Transcript Response to the consultation document • What was said • How the plan has changed.

Response to the consultation document
• What was said
• How the plan has changed
Consultation involved three processes
1) Deposition of the plan, appendices and background documents
on the Parish Council website with a request for comments.
2) Circulation of a guide to the WNP and response forms to every
household, business and landholder in the Parish.
3) Distribution of CDs with all documentation to the list of
consultees provided by ABC.
The official consultation period was from January 29th until March
13th, but late responses have also been considered.
The consultation statement summarises responses
received
• From Parishioners including businesses and landholders,
who replied with their response forms
• Comment on separate letters received from parishioners
• Comment on responses from statutory consultees and
Imperial College London
Results of the analysis of response forms
Of the respondents, 88% (621/729) were generally in support with 8% (55) ‘don’t knows’ and 4% (29) opposed.
Qu1 Are you generally in support of the draft Wye 2030
Neighbourhood Plan?
100%
90%
88%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
4%
8%
No
Don't know
0%
Yes
Q2 If you disagree with any part of the plan, what do you wish to see
changed and why (131/709 comments)?
Renewables/sustainabilty (more)
5
Churchfield Way parking proposals
9
Positive about plan
7
Community use for Grade I college buildings
6
Level crossing
5
Less housing than proposed
8
ADAS proposals
11
Parking
24
Traffic impact
36
Free School in Edwardian College buildings
7
Concentric village/5 min walk
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
While the majority agreed all of the plan, others did disagree with some aspects. Even the most frequently cited
‘disagree’ (36 times) ‘traffic impact’ equates to <5% of responses. Only 3.4% (24) disagreed with the plan’s proposals on
parking. The 147 ‘disagrees’ fitted into 11 categories as charted above.
Dealing with specific policies
Qu 3 Are you generally in support of the draft Plan policies?
100%
90%
87%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
5%
8%
No
Don't know
0%
Yes
Q4 If you disagree with a policy/policies, what is the policy
number and why do you disagree?
Disagree policies
WNP 1 Five min village, greenspaces, views
6
WNP 2 Quality design
1
WNP 3 Traffic
4
WNP 4 Business development
1
WNP 5 Local needs housing
6
WNP 6 WYE3 mixed use/phased
7
WNP 7 WYE3 detail
24
WNP 8 Naccolt
2
WNP 9 Developer contributions
3
WNP 10 Countryside and environment
3
WNP 11 Phasing
4
WNP 12 Accessible housing
0
WNP 13 Density
4
WNP 14 Superfast broadband
0
WNP 15 Trafic analysis
6
WNP 16 Traffic calming and parking contributions
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Of those who objected to Policy WNP 7, the disagreements were for:
Housing numbers
2
Moving Free School to Edwardian college buildings
6
Proposals for ADAS
4
Community use of Grade I buildings
6
The highest numbers of disagrees (24) to a policy were for the WNP 7 relating to the former college or WYE3 site.
The most common are set out in the Table below. The ‘disagrees’ each amount to <1% of total responses.
Age profile of those completing responses – comparison with Census 2011
Age profile of those completing a response
form %
80+
Age profile (Census 2011)
17
70-79
21
60-69
80+
10.9
70-79
10.8
60-69
13.7
20
50-59
50-59
12.4
15
40-49
14
30-39
9
20-29
30-39
11.4
9.2
16-19
1
0
11.2
20-29
2
16-19
40-49
5
10
15
20
25
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Qu 11 Have you any other comments?
Affordable housing
6
Free school
5
Booklet print small
10
Good plan
46
Parking
27
Level crossing
19
Cycling
12
Traffic
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
A selection of the ‘cons’:
• I feel that the Wye 2030 Neighbourhood Plan is far too complicated for the
ordinary person to follow!!
• I have only one comment, 162 houses will spoil Wye and make what is a village
into a town and will ruin the village. I have lived in Wye for 46 years and seen it
grow from a small village.
• I think it is disgraceful Imperial has had these houses and flats empty for 9 years
and they should be done before they are allowed to build more new homes.
• I would like to thank everybody involved for their efforts in wanting to maintain a
nice village to live in and seek the views of everyone who lives here - well done!
Although I broadly agree with the principles in the plan, I cannot vote for only 50
new houses every 5 years - more people should be able to live here and
contribute to the local economy.
A selection of the ‘pros’:
• A clean, comprehensive plan. Thank-you to everyone who has had a hand in
producing it.
• A very comprehensive document. I am pleased to see that the beauty and
community feel of our village will be retained under the plan with an excellent
vision for the future so the village does not stagnate.
• A very well thought out document which is a massive step forward from some of
the original proposals put forward by Imperial. The earlier proposals concerned
me greatly but my concerns are largely mollified by the proposals articulated in
the current plan. Well done to the team that drafted this Neighbourhood Plan!
Conclusions
• The overwhelming response to the draft plan from residents, businesses
and landowners, is positive.
• Importantly, the responses have confirmed support for:
o The scale of development proposed.
o The importance of protection of the environment
o The need for mixed development on WYE3 to replace lost business and education
following College closure.
o The critical assessment required to understand the impact of development
on traffic in Wye.
Changes needed?
In attempting to work with the consensus view it was concluded, based on
the results of the circulated questionnaire, that no major changes were
needed to the draft plan.
However input from responses has resulted in
• More emphasis on the protected environment around Wye
Thanks to Diana Pound for her detailed response
• Recognition of the historical significance of the settlement
• Greater definition of the need for support from developer
contributions
Responses from consultees
Ashford Borough Council
Detailed response comprising
• Essential changes needed to fulfil Basic Conditions
ie that the plan is in agreement with National and Local
Planning Policy
• Suggestions for improvements
ABC - Changes needed to fulfil Basic Conditions
•
•
•
•
Description of the village envelope and designation of green spaces
Better definition of the need for contributions from developers
More precision over local needs housing
Policy for WYE3 not flexible enough
But The response received from ABC, the local planning authority, whilst criticising
certain points in the plan, indicates that the quantum of development proposed for WYE3
in the WNP meets the basic conditions tests (i.e. is consistent with the strategic policies
of the adopted Development Plan and the NPPF).
Designation of green spaces protected from development
More precision needed over developer contributions
The consultation document had a long wish list of projects.
ABC pointed out that for Section 106 contributions .....
NPPF Paragraph 204 states : ‘Planning obligations should only be sought where
they meet all of the following tests:
• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
• directly related to the development; and
• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development’.
The plan has been revised so support from 106 is more directly related to
the site of development
The Community Infrastucture Levy CIL is more of a tax on any house built
and this provides a more flexible source of funding for projects
More flexibility on the WYE3 site
The consultation version was too prescriptive so.............
The revised version has the same level of mixed development
• Education
• Business
• Some housing
But the exact location is flexible eg
• School in Edwardian buildings, OR
• School in Kempe Centre plus new build
In both cases the Hop garden would become the playing field
Kent County Council
Planning Policy
The County Council welcomes the positive approach taken by Wye and Hinxhill Parish Council
towards enhancing the sustainability of Wye, and in respect of paragraph 184 of the National
Planning Policy Framework, recognises the Parish Council’s commitment towards the inclusion of
policies consistent with adopted local planning policy (in particular, the adopted Ashford Borough
Core Strategy 2008 and Tenterden and Rural Sites DPD 2010). The County Council also notes
reference made to ABC’s New Local Plan to 2030 and advises that the Parish Council should remain
cognisant of emerging local planning policy and to continue to engage with ABC to further ensure
policy consistency.
It is encouraging that KCC considers that the WNP adequately addresses National and Local
Planning Policy.
KCC specific comments
Heritage
The publication of WNDP is welcomed as Wye is a historic town with origins dating
back to the Roman period and has significant association with the medieval collegiate.
The WNP has been revised to highlight the need for conservation of archeological sites
in the parish.
Biodiversity
It is recommended that the following bullet point is added to Policy WNP 7:
‘n) Adequately assess the ecological value of the site and the potential for ecological
impacts to arise as a result of the development proposals, demonstrating that the
impacts can be avoided, mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for.’
The revised WNP includes this statement in the revised Countryside and
Policy WNP8 The policy is improved.
Natural England
Concern over the scale of development and impact on the AONB
• The revised plan has more emphasis on environmental impact
• We stress that mixed development is needed in Wye to restore sustainability
to the time when Wye College was fully operational
Natural England
Examples of response and our comment
The sum total of development in the plan is significant and it would be appropriate to
secure at least a broad brush assessment of landscape and visual impact (in close
cooperation with the AONB Unit) of the proposals, both individually and collectively
The WNP Policies WNP1a, WNP1b, WNP8 and WNP11 all support the need for
landscape and visual impact assessment.
We welcome recognition in Policy WNP 10 - Countryside and Environment - that (inter
alia) the impact of new developmenton the Wye and Crundale Downs SAC, NNR and SSSI
must be specifically addressed in planning application documentation.
This statement is in agreement with the principles stated in the WNP. Environmental
impacts have been assessed by modelling traffic flows and through the completion of
the Strategic Environmental Assessment document.
The Environment Agency
Responses received highlighted the need to focus attention on water sources in the Parish.
For example
“We are pleased to see that proposals within the Neighbourhood Plan recognise the river as an
important community asset. It could be a stated aim of the Plan to help the Stour achieve Good
status.”
“Groundwater protection The boundary of the proposed area where development may take
place overlies a Principal Aquifer. The NHP allows for the development of brownfield sites.
There is likely to be historic contamination at some of these proposed locations. As such we
would recommend that reference is made to the Ashford Borough Council’s (ABC) Core Strategy
(CS) Policy CS21 requiring the protection of groundwater.”
The comments received provide a clear focus on the impact of development on water
resources and have been incorporated into the text of the revised WNP, BD3 and Appendix E.
Imperial College London
The response from ICL, perhaps not surprisingly, contradicted those from other bodies.
They argue................
• Not enough housing
• Must have 200 houses but state that the Hop Garden is brownfield
• The AONB will be enhanced by more development
• The draft plan does not comply with National Planning policies
-and also suggest ABC do not either
• They do not mention the Free School site
• Suggest that almost twice as much traffic as modelled by the PC will be acceptable
• Change of use /windfall numbers too high
• Developer contributions vague
On balance, no major changes have been made, but the numbers of houses proposed for change
of use and windfall have each been reduced by five and comments on developer contributions
have been corrected .
Concluding remarks
• Has the plan been improved by consultation? YES
• Has the right balance between development and protection of the environment been
achieved? YES
• Has all the necessary documentation been completed properly? YES
• Is it correct to form a consensus given the strong support from most of the Parish? YES
• Who is right about fitting in with planning policies? Imperial or ABC and KCC?
• Can Imperial really ignore the comments from ABC, KCC, Natural England
and others about environmental impact of building 200 houses on a green field site?
Thanks to all those who have contributed to the
completion of the Neighbourhood Development Plan
“FLOREAT WYE!”