Project Delivery

Table: Summarised conclusions of the appraisal and assessment Appraisal and assessment conclusions Objective Within Beyond Urban Rural Outside the Borough the plan the plan period? period? 1. To ensure that the opportunity is provided for decent Strongly positive Neutral Neutral Yes Yes homes to be provided for all the community 2. To improve human health and wellbeing Positive/Strongly Positive Positive/Neutral Yes Yes positive 3. To reduce the gap between the most disadvantaged Positive/Strongly Positive/Neutral Positive/Neutral Yes Yes communities and the rest and to increase prosperity positive 4. To raise education levels and develop opportunities for Positive Positive Unknown Yes Yes everyone to find the skills needed to find, remain, and progress at work 5. To promote social inclusion and cohesion including Strongly positive Positive/Strongly Positive/Neutral Yes Yes creating a safe and secure environment positive 6. To encourage development and participation in Positive/Strongly Positive Neutral Yes Yes culture, sport, and the arts and enjoyment of the positive countryside 7. To sustain and improve vibrant rural communities Neutral Positive/Neutral Positive/Neutral Yes Yes 8. To maximise the use of previously developed land for Positive/Strongly Negative/Neutral Neutral Yes Yes development and to use land efficiently Positive 9. To improve the quality of land and reduce Strongly positive/ Negative/Neutral Neutral Yes Yes contamination Neutral 10. To improve the overall air quality of the Borough Negative Negative Negative Yes Yes 11. To improve water quality Positive Neutral Neutral Yes Yes 12. Will it maintain hydrology / coastal processes? Positive/Neutral Neutral Neutral Yes Yes 13. Will it reduce or minimise greenhouse gas emissions? Positive/Negative Negative Negative Yes Yes 14. To effectively manage the risk of flooding Positive/Neutral Positive/Neutral Neutral Yes Yes 15. To conserve and enhance biodiversity Positive/Negative Positive/Negative Neutral Yes Yes 16. To promote the use of sustainable forms of transport Positive/Negative Positive/Negative Negative/Neutral Yes Yes and reduce travel by car / lorry, where options are available 17. To protect, enhance, and make accessible the historic Positive/Strongly Positive/Strongly Neutral Yes Yes environment and assets, including landscapes (the positive positive quality and character), townscapes and settlement settings 18. To maintain and enhance geological and Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral geomorphological sites 19. To ensure the sustainable use and management of Positive/Strongly Neutral Positive/Neutral Yes Yes natural resources positive 20. To reduce generation and disposal of waste, and Positive Neutral Positive/Neutral Yes Yes achieve sustainable management of waste 21. To enhance quality of, and access to, employment Positive/Strongly Positive/Strongly Positive/Neutral Yes Yes opportunities for everyone positive positive 22. To increase the economic performance of the Strongly positive Positive Positive Yes Yes Borough 23. To encourage investment in local services and facilities Positive Positive Positive/Neutral Yes Yes 24. To encourage sustainable design and practice Strongly positive Strongly positive Neutral Yes Yes

35 Context

Flooding

More than 50% of the lies below high tide level and depends on substantial sea defences to manage flood risk. A sea defence strategy, developed for the Environment Agency in 1998, recommended measures to improve the defences. A scheme to protect the towns of , and Rushenden from tidal inundation from the north was implemented in 2001 (the Isle of Sheppey Northern Defences Project). In 2002, the Isle of Sheppey Western Defences Project was initially progressed, however, the project was put on hold in that year and restarted in May 2005.

Early potential options for works to the western sea defences (illustrated to right) were developed and comprise:

Option 1: Do nothing; Option 2: Maintain existing defences; Option 3: Improve defences along existing line to ; Option 4: Improve defences along existing line to Kingsferry Bridge plus con- struct additional defence south of the trunk road (A249) and railway line; Option 5: Improve defences along existing line to Rushenden and construct new counterwalls inland. Maintain existing defences from Rush- enden to Kingsferry Bridge; and Option 6: As per option 5 except for ‘do nothing’ to existing defences from Rushenden to Kingsferry Bridge. A review of key environmental issues and opportunities associated with the options was undertaken together with a Condition Survey of the island’s existing Western and Southern sea defences and a 2D hydrodynamic modelling study to assess the extent of the flood risk under a range of scenarios.

Condition Survey

The Condition survey found the Western Defences to be generally of a good standard, but with some localised areas requiring repair. Their Standard of Protection is in excess of that recommended for urban areas (greater than a 1 in 200 likelihood in any year). This differs from the findings of the 1998 strategy, which stated that a lower Standard of Protection exists (1 in 20 likelihood in any year). The variation of the flood risk is primarily due to revised Still Water Level (SWL) data now available using latest research in this field. The revised data show levels that are lower than the levels used in the 1998 strategy for the same return period event (300mm lower for a 1 in 20 year event and 600mm lower for a 1 in 200 year event).

Flood defences opposite the Caradon Queenborough Creek entrance Map of Options 4 & 5 site

36 Flooding

Flood Risk Modelling Study Queenborough

Despite the generally good condition of the Western Defences on the Isle of Sheppey, failure of the island’s Southern defences could cause flooding to the urban areas of Sheerness, Queenborough and Rushenden. Therefore a detailed 2D hydrodynamic modelling assessment was undertaken. The revised Standard of Protection for the worst section of the southern defences is estimated to be 1 in 15 likelihood in any year. The modelling has demonstrated that floodwater from a 1 in 20 and a 1 in 50 year event causing a breach of the southern defences may reach the new , but would not overtop it. Flood water from a 1 in 100 year to 1 in 200 year event could overtop the A249, but this would not lead to flooding of residential property. The railway line, Sewage Treatment Works and south- eastern part of the industrial estate may still be at risk of flooding, but water would not penetrate as far as Rushenden and Queenborough. The figure to right illustrates this.

Conclusions and Way Forward

The flood risk to Sheerness, Rushenden and Queenborough is now considered significantly reduced compared with the information presented in the 1998 strategy. There is therefore no requirement in the near future for a major capital works scheme to the Western defences, although maintenance issues remain and will be addressed (Option 2 above). Whilst maintenance issues on the southern defences will be addressed, their long term future is being considered as part of a strategic approach to management in the whole Medway Estuary and Swale. An 1 in 200 Year Flood Extent & Depths estuary Shoreline Management Plan has recently commenced, which will set a high level policy framework for the area. This will lead to more Medway Estuary and Swale Shoreline detailed consideration of the implementation of Management Plan the policies via strategies and capital schemes where appropriate. In May 2007 a consultation draft of the Medway Estuary and Swale Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) was published. This document sets out a large scale assessment of the risks associated with coastal evolution and presents a policy framework to address these in a sustainable manner for the next 100 years. Within the context of this study SMP Policy Unit E 29 covers the area Rushenden to Sheerness. Here it is stated that the long term aim is to “Hold the Line: i.e. to maintain the existing defence line and protect the urban developments. It is acknowledged that habitats will be ‘squeezed’ in latter years however it is Queenborough all tide landing and flood anticipated that this will be balanced by habitat Queenborough Creek entrance flood defences growth in other parts of the estuary defences

37 Context

Planning Policy Context Strategic Planning Policy – The and Medway Structure Plan The town of Queenborough and Rushenden has been identified as an area in need of positive Policy NK3 of the Kent and Medway Structure The Draft First Review of Borough action to achieve economic regeneration for Plan (2006) identifies Queenborough and Local Plan (2005), as Modified, in particular: many years. As indicated previously, the area Rushenden as a strategic development area • Policies AAP6, MU6, and MU7, in respect has suffered in the past from a relatively isolated with the objective of supporting economic of the regeneration of the Queenborough location and poor economic performance regeneration and diversification. It identifies the and Rushenden areas, in the context of a resulting from the decline of local industry. In area for mixed-use development for housing, Masterplan framework, which should include planning policy terms, the town also lies within employment and community facilities in a developer contributions strategy. the Thames Gateway growth area. conjunction with environmental improvements and transport measures, including the • Policy B14 in respect of employment at In recognition both of its location within the wider Rushenden Link Road. Neatscourt; and Thames Gateway growth area and the local • Policy T9 in respect of the Rushenden Link needs for economic regeneration, the town Policy FP3 of the Structure Plan identifies Road. has been identified as a location for significant Neatscourt as a strategic employment location, new development in successive strategic and and a priority for delivery. Policy QL13 supports local planning documents. This section outlines the delivery of new community facilities in Supplementary Planning Policy – The the relevant planning policies that underpin the association with residential development. Queenborough and Rushenden Development preparation of this Masterplan. Framework Local Planning Policy – The Swale Borough Local Regional Planning Policy – Thames Gateway Plan and Swale Borough Local Development A Development Framework for the A large part of Swale district, including Framework Queenborough and Rushenden Area was and the whole of the Isle of adopted by the Council as a Supplementary Sheppey, falls within the Thames Gateway In addition to the above Structure Plan Planning Document in December 2004. The area. Regional policy for Thames Gateway is Policies, the adoption of this Masterplan as a Development Framework establishes key set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the Supplementary Planning Document is based principles and a vision for the area, and the South East (RPG9 - 2001), the Thames Gateway upon a number of existing and emerging Local purpose of this Masterplan is to take that existing Planning Framework (RPG9a - 1995), and the Plan policies, being: adopted Framework forward in more detail. It Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan therefore provides greater guidance than the (2003). These documents identify the Thames The Adopted Swale Borough Local Plan (2000), Framework on matters including: Gateway as a nationally important sub- in particular: region for the delivery of new development, • the scale, the mix and distribution including the new homes required to house • Policies B21, B25 and B26 in respect of development within the agreed the increasing number of households that form of employment land at Neatscourt, development areas; each year, particularly in the south-east of the Queenborough and Rushenden; • the layout and design of new Country, alongside local economic growth and • Policies H28 and H29 in respect of development; the provision of new infrastructure to serve the residential development north and south of expanding communities. • the phasing and provision of social and Queenborough Creek; and physical infrastructure; and The Emerging South East Plan • Policy E64 in respect of environmental • the strategy to be used to collect financial The South East plan is a document that sets out improvements within Queenborough High contributions from the development to fund changes needed to improve the quality of life Street area and Rushenden area following that infrastructure. in the region over the next completion of the Rushenden Link Road; 20 years. It has been developed by the South • Policy IN33 in respect of the provision of the The Masterplan is consistent with the overall East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) and Rushenden Link Road; vision and objectives as set out in the existing has undergone wide scale consultation and approved Development Framework. examination in public. The inspectors report was published in August 2007 and proposed changes will be published in December 2007 with a revised plan being adopted in Autumn 2008. The plan has been “cautiously accepted” by the inspector with recommendations for an uplift in the plans proposed house building numbers and the need for affordable housing.

38 Planning & Policy

Queenborough Castle gateway site and community open space Swale and flood defence Possible mixed use: counter wall used as green Land near pylons: public employment/commercial corridor - possible link to park and playground Creek Possible residential or small business units New bridge over rail line Neatscourt Possible location for marina/additional moorings

LAND DESIGNATION

1 MIT Ltd Zone 9 8 2 Klondyke, Sheppey Ltd 2 Zone 1 1 3 Caradon, SEEDA Potential high quality * Queenborough waterside residential 4 development Industrial Estate Zone 4 5 EA flood defence Zone 2 6 Neatscourt, Crown Estate “Environmental link” – waterside Existing car 7 pedestrian/cycle route 3 distribution/storage Queenborough Castle/ Buffer zone to realigned8 A249 Possible district centre – 5 gateway open space retail, surgery, nursery etc. Zone 5 has potential for higher quality Rushenden link employment buildings road Potential residential land as transition/link between Higher quality Rushenden and 4 employment buildings Queenborough Existing Queenborough Industrial Estate improved (class B1/B2) with emphasis Employment on manufacturing over land Zone 8 storage/distribution Buffer zone to realigned 6 A249 has potential for 7 higher quality employment buildings Zone 3 Zone 6 Zone 7 Employment Land Industrial/ warehouse/ distribution (class B2/B8)

Approximate line of A249

Improve ‘Buffer Zone’ around Rushenden To Bridge Supplementary Planning Policy: LAND DESIGNATION The Queenborough and Rushenden 1 MIT Ltd. Development Framework 2 Klondyke, Sheppey Ltd. 3 Caradon, SEEDA

4 Queenborough Industrial Estate 5 EA flood defence 6 Neatscourt, Crown Estate 7 Existing car distribution . storage

8 Queenborough Castle / gateway open space

39