Preferred Options Policy General Comments Infrastructure Otterpool & Core Strategy Review Structure Of Plan Neighbourhood Plans Evidence Base SA & HRA Duty to Cooperate Duty to Cooperate Comments received Residential building should not be allowed on any green fields or agricultural land. There should not be housing development where there is no prospect of local employment. There are too many places that you want to build on and spoil, which will in turn be a suburb of London and not be for first time buyers. Please lets keep some beautiful countryside for future generations. Grossly over crowded We have a principle concern that reference to LAA throughout the document, has been removed from the Local Plan. There is a significant decrease in the level of support that the Local Plan gives to LAA in principle, and in the acknowledgement of its benefits to the District in comparison to the issues and options document. Given the high level of concern among local people about the fact that many of the new homes proposed may end up as second homes I think there should at least be a debate as to whether Shepway should follow St Ives's lead and include a condition that all new homes should be principal residences not second home There are several references in the introductory sections (e.g. pares 3.3 (2) and 3.6) to the requirement to 'maintain'• the historic environment. Although the sentiment and purpose is undoubtedly correct, this could appear to downplay the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework The target of 8,000 dwellings should now be a minimum as Office of National Statistics figures published since the adoption of the Core Strategy show that the need for new housing in Shepway has increased. For a Preferred Options document one would expect a clear indication of the Councils intentions, but the document refers to further work being needed. Southern Water supports the statement that the Local Plan will help to provide certainty about the future pattern of development in the District No mention is made anywhere about traffic mitigation, affordable/social housing, secondary school places, nor ensuring adequate health/medical specialists, social services/services and waste management. The draft Local Plan envisages a very substantial increase in the number of homes in and around New Romney We have reviewed the above consultation document and can confirm that National Grid has no comments to make in response to this consultation. The mention of self build etc is interesting but how achievable? Although there is support for infrastructure in a general sense within the text of the Local Plan Preferred Options document, Southern Water notes that there is no overt policy support for new or additional waste water infrastructure within policy text. Accordingly, we propose the following additional policy: New and improved utility infrastructure will be encouraged and supported in order to meet the identified needs of the community, subject to other policies in the development plan. Otterpool: Target should be revised downwards significantly to take into account the vary large number of new homes that Otterpool will provide. When can we comment the Otterpool madness? Infrastructure would not be able to cope with both 8,000 and 12,000 homes Shepway DC should clarify how they propose to take account of this major project and the impacts it may have on this draft plan. This plan does not meet the infrastructure needs of new homes increasing from 8,000 to 20,000. Oppose Otterpool although not part of this Plan With regards to any planning in Stanford area, Highways England have proposed a 3,600 lorry holding area! Sellindge 12,000 houses! Princes Parade development in Hythe, and the outskirts of Canterbury s huge development. We say no more! It is surprising that the plan does not, in its introductory chapter, explain the relationship of the document to the Core Strategy Review. Local people in the district will be concerned about the relationship of this plan to a potential new settlement at Otterpool (and any other strategic allocations). Strategic allocations in a Core Strategy Review will obviously have infrastructure and environmental capacity implications, which may have relevance to the proposed sites in this plan An index having 3 introductions section3,4 and 8 does not make an easy read. Policy Index This should include page numbers to further aid navigation of the document. This plan, as proposed, is not fit for purpose. As a Local Plan within the Planning process this plan should support and sit within both National policy and the Local authorities Core Strategy Local Plan. It should provide for the communities needs whilst both protecting community assists and ensuring that community infrastructure increases in capacity as development takes place. This proposed plan fails to do so. The Places and Policies Plan, Preferred Options Policy Drafted is well planned and based on careful Consideration. The Preferred Options are Evenly and Fairly Distributed across the District, the features based upon which all of those chosen warrant Inclusion in the Policy on merit. Pleased to see that the Local Plan Preferred Options document, is written in a greatly improved style to the Core Strategy, which immediately makes it more accessible and understandable to the public but there is concern that the published document is not in as clear, accessible or people friendly form as it could be. It is extremely lengthy, which means it is difficult to read and comprehend as a whole.and there is still too much 'planning speak' which is unclear, and planning terms which are not explained. The AONB Unit supports Shepway's commitment to actively engage with town and parish council wishing to prepare a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Order It is disappointing that Neighbourhood Planning did not help shape the Preferred Options document. Agree that these are an excellent way for local people to influence development and land use in accordance with local wishes The heritage strategy is described at para 16.4 but not its relevance to decision taking. At para 6.95 with reference to Dungeness the heritage strategy is listed as an important source of advice for planning applicants but this is I think the only place where it is so referenced. Historic England has not been consulted on a SA/SEA for the draft local plan at this stage. However, the earlier issues and Options draft Plan was accompanied by a SA/SEA which the Council, may consider is adequate for the purpose of the current draft plan. Duty to cooperate The draft Plan does not refer to the duty to cooperate and how any strategic matters may influence the contents of the Plan Rother District Council (RDC) acknowledges and appreciates the ongoing engagement in the preparation of SDC's Local Plan and has only relatively minor comments, primarily relating to developing effective and, where appropriate, comparable policies through continuing dialogue as our respective Local Plan progress. KCC recognises the role of this plan in delivering the growth set out in the Shepway Core Strategy 2013 (CS), which identifies the need for a total of 8,000 homes, 20 ha business use and 35,000 sq. m retail in the 2006-2026 plan period. KCC acknowledges the other work that is concurrently being undertaken by Shepway District Council (SDC), including the Housing Market Needs Assessment; a joint study with Dover District Council, and is aware that this is work likely to result in a higher OAN figure compared to the existing CS housing figure. KCC understands that a CS partial review will be undertaken in light of this new data and will welcome the opportunity for involvement in that process. Response from the Council There are not enough previously developed sites to meet the forecasted population needs of the district, so previously undeveloped sites will need to be considered. These have been assessed in terms of the Settlement Hierarchy set out in the Core Strategy. The amount of development being sought is to meet the requirement of the adopted Core Strategy, minus Strategic Allocations and sites with planning permission. Adopted policy in the Core Strategy seeks a distribution of development across the district. Whilst the airport is supported by the District Council, the London Ashford Airport expansion has planning permission, so it is not considered necessary for a new policy in this Plan. References to LAA are to be added to the supporting text. Noted. Such a policy would only be applicable to new build developments and there is no evidence to identify that there is a major problem in the district. If local neighbourhoods considered it to be a problem in their areas, they could try to address it through the Neighbourhood Plan process as was done at St Ives. Noted, the text in this section will be updated. The target is set out in the adopted Core Strategy. Any additional need will be considered through the Review of the Core Strategy , which is currently progressing. The evidence base work is still ongoing as it is not possible to do all of it at once. There have been a couple of areas where the Preferred Options will be relying upon new Evidence Base (for example Open Space) but this will inform the Submission Draft, which will also be subject to consultation and then examination. The support is noted. The District Council has been working with Kent County Council (in terms of Education, Social Care and Highways) and the NHS and Clinical Commissioning Groups. It is agreed that additional text should be added with regard to infrastructure and reference to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should be added.