Central government in Whitehall sets the housing targets and requires that the local planning authority delivers then within the National Planning Policy Framework. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government polices the targets through the Planning Inspectorate. Swale is currently developing a Local Plan within the constraints and demands of central government policy and Whitehall's idea of how many houses are needed. Swale has to demonstrate that it has both an adequate supply of land for housing development and that the houses, for which it has given planning consent, are being built. It has to meet volume and delivery targets. Developers secure planning consent on sites, but they will only build when they can sell at prices which enable them to achieve the return they seek. Meeting delivery targets is an additional challenge.

If Swale is judged to be failing to meet either its land supply or completions targets, the developers can appeal and are in a strong position to win. The Planning Inspectors are not neutral arbiters; they are the enforcers of central government policy. Faversham's experience at Perry Court was a result of not having an adequate supply of land in the local plan. Swale had minimal influence over the Perry Court development because of the high risk of losing at appeal with substantial costs awarded against it.

The next local plan now being developed by Swale is required by central government to deliver 9,880 houses over 15 years in addition to 13,981 allocated in Bearing Fruits (the previous plan) and a 5% buffer. In the Local Plan Panel on 30^th July Swale councillors will determine the proportion of housing to be allocated to the four parts of Swale. In and around Faversham sites for 6,000 houses have been put forward for development

We have some concerns about the lack of planning detail in the Vision and Development Growth Options paper going to the Local Plan Panel on July 30th. The decisions made by the Local Plan Panel and subsequently by the Cabinet and Council will profoundly affect everyone who lives and works in Swale. 

Viability. What is the viability test being applied? What evidence is there that viability is greater in the east? How does viability around Faversham compare with viability south and east of Sittingbourne? 

Infrastructure.  Given the substantial investment in a new town centre for Sittingbourne is additional housing not needed to ensure that Sittingbourne thrives? Would not additional housing in the west enhance the vitality and viability of Sittingbourne town centre? We expected to see more detailed treatment of infrastructure in the discussion of the options. 

Employment. TheVision and Development Growth Options paper appears only to be addressing housing allocations. 

Inconsistency. The paper recognises Option B "would result in the dilution of the separation of settlements and undermine the individual identity of local communities, particularly surrounding Faversham."  This is not mentioned in Options C or D where the impact would be still greater.
The assessment of Option D’s cites further development as a con “significant impacts on the character and setting of Faversham town.” The commentary on Option C cites development as assisting “in enhancing the vitality and viability of Faversham town centre.”

Whilst Local Plan Panel members have reviewed a whole series of papers over previous months, there has been very limited public engagement. With only one week between publication and decision about the distribution of additional housing, there has been inadequate time for members to consult or for the electorate to engage.   

Windfall sites are sites not specifically identified in the development plan. Developers are keen to build in and around Faversham as the market supports higher prices in this part of Swale. Faversham is very likely to receive more than 30% of the applications for windfall houses over the plan period, given the buoyant market demand for housing. The provision of such a high windfall figure, it was 8.6% in Bearing Fruits, significantly increases the vulnerability of Faversham to housing developers. If delivery falls behind schedule, developers will take the opportunity to put in more windfall sites for development.

The Five Options going to the Local Plan Panel on July 30th

Option A is our preferred option. Swale and Faversham are unable just to say no to further housing if we do the developers will win on appeal, and it is likely that central government would remove what remains of local control over development.

Option B As is highlighted in the paper going to the Local Plan Panel Option B “would result in the dilution of the separation of settlements and undermine the individual identity of local communities, particularly surrounding Faversham. Option C would even further damage Faversham.

Option C would mean Faversham accepting a further 3,500 houses upt to 3,000 more as windfall. That would be 6,500 houses in addition to the 2,200 allocated under Bearing Fruits. A total over the two plan periods of 8,700. That is roughly equal to the number of houses in Faversham now. Faversham would double in size over the next 15 years.

Option D would require Faversham to take a further 1,000 homes taking the total to 9,700 more than doubling the size of the town over the next 15 years.

Option E would require significant greenfield rural development including the North Street development and is clearly unacceptable, the impact of that development on Faversham and traffic on A251 would be very damaging to the town.

Truly affordable housing

The paper going to the Local Plan Panel presents a set of broad principles, the first of which is "to provide for homes and jobs that are best suited to meet identified local needs." The Faversham Community Land Trust secured funding to have a Faversham Housing Needs Assessment undertaken by a specialist consultancy. The survey will enable the "identified local needs" to be taken into account in both the Swale Local Plan and the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan. The results will be available in mid-August. We know that the response rate, 14%, is high by comparison with experience elsewhere.

In early July Kent County Council published a 100-page dossier detailing the "acute" shortage of "genuinely" affordable housing in the county. KCC wants central government to give local authorities more control to develop truly affordable housing and KCC is seeking to change the government's "arbitrary" definition of affordable housing to reflect affordability based on income rather than local market priorities. The Faversham Society wants to see more truly affordable housing in Faversham to enable the children of Faversham residents to continue to live and bring up their children in the town. Extended families able to trace their history in Faversham back several generations make a significant contribution to the cultural heritage of our town, and the Faversham Society does not want to see this lost.

The Society has had a working group working on the assessment of the individual sites proposed for development in and around Faversham. In early August these will be published on our website and we shall be inviting members to contribute additional information and comments on the sites which have been put forward for development.

Later in the year having received feedback from our members on each of the sites put forward by developers, we shall consider our recommendations for which sites should be permitted for development through the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan and the Swale Local Plan.

Our preference is Option A. Central government requires that we take some more housing. Option A presents the most equitable distribution across Swale, with 30% windfall across the district we would still almost certainly taking a large part of the additional 3,000 homes.

A group of residents along The Mall wrote to the Society seeking our support for a zebra crossing point to enable primary and secondary school children and others to safely cross at this busy road junction. With further housing development south of Watling Street (the A2) there will be a marked increase in the numbers crossing the road there. We are aware that traffic moves swiftly around the corner and rarely stops for pedestrians. The junction is complex with traffic coming from three directions.

The Society strongly supports efforts to improve pedestrian safety and to make Faversham more walkable. We support the aims of 20's Plenty to slow traffic and make the town more pedestrian and cycle-friendly. We support the 200 who signed a petition to KCC to install an appropriate crossing and urge KCC to install a zebra crossing before someone is injured or killed.

The Society hopes that the proposed Neighbourhood Plan will address some of these issues, and produce guidelines for how residents can engage to develop solutions and have them implemented. The Society broadly supports all community initiatives to develop solutions; residents are generally those most knowledgable about the issues and most likely to be impacted by proposed changes.    

Tim Stonor has assisted the group in putting together a design of what a potential crossing might look like.

Bess Browning of Kent Messenger reported  that the referendum on the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan had approved it,

"88% vote in favour of the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan. 5,418 votes cast for yes with just 706 for no."

Turnout figures...
Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan 42.28%
Faversham Local Elections  42.94%

The Society will remain vigilant and continue to scrutinise planning applications.

 

At its meeting, on 28th March the Board determined the Society's position on the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan in the referendum on May 4th.

Society’s position on the Referendum on the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan

The Faversham Society recognises that the development of the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan was a difficult process and that the resulting Neighbourhood Plan due to go to a referendum on May 4^th is a compromise between many competing interests. The Society broadly supports the Neighbourhood Plan as it stands and recommends that its members vote in favour of it.

The Faversham Society will continue to consider particular development proposals on their merits and to make representations in furtherance of the maintenance of our heritage in accordance with the Society’s objects.

 

 

The Society is pleased that the Neighbourhood Plan has now been finalised and that it can now go to a referendum.

Dear Shiel,

We have had some discussions in the Environment Committee and at the Board about Neighbourhood Plans and I was asked by the Board, at its last meeting, to write to you and suggest that Faversham needs another Neighbourhood Plan.

Early in 2017 the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan will go to the referendum and be passed with a good majority – we know of no organisation or significant individual likely to oppose the plan at the referendum. The passing of the plan and its subsequent implementation will increase confidence in the town.

There are a number of initiatives underway in the town – your Future Faversham Forum, the Twenty’s Plenty campaign and the Faversham Society’s traffic management initiative – which could find coherence through the neighbourhood planning process. An additional neighbourhood plan could address traffic, design, pedestrian access, heritage and conservation issues, and a host of other planning issues in a coherent way.

We have all learnt a great deal from the experience of the Creek NP. The Society has considerable expertise in the Board and there is enthusiastic support from us for a Town Council initiative under your leadership.

I have not suggested any delineation of the new plan area as we believe that this should be determined through a consultation process led by FTC, although we would very much like to be part of those discussions.

The Society hopes that you will be sufficiently interested in this proposal to take it forward under your leadership – for our part we will offer as much support as we are able.

 

Yours sincerely

Harold Goodwin,

Chair of the Faversham Society

26th October 2016