Agenda item

This report informs the Committee about the penultimate draft of the Core Strategy, which will be the key part of Medway’s Local Development Framework. The Committee is invited to comment on it prior to the Submission version of the document being reported to Cabinet. 

Discussion:

The Planning Policy and Design Manager introduced the report advising that the six week public consultation period, approved by the Cabinet in August, ran until 14 October 2011. The consultation did not ask for strategic options within the plan (this had been at an earlier stage) but was to test the soundness of what was proposed and to refine the draft document.

The committee was informed that this was an overarching strategic document, with the detail being reserved for subsequent development plan documents but would nevertheless provide a framework for all major planning decisions.

It was recognised that the government had published a draft national planning policy framework, which emphasised the importance of having an up-to-date Local Plan or Local Development Framework. The Planning Policy and Design Manager advised that it was intended to submit the Core Strategy as soon as possible so that such a plan was in place to control speculative development, especially on Greenfield sites.

Members congratulated officers for this comprehensive and wide-ranging draft strategy and the work that had been undertaken in the preparation of the documentation. The subsequent questions were responded to as follows:

·        paragraph 4.22 – water supply in Medway
Medway being one of the driest parts of a water-stressed region in the country, are officers certain that the proposed new developments can be supplied with the necessary water provision?

Officers responded that they had held detailed discussions with Southern Water and the Environment Agency and had received all the assurances they could reasonably expect. In policy terms, apart from the installation of water meters, a lot would depend on what happened elsewhere in the region.

·        paragraph 4.30 – waste heat from the new coal power station at Kingsnorth was the thermodynamic information reliable?

After the planning application for the power station had been submitted, two feasibility studies looking at the potential for district heating were produced by Eon. These indicated the potential for the equivalent of heating potential for 100,000 homes. This paragraph had been included in the strategy on the basis of those studies.

·        Policy CS25 – River Medway – preservation of wharfs and port capacity
the council should identify the wharfs worth keeping and preserve them, especially with the large areas identified for housing development. Members were pleased to see reference to keeping the river and port as a working area.

Officers pointed out that all major wharfs were already protected and it was intended that this protection would be retained over the longer term.

·        References to Rochester Airport/Airfield why are these defined separately in different places throughout the document?

Officers advised that the term ‘airfield’ was used to describe the locality, which included the airport. The term ‘airport’ was used to define the specific operational aviation facility. This was a long-term reference that had been used to avoid confusion.

·        Heritage assets referred to within the documentation does not contain any reference to the aviation history within Medway and would like a reference added where appropriate.

Officers agreed to consider this addition to the draft Core Strategy.

·        Medway Means Business Programme, Members were unaware of this programme and asked how the council promoted this?

Officers responded that the council was working on a new economic development website which would be an easy way for businesses and prospective businesses to find out about this.

·        Why was there no reference to restricting the number and concentration of hot food takeaways, as this was a particular request of the Planning Committee?

Officers responded that the Core Strategy was about strategic matters and was not site specific. They confirmed that they were aware of Members concern about takeaways and it was planned to produce a Supplementary Planning Document about this issue, when the resources were available to produce it. Otherwise, there would be a reference to this in a future Land Allocations document.

·        Child assessment centres and children’s homes, is there any reference to these within the document?

Officers responded that there was a promotional aspect for these facilities within the strategy but it would not be site specific. It was difficult to forecast ahead for the numbers and locations needed. Officers wanted to identify land to help these services but were dependent on the services providing the specific information and requirements.

·        Page 117 – new housing in Gillingham, with regard to the figures for Gillingham (886 new units on large sites and 487 additional units on other sites), what level of detail has been considered to get to these numbers in such a densely populated, urban area with little green space?

Officers responded that superficially the figures for Gillingham might seem high but they comprised sites that had already been identified and had planning permission. There were no new allocations in the figures.

·        Houseboats, there is no reference to this within the Core Strategy and the numbers were increasing and they should be considered.

Officers indicated that this matter would be dealt with in the forthcoming allocations document.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)   note the contents of the Local Development Framework: Draft Core Strategy;

(b)   note the comments from Members and officer responses and refer these to the Cabinet for consideration;

(c)   recommend that Cabinet proposes to Council the adoption of the Local Development Framework: Draft Core Strategy in due course.