Proposed Revisions to Draft Local Plan (Preferred Options)

Comment ID 11740353/1/8530260/-
Document Section 3. Other Comments (no name) [View all comments on this section]
Respondent Mark Buxton - CgMs [View all comments by this respondent]
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

Other Comments


1. Tesco recognise the Council’s desire to undertake a targeted consultation to focus on a number of key issues and the proposed main changes to the Local Plan Preferred Options 2015.

However, as this excludes the Council’s proposed approach to other land uses, notably employment land and allocations, it is not clear whether and how the Council has responded to representations Tesco submitted to the 2015 draft plan seeking, inter alia, greater flexibility in respect of the Thanet Reach Business Park allocation and a more balanced approach to housing and employment needs. There is therefore a fundamental shortcoming in this round of consultation as these main changes cannot be viewed in isolation.

We therefore would request that adequate time is allowed for between now and submission of the draft Plan to the Inspectorate for a proper review of any new relevant evidence including information that has been promised by the Council and that we are afforded an opportunity to review and submit further comments on these matters.

2. Tesco continue to support the residential allocations on land south of Millennium Way (S536 and SS34) in the emerging Local Plan, which fall partly within Tesco’s ownership.

Conclusion

In conclusion we consider that the proposed revisions to the draft Local Plan are currently unsound as there are serious concerns still to be addressed over the proposed mixed use allocation at the Former Airport Site and the delivery timescales of the new strategic sites at Manston Court Road/Haine Road and Manston Road/Shottendane Road, Margate. We consider these issues mean it is unlikely that the Council will be able to ensure the delivery of sufficient housing during the initial years of the new development plan to meet its increased Objectively Assessed Need.

We consider the emerging plan is based on a flawed approach to housing sites. Manston Airport is not available as it is being promoted for a re-opened cargo airport. Even if that does not occur and a mixed use allocation comes to fruition, the trajectory for housing delivery is overly ambitious; it is not going to be possible to deliver 160 houses on site in 2018-19. However, if it does come forward for a mixed use development, it will provide 85,000sqm of employment and leisure floorspace. This should be more than sufficient to meet the employment land requirement over the plan period and enable other long-term employment allocations which have not come forward, such as Thanet Reach (land north of Millennium Way), to be promoted for other uses (i.e. housing).

We also have serious concerns over the New Strategic Routes Policy and consider that insufficient detail is provided on this issue. There has been a notable lack of engagement with local land owners in this regard.

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