Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Comment

Representation ID: 20210

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Batcheller Thacker

As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled.

Comment

Representation ID: 20211

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Batcheller Thacker

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

Support

Representation ID: 20212

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Batcheller Thacker

The broad thrust of this part of the emerging plan is supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 20213

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Batcheller Thacker

Question whether there is adequate provision within the plan to allow for development in rural areas that meets an identified rural need, and therefore whether that should be recognised in principle within the Core Strategy, eg to allow for specific infrastructure developments.