CD/011b

Swale Borough Local Plan: Updated Duty to Cooperate Statement covering the period December 2015 – December 2016

1. Introduction

1.1 Since the submission of the Local Plan for Examination in Public (at April 2015) together with the covering Duty to Cooperate Statement (CD/011), the statement was updated at December 2015 to cover the additional research which was undertaken ahead of the Examination in Public (CD/011a). The Examination in Public (EIP) was paused after the initial hearing in December 2015 and followed by the Inspector’s Interim Findings published in late January and February 2016 (ID/9a-d).

1.2 The Inspector’s Interim Findings (ID/9a-d) followed the first phase of the EIP on the Swale Borough Local Plan. The Inspector noted at ID/9c (paras1-5) that she was satisfied that the preparation of the plan and additional work which would inform any main modifications has been based on co-operation and effective collaboration with the relevant organisations and that the DTC had been met.

1.3 In response to the detail of the Interim Findings, the Council has prepared and consulted on Main Modifications to the Swale Local Plan. These have been the subject of discussion and consultation with key stakeholders and neighbouring districts. However, as described in CD/011, contact with those bodies has continued as they progress their own strategies and plans.

1.4 This report provides a review of issues identified as potential strategic issues for the Borough or stakeholders in CD/011 and updates the situation. The Appendices to this update includes responses and sets out the actions taken and results of any cooperation.

2. Who does Swale Co-operate with?

2.1 Table 4.1 of CD/011 remains valid in this respect, with any additional bodies noted below for relevant topics. Regular liaison arrangements as set out in CD/011 continue.

3. Update on Strategic Issues

Housing Need and Development Target Issues

3.1 The Inspector’s Interim Findings ID/9c indicated a new housing target for the Plan period of 776 dwellings per annum and a high degree of confidence that the Council would be able to accommodate this target, whilst maintaining its settlement strategy of two planning areas and should therefore propose main modifications to meet the new target. The Council has therefore done this

1

CD/011b

through the Main Modifications document (SBC/PS/101). As a consequence, the Council has not found it necessary to request that any other neighbouring district assist with meeting any portion of the new housing target. Neighbouring district councils, although grappling with challenging housing targets of their own, have not to date needed to approach Swale to meet any of their need to date. This has been borne out in ongoing co-operation with neighbouring districts and the GLA as demonstrated below.

3.2 The Maidstone Local Plan has met its own objectively assessed housing need through the plan within its own administrative area. Swale BC made comments on the publication version of the Maidstone plan at March 2016 (on matters other than housing), which were subsequently resolved through discussion and proposed minor changes to the plan. A statement of Common Ground was also agreed between the two authorities at August 2016 which is at Appendix 1of this report and confirms the mutually agreed position on meeting housing need. The Maidstone Local Plan has been subject to EIP during October / November 2016, and Swale BC has been satisfied to rely upon the Statement of Common Ground in respect of both the Duty to Co- operate generally and upon the matter of meeting housing needs. Maidstone BC has also indicated their satisfaction in response to consultation with Main Modification 42 in respect of the new development targets.

3.3 The Canterbury Local Plan was subject to Inspector’s Interim Findings (as reported in CD/011a) and indicated the Inspector’s satisfaction with the DTC between Canterbury and Swale to date. The Interim Findings did increase the Canterbury housing target to be resolved through Main Modifications. This was proposed to be met within the Canterbury administrative area and consequently did not have any cross boundary issues for the Swale area on this topic. The resumed Canterbury EIP has now taken place and further reporting from that Inspector is awaited. No further cross boundary housing issues with Canterbury are anticipated at this time.

3.4 At the EIP hearings in 2015, the Medway City Council Plan was at too early a stage to establish whether they would need to seek to approach Swale BC under the DTC on housing matters. Since then, Medway CC have consulted on an Issues and Options document. (January 2016) for their plan, which Swale BC responded to (see Appendix 2). A preferred way forward for the Medway Plan has not yet been identified (a major issue continues to be the resolution of strategic site for 5000 dwellings, which has been subject to Secretary of State call in, with a public inquiry anticipated summer 2017). Medway CC have responded to the Main Modifications consultation on the Swale Local Plan have indicated their satisfaction with the new Swale development target in Main Modification 42. A meeting to discuss mutual local plan progress was held 3 August 2016 and led to the Medway note of

2

CD/011b

satisfaction with the Swale Proposed Main Modifications as noted. Further updating and liaison meetings between Swale BC and Medway CC continue.

3.5 sought to establish potential cross boundary issues in respect of their new Local Plan to 2030. The Borough Council responded to this (see letter 8 Feb 2016 Appendix 3) to share the latest information on the SHMA findings for the Swale housing market area, establishing the lack of overlap between Swale and Ashford in this respect. Ashford have proceeded to publication stage of their plan (August 2016), and propose to meet all of the objectively assessed housing need within their administrative boundaries (and focused principally at the urban area of Ashford), so no housing or other matters were identified as strategic cross boundary issues between Swale and Ashford.

3.6 Gravesham Borough Council (part of the wider North Kent housing market area) have also responded to the Main Modifications consultation and indicated their satisfaction with the new Swale housing development target at Main Modification 42.

3.7 The Greater London Plan Review is still at a very early stage, with a summit on the way forward on DTC, particularly in respect of how London’s housing need may be met anticipated in December 2016. At officer level information and research is disseminated through the Kent Planning Officers Group Planning Policy Forum, with officer representation at GLA from , Dartford BC / Gravesham BC and Medway CC feeding back to the whole group. At this stage no element of meeting London housing need has been sought in Swale, or indeed anywhere else in Kent.

3.8 The GLA have also responded to the Swale BC consultation on the Main Modifications and have indicated (LP Representation No 888) that they are content with Main Modification 24 and the assessment of the objectively assessed need for this plan period. However, Swale BC in assessing the potential implications of the 2014 based ONS Household Projections on Swale’s objectively assessed housing need (SBC/PS/116), also took the opportunity to corroborate the findings that there was no meaningful change to the Swale OAN, with the GLA’s demographers.

Gypsy and Traveller Provision

3.9 In the light of the PPTS (2015) and continuing absence of any adopted DCLG guidance on GTAA’s, the Inspector’s Interim Findings (ID/9d paras 11-14) found the Council’s approach to assessing and meeting Gypsy and Traveller needs sound. The Council continues to meet with other Kent Districts and Kent County Council to monitor this topic and share research and policy approach as necessary.

3

CD/011b

3.10 In preparing the submission version of the Maidstone Local Plan, a small shortfall in identified sites was indicated and Maidstone BC enquired as to whether there were any surplus allocated sites in Swale. Following discussion, Maidstone BC resolved that their modest shortfall could be met through windfall provision within the Maidstone BC area.

Transport Infrastructure

3.11 The Council continues to cooperate with the highway authorities and transport providers. Kent Highways advised the EIP in December 2015 that the new objectively assessed need figure was sufficiently close to figures already modelled to be acceptable on the County road network. Following the Inspector’s Interim Findings, there has been ongoing collaboration on the implications of the new housing target and proposed new allocations to meet this. The confirmation of the Council’s settlement strategy and ongoing focus of development at the western end of the Borough, led Highways England to advise that the impact of the new development on the junctions of the County network with the Strategic Road network along the A249 corridor should be tested and any necessary mitigation schemes identified (and this was confirmed in their response to the Main Modifications consultation). Both highway authorities and the Borough Council are continuing to work together and with key developers in the area to this end. A further Statement of Common Ground between the highway authorities and the Council, supported by technical evidence is in hand and will be available for the resumed Local Plan EIP hearings in January 2017.

3.12 The Council has continued to work with the Highways England M2/Junction 5 team in respect of research supporting the improvement scheme for this junction; and consultation on design options is anticipated early in 2017.

3.13 The Council has also worked with Kent County Highways in drafting the Swale element of the Kent Local Transport Plan 4 which was on public consultation June – October 2016. Swale and Kent officers also collaborated on working up a bid for the Local Growth Fund for highway improvements to the A2500 Lower Road, Sheppey, to complement and support development growth there. Swale BC also anticipates working with Kent Highways on a revised Swale Local Transport Strategy, which will reflect both the modified local plan and changes arising from the countywide local transport plan; and any change in regional and national transport infrastructure priorities.

3.14 Swale has also worked with Maidstone Borough Council in supplying data on proposed new developments to feed into their studies of the southern end of the A249 corridor, and achieve as coordinated approach as possible with the highways authorities as possible, as described in the Statement of Common Ground at Appendix 1.

4

CD/011b

Employment Land and Economic Development

3.15 No issues have arisen with any neighbouring districts on this issue and Medway, Maidstone and Gravesham Councils have all indicated their satisfaction with Main Modification 42 in respect of the new development targets on this matter.

Retail

3.16 Retail was not identified as a strategic issue from the point of view of Swale Local Plan proposals in CD/011 and this continues to be the case. However, over the period since its publication, Swale has collaborated with other councils to establish the potential impact of others’ proposals on Swale.

3.17 The Council commented on the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (publication plan, January 2016) proposals for retail development at Newnham Court, which is situated at the southern end of the A249 corridor, seeking assurance that the policy would require any retail impact assessment to demonstrate that there would be no significant adverse impact to retail centres including those in adjoining boroughs. A Proposed Change to the Maidstone Local Plan has been put forward to this effect as set out in the Statement of Common Ground at Appendix 1.

3.18 The Council has also participated in the Thames Gateway Strategic Retail Group (comprising Thurrock Council; Dartford, Gravesham, Swale, Maidstone, Sevenoaks and Basildon Borough Councils, plus the London Boroughs of Bexley and Havering and the GLA) looking into the proposed expansion of the Bluewater Retail Park at Dartford, which is a regional scale retail centre. Swale BC contributed details of its Local Plan status and development targets; and specifically the Sittingbourne Town Centre regeneration proposals. These were duly fed into the retail impact analysis for the Bluewater expansion. The results were that less than 1% of the growth in retail expenditure expected in Sittingbourne and Sheerness up to 2022 could potentially be diverted to Bluewater if the scheme went ahead. As a result, this was deemed to be minimal and Swale BC therefore raised no objection to the outline planning application scheme, which was subsequently consulted upon by Dartford Borough Council.

Natural and Historic Environment - Biodiversity

3.19 The Council has continued to build on the cooperation with Natural England and the other North Kent authorities set out in SBC/PS/029 in respect of designated biodiversity sites. This has resulted in the completion of a joint

5

CD/011b

Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy, which applies to any development site within 6km of the North Kent Marshes. The Council has continued to build on the cooperation with Natural England and the other North Kent authorities, as set out in SBC/PS/029, in respect of designated biodiversity sites. A Memorandum of Understanding (SBC/PS/114) has been drafted to implement the strategy and a Board established. The Memorandum of Understanding will be signed at the January Board meeting

3.20 The Council has also continued to work with , and the RSPB to secure a parcel of land at Seasalter levels (Whitstable Bay) through Compulsory Purchase Order, which has now been confirmed. The site has now been handed over to the RSPB for management as a wildlife reserve. This site forms and important addition to the Natural Assets and Green Infrastructure and Strategy detailed at Policy CP7.

Natural and Historic Environment – Landscape / Buildings

3.21 The Council continues to be a member of the Kent Downs Joint Advisory Committee and contributes to the AONB Unit and reviews of the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan.

3.23 The Council has continued to work closely with Historic England on establishing priorities for the forthcoming heritage strategy; and specific projects such as working together with applicants to ensure the Listing of a heritage asset at risk from a development proposal (Sheerness Dockyard former military hospital).

Community Services and Infrastructure

3.24 The Council has worked closely with stakeholders such as Kent County Council and the NHS Swale and Canterbury Clinical Commissioning Groups to establish the impact of the new allocations proposed in the Main Modifications to the local plan for education, social, health and other community services and the likely phasing of those services in relation to anticipated build out of new development. This has been fed in to the Draft Implementation and Delivery Schedule 2016-17 (SBC/PS/103) which supports the Main Modifications Local Plan; and also into the relevant land allocation policies.

Utilities and Waste Water

3.25 The Council continues to work with Southern Water and South East Water to contribute new development targets to the companies’ longer term strategic water resource planning. No issues have been raised in respect of water supply for the new housing land allocations proposed through the Main Modifications. Suitable wording for development management purposes for

6

CD/011b

water infrastructure has been agreed with Southern Water in the Implementation and Delivery Schedule.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation - Flood Risk

3.26 The Council continues to work with the Environment Agency as per the Statement of Common Ground (SBC/PS/030 from 2015). Kent County Council are now Lead Local Flood Risk Authority and this has resulted in a Proposed Modification to Policy DM21 to ensure that drainage strategies are produced for major developments to the satisfaction of the LLFRA.

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation – Coastal Change Management

3.27 No new DTC issues to report on this topic sine CD/011 and no Proposed Modification to Policy DM23 of the Local Plan.

Minerals and Waste

3.28 The Council worked with Kent County Council throughout the production of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan process to achieve a practicable approach to safeguarding potential minerals sites which are identified for other built development. The Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan was finally adopted in June 2016. Main Modifications have been proposed to the supporting text to all relevant land use allocations in the Swale Local Plan to indicate where a Minerals Assessment is likely to be required to accord with the policy requirements of the adopted Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

4. Summary

4.1 The Council continues to be of the view that satisfactory cooperation is being maintained with neighbouring authorities and stakeholders on strategic issues and that appropriate joint action is being taken where necessary. Swale has made provision through the Proposed Main Modifications to the Local Plan (June 2016) to meet all of its objectively assessed needs within the Swale BC area for the period to 2031 and does not need to seek the cooperation of any other neighbouring authority to meet those needs. At this time, Swale is not being asked to help meet any other local planning authority’s needs, but is confident that appropriate communication channels are in place to ensure that these matters could be explored as necessary in future.

7

CD/011b

Appendix 1: Statement of Common Ground with Maidstone Borough Council (August 2016)

Appendix 2: Swale BC Letter to Medway City Council on Issues and Options Consultation on Medway City Local Plan (Feb 2016).

Appendix 3: Swale BC letter to Ashford BC on DTC and Housing Market issues (Feb 2016).

8

Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3HT DX59990 Sittingbourne 2 Phone: 01795 417850 Fax: 01795 417141 www.swale.gov.uk

Date as email

BY EMAIL ONLY

FAO Catherine Smith

Dear Catherine

Medway Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation January 2016

Thank you for consulting in respect of the above. The Council offers the following comments and observations.

Vision (incl. Duty to Co-operate)

SBC welcomes the publication of the consultation as the first and important step in securing a Local Plan for Medway.

SBC acknowledges the joint working that both Swale and Medway have undertaken in terms of the Duty to Co-operate; specifically our respective evidence base in respect of Strategic Housing Market Assessment. SBC greatly appreciated the evidence given by Medway at its recent Local Plan Examination and SBC re- confirms its position that it intends to meet its objectively assessed need for housing as determined by the Examination interim findings.

Economy

SBC has no particular observations on the specific matters highlighted by the consultation document, although it supports the need for a strong Medway economy given the relationships between our respective Councils.

SBC notes the aspirations for an enhanced and expanded Chatham town centre. Given the relationships between Swale and Chatham for shopping, together with Swale’s own intentions to stabilise its own town centre with further retail and leisure provision, SBC will wish to scrutinise any retail assessment work to be undertaken by Medway. In particular, SBC will wish to ensure that such proposals are complementary to the existing role of town centres like Sittingbourne and Sheerness in Swale.

In terms of tourism potential, as an observation, there appeared to be no mention in the consultation document of the role of the natural environment in terms of encouraging tourism, in particular the NK Marshes.

Housing

Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3HT DX59990 Sittingbourne 2 Phone: 01795 417850 Fax: 01795 417141 www.swale.gov.uk

The 2015 SHMA

As you will be aware when we met in September 2015, we discussed a number of matters relating to the SHMA work being undertaken (at that time) for Gravesham and Medway by GVA. You will recall that we discussed a number of matters/concerns relating to evidence and the approach concerning:

• HMA geography

• Demographics

• Market Signals

• Economic/commuting

• Affordable homes uplifts

Depending upon how Medway resolve to take these issues forward in terms of any future housing target and its approach toward the Duty to Co-operate, SBC reserves its position in respect of these matters.

Concerning provision for Gypsies and Travellers, obviously Medway will reflect upon the changes to the PPTS relative to the GTAA work previously undertaken. SBC hopes that the PPTS changes will enable Medway to bring forward a range of measures that can ensure that its GT needs can be met in full within its administrative boundaries.

Options for growth

SBC consider that meeting an OAN of 29,463 for Medway will be a considerable challenge, especially in the light of on-going uncertainties concerning the role of Lodge Hill. However, the options for growth outlined in the consultation document appear reasonably comprehensive and as an observation it seems likely that use of more than one approach should not be ruled out. Whilst SBC reserves judgement at this stage in respect of any preferred approach, clearly the options that have the most significant implications for Swale (see environment below) are those associated with settlement expansion, notably at Rainham.

Environment

Both Medway and Swale share a number of important environmental assets/constraints – notably the SPAs of the NK Marshes (where we have been undertaking joint work via NKEPG), best and most versatile agricultural land, important landscapes and vulnerable countryside on our respective eastern/western boarders. SBC would wish to make the following observations:

Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3HT DX59990 Sittingbourne 2 Phone: 01795 417850 Fax: 01795 417141 www.swale.gov.uk

• NK SPAs: SBC notes Medway’s intention to implement the mitigation necessary to offset recreation pressures as currently promoted by the NK SAMMS project; • High quality agricultural land: It seems likely that as with Swale, Medway will find considerable development pressure on this important national resource. It remains to be seen whether the prevalence of this resource in Medway can act either as a dampener on the supply side of the housing debate or whether it is primarily an influence on the distribution of growth. For Swale, it was clear that the Inspector did not view the resource as an environmental constraint that should moderate the overall development target. • Local Landscape Designations: Both Swale and Canterbury Local Plans have given recognition to the North Kent Marshes as a Local Landscape Designation (as previously undertaken by the former Kent and Medway Structure Plan). As an important ‘county’ cross boundary resource, the preparation of the Medway Local Plan would seem an appropriate opportunity to reciprocate the designation within Medway. Preparation of a landscape assessment would be a way forward in this respect. It is hoped that Medway will share this view. • Settlement separation: You are of course well aware of the concerns of our respective Councils concerning the pressures on land east of Rainham toward Upchurch and Hartlip. Clearly Medway will need to assess all reasonable development options, however, given the likelihood that the settlement gap between the Borough boundary and Upchurch will be confirmed via Swale’s own Local Plan process, Medway will want to consider whether to reciprocate the ‘gap’ on the remaining land within its administrative boundary, including giving consideration to the land between Mierscourt Road and Swale boundary. • A2 corridor between Medway and Sittingbourne: We have previously discussed the development pressures within the A2 corridor and its attendant impacts associated with suburbanisation, traffic growth and air quality. Clearly the growth levels of our respective Local Plans will inevitably place pressures upon this corridor; however, some growth options may have greater impacts than others (see above). • Green Belt: SBC notes the reference to one option involving a potential Green Belt review. SBC has no detailed views on this matter at this stage, other than that given the likely development pressures facing Medway, it will be important that all options, including a Green Belt review, are thoroughly explored before arriving at the preferred approach.

Infrastructure

Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3HT DX59990 Sittingbourne 2 Phone: 01795 417850 Fax: 01795 417141 www.swale.gov.uk

Clearly both Councils will want to reflect on the current consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing and its implications for Medway’s development strategy.

In the case of health needs, as highlighted by the Issues and Options consultation, Medway Hospital is a key facility for both Medway and Swale residents. As observed by the document, this is a highly constrained site and increasingly difficult in terms of access. SBC is aware from its own Local Plan work that the NHS is undertaking a strategic health review and it will be important to reflect these conclusions in moving forward with the Medway Local Plan.

I trust your Council will find the above comments useful and we look forward to further discussions with you as your plan progresses.

Yours Sincerely

Alan Best

Principal Planner

Swale BC

Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3HT DX59900 Sittingbourne 2 Phone: 01795 424341 Fax: 01795 417141 www.swale.gov.uk

Simon Cole / Ian Grundy Please ask for: Gill Harris Planning Policy Team Direct Tel: 01795 417118 Ashford Borough Council Our Ref: Civic Centre Your Ref: Tannery lane Date: 8 February 2016 Ashford , Kent e-mail: [email protected] TN23 1PL [email protected] [email protected]

Dear Mr Cole

Ashford Borough Council Local Plan to 2030 – Duty to Co-operate

Thank you for your letter of 18 November 2015 inviting comment on possible infrastructure and cross boundary issues as you progress your Local Plan to publication stage. I do apologise for the delay in replying. As you are aware, we were embroiled in Examination in Public on the Swale Local Plan during November and December. However, I do think some of the evidence prepared for our EIP may be of some contextual use in helping to establish the Duty to Cooperate position for us both at this point in time.

A key document for us was the update to our Strategic Housing Market Assessment (Sept 2015), which offered further evidence and analysis of the definition of the Swale Housing Market Area. It reached the conclusion that Swale is a fairly self-contained market area and no discernible overlap between the Swale and Ashford HMAs was identified. The document can be found on our EIP Library website at: http://archive.swale.gov.uk/assets/Planning-General/Planning-Policy/Evidence- Base/Local-Plan-2014/Further-evidence-2015/Part-1-SHMA-Sep-15-SBCPS025a.pdf

I would suggest that this corroborates the findings of the Ashford SHMA (2014) which Swale also cited in its submitted Duty to Cooperate Statement.

In the light of this, I note your anticipated strategy to focus required new land allocations at the Ashford urban area and smaller scale development in rural settlements. At this point, I am not anticipating that such a strategy would substantially alter the relative position or interaction of our housing markets.

I would offer the following comments in response to the questions in your letter.

1. Swale is now awaiting Inspector’s confirmation of its housing target to 2031, which we anticipate will be higher than the submitted local plan (we are expecting the Inspector’s ‘Interim Findings’ on this matter at the end of January). Objectively assessed need has been proposed as 776 dpa, which would equate to 14,192

Serving Faversham, Isle of Sheppey, Sittingbourne and surrounding rural areas

dwellings over a revised plan period of 2014-2031. Unless recommended otherwise, the Council anticipates that any additional allocations which may be required will still follow our preferred development strategy. This will generally focus on the Kent Thames Gateway (western) part of the Borough, although additional allocations may need to be considered at Faversham and the larger rural service centres. We cannot be more specific about this until the Inspector has indicated the new target and we have translated that into further allocations for testing as Proposed Modifications (anticipated late April / early May 2016).

2. The Implementation and Delivery Schedule supporting the Local Plan can be viewed at http://archive.swale.gov.uk/assets/Planning-General/Planning-Policy/Evidence- Base/Local-Plan-2014/Implementation-and-Delivery-Schedule-final-with-cover.pdf I am not aware of any element of this which would have cross boundary implications (other than possibly improvements to the strategic road network at Junctions 5 and 7 of the M2, which could be of wider strategic significance, but are a Highways England responsibility in any event. HE have invited Swale to comment on the M20 /J10a proposals). The Swale Implementation and Delivery Schedule will be updated in the light of any Proposed Modifications) as above).

3. We have not identified any significant spare capacity in services / infrastructure and a higher housing target is expected to exacerbate need, but we anticipate this being mostly in those localities affected directly by additional allocations rather than having any cross boundary significance with Ashford.

4. We are content that discussions on Duty to Cooperate matters can be at officer level in the first instance, but we are getting any formal requests for assistance and co-operation signed off by our Cabinet Member for Planning as per this letter. If a major issue of critical strategic importance were to arise under the Duty, we would take advice on how best that would be dealt with internally, but ultimately the Council’s response would be for Member sign off.

5. Unless there is a site specific issue, which in your judgement, would impact on the Swale HMA, we would be content to await the next consultation stage on the Plan. If there is something site specific you consider should be brought to our attention ahead of that, then email contact with Swale officers in the first instance will be perfectly acceptable.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Gerry Lewin Cabinet Member for Planning