party DHA Planning Grovehurst & Kemsley Res. Faversham Mothers Union Assoc Dolphin Yard Sailing Barge Museum Faversham Parish Church Halfway Houses Primary School

Donald Allen Faversham SEC Halstow Society

DPDS Consulting Group Faversham Society Hartlip Endowed CEP School

Dr Francis Panton Faversham Society Help The Aged

Dr J Leigh Faversham Townswomen Guild Hernhill CEP School

Duchy of Cornwall Faversham Umbrella Hi Kent Association

Dunkirk Village School Faversham Youth & Community Highsted Grammar School Centre E G Spree Hillreed Developments Ltd Federation of Small Businesses E H Nicholls Holdings Ltd Hobbs Parker Property Consultants Kent Careers Services M R Alecio

Holy Trinity Church Kent Council for Voluntary Margaret Williams Youth Services Holywell Primary School Marine and Fisheries Agency Home Builders Federation Marine Parade Community Kent Design Partnership Group Homestart Sittingbourne & Sheppey Kent Downs AONB Unit Mary Golder-Hayes

Homewood Infant School Kent Energy Centre Maureen Derkacz

Horsham Lane Res. Assoc. Kent Gardens Trust Meadowfields

Housing Aid and Advice Centre Kent Institute of Art & Design Medway Swale Estuary Partnership ICENI Projects Kent Islamic Centre Memorial Hospital ICENI Projects Kent Muslim Community Mencap Sheppey Immaculate Heart of Mary RC Church Mersey Docks & Harbour Co Kent Probation Area Island Partnership Messrs Robert & Perry & Gibbs Kent RIGS Group Isle of Sheppey Round Table Methodist Church Kent Science Park Isle of Sheppey Sailing Club Mid & SE Kent CVS Kent Sustainable Business Iwade Community Primary Partnership Mid Kent College School Kent Tourism Quality Millenium Volunteers J Moore Programme Milstead & Frinstead CEP J E Lawrence Kent Volunteers School

Janice Steele Kent Wildfowling & Milton Court Primary School Conservation Association Jeanette Dean-Kimili Minster Abbey King Sturge Joan Kay Minster Baptist Church Kingsley Smith Solicitors LLP Job Centre Plus Minster College Kitewood Estates Ltd Jones Homes (Southern) Ltd Minster in Sheppey Primary L P Major School JTS Partnership Labour Party Minster Residents Association Julie Gamble Skin Care Centre Labour Party Minterne Community Junior Juliet Flynn School Lansdowne Primary School KCA Swale Moat Housing Association Learning and Skills Council Kent & Medway Economic Mono Consultants Ltd Board Lee Evans Town Planning Monro Homes Kent & Medway Learning Lee Evans Town Planning Partnership Mouchelparkman Leslie Hollands Kent & Medway Towns Fire Mr Ott Authority Liberal Democrat Party Mr & Mrs A Arnell Kent Adult Education Service Local Futures Group Mr & Mrs A Wilkins Kent and Medway Networks Locate in Kent Mr & Mrs B Walpole Kent Association for Rural Lower Halstow Parochial Retailers Church Council Mr & Mrs D Gibbs

Kent Association for the Blind Lower Halstow School Mr & Mrs E Grindrod

Kent Association for the Lower Halstow Yacht Club Mr & Mrs E Tydeman Disabled Luddenham School Mr & Mrs E C Paine Kent Association of Parish Councils Lynsted & Norton School Mr & Mrs Graham Clark

Kent BTCV Lynsted Parish Design Group Mr & Mrs J Briggs Mr & Mrs J Golding Mr Graham Setterfield Mr S Holloway

Mr & Mrs J Holroyd Mr H Chapman Mr Vaughan Lukey

Mr & Mrs J Rodway Mr H Deakin M-Real

Mr & Mrs J B Allinson Mr Howard Clarke Mrs Murray

Mr & Mrs John Griffin Mr Ian Bone Mrs Sanderson

Mr & Mrs M Godfrey Mr Ian Fisher Mrs A C Coker

Mr & Mrs M Shilling Mr J Baker Mrs Carole Buttle

Mr & Mrs Michael Palmer Mr J Hepburn Mrs E Nappey

Mr & Mrs P Bridges Mr J Hill Mrs E A Clarke

Mr & Mrs P Robinson Mr J Sillars Mrs H Herbert

Mr & Mrs R Head Mr J J Burke Mrs J Meadows

Mr & Mrs R O Linforth Mr James Harris Mrs J Read

Mr & Mrs Roy Moorcroft Mr John Murphy Mrs J Roberts

Mr & Mrs S Goodburn Mr John Stevens Mrs J Spain

Mr Andrew Chambers Mr John Wyatt Mrs J Walsh

Mr Andrew Harvey Mr K Hewitt Mrs K Bailey

Mr Andrew Waterhouse Mr K Murphy Mrs K L Bennett

Mr B Kennard Mr K D Attwood Mrs L Gates

Mr B Mannering Mr K G Jones Mrs L Hollis

Mr B J Edwards Mr Kevin Brown Mrs M Gransden

Mr Brian Baker Mr L Alexander Mrs M Pape

Mr Brian Clarke Mr L Shaw Mrs M Whitcroft

Mr Brian Horwrite Mr Lee Jarvis Mrs M Williams

Mr Brian Marchbank Mr M Drury Mrs M L Edwards

Mr C Philpott Mr Michael Forrester Mrs P Kitto

Mr C Tomlin Mr N Cogger Mrs P Palmer

Mr C Wylie Mr N R McMullon Mrs P A Vincent

Mr D Fairlie Mr Norman Vigeon Mrs R Bellord

Mr D Orpin Mr P Hart Mrs S Dorsett

Mr D I Beeby Mr P Jewess Ms G Knight

Mr D R Lovell Mr P A Lovett Ms J Monday

Mr David Eldred Mr P M Lancaster Multiple Sclerosis Society

Mr David Isaac Mr P R Toombs Murston Infant School

Mr David Moyler Mr Patrick O'Neil Murston Junior School

Mr Duncan Scott Mr Peter Colmer N Martin

Mr E Batten Mr Peter Wilks NACRO

Mr E Langford Mr R J Morss National Association of Teachers of Travellers Mr E Ridden Mr Robert Baecke National Farmers Union Mr Felix Krish Mr Robert Clayton National Federation of Self- Mr G Fray Mr Ronald Mortimer Emp & Small Businesses

Mr G Wade Mr S Baker Natural England Neighbourhood Watch Rodmersham School Sir Anthony Cleaver

New House Youth Centre Rose Street School Sittingbourne Archaeology Group Newington CEP School Rotary Club of Faversham Sittingbourne Community Nicholas Taylor & Associates Rotary Club of Sheppey College

Nightingales Rotary Club of Sittingbourne Sittingbourne Enterprise Hub and Milton Nora Warner Sittingbourne Heritage Museum Rotary Club of Sittingbourne North Kent Arch. Excavation Invicta Sittingbourne Islamic Cultural Society Centre Royal Yachting Association North Kent Chamber of Sittingbourne Society Commerce Rushenden CARE Project Sittingbourne Society North Kent Rail User Group S Bilney Skillnet Swale North Kent West College S Gearing Society for Sailing Barge Norton St Mary Church S E Downey Research

Ordnance Wharf Ltd S K Towsey Society of Independent Roundabout Proprietors Ospringe CEP School Sacred Heart RC Church Somerfield Stores Ltd Ospringe Forum Salvation Army South Avenue Infant School Our Lady of Mount Carmel Salvation Army South Avenue Junior School P Bennett Salvation Army South Eastern Trains Ltd P Berwick Salvation Army Southend on Sea Council P Dixon SBC Community Scrutiny Panel SPOKES Park Resorts Ltd Sea Cadet Corps St Bartholomew's School Paul Sharpe Associates Selling CEP School St Edward's RCP School Peacock & Smith Sheerness Community Learning Centre St George's CE Middle School Pentecostal Church Sheerness Healthy Living St Giles C of E Church Persimmon Homes South East Centre Ltd St Henry & St Elizabeth RC Sheerness Heritage Centre Church Quayside Properties (Faversham) Ltd Sheerness Society St John The Baptist Church

Queen Elizabeths Grammar Sheerness Society Envir. St Laurence C of E Church School Issues St Mary of Charity CE (Aided) Queenborough Church Sheerness Youth Centre School

Queenborough First School Sheldwich Primary School St Mary's C of E Church

R Sills Shepherd Neame St Michael's C of E Church

R G Tedman Sheppey Chamber of Trade & St Peter & St Paul C of E Industry Church R W Clack Sheppey College St Peter & St Paul C of E Rail Freight Group Church Sheppey Conservation Rail Link Countryside Initiative Volunteers St Peters Church

Ramblers Association Sheppey Evangelical Church St. Pauls Residents Association

Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd Sheppey Heritage Trust Staying Put

Regis Manor Community Sheppey Local History Society Stewart Ross Associates School Sheppey Matters Strutt & Parker Richmond First School Sheppey Volunteering Centre Sure-Start Sheerness Rochester Diocese Sheppey Youth Action Susan Barr Swale & Canterbury Business The Faversham Group Bobbing Parish Council Partnership The Freedom Centre Borden Parish Council Swale Access Group The Lorenden Trust Boughton under Blean Parish Swale Access Group Council The Oaks Infant School Swale Advantage Centre Bredgar Parish Council The Pet Shop Swale Borough Council Doddington Parish Council The Planning Bureau Ltd Swale CAMRA Dunkirk Parish Council The Princes Trust Swale Carers Centre Eastchurch Parish Council The Theatres Trust Swale Childrens' Fund Eastling Parish Council Thurrock Council Swale Community Centres Faversham Town Council Tourism South East Swale Council for Voluntary Graveney with Goodnestone Service Transit Support Service Ltd Parish Council Swale CVS Travelcare Hartlip Parish Council Swale Foyer Trenport Investments Ltd Hernhill Parish Council Swale Friends of the Earth Trustees of Edward Vinson Will Iwade Parish Council Trust Swale Friends of the Earth Leysdown Parish Council Tunstall CEP School Swale Lions Club Lower Halstow Parish Council United Church Methodist URC Swale Minorities Policing Panel Luddenham Parish Council United Reformed Church Swale Museum Group Lynsted with Kingsdown United Reformed Church Parish Council Swale PPA University of Greenwich Milstead Parish Council Swale Private Sector Liaison Group Upchurch Planning Review Minster Parish Council Group Swale Retailers Association Newington Parish Council Upchurch River Valley Golf Swale Retailers Association Course Ltd Newnham Parish Council

Swale Road Safety Association Victa Railfreight Ltd Norton Buckland & Stone

Swale Social Services Vincent and Gorbing Oare Parish Council

Swale Sports Council Vivienne Rudd Ospringe Parish Council

Swale Tourism Association Volunteer Bureau - Sheppey Queenborough Town Council

Swale User Forum Volunteer Bureau - Swale Rodmersham Parish Council

Swale Volunteer & Comm Dev Wendi Cuff Selling Parish Council

Swale Youth Forum West Minster Primary School Sheldwich Badlesmere & Leaveland PC Swale Youth Forum Westlands School Stalisfield Parish Council Swale Youth Forum Westminster Community Project Teynham Parish Council Swale Youth Forum White Horse Leisure Throwley Parish Council Swale Youth Projects White Young Green Tonge Parish Council Taylor Wimpey Whitehill Methodist Church Tunstall Parish Council Terence O'Rourke Woodland Trust Upchurch Parish Council Teynham Parochial CEP School Woods Fencing Warden Parish Council Thames Kent Chamber of Commerce Parish Councils Parish Councils The Architecture Centre within Swale adjoining Swale The Brogdale Trust Bicknor Parish Council Bapchild Parish Council Blean Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Bredhurst Parish Council Parish Council Stoke Parish Council Challock Parish Council Harbledown Parish Council Wichling Parish Council Charing Parish Council Molash Parish Council Wormshill Parish Council Chartham Parish Council Parish Council Chilham Parish Council St James, Isle of Grain Parish Council Annex C Schedule of Responses to the Draft Statement of Community Involvement – Pre- Submission Public Participation. Swale Borough Council

Local Development Framework Document

Shaping Spaces and Places: Helping us make the right planning decisions

Schedule of Responses on The Draft Statement of Community Involvement: Pre-submission public participation, January 2008

29th April 2008

This Schedule of Responses summarises the responses received on our draft Statement of Community Involvement. It includes our assessment of those responses and details the changes that we will make to the draft Statement of Community Involvement as a result of this public participation exercise which lasted from 28 January to 10 March 2008.

The Schedule was agreed by the Swale Borough Council’s Executive on 23 April 2008 and is available on our web site at http://www.swale.gov.uk/ldf and at our council offices. Responses can also be viewed through our on-line consultation software which you can get to via our website or directly at http://swaleldf.swale.gov.uk.

Once we have made the necessary changes to the draft Statement of Community Involvement we will be submitting the document, along with the Schedule of Responses to the Secretary of State for independent scrutiny by a Planning Inspector. This is likely to be in early June. The Planning Inspector is appointed to determine whether the Statement of Community Involvement is ‘sound’ and to ensure that it satisfies the statutory requirements. At this stage we will put the submission stage Statement of Community Involvement on our website, in libraries and at council offices and a form will be made available on which to make comments to the Planning Inspector, which must be made within the six-week consultation period. You will also be able to use the on-line consultation software to respond to the submission stage Statement of Community Involvement.

If you have any questions please contact the Planning Policy Team on 01795 417377. Draft Statement of Community Involvement - Comments Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: 87 1 Rose The Theatres Observations The Theatres Trust is the National Noted - no change to the draft SCI is No Change. Freeman Trust Advisory Public Body for Theatres. The requested. Town and Country Planning (General Development procedure) Order 1995 requires the trust to be consulted on planning applications which include 'development involving any land on which there is a theatre'. It was established to promote the better protection of theatres. This applies to all theatre buildings, old and new, in current use, in other uses, or disused. Our main objective is to safeguard theatre use or the potential for such use. 16 1 Miss Strategy & Observations Please could you ensure that any future This change of details has been No change. Susan Planning, Kent consultation with the County Planning made, but no change to the SCI is Tipping County Authority relating to the Local required. Council Development Framework is addressed for the attention of Richard Feasey, Planning Policy Manager, at the address below: Strategy and Planning Division Kent County Council IH-2 Invicta House Maidstone, ME14 1XX 80 1 Sarah Swale Observations Back page - Would suggest you also say A phone number will be included Information and font size on back Rollings Borough people can contact you by phone as well and the text provided in larger size. page to be adjusted. Council as post to get alternative versions of the Change agreed. SCI. Also might want to put the whole statement in larger print. 6 1 Mr Paul Highways Other The HA, on behalf of the Secretary of The HA comments are as an No change. Marshall Agency State for Transport, is responsible for advisory to the Council as to how to managing and operating a safe and address transport issues as part of efficient strategic road network (SRN) (I e the LDF, not comments specifically the Trunk Road and Motorway network) related to the SCI. The HA are in England as laid down in DfT Circular specifically listed as a consultees on 0212007 (Planning and The Strategic page 25 and no action is necessary. Road Network). In the case of Swale, this relates to the M2 and A249 1 have Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: attached a link to the new circular for your convenience Amongst its activities, the HA is responsible for considering the potential impact on the network of proposals for new developments. It will remain important for the Local Planning Authority to ensure its LDF proposals are evidence-based and deliverable. In assessing the interaction of the LDF proposals with the SRN, attention should be paid to the advice set out in Chapter 5 of the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment. To assist you in applying this document (and Circular 212007) the HA has also produced a short advice note about evaluating the transport impacts of LDF proposals, which we hope will be of assistance in the production of Local Development Documents (LDD). I have included a copy of this note at the end of this letter. You will wish to note that the HA is a statutory consultee on the Statement of Community Involvement. [The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 section 25 (2)] As a 'specific consultation body', we would expect to be consulted on any LDD proposals that may impact on the SRN [[The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 section 25 (1)]]. In particular, we would expect to be consulted on all Development Plan Documents. We welcome the opportunity to be involved at an early stage in discussions. Where a meeting is considered appropriate on issues relating to the SRN, we would prefer a one to one meeting. As you are aware it is a formal statutory Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: requirement to consult the HA on planning applications under SI 1995/419 Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. 13 1 Julie Police Other Thank you for the opportunity to provide Kent Policy are already referred to No change. Argent Architectural an input regarding the Statement of go as consultees under 'Service Liaison Officer Community Involvement, “Shaping providers' on page 26 of the SCI. No Spaces and Places”, which will form part specific change to the SCI appears of the Local Development Framework, to be being sought. which ultimately will replace the Local Plan. My role within Kent Police as the Crime Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer (CRO/ALO) is to provide advice and guidance regarding Designing Out Crime and hence assist planners, developers and agencies in providing safe and sustainable communities for the future and to reduce crime and the fear of crime in these and surrounding neighbourhoods. Once a development has been completed, the main opportunity to incorporate Crime Prevention measures has gone, so in my opinion, the earlier the CRO/ALO can become involved, i.e at the pre-planning stage, the better. The DCLG Planning Policy Statement 1 recognises that the planning system is an important factor in successful crime reduction and notes that crime prevention is capable of being a material consideration when planning applications are considered. I note that Kent Police are listed as Service Providers in section 7 of the SCI. For major applications I think it is essential that Kent Police be listed as a statutory consultee as the outcome of a major planning application can have a significant affect on future policing. As a consultee, I would expect to be Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: consulted on all Local Development Documents that may impact on community safety and crime, including the new 1APP form, the local validation standards and the necessity for Design and Access Statements to demonstrate clearly how crime prevention measures have been considered within an application. I would also hope that the distribution of the weekly planning list will continue as part of the SCI. Many Thanks Julie Argent Crime Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer 4 1 Sue South East Other Thank you very much for the opportunity Noted. No change. Janota England to comment on the Swale Borough Regional Council draft Statement of Community Assembly Involvement consultation stage of your Local Development Framework. The Assembly has no comment to make at this stage. However, we would take this opportunity to remind you that your development plan documents should be in general conformity with the current Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG9) and also take into account the emerging Draft South East Plan, Part 1 (Core Regional Policies). 5 1 Mr Gerard Sport England Other Sport England responded to the pre- None. No change. Coll ( South East) submission SCI document in September where we outlined our role in the planning system and information we need to respond to planning consultations. We have no further comments to make on the current consultation. 15 1 Miss Strategy & Support The County Council as one of the Noted. No change is sought to the No change. Susan Planning, Kent ‘specific consultation bodies’, expresses SCI. Tipping County a wish to be involved at all stages of the Council consultation process. Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: With the specific emphasis in the new plan preparation process on ‘front- loading’ and building up an evidence base, the County Council would be pleased to engage in early dialogue with your Council outside the formal consultation stages. This would apply in particular to potential major site specific allocations and where County Council land or service provision interests might be affected, in order to ensure compatibility with strategic policy, and to ascertain any community facility and infrastructure requirements at an early stage. 14 1 Miss Strategy & Support The County Council congratulates Swale Grateful for support from the County No change. Susan Planning, Kent Borough Council on an accessible and Council. Tipping County well produced document which explains Council thoroughly how the Council will consult during the LDF process. 49 1 Miss Church In Support The document is written in plain English Noted. No change. Helen Society and easy to understand, which makes it Perry accessible to all community groups. 75 1 Anne Faversham Support with The Faversham Society Planning Section 7 of the SCI does not No change. Salmon Society conditions Committee is broadly in support of this attempt to name every group that document which states the various might be consulted; rather it seeks methods whereby people and to ensure that the types of groups organisations can comment on planning are listed. The groups indicated by documents and planning applications. the respondee would be categorised However, in the list of organisations as interest groups under the mentioned in the 'Involving the 'Community Groups' heading on Community Section' there is no reference page 26. to local amenity societies. Community organisations including scouts, guides, St John's ambulance, churches or other bodies might be interested in how planning applications or other documents might affect particular groups of people. We would suggest a separate heading for local amenity societies including for example the Faversham Society, Friends Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: of Faversham Creek and their equivalents in Sittingbourne, Sheerness, Queenborough or other places who might wish to comment about other aspects of applications or documents such as townscape, design, traffic or other more planning related aspects of proposals. 55 1.1 Mr Paul LaSalle Object It would be helpful to clarify that the SCI The Council considers that both No change. Sharpe Investment will not contain any planning policy or paras. 1.1-2 (Introduction) and para. Management development proposals. Instead, the SCI 1.1 (Why are we doing this?) make it deals only with the ways in which the adequately clear the purpose of the Council will consult you on the document. Para. 1.29 also sets out preparation of those documents that will what comprises the LDF where it contain planning policies and can be seen that there are other development proposals. documents that set out actual policies and proposals. 27 1.1 Mr Vincent and Observations The title of the document gives the Whilst the title could equally be used No change. Richard Gorbing impression that it is an urban design for such a document, the front cover Lewis document rather than a statement makes completely clear that it is the community involvement. Council's Statement of Community Involvement, whilst the sub-title is 'Helping us make the right planning decisions'. The main title suggests that the community has a key role in both shaping space and place. 98 1.1 Culture Support We welcome the title 'Shaping Spaces Noted, but no change to the draft No change. Thames and Places' and wish to re-emphasise the SCI is requested or required. Gateway North role which culture has in creating and Kent shaping places with vitality and individuality. For instance we would wish to the regeneration of Sittingbourne Town Centre include a boutique cinema to replace the existing screen. 7 1.1 Mrs Faversham Support The Members of Faversham Town The Town Council has made no No change. Susan Town Council Council have now had the opportunity of specific request for amendment to Brockman discussing the above publication and at the SCI. The Borough Council their meeting held this week agreed that welcomes its support. they consider that Faversham Town Council does the best it can for Faversham in this respect, but welcomes Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: the strategies included in the publication document and the proposed involvement of local communities identified therein. 89 1.2 Mr John Garden Other The Garden History Society is hopeful Noted, but no change is sought to No change. Clark History Society that existing policies relating to historic the draft SCI. parks and gardens in adopted Local Plans will be transferred into the new LDF. Our preference would be for a policy on historic gardens and parks in the Core Strategy DPD with a more detailed policy in the planning control policies DPD. 90 1.2 Mr John Garden Other Your existing Local Plan does not have Noted, this will be a matter for the No change. Clark History Society an appropriate policy we strongly advise LDF itself - no amendments to the that consideration be given to include an draft SCI appear to be sought. appropriate policy in the LDF to give protection to sites on the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest and the local list of historic designed landscapes including public parks, cemeteries and gardens so that their character, appearance, setting and features can be safeguarded in the future. The Garden History Society produce guidance on this matter which together with PPG12 would help your district produce its own guidance. 21 Picture 1.2 Miss Strategy & Observations The diagram sets out the various stages The Council considers that in the Review paras. 1.30-31 (subject Susan Planning, Kent of the process but the grey box on page 8 interest of simplicity that further to confirmation of revised PPS12 Tipping County (under paragraph 1.31) uses different detail would not add to the and statutory regulations). Council terminology, such as pre submission understanding of the types of Change agreed. consultation, with no explanation as to consultations that the SCI proposes. how this fits with the blue diagram on the However, it will review the same page. For those who are unfamiliar terminology to ensure consistency with the LDF process, it may be helpful to between para. 1.30-31, whilst provide a slightly more detailed having regard to prospective explanation as to what each stage changes to LDF consultation involves and when there may be an processes (revised PPS12 and opportunity to comment. Regulations). The blue diagram may need some revision in the light of proposed Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: regulatory changes for LDF preparation. 56 1.6 Mr Paul LaSalle Object In the second sentence, there is an It is agreed that some re-wording of In para. 1.6, amend second Sharpe Investment unfortunate use of English referring to the para. 1.6 would assist. sentence to read 'We then must Management word “development” for the preparation of make sure that when the Local the LDF. Whilst appreciating that the way Development Framework is in which the Council consults on LDF prepared, and planning documents must be consistent with the applications are being prepared procedures set out in the SCI, this is not and considered, consultation clearly set out in para 1.6. As drafted, the takes place in accordance with second sentence gives the impression the approved Statement of that LDF documents are in some way Community Involvement.' reliant upon higher order Change agreed. guidelines/policies set by the SCI when in fact this is not the case. What paragraph 1.6 should state is that when consulting on LDF documents the Council must make sure that the way in which that consultation takes place is in accordance with the agreed and approved approach set out in the SCI. 57 1.7 Mr Paul LaSalle Object In the same way as later in this document It is agreed that it would be Amend para. 1.7 to provide Sharpe Investment reference is made to the possibility of beneficial to flag up in para. 1.7 the additional sentence to read: 'It Management amendments to the GDO, it may be worth prospective changes to regulations. should be noted that Government flagging-up the possibility that, as a result intends to amend the regulations of prospective Government changes to in respect of the preparation and relevant legislation, the SCI may not be adoption SCIs during 2008. the subject of a public inquiry. Should these changes impact upon our SCI, all respondents will be informed in writing.' Change agreed. 88 1.7 Rose The Theatres Support We find your SCI to be sound and are Noted - no request to amend the No Change. Freeman Trust pleased to see item 1.7 on page 1 in the SCI is suggested. introduction to advise potential consultees on how to join the database. We look forward to being consulted on the Core Strategy, Planning Framework for Sittingbourne Town Centre, Faversham Creekside and Developers Contribution Strategy. 1 1.16 Ray Smith Showmans Object The diagram on page 4 includes under The respondent has misread the Amend final sentence to read Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: Guild of Great 'Local Communities' that the Council gets document here - the reference is to 'Too many consultations can Britain worn down after too many consultations. local communities being worn down wear local communities down'. Whilst we appreciate that this is light by too many consultations - not the Change agreed. hearted we trust that it will not deter the Council. However, it is Council from working hard with those acknowledged that the document hard to reach groups. could be made clearer. 93 1.16 David Barratt Object We are pleased to note the inclusion of This form of involvement is already Amend table 3.1, column 3, by Banfield Stategic Land developers and landowners on page 4 as highlighted in paras. 3.4-3.6, adding "Evidence Base studies an important stakeholder in preparing the however, additional references where appropriate" to all boxes LDF, however, we feel that some clarity could be added in table 3.1. referring to DPDs. should be given to the specific ways in Change agreed. which developers and landowners can actually be involved in preparing the LDF and its evidence base. For example, housebuilders have an important input to make into elements such as Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. 18 1.16 Miss Strategy & Object While recognised in the appendix as a This would appear to be No change. Susan Planning, Kent statutory consultee, KCC’s role could be unnecessary as diagram 1.16 is Tipping County recognised within picture 1.1 as both a intended only to provide a 'flavour' of Council statutory consultee and as a service the different components of provider. community life, not an exhaustive list. 51 1.16 Miss Church In Other It is not clear what the comment 'too In response to the Travelling In para. 1.22, add 'and by Helen Society many consultations can also wear us Showpersons guild this statement combining related consultation Perry down' means. Consultation fatigue is a has now been amended. The issue exercises to avoid consultation serious issue, from both the Local of combining consultations is fatigue.' Authority, organisations and individuals highlighted in para. 3.10. However, Change agreed. point of view. Combining consultation a reference to this issue could be events and techniques is a successful made in para. 1.22. way of addressing this. 17 1.16 Miss Strategy & Support with As the title for picture 1.1 is not very Agree that the title should be more Title of Picture 1.1 to be made Susan Planning, Kent conditions prominent in the hard copy of the clearly presented. more prominent. Tipping County document, the purpose of the diagram on Change agreed. Council that page is not as clear as it could be. It might benefit from having the title of the diagram at the top of the page. 58 1.17 Mr Paul LaSalle Object In the final sentence, presumably the aim This would certainly be the aim, but No change. Sharpe Investment is to “increase” the number of people who the word 'improve' is slightly broader Management can become involved. in that we seeking to make or Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: become better in quality. 20 1.19 Miss Strategy & Observations It is unclear what is meant by a harder to These are considered to be well No change. Susan Planning, Kent reach and hear group. understood. Paras. 1.17-1.18 set out Tipping County the need to improve participation Council and representation and what this means. Given this, it seems clear as to what is meant by the term. 59 1.23 Mr Paul LaSalle Object A proactive, outgoing approach to Although the Council does not No change. Sharpe Investment consultation by the Council will require a entirely share these views, they are Management sea change in attitude, (and probably nevertheless acknowledged. Para. resources), within the planning 3.4-3.5 does implicitly recognise that department. In preparing previous local some of the associated LDF plans early discussions have not taken technical work will require place with land and property owners in engagement in a way not previously order to gauge their aspirations, for undertaken by the Council. example, in seeking to establish the true However, no specific change to the availability of sites in the context of SCI is identified by the objector and Strategic Housing Land Supply. Similarly, none is considered necessary. in preparing previous local plans, the Council has not sought to negotiate on objections to minimise the total number and extent of objections and thus the length of local plan inquiries. Such changes of approach are likely to require attitudinal as well as resource changes. 52 1.23 Miss Church In Support We welcome the approach of engaging Noted, but no specific change is No change. Helen Society communities in locations convenient to requested to the draft SCI. Perry them. Church buildings and halls are often located in the heart of hard to reach communities and could be suitable locations for consultation events. 36 1.25 Mr J Swale Access Object The sheer size of the document is a lot to The Council does not consider at 28 No change. Hattersley Group wade through. Had you thought of a more pages that the document is digestible version for people who are not excessively long given the material professionals knowing all the jargon? that the document is required to cover. A short leaflet may be a good idea, but would be most appropriately prepared at the end of the process. This representation does not require any change to the Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: draft SCI. 34 1.25 Mr J Swale Access Object This document has on its back page a This would appear to be a problem Enlarge text on front cover. Hattersley Group reference to versions in large print being of internal Council processes for Change agreed. available. However, when two members dealing with this issue, rather than requested exactly that via reception, it an issue for the draft SCI itself. took six phone calls to get anywhere near However, the text on the rear cover the right solution (not a criticism of will be made larger. reception!). While the authority is in part tackling this issue, it smacks more of 'ticking boxes' rather than getting to grips with the problem and understanding it properly? That same text is in small print. If you are trying to communicate with people who need large print, why do so in small print? 38 1.25 Mr J Swale Access Object "We aim to produce documents in The respondents point is not That the words 'where a need is Hattersley Group different formats...where a need is unreasonable in its own right and an identified' be deleted and identified. How much evidence do you amendment could be made. replaced with 'when requested' in need? The disabled community (18% of para. 1.25. the total) has clearly established needs Change agreed. such as large print, tape etc. Hence these requirements should be known in advance rather than as an after thought. 50 1.25 Miss Church In Object Faith communities have little mention in Noted, but no change is requested No change. Helen Society the SCI. These communities, particularly to the draft SCI. Perry churches, are located at grassroots level but also have the capacity to use this knowledge at a strategic level. This makes them value partners in community involvement. 37 1.25 Mr J Swale Access Other Had you thought of consulting school Young people are identified as a No change. Hattersley Group pupils? Their voice ought to be heard. 'hard to reach' section of the community in para. 1.26. 2 1.26 Ray Smith Showmans Object Refers to Gypsy and Traveller It is agreed that this would be a Amend the third bullet point of Guild of Great Communities. This should be amended to useful addition. para. 1.26 to make reference to Britain specify Travelling Showpeople in travelling showpersons. accordance with Government guidelines. Change agreed. 39 1.26 Mr J Swale Access Object Bearing in mind that 18% of the The Council did not include disability Add an additional bullet point at Hattersley Group community are disabled, there ought to as a hard to reach group because it the end of para. 1.26 to read be a specific reference to this group here. considered that issues relating to 'Disability - we will work to Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: disability were about giving produce documents in different everyone a voice and the means to formats and ensure that any do so - as set out in para. 1.25. As venues are accessible, with any disability cuts across age, economic other special arrangements in position, ethnicity and literacy it did place. (delete from para. 1.25 not view disability as a 'hard to and move to then add to end of reach group' in the same way as the bullet) We will use the council's groupings highlighted in para. 1.26. Access Group and their network However, in response to this to channel information and representation, the draft SCI could receive feedback'. Delete the be amended. word 'also' from the 3rd sentence of para. 1.25. Also add new para after 1.25 to read: 'All our consultations and documents will accord with the our 'Corporate Equality Strategy 2007-2011.' Change agreed. 19 1.26 Miss Strategy & Object An additional bullet point should be Para. 1.25 contains this commitment No change. Susan Planning, Kent included for those with disabilities, which already. The Council considers that Tipping County could include suggested easy read and this is the most appropriate place to Council audio versions of documents. highlight the issue, rather than specifically identifying people with disabilities as a specific group in para. 1.26. 77 1.26 Sarah Swale Other You might also want to consider the use This can be considered as part of No change. Rollings Borough of a something like browsealoud for the implementation of the SCI. It Council webpages. A programme which reads out does not require amendment to the the page. document however. 60 1.29 Mr Paul LaSalle Object In the second paragraph, second It is agreed that some amendment Amend the second sub para of Sharpe Investment sentence, again the phraseology should would improve clarity. para. 1.29 to read: "The Management perhaps be changed to clarify that it is procedures for consultation on only the procedure for consultation on each of the DPDs below will each of the DPD’s which needs to need to accord with the SCI." “accord with” the SCI. Change agreed. 41 1.31 Mr J Swale Access Object Under bullet point 5 - when something is This is acknowledged in para. 1.27 No change. Hattersley Group made available for inspection, it should and there is no need to reference it be possible for disabled people to inspect here. it - not just simply put on a webpage. 40 1.31 Mr J Swale Access Object Under bullet point 1, 'scoping' needs Scoping is a well understood term, Para. 1.31, delete 'scoping' and Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: Hattersley Group explaining in context. however, to assist the reference to add reference to 'coverage and 'coverage and aims of the aims of the document'. document' could replace the word Change agreed. 'scoping'. 78 1.31 Sarah Swale Object Should we say 'what we will do as a The box is intended to set out what Add to the end of para. 1.31: Rollings Borough minimum' rather than 'what we must do'. the statutory requirements are for "The box below sets out the Council This makes it feel a bit more like we want the Council on consulting on the requirements set by Government to involve the community rather than LDF, rather than minimum which we should follow". we're obliged to involve them. standards as such. However, this Change agreed. could be made clearer. 42 2.2 Mr J Swale Access Object Under bullet point 3 - in many cases, This is acknowledged, but in order No change. Hattersley Group alternate format requests should be not to waste resources on many expected rather than wait and see if one potentially different formats, a comes in. request led approach is considered reasonable. 53 2.2 Miss Church In Support The guiding principles are a sound Noted, but no change is requested No Change. Helen Society approach to community involvement. It is to the draft SCI. Perry important to include a contact name and phone number to give the 'system' (paragraph 1.20) a personal and approachable face, which will lead to more effective consultation. 61 2.3 Mr Paul LaSalle Object There is a conflict between the statement The Council does not accept any No change. Sharpe Investment in the final sentence of this paragraph contradiction. Para. 1.28 says that Management and the commitment made in para 1.28. we will do more if resources are The statement in para 1.28 tends to raise available - this implicitly suggests unbridled expectations whereas the that there are limits to resources, as statement in para 2.3 sets constraints. suggested by para. 2.3. The statement in para 2.3 appears more realistic and perhaps therefore the statement in para 1.28 should be adjusted accordingly. 43 2.5 Mr J Swale Access Observations Under bullet point 5 - care should be This is noted, but requires no No change. Hattersley Group taken to make this a reality rather than change to the draft SCI; rather to its just fine words. implementation. 44 3.1 Mr J Swale Access Object Reliance on visual methods such as The SCI already recognises the No change. Hattersley Group leaflets and web pages are of no use to principle of this in a number of blind people. Care should be taken to places and it does not need to cross facilitate the inclusion of those otherwise reference it repeatedly. The point is missed. however acknowledged. Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: 100 3.1 Culture Observations Culture TGNK would like to be involved at Noted - if the respondent has No change. Thames all three levels (para 3.1) at the registered its interest with the Gateway North participation level we may be represented County (ideally via the on-line Kent either by partners or by Agenda UK. We consultation system) that it will would be willing to be involved in small or automatically be consulted. one-to-one meetings as suggested in However, no specific change to the table 3.1 draft SCI is required. 81 3.1 Sarah Swale Other General - Just as an internal point it As suggested by the writer, these No change. Rollings Borough would be worth ensuring that are matters for the implementation Council mechanisms are in place to deliver on all of the SCI rather than suggestions of the various ways of involving the for change to the document. community that you've stated in Table 3.1. You may already have these, but at a guess if the Audit Commission came in and was looking at this they would want to see them. 99 3.1 Culture Support We note you wish to involve local Noted, such techniques are No change. Thames communities and we particularly hope reflected in table 3.1 already. Gateway North that you will be able to continue the Kent Planning for Real work in Queenborough/Rushenden which, together with the Art at the Centre project, has been successful in raising the awareness of that community. 79 Table 3.1 Sarah Swale Other Establishing Networks - how would they These are relevant issues, but No change. Rollings Borough go about doing this? How would you matters for the day to day Council ensure that all groups are included when implementation of the SCI, rather setting up participation workshops? than any amendment to the Especially those that are hard-to-reach? document. 83 Table 3.1 David Southern Support Supports the detail in table 3.1 that all Noted. No change. Sims Water documents will be available to all sectors at all stages, and that informal networks/meetings may be appropriate with statutory stakeholders in the early stages. 22 Table 3.1 Miss Strategy & Observations Paragraph 3.1 sets out the levels of In respect of paragraph 3.1/table First two items: Susan Planning, Kent involvement for the public. It may be 3.1, it is considered unnecessary to No change. Tipping County helpful to carry these through into table carry the levels of involvement into Third item: Council 3.1 and indicate which of the three the table as more than one level Delete "additional authorities" categories the methods of involvement might be appropriate for any given from table 3.1. Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: listed within table 3.1 are relevant. occasion. Introduction of further Change agreed. The document places emphasis on detail could complicate the table and reaching hard to reach group, and suggest a inflexible approach to the disabilities groups are suggested as one level of involvement appropriate. example. Table 3.1 could acknowledge In respect of hard to reach groups, the need to, for example, produce easy this issue is already highlighted in read and audio documents. para. 1.25. It would be helpful to clarify what is meant In respect of use of the term by an “additional authority” under public 'additional authorities' in table 3.1, it exhibitions. is agreed that it is not clear. The It may be useful to send copies of term could be deleted without harm. documents for inspection to KCC offices or buildings such as libraries. Some more detail with regard to some of the actions listed may be beneficial. For instance publicity in community spaces could give some examples of the actions that this might include, such as posters or leaflets. This may assist when preparing a statement of compliance for DPDs. 23 Table 3.1 Miss Strategy & Support KCC would be willing to meet in one to Noted. No change. Susan Planning, Kent one meetings to discuss LDF proposals Tipping County and would welcome involvement early on Council in the process. The concept of working groups is supported and KCC would be willing to be represented on working groups where relevant. 84 Table 3.1 David Southern Support with Table 3.1 proposes making consultation Agree that references could be Add sentence to para. 1.27 Sims Water conditions documents available on Swale's website made both within Table 3.1 and "However, to comply with for all sectors at all stages of para. 1.27 to the effect that for regulations, statutory consultees consultation. Internet access, as an statutory consultees paper will continue to be supplied with alternative to receipt of paper documents, consultations will be undertaken to paper printed copies of the is acceptable to Southern Water in comply with regulations. relevant documents. principle, however according to Amend table 3.1 add "formal regulations 17 and 26 in the Town and consultation on copies of Country Planning (Local Development) documents" to "informal (England) Regulations 2004, the planning networks/one to one meetings." authority must send consultation Change agreed. documents to specific consultation bodies for comment. Regulation 28 also requires Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: the authority to send copies of the DPD and other documents to the same consultation bodies after submission to the Secretary of State. We feel that an amendment to table 3.1 indicating the sending of consultation documents is necessary to comply with the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. 102 3.4 Culture Observations 'Sustainable Culture, Sustainable There are a huge number of No change. Thames Communities' should be part of the potential sources of evidence and it Gateway North evidence base. It also gives links to the would not be possible to list all of Kent evidence which can be gained from the them. However, the Council notes individual partners of Culture TGNK this document with thanks. 24 3.7 Miss Strategy & Object This section should also make reference In accordance with PPS guidance, it Add reference to Kent's Susan Planning, Kent to aligning with the Kent wide Community is agreed that reference should be Community Strategy 'Vision for Tipping County Strategy “Vision for Kent”. made to both the County and District Kent' to para. 3.7. Council Sustainable Community Plans. Change agreed. 62 3.7 Mr Paul LaSalle Object The role and importance of the Regional Although the Council acknowledges No change. Sharpe Investment Spatial Strategy (South East Plan) is not the importance of the SEP to other Management given sufficient prominence under the components of the LDF, the Council heading “joining up with other strategies”. does not consider this necessary Whilst recognising that the Swale within the SCI, which is primarily Sustainable Community Strategy is a concerning consultation on LDF “local” strategy and LDF’s are about documents. “local” polices and issues, nevertheless the Regional Spatial Strategy sets the broad strategic context and statutory parameters for the LDF and it would be helpful to readers if a short summary of the current progress of the RSS and its implications for Swale are set out in this document. Also, reference should be made to other “strategies” for which the LDF is intended to be the vehicle for integration, eg Swale Economic Development Strategy; Swale Regeneration Framework; various Swale Forward strategies etc. 101 3.8 Culture Support with We welcome your intention to create It is agreed that reference should be Para. 3.13 - amend sub heading Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: Thames conditions effective links between the LDF and the made to other Council strategies in to: "Other Plans and Strategies Gateway North Swale Sustainable Community Strategy. general terms (there are a large prepared by the Council or Kent We also recommend that you create number), although the Community External Bodies". similar links with the forthcoming Swale Plan is the most important. Para. Amend first sentence to read Culture Strategy. It is very important for 3.13 and its heading can be "Other documents, such as the Council's cultural planners to be amended to address this. parish plans and other topic closely linked with the LDF process specific council strategies e.g. (contact Lyn Newton). Bracknell forest culture, play spaces..." Council is a good example of who to Change agreed. express a cultural strategy through the LDF, which as passed the test of soundness, you may find it useful. 63 3.10 Mr Paul LaSalle Object It is perhaps worth highlighting that the The point is acknowledged and No change. Sharpe Investment land use component of various strategies careful consideration was given to Management and policies prepared outside the LDF whether to include this point within when integrated through the LDF may the SCI. However, on balance, it is well be the subject of testing at public considered to be an unnecessary inquiry and this will introduce a new level of detail for inclusion with the discipline for those policy makers. SCI. 25 Picture 4.1 Miss Strategy & Observations The photograph shows men in suits. Although a reasonable observation, Change agreed. Susan Planning, Kent Does this give the right message about it an actual meeting and in reality is Tipping County equalities and encouraging minority probably a fair representation. Council groups to participate? Clearly a more 'inclusive' photograph could be included, but would almost certainly need to be 'manufactured' - something which would feel a little false. An alternative, less male orientated photograph could nevertheless be included. 94 Picture 4.1 David Barratt Support with The approach to pre-application is It is agreed that planning permission Para. 4.2, add sentence "Indeed, Banfield Stategic Land conditions broadly supported with regard to the could not be refused on these disagreement with the public flexibility offered and the need for an grounds and an amendment could consultation exercises agreed approach to any pre-application be made to para. 4.2 to that effect. undertaken by an applicant consultation to be established between would not be a reason for the local planning authority and the refusing a planning permission." applicant. This flexibility is important in Change agreed. taking account of the range of sites and circumstances that may exist. In addition, national policy stipulates that local planning authorities cannot refuse an Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: application on the basis that they disagree with the public consultation exercises undertaken by the applicant. The SCI could make this clearer. 28 4.2 Mr Vincent and Observations These representations are submitted on Para. 4.2 does indeed make clear Amend the heading to the Richard Gorbing behalf of Trenport Investments Limited. the limitations, but para. 4.3 says second column in table 4.1 to Lewis The paragraph advises that the Council that it is clearly desirable for greater read 'Expectations for Pre- cannot require developers to undertake efforts to be made. It is within that application consultation ...'. consultation before an application is context that Table 4.1 is framed. Change agreed. made. However, the subsequent Use of words such as 'seek' in the paragraphs, and Table 4.1, effectively table suggest a degree of the require developers to undertake these Council encouraging developers and consultations! landowners. There is merit though in changing the heading to the second column in table 4.1 to read 'Expectations for Pre-application consultation ...'. 29 4.3 Mr Vincent and Observations These representations are submitted on Pre-application discussion is No change. Richard Gorbing behalf of Trenport Investments Limited. generally accepted by all parties, Lewis The Council should be aware that the including Government and the requirement for pre-application development industry as a way of consultations, as suggested elsewhere in improving community involvement, the section, will delay the submission of but more fundamentally (and planning applications, give rise to acknowledged by para. 4.3) it can significant additional costs for applicants potentially lead to a smoother and would delay development overall. processing of the application with It would also involve additional time and savings both in cost and time for the costs for the Borough Council in agreeing Council and applicant. Whilst this the scope and form of consultations indeed requires additional resources which should be undertaken. If the by all parties, these are offset by Council is to expect these consultations gains elsewhere in the process. to be undertaken the necessary resources will need to be put in place by the Council to respond to this requirement. 9 4.3 Mr G H A Shepherd Other We believe there is considerable benefit It is unclear as to the reasons why No change. Barnes Neame in being able to discuss proposals before pre-application discussion has not submitting planning applications. always been possible. However, the However, this has not always proved to response is supportive of the be possible on a realistic timescale. principle. Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: 30 4.4 Mr Vincent and Object These representations are submitted on The comments are noted, but No change. Richard Gorbing behalf of Trenport Investments Limited. appear not to require any change to Lewis The requirement for pre-application the draft SCI. See also response to consultations, including agreeing the form ID29 of consultations, preparing and submitting a statement of the results of consultations and responding to issues raised, will delay the submission of planning applications, give rise to significant additional costs for applicants and would delay development overall. It would also involve additional time and costs for the Borough Council in agreeing the scope and form of consultations which should be undertaken, and reviewing statements of the results of consultations. If the Council is to expect these consultations to be undertaken the necessary resources will need to be put in place by the Council to respond to this requirement. The Council should be aware that the Governments proposals for Planning Performance Agreements are at consultation stage and that they cover many aspects of handling planning applications, not just consultations as implied in the statement. If entered into they will place commitments on the Council, as well as applicants, and that if the applicant is expected to undertake extensive pre-application consultations the applicant will, quite reasonably, expect the Council to commit to improving the speed and handling of an application in exchange. They will also expect advice to be given by experienced officers and for that advice to be consistent and reliable. Planning Performance Agreements are part of a two way process and additional resources will need to be put into meeting Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: the requirements of such agreements otherwise developers will be unwilling to enter into them. 64 4.5 Mr Paul LaSalle Object There is a slight ambiguity in this The comment is accepted in part. Amend para. 4.5, 2nd sentence Sharpe Investment paragraph in that the second sentence However, such statements can be insert "and adopted" between the Management refers to village/parish design statements adopted by the Council, either as words "prepared" and "by". adopted by “the council” and SPD if in the LDS or in some other Change agreed. development briefs prepared by “the form if not. It is agreed however that council”. para. 4.5 could be further clarified. Village/parish design statements cannot and should not be adopted by the Borough Council and therefore the statement should be amended to refer to adoption of village/parish design statements by “the Parish Council” and master plans or development briefs by “the Borough Council”. 31 4.8 Mr Vincent and Object These representations are submitted on See response to ID 29 & 31. No change. Richard Gorbing behalf of Trenport Investments Limited. Lewis The Council should be aware that the requirement for exhibitions and local forums will delay the submission of planning applications, give rise to significant additional costs for applicants and would delay development overall. It would also involve additional time and costs for the Borough Council which would require additional resources in order to avoid delay to development proposals. 72 4.9 Mr Sittingbourne Observations Will the new process for planning control That will be a matter for monitoring No change. Michael Society result in an overall increase in the time the implementation of the draft SCI, Baldwin taken to obtain planning approvals? rather than any change being required to the document itself. 45 4.9 Mr J Swale Access Observations Where you operate a policy of allowing The principle is addressed by para. No change. Hattersley Group the public to speak, you could face the 1.25 and elsewhere in the draft SCI. need to allow for signers (sign language There is no reason why the interpreters) and others. reasonable accommodation of such a request could not be made to the Council. However, there would Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: seem no need to amend the draft SCI to specifically refer to it. 32 4.10 Mr Vincent and Object These representations are submitted on See response to ID29-31. In respect No change. Richard Gorbing behalf of Trenport Investments Limited. of the 10 dwelling threshold, this Lewis (Note: They duplicate those made in reflects the definition of 'major respect of Table 4.1) applications' used by the CLG which Threshold seems a reasonable approach to The threshold for major applications, at follow. 10 dwellings, and the associated In respect of its own activities, the requirement for pre-application Council already undertakes consultations to be undertaken, is very consultation over and above low. We consider that a higher threshold statutory requirements and as such of say 25 dwellings would be more the existing approach is considered appropriate. 'fit for purpose' for this SCI. General comment We note that most of the items identified as Swale BC consultation items in Table 4.1 would appear to be ones which are already undertaken by the Council and so would not appear to involve additional tasks. However, most of the items listed as being undertaken primarily by the applicant are new tasks which would involve significant additional time and costs for applicants and would delay development proposals. Pre-application advice Our client would normally expect to undertake pre-application consultations with the Local Planning Authority, provided that they can be carried out in a reasonable timescale and any charges for advice and meetings are reasonable. We have found recently that with a number of authorities there are significant delays in responding to consultations (including responding to requests for information and advice, and arranging meetings) and that charges for consultations are, often excessive and cannot be justified. The advice given in pre-application Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: consultations should be from experienced officers which can be relied upon. This advice should also be brought to the attention of members when an application is determined so that it can be given weight in the decision making process and so that there is consistency in the advice given and the decisions made. Statutory and non-statutory consultations Our client teams often seek pre- application advice from statutory and non-statutory consultees in formulating proposals for a site and would have no objection to doing so provided that they can be undertaken in a reasonable time scale and that any charges are reasonable. However, we have found that many statutory and non-statutory consultees do not give priority to handling pre-application consultations and only give serious consideration to proposals once an application has been submitted. So these consultations are often protracted and responses are non committal. On a number of occasions advice cannot be obtained. The Council should acknowledge that the applicant has no power to require consultees to respond and that they should not be penalise if they have tried to get a response within a reasonable time scale and no response has been forthcoming. If the Council is to require pre-application consultations with statutory and non- statutory consultees they should provide guidance and advice on which statutory and non-statutory consultees should be consulted and they should encourage those consultees to respond promptly to any pre-application consultations from applicants. Community consultation Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: The requirement for pre-application community consultations will delay the submission of planning applications, give rise to significant additional costs for applicants and would delay development overall. It would also involve additional time and costs for the Borough Council in agreeing the scope and form of consultations which should be undertaken. If the Council is to expect these consultations to be undertaken the necessary resources will need to be put in place by the Council to respond to this requirement. If the Council suggests that pre- application community consultation should be undertaken it should provide suitable guidance and advice on what groups and individuals in the community should be consulted, as well as suggesting the forms of consultations, as the Council is better placed to identify / undertake these consultations since they will be more familiar with the area and will already have connections with community organisations and individuals. Planning Performance Agreements The Council should be aware that the Governments proposals for Planning Performance Agreements are at consultation stage and that they cover many aspects of handling planning applications, not just setting out minimum standards for pre-application consultations, as implied in the SCI. If entered into they will place commitments on the Council as well as applicants. If the applicant is expected to undertake extensive pre-application consultations the applicant will, quite reasonably, expect the Council to commit to Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: improving the speed and quality of handling of an application in exchange. They will also expect advice to be given by experienced officers and for that advice to be consistent and reliable. Planning Performance Agreements are part of a two way process, not just a requirement on applicants, and additional resources will need to be put into meeting the requirements of such agreements otherwise developers will be unwilling to enter into them. Statement of community consultation The requirement for a statement of community consultation will inevitably delay the submission of planning applications and give rise to additional costs for applicants. It would also require additional resources from the Council. Our client would also like to point out that for various reasons it may not be possible for some results of the consultations to be taken into account in a submitted proposal for example consultants views conflicting with each other and conflicting with the applicants requirements. 10 Table 4.1 Mr G H A Shepherd Object This seems to suggest that any The point raised is acknowledged, No change. Barnes Neame application involving a Listed Building or but the respondents comments are a property sited within a Conservation considered too detailed. To Area be treated as Category One. Twenty 'downgrade' such applications to six of the thirty eight Shepherd Neame category 2 or 3 would potentially public houses, located in Swale, would mean that proposals with significant fall within this classification. I would heritage implications would have suggest in the interests of proportionality lesser levels of consultation. In that consideration be given to classifying practice application of table 4.1 such applications as Category Two or would be applied with common Three, where the proposed development sense in order that minor works is relatively minor in nature. I consider would not be the subject of all the that there would be a significant waste of provisions of category 1 resource and time if, for instance, an developments. Most heritage application for the development of a development is normally the subject kitchen within the existing structure of a of pre-application discussion in Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: premises required widespread order to determine the need for consultation. consent/permission. This would be the forum to determine the degree of consultation required. 11 Table 4.1 Mr G H A Shepherd Other Is it intended that householder The point raised is acknowledged, In category 3, add the words '(not Barnes Neame applications be classified as Category although they would still fall within included in categories 1 or 2)' Three, when a Listed Building / category 1. The definition of after the words 'householder Conservation Area application is 'householder' is not with remit of application. involved? What is the definition of SCI, but in Government guidance. Change agreed. 'householder' and does it differentiate However, some clarification could between the freeholder and tenant of a be made. 'residential' property? 12 Table 4.1 Mr G H A Shepherd Other I believe that all planning applications Certain applications require public No change. Barnes Neame should be subject to a public notice. notices and these are set out already within table 4.1. Given that all other applications are subject to good levels of neighbour notification, the Council considers it unnecessary to have public notices for all other applications. 26 Table 4.1 Miss Strategy & Observations It would be appreciated if some thought The key issue for service providers Include in table 4.1, service Susan Planning, Kent could be given as to how statutory is engaging with the LDF process. It providers in categories 1 & 2. Tipping County agencies could be notified at an early is here where they can influence the Change agreed. Council stage of proposed planning applications process to ensure that they put in for new housing, in order to give sufficient place their own longer term plans to time to consider the impact on our respond to the LDF; rather than services. This is particularly important for schemes coming out of the blue at KCC as a service provider. It may be that the planning application stage. This developers could be encouraged to is encouraged by the SCI in table approach the county council early in the 3.1. It is acknowledged though that development of such proposals. planning application do raise issues not planned for by service providers. Table 4.1 sets out when pre- application discussion should take place. This should include discussion with service providers. However, reference to discussion with service providers will be included in table 4.1 (categories 1 & 2). Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: 33 Table 4.1 Mr Vincent and Object These representations are submitted on See response to ID 29-32. No change. Richard Gorbing behalf of Trenport Investments Limited. The Council would envisage Lewis (Note: these representations duplicate producing standard guidance for those made in respect of Paragraph 4.10) pre-application consultation either Threshold independently from or part of The threshold for major applications, at prospective 'planning performance 10 dwellings, and the associated agreements'. However, no change is requirement for pre-application needed to the draft SCI. consultations to be undertaken, is very low. We consider that a higher threshold of say 25 dwellings would be more appropriate. General comment We note that most of the items identified as Swale BC consultation items in Table 4.1 would appear to be ones which are already undertaken by the Council and so would not appear to involve additional tasks. However, most of the items listed as being undertaken primarily by the applicant are new tasks which would involve significant additional time and costs for applicants and would delay development proposals. Pre-application advice Our client would normally expect to undertake pre-application consultations with the Local Planning Authority, provided that they can be carried out in a reasonable timescale and any charges for advice and meetings are reasonable. We have found recently that with a number of authorities there are significant delays in responding to consultations (including responding to requests for information and advice, and arranging meetings) and that charges for consultations are, often excessive and cannot be justified. The advice given in pre-application consultations should be from experienced officers which can be relied upon. This Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: advice should also be brought to the attention of members when an application is determined so that it can be given weight in the decision making process and so that there is consistency in the advice given and the decisions made. Statutory and non-statutory consultations Our client teams often seek pre- application advice from statutory and non-statutory consultees in formulating proposals for a site and would have no objection to doing so provided that they can be undertaken in a reasonable time scale and that any charges are reasonable. However, we have found that many statutory and non-statutory consultees do not give priority to handling pre-application consultations and only give serious consideration to proposals once an application has been submitted. So these consultations are often protracted and responses are non committal. On a number of occasions advice cannot be obtained. The Council should acknowledge that the applicant has no power to require consultees to respond and that they should not be penalise if they have tried to get a response within a reasonable time scale and no response has been forthcoming. If the Council is to require pre-application consultations with statutory and non- statutory consultees they should provide guidance and advice on which statutory and non-statutory consultees should be consulted and they should encourage those consultees to respond promptly to any pre-application consultations from applicants. Community consultation The requirement for pre-application community consultations will delay the Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: submission of planning applications, give rise to significant additional costs for applicants and would delay development overall. It would also involve additional time and costs for the Borough Council in agreeing the scope and form of consultations which should be undertaken. If the Council is to expect these consultations to be undertaken the necessary resources will need to be put in place by the Council to respond to this requirement. If the Council suggests that pre- application community consultation should be undertaken it should provide suitable guidance and advice on what groups and individuals in the community should be consulted, as well as suggesting the forms of consultations, as the Council is better placed to identify / undertake these consultations since they will be more familiar with the area and will already have connections with community organisations and individuals. Planning Performance Agreements The Council should be aware that the Governments proposals for Planning Performance Agreements are at consultation stage and that they cover many aspects of handling planning applications, not just setting out minimum standards for pre-application consultations, as implied in the SCI. If entered into they will place commitments on the Council as well as applicants. If the applicant is expected to undertake extensive pre-application consultations the applicant will, quite reasonably, expect the Council to commit to improving the speed and quality of handling of an application in exchange. Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: They will also expect advice to be given by experienced officers and for that advice to be consistent and reliable. Planning Performance Agreements are part of a two way process, not just a requirement on applicants, and additional resources will need to be put into meeting the requirements of such agreements otherwise developers will be unwilling to enter into them. Statement of community consultation The requirement for a statement of community consultation will inevitably delay the submission of planning applications and give rise to additional costs for applicants. It would also require additional resources from the Council. Our client would also like to point out that for various reasons it may not be possible for some results of the consultations to be taken into account in a submitted proposal for example consultants views conflicting with each other and conflicting with the applicants requirements. 85 Table 4.1 David Southern Support We support the approach that statutory Noted. No change. Sims Water consultees will be advised on major planning applications, as indicated in table 4.1 65 Table 4.1 Mr Paul LaSalle Object Category 1 column 1 – The reference to It is agreed that some further Agree the following amendments: Sharpe Investment “departure applications” would be better clarification/correction is required 1) Reword the sentence below Management described as proposals “not in here. the 4th bullet in Category 1 to accordance with the development plan”. However, in respect of the second read: "Proposals not in Also, such applications are not to be point raised by the objector, the accordance with the “submitted” to the Government Office Council disagrees that 'major' Development Plan (requiring (this implies determination by the applications should only comprise referral to the Secretary of State Government Office) but rather require those with an Environmental for consideration)..."; “referral” to the Secretary of State. Statement. There will be other 2) In table 4.1, column 2, 4th Category 1 column 1 – For those applications where such standards para. amend to read "Pre- applications defined as “major of consultation should also be application consultation by the applications” below the 7th bullet point, considered. The Governments applicant may be one of the other than applications accompanied by definition of 'major' applications is topics covered by a Planning Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: an Environmental Impact Assessment, considered more appropriate. Performance Agreement". are not in our view “major applications”. 3) Amend final sentence of para. Category 1 column 2, 4th paragraph – 4.4 to read "... developers, with The first sentence of this paragraph gives chapters setting out how the the impression that the main purpose of a planning application will be Planning Performance Agreement is to handled by all parties, including manage the consultation process. This is minimum standards to be applied misleading. A Planning Performance to pre-application consultation." Agreement will impose agreed Change agreed. management performance targets on the 4) In respect of the second point applicant, the Planning Authority and raised by the objector relating to others and relates mainly to the the definition of 'major' management of the negotiation process applications - No change. prior to determination of which consultation with the public may form part. Such consultation could be included within a Planning Performance Agreement. There is a similar need to explain the role of Planning Performance Agreements in para 4.4 of the draft SCI. 46 5.1 Mr J Swale Access Observations It is important that you do actually digest Noted, but no change is required to No change. Hattersley Group the comments we make as they can be the draft SCI as a result. very relevant. 47 5.2 Mr J Swale Access Object "This report will be on our website". As See earlier response and reference Add the words 'and in other Hattersley Group already stated, that is of no use to a large in para. 1.27 of the draft SCI. formats', to the end of para. 5.2. number of Swale residents. You will need However, the representation does Change agreed. to do something to bridge the gap. suggest the need to highlight other approaches as well as the web in para. 5.2. 66 5.6 Mr Paul LaSalle Object The approach to the handling of The Council is not convinced that No change. Sharpe Investment anonymous submissions is in our view consideration of anonymous Management misconceived. representations would lead to abuse Clearly submissions made “in confidence” of consultation and they are, in any can be treated in the way described in event rare. It is current practice both para 5.6 but it is very clear that by development control and anonymous representations must be planning policy to consider such ignored. Otherwise, the system of representations. consultation will be laid open to abuse. The Council therefore must make its position clear in the SCI, ie that Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: anonymous submissions made either to the LDF process or to planning applications will NOT be taken into account. 67 5.9 Mr Paul LaSalle Object It is perhaps worth adding that whilst, for A reference could be added to para. Para. 5.10, add 'including access Sharpe Investment reasons of economy, letters of 5.10 to the effect that if such to representations'. Management representation will not be acknowledged, applications are adopted in Swale Change agreed. if the sort of internet based application this could well improve this level of system is adopted in Swale, (as are access to representations. currently employed elsewhere) then it will be possible to check that a letter of representation has been received by the Council via the internet. 68 5.13 Mr Paul LaSalle Object We applaud the commitments given in The commitment in para. 5.13 is No change. Sharpe Investment the last two sentences of this paragraph largely current practice and the Management but question whether the SCI is raising Council does not anticipate this expectations that cannot be met. We being a burden upon resources. question whether the Council has the resources to fulfil such commitments. If not, then not only should the commitment not be made but it would be helpful to the public (and to planning officers) to secure clarity about the extent of communication on representations. 69 5.14 Mr Paul LaSalle Object The text of this paragraph should be Agreed, para. 5.14 could be Amend 1st sentence of para. Sharpe Investment amended bearing in mind that it is clarified. 5.14 to read "... against planning Management possible for applicants to appeal against decisions made by the council." the grant of planning permission (onerous Change agreed. conditions etc) not simply refusals of permission and the Council’s intentions on consultation would extend also to enforcement, tree and advertisement appeals. 70 6.1 Mr Paul LaSalle Object It would be helpful if the Council were to These are, in effect, set out in paras. No change. Sharpe Investment set out and describe the “barriers within 6.2-3. Management the Council” that currently provide obstacles to increased community involvement. 71 6.2 Mr Paul LaSalle Object In the fourth bullet point, there is a very The number and frequency of Para. 2.4, add to 4th bullet: "... Sharpe Investment serious issue raised regarding “over consultations is not entirely of the occasion, in a way which is Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: Management consultation” or “consultation overload”. council's making. Table 3.1 attempts proportionate to the document The advent of the LDF system has seen to articulate that not all consultation being consulted on". a significant increase in the number of methods are appropriate for all Para. 3.3, add to 2nd sentence individual documents upon which local audiences. However, it is "... time, to ensure adequate planning authorities now consult with the acknowledged that some mention of consultation, but to avoid public. It is not unusual be to consulted consultations being 'proportionate' to overloading consultees by the on 6 or more DPD’s and/or supporting the job at hand in terms of frequency frequency and/or number of documents at any time, eg when taking and number of items could be events and documents." into account consultation on included. This could be included Para. 6.2, add to 4th bullet, "... Sustainability Appraisals and background within paras. 2.4-5, 3.3 and the 4th but ensure that the number and documents such as Strategic Housing bullet of para. 6.2. frequency of items consulted Land Supply etc. There is undoubtedly a upon at such events does not happy medium between meaningful become overwhelming. engagement and overload, part of which Change agreed. is related to the efficient management of the LDF process. We suggest that this is likely to be in the order of a maximum of 3 or 4 items at any one consultation. It may be worth referring to efforts by the Council to control not only the frequency of consultation events but also the number of items to be consulted on within each event in order to avoid “consultation overload”. 54 6.4 Miss Church In Support Monitoring and review is key to keeping Noted, but as para. 6.7 makes No change. Helen Society the SCI relevant. Annual monitoring in the reference to the use of the AMR, no Perry AMR will allow this, but indicators will be further change to the draft SCI is required so that progress can be required. systematically monitored. These should also be flexible to include qualitative analysis that is relevant to community work. 3 7 Ray Smith Showmans Object On page 25, the Showman's Guild of The draft SCI contains a generic No change. Guild of Great Great Britain, London and Home reference to (page 25) 'other bodies Britain Counties Section, wishes to be added to which represent the interests of the list of other agencies mentioned by different groups within the name. community (e.g. racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, disability and health)'. This would encompass groups such as the guild. Whilst the Council could make specific Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: reference to the guild this would undermine the purpose of the statement and lead to many other requests for groups to be specifically mentioned by name. 103 7.1 Culture Object List of stakeholders of course only gives This is noted, but it is generally Add under Section 7, under Thames examples of your coverage. Your accepted that SCI's should not "Other Agencies", "Bodies Gateway North stakeholders and agencies should attempt to list every potential representing the Arts, Culture Kent include the following: Arts Council organisation by name, however, a and Learning". England SE, Culture South East, reference to Arts and Culture Change agreed. Museums, libraries and archives SE, Organisations and bodies could be Screen South, Tourism South, SEEDA made in Section 7. and Culture TGNK. We look forward to being involved in the LDF as it progresses and to seeing it become a leading example of how an LDF can shape places by embedding culture into its processes and policies. 82 7.1 Anne Faversham Object However, in the list of organisations See response to ID75. No change. Salmon Society mentioned in the 'Involving the community' section, while community groups are mentioned as bodies to make representations, there is no reference to local amenity societies. We would think of community organisations possibly including scouts, guides, St. John's ambulance, churches or other bodies possibly being interested in how planning applications or other documents might affect particular groups of people. We would suggest a separate heading or local amenity societies including for example the Faversham Society, Friends of Faversham Creek and their equivalents in Sittingbourne, Sheerness, Queenborough or other places who might wish to comment about other aspects of applications or documents such as townscape, design, traffic or other more planning related aspects of proposals. 73 7.1 Mr Sittingbourne Observations The document contains a long list of Bodies will be contacted on a needs No change. Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: Michael Society groups and organisations to contact basis as not all applications/LDF Baldwin regarding planning matters. Is it intended matters will be relevant to every that Swale will contact all of them organisation. Para. 2.2 of the draft automatically, or will the process require SCI states that consultations must the various bodies to contact Swale be 'relevant'. In some instances Borough Council when they notice an developers may be asked to application which is relevant to them? undertake pre-application consultations and make contact with certain organisations. However, no change to the draft SCI is required. 74 7.1 Mr Sittingbourne Observations Under what types of circumstances would Section 7 is a general list, rather No change. Michael Society amenity groups such as the Sittingbourne than an attempt to list every Baldwin Society be consulted? The Society is not organisation that the Council might listed specifically in the document. consult. The Sittingbourne Society would fall under 'Community Groups' on page 7. This would include 'interest' groups such as the Sittingbourne. 97 7.1 Culture Other Response is made on behalf of the Noted, but no specific change to the No change. Thames Cultural Partnership for Thames Gateway draft SCI is requested or required. Gateway North North Kent, Culture TGNK, comprising Kent Arts Council England SE, Culture SE, English Heritage SE Region, Museums, Libraries and Archives SE, Screen South, Sport England SE, Tourism SE and SEEDA. The aim of Culture TGNK is to integrate culture into the regeneration and growth of TGNK. Culture is an important part of place- shaping and is core to any LDF. Culture TGNK with other stakeholders including Swale BC, has published 'Sustainable Culture, Sustainable Communities: The Cultural Framework and Toolkit for TGNK, which we commend to you as useful evidence and guidance for the forthcoming Swale LDF. 92 7.1 David Barratt Other We welcome the opportunity to comment Noted, but no change to the SCI is No change. Banfield Stategic Land on the Draft SCI and would request that requested. Barrat Strategic Land are identified as key stakeholders in the future production Id Document Full Organisation Nature Of Response Outcome Officers' Recommendation Ref Name Response: of the LDF. 8 7.1 Mr G H A Shepherd Other Shepherd Neame provides significant No specific changes to the SCI are No change. Barnes Neame employment and have considerable sought. property ownership within Swale. We would support, as a general principle, increased community involvement and consultation within the planning process. 91 7.1 Mobile Support We welcome the inclusion of Noted, but no change is requested No change. Operators Telecommunications Providers within the to the draft SCI. Association list of Specific Consultation Bodies in chapter 7 and the intention to consult on the Local Development Documents. We request that consultations to be sent to the five Mobile Operators 3G UK, O2, Orange, T-Mobile and Vodaphone are sent to Mono Consultants on behalf of the Mobile Operators Association. 86 7.1 David Southern Support Welcome the inclusion of Utility Providers Noted. No change. Sims Water (water, sewerage, energy) in section 7.1 and that they have been recognised as statutory stakeholders. 95 7.1 Sean Natural Support Natural England welcomes the Noted, but no change is requested No change. Hanna England opportunity to ensure that relevant to the draft SCI. organisations will have the opportunity to engage effectively in the preparation of all elements of the Local Development Framework and are pleased that the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Unit are to be consulted on the LDF. 96 7.1 Sean Natural Support We welcome the proposed consultation Such bodies would be already No change. Hanna England with Environmental, Heritage and Wildlife covered in 7.1 under Organisations and would recommend that 'Environmental, Heritage and Kent Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society Wildlife Organisations'. These for the Protection of Birds are consulted groups are encouraged to register as key local stakeholders. In addition, we their interest in the LDF process would also welcome the inclusion of the using the Council's on-line Local Regionally Important Geological consultation process. Sites (RIGS)

Annex D Swale Borough Council Local Development Framework Submission Copy Statement of Community Involvement Statement of SCI Matters

The following Statement of SCI Matters provides information about the Submission Copy Statement of Community Involvement, and the arrangements for consultation, in accordance with Regulations 28 to 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. Subject Matter and Area Covered Swale Borough Council is preparing a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), which when adopted will form part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) for Swale Borough. The LDF will establish a spatial vision for future development and use of land, to replace the Swale Borough Local Plan Review. The Statement of Community Involvement explains how the Council will involve the local community, stakeholders, and statutory bodies in the preparation of the Local Development Framework and also the arrangements for involving the community when considering planning applications. It applies to the whole of the Swale Borough Council administrative area. Consultation Arrangements The consultation period for the Submission Copy SCI runs for six weeks from 2nd June 2008 to 5.00pm on 14th July 2008. Comments must be received by this deadline in order to be considered by the Council. Representations should be sent to: Planning Policy Manager Swale Borough Council Swale House, East Street Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3HT. Copies of the Submission Copy Statement of Community Involvement may be viewed at the following Council offices and libraries at normal opening times, or on our website at www.swale.gov.uk/ldf • Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne • Sheerness District Office, Trinity Place, Sheerness • Faversham District Office, Alexander Centre, Preston Street, Faversham And at the following libraries: • Sittingbourne Library, Central Avenue, Sittingbourne • Teynham Library, 131 London Road Teynham • Boughton-under-Blean Library, Village Hall, Boughton-under-Blean • Faversham Library, Newton Road, Faversham • Minster-in-Sheppey Library, Worcester Close, Minster-in-Sheppey • Queenborough Library, Railway Terrace, Queenborough, Sheppey • Sheerness Library, Russell Street, Sheerness For library opening times call (01795) 476545 / 477041).

Comments may be made on-line at http://swaleldf.swale.gov.uk or by email to [email protected] . Alternatively, a form for making representations is available at the above locations and on our website at www.swale.gov.uk/ldf

Procedure for Future Notification Representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified when the Statement of Community Involvement has been adopted. Should you wish to be notified of this, please specify the address you at which you wish to be contacted. Regulation 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. Publication of Submission Copy Statement of Community Involvement

In accordance with the above, Swale Borough Council has published its Submission Copy Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) for consultation and has submitted it to the Secretary of State. The Statement of Community Involvement explains how the Council will involve the local community, stakeholders, and statutory bodies in the preparation of the Local Development Framework and also the arrangements for involving the community when considering planning applications. It applies to the whole of the Swale Borough Council administrative area. The consultation period for the Submission Copy Statement of Community Involvement runs for six weeks from 2nd June 2008 to 5.00pm on 14th July 2008. Comments must be received by this deadline in order to be considered by the Secretary of State. Representations should be sent to: Planning Policy Manager Swale Borough Council Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3HT Comments may be made on-line at http://swaleldf.swale.gov.uk or by email to [email protected] . Alternatively, a form for making representations is available at the locations listed below. Copies of the Submission Copy Statement of Community Involvement, together with the Statement of SCI Matters, and Statement of Community Consultation may be viewed on our website at www.swale.gov.uk/ldf and at the following Council offices and libraries at normal opening times: • Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne • Sheerness District Office, Trinity Place, Sheerness • Faversham District Office, Alexander Centre, Preston Street, Faversham And at the following libraries: • Sittingbourne Library, Central Avenue, Sittingbourne • Teynham Library, 131 London Road Teynham • Boughton-under-Blean Library, Village Hall, Boughton-under-Blean • Faversham Library, Newton Road, Faversham • Minster-in-Sheppey Library, Worcester Close, Minster-in-Sheppey • Queenborough Library, Railway Terrace, Queenborough, Sheppey • Sheerness Library, Russell Street, Sheerness For library opening times call (01795) 476545 / 477041). Representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified when the Statement of Community Involvement has been adopted. Should you wish to be notified of this, please specify the address you wish to be contacted at. Gill Harris Planning Policy Manager May 2008