Proposed Revisions to Draft Local Plan (Preferred Options)

Comment ID 16856385/1/8530260/-
Document Section 3. Other Comments (no name) [View all comments on this section]
Respondent - - Stone Hill Park Limited [View all comments by this respondent]
Agent Elle Milimuka - GVA
Response Date 17 Mar 2017
Do you consider the document is Legally Compliant?
Do you consider the document is Sound?
On which grounds do you consider the document unsound? (if applicable)
Comment

We welcome the latest iteration of the Local Plan, which addresses the concerns that we raised in our previous representations (March 2015).

In particular we are pleased to see that:

• The proposed local plan is now underpinned by an adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence base in accordance with the requirements of NPPF paragraph 158. This includes the following reports:

- Thanet Strategic Housing Market Assessment by GL Hearn (January 2016) which identifies the Objectively Assessed Need for housing growth in the District over the Plan Period; and

- Commercial Viability of Manston Airport by AviaSolutions (September 2016) which considers whether airport use is a viable option for the former airport site over the plan period and concludes that airport operations are very unlikely to be financially viable in the longer term and almost certainly not possible during the plan period.

We have no objections to the other strategic site allocations or proposed revisions to the Local Plan, comprising:

• The new Strategic Routes Policy, which safeguards areas of road widening along Spitfire Way, Manston Road and Manston Court Road in order to support the implementation of the Thanet Transport Strategy. This is consistent with and supported by our client’s pending masterplan application;
• The revised location of the proposed Thanet Parkway Station;
• The new Implementation Policy which states that development will be expected to fully meets its infrastructure requirements whether on site or by contribution to provision elsewhere. With respect to the Working Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (November 2016), we consider that CIL should not be applied to large strategic development sites (such as the former Manston Airport site) due to the scale and range of infrastructure requirements which will need to be delivered by developers. We also support, the Council’s intentions to seek to obtain additional funding from other services to support infrastructure provision; and
• The proposed adoption of national technical standards covering water usage, internal space, requirements, accessibility and adaptability.

What changes do you suggest to make the document legally compliant or sound?
Do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?
Why do you feel it is necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?
Attachments
Officer's Response Not yet available.
Proposed Change
Notes