Three submissions are shown below : the north station car park, the Joseph Wilson estate and the Green Gap .

Comments are made on the document that the Council produced in reply to our initial objections.
 

Proof Ref: WS20/RN067/989

Objecting to: H1

Relating to: Urban capacity site W04 Car park north of Whitstable Railway Station

Council Officer: Sarah Parker

Core Documents Referred to:
CD1.1 Unlocking the Potential: Canterbury District Local Plan 2001-2011 – First Review Deposit Draft. Canterbury City Council (April 2002)
CD1.2 Canterbury District Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft. Canterbury City Council (March 2003)
CD1.16 Assessment of site representations received at first deposit (Dec 2003)
CD2.2 Urban Housing Capacity Study Background Paper Number 1.Canterbury City Council (April 2002)
CD2.10 Tapping The Potential - Assessing Urban Housing Capacity: Towards Better Practice. DETR (December 2000)

1.0 POLICY/PROPOSAL
1.1 Policy H1

2.0 OBJECTIONS REF NUMBERS (RN RD) AND COMMENT NUMBERS
2.1 Respondent Reference RN067 Comment Number 989

3.0 INTRODUCTION
3.1 This proof of evidence is in response to the submissions by Mr Cox and Mr Taylor on behalf of The Whistable Society primarily objecting to policy H1 as it applies to the housing allocation to land to the north of Whitstable Station.

4.0 OBJECTION ISSUES
4.1 The Whitstable Society maintain that this site has been allocated without reference to transport planning, particularly the transport plan for the town centre. It is not understood why this site has not been suggested as suitable for car parking with residential above. The car park is useful in encouraging the use of public transport and the development of this site conflicts with this approach.

4.2 The site affords some open space environmental benefits and provides an attractive vista towards the station buildings.

4.3 The council has failed to apply sequential analysis to the elimination of this car park to meet housing targets. There are other car park sites that could be decked over within the District. The history of the site is that it is one of two station car parks and Railtrack have allowed it to degrade, however, it is still used by commuters as the car park on the south is always full to capacity.

5.0 COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
5.1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 states that when identifying sites to be allocated for housing in local plans, planning authorities should follow a search sequence starting with the reuse of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by the urban housing capacity study then urban extensions and finally new development around nodes in good public transport corridors (paragraph 30). The City Council undertook an urban capacity study published in 2002 (CD2.2), which detailed the sites considered for housing and mixed-use development including an element of housing. This study was based on Government Guidance contained in the publication Tapping the Potential (CD2.10), which includes a range of possible categories of sites ranging from car parks (private and public) and vacant previously developed land. The Council has identified the site for housing on the basis that the land is considered surplus by Network Rail for parking purposes.

The logic above suggests that all car parks be built on simply because they exist as car parks. This is absurd. There must be an implicit requirement for car parks only to be used for other purposes if they are not required for parking or might be made redundant by changes in transport policy. This is not the case here. British Rail built this as a purpose built car park for commuters and the gate and other evidence is still in place (see below). Since privatisation, RailTrack PLC allowed it to run down in order to sell of the site since it no longer befitted form the passenger that the cars brought (ie the land was now owned by the tracks operator and not the train operator). In other words it may be surplus to requirements of the track operator but not everyone else. The car park is full every day despite the danger now of deep potholes in a couple of areas. Transport and housing policy have to be integrated in a Local pn as we understand it. Just because there are housing targets, doesn’t mean that permission should be granted to build on all car parks, especially ones being heavily used for eseential travel and , what’s more, using the train which the government is trying to encouraged. On top of this, the population of Whitstable is expanding quickly, with most of the increase on the outskirts. It is not possible to walk from these locations to the station and there is no regular bus service.
It is also noticeable that the Local Plan does not propose to build on or over any car parks in Canterbury where housing pressure is even greater, which suggests that consistency has not been applied across the geographic coverage of this plan and hence this proposal in that respect is defective as well. For example, the council could put a one storey development deck over the CCC employees car park in Canterbury but have not suggested that in the plan to satisfy housing targets, and yet the plan happily suggests eliminate a key transport integrated car park to make way for housing in Whitstable..

5.2 This is an urban previously developed site which has the advantage of being close to the railway. One of the main objectives of PPG13 is to reducing the need to travel – housing in this location has the benefit of the railway and bus routes and also being on close proximity to the town centre which is only 0.6km away.

The latter objectives can still be satisfied if a deck development is built.
In addition, removing commuter parking spaces will encourage users of the car park to make their commutes by road.

5.3 This site is not the formal station car park, this can be found to the south of the railway off Old Bridge Road and contains formally marked out bays. It is understood that the parking of cars by residents on this site occurs with no formal agreement with railtrack and could be prevented or enforced against at any time through the erection of a barrier or other measures.

Just because the new owner decides to cease to maintain the area does not mean that it is not a car park. The Inspector is in danger of being seriously mislead by the paragraph above if a site visit has not been undertaken. There are still bays marked out, even if the white paint is faded. There is a boundary ‘fence’, there is an exit with plates to make it one way, and there is a long dedicated entrance ramp to the car park with well marked out bays on the ramp itself.
The Council has lost the plot is 5.3 in responding to our objections by referring to residents’ parking. Our objections relate to its use by train users and not local residents. In reality it is commuters (or day trippers going to London) who use it. The car park is empty at night. The car park is critical for commuters as local residents use up the parking space on local roads: the commuters arriving before the time that local residents typically drive of to work . For information it is worth noting that the refurbished south side car park is always full despite the £1.20 charge.

5.4 It is unlikely that this site would be suitable for public parking with a decked residential development over the top because of the topography of the site. However, there may be some scope for parking to the rear of the site behind any residential development which could be addressed at t he planning application stage. The City Council has stated in the site assessment form which is contained in the urban capacity study, a copy of which can be found in Appendix 1, that parking for the station must be retained. Before any development on this site could take place, the City Council would ask for a study of formal station car parking to be carried out to establish level of usage and future demand.

The statement that this is not ideal for decking is hard to accept. If this site has to be developed, it is ideal for decking as there is a bank on the south side on which the exits from the properties above the preserved car park can enter and leave their properties at ground level. Architects on our property team confirm this.
The CCC proposes decked development for two car parks in the centre of town (eg Middle wall car park). If these proposals are acceptable, on sites where decking has no advantage and only disadvantages, why does CCC suggest ‘It is unlikely that this site would be suitable for public parking with a decked residential development over the top because of the topography of the site’.

5.5 The Whitstable Society has expressed concerns about loss of open space and important vistas. The railway buildings are within the Canterbury and Whitstable and Whitstable Station Conservation Area and their setting will need to be protected / enhanced. The site assessment in appendix 1 indicates that development of three storey town houses would be appropriate which could create an interesting streetscape in its own right and could improve the appearance on the conservation area in this locality. Any development of this site would need to satisfy the conservation area tests contained in policy BE7 of the draft local plan. In addition it would need to satisfy BE1 on high quality design.

Since the site was attractive and the owner has chosen to allow it to decay, this should not be the planning basis for justifying a three storey development. A development should be compared aesthetically with the neat car park that did exist, surrounded by small trees on the top of the bank on the South Side. Tall development may also creates a crime prone are is what is now an openly visible area of the North side of the station.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The City Council believes that this is a suitable site for housing and has the potential to positively enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area. The Council considers that housing on a brownfield site close to a railway station is a sustainable option for new housing development, which is supported by Government guidance in PPG3 and PPG13.

6.2 The Inspector is requested to make no change to the draft Local Plan in respect of this objection.

The Inspector is invited to consider that there has been no attempt to link housing development with transport policy for the area and conclude that this area should be maintained as a car park and that development should be restricted to that which maintains parking capacity close to that of the present car park

The Society is disappointed that the Council should chose to state that this site is not a station car park when the site was clearly designed as one with exit gate and long dedicated approach road to it on the South side and heavy usage by commuters. Such comments may well mislead the Inspector if he has not had the chance to view the site. We hope he will find our contribution based on local knowledge useful.

Proof Ref: RN067/988

Objecting to: TC5

Relating to: Tourism policy for Whitstable

Council Officer: Lisa Gadd

1.0 POLICY/PROPOSAL
TC5

2.0 OBJECTIONS REF NUMBERS (RN RD) AND COMMENT NUMBERS
RN067/988


3.0 INTRODUCTION
3.1 This proof is in response to representations by The Whitstable Society represented by

Graham Cox & Martin Taylor relating to Policy TC5 of the Draft Local Plan in that it

is the only policy that relates to development in Whitstable.

4.0 OBJECTION ISSUES
4.1 The Whitstable Society objects that there is no other development policy in the Draft

Local Plan identified for the unique town of Whitstable other than Policy TC5.

4.2 The Whitstable Society request that the plan make all references to promoting

tourism where they effect Whitstable subject to appropriate infrastructural and capacity improvements.

5.0 COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
5.1 Policy TC5 merely relates to provision for new tourism development and there are certain criteria that have to be considered. The Whitstable Society state that tourism should not be promoted until the road traffic management and parking have been sorted out. One of the criteria to be considered in Policy TC5 is the anticipated traffic generation of tourism proposals and whether the location is readily accessible by a range of means of transport, therefore if such proposals arise then the traffic and parking element will be considered.

The council is already approving applications for housing in the urban area that has no parking provision and putting forward proposals that have or would reduce parking capacity ( eg loss of car parks and restriction on non-resident parking). The need for local residents parking is rising. Specific recognition has to be given for the fact that tourism related parking clashes directly with residents’ parking as tourists come in the main at weekends. By contrast, other commercial development (eg offices) generate parking when there is less pressure on parking capacity (ie 9 to 5 on week days when many residents have driven to work). Tourists also cause the worst traffic jams that the town experiences on summer weekends because our roads are not designed for such an influx mainly due to the constrictions of the railway line. Therefore the plan should be giving preference to non-tourist commercial development simply on parking and traffic grounds until the infrastructure is improved. This argument is in addition to other arguments against such as the indisputable fact that jobs are seasonal and poorly paid.

5.2 The Whitstable Society states that there is no other development policy in the plan relating to Whitstable, however Policy ED2 in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan allocates an extension of land to the Joseph Wilson Business Park.

This is not a development policy, but primarily a location expansion to make room for commerce displaced by housing developments ion the urban area. More importantly, it is in an entirely different area : Joseph Wilson being over 2 kms from the tourist area and is part of what is essentially a ‘new town’ with housing and all facilities remote from the centre of Whitstable. Please interpret our comment about lack of non-tourism policy to Whitstable centre for it there where tourist sites are and where all the infrastructural problem are located. 5.1 is a red herring.

5.3 There are also other relevant policies relating to development in Whitstable, Policy TC23 states that within Whitstable town centre, new development proposals for business and leisure uses will be permitted on the basis that they do not conflict with other policies in the Local Plan.

This is a purely a passive policy which permits an area to be dominated by the then most remunerative use. Such passive policies can still permit all sites to be taken by tourist developments and housing, since CCC chooses not to apply detailed zoning. The current policy has, is and will lead to all non-retail/tourist commercial activity and the good jobs with it leaving the town itself.

5.4 Policy TC24 has also identified certain sites in Whitstable for mixed-use development. Sites include Horsebridge and Brownings Yard, land adjacent to Pearson’s Arms and the Tile Warehouse, Sea Street.

Classic examples of sites that will be developed for tourism. Where the Plan states mixed use, that means in practice tourist related development and housing.

5.5 The Whitstable Society consider that a more appropriate specific economic focus
than tourism would also be marine based industries and services. Policy TC25 states
that developments within the Whitstable Harbour area as shown on the proposals map (inset 6) will be granted planning permission if they conform with the Whitstable Harbour

Strategy to sustain a working harbour area on the East Quay and promote business,
fishing and leisure uses on the remainder of the site. One of the Council’s Strategic
development objectives is to secure investment for Whitstable harbour to promote
business and leisure, therefore in the future there will be economic focus on the
harbour.

Again this is a purely passive policy as opposed to the active policy of encouraging tourist developments. The Harbour Board ( a CCC committee) has a policy of “developing tourism” in respect of new developments on the harbour and yet it has no plan or capacity to providing extra parking. The Council is on record as encouraging hotel and other tourist development (see CCC tourism policy) which is an active policy and has no inherent constraints relating to parking capacity (ie expand tourism regardless). An active policy to encourage non-tourist commerce and offices on new sites would provide more and better jobs and put no strain on the parking capacity of the town.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The Whitstable Society objects that there are no other development policies in the Local Plan relating to Whitstable other than tourism. However there are a range of other policies and allocations as referred to, within the Revised Deposit Draft Local
that do relate to development in Whitstable. Therefore the primary economic objective for Whitstable is not just tourism but other forms of development as identified in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan.

6.2 The Inspector is therefore recommended to make no change to the plan in respect of this objection.

The Whitstable Society reiterates its request that the Inspector make all references to promoting tourism where they affect Whitstable subject to appropriate infrastructural and capacity improvements. In other words that there is a plan dimension to this link rather than saying that matters be reviews on a case by case basis since transport policy cannot proceeded or be integrated with other policies on a case by case basis.

Proof Ref: WS23/RN067/689

Objecting to: Policy TC26; para 4.80a

Relating to: Herne Bay-Whitstable Green Gap, sports/football academy

Council Officer: Adrian Verrall

Core Documents: ‘A Playing Pitch Strategy for Canterbury’ (2003) (CD7.15)
Open Space Core Proof (2004)(CD7.20)
Herne Bay and Whitstable Landscape Appraisal (June 2000)(CD5.3)
Local Cultural Strategy (2003)(CD4.5)

1.0 POLICY/PROPOSAL
Policy TC26; para 4.80a

2.0 OBJECTIONS REF NUMBERS (RN RD) AND COMMENT NUMBERS
WS23/RN067/689

3.0 INTRODUCTION
3.2 This Statement is in response to the submissions by Mr Cox and Mr Taylor on behalf of the Whitstable Society, relating to Policy TC26, which identifies the Herne Bay-Whitstable Green Gap; and para 4.80a, which indicates the Council’s support in principle for a sports/football academy in this area at the coast.

3.3 The Whitstable Society, in their statement, indicate that their objection is to draft Policy TC25, but given the scope of the objection, the Council assumes that it relates to draft Policy TC26.

3.4 The reference to the Sports/Football Academy was first introduced in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan, to which the Society made no representations. This representation is not therefore duly made, and the Local Planning Authority is not obliged to respond to it. However, the Society did make a duly made objection to the generality of draft Policy TC26, in respect of the perceived impact of a major educational establishment.

3.5 Since the issues are similar in both cases, the Council has responded to the issues set out in the written representations.

4.0 OBJECTION ISSUES
4.4 The objection relates to the identification of the Green Gap as a possible location for a sports/football academy. The reasons for the objection are:

(1) any development beyond playing fields and changing rooms would ruin the role of the Green Gap;
(2) permitting a sports academy would lead to further building, as no clear “line in the sand” has been drawn;
(3) there are better sites for a sports academy, and no site search has been carried out;
(4) the green field south of the railway station would be better than the identified;
(5) the road is a country lane – a widened road would be needed;
(6) a sports academy can be entirely buildings, and there would pressure for covered facilities because of the climate; and
(7) proposal not properly thought-through.

5.0 COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
5.1 The inspector is asked to refer to the document titles ‘A Playing Pitch Strategy for Canterbury’ (2003) (CD7.15) and paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the open space core proof, which briefly summarises the document and its methodology.

5.2 The study identified additional pitches that were required in the different sub areas of the district by 2012. In Whitstable, the study identified that by 2012, two junior football pitches, seven mini-soccer pitches and four junior rugby pitches are required. In Herne Bay 1 synthetic turf pitch is required. Some of this may be provided via dual-use agreements.

5.3 The City Council considers that some of this need could be satisfied through provision of land between Herne Bay and Whitstable, provided care is taken to protect the open character and function of the Green Gap. Land, shown on Insets 3 and 5 of the Proposals Maps is proposed as a designation for leisure and education uses. Despite this allocation, the draft Policy clearly states that any proposals will still need to satisfy the policy criteria and specially requires that ‘built development shall be incidental, necessary, and functional to those uses and located to have a minimum impact upon the open character of the Green Gap’.

5.4 The City Council therefore considers that the allocation of this land may contribute to satisfying the need for playing fields and other open-air leisure and recreation uses, while still ensuring that the objectives behind the Green Gap allocation are not breached. As part of the objectives of the Green Gap area, please refer to the Herne Bay and Whitstable Landscape Appraisal (June 2000), which sets out guidelines for the area, seeking to restore and improve the landscape, whilst respecting and strengthening the area’s function as a Green Gap between Herne Bay and Whitstable. The landscape assessment analysis considers the condition of the landscape poor and in need of restoration and improvement. Any proposal should contribute to achieving these objectives.

The Whitstable Society has no grounds for objection on planning or other grounds to the proposals to use the Green Gap for grass playing fields with associated changing facilities built to blend in with the surroundings.

5.5 At the revised deposit stage of the draft Plan, the City Council inserted paragraph 4.80a, which specifies that the City Council encourages the provision of a sports/ football academy at the coast. It is a logical response that the academy would be located within this education/leisure allocation. Any development associated with the academy would need to satisfy the provisions of the Policy. It is inherent to the Policy that any buildings should be incidental, necessary and functional and be located to have a minimum impact on the character of the Green Gap. Although there has been no proposal prepared beyond its identification as an initiative that would contribute to achieving a critical mass of sporting facilities in the District (Cultural Strategy Action 1.9), its mention in the Plan is not considered premature as no allocation or policy change is required to respond to the initiative.

It is not a “logical response” as the second sentence asserts to locate any academy in the Green Gap even if one supposed that there is a need for an academy. Academy buildings take the use of the area beyond the line that should exist to preserve the character of a green gap and would almost certainly open the way in future years to more intensive development. It is a suitable analogy to consider a proposal for a large and attractive detached house with the rest of the area down to permanent horse paddock. This could be argued as a worthwhile, aesthetically pleasing development, but it would be considered to breach the requirements of this green gap . The building of a sports academy building or complex of buildings is no different and has no special right to breach the normal requirements.

It is clear that an academy would breach the condition of the Policy, regardless of how they were designed. For example, tarmac surfaced and covered pitches are normal for such academies: commonly with floodlights. Permitting this reference to an academy will force local organisations to go though costly efforts to fight a planning application.

We know of no local requests for a sports academy or in particular for a football academy. We understand the MP of Herne Bay and Thanet has asked for one.

5.6 It is considered that the set of criteria contained in the draft Policy, against which to consider applications for development, should not be unduly inhibitive to new development that is sensitive to the local context and the objectives of the Green Gap. This is balanced against strong and clear wording to the criteria that positively seek to achieve the objects of the Green Gap designation.

5.7 In terms of alternative sites, the Council considers, on the basis set out above, that this area is suitable for such purposes. It is not clear to which station the Whitstable Society is referring in its statement. However, there is no open space close to Whitstable station; the land south of Chestfield & Swalecliffe station is also located within the Green Gap; and although there is land south of Herne Bay station, this is limited in extent and is not well-located to serve both Herne Bay and Whitstable.

The Whitstable Society advises the Inspector that there are alternative sites. If absolutely necessary, we would be strongly in favour of using the fields on the South side of the railway line between the line and the Old Thanet Way, which has good access and does not of itself perform the crucial gap buffer role between the two urban area, rather than using the green gap on the north side which is a narrow buffer between urban development. It might be economic to drive a pedestrian tunnel under the railway between playing fields on the green gap and an academy on the other side of the line.

We think that the principle should be established that any site is preferable if it does not link two urban areas. The Green Gap, in the context of our primary objection refers to the lad which links the two urban area between the railway line and the beach, which is where the CCC propose to locate an academy. We would support the use of any green field along the length of the Old Thanet Way before consideration is given for using the green gap for a sports academy. The Inspector is encouraged to take a drive along the Old Thanet way between Whitstable and Herne Bay , on which trip he will see several alternative sites. Indeed the use of certain fields along that road will ensure a partially green buffer between the existing urban areas and those that may be permitted over the next few decades on the south of the railway. We are still bemused as to why the strategic gap on the north side should be the Council’s preferred site.

The comment on the land by Herne Bay station , that it is not sufficiently ‘between, the two towns as a shared facility, should be put in the context of traffic conditions. It can take a long time to get to the site on the windy road in the green gap as the roads are slow and crowded at times coming from both directions. By contrast it is normally a rapid trip to reach anywhere along the Old Thanet Way. It was after all built as a bypass. It should be noted that if a football academy is built, it would be a facility for a small percentage of the population of young children. It is therefore in a different category to , say, a swimming pool which needs access by foot and cycle for many. Locating an academy will mean quite along car journey anyway for people who do not live in Swalecliffe or West Herne Bay. In summary, a location anyway along the old Thanet Way should be suitable

5.8 The Council has looked at the availability of sites generally for this purpose, but considers that the Green Gap is an appropriate location for open elements of a sports academy, such as playing fields. It may also have the advantage of helping to retain the open nature of the Green Gap, and increase access to it, in the longer term.

Use of the green gap for playing fields will be perfectly adequate to ‘retain the open nature…..in the longer term’. In other word, it is not necessary to build an academy to assist preservation, as the Church lane playing fields well demonstrate.

5.9 In terms of the highways concerns raised, playing field/sports uses are unlikely to generate significant traffic, with any minor concentrations likely to be in off-peak periods. Access would need to be midway between the bends in Whitstable Road, but this can be achieved, and visibility is therefore unlikely to be a significant problem. Events, such as a circus and “Funday Sunday”, are held here regularly without major traffic difficulties. In the Council’s view, traffic should not be a significant issue in respect of this proposal.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
6.3 For the reasons set out above, the Council considers that the principles set out in draft Policy TC26 and para 4.80a are sufficient to protect the Green Gap in the long term, whilst allowing the land to be used for suitable sports/recreational purposes.

6.4 The Inspector is therefore requested to make no change to the draft Local Plan in respect of this objection.

The Inspector is requested to rule that a sport academy, as opposed to playing fields, is not a “suitable sports/recreational purpose” and that writing this use into the plan will mean that the protection afforded by the strategic gap will be lost.