Summary of Key Points in Response to Consultation on Core Strategy Preferred Options Document

A) Vision, objectives and proposals

Many responses express general support for the strategy, and/or the vision aims/ objectives/ proposals/ majority of policies.  Some consider these should be supplemented or rebalanced to include or emphasise factors such as high quality environment, especially the coast, a greener Thanet, embracing climate change challenges, energy efficiency, recycling and securing more resource efficient development.  Representations include the view that Thanet’s future should focus more on capitalising on and caring for its existing and planned assets (quality environment, tourism, culture and food production) and see conflict with certain of the proposals.

B) General - some comments raise matters relevant to the overall strategy approach

• More development will not create jobs for Thanet’s unemployed but create demand for more homes, strain local infrastructure such as the hospital, and add to congestion. More emphasis should be on residents’ day to day needs and our natural resources than on “iconic” projects. The needs of permanent residents and workers should be at the forefront, with the aim of attracting creative industry, tourism and people who will contribute to a vibrant Thanet.
•  
• Strategy is too centred on the airport whose impact on quality of life, the environment and sustainable business is outweighed by its limited employment potential.  Work with what we've got, three great towns, great schools great beaches, and great agricultural land. Let us grow organically, with plans and controls.
•  
• Question the deliverability of the strategy on the basis of no apparent regard to likely future economic factors, no demonstration of partnership working to deliver the strategy in line with its objectives and no “fall back” plan.
•  
• Need to fully address the importance to the strategy of supporting infrastructure by including an up to date integrated transport plan, recognising the finite local road network capacity, air quality issues and the rate at which water and wastewater capacity can be provided.
•  
• The Strategy needs to be supported by underpinning movement by a choice of travel modes and address air quality.
•  
• Need transparency as to how environmental factors and the South East Plan have informed spatial distribution.

C) Housing - Housing attracted a significant number of varied comments

• Amount of housing

A good number felt that 7,500 new homes by 2026 (as per the South East Plan) was the right figure.  Some felt that it was too low or should be treated as a minimum.  Others felt the figure was too high or should be the maximum.  Some believed the volume of new homes should take account of market/demand.

Concerns included finding jobs for new occupiers, whether jobs or homes should come first, concreting over Thanet, capacity of water supply, schools, health and leisure facilities, building more homes than can be sold, and potential impact on European designated sites. Some felt that regeneration could best be served by focusing on refurbishment of under-used/derelict/empty stock or redevelopment in the coastal towns rather than building new “boxes”.

• Location of housing

There was considerable support for focusing new homes on previously developed land (PDL) but with criteria to safeguard back gardens, family homes and quality residential environments.  

Views on the amount of greenfield homes varied, from nil, minimised greenfield to support regeneration of town centre sites, parallel delivery with brownfield sites, to increasing greenfield provision.  Some doubted that brownfield sites can deliver the right type of homes to support prosperity. Safeguarding agricultural land was also a concern.

There was support for accommodating any greenfield element at a single location, but also representations opposing or querying the justification for doing so.  Some felt that greenfield housing at Westwood was putting all eggs in one basket, and that infrastructure needs would render it unviable, with no Plan B.

Suggested alternatives included looking at more evenly spread/dispersed small infill sites on urban fringes including the green wedge and some advocated additional housing at/adjoining the villages such as Minster and Cliffsend to provide choice, meet local needs and or support village services.

Some responses regarded proposed housing location options to be unjustified in advance of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, a settlement hierarchy analysis and additional evidence on sustainability and impact on groundwater.

• Type of housing

There was considerable support for rebalancing the housing mix to include more family (including lower density) homes in support of social and economic regeneration and recognition that more flats could have the opposite effect and increase burdens on health and other services.  Some advocated a complete ban on new 1 bed homes and supported their redevelopment to deter importation of benefit dependency. However some felt that the approach on dwelling types and sizes was too inflexible and might better be target based/focused on quality and that more apartments would help meet projected need including the needs of the elderly and young households.

Other issues included that policy on affordable homes and developer contributions should take account of viability. Some felt that the requirement for Lifetime Homes was too/insufficiently demanding and that Wheelchair housing should be considered.

Next page

E-mail:

local.plans@thanet.gov.uk

Tel: 01843 577591