CANTERBURY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN
EXAMINATION
MATTERS, ISSUES AND QUESTIONS
STAGE 2
(17 May 2016)
References to policies in brackets indicate against which main matter (or matters) they will be considered. In some cases policies are relevant to more than one hearing session. Any issues relating to the Local Plan supporting text, evidence base or other documents will be considered as appropriate under the relevant main matter.
Matters arising from the Council’s response to the Inspector’s letter of 10August 2015
Matter A - Five Year Housing Land Supply
a) Are the additional sites identified by the Council in the Proposed Amendments to the Local Plan (November 2015) as contributing to the 5 year supply justified? Are they viable and available now, do they offer a suitable location for development now and are they achievable with a realistic prospect that sufficient housing will be delivered within 5 years?
Strategic sites:
· Land at and adjacent to Cockering Farm, Thannington, Canterbury – 1,150 dwellings (190 in supply period)
· Land South of Ridgeway (John Wilson Business Park) – 300 dwellings (100 in supply period)
Other sites
· Land at rear of 51Rough Common Road (SHLAA 078) – extension to existing allocation - 12 dwellings – to give 28 in total
· Land at Brickfield Farm, Mill Lane, Bridge (SHLAA 186) – 40 dwellings. How does this site relate to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan?
· Land adjacent to Cranmer and Aspinall Close, Bekesbourne (SHLAA 171) – 14 dwellings
b) Do the additional sites proposed by the Council assist in providing a continuous supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing against the housing requirement?
c) Is the increase in the amount of housing from 500 to 800 dwellings at Site 8 - Land North of Hersden - justified in order for the Local Plan to be sound?
d) Are the additional sites proposed at and adjacent to Herne Bay Golf Driving Range, Greenhill (SHLAA 12 and 199) – 80 dwellings – justified in order for the Local Plan to be sound?
e) Is the Council’s proposal to remove part of Site 10 – Land at the Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Ridlands Farm and Langton Field – justified in order for the Local Plan to be sound? Are there any implications for Site1 arising from the position of the Hospital Trust?
f) Is the Council’s proposal to delete part of the land adjacent to Canterbury West Station from the Proposals Map justified in order for the Local Plan to be sound? Is the retention otherwise of housing and employment allocations close to Canterbury West Station (or on other car parks) justified and soundly based, particularly in the light of the loss of car parking that would result?
g) Would the Local Plan be unsound if land at Roper Road, Canterbury (adjacent to Canterbury West Station) that was promoted in response to the 5 year housing land supply consultation were not included? If so, is the site soundly based and deliverable in the plan period and has it been subject to sustainability appraisal?
h) Is the Council’s proposal to delete the following sites from the Proposals Map justified in order for the Local Plan to be sound?
· Land adjacent to 181 Sea Street, Herne Bay
· Corner of Canterbury Road/Victoria Road, Herne Bay
· Builders Yard, rear of 3 Belmont Road, Whitstable
· Beresford Road North and South, Whitstable
· Land adjacent to 15 Hamilton Road, Whitstable
· 37 Essex Street Whitstable
· Land adjacent to 100 Albert Street, Whitstable
Matter B – Infrastructure and Delivery
a) Does the Council’s Canterbury VISUM Model Update Run (March 2016) have any implications for the Local Plan?
b) Having regard to the Sturry and Herne Highway Capacity Study (April 2016) and the Statement of Apportionment has the relationship between the proposed Relief Roads and development been appropriately addressed?
c) Is there a reasonable prospect that the Sturry and Herne Relief Roads can be funded and delivered in the required timescale? Has it been demonstrated that any pooling of financial contributions to these schemes would be consistent with CIL Regulation123?
d) Is there a reasonable prospect that the Wincheap A2 off-slip, A28 Wincheap Relief Road and extension to the Wincheap park and ride site can be funded and delivered in the required timescale?
e) Does the Council’s Viability Assessment of Strategic Sites in Canterbury District (April 2016) have any implications for the Local Plan? In particular, are there any implications arising from its conclusions about the achievability of 30% affordable housing on the strategic allocations?
Matter 8: Housing Allocations and related Development Management Policies (HD1, HD6 to HD10)
Whether the allocated housing sites are justified and deliverable and whether the development management policies provide an appropriate basis for assessing proposals for residential accommodation
Allocations
a) Should the housing allocations referred to in supporting text be identified in a plan policy?
Individual housing sites (the following questions b) to g) apply as appropriate to each of the new housing allocations listed below)
· St Martin’s Hospital, Canterbury
· Kingsmead Field, Canterbury
· Land at Bullockstone Road, Herne Bay
· Land at Spires, Bredlands Lane, Hersden
· Barham Court Farm, Church Lane, Barham
· Land at Baker’s Lane, Chartham
b) Has the overall amount and mix of development proposed at the site been justified by the evidence base?
c) Have all the infrastructure implications of the development of the site been identified in sufficient detail and supported by the evidence base?
d) Is it sufficiently clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and by when? Which infrastructure is critical to the delivery or rate of development of the site?
e) Are the transport implications of the development and the measures to address them sufficiently clear and deliverable?
f) Are the education implications of the development and the measures to address them sufficiently clear and deliverable?
g) Is there sufficient viability evidence at this stage to have reasonable certainty that the amount of development proposed will be deliverable within the plan period in the context of affordable housing provision, necessary infrastructure and other Local Plan requirements?
h) Is there justification for revisions to housing site boundaries at Parham Road, Canterbury and Beresford Road, Whitstable
i) Is the identification of Chaucer Road, Canterbury as an opportunity site for housing justified and is it developable?
Development Management
j) Is the approach to Houses in Multiple Occupation in Policy HD6 justified and would it be effective?
k) Does Policy HD7 make appropriate provision for purpose built student accommodation?
l) Do policies HD8 and HD9 make appropriate provision for the retention of housing accommodation and bringing empty property into residential use?
m) What are the implications for the Local Plan in terms of affordable housing policy arising from the Court of Appeal judgment in Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 441?
n) Do the changes to national policy in ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ (August 2015) have any implications for the Local Plan?
o) Has the Local Plan adequately addressed the accommodation needs of travellers?
p) Are the criteria for consideration of proposals for traveller sites in PolicyHD10 appropriate and consistent with national policy?
Omission Sites
q) Would the Local Plan be unsound if any of the additional or alternative ‘omission’ housing sites that were promoted in representations on the Publication Draft Local Plan were not included? If so, are these sites soundly based and deliverable in the plan period and have they been subject to sustainability appraisal?
· The Old Coal Yard, Belmont Road, Whitstable (SHLAA/145)
· Land at Taringa, Church Lane, Seasalter (SHLAA/189)
· Land at Shrubhill Road, Chestfield (SHLAA/181)
· Land at Thornden Wood Road, Greenhill (SHLAA/071)
· Land at Richmond Drive/Puffin Road, Beltinge, Herne Bay (SHLAA/131)
· Land at Rattington Street, Chartham (SHLAA/140)
· Land to East of Chartham Mill, Chartham (SHLAA/216)
· Great Bossingham Farm, Bossingham (SHLAA/218)
· Land to the north east of The Hill, Littlebourne (SHLAA/091)
· Land at Bekesbourne Lane, Littlebourne (SHLAA/044)
· Land at Westbere Lane, Westbere (SHLAA/072)
· Land off Island Road, Westbere (SHLAA/200)
· Durite Plant, Westbere Lakes, Fordwich Road, Sturry (SHLAA/081)
· Former Highways Depot, Staines Hill, Sturry
· Land at Goose Farm, Shalloak Road, Broad Oak (SHLAA/174)
· Land to rear of Royal Oak, Blean (SHLAA/217)
· Lucketts Farm, Blean (SHLAA/215)
· Land at Patrixbourne Road, Bridge (SHLAA/221)
· Land at Brewery Lane, Bridge (SHLAA/139)
· Land at Cockering Road, Thannington (9 units) (SHLAA/004)
· Land adjacent to Parham Road, Canterbury (SHLAA/056)
· Buildings 1-7 the Tannery, Stour Street, Canterbury
r) Would the Local Plan be unsound if any of the additional or alternative ‘omission’ housing sites that were promoted in response to the 5 year housing land supply consultation were not included? If so, are these sites soundly based and deliverable in the plan period and have they been subject to sustainability appraisal?
· Land south of A28/Island Road, Hersden (Hoplands Farm)
· Land at Island Road and Bredlands Lane, Westbere
· Land at Milborough, Herne Bay Road, Broad Oak (SHLAA/045)
· Land at Shalloak Road, Broad Oak
· Land at Stains Hill, Sturry (SHLAA/050)
· Land between Bigbury Road and Tonford Lane, Harbledown
· Land at Highland Court Farm, Canterbury
· Land at Conyngham Lane, Bridge
· Land to the south of Aylesham
· Land at Millstrood Road, Whitstable
Matter 9: Employment Allocations, Tourism and related Development Management Policies (EMP1 to EMP11, TV1 to TV5)
Whether the allocated employment sites are justified and deliverable and whether the development management policies provide an appropriate basis for assessing proposals for employment and tourism development
Individual employment sites (the following questions a) to e) apply as appropriate to each of the new employment allocations listed below)
· Land at Sturry Road, Canterbury – including changes to the existing Green Gap designation
· Extension to Joseph Wilson Industrial Estate, Whitstable
· Hillborough Business Park Herne Bay (unimplemented planning permission)
· Altira, Margate Road, Herne Bay (unimplemented planning permission)
· Chaucer Business Park, Whitstable
a) Has the overall amount of development proposed at the site been justified by the evidence base?
b) Have all the infrastructure implications of the development of the site been identified in sufficient detail and supported by the evidence base?
c) Is it sufficiently clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and by when? Which infrastructure is critical to the delivery or rate of development of the site?
d) Are the transport implications of the development and the measures to address them sufficiently clear and deliverable?
e) Is there sufficient viability evidence at this stage to have reasonable certainty that the amount of development proposed will be deliverable within the plan period?
f) Would the Local Plan be unsound if any of the additional or alternative ‘omission’ employment sites that were promoted in representations were not included? If so, are these sites soundly based and deliverable in the plan period and have they been subject to sustainability appraisal?
· Hall Place, Harbledown, Canterbury
· Land east of Lakesview Business Park, Hersden
· Hoplands Farm, Island Road, Hersden
· The Paddock, Thanet Way, Whitstable
· Former FDS Site, Hawthorne Corner, Hillborough
· Any other employment sites – Milton Manor Farm, Canterbury
g) Is the approach to the protection or release for redevelopment/change of use of existing employment sites or premises in Policies EMP1, EMP2 and EMP4 consistent with national policy?
h) Are Policies EMP3 and EMP5 concerning office use of retail and commercial premises and home-working justified and consistent with national policy?
i) Does the Local Plan make appropriate provision for the University of Kent, Canterbury Christ Church University and colleges and schools in the plan area?
j) Have the boundaries to the University sites been appropriately defined?
k) Does the Local Plan make appropriate provision for development at Whitstable Harbour?
l) Is the approach to marina proposals in Policy TV5 justified by the evidence base, including possible provision at Whitstable Harbour?
m) Do PoliciesTV1 and TV2 provide a justifiable and effective strategy for the promotion of tourism and culture, having regard to environmental considerations?
n) Are Policies TV3 and TV4 relating to visitor accommodation and caravan tourist sites supported by the evidence base and consistent with national policy?
Matter 10: Town Centres and Leisure (Policies TCL2 to TCL12)
Main issue – Whether the Local Plan provides a sound basis for retail and leisure development and the management and growth of town and local centres
a) Does the Local Plan define a hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes? Should the hierarchy and the identified centres be included in a plan policy?
b) Has the Canterbury Primary Shopping Area been justified by the evidence base?
c) Are the Primary Shopping Frontages in Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable justified by the evidence base?
d) Are the Mixed Shopping Frontages at Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable consistent with national policy and justified by the evidence base?
e) Is the Cultural Enhancement Area at Canterbury consistent with national policy and justified by the evidence base?
f) Does Policy TCL5 provide a justifiable and effective approach to development in Local Centres?
g) Is the approach to main town centre uses in Policy TCL6 justified and consistent with national policy?
h) Has the Wincheap Retail Area been justified by the evidence base (including the Canterbury Sequential Assessment and Wincheap Capacity Study) and is it deliverable? Has the potential impact on Canterbury City Centre and other centres been appropriately assessed? Will the requirements of PolicyTCL7 be effective in ensuring that the intended outcome is achieved?
i) Are the sites allocated for mixed use development within and around town centres in Policy TCL10 justified and deliverable? Is the particular mix of development justified?