DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendices to Planning Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendices to Planning Statement PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE OF BARN WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF HOME FARM COTTAGE, SCHOOL LANE, HIGHAM TO LIVE/WORK USE APPENDICES TO PLANNING STATEMENT SEPTEMBER 2014 Gravesham Borough Council APPENDICES 1. History of Home Farm Cottage; Ordnance Survey map 1933; historic photograph; property deeds 1901 2. Appeal decision TM/13/0317 Plaxdale Green Farm 3. Decision notice and Officer’s report TM/08/03288 Oakwood Poultry Farm 4. Decision notice and Officer’s report 20110352 Lomer Farm, Meopham 5. Decision notice and Officer’s report 20130202 Hazells Farm, Gravesend Gravesham Borough Council APPENDIX 1 Gravesham Borough Council Gravesham Borough Council Gravesham Borough Council Gravesham Borough Council Gravesham Borough Council Gravesham Borough Council Gravesham Borough Council APPENDIX 2 Gravesham Borough Council Appeal Decision Hearing held on 19 February 2014 Site visits made on 19 and 20 February 2014 by Phillip J G Ware BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 1 April 2014 Appeal Ref: APP/H2265/A/13/2206613 Plaxdale Green Farm, Plaxdale Green Road, Stansted, Sevenoaks TN15 7PB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr T Houlding against the decision of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. • The application Ref TM/13/01307/FL, dated 19 April 2013, was refused by notice dated 18 July 2013. • The development proposed is the change of use and conversion of 7 former agricultural buildings to provide 7 live/work units with associated parking, access and landscaping, and the demolition of 3 former agricultural buildings. Procedural matter 1. After the Hearing, the Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) has come into force. The content of the guidance has been considered but in light of the facts in this case the Guidance does not alter my conclusions. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use and conversion of 7 former agricultural buildings to provide 7 live/work units with associated parking, access and landscaping, and the demolition of 3 former agricultural buildings at Plaxdale Green Farm, Plaxdale Green Road, Stansted, Sevenoaks TN15 7PB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref TM/13/01307/FL, dated 19 April 2013, subject to the conditions set out in the Annex to this decision. Application for costs 3. At the Hearing an application for costs was made by Mr T Houlding against Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. This application will be the subject of a separate Decision. Main issuesGravesham Borough Council 4. Two of the Council’s reasons for refusal dealt with ecology and affordable housing. However, in the light of further ecological survey work, advice from Natural England, and additional viability evidence from the appellant, these matters were not pursued by the Council. I have no reason to disagree with that approach. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/H2265/A/13/2206613 5. The main issues in this case are: • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). If so, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. If the proposal is not inappropriate development, the further main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the rural area. • Whether the proposal would accord with national and local policy aimed at promoting sustainable development in the countryside. Reasons Background 6. The appeal site is located in a predominantly rural area, around 1.2 km south west of the village of Stansted and 2 km southeast of West Kingsdown. 7. The farm includes a number of large buildings which were previously used for egg production, although this use has ceased due to legislative changes and most of the buildings are empty. The appellant continues to use some of the buildings on the site for agricultural storage. This use would be unaffected by the proposal. 8. The scheme includes the demolition of three of the buildings, in order to provide access and amenity space. Seven live/work units would be provided by the conversion of the remaining former agricultural buildings, each with amenity space and parking provision. The external alterations would comprise weatherboarding to some exteriors, the insertion of windows and doors, and the replacement of the existing roof covering with a slate type material. Inappropriate development? 9. The first matter to be determined is whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The outcome of this consideration has a significant effect on the policy approach. 10. The development plan includes the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Core Strategy (CS) (2007). CS policy CP3 provides that national Green Belt policy will be applied in this area. Other CS policies deal with the effect on the countryside1, but these largely deal with issues other than Green Belt policy and will be considered separately. National policy in the Framework provides that certain forms of development are not inappropriate provided they preserve opennessGravesham and do not conflict with Borough the purposes of including Council land within the Green Belt. One of these forms of development is the reuse of buildings provided they are of permanent and substantial construction. 1 Including CS policy CP14 and policy DC1 of the Managing Development and the Environment DPD (2010) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/H2265/A/13/2206613 11. The Council has stated that the introduction of domestic paraphernalia, to which I will return below, would erode openness and be an encroachment into the countryside. However the complex of buildings exists and three of them are to be demolished as part of the proposal. Overall, whatever the effect on the character of the area might be, there would clearly be an increase in the openness of the Green Belt and no encroachment into the countryside. 12. The crux of the dispute between the parties in relation to Green Belt policy is whether the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction. The position of the authority is that the extent of the works to the retained buildings would be such that it would be tantamount to rebuilding. The appellant submitted a Structural Engineering Appraisal Report, which considered each of the buildings in some detail, and concluded that the buildings were in satisfactory structural condition. It is clear that there is generally an inadequate substructure for domestic/business use, but that the superstructure is in reasonable and acceptable condition. 13. It is almost inevitable that the proposed conversion of agricultural buildings to residential/business use will require some slab work and/or underpinning. The appeal buildings are not unusual in that respect. Otherwise, the structure of the buildings (with the exception of Building A which is in slightly poorer condition and where partial demolition is envisaged) appears sound, and the persuasive explanation of the appellant’s structural engineer was that the amount of work would be entirely normal for this type of conversion. With the exception of Building A, the clear evidence is that only an average amount of rebuilding or other engineering work would be necessary. 14. National policy clearly provides that the reuse of permanent and substantial buildings would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In this case, the conclusion is that the proposal would not harm openness or the purposes of including the area in the Green Belt, and would not be inappropriate development. It would not conflict with paragraph 90 of the Framework or CS policy CP3. The effect on the character and appearance of the area 15. The appeal site extends away from the road, although it is partially screened by some frontage buildings. However it is highly visible to the public because a footpath runs through the site and down away from the site to the east. The existing buildings are therefore very prominent both from the rural area generally and to the public using the road and the footpath. There are a range of development plan policies aimed at protecting the character of the countryside and restricting rural development2. In particular policy DC1 of the Managing Development and the Environment (MDE) Development Plan Document (2010) deals with the reuse of existing rural buildings and states that permission will not be granted where the scale and nature of the residential curtilage, particularly in respect of domestic paraphernalia, would have Graveshaman adverse impact on the ruralBorough nature of the ar ea.Council 16. The concern of the Council in this regard is restricted to the introduction of domestic paraphernalia, and examples of such items were set out by the authority. There is no doubt that, in reality, the individual live/work units would be likely to have various domestic items placed within the amenity 2 Most particularly CS CP1, CP14 and CP24. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/H2265/A/13/2206613 areas. It is inevitable that residents would want items outside their homes. In some locations, that would have the potential to cause harm to the appearance of the area. 17. However each scheme must be considered on its merits, and the particular layout of this proposal is such that the effect on the surrounding area is likely to be very limited. The majority of the living accommodation would be located centrally within what would be a comparatively inward looking development with the central areas partly screened by buildings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regeneration and Economy Targets Draft
    TOWARDS 2010 - ANNUAL REPORT 2009 Regeneration and Economy targets Draft TOWARDS 2010 - ANNUAL REPORT 2009 Target 1: Substantially increase the number of new jobs by increasing the number of companies investing in Kent and the number of businesses starting up or expanding AND Target 2: Concentrate on the regeneration of Kent’s deprived areas and support business growth in these areas, seeking maximum funding from Government and the EU to support the necessary infrastructure, including roads, utilities, telecoms and other services Lead Cabinet Member: Lead Managing Director: Lead Officers: Kevin Lynes David Cockburn Theresa Bruton/Mike Bodkin Status: On course List the partners with whom we are working to deliver this target: Locate in Kent, District Councils, Local Regeneration Partnerships, Area Partnerships, South East England Development Agency, Department for Communities and Local Government, Department for Transport, Homes and Communities, Kent Foundation, Kent Economic Board, Business Support Kent. Additionally, we work with key stakeholders from other private, public and voluntary sectors on specific projects. Outcomes delivered so far: These two Towards 2010 targets (1 and 2) are being reported together as they are so interlinked. Delivery of both of these targets must be seen against the background of the global recession which makes it far more difficult to achieve all of the outcomes we are striving for at the moment. However, much has already been achieved and this is listed below: Published KCC’s Regeneration Framework - KCC's draft Regeneration Framework was published in January and consultation ended in April 2009. It was approved by the Regeneration Board in July and will be adopted in autumn 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ROMNEY MARSH IRREGULAR the Newsletter of the Romney Marsh Research Trust
    Registered Charity No. 297736 THE ROMNEY MARSH IRREGULAR The Newsletter of the Romney Marsh Research Trust No. 24 October 2004 I should like to begin by thanking all who have made my task easier and enjoyable over the last six years. It has been a real privilege working with you and I hope to see you at future meetings, walks and other events. I was also very fortunate to have Dr Antony Long, and recently Dr Helen Clarke, to work with in their role as chairman. As you will see from the centre pages, Dr Long, soon to be Professor Long, has decided to retire from the Executive committee. He has for many years been a tireless worker on the Trust’s behalf, as well as conducting important research on the Romney Marsh region. He will be sorely missed and on your behalf I should like to thank him for all his hard work, but most of all for his enthusiasm and his desire to get things done for the benefit of the Trust and its members. Dr Jason Kirby has volunteered to take his place on the Executive. Many of you have already met Dr Kirby, he was at the Trust’s conference in 2000, and though he may not be able to attend the AGM in November, he hopes to meet many more of you in the future. His interest in Romney Marsh began in 1994 when he worked as an RA for Dr Andy Plater and since then he has worked on a project with Dr Antony Long and Dr John Evans looking at the depositional history of the Wainway.
    [Show full text]
  • 08:00 1 Welcome and Introductions Geoff Miles, Chair 08:05 2 Review
    Kent & Medway Business Advisory Board Thursday 13 September, 8.00 – 10.30 am in the Inspiration Suite @ The Village Hotel, Maidstone Light breakfast from 7.30 am Programme 08:00 1 Welcome and Introductions Geoff Miles, Chair 08:05 2 Review of BAB actions arising since the last meeting Dave Hughes 08:10 3 Matters arising 1) Local Growth Funding Local Growth Funding is capital funding given to Local Enterprise Partnerships for projects that benefit the local economy (and produce jobs, houses or new learners). A call for new expressions of Interest of interest closed on 31 Sarah Nurden August. A list of potential projects will be shared with BAB Members for their initial views. 2) Kent and Medway summit with MPs Please could BAB Members place a hold in their diaries for Friday 26 October between 15:00 and 16:30 for a meeting with the Kent and Medway MPs. The venue will be the Maidstone Studios. 08.20 3 Economic Commentary All 09:40 4 LEP Review Government established Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) back in 2010 to drive forward economic growth. LEPs are partnerships between businesses, councils, universities and further education colleges. Kent and Medway are part of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP). Due to its scale and a belief in subsidiarity, SELEP has four federated boards. The Kent and Medway Economic Partnership (KMEP) is the local federated boards for our area. Sarah Nurden In August 2017, the Minister for Local Growth wrote to say the Government would review the role and responsibilities of LEPs – as LEPs would be the vehicle to deliver the Local Industrial Strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Design Awards 2009/10 – IHBC Sponsored Conservation Prize Announced
    Kent Design Awards 2009/10 – IHBC sponsored conservation prize announced A Kent family tomb which was lovingly restored after falling into a dire state of disrepair has scooped a top conservation award. The Darnley Mausoleum in Cobham Wood, near Gravesend, which the National Trust says has been wonderfully restored, was named project of the year at the prestigious Kent Design Awards on 16th March 2010. Canterbury architects Purcell Miller Tritton, and PAYE Stonework and Restoration of London, were applauded for their labour of love which brought back to life the Grade 1 listed late 18th century building with its distinctive pyramid roof. Eddie Booth presented the conservation and craftsmanship award on behalf of the Institute to the architects. Lady Bruce-Lockhart, widow of Lord Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, former Leader of Kent County Council and Chairman of English Heritage, presented the first-ever special award in Lord Sandy’s memory for the Darnley project. The panel of judges also paid tribute to the Cobham Ashenbank Management Scheme (CAMS) which began the huge task of restoring the mausoleum, with its associated buildings, and reclaiming the woodland of Cobham Park. The mausoleum took 12 years to repair and was featured on the BBC Restoration programme. It had previously been on English Heritage’s national Buildings at Risk register for more than 15 years, was badly vandalised and in 1980 suffered a major fire. The South East Branch had a study day at Cobham and the Mausoleum in 2007. At that stage the restoration of the Mausoleum was virtually complete but the management arrangements with the National Trust had not been formalised.
    [Show full text]
  • REGENERATION and ECONOMY ENVIRONMENT and REGENERATION Annual Business Unit Operational Plan 2008/9
    REGENERATION AND ECONOMY ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION Annual Business Unit Operational Plan 2008/9 SECTION 1: SERVICE PROFILE PURPOSE OF THE SERVICE Regeneration and Economy Division has a pivotal role to help deliver the aspirations for growth set out in "Kent - What Price Growth" and several "Towards 2010" targets focussed on the economy, tourism, rural regeneration, empty homes, brownfield development, water saving and priority areas of deprivation. The Division's six business teams provide focussed resources to deliver effectively against these objectives. Three of these teams; coastal action zone, growth areas and development investment, focus on physical development to ensure that new development is of high quality and supported by essential infrastructure and catalytic regeneration projects; and that existing run down town centres can flourish again. Another three teams: economy + skills, rural regeneration and tourism, focus on economic development to encourage and support development of key business sectors and to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, inward investment and skills development across Kent in urban, rural and coastal areas. Our mission is: "to revitalise Kent's towns, villages, coast and countryside to attract growth and investment for the benefit of Kent businesses, residents and visitors" REGENERATION TEAMS To achieve our purpose we have set the following Forward Planning structure. PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT - project activity, county-wide but mainly in priority coastal and growth areas, to enable high-quality sustainable development - ensuring maximum investment in the infrastructure and local facilities that make places liveable and the highest quality sustainable design and construction. • Coastal Action Zone - working with partners to shape, influence or bring forward mixed development that will help reverse decline and create the conditions for social, cultural, physical and economic revitalisation - focusing on priority coastal towns, the areas of influence inland and the dynamic between nearby urban and coastal areas .
    [Show full text]
  • Towards 2010: Final Report
    TOWARDS 2010 ANNUAL REPORT - September 2010 Towards 2010: Final Report September 2010 DRAFT AS AT 2 SEPTEMBER TOWARDS 2010 ANNUAL REPORT - September 2010 Target 1: Substantially increase the number of new jobs by increasing the number of companies investing in Kent and the number of businesses starting up or expanding AND Target 2: Concentrate on the regeneration of Kent’s deprived areas and support business growth in these areas, seeking maximum funding from Government and the EU to support the necessary infrastructure, including roads, utilities, telecoms and other services Lead Cabinet Member: Lead Managing Director: Lead Officers: Kevin Lynes David Cockburn Theresa Bruton/Mike Bodkin Target 1 Status: Good progress Target 2 Status: Complete List the partners with whom we are working to deliver this target: Locate in Kent, district councils, local regeneration partnerships, area partnerships, South East England Development Agency, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), and Department for Transport, Homes and Communities, Kent Foundation, Kent Economic Board, Business Support Kent. Additionally, we work with key stakeholders from other private, public and voluntary sectors on specific projects. Outcomes delivered: These two Towards 2010 targets (1 and 2) are reported together as they are interlinked. Delivery of both of these targets must be seen against the background of the current global recession which makes it far more difficult to achieve all of the outcomes we are striving for. However, much has been achieved: Publish KCC’s Regeneration Framework - KCC's Regeneration Framework has been adopted. One of its key priorities is to develop a new relationship with business and we are planning a number of sector meetings covering low carbon, creative, construction, land-based and health and social care which will result in specific actions for supporting business.
    [Show full text]
  • Council Award Ceremonies
    www.taxpayersalliance.com Research Note 94 30 September 2011 Council Award Ceremonies With pressure on the budgets of local authorities and council tax having doubled over the past decade, councils need to do all they can to control unnecessary spending and deliver better value for money. While councils should look to recognise strong performance by staff, one area of waste that has been anecdotally reported is excessive spending on award ceremonies. The TaxPayers‟ Alliance has compiled the first systematic list of award ceremonies hosted or attended by councils across the UK during the financial year 2010-11. This research reveals that the ceremonies are often lavish and attendance costs thousands of pounds. Our findings show that councils held ceremonies to present awards for things like “staff graduations”. In addition to buying tickets for them, they also often pay for accommodation, travel and catering. Other local authorities spent no money attending award ceremonies. The key findings of this research are: . Among the ceremonies attended were the Everything Happens Somewhere Awards 2010; the E-wellbeing Good Housekeeping Awards; the Green Apple Awards; Loo of the Year awards and the Kettering K Factor. Councils spent at least £1.2 million on hosting and attending award ceremonies during 2010-11. This is almost certainly an underestimate as many councils could not tell us how much they spent on award ceremonies last year. Glasgow City Council spent the most hosting and attending award ceremonies, at a total cost of almost £83,000. Fife Council attended and hosted the most ceremonies with a total of 34.
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)County Council Questions and Answers Agenda Supplement for County Council, 19/10/2017 10:00
    County Council Questions and Answers 19 October 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Question 1 COUNTY COUNCIL Thursday 19 October 2017 Question by Bryan Sweetland to Matthew Balfour, Cabinet Member for Environment Highways, & Waste Will the Cabinet Member please inform the Council what measures he has taken to ensure that adequate environmental protection and mitigation will be provided for my constituents in North Kent, many of whom will be adversely affected by the Government’s announcement to build a new Thames River Crossing at Gravesend. Has he or the Leader had any meetings with senior officials from Government or Highways England since the announcement to enable him to actively lobby for more tunnelling in Kent section, together with addressing the potential for a worsening of air quality in this part of Kent, which already exceeds the legal limits.” Answer Since the preferred route announcement on 12 April, meetings have taken place with Highways England at officer and member level. We have continued to make the case for environmental mitigation, including the removal of the proposed junction with the A226, which as well as reducing traffic and air quality impacts on the local road network by containing traffic on the strategic road network, will also enable the tunnel portal to be moved further south than was previously proposed. We have also supplied design information to Highways England that shows the potential for tunnelling the entire route to the A2, or as a minimum with some sections in deep cutting. This will help to reduce the air quality impacts as well as reduce noise and visual intrusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravesham Borough Council
    Public Document Pack Council Members of the Council of Gravesham Borough Council are summoned to attend a meeting to be held at the Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend, Kent on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 7.00 pm when the business specified in the following agenda is proposed to be transacted. S Kilkie Assistant Director (Communities) Agenda Part A Items likely to be considered in Public 1. Prayer 2. Presentation of Awards The Mayor will acknowledge and congratulate on behalf of the Council the recipients of the under mentioned awards which have been received in respect of the Cobham Ashenbank Management Scheme:- Country Life ‘Country House of the Year 2009’ RTPI South East Region Planning Awards 2009: Winner; Heritage and Rural Regeneration Winner; Overall Awards RTPI National Planning Awards 2009: Commendation; Heritage Kent Design Awards 2009 Winner; Restoration Winner; Lord Sandy Bruce Lockhart Award, Project of the Year 3. Apologies for absence 4. Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 2 March 2010 of Council (Pages 1 - 12) 5. Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 9 March 2010 of Council (Pages 13 - 20) Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU 6. To declare any interests members may have in the items contained on this agenda. When declaring an interest a member must state what their interest is 7. To answer any questions received from members of the public of which notice has been given under Council Procedure Rule 13 8. Minutes To receive and adopt the proceedings, reports and recommendations of the following committees, except those items reserved under Council Procedure Rule 5.2 (6) and to ratify and confirm the orders made by them.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment, Highways & Waste
    TOWARDS 2010 - ANNUAL REPORT 2009 Environment, Highways & Waste DRAFT as at 19 August 2009 This page is intentionally left blank Target 30: Work towards introducing a Kent youth travel card entitling all 11-16 year olds to free public transport in the county, subject to the outcome of two district pilots Lead Cabinet Members: Lead Managing Lead Officers: Nick Chard/Sarah Hohler Directors: David Hall/Ian Craig Mike Austerberry/Rosalind Turner Status: Done and ongoing List the partners with whom we are working to deliver this target: Kent public transport operators Kent Youth County Council Secondary Schools Outcomes delivered so far: • The pilot Kent Freedom Pass scheme, where for £50 per year young people in academic years 7-11 can travel for free on public bus services in Kent, has been delivered and has proved extremely successful. We have worked well with schools and bus operators and the scheme has been effectively administered through the Transport Integration Team. The countywide roll out was completed in June 2009. • The original pilot schemes for students attending schools in Canterbury, Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge was launched in June 2007. In June 2008 the scheme was extended to schools in Maidstone, Malling, Dover and Shepway. In January 2009 the scheme was launched at schools in Swale and Thanet. In June 2009 the scheme completed its countywide roll out with schools in Ashford, Dartford, Gravesham and Sevenoaks joining. The total cost of the Kent Freedom Pass has been estimated at £7.6m (net) in 2009/10. • The Freedom Pass has been widely publicised with a rolling programme of launch events in each district, plus press releases and school seminars and we are broadly following our projected pass take up.
    [Show full text]
  • A. Commissioning of the Kent and Medway Growth Hub 48 B
    A partnership between the business community and local government & a federated arm of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership Monday 12 December 2016, 5.00-7.00pm Inspiration Suite, Village Hotel, Forstal Road, Maidstone ME14 3AQ AGENDA Approx time Page 1. Welcome, introductions and apologies for absence 5.00 2. Minutes of previous meeting, matters arising & action tracker 5.05 2 + 9 3. Further Education Area Review & Skills Commission update 5.10 Presentation Presentation by Louise Aitken, SELEP Skills Adviser, and Allan Baillie, a KMEP Skills Commission Member & KCC Skills and Employability Manager. 4. Environment Agency’s strategic plans for flood defence in Kent 5.30 Presentation & Medway Presentation by Julie Foley, Area Manager for Kent, South London & East Sussex, Environment Agency 5. Kent Developers’ Group: Removing barriers to growth 5.55 Presentation Presentation by Nick Fenton, Chairman of the Kent Developers’ Group 6. Infrastructure announcements in Autumn Statement & future 6.15 11 engagement with MPs and National Infrastructure Commission 7. Local Growth Fund 1 & 2: Delivery Progress Report & Ashford 6.30 24 International Connectivity Rail Project Update 8. AOB and any questions on the for information papers 6.45 47 For information items: A. Commissioning of the Kent and Medway Growth Hub 48 B. SELEP Working Group: Housing update 50 C. SELEP Working Group: Creative Economy Network Update 55 D. KMEP and SELEP future meeting dates 59 E. State of the Kent Economy Circulated separately 1 A partnership between the business community and local government & a federated arm of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership ITEM 2A Date: 12 December 2016 Subject: DRAFT MINUTES of a meeting of the Kent & Medway Economic Partnership (KMEP) held in the Inspiration Suite, Village Hotel, Castle View, Forstal Road, Maidstone on 4 October 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Folkestone & Hythe Play Area Strategy
    Folkestone & Hythe Play Area Strategy 2020-2030 Project Title: Folkestone & Hythe Play Area Strategy Client: Folkestone & Hythe District Council Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by 3.0 11/12/17 Third issue Sebastian Matthew Philip Smith West Parkhill 4.0 08/10/19 Fourth Issue A.McKinney A.Clifford A.Blaszkowicz Folkestone & Hythe District Play Area Strategy Prepared by LUC December 2017 Updated by FHDC October 2019 Folkestone & Hythe Play Area Strategy 2020-2030 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Benefits of play 4 The definition of play 4 Play and child development 4 The importance of risk in play 6 Play deprivation 7 Inclusive play 7 3 Local and national context 8 International and national context 8 Chief Medical Officer of England 9 Play England 9 Local context 10 4 Summary of Play Area Review 14 Consultation results 14 Audits and results 15 Proposed local standards for play area provision 16 5 Local provision and management 19 Current play provision 19 Inspection, management and maintenance 19 Summary of recent play area enhancements 21 6 The Strategy 25 Vision 25 Objectives 26 Funding and developer contributions 29 Provision of play facilities and enhancement 30 7 Action Plan 33 8 Evaluation plan 42 Outcomes 42 Benchmarks 42 Indicators 42 Review 42 Appendix 1: Workshop attendees 44 Appendix 2: Ownership, management responsibilities and classifications of play areas 45 Appendix 3: Locations of SIPAs, NSPAs and PPAs 48 Tables Table 4.1: Proposed standards for play provision in Folkestone & Hythe District 17
    [Show full text]