TMBC/Matter CS06/Policy CP5
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY
REBUTTAL STATEMENT No CS06
Strategic Gap
Trenport Investments Ltd (Matter CS06/172)
Tonbridge and Malling Local Development Framework
Rebuttal Statement No CS06
Strategic Gap
1
1.1
2
Introduction
This Rebuttal Statement addresses matters raised in the Response Statement
submitted by Trenport Investments Ltd. It does not seek to respond to every
point made in the Response Statement. It confines itself to correcting any
erroneous statements and, where necessary, clarifying the Council’s position if
there appears to be any misunderstandings. Otherwise the Council relies upon
its original Position Statement CS06.
Strategic Planning Compliance
2.1
In para 2.1 Trenport suggest that the Council places reliance on the Kent and
Medway Structure Plan as the strategic context for the definition of the
Strategic Gap. This is not the case. As is made clear in para 2.2 of Position
Statement CS06 the strategic context is provided by the Policies CC10b, KTG3
and KTG11 of the submitted South East Plan. It is the South East Plan that has
been influenced by the content of the adopted Structure Plan in making specific
reference in Policies KTG3 and 11 to a Strategic Gap in this part of Kent. It is
true that it remains to be seen whether the concept of a strategic gap policy
survives the South East Plan process, but the Panel’s Report should be
available by the summer which the Inspector will be able to have regard to.
2.2
As a procedural point of principle it would be better for the LDF to continue to
include a Strategic Gap policy until such time as the South East Plan is finally
adopted, because if the policy for Strategic Gaps is deleted from the South
East Plan then the LDF policy will simply have no strategic context and will
therefore have less weight. On the other hand, if the Strategic Gap policy is
deleted from the LDF but is retained in the South East Plan it will procedurally
be much more difficult to introduce it at a later date. Furthermore, if such a
Strategic Policy remains but is deleted from the Tonbridge and Malling LDF but
subsequently confirmed in the Medway Towns and the Maidstone LDFs this
will fundamentally undermine its integrity and credibility.
3
3.1
Relationship with Policy CP6
Trenport argue that since the objectives of Policies CP5 and CP6 are identical
Policy CP5 is redundant as Policy CP6 applies throughout the Borough. It is
the Borough Council’s case that whilst the objectives may be similar in effect, it
is the purpose of the policies that is different and needs to be reflected in the
LDF. Attached at Annex A is the relevant extract from the Kent and Medway
Structure Plan EIP Panel’s Report. In para 7.16 the Panel conclude that “the
concept of the Strategic Gap is a proper tool of positive planning at this subregional level. We do no consider that this strategic objective could adequately
be left to the application of a criterion-based policy, as some participants
suggest”. The Borough Council supports this view which is why it believes that
both Policy CP5 which is locationally-specific and Policy CP6 which is generic
need to be retained.
1
4
The Strategic Gap Policy and Bushey Wood
4.1
Trenport argue that the Borough Council should not rely on the Kent and
Medway Structure Plan because there is no requirement for the LDF to be in
conformity with it and that accordingly Bushey Wood should not be washed
over by the Strategic Gap.
4.2
Regardless of the Structure Plan it is a fact that the Bushey Wood Area of
Opportunity lies within the open gap that separates the built up areas of the
Medway Towns from the Medway Gap. There is no significant built
development within the Area of Opportunity that would justify excluding it from
a policy that, by definition, applies to an open area. The only reason why it is
not covered by the Strategic Gap policy in the adopted Local Plan is that is
what the previous Structure Plan policy required.
4.3
Policy MK5 in the 1996 Kent Structure Plan said:
“……A strategic gap will be designated in local plans for these
areas within which development proposals which would
significantly extend the built confines of existing settlements or
the areas currently identified for development or as housing
reserves in local plans will not be permitted.”
The equivalent Policy SS3 in the Kent and Medway Structure Plan says:
“……Within these gaps any development proposals which
would significantly extend settlements beyond their existing built
confines or the areas identified for development in this plan or
current Local Plan allocations will not be permitted………”
The subtle but significant difference is that whilst the 1996 plan specifically
referred to “housing reserves”, which at the time included both Bushey Wood
and Peters Pit, the 2006 plan specifically refers only to areas identified for
development in the Structure Plan and those allocated for development in
Local Plans. This includes Peters Pit but not the Bushey Wood Area of
Opportunity. This matter was specifically discussed at the EIP and as para 7.24
of the Panel’s Report confirms the Panel took the view that the Area of
Opportunity should not be excluded from the Strategic Gap.
4.4
5
5.1
Whilst Trenport are right that the LDF does not need to be in conformity with
the Structure Plan that does not mean that it should be in conflict with it. Its
policies will be saved for three years and it is still a material consideration.
Conclusion
The Borough Council believes that its plan is soundly based in continuing to
include a policy for the Strategic Gap in anticipation of confirmation of a
strategic policy in the South East Plan. There is no logic in excluding the Area
of Opportunity from the Strategic Gap until such time as detailed land
allocations are made. This is unlikely to be during the current plan period.
BRG - 13/04/2007 14:44
2
Annex A
3
4
5
6
7
8