The Swale Borough Local Plan Part 1 Statement of Consultation December 2014 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Bearing Fruits 2031: Swale Borough Local Plan – Statement of Consultation 1. Purpose of this Statement of Consultation 1.1 This Statement of Consultation accompanies the Publication of the Swale Borough Local Plan. It provides information on the consultation methods used throughout the preparation process so far and provides a summary of the main issues that have been raised during each consultation stage and the way in which the Council has addressed these. 2. Legal Requirements for Statement of Consultation 2.1 The Statement of Consultation is a legal requirement to accompany the Submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) () 2012 Regulations SI No.767. Regulation 22 of the legislation requires the Statement to demonstrate: • who was consulted during the stages of preparation under Regulation 18; • how those who were consulted were invited to make representations; • what main issues were raised by the consultees; and • how the representations were taken into account in further preparation. 2.2 Furthermore, the legislation requires the Regulation 20 Statement to include: • the number of representations received during the Submission consultation undertaken for Regulation 19 (stating none if this was the case); and • a summary of the main issues raised by the representations (if applicable). An additional report will be produced to cover the Regulation 19 consultation and any representations received prior to submission. 2.3 The Swale Borough Local Plan was originally conceived as a Core Strategy to be supported by separate development plan documents for site specific allocations and development management policies, as envisaged by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 and the 2004 Statutory Regulations. Throughout the Local Plan preparation, there have been a number of changes to the Town and Country Planning Regulations. Under the previous 2004 Regulations, all Development Plan Documents were required to undergo public consultation at their Issues and Options (Regulation 25), Preferred Options (Regulations 26), and Submission stage (Regulation 28). 2.4 When the Regulations were amended in 2008, the Issues and Options and Preferred Options stage were consolidated under one consultation point (Regulation 25). The requirement to undertake a Submission consultation was retained, although it was renamed as a Regulation 27 consultation. 2.5 The new Regulations introduced in 2012 (the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning( England) Regulations SI No. 767) refer to the term Local Plan to describe the suite of documents formerly known as the Local Development Framework. Consultation on the preparation stages of the core strategy / local plan (the Issues and Options and Preferred Options) are a requirement under Regulation 18. The consultation on the submission version of the plan is required under Regulation 20.4. 2.6 Table 1 below outlines the various stages the Local Plan has gone through according to the Regulation number relevant at the time, for the each stage of preparation. Table 1 Legislation changes throughout the Local Plan preparation

Stage in consultation Legislation

1 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Stage in consultation Legislation

Core Strategy Initial Participation January 2009 2008, Regulation 25.

Core Strategy Questionnaire and Road show 2008, Regulation 25. August 2009

Core Strategy Vision and Objectives August 2009 2008, Regulation 25.

Core Strategy – A Clearer Vision April 2010 2008, Regulation 25.

Pick Your Own - Issues and Options (Core 2008, Regulation 25 Strategy) January 2011

Bearing Fruits – preferred Option (Core Strategy) 2008, Regulation 25 March 2012 Following a consultation draft in autumn 2011, the final version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012, just days after the Bearing Fruits consultation began. Although the draft plan did successfully anticipate the policy stance on many issues within the NPPF, a number of issues arose, both from its final content and the way in which it has subsequently been applied in practice to plans reaching Examination in Public stage in other local authorities

Bearing Fruits – Swale Borough Local Plan – 2102, Regulation 18 consultation draft, August 2013

Swale Borough Local Plan – publication draft, 2012, Regulation 20.4 December 2014

Statement of Community Involvement: approach to planning consultation in Swale 2.7 Section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004, requires local planning authorities to produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which explains how local communities and other interested parties will be engaged in the production of Local Plans (and determining planning applications). 2.8 The Swale SCI was adopted in 2008, following consultation and consideration by a Planning inspector. It sets out the detail of whom and how the Council will consult in the preparation of local Planning documents and in commenting on planning applications. The methods and techniques were intended to encourage community participation and ensure transparency of process and availability of information, commensurate with resources available, and the nature of the subject of consultation and current statutory regulation and national policy. The Swale Core Strategy/Borough Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with this. The statutory regulations did change during the plan preparation process, as a result of the Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework and whilst the Council has endeavoured to stay as close as possible to the consultation arrangements envisaged by the SCI, through undertaking an additional round of consultation when site specific allocations were introduced post NPPF, it has also confident that it has

2 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

complied with the latest statutory regulations in consulting the necessary bodies at the appropriate stages. 2.9 The Borough Council channels consultation results through its Local Development Framework Panel (which is a non-executive committee, that meets in public and whose recommendations are ratified by Cabinet). Councillors take on board the representations received and have had regard to them alongside policy, legislation and evidence base in deciding how to progress the Plan at each key stage. Duty to Cooperate 2.10 The Localism Act 2011 added a new section to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that imposed a duty for local planning authorities and other bodies to cooperate with each other in the preparation of Local Plan Documents. 2.11 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that local planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts. A Duty to Cooperate Statement has been prepared separately to set out how the Council has met the Duty. There is some overlap with the on-going process of consultation and joint working catalogued here. 2.12 Use has also been made of the Borough Council’s free quarterly newspaper Inside Swale, where appropriate for updates on the Local Plan. This is delivered to all households in the Borough. At the March 2012 Core Strategy issues and options stage, a leaflet was sent to all households in the Borough to alert them to the forthcoming consultation. Additionally, use has been made of press releases to local newspapers and responding to articles or letters appearing in them. Roving and static exhibitions; parish council briefings, public meetings on specific topics and even a well-attended ‘Question Time’ event have been used at to support consultation stages. In addition appearances at specific stakeholder meetings have all been carried out at various stages in the process, just for informal updating and information dissemination on where the process had got to, especially in the wake of far reaching national planning policy changes. The Council also uses its contacts in local business and other events (for example, the launch on 25 November 2014 of the Local Business website, which was used to highlight the imminent publication draft plan and network with potential developers and investors). 2.13 Table 2 below provides an overview of the consultation arrangements in accordance with the SCI. Table 2 Summary of consultation methods used

Consultation Pre- Core Pick Your Bearing Bearing Swale method consultation Strategy – Own - Fruits Fruits – Borough vision and Issues Preferred Swale Local Plan objectives and Option Borough Publication Options (Core Local Plan draft, (Core Strategy) Consultation December Strategy) draft, 2014 August 2013

Questionnaire X X X

Workshops and meetings X X X

Portal consultation X X X X X X

3 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Road show X

Leaflet X X X

Open day X X

Static exhibition X X X X

Roving exhibition X X X X

Question Time X

Appendix 2 provides a detailed account of the consultation events undertaken during the Local Plan preparation, how it was undertaken and who was consulted. 3. Who did we consult? 3.1 In accordance with Regulation 18(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Plan) (England) Regulations SI 2012 No.767, the Borough Council has consulted the following: • specific consultation bodies; • general consultation bodies; and • local residents and businesses. 3.2 Appendix 1 lists the specific and general consultation bodies that the Council has sought to work with throughout the plan preparation. 3.3 The consultees are held on a consultation portal database that is constantly updated and added to. The general and specific consultation bodies are taken from national regulations and guidance, as appropriate. The local residents and business representatives’ database was carried forward from previous local planning work and is updated as necessary. It is used as a primary source for addressing letters and emails on new consultation events. 4. Overview of consultation events 4.1 Appendix 2 provides a more detailed overview of the consultation events which have been undertaken during the local plan (and core strategy) preparation including: that undertaken on relevant pieces of evidence base; how and when it was undertaken and who with; and how it was reported. 5. Main issues arising from consultation and how they were used in Plan preparation 5.1 Appendix 3 provides further detailed commentary on each of the consultation events (i.e. on draft documentation), degree of support, key issues arising, and how they were taken forward in the plan preparation process. Links to relevant LDF Panel reports and minutes are provided where appropriate. In some cases the consultation issues and responses have been overtaken by changes to national planning policy and, whilst consultation responses have been taken into account as far as possible, accordance with the national planning policy context has generally taken precedence unless there is strong evidence to suggest otherwise. Consequently, the initial consideration and decisions upon representations received may have been superseded at later stages in the plan process. A ‘final outcome’ paragraph has been provided to assist with tracing how the consultation issues have contributed to the development of the publication version of the plan.

4 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

5.3 This statement will be supplemented at the end of the consultation on the publication version of the Local Plan, with an account and summary of representations made, which will then be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of any Examination in Public on the plan. 6. Summary 6.1 It is considered that the consultation set out in this statement illustrates how the Council has met the requirements of SI 2012 No.767 Regulations in undertaking on- going engagement with the appropriate bodies throughout preparation of the Local Plan and how those responses have been used to shape the Bearing Fruits 2031 – Swale Borough Local Plan Part 1 Publication Version (December 2014). The representations received during the publication period will be separately assessed and summarised and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate along with the plan and other supporting documents at the submission stage itself.

5 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Appendix 1: Bearing Fruits Swale Borough Local Plan – Consultees List (as at 19 December 2014) Please note that other consultation routes i.e. Swale Council Magazine and Business Networks will also have been used as methods of consultation. The following list represents those who are required to be, or have requested that they be, part of the Council’s database of consultees.

Statutory Consultees & Utilities (28)

Environment Agency Equality and Human Rights Commission Friends Families and Travellers Traveller Law Reform Project Showman’s Guild of Great Britain The Housing Corporation DTZ The Crown Estate British Waterways Centre for Ecology and Hydrology The Planning Inspectorate Culture Thames Gateway North The Coal Authority Department for Transport English Heritage Highways Agency Marine Management Organisation Natural England SE Local Enterprise Partnership Lower Int. Drainage Board South East Water plc. Npower Southern Gas Networks Transco Southern Water National Grid Property Southern Water AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd Health Services (4)

Canterbury and Coastal CCG Kent & Medway Strategic Health Auth.

6 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Memorial Hospital NHS Swale Clinical Commissioning Group

Neighbouring Councils (12)

KCC Gypsy Liaison Unit Medway Council Maidstone Borough Council Ashford Borough Council City Council KCC (Land Int. & Service Provision) County Planning Authority Kent County Council - Regeneration KCC Highways and Transportation Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Thanet District Council Kent County Council

Parish Councils (Swale Councils = 40, Neighbouring Councils = 17)

Bapchild Parish Council Bobbing Parish Council Borden Parish Council Boughton under Blean Parish Council Bredgar Parish Council Bredgar Parish Council Doddington Parish Council Dunkirk Parish Council Eastchurch Parish Council Eastling Parish Council Town Council Graveney with Goodnestone Parish Council Hartlip Parish Council Hartlip Parish Council Hernhill Parish Council Iwade Parish Council Leysdown Parish Council Lower Halstow Parish Council Luddenham Parish Council Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council

7 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Milstead Parish Council Minster Parish Council Newington Parish Council Newnham Parish Council Norton Buckland & Stone PC Norton, Buckland and Stone PC Oare Parish Council Ospringe Parish Council Ospringe Parish Council Queenborough Town Council Rodmersham Parish Council Selling Parish Council Sheldwich Badlesmere & Leave Parish Council Stalisfield Parish Council Teynham Parish Council Throwley Parish Council Tonge Parish Council Tunstall Parish Council Upchurch Parish Council Warden Parish Council Bicknor Parish Council Blean Parish Council Bredhurst Parish Council Challock Parish Council Charing Parish Council Chartham Parish Council Chilham Parish Council Detling Parish Council Frinsted Parish Council Harbledown Parish Council Molash Parish Council Otterden Parish Council St James, Isle of Grain Parish Council Stockbury Parish Council Stoke Parish Council Wichling Parish Council Wormshill Parish Council

8 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Agents (112)

Feria Urbanism Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd Alliance Environment & Planning Ltd Andrew Martin Associates Angela Hirst Bell Cornwell Partnership Bloomfields Ltd Chris Thomas Ltd Smiths Gore Dalemarch (Sheppey) Ltd DHA Planning DHA Planning Emerson Group Graham Warren Ltd Kent Design Partnership Kingsley Smith Solicitors LLP Lee Evans Town Planning Mouchelparkman Paul Sharpe Associates Peacock & Smith Fusion Online Ltd Stewart Ross Associates Strutt & Parker Terence O'Rourke White Young Green Broadbent Partnership Ltd Cluttons Boyer Planning Mono Consultants Ltd Planning Potential Entec UK Ltd GKA Limited Humberts King Sturge Entec UK Ltd Strutt & Parker

9 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Savills (L&P) Ltd Richard Raper Planning Ltd Barton Willmore HXRUKII () Ltd White Young Green Daniel and Edwards Solicitors Caxtons George Webb Finn Judith Ashton Associates Colliers Cunnane Town Planning LLP Courtley Consultants Ltd Savills Paul Shelley Ltd Barden Management JB Planning Associates Ltd Hallam Land Management Ltd Rapleys AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd G L Hearn Ltd Chambers Planning Dockyard Buildings Ltd WSD Design Ltd PRP Architects (for Spenhill Regeneration Ltd) (for Essential Land) Solent Planning Boyer Planning Barton Willmore Scott Wilson Indigo Planning Ltd Lewis & Co Planning South East Ltd Chapel Place Ltd The Planning Bureau Ltd Savills Harrisons RPS Planning and Development

10 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Kirkwells Planning Consultants Iceni Projects Ltd Batcheller Monkhouse Savills UK Heine Planning Mono Consultants Ltd Milliken & Company bptw partnership Savills Tetlow King Planning Hobbs Parker Property Consultants Barton Willmore Bloomfields LMA Planning Ltd Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners T B Holdings Ltd Warberry Estates JJ Hatfield & Co Ltd Planware Ltd DPDS Consulting Group Phillip Brown Associates Ltd BFSGC Green Planning Studio Ltd Stiles Harold Williams Partnership Rowles-Davis Gladman Developments Revera Limited Gladman Developments Catherine Hughes Associates

Amenity Groups (14)

Four Gun Field Action Group Friends of Faversham Creek Halstow Society Isle of Sheppey Sailing Club Lynsted Parish Design Group Minster Residents Association

11 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Ospringe Forum Society for Sailing Barge Research Upchurch Planning Review Group Woodland Trust Lower Halstow Yacht Club Society Sittingbourne Society Hollowshore Cruising Club

Businesses (40)

AE Barrow & Sons Ltd Autowash Ltd Blain Pritchard (Accountants) BMM Weston Ltd Bolton Transport & M J Highways Brocades Bridal Studio Citizens Advice Bureau - Sittingbourne Co-Operative Group Dart Group plc. F D Attwood & Partners Bobbing Car Breakers Julie Gamble Skin Care Centre The Freedom Centre Shepherd Neame Ltd Somerfield Stores Ltd The Pet Shop Transit Support Service Ltd White Horse Leisure Swale Retailers Association D & W Barling Ltd Aesica Denmaur Papers plc. Entity Group Ltd Upchurch River Valley Golf Course Ltd Topbond plc. Sittingbourne Football Club Floplast Limited

12 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

McNealy Brown Limited Bennet Opie Ltd Galleon Limited Terry & Carr Ltd APM Metals Watling Tyre Service Ltd A Hinge & Sons Ltd CS One Designers The Kings Ferry Sittingbourne Retail Association

Developers (81)

Forestry Commission Graveney Rural Environmental Action Team David Jarman Solicitors Nigel Sands & Associates Goddard Planning Consultancy Kember Loudon Williams Michael Gittings Associates Cook Associates Woodstock Associates Affinnis Design Brian Wicks Architects Clague CJS Design Services DATA Hobbs and Fosters Paul Roberts Associates Bovis Homes Cinque Ports Leisure Ltd Duchy of Cornwall Fairview New Homes Limited Gillcrest Homes Ltd Glenny Hillreed Developments Ltd Jones Homes (Southern) Ltd

13 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Messrs Robert & Perry & Gibbs Monro Homes Park Resorts Ltd Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd Trenport Investments Ltd Canterbury Diocesan Catamaran Yacht Club Woods Fencing General Practice Investment Corporation Ltd Vincent & Gorbing George Wilson Holdings Faithful and Gould Peel Energy Holdings Ltd Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land Bellway Homes Hume Planning Consultancy Ltd Chilton Manor Farm Bellway Homes Robert Brett & Sons Ltd Octave Homes McCarthy & Stone Brett Drury Land and Planning Barratt Strategic Crest Nicholson Ltd Cyrus Homes Revera Ltd Wealden Homes Bee Bee Developments Ltd Cavendish and Gloucester Properties plc. BDB Design Partnership HBD Homes Hallam Land Management: SE Region Stace Dixon Searle Partnership LLP Firm Ground Ltd Schools (62)

Bysingwood Primary School

14 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Davington Primary School Ethelbert Road Infant School St Mary of Charity CE (Aided) School Sheppey College Canterbury College Kent Institute of Art & Design North Kent West College Davington Primary School - Governors Boughton-under-Blean School Eastling Primary School Graveney Primary School Hernhill CEP School Luddenham School Ospringe CEP School Selling CEP School Sheldwich Primary School Abbey School Eastchurch CEP School Halfway Houses Primary School Isle of Sheppey Academy Minster in Sheppey Primary School Queenborough First School Richmond First School Rose Street School St Edward's RCP School St George's CE Primary School Isle of Sheppey Academy West Minster Primary School Bapchild & Tonge CEP School Westlands Primary School Bobbing Village School Borden CEP School Borden Grammar School Bredgar CEP School

15 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Canterbury Road Primary School Fulston Manor School Grove Park Community School Hartlip Endowed CEP School Highsted Grammar School Holywell Primary School Iwade Community Primary School Lansdowne Primary School Lower Halstow School Lynsted & Norton School Meadowfields Milstead & Frinstead CEP School Milton Court Primary School Minterne Community Junior School Murston Infant School Murston Junior School Newington CEP School Regis Manor Community School Rodmersham School Sittingbourne Community College South Avenue Infant School South Avenue Junior School Teynham Parochial CEP School The Oaks Infant School Tunstall CEP School Westlands School Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School

Miscellaneous Interest and Amenity Groups (273)

Citizens Advice Bureau - Faversham Citizens Advice Bureau - Sheppey Citizens Right for Older People (CROP) Commission for Rural Communities Community Prosperity Conservative Association

16 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Country Land and Business Association Protect KENT Cyclists Touring Club Swale Access Group East Kent Badger Group East Kent Federation W I English Churches Housing Group English Partnership Faversham Enterprise Partnership Faversham SEC Action with Communities in Rural Kent Adult Education Services Age Concern - Faversham Age Concern - Sheppey Age Concern - Sittingbourne Age Concern - Teynham Ark Environmental Group Arriva Kent & Sussex Arts Council of England Association of Men of Kent & Kentish Men Canterbury & Faversham Forum Caravan Club Carr Gomm Society Cavel Way Residents Association Chair of Ethnic Forum Chalkwell Coaches Broomhill Gospel Hall Trust Church Milton Community Assoc. Business & Professional Women’s Club Faversham Society Faversham Townswomen Guild Faversham Umbrella Federation of Small Businesses Federation of Small Businesses Fields in Trust Fordham Research Ltd Freight Transport Association

17 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Go Ahead Rail Kent Gardens Trust Groundwork Medway Swale Health & Safety Executive Help The Aged Hi Kent Association Home Builders Federation Homestart Sittingbourne & Sheppey Horsham Lane Res. Assoc. Island Partnership Isle of Sheppey Round Table Job Centre Plus KCA Swale Kent & Medway Economic Board Kent & Medway Towns Fire Authority Kent Association for Rural Retailers Kent Association for the Blind Kent Association of Local Councils Kent BTCV Kent Energy Centre Kent Probation Area Kent RIGS Group Kent Science Park Kent Sustainable Business Partnership Kent Tourism Quality Programme Kent Volunteers Kent Wildfowling & Conservation Association Kent Wildlife Trust Faversham Labour Party Locate in Kent Marine and Fisheries Agency Marine Parade Community Group Medway Swale Estuary Partnership Mencap Sheppey Mid & SE Kent CVS Moat Housing Association Multiple Sclerosis Society

18 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

National Farmers Union National Federation of Self- Employed & Small Businesses Network Rail New House Youth Centre North Kent Arch. Excavation Society North Kent Rail User Group Queenborough Society Crime Reduction Project Manager Road Haulage Association Rotary Club of Faversham Rotary Club of Sittingbourne and Milton Rotary Club of Sittingbourne Invicta Royal Yachting Association Rushenden CARE Project Sea Cadet Corps Sheerness Community Learning Centre Sheerness Healthy Living Centre Sheerness Heritage Centre Sheerness Youth Centre Sheppey Chamber of Trade & Industry Sheppey Conservation Volunteers Sheppey Heritage Trust Sheppey Local History Society Sheppey Matters Sheppey Volunteering Centre Sheppey Youth Action Sittingbourne Archaeology Group Sittingbourne Town Centre Forum Skillnet Swale Homes and Communities Agency South Eastern Trains Ltd St. Pauls Residents Association Sure-Start Sheerness Swale Advantage Centre Swale CAMRA Swale Carers Centre Swale Childrens' Fund

19 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Swale Community Centres Swale Council for Voluntary Service Swale Footpaths Group Swale Foyer Swale Friends of the Earth Swale Lions Club Swale Minorities Policing Panel Swale Museum Group Swale PPA Swale Road Safety Association Swale Social Services Swale Sports Council Swale Tourism Association Swale User Forum Swale Volunteer & Comm Dev Swale Youth Projects Design South East The Brogdale Trust The Lorenden Trust The Princes Trust The Theatres Trust Tourism South East University of Greenwich Volunteer Bureau - Sheppey Volunteer Bureau - Swale Creative Environmental Networks Faversham Creek Management Co Ltd Defence Estate Operations South Five Parishes Opposition Group Nat. Assoc. of Teachers of Travellers Society of Independent Roundabout Proprietors Amusement Catering Equipment Society Association of Independent Showmen Association of Circus Proprietors MS Support Group Guide Dogs for the Blind Highway Marine Ltd

20 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Building Research Establishment Sittingbourne & Kemsley Light Railway Salvation Army (research/service) Swale Mediation Salvation Army (Divisional) Swale Arts Forum Greening the Gateway Peel Ports Medway Kent Fire and Rescue Service Lawn Tennis Association Airport Operators Association Gypsy Council Irish Travellers Movement in Britain Home of Friends, Families and Travellers UK Association of Gypsy Women Canterbury Gypsy Support Group Canterbury Gypsy Support Group Pavee Advice Assist Direct Amicus Horizon Ltd Skillnet Group Kent Association of Disabled People Royal Yachting Association Kent Police Dover Design Ltd Sheppey Horticultural Society North Preston Allotment Society Stonebridge Pond Allotments Society National Farmers Union (SE Region) Kitewood Estates CPDA Team Sweep Ltd RSPB Kent Downs AONB Unit Transition Town Faversham Ian Kemsley Farms Ltd Garden of England Crematorium Gravesend Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses

21 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Naval Dockyard Society Georgian Group SAVE Britain’s Heritage Kent Downs AONB Unit Sheppey Estates Kent Police Green Party Faversham Creek Trust National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups RSPB FD Blue Town Heritage Centre The Spitalfields Trust SPOKES East Kent Cycle Campaign Teynham Medical Centre Faversham Creek Trust Swale Cycle Forum Homes and Communities Agency Greater Thames Nature Improvement Area Thames Gateway Local Nature Partnership Kent Local Nature Partnership Country Land and Business Association (For Faversham Sea Scouts) Stagecoach Queenborough Harbour Trust Knights LLP

Religious Groups (33)

Rochester Diocese Kent Muslim Community Kent Islamic Centre Baptist Church Faversham Community Church Faversham Parish Church Our Lady of Mount Carmel United Church Methodist URC Whitehill Methodist Church

22 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

All Saints Parish Church Minster Baptist Church Methodist Church Minster Abbey Queenborough Church Salvation Army Sheppey Evangelical Church United Reformed Church All Saints C of E Church St John The Baptist Church Greenstreet Methodist Church Holy Trinity Church St Peter & St Paul C of E Church Norton St Mary Church Pentecostal Church Sacred Heart RC Church Salvation Army Churches Together in Sittingbourne St Giles C of E Church St Laurence C of E Church St Peter & St Paul C of E Church United Reformed Church St Michael's C of E Church Brethren Gospel Trusts Residents (1130 – individual names and addresses not shown)

Total Consultees = 1846

23 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Appendix 2: Consultation Events Undertaken in Preparation of Bearing Fruits Swale Borough Local Plan All consultation undertaken using appropriate consultation methods highlighted by table 3.1 of the Councils Statement of Community Involvement

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation

East Kent Strategic The SHMA was produced in Led by Dover District LDF Panel 25 June 2009 – as reported under East Kent Strategic Housing Market Housing Market accordance with Council/ECOTEC Assessment. Assessment. Government guidance and Swale joined a partnership of local included two stakeholder May and June 2008. authorities in East Kent to prepare workshops. Further details the areas first Strategic Housing from Annex 8 and Annex 12 Market Assessment (SHMA) for the of final report. East Kent sub-region. Stakeholders comprised a wide range of developers, registered social landlords, and representatives from the rented sector and other interested parties.

Draft Sustainability Workshop 5 February 2008. General and specific consultees, LDF Panel 11 December 2008 noted progress. Approved document published December Appraisal scoping report Formal consultation by inc. Natural England, Environment 2008. 4 June – 11 July 2008. letter and via council Agency, English Heritage and website. Highways Agency.

Call for sites for the By letter. All relevant contacts on local plan Not applicable. SHLAA and Employment database and through development Land Review. management records. 1 September 2008.

Following adoption of Open web-consultation; Partnership included: LDF Panel 9 April 2009 – as reported under Strategic Housing Land Availability and update. Kent-wide SHLAA Workshop consultation with • protocol in July 2008, prospective partnership The Home Builders Federation SHLAA partnership members. • Hillreed Homes established 1 September • Barratt Strategic 2008 onwards and • Bovis Homes remained in place until • Paul Sharpe Associates

24 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation completion of first • Hyde Housing Association SHLAA. • English Rural Housing Association • CPRE Kent • Homes and Communities Agency • Environment Agency • Kent Highways • Private Sector Liaison Group • Brownfield Land Assembly Trust

Employment Land By letter and website. All developers, landowners on LDF Panel 15 October 2009 - as reported under Employment Land Review consultation: Review. Consultation on database and through development draft document 20 April - management records. 29 May 2009

Testing Infrastructure By letter Specific consultees, inc. Highways Not applicable. Limits. To ask the main Agency, Natural England, infrastructure providers Environment Agency, Southern for views on the likely Water, SE Water, Kent County implications of the Council, power networks and Council wishing to test communications operators. higher development assumptions than in the RSS. 13 July 2009.

Core Strategy Pre- Letter of intent to prepare a All on LDF data base, plus those Result of letter, workshops and web based questionnaire reported to LDF Panel 25 June Consultation: to engage Core Strategy and invitation registered on the Council’s resident 2009 – reported under Core Strategy update and next steps. early community interest to comment on key issues and business panels Road show and questionnaires reported to LDF Panel 15 October 2009 under Core Strategy in issues and challenges for inclusion. (Reg 25 of – progress, consultation and next steps. facing the Borough over SI2004/2204). the next 20 years. Web based questionnaire All on LDF data base, plus those Letter of intent to prepare a Core Strategy 20 centred on key issues registered on the Council’s resident

25 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation January 2009. and business panels Workshops 30 January – 30 April 2009. Series of workshops Parish Councils, Swale Youth, addressing the key issues Rural Forums, PSLG, and Local Road shows 7 August – on how they may be Strategic Partnership and 21 September 2009. addressed: Councillor workshops, amenity groups. Web based questionnaire • Which direction is the 7 August – 21 September area heading in? 2009. • How will the area earn its living? • How is the area geared up to climate change? • What are the area’s selling points? • What are the likely locations for growth? • What are the barriers to change?

Facilitator led road show General public and questionnaire visiting supermarkets, tourist events, markets, boot fairs and a range of other locations. Participants asked about key issues featured in online questionnaire.

Open Space Assessment Workshop and Users of open space i.e. clubs, Reported at LDF Panel 15 October 2007 October - August – questionnaire to all residents, visitors, governing September 2009. residents to cover analysis bodies, schools and people with an of parks and open spaces interest in open space provision. usage and satisfaction.

26 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation

Core Strategy: Vision and Web based opportunity to All consultees on database. LDF Panel 15 October 2009 – under Core Strategy – progress, consultation and next steps. Objectives. comment and or letters Consultations on the draft invited. vision and objectives for the Core Strategy. Also included four questions for consideration. 21 August 2009 - 18 September 2009.

SHLAA Partnership Series of Partnership See above. consultation to agree meetings and deliverable housing sites correspondence. for inclusion in the document and phasing of sites with planning permission. Meetings in August, September and October 2009.

SHLAA 2008-09. By letter and website. All consultees on database. To inform subsequent SHLAA. Comments invited. October 2009 and in subsequent SHLAA up to 2012-13.

Core Strategy Options Workshop facilitated by Council Members and Members of LDF Panel 27 January 2010 – see report under Core Strategy update on progress and Workshop. Planning Advisory Service. the Local Strategic Partnership. programming. 8 December 2009.

Core Strategy - ‘Known Letter/web All consultees on database. Reported to LDF Panel 22 June 2010 – see report under Core Strategy draft vision. by their Fruits’: A Clearer based/presentation. Presentations to the Swale Local Vision? Further Strategic Partnership and its public

27 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation opportunity to comment sector support group and thematic on amended Vision and groups. Objectives and ‘ABC’ portrait of Borough. 23 April -21st May 2010.

Consultation on the Letter, website. Three All consultees on database. Reported to LDF Panel 5 August 2010 and 7 October 2010 – see report under Gypsy and Gypsy and Traveller presentations and Q&A Traveller Corporate Policy Site Assessment 2010. Corporate Policy Site sessions to public. Assessments 2010. 26th March - 31st May 2010.

Swale Strategic Options Workshop. Invited audience of general specific Reported to LDF Panel 22 June 2010 workshop. and local consultees See also LDF Panel dated 25 November 2010 7 May 2010.

Swale Development Discussion forum update on Local developers, businesses and General feeding into preparation of and into meeting of LDF Panel dated 25 November 2010. Forum. 30 June 2010. progress stakeholders

Swale Landscape By letter and website and All consultees on database. Reported to meeting of LDF Panel 24 February 2011. Character and newspaper advertisement Approved for adoption subject to minor amendments 24 March 2011 and final adoption 30 Biodiversity Appraisal under Local Plan September 2011. Also used as evidence base to inform the emerging Swale Local Plan. Supplementary Planning Regulations 2004 (Statutory Document (SPD). Instrument 2004/2204). Consultation 18 October – 26 November 2010.

Core Strategy – Pick Documents available on- All consultees on database. Reported to LDF Panel 21 June 2011 – see reports under Swale Borough Core Strategy – Your Own: Issues and line, free CD, paper, and reporting the public response to the ‘Pick Your Own’ strategic options consultation; and strategic options summary leaflets, posters Swale Borough Core Strategy – Pick Your Own responses to questions within consultation (including draft strategic that were all distributed to document. and 14 development libraries, District Offices and See also LDF Panel 23 February 2012 where the preferred option was selected. management policies) with the roving exhibition,

28 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation and supporting press briefings. Sustainability Appraisal/ Inside Swale Magazine Strategic Environmental (free corporate magazine) Assessment. delivered to all households 17 January 2011 - 4 in the Borough. March 2011. Leaflet drop to all households. Parish Council briefings ahead of consultation period. A public open day and evening at Teynham on 21 February 2011. Local Engagement Forums at Sittingbourne, Minster and Faversham (not a LEF) on 18, 25 and 31 January. Question Time event with panellists comprising, the CPRE, Council Leader, the Youth Forum, the Federation of Small Businesses and Hillreed Homes on 15 March. Presentation and discussion at Swale Rural Forum on 9 March. Reports and presentations to the LSP and its sub- groupings. Attendance at the Youth Forum, Developers Forum

29 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation and meeting of a Swale Volunteer/Community group forum. Roving exhibition at: • 17 January 2011 Minster Community Centre. • 18 – 25 January The Gateway, Queenborough. • 25 January – 2 February Empty shop, 81 Preston Street, Faversham. • 2 – 4 February Eastling village hall. • 4 – 7 February Swallows Leisure Centre, Sittingbourne. • 7 – 11 February Sittingbourne library. • 11 – 14 February Sainsbury’s supermarket, Sittingbourne. • 14 – 19 February Sheerness library. • 20 February Bapchild Parish Council meeting. • 21 February Teynham Community Hall & Milstead Parish Council meeting. • 24 February Bredgar

30 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation Parish Council meeting. • 25 February – 1 March. • 1 – 4 March- Swallows Leisure Centre, Sittingbourne. • 8 – 11 March - Queenborough Library.

Bearing Fruits Draft Core Documents available on- All consultees on database. All Reported to LDF Panel 20 September 2012 – see report under Swale Borough draft Core Strategy (preferred line, free CD, paper, and attendees at meetings, workshop s Strategy. option) and supporting summary leaflets, posters and exhibitions invited to write Development targets considered at LDF Panel meeting 23 February 2013. Sustainability Appraisal/ that were all distributed to comments. Strategic Environmental libraries, District Offices and Outstanding issues reported to LDF Panel 27 June 2013. Assessment. with the roving exhibition, press briefings. Further options around Gypsy and Travellers and Inside Swale Magazine site alternatives at (free corporate magazine) Faversham. delivered to all households in the Borough. 26 March – 18 May 2012. Leaflet drop to all households. Parish Council Briefing session (13 March 2012). Swale Development Forum (19 March 2012). Swale Youth Forum 29 Feb 2012. Swale Economic Regeneration Partnership Meeting (April 2012).

31 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation Staffed exhibitions: • Sittingbourne Library 29 March 2012. • Teynham Community Hall 2 April 2012. • Faversham Alexander Centre 10 April 2012. • Sheerness Healthy Living Centre 18 April 2012. Unstaffed roving exhibition: • Seashells, Rose Street, Sheerness 26 – 28 March. • Sittingbourne Library 29 March – 2 April. • Sheerness Gateway 4 – 9 April. • Faversham Library 11- 16 April. • Swallows Leisure Centre 19 – 23 April. • Sainsbury’s Sittingbourne 24- 30 April. • Queenborough Gateway, 30 April – 3 May. • Castle Connections, Queenborough 4 – 11 May. • Children’s Centres, St Marys 14 – 18 May.

32 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation

Bearing Fruits 2031 – Documents available on- All consultees on database. Reported to LDF Panel 5 December 2013 – see report under Bearing Fruits 2031 - Swale The Swale Borough line, free CD, paper, and Borough Local Plan Part 1. Report of consultation and Summary of representations Local Plan Part 1 summary leaflets, posters received: Consultation Draft (local that were all distributed to Reported to LDF Panel 20 February 2014 - How various issues arising out of public plan preferred option). libraries, District Offices and consultation were resolved – see report under Bearing Fruits - Swale Borough Local Plan with the roving exhibition, Plus supporting and Part 1: press briefings. supporting Sustainability Reported to LDF Panel 28 October 2014 Swale Borough Council Responses to Appraisal/Strategic Inside Swale Magazine representations on Bearing Fruits. Environmental (free corporate magazine) Assessment. delivered to all households in the Borough. 19 August – 4 October 2013.* Parish Council Briefing session. * Consultation extended a further 4 days due to Unmanned exhibitions at: technical error on online • portal. Thistle Hill Community Centre, Minster. 27 Aug – 30 Aug. • Faversham Library. 30 Aug – 2 Sept. • Teynham Library. 3 Sept – 7 Sept. • Sheppey Gateway, Sheerness. 9 Sept – 14th Sept. • Castle Connections, Queenborough. 16 Sept – 18 Sept. • Sittingbourne Library. 20 Sept – 23 Sept. • Faversham West Community Centre, Bysing Wood Road. 24 Sept – 27 Sept. • Other dates added.

33 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014

Consultation Event How Consulted Who Consulted Reporting of Consultation • Sainsbury’s Sittingbourne. 27 Sept – Mon 30 Sept.

Consultation on proposed Letter. Landowners of proposed Local Reported to LDF Panel 28 October 2014 Swale Borough Council Responses to Local Green Spaces. Green Spaces. representations on Bearing Fruits. 19th May – 9th August 2014.

Swale Borough Local Documents available on- All consultees on database. Reported to LDF Panel 23 June 2014. Plan Part 2: Gypsy and line, free CD, paper. Traveller Accommodation Facilitated workshops of Issues and Options. Gypsies and Travellers, 24 February – 25 April Parish Councils, local 2014. authorities and other stakeholders. Independent field workers to take document to Gypsies and Travellers.

34 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Appendix 3: Main Issues Arising from Consultation and how they have been taken forwards in preparation of Bearing Fruits: Swale Borough Local Plan

Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise)

East Kent Strategic Housing LDF Panel 25 June 2009 • Transport, economic issues, demographics, planning, land • Panel asked to note the findings of the study in preparation of the Core Market Assessment. availability and development, regeneration, rural Strategy. Noted that further work was needed on viability and that rural Detailed consultation communities, housing need and demand, housing market affordable provision would be left to parish housing needs assessment to May and June 2008. undertaken by Dover areas, level of affordable housing sought on individual determine. District Council. sites and in individual local housing market areas, split of Final Outcome: housing tenure, need to address older population, need to address disabilities, need for future viability testing. Overall housing need, type and mix from 2009 SHMA used for policy basis of 2012-2014 versions of the draft Local Plan. SHMA updated in 2013 and found to be still valid. Viability Assessment of plan tested different levels of affordable housing for the submarket areas and the ‘viable’ rates have been incorporated into Policy DM8. The needs percentages identified in the SHMA remain in the supporting text and policy is drafted to seek a proportion closer to needs, should site viability indicate otherwise. • Noted by Panel. Formed starting point for SA/SEA of Core Strategy/Local Draft Sustainability Appraisal LDF Panel 11 December • Minor changes to baseline information only received in Plan policies and proposals. Scoping Report 2008. comments from statutory and other bodies. Final Outcome: 4 June – 11 July 2008 Appraisal objectives have been used to assess and develop options for the strategy and site selection throughout the plan making process. This has enabled the Council to make judgements about the most sustainable approach and/or the implications associated with key decisions.

Call for sites for the SHLAA LDF Panel 9 April 2009 • This resulted in a large number of sites being submitted. • The SHLAA has been updated annually since 2008-09, with periodic fresh and Employment Land Review These, together with sites that have been identified from a calls for sites. desktop review of various sources have resulted in some 1 September 2008. Final Outcome: 2,000 sites as the ‘starting point’ for the process. Sites allocated on the basis of evidence from these documents, except where cumulative and other impacts not identified have been judged as overriding.

Following adoption of Kent- LDF Panel 9 April 2009. Kent Protocol subject to own consultation with Government • Minor modifications, but Kent and local methodologies agreed by wide SHLAA protocol in July Office and HBF (not reported here). Consultation on local Partnership. Methodology retained, with minor changes in the light of 2008, SHLAA partnership variances prompted following responses from SHLAA experience, for subsequent SHLAA updates. established 1 September 2008 Partnership: onwards and remained in Final Outcome: • Settlement scope of study and search for sites. place until completion of first Agreed methodology for sites from development industry and other key 35 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) SHLAA. • Criteria for assessing sites, in particular, the screening out stakeholders. of sites. • Role of landscape designations. • Use of Local Plan policies to assess sites. 1. New sites assessed. Employment Land Review – 39 Representations 1. Requests for inclusion of sites not received within original 2. ELR report provides a pro-active policy framework to encourage provision in consultation on draft received. Summary and call for sites. rural areas. document. reporting to LDF Panel 15 2. ELR flawed, as it did not make site-specific 3. ELR did take account of losses. October 2009. recommendations for new provision in rural areas. 20 April - 29 May 2009. 4. Step change issues were assumed to relate to expansion at Kent Science 3. ELR has underestimated the amount of provision needed, Park, the issues around which were then considered separately from the given amount lost to housing - issues in Kemsley area. main ELR. 4. Whether the report has embraced the need for step change. Final Outcome: ELR and employment targets were reviewed in 2013 (following withdrawal of the RSS) and review of development targets. Some additions to stock of employment land have been provided through allocations policies to provide choice and qualitative improvement of the Borough’s offer. Quantitatively the provision is in excess of requirement.

Testing Infrastructure Limits. None at time of reporting. • None at time of reporting. Final Outcome: To ask the main infrastructure LDF Panel 15 October There has been continuous liaison with these bodies throughout preparation of providers for views on the 2009. the plan and testing infrastructure requirements came more to the fore as likely implications of the allocations were drafted. These requirements are reflected in the Council wishing to test higher Implementation and Delivery Plan/Schedule and key policies and allocations, development assumptions including: Policy CP2 (Transport), Policy CP6 (Services and facilities), Policy than in the RSS. 13 July 2009. CP7 (Green Infrastructure) and Policy DM21 (Water).

Core Strategy Pre- 900 participants 1. Negative image of Borough in decline. These issues have been addressed as the plan has developed Consultation: to engage early completed questionnaires 2. Borough has ingredients for future success with Final Outcome: community interest in issues on the road show and a environmental resources especially highlighted. and challenges facing the further 56 online 3. Opposing views of developers that insufficient housing 1. The image and perception of the Borough is a strong focus for the Vision Borough over the next 20 subsequent to road show. provided to meet role in Kent Thames Gateway, whilst and Objectives of the Local Plan. years. residents and conservation groups feel too much 2. Issues of environmental resources as future success specifically On line consultation housing provided. highlighted by Policies CP1 and CP7. Letter of intent to prepare a yielded 100 individual and 4. Affordable and lifetime homes not sufficiently provided 3. See Topic Paper on Development Targets. Core Strategy 20 January group responses for. 4. Provision is made for affordable housing and lifetime homes in accordance 2009. including: 5. Loss of countryside and green fields. with Policy CP3 and DM8. Workshops 30 January – 30 • Landowners 6. Climate change an issue given Borough is in front line. 5. The loss of countryside has been kept to a minimum and balanced with 36 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) April 2009. /developers/ agents 7. Mixed views on wind farms. the need for new development. Allocations have preferred land of lower (13) 8. Civic pride issues on cleanliness of public realm; poor environmental value in accordance with the NPPF. Road shows 7 August – 21 • Parish Councils (6) quality public transport, crime. 6. Policies, notably ST1 and CP4 focus strongly on these issues. September 2009. • Residents (48) 9. Need for self-sufficiency, localism and sustainable 7. The Local Plan provides a framework of policies intended to provide the Web based questionnaire 7 • Statutory (6) development of local scale rather than exposing balance between the strong need for renewable energy and the protection August – 21 September 2009. • Utilities (1) Borough to global trends. of environmental resources. • Amenity (2) 10. Developers have too much influence (e.g. Tesco). 8. Policies, notably ST1 and CP4 focus strongly on these issues. • Other non-statutory 11. Lack of infrastructure, transport and community 9. It has not been possible to isolate the Borough from global trends; body (24) services, especially health and schools to support even however, the strategy of the plan has been to increase local economic, existing community. social and environmental self-resilience. An example is Policy ST1. Captured results of 12. Role of and scale of development to be associated 10. This is not the case. The Local Plan has been prepared with strong community workshop with Kent Science Park and South East Sittingbourne. reference to development needs. However, the Council’s adopted series and LSP training. 13. More apprenticeships and work based training. development targets are an example where the Council has not Result of letter, workshops 14. Developers wanted more housing development responded to development pressure. and web based especially Greenfield sits and were opposed to 11. An Infrastructure Delivery Schedule supports the Local Plan. questionnaire reported to measures to improve affordable housing, design and 12. The Local Plan does not promote these matters. LDF Panel 25 June 2009 sustainable construction and provide infrastructure on 13. Policy CP1 encourages these. – reported under Core viability grounds. 14. Policies on such issues have been required to take viability considerations into account in accordance with the NPPF. Strategy update and next Additional issues from road show events: steps. 15. Policies on such issues have been required to take viability considerations 15. Affordable housing - many wanted a higher into account in accordance with the NPPF. Road show and percentage. 16. New housing is provided so that local people can buy them, however, the questionnaires reported to 16. New housing is not for local people. Local Plan cannot control the occupancy of such homes. LDF Panel 15 October 17. Difficult to see how any jobs target would be met, 17. Adopted job target is modest and more achievable as the UK emerges 2009 under Core Strategy particularly in the middle of recession. from recession. – progress, consultation 18. Lack of public transport in rural areas and the Isle of 18. The Local Plan is to be accompanied by a Local Transport Plan intended and next steps. Sheppey. to address such issues. 19. Lots of concern about state of Sittingbourne town 19. The Local Plan includes revised policy for Sittingbourne town centre. centre. 1. Population projections to be built into further open space assessments and PPG17 Open Space Responses received from 1. Main Sport England issue was application of population the minimum standards for different types of open space. Assessment. 9 bodies or individuals. projections to future need assessment. 2. Included as appropriate. 2. Points of detail for additional pieces of open space 10 August – 21 September Reported at LDF Panel 15 3. Included as appropriate. existing or planned to be included in the inventory. 2009. October 2007 3. Other points of definition or costings for development Final Outcome: contribution purposes. Fed into the Council’s Open Space Strategy and the ‘live’ document, which are the Council’s Open Space Assessment and Facilities Planning Model that monitors the impact of new development and the standard of open space 37 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) provision. The standard informed Policy DM17 (Open Space, sports and recreation).

Core Strategy: Vision and 57 respondents making a General – respondents sought to have their ‘field of influence’ • Revised Vision and objectives used as a starting point for the Core Strategy Objectives. Consultations on total of 146 points on the included in the strategy. taking into account the consultation comments as far as possible presented the draft vision and objectives draft Vision and four to LDF Panel and agreed. for the Core Strategy. Also questions posed. • Further web based opportunity to comment on changes. included four questions for LDF Panel 15 October consideration. Final Outcome: 2009 21 August 2009 - 18 The vision and objectives section has remained the basis for all subsequent draft September 2009. to submission draft Local Plan. 1. Included in revised wording of vision. Specific comments: 2. Introduced as new strand in vision. 1. Tourism and culture has a key role and not specifically 3. Framed as objectives rather than part of the vision. mentioned. 4. Framed as objectives rather than part of the vision. 2. Green Infrastructure needed a higher profile and impact on 5. Local self-sufficiency unrealistic, but a new objective created on Swale’s designated sites should be acknowledged. contribution to UK self-reliance. 3. Transport – modal shift and transport issues to be included 6. Vision recast to give slightly more local flavour. in vision. 7. Vision is not intended to be related to RSS, where as the Kent Thames 4. Avoidance of dependence on the strategic road network Gateway is reflected within the strategy of the Local Plan. Transport is an and a sustainable a development pattern needed. objective through which vision could be delivered. 5. Increasing local self-reliance reflecting global uncertainty, 8. Implicit in vision delivery - kept as a long term option as delivery of major food security and energy security. development and supporting infrastructure unlikely to be deliverable within 6. Local distinctiveness and identity: Swale lacking identity plan period. and vision therefore not achievable. Few suggestions as to 9. No change as Vision also includes Faversham and rural areas. how this may be achieved. 10. No change to Vision but assessed via Habitats Regulations process and 7. Growth - Kent Thames Gateway and South East RSS not addressed by Policy CP7. mentioned. Vision should be more growth and transport 11. No change to Vision, but new policy for central Sittingbourne to address oriented. regeneration opportunities as Tesco proposals eventually proved non 8. Kent Science Park: Owners sought greater role for deliverable. expansion of KSP, but did not propose supporting housing. Opposition to this on grounds of departing from sequential approach to regeneration of town centre first. Major infrastructure delivery issues with major expansion. 9. Vision too narrowly focussed on Sittingbourne and Sheerness. 10. Biodiversity – implications of core strategy for designated habitats of a regeneration focussed strategy. 38 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) 11. Sittingbourne Town Centre: Tesco proposals to expand town centre north of railway for employment and leisure uses rather than housing. • A number of SHLAA have been completed since 2008-09. The most recent SHLAA Partnership Meetings with specific • To agree deliverable housing sites for inclusion in the for 2012-13 is published in December 2014. SHLAA has remained in draft consultation to agree landowners and document and phasing of sites with planning permission. each year till 2012-13 and comments used to make amendments in deliverable housing sites for developers. subsequent years. inclusion in the document and Consultations on-line on phasing of sites with planning Final Outcome: draft SHLAA from 2008-09 permission. onwards. Sites allocated on the basis of evidence from these documents, except where Meetings in August, cumulative and other impacts not identified have been judged as overriding. Reported to LDF Panel September and October 2009. meetings, i.e. LDF Panel 27 January 2010

Core Strategy Options LDF Panel 27 January • Most of the comments raised were around the advantages Final Outcome: Workshop (Councillors and 2010 and disadvantages of the four options presented and none Used to inform ‘Pick Your Own’ Issues and Options document. Local Strategic Partnership called for a fundamental review of the options developed. Members). 8 December 2009. 1. Minor changes made to Vision. Core Strategy – ‘Known by 44 individuals and 1. Vision too generic/weak. 2. Minor changes made to Vision. their Fruits’: A Clearer Vision? organisations made 121 2. Matters missing from the vision. 3. Minor changes made to Vision. Further opportunity to responses on the 3. Issues relating to the four sub-areas. 4. This positively reflects on the ‘banner’ for the Vision as the Council wishes comment on amended Vision amended draft vision and 4. Strong support for the `fruits of our endeavours' as an its ‘fruits’ to be achieved across all areas. and Objectives and ‘ABC’ the five questions posed overall `banner' for the Vision, whilst different 5. Changes to Vision made to reflect these assets. portrait of Borough. on it. interpretations on what this means are focused on the 6. The economy and environment remain strong themes within the Vision and sector of interest of participants. 23 April -21st May 2010. Reported to LDF Panel 22 Objectives and resonates with themes raised consistently in earlier 5. Vision should highlight unique assets. June 2010 consultations. Objectives were also revised to be more succinct and reflect 6. Themes of economy and environment remain strong. the consultation, especially where they belonged more logically as an 7. The Vision performs favourably against all the SA objective rather than as part of the vision. objectives. 7. SA findings provide strong basis upon which to move forward. 8. Vision accords strongly with Swale Sustainable 8. Links to Swale Sustainable Communities Plan provides strong basis upon Communities Plan. which to move forward. Final Outcome: From this point onward the vision and objectives section has remained the basis for all subsequent draft to submission draft Local Plan.

39 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) 1. The intention was that this work and the sites assessment be used as a Consultation on the Gypsy and Reported to LDF Panel 5 1. Why bother/too many sites already? material consideration for development management and as an evidence Traveller Corporate Policy Site August 2010 and 7 2. AONB/listed buildings as a reason for screening out sites. base for the Core Strategy. Assessments 2010. October 2010 3. Strategic gap as a reason for screening out sites. 2. No change as this would not be in accordance with national planning policy. 4. Weighting/cut off point of site assessment scores. 26th March - 31st May 2010. 3. No change as this would not be in accordance with national planning policy. 5. Impact on services and facilities in close proximity. 4. No weighting or cut off point was applied. 6. Deliverability of sites and who would pay for them. 5. This was reflected in the site assessment. 6. This was noted. Final Outcome: Now superseded by GTAA informing pitch target and Policy DM10 and CP3 of emerging Local Plan. Swale Strategic Options Reported to LDF Panel 22 • Most of the comments raised were around the advantages Final Outcome: workshop. June 2010 and disadvantages of the four options presented and none Used to inform ‘Pick Your Own’ Issues and Options document. Development of called for a fundamental review of the options developed. 7 May 2010. See also LDF Panel dated options remained largely consistent between December 2009 to January 2011. 25 November 2010 Final Outcome: Swale Development Forum. Information dissemination • Awareness of process and opportunities to be involved General feeding into preparation of and into meeting of LDF Panel dated 25 30 June 2010. and issues emerging. November 2010 1. Included. Swale Landscape Character 18 respondents 1. General support for document. 2. Included. and Biodiversity Appraisal commented. Low level 2. Minor change to take account of historic landscape. 3. Included. Supplementary Planning attributed to fact that this 3. Cross reference Swale Urban Extension and Landscape 4. Included. Document (SPD). was an amended version Capacity Study (2010) in potential allocation areas. of a previously adopted 4. Cross-reference Kent Downs AONB Management Plan. Final Outcome: Consultation 18 October – 26 document that had already Approved for adoption as SPD and adopted 30 September 2011. Used as November 2010. had considerable evidence base to inform the emerging Swale Local Plan. Policies ST4, ST5, engagement. ST6, ST7, CP7, DM24, DM25, DM28, DM29, DM30 plus land allocation policies in Bearing Fruits have all drawn on this evidence base. Reported to meeting of LDF Panel 24 February 2011 1. Advent of NPPF has led to preparation on a single Local Plan. Core Strategy – Pick Your 291 organisations 1. Separate DPD for development management policies? 2. Guidelines considered important and informed by evidence. Informed Own: Issues and strategic developers and individuals General support for one complete document, although development of Policy CP3. options (including draft made a total of 1,844 developers favoured a shorter core strategy. 3. East Kent SHMA showed this not a particular issue for Swale, although strategic and 14 development representations between 2. Purpose and context of housing in the identified housing there is a need for smaller housing provision. management policies) and them. market sub areas? Developers against any market 40 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) supporting Sustainability Reported to LDF Panel 21 interference. 4. Evidence base was still being gathered at that time. Appraisal/ Strategic June 2011 3. Restriction of flat conversions? Some support given the Final Outcome: Environmental Assessment. need for family housing, but market should be left to make See also LDF Panel 23 Objectives retained as far as possible in Policies CP4 and DM19. Viability work its own responses. 17 January 2011 - 4 March February 2012 (inc. indicated that meeting energy needs from renewable sources unlikely to be 4. Ambition in sustainable design and construction 2011. Appendix 1). viable even on large strategic sites. standards? Split between supporting the principle and querying whether it was ambitious enough and developers 5. Initially the Council resolved to delete local designations, but the NPPF who objected to anything more rigorous. changes the context for them. 5. Approach and weight to be afforded for (a) Local Final Outcome: Landscape Designations; (b) Local Countryside Gaps; and (c) Best and most versatile agricultural land? Opinion Policy DM25 now retains local countryside gaps, whilst Policy DM24 addresses widely divided between the public who favoured local local landscape area designations, although their definition and consideration of development within them is still informed by landscape character analysis. designations and other bodies who felt the character- based approach would be more robust and afford more Member decision was to prioritise conservation of high quality agricultural land in flexibility. Many respondents were in favour of the knowledge that this could affect distribution of development. This informed conservation of high quality agricultural land for food Policies ST3 and ST4. security. 6. No evidence for change from retail evidence study. 6. Potential for change to town centre core shopping areas 7. Agreed to extend occupancy to 10 months per year to help increase viability and non-retail uses to be steered to secondary areas. for operators, but avoid use for sub standard main residence housing in 7. Approach to holiday parks occupation (10 – 12 month (some) high risk flood areas. occupancy limits)? Issues of viability, congestion, pressure on local services and infrastructure, impact on Final Outcome: over wintering birds. Used to develop Policy DM5. 8. Extend scope of rural exceptions housing to include 8. Agreed that scope should be extended. Publication of NPPF eventually market housing? Favoured by developers, although gave further support. contrary to extant national planning policy at the time and could undermine Core Strategy development strategy. Final Outcome: 9. Approach to Gypsy and Traveller site provision? Policy DM9 developed accordingly. Substantial opposition from developers to providing pitches 9. Council considered that approach nevertheless had merit. Other issues on mainstream housing, pitches should not be allowed in would be determined by the future national policy. areas off limits to settled population, local connections should be required, future household growth should be Final Outcome: counted and only genuine travellers should be counted. Superseded by PPTS that requires pitch target based on need assessment and Support for site criteria based policy. site allocations where necessary. Policies ST4; CP2 and DM8 developed 10. Threshold for developer contributions to infrastructure and accordingly. On-site provision remains part of the Part 1 Local Plan. Site affordable housing? Mixed results on consultation pending allocations being progressed in Local Plan Part 2 due to significant need and the introduction of CIL. Viability is an issue. development pressure and possibility that this could be adopted faster than 11. What should the preferred option look like? Responses to Local Plan Part 1. Government also proposing further change to national policy the four suggestion spatial options. Debate dominated by on this issue at autumn 2014. 41 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) varying levels of growth suggested for Kent Science Park 10. Uncertainty around the introduction of CIL and how that would apply to and degree of association with the Northern and Southern affordable housing and to smaller sites. Policy would need to be revised at Relief Roads. No consensus although Option 1 attracted a later stage to reflect this. In the interim affordable housing policy was to least objection (540 dwellings per annum and urban focus) be drafted to stay at 15 dwelling threshold with a site-specific viability – support for ‘brownfield first’. Too much/too little housing assessment to see if sites of 5-14 dwellings could be included. S106 in the wrong place depending on whether resident or agreements for other matters were not to be subject to a threshold as site developer perspective. specific and subject to viability. Final Outcome: Issue superseded by introduction of CIL and subsequently NPPF viability considerations, together with amendments to NPPG at October 2014. Policy threshold for affordable housing set at 10 units in supporting text to Policy DM8 and CP6 until such time as CIL can be adopted. Viability issues still prevail over substantial area of the Borough. 11. Document indicated the possibility that the preferred option (PO) could be a hybrid of the 4 options presented. This was the case, although it contained the greatest elements of option 1. This reflected the views of the sustainability appraisal, particularly in respect of option 2 and consultation responses, mostly from residents in respect of options 3 and 4. It reflected deliverability issues, especially around the high growth options 3 and 4. Final Outcome: Preferred option has been broadly consistent to the 2014 Local Plan (LDF Panel 23 February 2012). All of the policies contained within ‘Pick Your Own’ have been retained, although modified taking into account consultation responses and, notably the NPPF that superseded the then national policy context. Of the questions posed by Pick Your Own, many of these early issues were shown to be important to the development of the plan and the consultation responses were valuable in shaping the final document (see above). 1. See responses below. Review of allocations and amendments made, Bearing Fruits Draft Core 306 individuals and 1. The main focus of representation from both residents and notably at NW Sittingbourne and Teynham where a site was removed from Strategy (preferred option) organisations made developers (albeit from different perspectives) is the the plan (but subsequently reinstated when objections overcome – see 2013 and supporting Sustainability representations to the plan amount and location of development. Of particular concern Local Plan). Appraisal/ Strategic during the consultation to residents were the strategic allocation policies and the Environmental Assessment. period, making a total of list of likely other allocation sites, which were appended to Final Outcome: 1,537 points of the document in anticipation of the transfer to a single local The plan was then progressed as a local plan (decision of LDF Panel 23 Further options around Gypsy representation between plan document heralded by the draft NPPF. February 2013). and Travellers and site them. Outright supports 2. Strategy and development targets: comments on overall alternatives at Faversham. 2. The publication of the NPPF during the consultation resulted in further work totalled 280, together with amount of development - too much or too few and too 42 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) 26 March – 18 May 2012. 154 qualified supports, many houses and not enough employment. Developers in commissioned to determine objectively assessed needs and review the whilst objections totalled favour of more housing and residents generally less. 2009 SHMA. 1,099. Broad support for the development strategy, although Final outcome: clearer articulation of strategy for Faversham and Sheppey Reported to LDF Panel 20 This further work (reported at the 23 February 2013 LDF Panel), resulted in a needed. Strong concern on greenfield land take and September 2012 change to the employment target, which was to be expressed as a jobs figure, impact on local infrastructure and services especially rather than capacity based. For housing, the Council resolved a housing target Development targets roads, schools and health of 10,800 (540 p.a.) dwellings, given concerns about deliverability and viability considered at LDF Panel 3. Site Allocations - supported by promoters and largely related to the settlement strategy of the Local Plan. This is detailed further in meeting 23 February strongly resisted by local residents and conservation the Council’s Topic Paper on Development Targets. Policies ST1, ST2, ST3, 2013. bodies on a range of environmental, infrastructure and ST4, ST5, ST6, ST7 and the cross cutting policies CP1- CP7 were refined and proposed use issues. Outstanding issues extended to take account of these concerns. Strategies for Faversham and 4. In respect of the three employment site options at reported to LDF Panel 27 Sheppey were revisited and clarified in light of adjustment to allocations. Faversham, objections were received from residents to all, Implementation and delivery schedule now accompanies the plan with June 2013. mostly due to loss of Greenfield land/high quality infrastructure requirements and land allocations included where necessary to agricultural land, although concerns about sites south of Detailed responses to accommodate them. individual representations the A2 were evident. Some considered brownfield land on this document can be options were available. Support for more good quality 3. Comments on specific sites were noted at LDF Panel 20 September 2012, viewed by the Council’s business sites with better access to the M2. Site given the additional commissioned work on development targets. online portal. promoters provided additional information in support of their sites. The owners introduced a further site during the Final Outcome: Site allocations were updated, site concept plans included for strategic sites and consultation at Oare Gravel works. some land uses modified. An Implementation and Delivery Schedule and Local 5. In respect of Gypsy and Traveller pitch options, representations were varied as to whether the full Transport Strategy now supports the plan and detail what supporting objectively assessed needs should be addressed. The infrastructure will be needed to deliver the Local Plan development. need to make any provision was questioned, whilst Gypsy 4. At LDF Panel of 27 June 2013, the Council considered that the balance of and Traveller representatives favoured the higher option in evidence, including the representations and the findings of the Sustainability the absence of a GTAA and given the requirements of the Appraisal. The Council was minded to include the Oare site, for further new Planning Policy for Traveller sites. consultation, as its preferred option, supported by a ‘reserve’ allocation of 6. Numerically most objections were to NW Sittingbourne on land to the east of Love Lane for housing and employment purposes (this environmental, proposed use and infrastructure grounds. was amended for the 2013 and 2014 Local Plans - see below). The delivery At Teynham, many concerns related to the principal of of existing brownfield sites was also highlighted in response to local locating development at the village, the ability of services concerns. to cope, and the proposed access to the sites. 7. Reserve site at Scocles Rd Minster was opposed by local Final Outcome: residents on the grounds of the imbalance in jobs delivery The case for adding an additional site at Faversham was set in hand as a result and housing on the Island, as well as the impact on local of this consultation and resulted in Oare gravel works being highlighted as the services and facilities. Some developers felt it should be preferred option and Lady Dane Farm as a reserve site in the Bearing Fruits released sooner, whilst others considered that more (2013 draft plan). In the publication version of the plan and as a result of review appropriate sites could be identified. of development targets, both sites were allocated as mixed use sites (Policies 43 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) 8. Areas of future change policies (Kent Science Park, MU4 and MU5). Southern Relief Road) were subject of strong objection on: 5. At LDF Panel of 27 June 2013, having regard to representations and the environmental grounds; the need not proven; and M2 findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, the Council deferred consideration Junction 5 improvements a more appropriate response to pending consideration of a new GTAA. strategic road network problems. 9. Omitted sites – not previously included in the Council’s Final Outcome: SHLAA and some sites that were, but rejected thus far for A new GTAA was commissioned jointly with other Kent Districts and has fed into allocation. the pitch target within Policy ST4 of the published plan. A Part 2 Local Plan has 10. CP1 Sustainable development and settlement hierarchy been set in motion to identify any site allocations that may be needed over and attracted debate on the position of individual settlements. above provision on mainstream housing sites. Rapid adoption of such a 11. CP3 Homes and Communities – attracted objections to document, possibly ahead of the main local plan was seen as a pragmatic SHMA conclusions on housing mix and types as likely to answer to development pressures on this topic. impact on viability. 6. Having regard to residents concerned, at NW Sittingbourne employment 12. CP5 Transport – support for principle of modal shift to non- car transport, but implementation measures not uses were deleted from the Local Plan. A further site at Barrow Green convincing. Major objection to demonstration of need in Farm, Teynham was included in response to developer representations and respect of the Sittingbourne Northern and Southern Relief a site at Station Road removed due to access issues – many local residents and the Parish Council also highlighted this. Roads. Many representations were received (not confined to Policy CP5) that improvement to M2/J5 is the key issue Final Outcome: for the area. For the 2014 Local Plan the Barrow Green site Teynham was modified to 13. CP6 – Infrastructure and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan improve viability and the Station Road site reinstated when access concerns prompted various service and utility providers to come were addressed. Additional land at NW Sittingbourne was allocated for the forward with their specific requirements, given the draft 2013 Local Plan to secure access to the site. strategy. Comment from the general public was focussed on making good shortages in existing infrastructure and 7. The Scocles Rd reserve site was deleted, given in favour of a definite services and that extra facilities are provided in advance of allocation at Barton Hill Drive on the western side of Minster (also later additional housing. The Environment Agency sought a deleted in response to consultation responses). water supply and treatment policy requiring developers to 8. The Council resolved that Areas of Future Change should be maintained to ensure that supplies and infrastructure are available. give some certainty over future intentions, although it was to be made clear 14. Policy CP7 (Green Infrastructure) received significant that the areas did not form part of the strategy of the Local Plan. support, although the purpose and clarity of the illustrative Final Outcome: map needs considerable improvement. Sport England For the 2014 Local Plan the areas have been downgraded from policy to requested specific mention of open space and sport intention, since demonstration of deliverability was an issue for Highways pitches. Agency. Policy ST2 still identifies them as triggers for Plan review. Autumn 15. Policy DM1 (Sustainable Design and Construction) 2014 Chancellor’s statement identifies M2/Junction 5 as focus for SRN attracted comments from the general public on water improvement, which is now reflected as a priority in the Local Transport Strategy supply. There were also objections from the development and text to Policy CP2. industry in respect of decentralised heat and power and other measures to assist with carbon reduction and 9. Members agreed to allocate all the sites highlighted as potentially necessary 44 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) increase use of renewable energy on the grounds of by the Local Plan. New sites would be assessed via the next round of viability and deliverability. SHLAA. 16. Policy DM4 (Heritage Assets) received significant support 10. Agreed that settlement hierarchy may be more appropriately sited within in principle, and points of detail were mainly concerned policy in the Strategy part of the plan to provide the link between overall with NPPF compliance or area-specific matters development targets and where development should be focussed. Policy 17. Policy DM5 (Natural Assets) again received a good CP1 may need to be recast to include design and other issues required by measure of support from the conservation bodies, although the NPPF and, again, included within the Strategy part of the Local Plan. more emphasis and account of the AONB and its Final Outcome: This was recast as part of the development strategy Policy ST3 management plan was requested. in the publication plan, with the principle of sustainable development having its 18. Representations were also received under this policy for own policy (ST1). Sustainable design and construction issues are now a the designation of Local Green Space designations, which development management Policy DM19. is a new category of protected open space introduced by the NPPF as requiring justification via the Local Plan 11. Representations made in respect of conclusions reached by the Strategic process. Sites were put forward. Housing Market Assessment on housing mix and types and approaches to 19. Policy DM12 (Affordable Housing) attracted a range of local housing market areas were to be tested as part of the viability comments, with some requesting lower site size thresholds assessment to be undertaken. for seeking affordable housing, and others seeking higher Final Outcome: Whole plan has been subject of a viability assessment and the overall targets to improve affordability and citing compliance with NPPF on the topic of viability. challenges posed by viability over a significant part of the Borough has resulted in major amendment to Policy DM8 (affordable housing). 20. Sustainability Appraisal: The need for the appraisal to consider ‘saved allocations’. 12. There remained on-going work with the HA and KCC to underpin their 21. General support for the plan from specific consultees. support for the Core Strategy approach. Work was also on going with Kent Highways to identify the highway improvements or transport schemes to be included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Kent Highways were to produce a Local Transport Strategy to complement the Core Strategy, particularly in terms of bus and cycling networks. Final Outcome: For the 2014 Local Plan, Areas of Future Change (including the SSRR) have been recast as an ambition and now only included in Policy ST2 as a potential trigger for Local Plan Review as limited prospects of delivery. On-going work with KCC Highways and Highways Agency were resolved with updated allocations. Policy CP2 and supporting text reflects this work. HA Route Based Strategy work has resulted in focus on M2 /J5 for improvement. Local Plan is supported by a Local Transport strategy produced in collaboration with KCC Highways. This features practical ways to encourage modal shift to non-car transport and the need to establish public transport walking and cycling networks (also embedded in land allocation policies). An Implementation and Delivery Schedule that lists transport infrastructure necessary to support new development also supports the Local Plan. 45 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise)

13. The Borough Council has cooperated with the water companies in preparation of their strategic plans and Policy DM21 includes wording to reflect the EA request in respect of ensuring adequate water supply and wastewater connections are in place to support new development. 14. Policy CP7 and related development management policies needed some revision as a result of the NPPF requirement for greater clarity in the hierarchy of protected natural assets. Work was also in hand in partnership with Sport England to model Core Strategy population projections in order to identify needs on a ward basis. In addition, a commitment to a Council Playing Pitch Strategy was made. Final outcome: Policy CP7 has been substantially revised and clarified to focus on natural assets and the illustrative map greatly improved and clarified. A hierarchy of environmental designations is established and a link has been created with Policy DM17 (provision of open space sports and recreation) that recognises the role these facilities have as part of green infrastructure. 15. Left to be assessed as part of overall plan viability. Final outcome: As a result of the Viability Assessment (and pending national building regulation amendment), Policy DM19 identifies standards that are commensurate with the Viability Assessment (Code Level 3 as a minimum) or national building regulations and appropriate BREEAM standard for non-residential buildings. 16. Strategy policy needed some amendment to bind these ideas together in a way that can act as a ‘hook’ for a future heritage strategy and programme of work to be pursued outside the Core Strategy. Allocations to be amended to ensure that the heritage angle is covered as appropriate. Final Outcome: Policy CP8 now establishes heritage assets as a core policy, supported by Policies DM32-36. 17. Points of detail agreed to reflect the need to comply with the NPPF and provide a hierarchical structure to the policy. Further acknowledgement to AONB to be provided. 18. The revised Core Strategy Natural Assets policy will need to acknowledge the new category of Local Green Space, and afford them an appropriate level of protection. However, the identification and allocation of specific sites 46 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) will need to be addressed, either through the Swale site allocations DPD, or through Neighbourhood Plans. Final Outcome: Local Green spaces (23 sites including some promoted through the Bearing Fruits draft Local Plan 2013 consultation) are now identified through a Technical Paper and included at Policy DM18 of the Local Plan. 19. The affordable housing policy and a range of policy thresholds was being tested as part of the overall viability testing of the plan, and potential options in respect of final adjustment of the approach to affordable housing will need to await the outcome of that work. Final Outcome: Whole plan has now been subject of a viability assessment and the challenges posed by viability over a significant part of the Borough has resulted in major amendment to Policy DM8 (affordable housing). 20. The suggestion that the SA should encompass any saved policies from the Swale Borough Local Plan (2008) to recognise that the combination of saved and proposed new policies was recognised as potentially having a different collective impact on sustainability matters overall. The decision was to put this in hand as part of the SA for the submission draft. Final Outcome: This decision was supplemented by the decision to move to a complete local plan that would have the effect of updating/recasting policies and proposals from the Local Plan (2008). Final SA is of the whole Local Plan. 21. On-going joint working and collaboration noted with the Highways Agency (in partnership with KCC Highways) to confirm that the strategic transport modelling is an adequate basis to support the plan and infrastructure to be included with in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Responses from the Health Authority on their detailed requirements had yet to emerge. Work had been in hand for some time with Natural England in respect of Bird Disturbance studies in the Medway and Swale SPAs. Final Outcome: Final policy drafting includes appropriate wording to reflect these on-going studies. All of these matters now resolved and have been included in the Cross Cutting policies, the Implementation and Delivery Schedule and appropriate allocation policies. 47 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) 1. LDF Panel 5 December 2013 made a general resolution to take Bearing Fruits 2031 – The A total of 342 individuals 1. Initial analysis of the representations suggest the following representations into account as far as possible in finalising the local plan for Swale Borough Local Plan (plus petitions) and matters need to be considered: publication. Part 1 Consultation Draft (local organisations made 1,595 • Development Targets (including the Duty to Co- plan preferred option). representations. This was operate). Final Outcome: an increase of 11% (on • Outstanding matters and research arising from previous representations Plus supporting and supporting Transport issues. respondees) on the 2012 (including viability and transport work) were reported to LDF Panels at 20 Sustainability • Local Plan allocations – ‘saved from 2008 plan’ and consultation (greater with February, 23 June and 25 September 2014, before Publication version of the Appraisal/Strategic new. petitions/standard letters). plan brought everything together at 28 October 2014 LDF Panel and was able to Environmental Assessment. • Faversham employment issues. Some 33% of • Long-term locations for new development. finalise responses to representations made at the Bearing Fruits 2013 19 August – 4 October 2013.* representations were in • Development Management Policies - Gypsy and consultation. support (12.7% conditional Travellers, Settlement Gaps, Sustainable 2. Issues around deliverability, transport, infrastructure, viability and phasing * Consultation extended a support) with 65.8% further 4 days due to technical Construction methods and renewable energy. arguments were considered as potentially improving the case for lower objecting - down from • Implementation and viability development target, but the risk to the soundness of the plan was advised error on online portal. 71.6% in 2012 (but there • Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation as significant. Duty to Co-operate issues were at that time emerging. On was an increase with Assessment. the basis of the evidence relating to objectively assessed need for housing, petitions/standard letters 2. Development Targets (including Duty to Co-operate): there was very limited capacity to delete sites allocations. A number of in respect of specific Many representations from residents objecting to housing alternatives to the then current development targets were considered, sites). allocations and that the overall amount of development is including increasing the development target to objectively assessed need Reported to LDF Panel 5 too high and will overwhelm infrastructure and services. level (740 dwellings per annum) or at least to within the OAN range. This December 2013 Evidence from other commentators to support substantially could have been considered through identifying broad locations for future increasing them is strong. growth at the latter part of the plan period, increasing yields on allocated Reported to LDF Panel 20 3. Resident and Parish Council concerns over a number of sites and taking advantage of the re-allocation of substantial brownfield sites February 2014 the development proposals in the draft Local Plan are which had come available with in Sittingbourne Town Centre and by Reported to LDF Panel 28 strong – notably, Barton Hill Drive, Belgrave Road, Cryalls increasing housing at sites at Faversham. The Council’s decision was to October 2014 Lane and NW Sittingbourne. retain the housing target at what was perceived to be a deliverable level with 4. CPRE believed a different demographic model will reduce a reasonable prospect of supporting infrastructure, through focussing on Detailed responses to need and use of windfall and increasing yields of some increasing provision on suitable allocated sites at Faversham and individual representations sites means number of allocations can be reduced. Sittingbourne (central area) and at Queenborough and Rushenden. on this document can be 5. No representations have been made in respect of the viewed by the Council’s proposed target of 82 pitches for Gypsies and Travellers Final Outcome: Policy ST2 and ST4 and allocation policies adjusted to reflect the final evidence online portal. 6. Transport Issues: Highways Agency objection to Areas of future Change Sittingbourne Southern Relief Road and M2 on deliverability and supporting infrastructure, with triggers for early Plan review built into Policy ST2, should market signals indicate significant change, or short /J5A as contrary to Circular 02/2013; and deliverability not demonstrated as part of a strategic plan led growth term delivery of major new transport infrastructure is confirmed. Further proposal. Updated assessment of the impact of local plan evidence on development targets provided by Topic Paper. In terms of the proposals on the Grovehurst / A249 junction. Duty to Co-operate, this is subject to a separate paper. However, SHMA, viability work and other indicators all suggest that Swale is a fairly isolated 7. Local Plan ‘saved’ allocations from Adopted Local Plan (2008) and draft new allocations. This included responses housing market and is therefore not well placed to meet needs of others or, if 48 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) to options to use land at Milton Creek Sittingbourne, but feasible physically, to have its needs met in other more expensive, adjacent also at Stones Farm, Sittingbourne Town Centre and housing market areas. Queenborough and Rushenden as well as smaller 3. At 20 February 2013 LDF Panel, additional development capacity meant that allocations. the preferred target could be achieved and countryside gap status restored 8. Faversham employment allocations: Oare Gravel Works to several draft allocations at Sheppey and at Sittingbourne. This meant the and Lady Dane Farm - both proposed by developers for deletion of sites at Belgrave Road, Barton Hill Drive and Cryalls Lane. mixed use. Local preference for the Oare site to be used 4. LGA and Inspectors did not consider alternative demographic models robust for employment. or recognised. There was little evidence to support an increase in reliance 9. Long-term locations for new development. CPRE Protect on windfalls. Kent objects to the concept of AFC in principle as they 5. The plan would proceed on the basis of meeting the objectively assessed consider that to signal in principle development that need for Gypsies and Travellers, whilst the approach of seeking to meet a undermines the plan led process and effectively prejudices proportion of the need from mainstream allocated sites was progressed. the choice of future development strategies. 10. ‘Area of Search’ Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road Final outcome: (SNRR) Policy AS1: The area of search for the SNRR Policy CP3 and DM10 were amended. CP3 now includes the requirement for excludes the Stones Farm ‘saved’ housing allocation but pitches on mainstream allocations, but with the technical requirement becoming includes a large area of public open space allocated by the part of the reasoned justification as a basis for negotiation. Policy DM10 is 2008 Local Plan between the village and the housing site, amended to form a policy to guide planning applications. the retention of which is stated as being ‘in perpetuity’. Within the ‘search’ area, the text of the draft Local Plan 6. Further research and modelling to be undertaken (based on former strategic model) to reflect the final local plan development targets and satisfy refers to ensuring that a ‘full complement of public open space… can be retained’. A number of respondents have Highway Agency in respect of strategic road network impact. Route Based questioned the compatibility of these statements. They Strategy work also under way at this time and looking at M2 and junctions believe the inclusion of the Stones Farm allocation within within the Borough. Kent Highways also working on a Local Transport the area of search would provide greater flexibility over a Strategy to cover infrastructure needs on the county road network. road alignment that might, in turn, provide the open space. Final Outcome: CPRE Protect Kent suggest that the road could run even Policy CP2 and supporting text recast to reflect changed national circular; and closer to the existing edge of Sittingbourne with the priorities for the strategic and local road network indicated by updated modelling. housing and open space allocation planned around it. The plan is now supported by an Implementation and Delivery Schedule setting 11. Area of Future Change’ (AFC). Site specific issues out transport infrastructure needed to support the plan and projects to support include: future development needs. The Local Transport Strategy both supports and a. The Port of Sheerness and its surroundings (Policy complements the Local Plan and a draft is available for comment alongside the AFC1). Owners support the Policy, but believe publication plan. The Autumn 2014 chancellor’s statement indicates that M2/J5 that some aspects can be progressed within the has been allocated funding for improvement, but the nature of the scheme has plan period. not been confirmed and implementation not practicable in the early years of the b. The Kent Science Park (Policy ACF2). The Parish plan period. Councils and some residents and conservation bodies continue to press for deletion of the major 7. In order to properly assess the sustainability impacts and deal with changed expansion of the Science Park. Issues raised expectations of delivery of a number of ‘saved’ allocations from the adopted 49 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) include environmental impact, transport matters, (2008) Local Plan, it was agreed that they be brought forward and revised limited demand for the space, benefits for local into the emerging local plan so as to deal with the issues as employment; and deliverability. comprehensively as possible. It was agreed that land at Milton Creek c. The interconnection with Policy AFC3 attracted should be allocated for housing; this being the preferred approach for many significant objection from public and private sector in the absence of viable alternatives for office employment. and the KSP representatives and from the Final Outcome: Highways Agency. HA objection is based on The allocations chapter in the publication version of the plan has been recast to insufficient evidence to date to demonstrate bring forward extant allocations from the adopted (2008) Local Plan and, where suitable design and funding to show deliverability relevant, recast them. A housing led approach to Milton Creek (Policy A9) and a of the SSRR and J5A within the Plan period. KCC revised central Sittingbourne Town Centre regeneration policy (Policy Regen 1) support the principle of major expansion at the reflects both the withdrawal of a major development proposal and a new Science Park and the need to bring forward a development partnership for the town centre. Queenborough and Rushenden partial review of the local plan and an Action Area (Policy Regen 2) has been revised to reflect proposed changed to the Plan for linked development in Policies AFC2 Masterplan for the area. Policy AFC3. They are concerned that even as an interim measure KSP would control access to the 8. Representations on the Faversham employment allocations revealed some rest of the rural road network. change in position by the town council and developers. A series of 12. There was little in the way of responses from the Gypsy alternative ways of using these two sites to contribute to the development and Traveller community itself, although one agent was of strategy overall and at Faversham were considered. No objection to the the view that the policy would not suit their accommodation Oare site for mixed use was raised by Natural England subject to needs. Developers indicate that the policy is unworkable appropriate HRA assessment and mitigation. This was nevertheless the for both the settled and Gypsy and Traveller communities, weaker site in terms of commercial attractiveness for business use. In view whilst they believe that there are viability issues to be of development pressure and positive viability at Faversham, the opportunity considered. This message is not universal with two for these sites to make appositive contribution to the housing land developers at Faversham indicating their willingness to employment land supply was taken and both allocated for mixed use. comply with the policy. The issue has also fuelled the concerns of existing residents living close to qualifying Final Outcome: housing allocations with some being more concerned At Faversham Oare is Policy MU4 and Lady Dane Farm is Policy MU5. about this issue than the housing allocation itself. 9. LDF Panel was asked to note these objections pending completion of 13. A number of residents have highlighted the impact of transport research. housing allocations upon the countryside gaps between the town’s and satellite villages, notably at NW Final Outcome: Sittingbourne, Cryalls Lane, Key Street, Minster/Halfway Given likely objections from the Highways Agency and further modelling work, and to a lesser extent Oare. CPRE Protect Kent seek the ‘Areas of Future Change’ are recast as longer-term development opportunities reinstatement of Policy E7 from the adopted Local Plan and not provided as policies forming part of the Local Plan. which is to be superseded and which defined boundaries 10. Inclusion of Stones Farm within the ‘search’ area would delay the site from to the gaps on the Proposals Map. coming forward until the SNRR alignment was resolved and so remove its 14. Sustainable Design and Construction (Policy DM20) contribution to the immediate 5 year supply of housing. More importantly, representations suggested that the policy was trying to the ability of the buffer edge of the Stones Farm site or a route still further 50 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) achieve too much by dealing with both construction west to be able to act as a route for the SNRR was limited given its proximity standards and stand-alone renewable energy. to proposed houses. In terms of the compatibility of the open space 15. Implementation and Viability. KCC noted that there would allocation with the ‘search’ area, the Stones Farm was to be included as a be a gap in the funding for new infrastructure that can be new housing allocation in the draft Local Plan and that the open space achieved by CIL/S106, probably in the post 5-year period provision could be made through the revised policy. It would not be of the Local Plan. appropriate to prejudge any route of the SNRR, but the issue of the open space would be considered in the context of the road alignment process. It was accepted that the current text concerning the open space needed amendment to the effect that the amount of open space would be as per the previously ‘saved’ policy. Final Outcome: Policy A8 brings forward the adopted Local Plan saved policies for Stones Farm and open space to be provided and the provision for the open space brought forward when the route of the SNRR becomes clearer. Transport modelling has shown that the SNRR is not required to support Local Plan growth and as such delivery of the Stones Farm site is likely to be before any progression of the road. 11. In respect of site specific issues relating to AFC policies: a. There are on-going legal disputes concerning the Steel Mill site and it would be inappropriate to promote development there whilst this situation prevails and pending preparation of an overall Masterplan. b. A key question was whether Policy AFC2 went too far in accepting the principle of development as to prejudice future development strategy. Growth of up to 100,320 sq. m could be accommodated and its likely location of growth was identified on the Proposals Map. Further discussions would be necessary with KCC Highways and the Highways Agency (HA) before bringing forward a final draft of these policies. c. Whilst there were concerns with the policies’ accordance with Circular 2/2013, in the context of a future review policy, it was considered that there is still an opportunity to develop a joined up approach and commitment for the southern spur to the Science Park and subsequently to the whole A2/M2 Link Road. It was considered likely that these discussions would result in some re-casting of the policies. Final Outcome: In the light of the transport circular and no clear evidence of deliverability within the plan period, the AFC policies have been recast as longer term opportunities 51 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) in the allocations chapter of the publication plan rather than policies and no notation has been indicated on the Proposals Map. Mention of these opportunities is however included in Policy ST2 of the plan, as in the event of a change in circumstances to improve their deliverability within the short term, a local plan review would be triggered. 12. This type of housing need was considered to be no different to any other and should be simply a question of housing mix and design and layout. It cannot be denied that such perceptions amongst parts of the settled (and house-buying) community produce concerns that could impact upon viability (the forthcoming viability appraisal on the plan was to contain some work on this). The Council’s sustainability appraisal confirmed the approach as the most sustainable. Final Outcome: Policy DM10 has been retained as a development management policy. Policy CP3 has been amended to include the approach for seeking an element of provision for gypsy and traveller sites on larger mainstream housing allocations. Following the Viability Assessment of the plan, it can be evidenced that provision of un-serviced pitches does not unduly affect viability. 13. The Council had previously considered this issue and resolved not to retain them, referencing them instead within the settlement and area strategies and in specific draft allocations. The NPPF also did not appear to specifically preclude or encourage their use. A number of proposed draft allocations were included within the currently adopted gap areas and the reintroduction of them to the draft Proposals Map would inevitably lead to either to a boundary review of them or a re-assessment of the allocations themselves. The Council agreed that such a review should be undertaken and that a new ‘gap’ policy should be drafted. This was provided at the LDF Panel meeting of 20 February 2014. Final Outcome: Following a review of the adopted Local Plan countryside gap boundaries it was recommended that existing draft Local Plan policies did not significantly damage the areas in question and/or could be justified on the basis of an overriding need for development. The Council determined that the development target could still be achieved if the countryside gaps were reinstated, particularly at Minster and Cryalls Lane where housing sites could be deleted. Policy DM25 therefore brings forward a revised and amended version of important countryside gaps policy for the adopted local plan. 52 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise)

14. It was agreed to split the policy into two to deal with these matters separately and improve clarity. Policy DM19 addresses Sustainable Design and Construction, whilst Policy DM20 deals with Renewable and low carbon energy. 15. The implications of viability for provision of essential infrastructure and consequential phasing of development were, at the time, yet to be evaluated. Early work indicated that Swale was the second lowest Borough in Kent in terms of viability and it was assumed that this would follow through into difficulties for many of the sites designated at Sheppey and Sittingbourne, at least in terms of the 5-year supply. Final Outcome: The Viability Assessment led to a considerable modification in policy costs in the plan, especially in terms of significantly reduced affordable housing targets (Policy DM8), sustainable construction standards pegged at national building standards or Code 3 (Policy DM19) and the removal of the proposal to service Gypsy and Traveller pitches on mainstream housing sites. There is nevertheless a significant gap between infrastructure requirements and likely funding. Chapter 8 of the plan addresses phasing and risks and concludes that even with a challenging viability scenario in parts of the Borough, the plan’s development strategy and targets are deliverable for at least the first five years post adoption as no major infrastructure items are expected to be required within that timescale. Consultation on proposed Reported to LDF Panel 28 Comments/concerns from owners of Green Space that Policy Some amendments were made to the sites now reflected in the technical paper Local Green Spaces. October 2014 would limit ability to use the land. on Local Green Spaces. 19th May – 9th August 2014. There were a total of 39 Swale Borough Local Plan Comments from Gypsies and Travellers (facilitated): Comments from Gypsies and Travellers considered under responses below as individual responses from Part 2: Gypsy and Traveller follows: a variety of consultees, • Accommodation Issues and Submissions of land for consideration. contributing a total of 199 1. In respect of the site assessment methodology changes were agreed in Options. • Broad endorsement for the site assessment specific comments. methodology as a logical, through and a robust way response to representation and it was agreed as a material consideration 24 February – 25 April 2014. of assessing sites. in the determination of planning decisions by its replacement of the Reported to LDF Panel 23 • A preference for small family sites. corporate policy site assessment. June 2014. • That windfall sites should be allowed. 2. Agreed the allocation of sites to meet at least the first 5 years of the Local • A desire for a new socially rented site. Plan identified need from adoption with, if needed, the additional use • The importance of locating sites within walking broad locations for the post 5-year period giving priority to the most

distance or short driving distance to shops, schools, sustainable and inclusive locations. 53 Bearing Fruits 2031: Statement of Consultation December 2014 Consultation Event Response and reporting Issues Raised (policy numbers as per document being How taken forward in development of the 2014 Local Plan Initial Council commented upon) actions and Final Outcome for Plan (policy numbers quoted as per the Publication version of the Plan unless stated otherwise) health care. 3. The use of a windfall allowance would be considered. • Reservations over pitches within mainstream housing 4. The use of the expansion/intensification of existing sites should be with concerns that this arrangement would create examined. tensions. 5. That all available proactive options in the search for and provision of Other representations included: suitable sites would be explored. 6. That the issue of phasing was deferred for later consideration. 1. Site methodology – detailed observations, including on 7. A focus on the allocation of smaller family sites was agreed without use of need to consider cumulative impacts and travelling a ‘cap’ on the number of pitches for any one site. distances. 8. The need for a social rented site was noted for further investigation. 2. Should identify broad locations in post 5-year period 9. It was agreed to amend Policy DM10 (and any other related provided it did not continue current patterns. policies/allocations) to reflect any legal advice received and to remove the 3. A windfall allowance should be made. requirement for serviced pitch provision in all but the most viable parts of 4. Support for expansion of existing sites balanced with new the Borough, unless otherwise supported by viability advice at the provision. planning application stage. 5. Support for proactive identification and delivery of sites. 6. Limited support for front-loading of provision. Final outcome: 7. Focus should be on allocation of small sites. Policy DM10 and CP3 amended in respect of Gypsies and Traveller pitch 8. Some limited evidence of need for social rented site. provision on mainstream housing sites. 9. Significant concerns from varied parties as to delivery of Policy DM10 (i.e. provision of pitches on mainstream housing sites). Bearing Fruits 2031: The To be reported as an Swale Borough Local Plan addendum to this Part 1 Publication Version statement. December 2014. 19 December 2014 – 30 January 2015

54 The Customer Service Centre deals with all different language) we will do our best to enquiries across the Council; it should be your accommodate your request please contact the fi rst stop when contacting us. Council at: Copies of this Swale Borough Council Local Swale Borough Council Plan are available on the Council website Swale House, East Street www.swale.gov.uk/planningpolicy Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3HT If you would like further hard copies or Customer Service Centre alternative versions (i.e. large print, audio, 01795 417 850