The report considers a consultant’s study into the landscape and heritage setting of the town, which will act as part of the evidence for the forthcoming Local Plan Examination in Public and to inform more detailed future work and decision making.

The Principal Planner introduced the report which considered the second area of evidence, drawing upon landscape and heritage evidence the consultants had defined a landscape and heritage setting for the town to inform future more detailed work and decision making.

The Principal Planner explained that Turley Heritage Consultants had been commissioned to undertake this study in support of the forthcoming local plan examination, which had arisen from the Settlement Strategy of the Local Plan which developed a Planning Strategy for the Faversham and Thames Gateway areas of the Borough.  The Planning Advisory Service had highlighted the need for the Strategy to be more clearly articulated and evidenced and the commissioned work was part of that action intended to represent impartial technical evidence to back-up the arguments advanced.  This work would support the Settlement Strategy and also provide technical support for Development Control officers when considering planning applications. 

The Principal Planner reported that the appointed consultants, Turley Heritage, had prepared the report in consultation with Swale Borough Council (SBC) officers including SBC’s Conservation Officer, Kent County Council (KCC) Archaeology and Historic England.  In response to a query, the Principal Planner advised that Historic England had not provided any comments.  Minor points raised by KCC Archaeology were included in Appendix I of the report.

The Principal Planner stated that the specific aim of the study, set out on Page 2 of the report, was to determine the extent of the character of Faversham and how much it derived itself from its surroundings.  The study had involved the merging of:

landscape character assessments; and historic heritage significance assessments.    The Principal Planner stated the importance of recognising that this was a strategic level document and a prompt for further site-based work rather than a decision making document.  

The Principal Planner drew attention to the key map, on page 4 of the report, which set out the different character areas and sub-areas of the study area.  He stated that at a strategic level, the map identified some variances between high level contribution and moderate contribution areas.  The Principal Planner explained that the strategic level of the study was not necessarily saying all development in Faversham would take place in the yellow areas and none in the red areas of the map, but simply provided context within which further analysis could take place.

The Principal Planner stated that the study provided some useful assistance for the Settlement Strategy of the Local Plan and clearly indicated that historic importance was an issue for the town and an important context for potential development.  The Principal Planner advised that as this work had been carried out post-submission of the Local Plan it was important to move this piece of work forward swiftly so that it could be made available to the Examination. 

A Member requested the following information: who had authorised the commissioning of the report?; what was the cost of the study?; aside from SBC officers who had inputted into the report?; and what process of consultation had there been with the public?. 

The Chairman advised that the information would be forwarded to the Member.

Members raised the following points: why had similar study reports for Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey not been commissioned?; when would the other study referred to in 1.1a be submitted and would it be considered by the LDF Panel?; A2 limit was flawed in the opening statement of the report as development north of A2, Gillingham and Gravesend was similarly developed; given the housing pressures, concern that blanketing land south of the A2 for non-development would put more pressure on the northern part of Faversham; concern about the red zone halfway along the A2 into the orange zone and unsure that this area needed to be protected;  consider the study was flawed which would undermine the Local Plan; nothing to support creek development; building houses south of A2 released pressure on the creek and sensitive areas and if you put all housing on north would be detrimental to the creek and marina; document implied that SBC were saying to the Planning Inspector we do not want houses in Faversham, but we do in Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey; welcomed the document as it enhanced and informed the Inspector of SBC plans moving forward; Faversham was a unique town and it was crucial that it was protected; important to recognise that Turley Heritage were professionals within their field; and pleased that document accommodated change and development between the A251 and Salters Lane and did not support presumption for development of land south of  the A2.

The Principal Planner explained that that the document would support the Local Plan submitted to the Secretary of State for approval, and the main aim of the document was to look at the setting of Faversham, not particular areas such as Faversham creek or where development should or should not be allowed. Faversham was unlike the Medway towns and Sittingbourne in that it did not have development north and south of the A2. 

A Member, drew attention to paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 of the main report.  He asked that officers strengthen the statement made in 2.11, ‘Elsewhere, the road is a broad area of transition between suburban and rural characters’.  He explained that five roads ran south from the A2 between Brenley roundabout and Ospringe which were all leading out into the countryside and he considered it was crucial that this aspect was kept.

In response to a query, the Principal Planner advised that the Selling Road area was not included in the red zone, probably because the appreciation of countryside beyond that area was weakened, unlike the strip between Salters Lane and Ashford Road where there was a clear view from the conservation area.  He agreed to raise the point with the consultants.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion for a recorded vote.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Darby.  On being put to the vote the motion was not agreed.

The Chairman moved the motion to note the report which was seconded.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.  Councillor Mike Baldock requested that it be recorded that he voted against the motion to note the report. 

Recommended:  That the Panel note the draft study and agree to its publication as post submission evidence to the Local Plan and that officers be delegated authority to amend wording subject to further comments from Members by 4.30pm Friday 19 June 2015.