|
Swale Local Plan process:
Submissions by Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council.
The Swale Local Plan is one of the major planning guidance documents that set the scene for development across the Borough. The current Plan was officially ‘adopted’ in 2000, and covers the period up to the end of 2006. It has been reviewed by Swale Borough Council (SBC) to accommodate new Government Planning Policy. The First Review Local Plan will be adopted in due course. Over recent months there has been a period of public consultation (now ended) during which many individuals and bodies, including Lynsted with Kingsdown P C, have commented on Swale Council’s new ‘Draft Plan’. All ‘submissions’ have been collated, and will be put before an independent Inspector, prior to the Swale Local Plan Public Inquiry next March. The Inspector will decide how and where the Plan should be altered in response to objections.
Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council in general agrees with the content of the Draft Local Plan, and particularly supports Policy RC8 on community action.
We are, however, concerned, on behalf of our parishioners, at the potential loss of the distinctive countryside in and around our Parish as a result of development pressure. We have formally objected to six proposed policies on environmental grounds, and to omissions from the Glossary. We have also objected to a proposed policy, which we feel will not help low-income families to remain in the Parish.
The details of our submissions are set out below, in the order that the Policies appear in the Draft Plan (SBC Local Plan First Review Re-Deposit Draft, July 2005). Copies of the Draft Plan are available for inspection at public libraries, SBC’s Planning Department, at SBC’s website, www.swale.gov.uk , or through our Clerk (phone 01795 522653). Please contact the Clerk if you have any comments or questions.
Submissions by Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council to the Swale Local Plan Re-Deposit Draft, July 2005.
1. Objection.
Policy No. TG1 - Para.No. 2.74 to 2.85 - Map 2.
We object to the fact that the eastern boundary of the Thames Gateway has been drawn too far to the east. It puts Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish within the Thames Gateway. This is inappropriate, as the needs of our parish are essentially rural, and do not require development impetus. The boundary should be redrawn along the line of the Northern Distributor Road and the ‘Southern Distributor Road’, if authorised.
If it is beyond the powers of the Local Plan process to have the boundary redrawn, then a pragmatic approach to development must be adopted such that sites on the Sittingbourne side of the Distributor Road alignments are preferred for development over the rural areas to the east.
2. Objection
Policy E6
Policy E6 is too permissive of development, compared with the equivalent policy in the current Adopted Plan. The countryside of Swale is a major asset , not only for the physical and mental health of the population, but also because the countryside is by far the main tourism draw for the Borough. The unspoiled countryside is a limited resource that needs to be enjoyed by the present generation, but also kept available to those who come after us. Large areas of countryside have been lost to development already, particularly in Kent, the ‘Garden of England’. The process is irreversible. There is need for restraint. Replacing ’Development proposals will only be permitted when…’ with: ‘Development will not be permitted unless…’ would be a more positive way of conserving this vital resource.
3. Objection
Policy E9 - Paragraphs 3.25 to 3.27- Proposals Map and Inset Maps 3, 17 and 18
We object to the omission of the southern reaches of the Lyn Valley from Area of High Landscape Value designation. The AHLA should be extended beyond its southern limit (presently along the alignment of the railway in Teynham parish) to include this attractive ‘dry valley’. It is part of an ancient drainage system that runs from beyond Lynsted Park (i.e. abutting the Kent Downs AONB boundary) to the Swale at Conyer. The Lyn Valley is largely devoid of modern development, contains ancient woodland, is greatly valued by local people as an unspoiled feature and has been recognised for its beauty at Appeal. It warrants special protection in the face of mounting pressure for inappropriate development. It is identified in the Lynsted Design Statement (Supplementary Planning Guidance) as an attractive landscape area in which development is to be resisted.
We intend to submit supporting documentation in advance of the Inquiry.
4. Objection
Policy E10 - Paragraph 3.30.
We object to the Policy on the grounds that it fails to follow up on paragraph 3.30 which describes the importance of traditional orchards. There is a need to give protection to traditional orchards, not just individual trees. They are the historic root of large-scale fruit growing in England, which started in Swale. The Policy should refer to the need to protect remaining stands of traditional fruit trees i.e. orchards, in view of their heritage, landscape and wildlife value. We suggest inserting: ‘The Borough Council will encourage landowners and community groups to conserve and enhance traditional orchards as a local resource of heritage, wildlife and landscape value’.
5. Objection
Policy RC 4.
We object to Policy RC 4. We consider that it will not be effective in helping those on low incomes to obtain accommodation in rural areas. Even small houses will be out of the price range of local people. Preventing existing local occupiers from extending to meet the needs of a growing family will be counter-productive, in forcing them to move. We urge retention of the wording on extensions in the Adopted Local Plan (Policy H9).
6. Objection
Policy RC7 - Paragraph 3.145 - Maps: Proposals Map, Inset Map 18
We object on the grounds that the following rural lanes in Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Parish should be marked with the Rural Lane designation on the relevant maps: Claxfield Lane between Wood Street and Lynsted Lane, Kingsdown Road, Ludgate Lane and Toll Lane.
7. Support
Policy RC8 - Paragraph 3.146
The Parish Council is very pleased to see the encouragement of the community in the management of change at the local level, especially the support for design statements and plans. Such statements are:
a)in the spirit of Subsidiarity, a theme promoted by Central Government and pressed on town- and parish councils.
b)a much-needed stimulus to community involvement in planning and the retention of local distinctiveness and ‘sense of place’ during the management of change.
c)a bulwark against insensitive development imposed from afar.
8. Objection
Glossary
We object to the omission of the terms ‘Village Design Statement’ and ‘Parish Design Statement’ from the Glossary. They need to be defined, and their relationship with ‘Parish Plans’ explained and clarified.
T English, December 2005
|
