Bridge Parish Council Response to SHLAA sites Overview Canterbury City Council is preparing its new Local Plan. In the draft version, there are three sites within Bridge, which have been designated as “needing further investigation” under the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Bridge Parish Council has until September 28”‘ 2012 to respond to the draft plan, specifically in relation to these three sites. The sites are: Church Meadow (SHLAAI39) Brickfield Farm (SHLAAl86) Land West of the A2 (SHLAA20l) As part of the on-going Neighbourhood Plan project, a paper-based survey was carried out and villagers were asked for their opinions — not only on the specific sites, but on many other issues too. A Neighbourhood Plan Committee was formed made up of representatives from a selection of neighbourhood organisations and four Parish Councillors, who formulated the paper based survey. The conclusion was that the majority do not feel Bridge needs more houses in general and that if housing is to be imposed upon Bridge, then it should be moderate in scale and the not inconsiderable infrastructure issues need to be addressed. Of the three sites, Church Meadow was overwhelmingly rejected and of the other two sites, the land West of the A2 (SHLAA20l) received slightly more support than Brickfield Farm. Data collection The survey was delivered to every household in the village (710 dwellings), with extra copies available for those who wished them. The survey forms were collected by hand, resulting in a total of 340 forms being processed out of 720 distributed. Although the questionnaire was intended mainly for the Neighbourhood Plan, the tone of the questions as well as some specific questions were aimed at getting responses and feedback about the SHLAA sites. In addition, opinions were solicited from the various commercial, educational, health and youth groups in the village. Statistics given below are percentages of those who gave an opinion or answered the relevant question. Bridge Parish Council — Response to SHLAA sites Aug 2012 General feeling regarding housing development In 2004, the village of Bridge was asked — as part of the Parish Plan — whether they felt more housing was needed in Bridge. 51.8% said “No”. In 2012, that figure is 50.5%. In 8 years, feeling had barely changed — the majority of villagers wish to maintain the village feel of Bridge. There is a very strong desire to maintain the green spaces between Bridge and the surrounding villages (96.9%) as well as between Bridge and Canterbury (94.8%). 79.5% felt that the existing businesses can survive without further housing in the village. This prompts a question as to whether it would not be better to increase housing in those villages whose shops, pubs and community facilities are struggling. If further housing were to be developed, the preference for type of housing was guided towards more Affordable housing. Starter hnmes: 5-lIII_2‘iii: T Affrurudab-le i-musing e-l3._2% T Family h-uusring 5-‘r.-1 at. 4 Hinusinyg fur the elderly 3.Ei_4‘1»fu “If you believe that the number of houses in Bridge will be increased, then should these be?” Respondents could choose multiple answers There is a great fear of Bridge becoming either a small town or a suburb of Canterbury. It is important to those living here that it remains a village and is not subsumed into the city. Infrastructure Many concerns about infrastructure were raised —traff1c, water, sewage, school were the most commented on. Traffic 73.1% felt there was a problem with traffic in the village now. This would only get worse with an increase in housing. Although Bridge is well served with buses to Canterbury, rural communities tend to rely much more heavily on car transport. There is no safe cycle route into Canterbury from Bridge. 50.5% considered there was insufficient provision for cyclists. School In the survey, 75.6% felt the school should not expand. In order to embrace multiculturalism as well as the environment, Kent County Council’s policy on school admissions needs to be changed to place ‘locality to the school’ as a higher priority. Water The provision of water for an increased population is a general concern and although the majority were in favour of a reservoir at Broad Oak, its future is uncertain and certainly not due to come on line before 2024. Bridge Parish Council — Response to SHLAA sites Aug 2012 Sewage In 2010, residents were appalled to see raw sewage being pumped into the river. Although the cause of that was groundwater leaking into the sewers, the pollution of the Nailbourne raises questions about the sewer system’s capacity. It has not been proven or reported that the groundwater issue has been completely resolved and even if the sewer’s capacity under normal conditions is sufficient, more housing will exacerbate the problem when high groundwater conditions prevail. Individual site feedback For each site, members of the Neighbourhood plan committee assigned a “ranking” score and a “feeling” score to the comments made by respondents about the three sites. Ranking was given a score of ‘ 1’ for most favoured to’3’for least favoured. “Feeling” has five options. For the results below, two of them: “No building anywhere” and “not on this site” have been combined into a single “not here” option Church Meadow (SHLAA 139) This site was the least favoured of the three. i'3wer.age F.Ei.i'1i'.'iI'1!g 2.1’? Rani-;ed -1 5-% I R.ar1i«:ed 2 -1.3% Z Rariiazed .3 82% Nlnt here 85% Piznsszible 8% 1 SK with fewer houses: 2% I OK 6% — The issues raised about this site were: - Flooding. There are several springs in the field and recent history (2001) has shown its susceptibly to severe flooding - Amenity. The field is used by the community — most notably for the Guy Fawkes bonfire and fireworks display. - Aspect. The view across to the church is considered to be one of the most attractive views inside the village. - Access. Brewery Lane is very narrow with poor egress to the High Street. Alternative access could be via Boume Park Road. Brickfields (SHLAA 186) i'3wer.age ran icing '1 JE- Rani-;ed -1 4-9% — Rariited 2 27% ‘ R.ar1i«ced .3 2.5-% T Bridge Parish Council — Response to SHLAA sites Aug 2012 Nlnt here 3.?% — Pnseib-Ie 11% j UK with fewer houses 15% ‘ UK 32% ‘ A development of 8 dwellings for Affordable Housing has recently been completed on part of the Brickfields site. The development took place in the face of vociferous local objections, including a Village Green application with a public enquiry. The Parish Council and the majority of villagers only supported this site for development because it was used for Affordable Housing. Issues raised for this site include: - Access. The local access roads are narrow and already under pressure. The fact that some of the land has already been used for some development prompted responses that such use could be extended — albeit in a limited manner. The lowest portion of the site (between the private lane and Little Bridge Place) has been suggested as a possible site for a community orchard. Land west ofA2 (SHLAA 201) Although this site is the “most favoured” of the three sites, there was still considerable opposition to its development — particularly for a large number of houses. iiwerage r.a.r1l{ir1yg '1_B-‘E? Ranked -1 54% — Ranked :2 22% T Flanked 3 24% T Nlet here 36% — Peserib-Ie 119% j UK with fewer heuszes 9% 2 ::::+I~<: .3-3-% — Issues raised for this site include: - Access. There are already problems with traffic on both Patrixboume Road and Conyngham Lane. Further development, especially on a large scale would exacerbate these problems. - Noise and pollution. The road noise from the A2 would be detrimental to anyone living close to the road. Pollution levels need to be measured. Geographic Disparity When considering the rankings and feelings above, it is important to consider the “N]1\/IBY” aspect. Some of the results of the survey were logged with their respondents’ location in the village. Those in the North and South were ambivalent Bridge Parish Council — Response to SHLAA sites Aug 2012 about preference for the latter two sites. Unsurprisingly, those in the East preferred the Brickfields site in the West and those in the West preferred the A2 site in the East. AONB All three sites lie within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Government policy [Planning Policy Statement 7] places extra protection on such areas, so it is not simply a matter for Canterbury City Council to just designate any of the three sites for development. Careful consideration needs to be taken, with conservation of the natural beauty and a proven local need for housing. “T he conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions in these areas. The conservation of wildlife and the cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas. ”’ A Housing Needs Survey, carried out by ACRK2 in 2006 found there was a need for 24 houses in Bridge. 8 Affordable dwellings have already been built, reducing that need to 16. If full attention is not paid to this issue, any decision could well be subject to a judicial review. Conclusion 1. Bridge Parish Council does not believe the case for large-scale development in Bridge is proven, desired or is in line with government policy on AONBs. 2. No housing to be built on SHLAA/ 139 Church Meadow during the period of the Local District Plan. 3. Very limited development of up to 10 family houses on the A2 SHLAA/201 site during the period of the Local District Plan and subject to the site being restricted in extent as per the attached plan. 4. Very limited building of up to 8 affordable housing units on the Brickfield site SHLAA 186 during the period of the Local District Plan, subject to the site being restricted in extent as per the attached plan. 5. Development should be subject to infrastructure issues being resolved before planning consent is given. 1 http://www.commu11ities. gov.uk/documents/plan11ingandbuilding/pdf/ 147 402.pdf 2 Action for Communities in Rural Kent. www.rura1kent.org Bridge Parish Council — Response to SHLAA sites Aug 2012 Bridge Parish Council — Response to SHLAA sites Aug 2012 Email received by the Clerk on 8 January 2016 from Stuart garnett of Savills Philip Good afternoon. I have left you a voicemail message so do please get in touch (07870 999595) to discuss when you're free, although note I'm in and out of meetings for much of this afternoon. In terms of a brief update: Savills on behalf of Cantley are making representations to the Proposed Amendments to the Canterbury District Local Plan, which broadly follows what I had written to Karen Britton prior to Christmas. We are proposing the Brickfields allocation should be deleted and any allocation for Bridge should be left to the Neighbourhood Plan as has always been advised by Canterbury District Council. To follow up on the potential alternative locations for development around Bridge — as requested by some local residents that we consider such alternatives, we will produce SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) forms and plans to Canterbury for the following locations: 1. Land south—west of the High Street (i.e. adjacent the allotment site — but not in replacement of the allotments) 2. Land north—east of the High Street / North—west of Conyngham Lane (this is the site subject to the most recent illustrative site layout for approximately 30 dwellings 3. Land north—west of Patrixbourne Road extending up to Conyngham Lane (this is our original SHLAA submission from 2011 (SHLAA/201) and the land promoted by Cantley under the previous Local Plan a number of years ago) 4. Land north—west of Patrixbourne Road (this is the smaller SHLAA land which followed on from the original draft of the Neighbourhood Plan which identified the potential for 10 dwellings in this location adjacent the doctor's surgery. We followed this up with a revised Illustrative Layout to show, in our view, an improved orientation of any housing). All 4 sites could take more than 10 or perhaps more than 40 dwellings, however, before this causes any alarm this is merely a process for us to go through as part of the Council's evidence base and for Cantley to identify that each of these site's are potentially deliverable now, subject to a process to identify a preferred location or locations for residential development on Cantley land. I want to reassure you that it is not Cantley's intention to bring forward all of these sites, and our position continues to be one of ongoing liaison with the Parish Council and the local community. Through discussions with the local community, it might be, that a preferred option could be for one of these alternative sites to be delivered or perhaps that any residential allocation in the village is distributed around each of these sites and ultimately this can then be a matter for the Neighbourhood Plan to determine through consultation and the referendum. Because this has not yet been fixed it therefore seems appropriate that we request each of these site's are assessed by Canterbury. Kind regards Stuart Meeting Notes 8 March 2016 Cantley Ltd — Bridge Parish Council Present: Alan Atkinson, Philip Wicker, Charlie Gooch, Stuart Garnett Apologies: Joe Connor 10. 11. Discussion held on Mountfield Park. PW believed an application had been submitted, or was about to go in. Discussion held on Brickfields and whether CCC were ‘deallocating’ the site from their Local Plan. CCC response to Planning Inspectorate identified proposed Brickfields allocation secured a number of objections and ‘Requested Changes’ column identifies site should not be allocated and to leave allocations to Neighbourhood Plan. This document has been submitted to the Planning Inspector and a response is awaited. AA said he was not aware that CCC had formally decided to deallocate the Brickfields site at present. AA advised Bridge were bidding for Government funding for Neighbourhood Plan (deadline 1 April) and hope to have their NP in place by the End of 2016. AA advised NP could allocate up to 50 dwellings, including 8-10 on Brickfields as per earlier NP draft. AA advised leaflet being issued to villagers asking for preferences of housing sites to be voted on. PW advised leaflet would include a link to the BPC website to set out the proposed benefits suggested by Cantley previously. PW requested further detail be provided. SG advised this would be done but level of benefits cannot be fully determined yet as this is reliant on amount of development which will determine any financial receipts. Discussion held on potential for village hall. AA stated new village hall not yet costed but said residents are broadly in favour of a new hall. PW stated for the public consultation meetings on the 20 and 22 March if it would be possible to provide a plan showing the 4 Cantley sites on a single plan. CG would enquire whether red line plans for Brickfields and Church Meadow could also be obtained. AA/PW advised projected timeline for NP being: 11 April — consultation ends BPC to produce summary and to report to NP group with recommendations Before End June — public consultation on Neighbourhood Plan Mid August — consultation ends September — Examination End 2016 — Referendum Meeting ended and all were thanked for their time. Savills Planning 1 March 2016 The following questions have been raised: responses by Cllr Alan Atkinson. 1. Do we need a new village hall? Many residents use facilities provided by village halls elsewhere because of the constraints imposed by our current hall. Although the question "Do you want a new village hall?” was not asked directly in the 2014 questionnaire, a new village hall was one of the things which was mentioned frequently when residents were asked about improvements for the village. 2. The village should proceed with the Neighbourhood Development Plan despite the stalling of Canterbury's District Plan. The advice given, as understood by the Neighbourhood Plan sub-committee, was that we had to await the District's plan. This is now understood to be incorrect. Our plan still has to accord with the District's plan, and if it does not, then there would need to be another revision of our plan and another referendum. It was partially to avoid this eXpense- at the time considered to be unnecessary- that our neighbourhood plan's completion has been stalled. 3. Access to a new village hall-if it is to be sited on an extended recreation ground- should be considered from Patrixbourne Rd and not from the congested Conyngham Lane and narrow Riverside Close approaches. Access for vehicles to that area has not yet been determined. Your suggestion is be noted. Thank-you. 4. Why does Parish Council appears to be acting on behalf of Cantley in putting forward the proposals. This is not the role ofthe Parish Council. The Parish Council is not acting on behalf of Cantley, but is seeking the views of everyone in Bridge. Council asked Cantley about the situation regarding the Recreation Ground where the lease expires shortly, and Cantley Estate's Agent asked that we canvass the views of the village in regard to the whole range of Cantley's proposals. Should Cantley obtain permission from the District for their housing units and are still willing to offer something back to the village directly, the Parish Council would like to know from the residents what is thought of the current package. So please make your views known. 5. What was meant by the minutes ofthe meeting held on September 8 It was proposed by Bridge Parish Council to consult as widely as possible within the village. That set of proposals was given Council's support. That was what was meant by the minutes. That plan of action has, unfortunately, become confused with what has since become known as the Cantley Proposals. So Bridge Parish Council supported the plan of information and consultation which was a proposal put to Council in September, and has not decided upon its view as to the Cantley Proposals. 6. Will the Parish Council be representing the views ofthe whole village? How will this be done? Councillors will try to reflect the opinions that they receive from residents of the village. Already, the information and an invitation to inform the Clerk and/or Councillors, has been included in the village newsletter, and on the village's website, and there is a series of consultation surgeries already arranged. 7. When will Cantley Ltd. be bringing forward fuller proposals and consulting with the village? Bridge Parish Council does not know. 8. Questions were asked about the transparency ofthe current process. 10. 11. 12. 13. Bridge Parish Council is being as open and transparent as possible. A comment was made about the location of councillors’ own properties and their distance from the proposed site north of Conyngham Lane. Noted. Comments such as this were expected. Are Cantley seeking to rebuild the Bifrons house on the back of the proposed development? There has been no mention at all by their agent of any such idea. The school admissions process, and the capacity of the school to increase its provision. This is a matter that is decided by KCC and the school. It may well be, however, that as Bridge expands, there will be more people from Bridge wanting to attend the school, which might reduce the numbers travelling in from Canterbury each day. Bridge Parish Council could ask the authorities to make proximity to the school a higher admissions priority. Concerns about the ability ofthe drains to cope with surface water and the sewer to deal with foul drainage. Southern Water would require the developer to contribute towards an upgraded sewer for any new development. Similarly, KCC for any drainage gullies improvement deemed necessary. While such objections might increase the costs for a developer, it would not prevent development. Such objections were raised, and were ineffectual, at Littlebourne. There may be an opportunity to require of a developer that the gullies are upgraded all the way down the High Street and into the Nailbourne, but engineering solutions for the water problems do exist. Has the Parish Council considered applying for Village Green status for the recreation ground? Could the parish Church be used as a new village hall? This has been considered, in the past and more recently. It is not possible because the Recreation Ground is not used "as of right”, but under the terms of a lease. A Church perhaps serves a slightly different purpose to that of a Village Hall. 14. What was the timing of the process? The Parish Council asked about the 15. 16. 17. possibility of a renewal of the Recreation Ground lease (it is already not possible to obtain some grants because such a relatively short span remains unexpired) and after some very brief discussion, Cantley's response were the Cantley Proposals, which were mailed through on September 8”‘. The timetable going forward is unknown. What will Cantley do if we do not work with them on the proposals as discussed? Bridge Parish Council does not know. As has happened recently at Littlebourne, it is suspected that a planning application will be put into the District anyway, and we at Bridge will then have very little effective say in anything to do with the matter. How does the new Mill Centre lease affect these proposals? The Mill Centre will cater for a slightly different set of users, as acknowledged by the Mill Centre Management Group at their meeting recently. Status of the Green Gap between Canterbury and Bridge. The Green Gap —as described in the Canterbury Local Plan-has yet to be considered by the Planning Inspector Mr Moore. The Green Gap discussion is due to be heard when the examination of the plan reconvenes in 2016 although a specific timetable has yet to be set by the Inspector. Technically, therefore, the Green Gap will only be approved as part of the Canterbury Plan, perhaps sometime in 2017. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. What is section 106 who adjudicates on it? Extent to which section 106 commitments are met in reality. S.106 is a Developers Levy, an obligation imposed by the planning Authority (Canterbury City Council) upon the developer. It usually takes the form of money paid to the District, or a legal obligation to build some local infrastructure and is part of the arrangement when consent is given by the planning authority. Since 2010 Communitylnfrastructure Levies (CIL) have been available to District planning authorities whereby amenities can be added as part ofa local planning development. A new village hall, for example, is more likely to be funded through a CIL than through Section 106 contributions from the developer. There is more information on the difference between Section 106 and ClL's at the following website: htt ' lannin hel .c re.or .uk -ex lained local- lannin infrastructure-levy lannin Does the Parish Council no longer support the statements made in the Neighbourhood plan? The draft Neighbourhood Plan was published in 2014 based upon work begun several years earlier. It has not yet been formally adopted by Bridge Parish Council, and as circumstances change, not all statements will always be fully supported over the entire duration of time-span covered by the plan. SHLAA sites? Stands for Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Shorthand for land that the owner or a developer wants the District to consider as a potential housing development site. The District's Planning Inspector, Mr Moore will begin considering some ofthese sites in 2016. Nature of surveys being conducted by Cantley-some animals in hibernation? Any surveys done will presumably have to meet the requirements set out by the District's Planning Department if they are to be considered as adequate. Discuss with Cantley as to what they will do in the event of planning permission being refused. Yes, that will be raised with Cantley's agents. Could BPC purchase the recreation ground? Bridge Parish Council successfully registered the Recreation Ground as a Community Asset. This means that should the land ever be offered up for sale, the Parish Council would have the right of first refusal. However, the land is not up for sale, Cantley's agents have not suggested that it will be, but as a result of this consultation process so far, Bridge Parish Council will ask if there is any possibility of the land being offered for sale, or being leased in perpetuity, to the Council. 24. What is the latest about the developments on the Brickfields Site? The Brickfields site is owned by Canterbury District Council, who have not indicated that they are about to begin any new development there. Analysis of Returns by villagers expressing their preferences for house building in the village —April 2016 Here is a summary of the results, a brief commentary as to how the figures were arrived at, and a brief commentary. The data was in-putted with slip numbers, which allowed us to screen for duplicate slips, and then the data was anonymised, by removing the original slip numbers and re-assigning new numbers. This anonymous raw data and these results are being made available via the Village website. There were 166 responses. 44 (26.5%) indicated a first preference for additional building at Site 2. 42 (25.3%) indicated a first preference for additional building at Brickfields. 36 (21.7%) indicated a preference for no additional building anywhere. 32 (19.3%) indicated a first preference for additional building at Site 1. 27 (16.3%) indicated a first preference for additional building at Site 4. 23 (13.9%) indicated a first preference for additional building at Site 3. 2 (1.2%) indicated a first preference for additional building at Site 5. A com plete set of preference data IS set out here. PREFERENCE ANALYSIS 1st Choice 32 0.19 44 0.27 27 0.25 2nd Choice 26 0.16 34 0.20 32 0.14 3rd Choice 27 0.16 32 0.19 14 0.17 4th Choice 24 0.14 21 0.13 34 0.11 5th Choice 28 0.17 5 0.03 33 0.16 6th Choice 10 0.06 11 0.07 6 0.05 other/blan . 19 0.11 19 0.11 20 0.11 totals 166 1 166 1 166 1 Stel Stez Ste4 Thus of the 6 sites, Site 2 and then Brickfields, seem indicated as the preferred building sites; very little support is shown for building at Site 5; the remaining sites similarly rated some way between those two other groupings. The “N|Ls” : zero or blank returns indicating a preference for no building at that site show a similar pattern : Site 5 being the most objected to, with Brickfields and Site 2 being least objected to, with the other three sites sitting somewhere generally together, in between again. 75 63 80 144 61 Site1 Site2 Site4 Site5 Brickfields Various different formats of ‘average’ bring forth similar results. An arithmetic mean was extracted from the preferences from each site : first using the raw data as presented, and then following a cleaning exercise to make the data from different residents comparable with each other. The results show Site 2 and then Brickfields clearly the first choices of the Vi||age’s residents for building, Site 5 firmly least preferred choice, and the remaining three sites clumped together, between those two other sets. AVERAGE OF PREFERENCES USING RAW DATA Rank Rank order Site 1 2.78 4 Site 2 2.31 1 Site 3 2.70 3 Site 4 2.83 5 Site 5 4.13 6 Brickfields 2.60 2 AVERAGE OF PREFERENCES USING CLEAN DATA Rank Rank order Site 1 3.30 4 Site 2 2.82 1 Site 3 3.28 3 Site 4 3.36 5 Site 5 5.15 6 Brickfields 3.09 2 Other ‘averages', mode and median values were extracted. Site Average Rank Order Rank order Site 2 2.31 1 Brickfields 2.60 2 Site 3 2.70 3 Site 1 2.78 4 Site 4 2.83 5 Site 5 4.13 6 So again, a similar pattern emerged. For the number of housing units this way seems more appropriate and calculated this way we get the returned the most frequently indicated Site and quantity of housing units indicated by the responses. It was suggested one might look at preferences as a Single Transferrable Preference, so that exercise too was done, initially working directly with the raw data. First iteration 32 44 27 2 42 Site1 Site2 Site4 Site5 Brickfields Removed Site 5 and Site 3 For each respondent, transferred their preference to their next choice. Thus their lowest, or lowest equal, non—b|ank, non—zero number changes to become a '1'. Count the '1's for each remaining site. Second iteration 34 54 38 43 Site1 Site2 Site4 Brickfields Removed site 1 Third iteration | 72 | 44 l 52 Site2 Site4 Brickfields Final iteration | 95 | es | Site2 Brickfields So that is STV. Numbers not exactly 166. That was as some put zeros everywhere, and others put equal values for sites. The same exercise was repeated using slightly cleaned up data and returned very similar values and the exact same rank order:- 1. Conyngham Lane (site 2) 2. Brickfields 3. Surgery (site 4) 4. Allotments (site 1) 5. School/Surgery (Site 3) 6. Church Meadow (site 5) The raw data is available too; you may be interested to carry out the exercise for yourself. A.A. 15 July 2016 Dear Stuart, Thank you for your letter dated 8 July sent to me by email, relating to the village-wide consultation exercise carried out during April 2016. I thought it might be useful for me to reply to apprise you fully of the events surrounding the consultation ofApril 2016. As you will be aware, the village’s residents were invited to consider the 4 sites currently proposed by Cantley Estates as well as the other two proposed major developments then known about: Brickfields, owned by Canterbury City Council and a site at Church Meadow, owned by Mrs Vanessa MacDonald. The consultation was well advertised and preference returns were carefully controlled so as to prevent duplicate returns being admitted. It is true that of the six sites then being considered, the Cantley owned site at Conyngham Lane was the preferred choice for some limited development followed by a small number of additional homes at the Brickfields site. The responses regarding the various sites were analysed in a number of different ways by the Neighbourhood Plan Committee, and the same result was returned each time; some small number, roughly 10 units at Brickfields and about 30 units at Cantley’s Conyngham Lane site. This very definite response was then written into the draft Neighbourhood Plan. It is interesting that your letter to Alan Atkinson suggests a different analysis, arriving at alternative outcomes and I am sure that he, and the Neighbourhood Plan Committee, would be grateful if you would arrange for them to have a copy of that analysis. Granted there will likely be some opposition to any proposed development within the village universal support is unlikely. However, the returns from the April consultation strongly suggested that any new development within the the village should be as set out above. Thus, given the very deliberate care taken by the Neighbourhood Plan Committee with regard to village consultations surrounding the six sites, it is likely that the residents of the village will indeed confirm the indicated outcomes in a referendum on the Neighbourhood Plan. It is hoped that the Plan will now move forward to its final stages as some external funding has been secured and this has allowed the Committee to engage the services of Mr Jim Boot who has overseen the Neighbourhood Plans for Wye-with-Hinxhill Parish Council. It is expected that the Plan will be substantially complete by the end of the year, with the referendum being held within the village early in 2017. Yours sincerely Philip Wicker Clerk Note of Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Group (BNPG) meeting with Canterbury City Council (CCC) 26"‘ July 2016 Present: Cathy McNab, Senior Planning Policy Officer, Karen Britton, Planning Policy Manager, CCC Mervyn Gulvyn, Vice—Chair, BNPG, Alan Atkinson, Chair, Bridge Parish Council (BPC) and Jim Boot, Consultant, BPC/BNPG. 1. For the ‘soft’ examination/health check, CM suggested that rather than using an Examiner who might not know Bridge, to use Catherine Hughes a Planning Consultant based in Wye, Ashford. JB supported the suggestion. JB knows Catherine helped Wye with their NP and has worked for CCC including the Canterbury Rural Settlement Hierarchy Study, 2011 (see Dropbox) and so is familiar with Bridge. This would be proposed to the NPG and if agreed JB will contact Catherine. 2. CCC now have to provide 800 dwellings per annum, up from the 580 dwellings per annum. Five years’ supply is a key issue and having some degree of certainty about this. CCC have had to find sites that could come through quickly. Their next ‘Proposed Amendments’ [to the draft Local Plan] consultation will be from November to January. In September the Inspector will spend two weeks looking at infrastructure, employment, green gaps etc. KB offered to go through Bridge’s six proposed sites: Site 2 was a SHLAA site (see Dropbox: CDLP Rural South — SHLAA Worksheets). Site 4&5 were not considered viable because of flooding. With Site 3 there was a concern over the view over the recreation ground. KB and CM asked about whether the possibility of swopping current recreation ground for Site 4 and developing the recreation ground had been considered. AA confirmed that it hadn't been put forward as part of the March-April 2016 site consultation. e. It was considered that Site 2 has an issue with CCC’s Green Gap and has a few vociferous opponents. Positively it would likely cause less traffic to travel through the village and could encourage walking to school. It was also the most favoured site with residents in the March consultation. CM said that she had carried out a housing land assessment on the site and it didn't score well. CM to send AA and MG SHLAA report. AA explained that determining the extent for development at that site might help fix the Green Gap. f. AA said that Site 1 likely has groundwater springs in it and the lower portion is wet and adjacent houses on the High Street have had water in their cellars. It was not included in the SHLAA. There is potential to extend the allotments along/bordering the road to Canterbury. 4. CM asked about the Great Pett Farm as an employment/business site — although acknowledge it would need some minor road improvements. It was suggested adding Great Pett Farm into the plan as employment land. 5. JB asked whether the decision [on housing sites in Bridge] was really now in the hands of the Inspector and KB and CM acknowledged that it probably was. AA said that as long as [Bridge] brought forward 40 homes, why should it matter where they were. KB said that Sites 1&2 had come in late, once the SHLAA had been done. 6. MG mentioned the traffic plan for South Canterbury and how it might impact on Bridge. 7. CB suggested that the key test of ‘major development’ in the AONB was ‘impact/effect’. It was suggested to get a view from the Kent Downs AONB Unit's Katy Miller. 8. JB asked about affordable housing. CM confirmed that the current proportion on a site was 30% ‘affordable’ but the government is moving towards including 20% Starter Homes in this definition leaving on 10% for social housing (to rent). KB asked about the demand for housing in the village and MG referred her to the original household survey (see Dropbox) which was relatively favourable to D-!"°'.°’.W 1/2 Note of Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Group (BNPG) meeting with Canterbury City Council (CCC) 26"‘ July 2016 affordable housing (63.2%)1. But that there was a concern over diminishing rural services. CM said that in some respect you do want development nearer to the village centre to support the existing services, rather than an outlying development where people would simply disappear up the road into Canterbury. 9. CM said that the Statement of Community Involvement was a good start but needs the detail of the responses adding in. Include posters and leaflets as well. AA ran through the consultation process thatJoe Connor had mapped out. CM remarked that consultation on sites was quite short and further consultation on this might be appropriate. This could be done at the draft plan stage. 10. CM said that as you are putting in a site, you will have to do a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Plan but that you can use the CCC SA particularly for the Site and Policies (see SH LAA for Bridge document). Also that BN PG might consider using the same consultants but they maybe expensive. Also that you should talk to the statutory consultees sooner rather than later (see list at the end). 11. Other recommendations included: a. ‘Local Greenspace’ designation for particular sites in the village including the recreation ground and Church Meadow. It was felt that BNPG would need to consult landowners. Also putting together a register of brownfield sites and their possible use. AA confirmed that the only possible site was Great Pett Farm. b. Also to check ‘permitted development rights’ in the NPPF ie from shop to house. c. To use positive wording [of policies] and avoid the word ‘only’! d. She also advised that with development, you may need to look at infrastructure, highways, buffering and landscaping. e. It was confirmed that the CCC energy policy on CHP was only for much larger sites and so not appropriate for Bridge. fl Also suggested taking a look at the KCC website on this (see links at the end). g. Also that you would need to seek a response from Southern Water. h. Although the Code for Sustainable Homes has gone, additional building regulations are included although Bridge could have a more stringent requirement. i. Also, CCC has a ‘residential intensification’ guide. j. CM confirmed that she would be happy to look at the policies in more detail after September. 12. CM said that the Parish Council must request to speak in September at the Public Enquiry on the Green Gap. 13. CM said in terms ofJB’s timetable it was unlikely you would have a referendum so close to the examination and JB acknowledged this and said he would amend the timetable. 14. Also to have a look at the CCC Consultation Statement and put responses into tables. 15. She suggested asking (contacts at the end) now to have a look at the flood risk and transport policies. Also asked if Cllr Simon Cook is engaged. Date of next meeting with CCC: Wednesday or Thursday afternoon 28 or 29”‘ September (Bridge NDP on 30”‘ September) are possible otherwise Tues-Thurs 4,5,6“ October the following week. 1 In the 2012 household survey in response to the question whether households felt more housing was needed in Bridge 50.5% said ‘no’. A supplementary question was then asked: ‘If you believe that the number of houses in Bridge will be increased, then should these be? [and the responses were}: Starter Homes 50.2% and Affordable Housing 63.2%. 2/2 From: Lisa Gadd Sent: 12/10/2016 16:36 To: 'iimbootcp@gmai|.com': Karen Britton Subject: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan — CCC comments for tomorrow's meeting. Dear Mr Boot, Please see below initial comments so far for discussion at tomorrow's meeting regarding the Bridge neighbourhood Plan. I have added a comment next to the various sections in the plan. I will be looking at the other sections first thing tomorrow and we can discuss further tomorrow. I hope in the meantime the comments below are helpful. Objective A — Plans to increase the size of any village business park. I cannot see any proposals for a village business park with the neighbourhood plan. There are business parks within close proximity to Bridge — Little Barton Farm Business park, Highland Court Farm and Barham Business park, Is this what the neighbourhood plan is referring to. Project A1 — Reference could be made to LP policy EMP5 relating to Home Based Business and EMP6 relating to Digital Infrastructure. Project A2 —The loss of a Post Office is covered under Policy D1 and Local Plan Policy QL3. Project B1 &B2 — reference could be made to working with KCC with the aim to achieve these objectives. Also make reference to LP policy T1. Project B3 — make ref to Local plan policy T1 which encourages cycling through the transport strategy. The new development at South Canterbury will provide additional cycling routes. Policy B3 — Any parking standards will having to be in line with the Canterbury Local parking standards. 2 parking spaces may be unviable dependant upon the size of the dwelling. Policy C2 — Brickfield Farm site is allocated in the Local Plan for 40 dwellings . The Council would expect more than 8 dwellings to be provided on this site, however awaiting decision from Planning inspector following the Examination in Public. Policy C3 — Discuss the merits of the proposal at meeting of the 13 Oct. Policies C5 & C6 —These policies could be combined. Project D2— Providing school places is within KCC remit. Policy D2 — Covered under Policy D1 and Local Plan Policy QL3. Policy D3 — Reference could be made to the relevant design policies in the Local Plan Policy D4 — a map may be helpful, in particular for local residents. Policy D5 — Local residents of all ages benefit from community facilities, therefore it would be more appropriate to include a Policy to as per your recommendation. Policy E1 — agree this Policy is covered in Local Plan Policy, however CHP would only be appropriate on larger development schemes. Reference could be made to energy efficiency in general and reference to relevant Local Plan policies. Policy E2 — agree, make reference to Policy CC11 and make detailed reference to the Nailbourne as this is very specific in relation to Bridge. Regards, Lisa Gadd MRTPI Planning Policy Officer Canterbury City Council Tel 201227 862097 Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Policies as of 21-06-16 Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number Objective A. Policy A1 The loss of business premises used for A1, A2, Plans to increase the size of any village Building a Strong, A3, A4 and A5 uses to other uses will not be business Park ' Cannot see anv Competrarrve supported urrressr proposals for a village business park Economy & i. it can be demonstrated that the use Wtth the netghbeetheee ptett there Ensuring the of the premises for these purposes are eustness perks W'th_'n dose Vitality of the is no longer viable; or proxtmttyto Bndge _ tlttle Barton _ __ _ Farm Business park, Highland Court Village Centre ii. the proposed alternative use would Farm and Barham Business park. is this provide benefits tor the local what the neighbourhood plan is economy and community equal to referring to? or greater than the current use. iii. the proposed alternative use would provide benefits for the local economy and community equal to or greater than the current use. Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number Objective A. Policy A2 The Neighbourhood Plan will support Building a Strong, proposals for the development of new B1 Competitive business uses and Live—Work Units, within the Economy & built up area boundary of Bridge, provided Ensuring the they: Vitality of the i. do not lead to the loss of A1 shops Village Centre or of community facilities; ii. do not harm local residential amenity; and iii. are located outside Flood Zones 2 or 3 . (See Appendix F) iv. are located outside Flood Zones 2 or 3 . (See Appendix F) Objective A. Project A1 To support residents with their plans to work Reference could be made to LP policy Building a Strong, from home by encouraging the spread of high EMP5 relating ‘E0 Home Based Busifie-SS Competitive speed internet access throughout the parish by ‘md EMP5 relatmg to Digital Economy & maintaining and upgrading existing facilities '”fra5tr”Ct”re' Ensuring the when technology allows and by supporting the Vitality of the introduction of the most modern new Village Centre communication systems within the Village. Objective A. Project A2 To support the presence of a Post Office within The loss of a Post Office is covered under Buijding a strong’ the Vi||age_ Policy D1 and Local Plan Policy QL3. Competitive Economy & Ensuring the Vitality of the Village Centre Objective B. Project B1 To control the level and environmental impact reference could be made to working with Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number Promoting of vehicular traffic and improve air quality, by: KCC with the aim to achieve these Sustainable i. implementing a 20mph speed limit 0hleCtlVeS- Also make reference t0 LP Transport throughout the village P°“CV T1- ii. installing air monitoring equipment iii. encouraging driving instructors and delivery drivers to switch off engines while stationary Objective B. Project B2 To promote the use of public transport and Promoting retain the existing bus service through Bridge. Sustainable Transport Objective B. Project B3 To put pressure on Canterbury City Council to Make ref to Local plan policy T1 which Promoting provide a safe cycle path between Bridge and ehC0Ura8e-S Cl/Cllhg through the transport sustainable Canterbury_ strategy. The new development at South Transport Canterbury will provide additional cycling routes. Objective B. Policy B1 Development proposals must take advantage Promoting of all possible opportunities to contribute to Sustainable the establishment or enhancement of cycle Transport routes between any and all of the villages in our area and beyond, and especially the cycle routes shown on Map 12. Objective B. Policy B2 Development proposals will be expected to Promoting integrate with and expand the local cycle route Sustainable network. Transport Objective B. Project B4 To explore ways to alleviate parking ditficulties. Promoting Sustainable Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number Transport Objective B. Policy B3 All development proposals should be assessed Promoting with regard to adequate provision for off street Sustainable parking, requiring at least two spaces per Transport dwelling, and development applications that would increase parking problems in Bridge should be recommended for refusal. Objective C. To Policy C1 Any approved housing development in Any parking standards will have to be in Deliver A Choice of High Quality Homes With Good De§gn accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan must i. be designed to a high quality which responds to the heritage and distinctive character and reflects the identity of the local context of Bridge as laid out in the Village Design Statement, by way of: i. height, scale, spacing, layout, orientation, design and materials of buildings; ii. the scale, design and materials of the public realm (highways, footways, open space and landscape); iii. be sympathetic to the setting of any heritage asset; iv. follow guidance in the Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans, the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan; line with the Canterbury Local parking standards. 2 parking spaces may be unviable dependent upon the size of the dwelling. Deliver A Choice of High Quality Homes With Good Deggn housing development in preference to building on green field sites. Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number v. respect the natural contours of a site and protects and sensitively incorporates natural features such as trees, hedges and ponds within the site; vi. create safe, accessible and well- connected environments that meet the needs of users; vii. not result in unacceptable levels of light, noise, air or water pollution; viii. make best use of the site to accommodate development. 8. Objective C. To Policy C2 Support further development at Brickfields, Brickfield Farm site is allocated in the Deliver A Choice of Mill Lane for 8 affordable, rentable homes with l-Oeal Plan for 40 dWelllh8S- The C0UhCll High Quality ‘local connection’ restrictions. Affordable W°”ld expect more tha” 3 °lWelll”85 to Homes With Good Housing must comply with the critieria and be provided on this Site‘ However’ Design provisions in the existing Section 106 ewaltlng declsloll from Plannlng _ , Agreement. inspector following the Examination in Public. 9. Objective C. To Policy C3 Support limited housing development of up to Discuss the merits 01‘ the proposal at Deliver A Choice of 30 houses on a proposed site north west of meeting Of the 13 Oct- High Quality Conyngham Lane. Any development on this Homes With Good site must comply with all the relevant policies Design set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. 1C. Objective C. To Policy C4 Maximise the use of brown field sites for Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number 1]. Objective C. To Policy C5 New development should be similar in density, These policies (C5&6) could be Deliver A Choice of footprint, separation, scale and bulk of Comblned High Quality buildings in the surrounding area generally and Homes With Good of neighbouring properties in particular, unless Design it can be demonstrated that the proposed development would not harm the local character. 12. Objective C. To Policy C6 New developments will include gardens of Deliver A Choice of appropriate size for the size of the dwelling in High Quality this rural community. Homes With Good Defign 13. Objective C. To Policy C7 Ensure that proposed housing developments Deliver A Choice of are of a low energy usage and are to be built to High Quality a high environmental standard. Homes With Good Deflgn 11. Objective C. To Policy C8 Ensure that all new housing is built with Deliver A Choice of adequate surface water drainage and High Quality sewerage facilities. Homes With Good De§gn 15. Objective C. To Policy C9 No new development should take place on any Deliver A Choice of site unless a thorough archaeological High Quality investigation ofthe site has been undertaken. Homes With Good Defign 1E. Objective D. Project D1 To ensure that sufficient community and Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number Promoting Healthy leisure facilities are maintained to serve the Communities village. 1'. Objective D. Policy D1 The loss of services and facilities of use to the Promoting Healthy community will not be supported unless: Communities i. they are to be replaced with services and facilities of an equal or higher quality and value to the community on the same site or another equally suitable site within the parish; or ii. where the services and facilities can be demonstrated to be no longer needed or viable, any proposed alternative use would provide equal or greater benefits to the local economy and community, including through contributions to development on other sites. 12. Objective D. Project D2 To work to change existing policies so that D2Pr0viding school places is within KCC Promoting Healthy local children have priority in obtaining places remit- Communities at the local primary school. 15. Objective D. Policy D2 Give support to the existing medical facilities Covered Under Policv D1 and Local Plan Promoting Healthy with the aim of ensuring that they are P0llCV Ql-3- Communities maintained, and where possible enhanced, for the benefit of local residents. 2C. Objective D. Policy D3 Promoting a safe environment, thus new Reference could be made to the relevant Promoting Healthy Communities developments should incorporate the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ (SBD31) and, wherever possible, achieve SBD accreditation to ensure that a safe and sustainable design policies in the Local Plan. Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number community is maintained. 2]. Objective D. Project D3 To work towards achieving a 20mph speed Promoting Healthy limit throughout the village. Communities 22. Objective D. Policy D4 Enhancing we||—being within the community by A map may be helpful, in particular for Promoting Healthy the maintenance and preservation of public l0Cal residents- Communities rights of way and open green spaces around the village which contribute to the health and we||—being of the residents. 3. Objective D. Policy D5 Provision and maintenance of facilities for Local residents of all ages benefit from Promoting Healthy young people within the village. community facilities, therefore it Would Communities be more appropriate to include a Policy as per your recommendation. 21. Objective E. Policy E1 Promoting Energy Efficiency Agree this Policy is covered in Local Plan Meeting the Within the Strategic Sites (as shown on the LDP P0llCV, h0WeVer CHP W0Uld only be ap- Challenges of Proposals Map), the development will be P'°F"late 0” large’ deVel°Pme”t Climate Change required to provide site—wide renewable or gas Schemes‘ lléferenice Could be made to and Flooding fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or energy efficlency m general and . . connect to an existing CHP distribution reference to relevant Local Plan policies. network. An exception will only be made where it is demonstrated that an alternative carbon reduction strategy would be more appropriate. 25. Objective E. Policy E2 All development in Bridge must utilise a Agree, make reference to Policy CC11 Meeting the sustainable drainage system. All developments arid make detailed reference t0 the Nail- Challenges of Climate Change and Flooding should aim to achieve greenfield runoff rates and ensure that surface water run—off is managed as close to its source as possible and only discharged into the ground. Surface water bourne as this is very specific in relation to Bridge. Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number will not be permitted to: i. discharge to the river Nailbourne; or ii. discharge to a surface water gully; or iii. discharge to a combined sewer; or iv. enter the foul water system. 2E. Objective E. Policy E3 The prohibition of development in areas prone Agree, make reference to Draft Local [\/|ee1_-mg the to flood]ng_ Plan Policies CC5 81 CC6 Challenges of Development — including new builds, Climate Change extensions to footprint or the formation of and Flooding new hard standings — will not be permitted in those areas marked in the LDP map as Environment Agency Area at Risk of Flooding Zone 2 or Zone 3 2'. Objective F. Policy F1 Ensuring that existing areas of open green Agree combine with Policy D4 and map- Conserving and space within and around the village are Ping 0t the important green Space-S Enhancing the retained and their quality improved. Would be a good idea: l“ Partlcular if V0” Natural are considering any areas to put forward Environment for Local Green Space Designation. 22. Objective F. Policy F2 To protect gardens by the prohibition of Agree with the recommendation to use Conserving and "garden grabbing” for dwellings and the paving thl-S Wotdlhg in the P0liCV- Enhancing the over of front gardens to provide car parking Natural spaces. Environment 25. Objective F. Policy F3 Ensuring any new development incorporates This is covered in Emerging Policies OS10 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment the provision for new green spaces. & OS11, therefore make reference to those. Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number 3C. Objective F. Project Fl To ensure that the development of South Conserving and Canterbury is suitably contained to protect Enhancing the open space between the city and the village. Natural Environment 3]. Objective F. Policy F4 Maintaining green space between Bridge and There is a green gap proposed in the Conserving and Canterbury so that the two areas do not emerging i-0Cal Plan between Canterbury Enhancing the merge_ and Bridge, therefore make reference to Natural this Policy. Environment 32. Objective F. Policy F5. Retaining as open space land of particular Policy F1 & D4 are relating to Conserving and value for use in the community. (as identified maintaining and Pie?-eiVing green Enhancing the in the Proposals Map.) Spacesr h°WeVe' it mall be more Natural appropriate for this Policy to be relating Environment to the allocation ofsites for certain purposes as stated in the text Church Meadow and the recreation ground have already been identified for community use. 3. Objective F. Policy F6. Retaining the open spaces currently in Conserving and community use. Enhancing the Natural Environment 31. Objective F. Project F2 To support new developments that allocate Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment land to uses such as sustainable farming, allotments and community orchards. Objective Policy or Policy or Project CCC response Oct 2016 Project Number 35. Objective G. Policy G1 To respect the existing village charm and Agree, duplicates Policy C1 — an Conserving and character in terms of scale, style and setting of edditiohei Ciiteiioh e0Uid he made ih Enhancing the new developments as defined in the Village P°iieV C1t° "heVe regard to the Village Historic Design Statement. Design Statement,‘ Environment 36. Objective G. Policy G2 To respect the quality of the locality by the use Again an additional criterion to Policy C1 Conserving and of suitable and sustainable building materials Could be added that reflects the inten- Enhancing the already represented in Bridge. ti°h-5 °t this P°lieVr thetetote h° require‘ Historic ment for this Policy. Environment 3'. Objective G. Policy G3 To encourage the conservation of Bridge as a When referring to Emerging Local plan Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment historic resource so as to maintain the character of the area generally, and of the High Street in particular. Policy HE1, it would be advisable to also refer to the supporting text. PLAN LOCALISM Bridge Neighbourhood Development Plan: Healthcheck Report Introduction I have been commissioned to undertake a health-check or ‘soft’ examination of the May 20I6 Bridge Neighbourhood Plan and its supporting evidence/documents, including the Village Design Statement 20I3 and the responses from the statutory consultees. In addition, I have been sent some correspondence from a group of residents to the Parish Council dated 24th November 20 I 6, which I have taken into account in making my report. I have reviewed all these documents and other relevant national and local policies to determine whether, in my professional opinion, the Neighbourhood Development Plan would meet the Basic Conditions. The Basic Conditions are set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act I990 as applied to neighbourhood development plans by section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. They are that: I. “Having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the neighbourhood plan; 2. The making of the neighbourhood plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development; 3. The making of the neighbourhood plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority. 4. The making of the neighbourhood plan does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations. 5. Prescribed conditions are met in relation to the neighbourhood plan and prescribed matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the plan”. With regard to Basic Condition 5 above, Regulation 32 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 20 I 2 (as amended) prescribes the following basic condition for the purpose of paragraph 8(2)(g) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act: “The making of the Neighbourhood Plan is not likely to have a significant effect on a European Site (as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 20/2) or a European Offshore Marine Site (as defined in the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007) either alone or in combination with other plans or projects”. In conducting the Health-check I have also considered whether the legislative requirements are met namely: 0 “The Neighbourhood Plan meets the requirements of Section 38B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the Plan must specifil the period to which it has effect must not include provisions relating to ‘excluded development’, and must not relate to more than one Neighbourhood Area) and o The policies relate to the development and use of land for a designated Neighbourhood Area in line with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 38A”. The output of this review is the following report in which I set out my professional opinion on whether the Neighbourhood Development Plan would meet the Basic Conditions and regulatory requirements if submitted unchanged, and any recommended changes or additions to the evidence base. Appended to this report is a table of the May 20I6 draft Bridge Neighbourhood Plan vision and policies with my recommended modifications shown as tracked changes. PLAN LOCALISM General Comments The May 20I6 draft Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is clearly the result of a great deal of work by dedicated individuals who have genuinely tried to engage the wider community in their endeavours. It is very much in the spirit of Neighbourhood Planning in that it seeks to empower local people to shape their surroundings, using local knowledge to formulate locally distinctive planning policies that seek to address the specific issues of the parish of Bridge. Like most Neighbourhood Plans it has been prepared against the backdrop of a continually changing national and local planning system, and has needed to be flexible to adapt to this. One of the key ways in which this effects the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is the increasing emphasis that national Government is placing on the provision of housing and the impact this is having on the emerging Canterbury Local Plan, which is currently at examination. Simply put, at the beginning of the Neighbourhood Plan process, the Local Plan did not require Bridge to provide any further housing, either by setting it a target to meet in its Neighbourhood Plan or by making site allocations in Bridge in the Local Plan. However, in order to meet the increased housing targets required by the Inspector conducting the examination of the City Plan, Canterbury City Council has submitted proposed modifications to the Local Plan which include allocating a site in Bridge for 40 new homes. The work on the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan took a positive and proactive approach to the provision of housing, including considering potential sites for allocation. Not surprisingly, this has proved to be the most contentious part of the Plan, causing divisions in the community about the necessity and best location for new development. In view of the proposed changes to the Local Plan I strongly recommend that the Parish Council, in consultation with the City Council, considers carefully the option of leaving the site allocations to the latter authority and concentrating on criteria-based policies in the Neighbourhood Plan to address the nature and quality of the development. This would simplify the process of producing the Neighbourhood Plan and is likely to be less divisive in the community. In the event that Bridge Parish Council decides that the Neighbourhood Plan will not deal with the issue of housing numbers or the allocation of sites it is important that this is made clear in the Plan so that the Examiner and future users of the Plan understand that this issue will be addressed in the Canterbury Local Plan. PLAN LOCALISM Basic Conditions and Legal Requirements From the material I have been provided it would appear that the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan meets the general legislative requirements in that it: 0 specifies the period to which it has effect; 0 does not include provisions relating to ‘excluded development’; 0 does not relate to more than one Neighbourhood Area; and 0 its policies relate to the development and use of land for the designated Neighbourhood Area. Compliance with the Basic Conditions is explored below. EU Obligations For clarity the relevant EU obligations are still in force and are mostly embedded in UK legislation. The two key potential requirements are Strategic Environmental Assessment (which looks at the environmental impact of a plan and its alternatives) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (which looks at the impact of a plan on nearby European protected habitats). For both of these the first step is to request a ‘screening opinion’ from Canterbury City Council. Based on the content of your Plan this ‘screening opinion’ will decide whether the assessments are required. These assessments are far more likely to be required if your Plan includes site allocations that have not already been assessed through the Local Plan process. Baseline Information and Evidence A Neighbourhood Plan is only as good as the data and evidence it is built on. The parable of the house built on sand and one with rock foundations is very applicable to planning documents. This evidence base should be both relevant and proportionate. In the case of Bridge, there is a lot of baseline data and evidence about the area, but it is less clear how this is relevant to the issues the Plan is dealing with and how the evidence has influenced the policy choices. In the event that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is required this will provide a structure to demonstrate these links. However, even if such an Assessment is not a legal requirement, I recommend that a background document is produced which demonstrates: 0 Which elements of the baseline information and evidence are most relevant to the Neighbourhood Plan; 0 What they tell us about the issues the Plan needs to address; 0 What alternatives have been considered to address those issues and solve those problems; 0 What the reasons are for the policy approach or sites chosen, and how this choice will contribute to achieving sustainable development. PLAN LOCALISM This will assist the Examiner (and others) to understand why you have made the choices you have, and that these reasons are rational and help the Plan to achieve its objectives. The justification should be on planning grounds based on the evidence, not on the basis of popularity, unsupported assumptions or non-planning matters such as lease arrangements. Iustification for Site Allocations The above advice applies even if the Plan does not include site allocations. However, if sites are to be allocated, particularly for housing, then it needs to be very clear that all the reasonable alternatives have been thoroughly and fairly considered using consistent criteria. Most Neighbourhood Plans have demonstrated this with a supporting Site Assessment Framework which tests each site against the same objectives. This can then be used to explain why the sites chosen to be allocated are the most likely to achieve the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan and contribute to achieving sustainable development. The information needed to complete such an Assessment can be drawn from the City CounciI’s Strategic Housing Land Availability assessment (SHLAA) and its Sustainability Appraisal of sites. It is not for me to judge whether the choices made about sites in the May 20 I 6 draft Neighbourhood Plan are right or wrong, but in my view it is not currently clear why those choices were made and why they are preferable to the alternatives. If the Plan is to include site allocations I recommend that a Site Assessment Framework is produced to explain the PIan’s choices. The Neighbourhood Plan and Village Design Statement A Neighbourhood Development Plan is required to include policies relating to the development and use of land. There is no other set requirement on content, but best practice and guidance suggest that the most effective Neighbourhood Plans are clear about the important issues in their area; which of those issues will be dealt with by the Neighbourhood Plan; and what the desired outcomes will be. The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan includes a vision and objectives and some limited information about the parish and its issues, however it is quite sparse and it is hard for a non-resident to understand the character and importance of the parish and what problems the Neighbourhood Plan is trying to solve. Whilst the Neighbourhood Plan is prepared by its current community, it will be ultimately read and used by a much wider group, including new residents; Members and officers of Canterbury City Council; Government Inspectors and developers. It is important therefore that the Plan communicates clearly what is special about Bridge and the type of place that the community want it to be in the future. Much of the background information about the history and character of Bridge that I would expect to see in the Neighbourhood Plan is actually contained in the Village Design Statement. I suggest that some of this information is replicated at the beginning of the Neighbourhood Plan to set the context for future users of the Plan. This would also be an appropriate place to describe the landscape setting of Bridge and the features of the Kent Downs AONB that need to be conserved and enhanced, as recommended by the Kent Downs AONB Unit. PLAN LOCALISM I understand that the Village Design Statement is an un-adopted document that therefore currently carries limited weight in the planning process. This is a shame as it appears to be a very thorough and well thought out document. I would recommend that the VDS be consulted on and examined alongside the Neighbourhood Plan. This would then give it weight in the planning process. An example of where this has been done is the Balcombe Neighbourhood Plan and Design Guide which can be viewed at httD://www.midsussex.gov.uk/Dlanning-Iicensing-building—controI/DIannin£- Dolicy/neighbourhood-Dlans/balcombe-neighbourhood-DIan/ D Detailed comments on the policies in the Neighbourhood Plan are shown as tracked changes on the appended table. As a general comment, I would emphasise that the purpose of the policies is that they are used by those making decisions on planning applications (i.e. Members and officers of Canterbury City Council or Planning Inspectors). It is therefore vital that they are: 0 Directive — i.e they make it clear how the decision-maker should use the policy to determine the planning application; 0 Clear and unambiguous so they cannot be read in a way that has an unintended interpretation (either by the decision-maker, an applicant or the courts); 0 Are supported by text which explains what the policy is trying to achieve to assist with correct interpretation and refers to the relevant evidence to justify their inclusion. Generally, a small number of simple policies are less likely to be missed or misunderstood by a decision-maker than a large number of complex overlapping policies. Therefore, in many cases I am recommending amalgamating policies to make the Plan clearer and easier to use. I have also tightened up wording to ensure that policies are consistent with national and local policies and guidance but do not duplicate each other or national policy. I have retained some overlap with the Local Plan policies because this is yet to be adopted and these polices may change. I have focused on the policies themselves and the vision as being the key areas that the Examiner will look at in the Plan. In theory the projects should not be examined because they are not land-use planning matters, but some Examiners get confused if they are scattered throughout the Plan, so I recommend that these are pulled out and included as an Appendix rather than in the main body of the Neighbourhood Plan. You might also find it useful to highlight where some of these projects will need financial support as this could justify Section I06 or Community Infrastructure Levy contributions towards them from new development in the parish. PLAN LOCALISM Conclusion and Recommendations As it stands today in my view the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan does not meet the Basic Conditions because: 0 In the absence of screening opinions from Canterbury City Council on Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment is not clear whether EU Regulations have been met; 0 In the absence of a clear framework setting out the reasons for choices made it is not clear whether the Plan would contribute to the achievement of sustainable development; 0 Some of the policies do not currently comply with national policies and advice. I am also of the view that the supporting text in the Plan could be significantly improved so that future users are clear about what it is seeking to achieve. Whilst not a Basic Condition for the Examination, a Neighbourhood Plan is only useful in the longer term if it is used in the way that its writers intended. I therefore recommend that: 0 The Parish Council seriously considers excluding the issue of housing numbers and sites from the Plan on the grounds that these matters are dealt with in the emerging Local Plan; 0 Screening opinions are sought from Canterbury City Council on Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment; 0 A supporting document is produced to explain the choices in the Plan as set out on page 3; 0 In the event that the Plan includes site allocations, then a Site Assessment Framework is produced to explain why the sites were chosen; 0 More information is contained in the text of the Plan to explain the special character of Bridge and its landscape setting, what it is the community value about it and justifying the policies chosen; 0 The Village Design Statement is consulted on and examined alongside the Plan to give it weight in the planning process; and 0 The recommended modifications to the vision and policies in the Plan in the appended table are accepted. The above would enable the Neighbourhood Plan to move forward to the formal Regulation I4 public consultation. Once completed, there are a number of documents that would need to accompany the submission of the Plan and VDS to Canterbury City Council for Examination. These are: 0 The Basic Conditions Statement 0 The Consultation Statement 0 Any Strategic Environmental Assessment and/or Habitats Regulations Assessment if required 0 Any other supporting documents or evidence required to justify the policies in the Plan. If you require any assistance preparing these documents, please let me know. Claire Tester, MRTPI PIan4LocaIism maiI.com Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft 5 Ianuary 2017 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................. .. 3 Our vision .............................................................................................. .. 3 Objectives .............................................................................................. .. 3 Map .............................................................................................. .. 4 Background ............................................................................................... ..4 Objective A. Building a Strong, Competitive Economy & Ensuring the Vitality of the Village Centre ................. .. 5 Objective B. Promoting Sustainable Transport ........................................ .. 8 Objective C. To Deliver A Choice of High Quality Homes With Good Design ...................................... .. 11 Objective D. Promoting Healthy Communities ........................................ .. 14 Objective E. Meeting the Challenges of Climate Change and Flooding 17 Objective F. Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment ....... .. 19 Objective G. Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment ....... .. 22 The Consultation Statement ...................................................................... .. 24 Notes ............................................................................................................ .. 25 Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Draft 5 — ]anuary 2017 Introduction This Plan sets out our vision for the future of Bridge until 2030 and lays down policies to help achieve that vision. This Plan has been drawn up under the provision ofthe Localism Act 2011. Objectives The Neighbourhood Plan is constructed around seven objectives, which are: a) to build a strong, competitive economy and ensure the vitality of the village centre; b) to promote sustainable transport; c) to deliver a choice of high quality homes with good design; d) to promote a healthy community; e) to meet the challenges of climate change and flooding; f) to conserve and enhance the natural environment; g) to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Map /°/" " 1' V W " e ~.=:.~.'.- ’ 4=.~'- u... L 9' if ..m / / “ ° °° « P \mm 0 ‘M // °%a\ \ // ' f/ BEKE E-WI *-::.*.~~- // o __.--61; @ ° 43 *9 13 I i as o - ’-'. ¢ 4: 3 . .. ., 9 % l .. B / 4 A 0 5 Q 43 4 __ as C 0 9 9 4 ti‘ :5 £2 6 am: pm; ) 4 5 5 0 I . o 4 ‘P 5 *5 Q am:nm. 4'.» .> A 9 4: e 45 9 -—r—$ 4 o 5 a as r: o 5 A 6‘) "mm 9 as o -9 :5 a as 4 4: "~‘r"-m"“ * ‘ <>- 9 5 6 o M " 4*’ ‘P " 4 4» o e "M '9 R" @M ‘> ' a o 0 Q 0 ""~ 4. 4. as: K 4 Q Q Kev‘ ‘’ ’ \ _'_mishaoum1ary \ ‘ . «a {town Cnpyrlgm. All tights ru:ru:¢_ Li-cane: No. 100044254 ..|q SE Area covered by the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Background The village of Bridge (51.2N 1.12E) lies in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and covers an area of 341 hectares (843 acres) to the south east of the City of Canterbury in the County of Kent. The village has a population of 1576 people (Census of 2011) living in 690 properties, of which 63 are listed buildings. The majority of the population (51%) is of working age and 55% are female. A significant number (39%) of people are qualified to NVQ level 4 (HNC) or above, which is rather greater than the average (30%) for the South-East of England. Objective A. Building a Strong, Competitive Economy & Ensuring the Vitality of the Village Centre The village has a variety of business premises (Appendix A] but this Plan recognises that some may be unable to support economically viable employment for the full term of the Plan. The Plan will therefore endeavour to support any potential appropriate long-term employment opportunities. New small-scale business development in the village will be encouraged, wherever possible. A number of villagers already work from home and the Plan aims to encourage this by supporting measures that work towards good internet and communication networks in existing and any new development. Most wage earners work outside the village. Plans to increase the size of any Village Business Park are to be welcomed if they help to secure more work for local people. Policy A1 The loss of business premises used for A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses to other uses where this requires planning permission will not be permitted unless: a) it can be demonstrated that the use of the premises for these purposes is no longer viable; or b) the proposed alternative use would provide benefits for the local economy and community equal to or greater than the current use. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that ‘planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth’. Policy A2 Proposals for the development of new B1 business uses and Live-Work Units, within the built up area boundary of Bridge, will be permitted provided they: i. do not lead to the loss ofA1 shops or of community facilities; ii. do not harm local residential amenity; and iii. comply with other relevant policies in the Development Plan. The NPPF states that the Plan should ‘facilitate flexible working practices such as integration of residential and commercial units’. CDLP 3.49 states that ‘there are also potentially quite significant benefits to be gained in relation to reducing traffic congestion, and hence improving air quality’ therefore home working should be supported. Objective B. Promoting Sustainable Transport Bridge is well served by bus services to Canterbury, Dover and Folkestone. There are train connections from Canterbury to London and other destinations, including a high-speed link from Canterbury West to St Pancras. Bekesbourne railway station is approximately one mile from Bridge and provides an alternative to the journey by road to Canterbury, which has its own traffic congestion and parking difficulties. This line only serves the Canterbury East route. The Canterbury District Local Plan has strategies relating to sustainable transport in the District and these form the Plan's policies as far as they relate to Bridge. Bridge currently lacks a safe cycle route to Canterbury. The Plan regards this as an essential development for the village. The Canterbury District Local Plan (CDLP) has provision for this development, which is strongly supported by this Neighbourhood Plan. Project B1 To control the level and environmental impact of vehicular traffic and improve air quality, by: Parents collecting and dropping off children at school times create congestion in the village. Local parents will be encouraged to walk children to school individually or by ‘Walking Bus’ using drop off points away from the centre of the village. The Neighbourhood Plan will seek to make the environment safer for children by limiting and controlling vehicular access to the school at peak times. This would reduce congestion, alleviate car parking problems and improve air quality. The introduction of electric charging points for cars in residential areas should be supported as technology allows. Bridge has a good bus service, which is well used and valued by the community. Encouragement should be given to all residents to help the environment and reduce pollution by using the buses. The current cycle route is along the busy A2050. A safe cycle route would enable children from Bridge to cycle to the secondary schools in South Canterbury. This would reduce car use on ‘school runs’ and provide health benefits. Policy B1 Development proposals must integrate with and take opportunities to expand the local cycle route network especially the cycle routes shown on Map 12. Bridge has no car park. This is a problem especially pressing on weekdays in term time and a shortage of parking spaces drives people away from village shops and businesses. Employers should be encouraged to find their staff alternative parking away from the High Street. The potential for providing a central village car park should be examined together with ways of increasing existing parking bays. Policy B2 All development proposals will provide adequate provision for off street parking , in accordance with Kent County Council Highways parking standards, as set out in Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking Standards or any update to this document. Development applications that would significantly increase parking problems in Bridge will be refused. 10 Objective C. To Deliver A Choice of High Quality Homes With Good Design The Neighbourhood Plan will encourage the limited amount ofhousing required to meet local needs. The recent affordable homes project of eight units with ‘Local Connections’ criteria was over—subscribed. The village was divided on the need for more housing. In the March 2016 consultation, 21.7% of participants indicated a preference for no additional building anywhere in Bridge. The Parish Council has welcomed the completion of a Village Design Statement (VDS) which analyses the aesthetic makeup of the village and sets out the criteria, which should be applied to all new development. Policy C1 All new development must be designed to a high quality which responds to the heritage, landscape and locally distinctive character of Bridge as described in the Village Design Statement This will include careful consideration of : a) the height, scale, spacing, density, layout, orientation, design and materials of buildings; b) the scale, design and materials of the public realm (highways, footways, open space and landscape); C) the need to conserve and enhance the fabric and setting of any heritage asset; d) the need to conserve and enhance Conservation Areas and the Kent Downs AONB as set out in guidance in the Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans, and the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan and its associated Design Guidance ; e) utilising sustainable building design, including energy efficiency and use of renewable energy; f) incorporating the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ (SBD31) and, wherever possible, achieve SBD accreditation to ensure that a safe and sustainable community is maintained; g) providing sufficient garden space for any existing and new dwellings in character with this rural area; h) respecting the natural contours of the site; retaining existing important landscape features such as trees, hedges and ponds; and contributing towards landscape enhancement, including new open space where appropriate; 11 i) utilizing native species in new landscaping to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area and provide appropriate habitats for native fauna; j) creating safe, accessible and well— connected environments that meet the needs of users; k) avoiding unacceptable levels of light, noise, air or water pollution, and protecting the tranquillity and dark night skies of the area; 1) making best use ofthe site to accommodate development New developments should encourage Bridge's current community ambiance by strengthening neighbourliness through shared public spaces and access. Any further new housing should consist of mixed scales and designs e.g. some 2-3 bed dwellings mixed in with 1 bedroom flats and some ground floor and single storey housing for the elderly. Policy C2 Support further development at Brickfields, Mill Lane for up to 8 affordable, rentable homes with ‘local connection’ restrictions. Affordable Housing must comply with the criteria and provisions in the existing Section 106 Agreement Policy C3 Support limited housing development of up to 30 houses on a proposed site north west of Coyningham Lane. Any development on this site must comply with all the relevant policies set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. Policy C4 Development proposals on brownfield sites will be permitted subject to the other relevant policies in the Development Plan. Development proposals on greenfield sites must demonstrate that the use of alternative brown field sites for the development has been fully explored and justify why the use of a greenfield site is necessary. The Plan will not entertain any development which includes gardens which are not proportional to the size of the dwelling and will not give support to any development that does not adhere to this Policy. Recognizing the likely impact on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties, new developments must respect the separation between buildings and between buildings and the site boundaries. The Plan will encourage energy saving and environmental benefits. 12 The Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) was the national standard designed to improve the sustainability of new homes. Any replacement code will be endorsed by the Neighbourhood Plan. The Planning Sub-Committee of the Parish Council will work to ensure that any proposed new housing is built to the highest environmental standard. Planning decisions should utilise Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so. It will not be acceptable for surface water run off to enter the foul water system. Southern Water will improve reduction of ground water seepage into the sewage system. Any new development must not place further pressure on the environment and compromise Water Framework Directive objectives. In view of recent flooding in the village (2000/2001 and 2013/14) any new housing development must have adequate drainage and and sewerage facilities incorporating appropriate property level flood resilience measures. It is important that surface water and draining facilities of any new housing development do not adversely affect those of existing housing and the general village environment. Policy CS No new development shall take place on any site unless a thorough archaeological investigation of the site has been undertaken, and measures put in place to record and preserve any important archaeological features. Bridge is part of a significant historical area and important finds and sites have been and are still being discovered. Some of these are of national importance. It is therefore imperative that before any development begins, an archaeological survey is carried out by an independent organisation. 13 Objective D. Promoting Healthy Communities ....._,§ .1?- The Neighbourhood Plan will aim to protect the current high standard of living and low crime rate in Bridge. It will endeavour to ensure that sufficient leisure and community facilities are maintained to serve the village, and to promote new provision as the village develops. Facilities and groups that promote a sense of community and maintain these values will be supported and encouraged. The Neighbourhood Plan will protect existing green spaces within the village and encourage walking and enjoyment ofthe open spaces in and around the Village. Government guidelines state that ‘Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well being of communities.’ The NPPF states that open spaces, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields should generally not be built on unless and assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, building or land to be surplus to requirements. The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect existing open spaces and recreational facilities within the village and on its outskirts. Open spaces such as the recreation ground and allotments and natural open space located outside the village will be protected for the health and benefit of villagers and tourists alike. Bridge is fortunate to have a strong community spirit, as reflected by the number and scope of groups and activities which take place within the village. These groups have 14 strong co-ordinating bodies such as the Parish Council, the Parochial Church Council, sports clubs, school based activities and uniformed organisations as well as many interest groups (Appendix Dx). Bridge has very few places in which groups can meet. The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that existing facilities are retained and where possible improved for the use ofthe community. The Bridge Village Sports Pavilion will be retained for use within the recreation ground. Policy D1 The loss of services and facilities of use to the community will not be permitted unless: a) they are to be replaced with services and facilities of an equal or higher quality and value to the community on the same site or another equally suitable site within the parish; or b) where the services and facilities can be demonstrated to be no longer needed or viable, any proposed alternative use would provide equal or greater benefits to the local economy and community, including through contributions to development on other sites. The primary school is the hub of activity for the children in the community. It has expanded rapidly in recent years and now many of the pupils have little or no connection with the village. This policy would assist us in achieving our Environmental and Transport objectives by reducing commuting and congestion and encouraging walking and cycling. It would also promote a stronger feeling of community among our children and young people. Bridge Health Centre is modern and purpose built in accessible premises on the edge of the village. It provides a wide range of GP services, therapies and treatments. Bridge is also fortunate to have a private dental practice. It is important that these facilities are maintained and supported as the village grows and more pressure is placed on services by development in South Canterbury. The Neighbourhood Plan supports the deployment of a shared PCSO within the village and would welcome more involvement of a PCSO within the community. It seeks to strengthen links with the police. It supports the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme and would encourage its expansion. It also supports the Speedwatch Scheme, 15 which is organised by the Parish Council with local volunteers and helps to make our village streets safer. It supports the introduction of a 20mph speed limit within the village. Policy D2 Development proposals must retain and where appropriate enhance public rights of way and open green spaces around the village, as shown on Map X, which contribute to the health and well being of the residents. Enjoyment of the countryside and preservation of its peace and quiet is important to the well-being of our rural community The Plan will maintain green spaces both within the Village and on its outskirts. Public footpaths will continue to be maintained, supported by the parish council and volunteers, as a supplement to the limited work of Kent Highways Authority. The enjoyment of green spaces and the effect that loss of access to it will have on the community will be a material factor to be considered should any proposal be put forward for whatever purpose which reduces the existing green spaces round the village. Any proposal which would reduce the potential for such enjoyment will be opposed. See map Dx The Neighbourhood Plan envisages the retention of the Mill Centre and the use of it and other Village assets for the use of its youth groups which draw young people from the south of the District to participate in a range of sporting and cultural activities. 16 Objective E. Meeting the Challenges of Climate Change and Flooding The Neighbourhood Plan supports the stance in Canterbury District Local Plan (CDLP) chapter 7. With reference to Bridge this indicates taking steps to minimise vulnerability and providing resilience with respect to the impact of climate change, and supporting the delivery oflow carbon energy. CDLP Policy CC3 on Combined Heat and Power calls for large developments to provide site- wide renewable or gas fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or connect to an existing CHP distribution network, but provides for exceptions based on viability. The economic viability of such a scheme should not override the necessity for energy use reduction. Therefore this Neighbourhood Plan will strengthen the CDLP policy by reducing the terms ofthe exception. Policy E1 The prevention of flooding All development proposals need to be supported by surface water management strategy, which uses sustainable drainage system features to attenuate and restrict the rate and volume of surface water leaving the site. Surface water strategies should demonstrate that it will be feasible to balance surface water run—off to the greenfield run—off rate for all events up to the 1 in 100 year storm (including additional 30% climate change allowance) and set out how this will be achieved. Where sites are brownfield a strategy should always seek a betterment in the surface water runoff regime taking into consideration the Environment Agency document Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3). Surface water strategies should also include details of a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. Most of the built area of Bridge lies within the catchment area of the Nailbourne. As observed about the recent floods (see also CDLP 7.29-7.35), fluvial flooding, groundwater flooding and sewer overtopping are of particular concern to Bridge. The Neighbourhood Plan supports the CDLP 7.34 in regard to Southern Water continuing to repair the sewer to secure against ingress and the prevention of any significant further 17 development until the major improvements have been carried out (such as new culverted outfalls, major pumping at outlets or large attenuation lakes). The Neighbourhood Plan Objective will tighten the CDLP Policy CC11 on Sustainable Drainage Systems by only permitting surface water drainage back into the ground. This will reduce the strain on the drains and the Nailbourne itself. The policy is also enhanced to include all planning decisions, notjust those in the flood risk area, since the whole catchment area impacts upon the flood risk. The risk identified is so great that no development will be permitted in Flood Zone 2 or Flood Zone 3 areas. 18 Objective F. Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment The National Planning Policy Framework states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan will seek to ensure that the existing natural environment is conserved, protected and enhanced. The Plan will protect existing green spaces in the village and on the outskirts to preserve and improve biodiversity where possible. Canterbury District Local Plan (CDLP) (10.1) states "One of the City Council's objectives is to protect and enhance the countryside, acknowledging its own intrinsic value, the diversity of landscapes, heritage and wildlife and recognising that a high quality environment contributes to the economic, social and cultural well-being of the district.” CDLP (11.11) states "Open space performs a wide range of roles in enhancing the liveability of cities, towns and rural villages. Protecting open space for its amenity, ecological, educational, social and community benefits are now well established principles among planning authorities and other organisations”. The Canterbury District Environmental Policy 2009 (Reviewed 2012) states "The protection and enhancement of open space is key to providing green space for wild life and people”. The Neighbourhood Plan will work with the Planning Committee of the Parish Council to ensure that "garden grabbing” i.e. the use of gardens to develop as building plots does not take place in Bridge. Any new building should take place on brown field sites. The Plan will support the Parish Council Planning Committee in recommending refusal of planning permission to pave over front gardens for car parking. The Plan will seek to maintain these open spaces. The Draft Open Space Strategy for the Canterbury District 2014-2019 3.7 states that "...the design of public open space sets the scene for the housing, that it is considered 19 at the start and throughout the design process, not as an afterthought and should provide an attractive setting as well as opportunities for leisure and recreation use”. The Plan will work vigorously to ensure that provision for new green spaces is incorporated into any emerging development by scrutinising the planning applications and objecting to unsuitable plans. Policy F1 Development proposals that reduce a sense of openness and separation between Bridge and Canterbury will not be permitted to ensure that the individual identity of these two settlements is retained. CDLP (11.42) states "The objective of the green gap policy is to retain separate identities of existing settlements, by preventing their coalescence through development". The Neighbourhood Plan will continue to object to unwanted development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) on the south side of Canterbury to maintain the existing open space. 90% of respondents to the Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire opposed the merging of Bridge with South Canterbury, which would result in Bridge losing its identity as a thriving rural community CDLP (11.44) states "The Council is concerned that this gradual coalescing between existing built up areas not only harms the character of the open countryside, but is having an adverse impact on the setting and special character ofvillages”. The Neighbourhood Plan will encourage the conservation of the character of Bridge and the High Street in particular. The Parish Council will seek to maintain open spaces which are of particular value for use in the community. The NPPF (2012) (1.2) states that "Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities". 20 NPPF (2012) (1.3) states "They help bring neighbourhoods together, and provide access, light, air and setting for neighbourhood buildings”. The Parish Council will continue to encourage people of all ages to use and enjoy, volunteer to help with and maintain the recreation ground. The Council will encourage the education of local school children to participate in the Wild Flower Project on the recreation ground. CDLP (11.14) states "It is important that allotments are retained where they can perform an important open space function and contribute to the City Council's wider sustainable development objectives, including the production of local fresh produce and enhanced quality of life in terms of health, social activity...and wild life habitats". The Parish Council will actively encourage the take up and maintenance of the allotments in the village to provide local fresh produce and enhance the social wellbeing of the residents of Bridge. The Plan will encourage and support the use of land to establish sustainable farming, allotments and community orchards to provide employment and enrich the well- being of local residents. A suitable area of land will be identified for a community orchard. 21 Objective G. Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment The village draws some of its character from the fact that it stands on the Roman road from Dover to London through Canterbury. This road became known as Watling Street. The bridge at Bridge is built over the Nailbourne, an intermittent stream which is often completely dry but is also capable of rising rapidly to flood low-lying areas in the village. The Nailbourne lies in a valley so that Watling Street rises up-hill in both directions from the centre of the village. Consistent with its age and location the village has more than sixty listed buildings dating from the early fifteenth century onwards. Policy G1 To respect the existing village charm and character in terms of scale, style and setting of new developments as defined in the Village Design Statement The Plan will continue to ensure that any new development is appropriate to merge with the present building infrastructure. CDLP Policy DBE1 states "All development should respond to the objectives of sustainable development and reflect the need to safeguard and improve the quality of life for residents, minimise waste and protect and enhance the environment”. 22 "The City Council will therefore require development schemes to incorporate sustainable design and construction measures that must satisfy the criteria...” The Plan will urge the Parish Council Planning Committee to monitor closely the building materials intended for use in any proposed new building. While this applies to all buildings it is of particular significance to those intended for conservation areas in the village. The CDLP Policy HE1 states that ‘Development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal, the significance of heritage assets and their settings. Development will not be permitted where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of heritage assets or their settings.’ The Neighbourhood Plan strongly supports this policy and will endeavour to maintain the distinctive historic character of Bridge. 23 The Consultation Statement In the final version, this section will contain a statement prepared to comply with the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012. It will contains details ofthe persons and bodies were consulted about the proposed NP, explains how they were consulted, summarise the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted and describe how these issues and concerns have been addressed in the NP. Who was consulted. How people were consulted. Main issues and concerns raised. 24 Notes Schedule 9 Part 1 of the Localism Act 2011 sets out the requirements for a Neighbourhood Development Plan in relation to the development and use ofland in the whole or any part of a particular neighbourhood area specified in the plan. The period of the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is up to 2030 or 16 years. The Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions if- a) having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to make the NP, b) the making of the NP contributes to the achievement of sustainable development, c) the making of the NP is in general conformity with the strategic policies in the development plan for the area of the authority (Canterbury City Council?) d) The making of the NP does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations, and e) Prescribed conditions are met in relation to the NP and prescribed matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the NP. Bridge Parish Council is a qualifying body and entitled to submit a NP for its own parish. The Bridge NP expresses policies relating to the development and use of land within the neighbourhood area. It does not include any provision for excluded development such as national infrastructure. There is no other NP in place in this neighbourhood area. National Policies and Advice 1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) refers to Neighbourhood Plans and seeks that those plans have regard to the policies in the NPPF and to be in ‘general conformity’ with the Strategic Policies of the Local Plan. 2. The Bridge NP has regard to relevant policies within the NPPF. Appendix 1 List of organisations Art in Bridge Cribbage and Pot Boys Guild Fish Scheme, which supports the elderly, Nailbourne Horticultural Society, Bridge And District History Society Women's Institute 25 Hereon is notes and etc: Work to do. Reorganize the appendices, maps, etc. A para about the Objectives, Policies and Proposals. Pg8 W690 Policy A2 >> Appendix F >> Flood Risk Map. Pg 11 W 1217>> Map12. Policy B1 >> Cycle Route on a local map?? Pg 12 W 1416 >>Appendix V>>Village Design Statement Pg 12 W 1420 >> Appendix for results of March 2016 Consultation. (And others?) Pg 13 W 1750 >> as above Pg12 1420 >> results of March consultation Pg 18 W 2178 .Policy D4>> MapDx >>Green Spaces PROW etc Pg 19 W 3154 >> Flood Map (to be Appendix F (see pg 8 )) Pg 24 W 4449 >>Need a ‘proposals map’ (Combine With Map Dx?) Section F5 Pg 23 W4314 >> put all this into a map and a list of sites and a commentary? Appendix? A Glossary Appendix for the building classes, A1, A2, etc? that are mentioned early on? Redo the page numbers and Contents page (do this point last) 26 Dear Residents, lt’s been a little while since you have been updated on the Neighbourhood Plan — even though it has been a standing item at meetings of the Parish Council. This has largely been due to the on—going examination of Canterbury City’s Draft Local Plan which has forced us to take a ‘pause’ while the Government’s Planning Inspectorate does its work, including Housing Allocations for Bridge. We haven’t been idle however. In June we took on board an experienced community planner Jim Boot (an Associate with Action for Communities in Rural Kent) to help advise us. Some of you will have met Jim at the Summer Fair (held at Bridge Primary school) just after he was appointed. On the advice of Jim and colleagues at Planning Aid and CPRE Kent we have now: o Commissioned a Rural Place (statistical) Profile of Bridge from Action for Communities in Rural England to strengthen our evidence base. . Met with Canterbury City Council’s new Planning Policy Manager on two occasions in July and October. We now have received their written response to the most recent draft of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan. . Received written responses from the Environment Agency, Kent Downs AONB Unit, Kent County Council Environment and Highways Teams. . Held a site visit to look at traffic issues with a Highways Planner from Kent County Council. o Commissioned a traffic survey from Road Data Services which we hope to use as evidence to support any future traffic improvement measures in Bridge. o Undertaken a site survey of Important Local Green Spaces to include in our plan for protection from future development. . Most recently commissioned a ‘health—check’ of the draft Plan from an independent planning expert who has helped 20 neighbourhood plans to completion. The ‘health- check’ report will be made available to you on this website in January. All of the above will be used to sharpen up our plan which we aim to publish and make available to you in the New Year, for our final six—week (Pre—Submission Regulation 14) consultation. By then we should also have heard back from the Government’s Planning Inspectorate on the site allocations for Bridge. All of your responses will be anonymised, published and used to draw up the Plan that is then submitted to Canterbury City Council to check that it meets so—called ‘Basic Conditions’ or in layman’s terms — the government’s legal requirements. Following a further six week Statutory Consultation, that they undertake on our behalf, the Plan and all the responses received will then be go to an Examiner appointed jointly by us and Canterbury City Council. Should our Plan then pass Examination, or simply require a few minor amendments, the Plan will then be put to you to vote on in a Referendum — whether you are ‘in favour’ of the plan in its entirety or ‘not’. Should the Plan be approved by you at Referendum it is then ‘made’ by Canterbury City Council and will thereafter be used to assess any future Planning Applications/Permissions in Bridge. Please make a note of this date when there will be a chance to find out more and feed in your comments on the plans: Saturday January 21 in Bridge Village Hall. There will be a further update on this site prior to that meeting. A copy of the draft plan will be posted here shortly, as well as the statistical profile and responses received from Canterbury City Council. If you’d like any further information, please contact the Parish Clerk by e—mail Bridge Neighbourhood Plan committee Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Committee Information event on 21 ]anuary 2017 in the Village Hall 10a.m.- 1 p.m. Analysis of data collected Turnout: 140 people attended. This represents 140/1253 registered voters— a turn out of 11.2%. 0 123 residents of the village 0 6 non villagers who live on the fringes of the village 0 1 consultant—]im Boot 0 9 members of the BPNC and the Clerk: 10 (2 written comments were sent to the meeting by villagers who could not attend. They have been included in the transcripts below) Other written comments have been submitted to the clerk since the meeting, but before 15 February. They are also included in the transcripts below. Residents of the following streets turned out as shown below: Street name Numbers who attended the event Beech Hill 2 Bourne View 1 Brewery Lane 3 Brickfield Close 1 Bridge Down 16 Bridge Hill 4 Conyngham Lane 25 Dering Close 3 Dering Rd 2 Filmer Rd 1 Ford Close 2 High St 22 Higham Lane 2 Meadow Close 4 Mill Lane 1 Mill Terrace 3 Patrixbourne Rd 10 Renville 3 Riverside Close 9 Union Rd 15 Western Ave 3 ‘POST IT RESPONSES’ ON GREEN SPACES —AFFIXED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS The comments which were clearly identifiable as comments on specific green spaces were as follows: Site Name of site Transcript of comments Number 1 Allotments Yes preserve the veggies Allotments are a right Leave them alone please Site to be preserved 2 Green verge Union Rd Neither here nor there 3 Brickfields Close No specific comments recorded 4 Brickfields—looking Brickfields is a lovely spot. Please leave it alone. towards the Nail Bourne Site to be preserved. Must be kept Brewery Lane- opposite ‘Laughing Waters" Lovely walk—preserve Lovely don't touch it Site to be preserved. Church Meadow Great place for wellbeing; benefits residents and access of other parishes (hard to read] It would be insanity to allow any building here Please do not destroy no 6 It floods—end of story Preserve in perpetuity Aside form flooding potential, it is an iconic part of Bridge. It would be wiser to plant some trees here as flooding protection Lovely—please leave it be Must preserve this at all costs Site to be preserved. Site to be preserved Must be kept Riverside Close I appreciate the sentiment of posting photo of our private property; but regret no prior consultation before it was posted. RLERA Ltd. Space outside the Doctor's surgery All these little pockets of green are valuable to wildlife Problems of access though Patrixbourne, Riverside, High St? Quality of air very poor as so near the A2—not suitable for housing Recreation ground Preserve It is the heart of the village for the majority ofyoung residents. Crucial for keeping Bridge's family spirit This is a public amenity and should be maintained as is No building here- traffic problems with access and a vital amenity for many village organisations Site to be preserved. Site to be preserved 10 (b) Bridge School/Care Home Limited amenity value Not worthy of preservation 11 Conyngham Lane Should keep hedgerows and trees. Hard to replace Preserve our ancient hedgerows I love the country feel of this lane to walk along Site to be preserved. Site to be preserved 12 Conyngham Lane/High It's just a verge—don't preserve. St 13 Western Ave No specific comments recorded 14 Green Court No specific comments recorded 15 Ford Close No specific comments recorded Other more general comments about the green spaces Leave it alone we are a good community, we need green space, this is a good community Bridge needs all its much—used green space. Leave it alone. No building on our fields! Please leave alone Keep all green spaces, especially those all around out village We need to preserve all our green spaces In reality there are few green spaces in terms of area. All need to be kept and a question it more...(hdrd to read) preserved as AONB We moved into Bridge 20 years ago to live and bring out children up in a village community NEAR Canterbury. Please keep this identity—it is a good formula. No more building in green spaces. Verges?! Seems quite ridiculous to include these. But all out green spaces should be preserved, villagers and nature need them This is trying to make Bridge (the parts to be preserved) much greener than it is—strips of land a few feet wide by roads and not the green spaces that need to be kept Some of the examples ofgreen spaces to be preserved are simply verges! What else can be done with them other than “preserve" them? Insulting and ridiculous. A verge is not a green space. Don't try to fool us Two stickers were attached to the explanatory map. They both said, “This is a green space too". One was affixed to the proposed housing site NW of Conyngham Lane and the other was less clear—perhaps designating the whole of Brickfields? Good to see the existing spaces are earmarked and hopefully to be left alone from developers All indicated spaces should be retained to help preserve the character of the village. This should be extended to Station Rd/Mill Lane ‘POST IT RESPONSES’ ON PANORAMIC VIEWS —AFFIXED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS The comments which were clearly identifiable as comments on specific panoramic views were as follows: I View number & name 1. Mill Lane/ Station Please protect our lovely fields! No building! Rd Quintessential view for protection 2. The Butts This should be preserved. It is an area that all villagers enjoy. Wildlife is in abundance and it makes our village special. Please keep Bridge rural. (No 2 and all others) Please protect our lovely fields! No building! 3. From Bourne Park No building here please. Too beautiful! to Bridge 4. From Star Hill This should remain as beautiful as it is. Do not build on this land. A frequently used footpath with lovely views of Bridge from the top. An important area for walkers in the village and surrounding parishes, provides panoramic views of the local countryside, typical of a British scene The key aspect for the rural setting of Bridge lies to the south and west views (no's 1-4). The green gap is on high ground affecting the setting/views from the village centre. The topography is such that access is likely to be from Bekesbourne Lane. It can therefore be argued that these houses are c/b overspill rather than part of Bridge, so it too should be avoided but detriment is less. The view from Star Hill is very special and has a fantastic history—do not change it 5. From high ground All open views to be maintained. Development, if essential, only as infill in above Patrixbourne Rd areas already developed. No building on our green fields in Bridge The view from Star Hill is very special and has a fantastic history—do not change it All views here to protect. Please protect our beautiful green belt We do not need any more houses here, because Mountfield is already going to be 4000 The vista is wonderful from this hill and is important for maintaining a district gap between Bridge and Patrixbourne, a district parish identity. Additionally a wonderful walking area that is frequently used. Along the road area, a number of interesting late 19”‘ century features. None of these sites should be available for development. It is ridiculous trying to rank one green space against another when Canterbury City Council Local Plan does not request development 6. Town Hill towards Maintain the Green gap between Bridge and Canterbury Bridge Down All villagers want to maintain the gap to Canterbury: expansion of city is filling part of it Let's not add to that from this side. Please do not build in this green gap Bridge will be destroyed as a village if this land NW of Conyngham Lane is built on. Think suburb of Croydon! Green Gap, AONB: these fields have it all. Do not build on the green gap between Bridge / Renville / Canterbury. Preserve all views for future generations. Let's save this view and all green spaces around our village for future generations As a young person I want to keep Bridge a village and not let it become part of Canterbury. We must keep view 6. This is the gateway to our village. If we allow development here, we will become subsumed into Canterbury. We will be a suburb of Canterbury and lose our identity as a village. Keep the Green gap! This view is one ofthe most important in the village. It represents stunning views, both in and out of the village. It is in an AONB, AHLV, Conservation area and the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury AONB, AHLV, Conservation and Green Gap!! This is one of 2 fields left between Bridge and Mountfield. Build here and it marks the end of our village. It is imperative to keep the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury so we are not part of a large complex ofhouses It is vital to maintain the identity of the village and not allow the defined gap to Canterbury to be filled. 6 must be maintained if we are not to become a suburb of the city Must retain green gap! This is national policy. We do not want to be connected to Mountfield Park. No building please to close the gap between Canterbury and us ever further! We need to preserve the green spaces around Bridge—especially between us and Canterbury, if we are to maintain the character of our village. We must keep the green gap between Canterbury and Bridge This view must be kept preserved. It's the green gap. No 6 will mean no green gap and no space between Canterbury and Bridge This is the entrance to Bridge with stunning views in and out of the village. It is in the green gap where the current Neighbourhood Plan stresses the need to save the green gap. The picture used is this one. Let's not turn Bridge village into a suburb of Canterbury. Let's maintain this lovely, traditional view— and this space between us and the city—for future generations. Preserving the gap between Canterbury and Bridge is paramount Bridge is in an AONB. We should not be building on any green sites and definitely not build on the gap between Bridge and Canterbury It is essential to keep a clear green gap between Bridge and South Canterbury Do not build on this field. It preserves the green gap between Bridge and Canterbury The proposal to build north of Conyngham Lane was made before the extent of Mountfield Park was known. Building here will join Bridge to South Canterbury. KEEP THE GREEN GAP We must preserve the green gap between the village and South Canterbury where they are building 4000 new homes. This is an area of outstanding natural beauty. We must maintain the green gap between Bridge and Canterbury and protect our village so view no 6 is of the utmost importance. No building on the green gap The footpath here is very well used. The views are fantastic. No building here. Restrict plans for development at site 6 due to risk of urban bridging Green belt coming down in to the village from Canterbury. Conservation areas Wildlife Public footpath With the plans for Mountfield approved, there is an increased chance of urban bridging ifmore developments in North Bridge occur. This would lead to Bridge being classed as a Canterbury suburb. And lose the village cultural identity. Therefore any development at the Conyngham Lane site would diminish Bridge's green belt completely Conyngham Lane view to maintain green belt between Canterbury and Bridge. Other more general comments about the Panoramic views Please ensure Bridge retains its identity and do NOT build on the green gap I believe we should preserve all theses areas as AONB. There are other areas within the built environment to develop Keep the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury. No building anywhere. We live in the countryside In the light ofthe decision on 13/12/16 to build 4000 houses between Bridge and Canterbury ANY further building to the north ofBridge must not be supported to preserve a green gap and maintain the identity of Bridge as a village Preserve ALL green areas. Local plan could be “no new houses". City Council plan says none needed in Bridge Views 1,2,3,4 and 5 are outside the village envelope All views should be kept Our village should remain a village All views should be protected. Out village is special and so are our landscapes. All should be preserved. We are to have 4000 homes in South Canterbury. Bridge should be preserved as an area ofAONB for future generation in Bridge and Canterbury Please leave all ofit alone! Surely we must preserve all our green spaces and open views. It is a bit ironic and sad that the major current threat to Bridge—Mountfield Park—is outside the scope of this otherwise instructive and useful exhibition. All views should be protected. Don't spoil the very thing that most of us want to live here for. Keep Bridge a rural village. Protect all views. So much development is going on in Canterbury. Namely Barton and behind the Park and Ride on new Dover Road. Why must we sacrifice Bridge? Legal advice should be taken to preserve us and our spaces! All areas in Bridge need to be preserved and protected. I have watched wildlife throughout seasons in all of these locations and it is not acceptable to take away any habitat. It is an AONB. We need to preserve all our areas ofAONB All of these areas are an AONB. They should all be preserved. Why is any of these needed? 4000 have been passed for development! We have very insignificant infrastructure already. LEAVE ALONE! No more buildings. FLOODS. Leave green spaces alone, they are needed. All views to be preserved. They area used by the community and help those with no access to exercise. The green space must be preserved for Bridge residents, now and for the future. The missing information in this entire presentation, is..a statement by the Parish Council about where the PRESSURES for development in the village are coming from. You NEED TO BE EXPLICIT PLUS TRANSPARENT. Please leave this. This is a preserved area. All views should be preserved and protected. They form part of the quality of the area and contribute to the AONB in which Bridge is situated. Keep Bridge a village. Do not allow Canterbury to encroach. Save all these views. 4 written comments were received regarding the Village design statement 1. Very good and thoughtful presentation here. I agree with all of the conclusions statements. Well done to the contributors 2. If according to the statement new builds must be sympathetic to the rest of the village, why were the town houses built at brickfields? 3. Being in the London commuter belt, all high—rise and budget houses prices would decrease the current values of house prices. With younger generations struggling to get on the housing ladder, house prices need to be maintained in villages and decrease in more urbanely developed areas. 4. No high rise buildings e.g. blocks of flats Other longer comments submitted about the Neighbourhood Plan more generally All views should be preserved. No building necessary. Is it really necessary to have such a complex road system to the north of the village? Site 2: North of Conyngham Lane is of concern ifit requires a “cul—de—sac"; its egress/access is doubtful as a danger on the main road to Canterbury etc. Also drainage. Sewerage systems are of concern for flooding down the valley. Site 2 C3 in the NP. Conyngham Lane is in the conservation area, is a site ofspecial scientific interest and is in the proposed green gap from Canterbury City Council. It is therefore not a good place to build. Why not build more houses (ifindeed it is sensible to build more) on brown field sites within Canterbury? Rather than destroy valuable green space. Building on site 2 would also extend Bridge towards Canterbury which is not necessarily desirable in the longer term. Why is there no photograph looking down from Town Hill on which we can put a green post it note for preservation? View 5 Have now found the picture covered in post it notes which overwhelming REIECT any proposal to build on the land NW /behind Conyngham Lane 1) The NP must wait until the Canterbury District Local Plan has been finalised. 2) Ifthe HP proposes housing (e.g. Cantley's plan) it must be fully justified, with full details of any “quid—pro quo". The survey indicating choices of site was NOT between development vs. no development. It was —“ if faced with imposed development, which site would you prefer"? 50% of Bridge residents have NOT voted in favour of development Please leave all of it alone. Posterity will thank you. Above all, villagers want the village to remain a village. Canterbury City Council recognizes this also. Following the approval of Mountfield, the inspector has made special note to preserve the green gap between Bridge and Canterbury. mount field ends 2 fields form Bridge and this NP recommends building in one of those fields. It is the very field pictured in the current draft! Build in this field and not only are we ruining another AONB and beautiful views, we are also sealing the fate ofBridge as a village. Policy C3 should be deleted from the NP. It directly contradicts policy F1 (to preserve the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury). 90% of residents who responded to the NP questionnaire wanted to retain the green space and keep the separate identity of our village. We must not become subsumed into Canterbury. We want to remain a village and not a suburb of South Canterbury. With the huge development propsed by Canterbury, none of this should be needed. Beware pressure from developers interested in particular sites. A fall back plan is a good idea but not if it paves the way for profiteers. Need to ensure building sites do not create problems of surface water and loose materials if flash flooding/ heavy rain. Ifthe land behind Conyngham Lane were to be built on the village sign might as well be changed from Bridge to Croydon South. The approach along Town Hill looking across at fields and trees, the village almost hidden, must be kept intact. When we are to have 4000 more houses coming towards us on Mountfield Park, there can be no arguments for adding another 30. Where are all these people to come from, how are they to be employed, how much extra traffic congestion will be generated? There will be no green gap any more. Nor AONB. Our identity s a village community stands or falls on the protection of these fields behind Conyngham Lane. The entire village is in an AONB. We have a duty to protect it Due to the approval ofMountfield Park, Canterbury City Council, the inspector and the independent assessor have all confirmed there is no housing requirement for Bridge. And yet, still the NPC persist in promoting development In the NP questionnaire of 2014, 94% of respondents voted for no development PLEASE listen to what you are being told and STOP promoting development We are very unhappy about the proposals in the NP. The proposed building locations are completely unsuitable. Brickfields is sensitive location and should not be built on as recognised by the planning inspector for the emerging Canterbury Local Plan. The Conyngham Lane site is outside the village boundary plus will destroy the rural characteristic that surrounds that particular area. We should be fighting/planning instead to preserve the village the way it is. In addition, we have serious concerns with sewerage capacity, loss of biodiversity, increasing carbon consumption and air pollution. I vehemently object to the inclusion ofpolicy C3 to support development of 30 houses on a site NW of Conyngham Lane. Policy C3 contradicts policy F1—to oppose developments that reduce a sense of openness and separation between Bridge and Canterbury". 90% ofrespondents to the NP questionnaire opposed the merging of Bridge with South Canterbury. In addition, Canterbury City Council has proposed the green gap between Bridge and Canterbury in its local plan “ to prevent the gradual encroachment of development on areas that are critical to visual separation and amenities" This site it says"..is of such critical significance that even the most minor development might be detrimental to the separate identities of settlements". The government inspector, Mr. Moore has upheld the green gap between Bridge and Canterbury and in addition the planning advisor Claire Tester recommended the deletion of this site from the NP. Policy C3 therefore goes against the wishes of the residents of Bridge, the independent advisor, and is not in conformity with the local plan. With the acceptance of the 4000—house development in Canterbury, the quota is now complete for the district. I am unsure as to why there is now a need to pursue developments in Bridge any further. The villagers clearly expressed this in the initial consultation and the recent inspector's report also advised to remove developments behind Conyngham Lane from the agenda. The preservation of the gap between Bridge and Canterbury is paramount if we are to avoid becoming an offshoot of the city. (e.g. Sturry/Wincheap) and the retention of Bridge's village identity for future generations. The current plan to me makes no sense in preserving Bridge as an AONB and retaining its rural nature. It seems to contrast unfavourably with the desires of the inhabitants and the planning and development policies of the city council. I can't understand why the proposal is to build on the Conyngham Lane on the green gap when over 90% of villagers voted to retain this and our separation from Canterbury. I cannot understand why ANY building is supported for Bridge village. Please ensure the village retains its identity. Bridge needs to maintain its identity as a village with the Mountfield development approaching Bridge, the south side of Canterbury should be preserved. Therefore no building encouraged by Conyngham Lane and this area. It will only be the start Objective F The picture (in the NP] is of the very field on which the PC wishes 30 houses to be built The planning that is proposed north ofthe village is totally against objective F. In an area of AONB also in the green gap between the village and south Canterbury. Policy F1 refers. Bridge needs a clear green gap to retain identity. The Conyngham Lane proposals is BY FAR the best option because it has the least impact on the green spaces around the village. BUT NOT on the AONB. I agree this is the best option IF we are required to have more houses. As Brickfields has been rejected by the City Council, would it be feasible to have another vote? As the choice has now changed there could be a different result. Why did the questionnaire to villagers not include the option “No new houses"? The wording was designed to make villagers feel there must be new homes. This is not the case. The new houses now agreed by Canterbury are filling the green gap towards Bridge. The current plan for the City says with the new development in Canterbury no new houses are needed in Bridge. Further comments received after the event itself and before 15 Feb 1. To the Bridge Village Committee By chance we heard about the meeting at the village hall today and so we came along to see for ourselves what was planned. Before going to this meeting our feelings were that we were not in favour ofthe proposed site at Coyningham road. We live at Renville and feel we must try to keep a gap between the hamlet / villages and Canterbury. Any building on this land will just encourage more. Having been to the meeting we felt that the leaning of the parish council is toward this site. But the villagers who were at the hall when we were there seemed against the Coyningham road site. We are dismayed as to why the site next to the doctors surgery, which was the initial proposed site is not mentioned. My main concern is the lack of notice of these meetings happening surely a decision of this magnitude warrants all villagers being notified ofthe meeting by letter drop. Facebook and a notice on the village noticeboard is not sufficient. An email round robin would target more villagers and thus a fairer response might be ascertained. 2. Much of Bridge is blighted by noise from the A2. Trees and new building may reduce this noise. If further development must take place, existing residents may benefit from noise reduction if housing is built on Sites 2 and 3. Site 4 may be too low—lying to have any impact.The impact ofdevelopment on these two sites would also impact least on views ofthe AONB from the existing village. 3. Please make every effort to protect all our local countryside in the Neighbourhood Plan. At your recent information event, many residents expressed a similar wish to protect ALL the views around Bridge. This must not be construed as just meaning protect those six views which were pictured in the displays, it means protecting all the fields and countryside around us. 4. I do not know which photographic views citizens were asked to express preferences on. However, I take the “view" that in our AONB all views matter. The reason that we live in an area of such outstanding natural beauty is because there is a rich diversity of landscapes and views in an out. These need to be considered holistically and in their totality. It makes no sense to carve up the landscape into different viewpoints with some ranked more or less desirable than others. Hence while I understand the rationale of asking the village to “vote" on different views, I fear the exercise is flawed in design: all views matter, and a loss of any one view would, in effect, be a loss for the entire village. It was stated at the BNPC meeting of 6 ]anuary 2017 that “if the Plan doesn't allocate then the Council will" (p2 of minutes). I believe this is mistaken: the Inspector has allocated no new housing to build, and Bridge has escaped allocation within the local plan. The Brickfields has been given a welcome reprieve, and the Green Gap between Canterbury and Bridge has been confirmed. There is therefore no pressure on the NP to agree to new build in Bridge, and no reason why the Plan should allocate. Philip Wicker Meeting between Canterbury City Council and Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Group Tuesday 17“ January 10am, Canterbury City Council Offices, Military Road, Canterbury Agenda 1. 2. Welcome and introductions Local Plan Inspector's letter regarding: a. b. Brickfield Farm site Green gap General conformity with draft Local Plan Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Hea|th—check report a. b. C. (:1. General comments (see Recommendations) Policies — amendments to Site assessment framework Strategic Environmental Assessment screening/undertaking Important Local Green Spaces Assessment Framework Revised timetable/Gantt Chart Any other business Date of next meeting Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Group (BNPG) Notes of meeting held with Canterbury City Council (CCC) on 17”‘ January 2017 Present: Lisa Gadd, Planning Policy Officer, CCC; Karen Britton, Planning Policy Manager, CCC; Joe Connor, Chair, BNPG, Alan Atkinson, Chair BPC, Jim Boot, Community Planning Advisor to BPC/BNPG, John Hill, Cristobel Seath, Simon Cook, Leader/Nailbourne Ward Member, CCC. Local Plan Inspector's letter 1. It was confirmed that the BNPG are still retaining the Brickfield Farm site [in the NP] with a much smaller allocation of 8 units. Also the Conyngham Lane site with 30 units sites partially in the proposed Green Gap. 2. There may be an opportunity to comment on the Green Gap as part ofthe consultation on the Main Modifications (MMs). AA should respond to the Main Modifications consultation in February. It was suggested to include a map as well. 3. That the developer of Conyngham Lane would have to provide some affordable housing as a proportion ofthe 30 units. 4. It was said that Brickfield Farm could be an exception site or a Policy within the NP. General conformity with draft Local Plan 5. It was said that as the Local Plan is at an advanced stage, CCC can now give more guidance on whether the NP is in general conformity with the Local Plan. It was confirmed that the recent hea|th—check of the NP had amended the existing policies to conform with the Local Plan. 6. With regard to discussing current/future planning applications, the Parish Council should speak to Simon Thomas, Planning Manager at CCC. 7. It was asked ifthe Conyngham Lane site (Site 2, Policy C3, BNP) was outside the village envelope. It was confirmed that there is no formal village envelope [confine boundary line on a map] policy within the CCC Local Plan (see paragraph 1.621) and applications are judged against policy instead. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Hea|th—check report 8. It was agreed that CCC would provide information to BNPG so that they can consider any requirement to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as described in the recent BNP hea|th—check.. 9. It was agreed to check if CCC had undertaken a site assessment and Sustainability Appraisal of the Conyngham Lane sitez. 10. It was confirmed that the BNPG has written to all three major landowners within the Parish regarding potential sites. 11. LG is going to look through the Village Design Statement to see if any additional wording is required [to be regarded] as a material consideration. Important Local Green Space Assessment Framework 12. CCC agreed to share their Local Green Space Designation assessment template with the BNP (attached). 1 2 This was subsequently forwarded to the BNPG and is to be posted on the parish website. Revised timetable Gantt Chart 13. JB agreed to update the NP Gantt and circulate. Any other business 14. It was agreed to discuss [appointing] the Examiner at the next meeting. 15. Date of next meeting to be confirmed in March. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan — Recommended Amendments Recommended Change Reason Vision: By 2030 Bridge will be a sustainable, identifiable village community that will value; its open space and separation from Canterbury. It will lialjvedevelopg local services and transport links tfie provide residents with a strong safe community identity. The historic fabric of the Village slaeu-l-elfl-be preserved. Amended wording to that more appropriate for a vision. Policy A1: The loss of business premises used for A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses to other uses where this requires planning permission will not be permitted supported unless: a) it can be demonstrated that the use of the premises for these purposes is no longer viable; or b) the proposed alternative use would provide benefits for the local economy and community equal to or greater than the current use. Amendments to reflect the fact that many such changes of use are Permitted Development. Policy A2: pflroposals for the development of new B1 business uses and Live—Work Units, within the built up area boundary of Bridge will be ‘ provided they: i. do not lead to the loss of A1 shops or of community facilities; ii. do not harm local residential amenity; and iii. comply with other relevant policies in the Development P|an. Amendments to meet concerns of Kent Downs AONB and avoid duplication with national policy on flood risk. Policy B1: Development proposals must integrate with and take opportunities to expand the local cycle route network, take mm Amendments to simplify the policy and combine it with B2. especially the cycle routes shown on Map 12. e eyele-reu-te-net-wei=l<— As above Policy B3: All development proposals sheulel-be adequate off street parking_,— with Kent County Council Highways parking standards, as set out in Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking Standards or any update Qeve|opment applications that would significantly increase parking Amendment to meet KCC concerns and to provide clear direction to the decision—maker. problems in Bridge will be refused.sl=reulel-be mm Policy C1: % new development must+a-) be designed to a high quality which responds to the heritage, landscape and locally distinctive character and ' ' of Bridge as lai-el—eu-tdescribed in the Village Design Statement,—by—way-efThis will include careful consideration of: -a)_i.’cl1:eheight, scale, spacing, ifiplayout, orientation, design and materials of buildings; i-i=p)_ the scale, design and materials of the public realm (highways, footways, open space and landscape); pb) be-synci-pat-het-iete the need to conserve and enhance the fabric and setting of any heritage asset; ed) f-el-low-the need to conserve and enhance Conservation Areas and the Kent Downs AONB as set out in guidance in the Conservation Area Appraisals and Management P|ans,Ld the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan and its associated Design Guidance ; e) utilising sustainable building design, including energy efficiency and use of renewable energy; f) incorporating the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ (SBD31) and, wherever possible, achieve SBD accreditation to ensure that a safe and sustainable community is maintained. g) providing sufficient garden space for any existing and new dwellings in character with this rural area; elh) respeet respecting the natural contours of a’cl1_e site;-anelpreteet-5-and retaining existing important landscape features such as trees, hedges and ponds; and contributing towards landscape enhancement, including new open space where appropriate. i) utilising native species in new landscaping to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area and provide appropriate habitats for t-he-site; je) creati_nge safe, accessible and well- connected environments that meet the needs of users; I recommend that this is made into a general design policy rather than just for housing as this would avoid duplication in other policies and be simpler to use. kf) avoiding unacceptable levels of light, noise, air or water po||ution,Ld protecting the tranquillity and dark night skies of the area; lg) maki_nge best use of the site to accommodate development. Deleted on the basis that this allocation will be dealt with by the Local Plan. Kent Downs AONB recommends general support for affordable housing with criteria for percentages of open market sites and exception sites. However this is already covered by the Local Plan and is a fast changing area at national level so I do not recommend including such a policy. |.. .|“.H I I“. See comments in main report about the principle of site allocations. Policy C4: Development proposals on brownfield sites will be permitted subject to the other relevant policies in the Development Plan. Development proposals on greenfield sites must demonstrate that Ma-xi-mise the use of alternative brown field sites for heusi-ngfi development field-si-teshas been fully explored and justify why the use of a greenfield site is necessary. Amendments to clarify how a decision—maker on a planning application should apply the preference for development on brownfield sites. Duplicates Policy C1 as amended. Duplicates Policy C1 as amended. Duplicates Policy C1 as amended. Deleted on KCC SUDs Team recommendation as it duplicated Policy E2. Policy C9: No new development sha_Heulel take place on any site unless a thorough archaeological investigation of the site has been undertaken and measures but in place to record and preserve any important archaeological features. Amendment to ensure that any features found are protected. Policy D1: The loss of services and facilities of use to the community will not be supported permitted unless: a) they are to be replaced with services and facilities of an equal or higher quality and value to the community on the same site or another equally suitable site within the parish; or b) where the services and facilities can be demonstrated to be no longer needed or viable, any proposed alternative use would provide equal or greater benefits to the local economy and community, including through contributions to development on other sites. Amendment reflects use of policy to direct decision—maker rather than an indication of PC support. Duplicates Policy D1 Duplicates Policy C1 as amended. Policy D4: m Deve|opment proposals must retain and where appropriate enhance public rights of way and open green spaces around the village, as shown on Map X, which contribute to the health and well being of the residents. Amendments to make it more relevant to development proposals and to reflect CCC’s recommendation to include a map. Fl. ERF .. I . F F.|..F I .|.| .” _ Covered by Policy D1. Fl. Em: . E EFF. ,,m.|. Covered by Policy D1 and Local Plan. Amendment as recommended by the Environment Agency. Supporting text should make it clear how important this issue is to Bridge and the River Nailbourne. 7 All development proposals need to be supported by surface water management strategy, which uses sustainable drainage system features to attenuate and restrict the rate and volume of surface water leaving the site. Surface water strategies should demonstrate that it will be feasible to balance surface water run—off to the greenfield run—off rate for all events up to the 1 in 100 year storm (including additional 30% climate change allowance) and set out how this will be achieved. Where sites are brownfield a strategy should always seek a betterment in the surface water runoff regime taking into consideration the Environment Agency document Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3). Surface water strategies should also include details of a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. Deleted as Environment Agency and KCC SUDs Team consider this issue adequately covered by national policy. Duplicates Policy D4. This would not be compliant with national policy and paving over of front gardens is p generally Permitted Development. Policy C1 as park-i-ng-spaees= amended will require adequate garden space for existing and new dwellings. Covered by amended Policy C1. spaeesn Policy F4: Development proposals that reduce the sense of openness and separation between Bridge and Canterbury m will not be permitted to ensure that the individual identity of these two settlements is retained. Amendment to give a clear steer to the decision—maker. The area this policy relates to should also be shown on the Policies Map. .| .E. I. I F I“ }_ Covered by Policy D4 in-eernnoru-ni-t-y-use Covered by Policy D4 Covered by Policy C1 as amended. Covered by Policy C1 as amended. Covered by Policy C1 as amended. Rural community profile for Bridge (Parish) Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) Rural evidence project October 2013 .0 $3 :.»_...CT|.3.\_ T“ M Action with Communities in Rural Kent % .h:flc1 cdtbfifimudtbtnn I--:_|nI' Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J Finding your way around this profile report A national review carried out by John Egan highlighted a set of characteristics that a community should have in order to create thriving, vibrant, sustainable communities to improve the quality of life of its residents. These characteristics were broken down into a set of themes, around which this report for Bridge is structured Social and cultural See pages 5-12 for information on who lives in the local community, how the local community is changing and community cohesion... Equity & prosperity See pages13-21 for information on deprivation, low incomes, poor health and disability in the local community... Economy See pages 22-27 for information on the labour market, skills and resident employment... Housing & the built environment See pages 28-33 for information on housing in the local area, household ownership, affordability and housing conditions... Transport and connectivity See pages 34-37 for information on access to transport and services within the local area... E Senlices See pages 38-39 for information on distance to local services... ? Environmental See pages 40-41 for information on the quality of the local environment... .1... ‘ Ill Governance See pages 42-43 for information on the level of engagement within the local community... This report was commissioned by Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) and the Rural Community Councils from Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI), www.ocsi.co.uk / 01273 810 270. ACRE would like to thank DEFRA for their support and provision of Ordnance Survey data and licensing, OS license number 100022861. ©ACRE/ OCSI 2013. This report, or any part, may be reproduced in any format or medium, provided that is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The source must be identified and the title of the publication specified with the copyright status acknowledged. Ania: v.n’r£v to-1-.nlun:n Q-‘IILIIIII’ L Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. Introduction Profiling the sustainability of communities in rural England If you live or work in your community, you will no doubt already have some good ideas about its strengths and weaknesses and how things can be improved. However, in order to effect real change it is essential that you back this up with evidence and discuss it with members of your community. There is a great deal of ‘hard’ data published that is useful for rural communities. However, this information is rarely brought together; profiles of areas tend to be produced for Local Authorities and other administrative areas, rather than ‘real’ communities. ACRE therefore commissioned Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) to develop a set of profiles for each of the rural communities in England. How this profile is intended to help you This profile brings together up to date quantitative data for your area, to help you when deciding which actions and activities to prioritise locally. Each of the sections shows data for Bridge, comparing with other areas (local authority and national averages), and with trends over time where data is available. The data is intended to help you discuss questions like: o Where are we now? o What change has taken place in the past? 0 What are the strengths (and weaknesses) in our community? o What changes would we like to see in future, and what needs to be done? Of course, we cannot show all the data for all the issues that you might be interested in, so under each section we have highlighted further data that could be collected by you, and links to more detailed data that could be available, e.g., held by local organisations. The profile report has been designed so that you can work through each of the sections, orjump straight to the most useful parts using the index on page 2 or using the links to other relevant pages in the report at the bottom of each page. Jlxlborl mrlu Ennnunmu nu Is.“-alkiml Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L How we have created this profile for Bridge The Parish of Bridge is in the Local Authority of Canterbury, in the area served by Action with Communities in Rural Kent. To create this profile, OCSI have developed datasets for all rural communities in England, including parishes, towns and villages. To do this, we have used the Office for National Statistics (ONS) definitions of parishes and urban areas; the data for Bridge is based on this ONS definition which is shown in the map on the following page (due to the differences in definition, there may be small differences between the data provided in this profile and data published in the Census Parish Profiles). You can access this and the other community profiles at the Rural Evidence website, www.rural—evidence.org.uk (you will need a login from ACRE to access the reports). The main datasets used in this report are shown in the introduction to each section. Full details of each indicator and data sources are available at www.rural—evidence.org.uk. About the Community Led Planning Toolkit and other a I/ailable suppon‘ You can use this profile of your community to inform the development of a Community Led Plan. A Community Led Plan is an opportunity for your community to take action and improve your area based on a detailed understanding of local needs and aspirations. Guidance in ACRE’s national toolkit for Community Led Planning shows you how you can use the information presented in this profile to identify key features and characteristics of your community which you may want to investigate further and discuss with other people locally. This information will help you to plan actions for the improvement of your area that are better informed and more likely to benefit everyone locally. To obtain a copy of ACRE’s national toolkit for Community Led Planning, including specific guidance on the use of this community profile, please contact Action with Communities in Rural Kent or visit www.acre.org.uk. Map of Bridge (Parish) Bridge Parish , - Pond Cot1ages- gm‘ ' \ - Patrixbourne V‘ I ___\ r— V V‘ r Old igenuuie“ U ‘ . Farmhousx: ‘ ,V: V Bifron's Park Shepherds Cottage .-.i 8'“h‘_..Iln « Whi ehnii Wcod ,-,. 'MIdd| ""/’ Farmhouse Lmie I Pet: Farm :- Bourne Park O ardres ‘ ': lLénhal| Farlm Cottage ' Little All rights reserved Oldnance Survey Licence number I0O022&3i i "' ~v .mii /atxui .1 n1 an/L ©Cmwn Copynghl Em: database right 2013 W A source 2011 cansus outpm/nu bounaanas Crown cupvngm Crown Copynghl maleml IS reproduced will the DGMIISSIJH oi the controller oi HMSO Produced hy Dxlom consonants for Social lnoiusion. www ocsn to uk. Aanl 20I3 Acflaluflbflunndficnn n-I-"Ia-I‘ ’ Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L qt}! Social and cultural: Introduction What does a sustainable community look like ? What other information might be available? Active, inclusive and safe. Fair, tolerant and cohesive with a strong local culture and As with all analysis in this report, we have used data published for all small areas across other community activities the country, aggregated to local rural areas. Additional detailed local datasets may be available from organisations such as the local authority, while some useful data is . . . 7 What do sustainable Communities Offer‘ published nationally only for larger geographies (so cannot be broken—down for local rural o A sense of community identity and belonging; areas) other retevant data inotodest ° Toterancet reSPeCt and engagement Witn Peepie frern different CUitUreS, o More detailed breakdowns of population sizes by age and gender are available baekgretind and beliefs; from census 2011 (http://www.data4nr.net/resources/1605/). ° FriendiYi C0-0PeratiVe and neiPfUi benaVi0Ur in neiQnb0Urn00dS§ o Annual migration estimates, including internal and international migration, are - Opportunities for cultural, leisure, community, sport and other activities, including published by the Office for National Statistics at Local Authority level, see fer Cniidren and Y0UnQ Pe0Pie§ www.data4nr.net/resources/960. o Low levels of crime, drugs and antisocial behaviour with visible, effective and . Data on birtns, including birtns by gender/ etnnicity of baby and age / Country of community-friendly policing; birth of mother, are also published at Local Authority level, o Social inclusion and good life chances for all. WWW_data4nr_net/resources/435_ o Population projections data by age and gender to 2033 are available at Local Authority level, see www.data4nr.net/resources/797. Sub heading Indicators o The police now publish maps of recorded crime offences and anti—social behaviour Using this repon‘ to explore Social and Cultural data for Bridge Who lives in the local Population by age and gender, Country of birth, Household ‘ enter Your postcode into the Website at to See this for Your iooai community? composition area, as well as details of your local community policing team and events. How is the local population Population , National Insurance Number registrations for Overseas . Many Communities have Carried out local Surveys asking Similar questions’ to d t dth t th fth 't ht rt 't' th I ll d changing? Nationals, Migration uni ers -an es reng o e communl y, a oppo unl l-es ere are oca y an _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ to identify particular areas of concern for residents and businesses. How strong IS the local Community Strength indicators, Participation in sport community? How safe is the local lndices of Deprivation 2010 Crime domain , Notifiable offences community? recorded by the Police , Perceptions of crime 1:.-lion u-HI: Connuniih. ll fibril.‘-KIII1 Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J \ {WI Social and cultural: Who lives in the local community? (1) Although you probably have a good idea of who lives in your area, knowing the actual numbers — and how these are changing over time — can help you decide which actions and activities to prioritise locally. For example, if the population size is increasing more quickly than in other areas, it may be useful to think about pressure on housing and services. Similarly, the numbers of lone parents or older people has been used by communities when thinking about what additional services, such as care support for older people, may be needed. W/731‘/nformal/on is shown here? The information boxes on the right show the numbers of people and households in Bridge, with counts of groups by age, ethnic minority and those born outside the UK. They also show groups who may be particularly vulnerable — lone parents and older people living alone, as well as the dependency ratio (the ratio of non—working age to working age population). The chart on the right shows the population breakdown by age group for Bridge, with local and National comparators. The charts on the following page show the population by 5 year age bands and by gender in Bridge, as well as population breakdowns by ethnic group, household composition and those born outside of England, each with national comparisons. Where next? On page 8 we show how the population is changing over time, to see if groups such as younger people are more likely to be moving out of the area. Data on community cohesion and belonging can be found on page10. Information on levels of local engagement is in the section on Governance (page 42). Information on numbers of houses and housing type is in the section on housing (page 27). sedan;-lune-u-lunl. n-3-"Iml' Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. HOW |m?.ny How many Children under Working age Older people peop e We households? 16 adults over 65 locally? L575 645 810 45.2% male; 18::/;(:"eg'_a"d 51':\(:/;r(:"e‘“_a"d 30.4% (England 54.8% female 18 9:) 64 7:) average = 16.3%) Lone parent . . People from families Single pensioner Black or People born Dependency . . households Minority ethnic outside the UK Ratio with children groups 14.6% of all families with h::8e(::;::S 7.3% (England 7.7% (England En land a era e _ dependent (En |:nd avera e average: average: 9 05: g _ children (England 9: 12 47) 9 20.2%) 13.8%) ' average = 24.5%) ' D Population by age 100% _§ 80% E 3 0 3 60/0 E § 3 40% S’ 20% 0% Bridge Kent England IAged 0-15 IWorking age IAged 65+ Source: Census 2011 (table KS102E\/\/) L w! Social and cultural: Who lives in the local community? (2) Population estimates by 5 year age band 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 Females 15 10 5 O 5 10 % oftotal population in each age band Population by household composition 40 35 30 25 20 15 % of all households 10 Pensioner Student Other One person Married households households Cohabiting Lone—parent households families households households households I Bridge I England Source: Census 2011 (tables KS201EW, KS204EW and KS105E\/\/) lcflalmfitbnndfitll hi‘-LI-Ill- Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. Population by ethnic group ©Af\JC»J-J>(.!'IO3\l®L0 White non—British Mixed Asian Black Other I Bridge I England Population born outside England 1 ©Af\JCA)-J><.!'IO3\l®LO© People born in People born in People born in People born in People born in People born Scotland Wales Northern Ireland Republic of other EU elsewhere Ireland countries I Bridge I England RH}! Social and cultural: How is the local population changing? (1) Many local rural communities highlight that younger groups — particularly families — are moving out. This is often due to lack of affordable housing, or not having suitable employment and training opportunities. These groups are often replaced by more affluent older families, for example moving in from urban areas. Information on this issue has been used to help identify the need for particular types of housing or services in local communities, to ensure that people have the opportunity to stay in the local area. W/731‘/nformal/on is shown here? The information boxes on the top right show the number of national insurance number registrations by overseas nationals in Bridge and the number of people who have moved address in the last 12 months. This information is replicated in the charts on the following page. The chart on the left shows the level of inward and outward migration in the local area (this does not include births or deaths). This is expressed as a rate per 1,000 for each age group. The right—hand bars (dark purple) show people moving into the area. The Ieft—hand bars (light purple) show people moving out of the area. Higher values for a particular group indicate that this age—group is more likely to move into or out of the area. The chart to the right shows the change in the total population between 2001 and 2011 for Bridge, the local authority, and the change across England. Where next? In the section on Equity & prosperity (page 13) we look at changes over time in the proportion of vulnerable groups living in the local area, including children in poverty and those on DWP benefits. For data on housing and affordability of the local area see the section on housing (page 28). For information on skills and employment levels in the local area see the section on the Economy (page 22). -A. kilm u-I‘.-Ia tonne-nu. nu bra In! Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L National Insurance Number registrations People who have moved address within the last 12 of overseas months (2001) nationals 8.9% (England average = 12.2%) % change in total population from 2001 -2011 3.8% (England average = 1.6%) 12% - 10% 8% 6% 4% Change over time from 2001 2% 0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Bridge — — Kent --- England Source: People who have moved address (Census 2001: table KS 24), Population Change 2001-2011 (ONS Mid Year Estimates/Census 2011, National Insurance No. registrations (DWP 2011/12) {WI Social and cultural: How is the local population changing? (2) Level ofinward and outward migration (by age) I People moving in (inward migration) Aged 65+ I People moving out (outward migration) Aged 45-64 Aged 25-44 Aged 15-24 Aged 1-14 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 Rate per 1,000 population Numberofoverseas nationals registering with a National Insurance Number 35- 30- 25- N umber of people N O 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Source: Population Turnover rates (ONS 2009/10), National Insurance No. registrations (DWP 2011/12) kflmuirbfiomnflficnn nu-film!" Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L A 4 {ml Social and cultural: How strong is the local community? Many different things can contribute to the strength and sustainability of your community but a good starting point can be to find out how people feel about the area in general. W/731‘/nformal/on is shown here? The data shown is from the national ‘Place Survey’, collected by all local authorities in 2008. Data is only published for the local authority area. However you may be able to get more detailed information from surveys carried out in your local area. The indicators shown are measures of community strength, indicating how satisfied people are with their local area, and whether they felt that they belonged to the area. The data also shows the proportion of adults regularly taking part in sport. As well as an indicator of healthy lifestyles, this can be a useful indicator of the opportunities available in the local area. The bar chart on the right shows how your local authority compares with the national picture. Across England, nearly 80% of people asked were satisfied with their local area as a place to live, and more than three—quarters felt that people from different backgrounds got on well locally. However, only 58% of people nationally felt they actually belonged to their neighbourhood. Where next? See the following sections in this profile for information on deprivation, poverty and health in the local area (page 13), employment opportunities (page 22) and quality of local housing (page 33). For information on levels of local engagement and the voluntary sector see the section on Governance (page 42). -N.'H¢1u'I'!5C¢flIu.flIH1II lb-E-I-fil- Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L “People from “Satisfied with bagigigeungds Aged 65+ Ad”'::S9ed the local area “I belong to the et on We” "satisfied with amci atin in as a place to neighbourhood" gogether in both home and gport §+ tirges We the local naghbourhood each week area" 85% 56% 82% 87% 24% Data shown is D t l ' f ‘ for Canterbury a a s1own is or Data shown is for Canterbury (England = 58%) Data shown is for Canterbury (England = 83%) Canterbury (England = 79%) (England = 76%) Indicators of communitystrength Adults (aged 16+) participating in sport 3+ times each week “Satisfied with the local area as a place to live” “I belong to the neighbourhood” “People from different backgrounds get on well togetherin the local area” Data shown is for Canterbury (England = 22%) 84.6 80.0 79.3 81.7 Aged 65+ "satisfied with both home and 8:36;-9 neighbourhood" 836 % 0 20 40 60 so 100 lCanterbury I Kent I England Source: Place Survey 2008, Sport England Survey 2009 {W Social and cultural: How safe is the local community? (1) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Number of people Crime, fear of crime and anti—social behaviour regularly feature in priorities for |i\/ing in crime local areas. Visible, effective and community—friendly policing can help bring 'h0tSP0tS' down crime levels, as well as reducing people’s fear of crime. Information on 0 actual and perceived crime levels therefore, may help you demonstrate : evidence to support local priorities in these areas. Recorded crime Offences W/731‘/nformal/on is shown here? 40 The information box (in the top right) shows the number of people in the local C 35 area living in crime hotspots. Crime “hotspots” are defined as areas ranked 30 among the most deprived 20% of areas on the lndices of Deprivation 2010 E; crime domain. The chart on the right shows the number of people in Bridge 3 25 C) living in each crime decile. 3 20 The bar chart to the left on the following page shows the level of recorded 3’? 15 ‘cf: crime in the local authority compared with national information for different types of crime (data is not published for the local area). The data is shown as a rate per 1,000 residents (or 1,000 households for burglaries) so you can 5 compare between different areas. The chart to the right on the following page 10 0 shows whether residents perceive there to be a problem in the local area with Overancrrme Vrorerrrcrrme Sexual Offences Burglary Robbery anti—social behaviour, drug use and so on. This data is taken from the Place Survey, and is published at local authority level (and compared to the national 'Ca”‘e”°”'Y 'Ke“‘ I E”9'a”d picture). M//79/’9 /79Xf? Source: lndices of Deprivation 2010, CLG Information on community strength can be found on the above page. See the Equity & prosperity section for information on deprivation, poverty and health in the local area (page 13). For information on participation in the local community see the section on Governance (page 42). Lctiulu-u'r£Do-1-.ni!hInn mar}-"Iun' Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J {W Social and cultural: How safe is the local community? (2) Numberofpeople in each deprivation decile, Crime domain Lower Crime levels Higher crime levels 1,000 922 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Number ofpeople Least Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Most deprived deprived 10% 10% Perceptions ofcrime "Drug use or drug dealing is a problem |oca||y" "Drunk or rowdy behaviour is a problem |oca||y" "Parents take responsibility for their children's behaviour |oca||y" "Anti—socia| behaviour is a problem |oca||y" 0 5 10 15 90 95 30 35 I Canterbury I Kent I England % Source: Recorded crime (Home Office 2011/12), Perceptions of crime (Place Survey 2008) Ju-ummuamu.-inn... n-3-"Imu' Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L Q Equity and prosperity: Introduction What does a sustainable community look like ? Fair for everyone, including those in other communities, now and in the future What do sustainable communities ofi'er? o They recognise individuals‘ rights and responsibilities; o Respect the rights and aspirations of others (both neighbouring communities, and across the wider world) also to be sustainable o Have due regard for the needs of future generations in current decisions and acfions. Using this repon‘ to explore data on Equity & prosperity for Bridge How deprived is the local area? Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Working Age Client Group, Households experiencing multiple deprivation People living on a low income Income Support, Pension Credit, Economic Deprivation Index 2009, Fuel Poverty, Housing/Council Tax Benefit, Households below median income Children Children in out of work households, Children in Poverty, Children in lone parent households, Child Wellbeing Index 2010, Pupil attainment — Average Point Score at Key Stage 2 and 4 Poor health and disability lndices of Deprivation 2010 Health domain, Limiting long- term illness, Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance .I::I|OI'I '.4|.'lICI'.|rIrru'I||II In Ran Null Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L What other information might be a I/ai/ab/e? As with all analysis in this report, we have used data published for all small areas across the country, aggregated to local rural areas. Additional detailed local datasets may be available from organisations such as the local authority, while some useful data is published nationally only for larger geographies (so cannot be broken—down for local rural areas). Other relevant data includes: Data on wage levels is published at local authority district level, but your local authority may have access to commercial data on local area wages such as CACI Paycheck data. Housing Benefit data (published at Local Authority level) provides information on households living in low income see www.data4nr.net/resources/373 Morbidity data: prevalence of non—fatal (possibly recurrent) health conditions may be available from PCTs for local areas Data on maternity related health outcomes, including infant mortality, still births and low birth weight are collected by the ONS at Local Authority level http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/population/births—and—fertility/live—births—and— stillbirthsl Prevalence of mental health issues, including dementia, and numbers of people with learning disabilities are collected by the Projecting Adult Needs and Services information system (PANSI) for upper tier Local Authorities http://www.pansi.org.uk/ A range of sexual health indicators are collected and published by the Health Protection Agency at Local Authority level http://www.data4nr.net/resources/health——disability/ 1469/ Office for National Statistics: Measuring National Well—being — Health publication http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring—national—well— being/health/index.html Q Equity and prosperity: How deprived is the local area? (1) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Number of people living in the most Working—age DWP benefit Households experiencing The idea of ‘deprivation’ is based on more than Just poverty, with the standard national deprived 20% of areas in England eiairnanie multiple deprivation (1) measure of deprivation — the ‘Index of Multiple Deprivation’ (or IMD) — based on income, 0 47 01 unemployment, health, education and skills, housing, crime, environment and access to services. The IMD can be used to identify whether local areas are deprived compared to Other areas across E”9'a”d- Source: IMD 2010 (CLG), Working age Benefits (DWP Aug—12), Multiple deprivation (Census 2011) However, many deprived people do not live in deprived areas. Although there is no single indicator that encapsulates all different dimensions of deprivation and exclusion for people in rural areas, indicators of those on benefits (including national DWP benefits, and local authority Council Tax and Housing Benefits) can provide a general measure covering low income, employment and health issues. What information is shown here? The data on the following page shows whether any local areas are highly deprived, and if so identifies how many people are living in such areas based on the national Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010. Data also shows the number and proportion of people locally receiving benefits and the number of households experiencing multiple deprivationl. The line chart shows the proportion of working—age people receiving benefits, showing the trend over time and comparisons against the local authority and national averages. Where next? Data on people living on a low income is shown on the next page, and those with poor health on the following page. The next section on the Economy shows data for people who are out—of—work or with low skills (page 22). 1 Multiply deprived households are households experiencing four measures ofdeprivation: all adult household members have no qualifications; at least one household member is out ofwork; at least one household member has a limiting long—term illness; the household is living in overcrowded conditions. Taken from census 2011 table QS119EW .li:|mn '.AI.'"cfll1fl'|l'I||II I.I Rauxlirnl Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J % Equity and prosperity: How deprived is the local area? (2) Numberofpeople in each deprivation decile, lndexof Multiple Deprivation 2010 '-°Wer deP”Va“°” Higher deprivation 11600 1,507 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 20° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number of people Least Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Most deprived deprived 10% 10% Working age population claiming DWP benefitclaimants (for all DWP benefits) ,9 18- C (U -E 16 ' __-, L3 14 -~""“‘*-~—/“"""" ---------- —-——-- ./I ...... ..‘‘--—-——-—‘~-— 3: ‘--' I ' ' ' - - . o . - o a . . . o . a - ' ° ' ' ° 0- 2 12 _ ........................................................................................ .. CD _CD g_ 10 ' E D 3 - CD Q 5 _ E” E 4 ' O E 2 3 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O "°5 Bridge """" " Kent --"-"' England Source: IMD 2010 (CLG), Working age Benefits (DWP Aug—12), Multiple deprivation (Census 2011) Iuflllcwl '.4I.'lIcfll'!fl'|J'II|II I.1 R.'rJ‘-Iilfll Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J L Q Equity and prosperity: People living on a low income (1) People living on a low income are among the most deprived groups in society. This can mean that they have severe difficulty in paying for even basic household expenses such as food and heating, or taking up employment or training opportunities due to costs such as travel and childcare. Although many of those living on very low incomes are out—of— work, an increasing number of people below the poverty line (60% of the national average wage) are in low—paid work. What information is shown here? Housing Benefit (H B) can be claimed by a person if they are liable to pay rent and if they are on a low income. Council Tax Benefit (CTB) is designed to help people on low- income to pay their Council Tax. These indicators provide a measure of the number of households living in low income. Income Support is a measure of people of working age with low incomes and is a means tested benefit payable to people aged over 16 working less than 16 hours a week and having less money coming in than the law says they need to live on. Pension credit is a measure of people over 65 living in low income households. Data on people living in ‘income deprivation’ comes from the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, and is based on people receiving low income benefits as well as those with household living in poverty. Households are defined as in ‘poverty’ if their equivalised income (after size of household is taken into account) is below 60% of the median income (after housing costs). In 2007/08 a househoId’s net equivalised income would need to be below £199 for it to be classified as in poverty. Fuel poverty is said to occur when in order to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth a household needs to spend more than 10% of its income on total fuel use. The chart on the right shows the average weekly household income estimate (equivalised to take into account variations in household size) across Bridge and comparator areas (before and after housing costs). The two line charts on the following page show change over time of income support and pension credit claimants. .l::I|oI'I :I|.'lIcI'll1fI'|l'II|II I.I Rafi‘-Iilnl Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. Housing and Council Tax . . Pension Credit claimants Benefit claimants Income Support claimants Households below 60% of the median income, after housing costs (as a % of all households) People living in ‘income deprivation’ (Economic Deprivation Index) Households estimated to be in 'Fuel Poverty’ 31 14.9% I I iall ;'«:":«,'uli‘ .l‘;Il‘:,‘I=‘lI Ll I‘; (El Ix; l:—n I II Eliijl Eiflil = We .1”: H I‘: 1 Weekly household earnings (£) 900 ' £820 800 700 600 (5) 500 400 300 200 100 0 Bridge Kent England I Total weekly household income estimate I Netweekly household income estimate after housing costs Source: Income Support/Pension Credit (DWP Aug—12), Economic Deprivation Index 2009, Fuel Poverty (Department for Energy and Climate Change 2009), Housing/Council Tax Benefit (DWP 2005), Households below median income (ONS 2008) Q Equity and prosperity: People living on a low income (2) Income Supportclaimants 7 _ 2 6 ' ------—-..--__-_ 3 ------ -—-—--_________~ 8 ‘--—--‘ g 5 - ................................................................................. _. \~‘__~- m u... s_.-‘. E, 4 ................. __ N‘ E ............ _.~_.\ § 3 ' "'7 E *5 2 - * VV\%A_A; 1 . 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9“s3"‘9"v<>" "9" 9“’,5é‘s$‘sS‘s$‘°"9“"" vs“ "s=‘°'~°'~°~°'~°'~"~"'~"'~"<"'3'<" . , , V, , . . , «<'*§”\~“°w\°‘I<° \x~"*v e°‘«° xx~"’\~“'°‘::3<° \t~”\é’°\=‘°“I<*’:\~""v"°$:\"‘I<° \x~"’\v°°‘:\"‘<<° s~"’\~“'°e‘3<° \»“’\~“°\=‘°“«‘3°(xx~"\°°5 Bridge °°°°° " Kent """ England Pension Creditclaimanls Increase from 2010 due to new definition of pensionable age (all people aged 65+) % of all people of pensionable age In‘ 8 p..-.-.___ 25 _ '1 ‘--ug‘ 20-1 10 - 5 . 0--------- nu -------- £95 ‘,«s\’°h ‘Xe’? gs‘? 9&6’ ‘,o«’°% ‘Xe’? ‘,=:>\§\ §”« ‘gs’? es’? «s99 ‘X0339 ‘,5 V\o<"‘° ‘gtfikk $03 9'9 Bridge °°°°° " Kent -"'-' England Source: DWP Aug—12 .Iu:||on '.AI.'":fll1fI'|J'II|II I.I Ezra?-Iirnl Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J Q Equity and prosperity: Children (1) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Number of people living Nationally, children and older people are more likely to be living in low income and in the most deprived chiidreri iri void of chiidreri iri idrie Cmdren _n po en . . .. . . . . - . I I v y these groups generally are indicators of vulnerability within an area. Reducing child 20% Ofafeas "I Work h°“5eh°'°'S Parent h°“5eh°'°'S (2010) . . . . . . . England on the Child (2011) (2010) poverty is therefore a major element of building sustainable communities. Wellbeing index W/731‘/nformal/on is shown here? 0 This page looks at the Child Wellbeing index (CWI), children in out of work households, children in poverty and children in lone parent households. The CWI is a small area index measuring child wellbeing — how children are doing in a number of different NUmb9I°f|°9°|°'9 I“ 93°“ d9|°”V3fi°“ d9°”9»Ch”d W9'”°9I“9 '”d9X2009 aspects 01' their life-2 Higher child wellbeing Lower child wellbeing Children in ‘out of work’ households, are defined as dependent children living in families ‘I000 ' 922 where all adults are in receipt of Income Support or income—based Jobseeker/s Allowance (IS/JSA). The children in poverty measure shows the proportion of children 800 (aged 0-15) in families in receipt of out of work benefits, or in receipt of tax credits 700 ' where their reported income is less than 60% median income. Out of work means- tested benefits include: lncome—Based Jobseekers Allowance, incapacity benefits and Income Support. 900 - 600 - 500 - 400 - Number ofpeople 300 - The information boxes on the right show the count of people in each of these categories in Bridge. The chart on the right shows the number of people living in neighbourhoods grouped according to level of child wellbeing deprivation. The charts on the following 0 _ page Show the year on year Change in the proportion of Children in out of Work and lone Least Deci|e2 Deci|e3 Deci|e4 Deci|e5 Deci|e6 Deci|e7 Deci|e8 Deci|e9 Most parent households, as well as information on pupil attainment in the local area. deprived deprived 10% 10% 200 - 100 - Source: Children in out of work households (HMRC 2011), Children in Poverty/Lone parent households (HMRC 2010), Child Wellbeing Index 2010 2 The CWI covers: Material wellbeing — children experiencing income deprivation; Health and disability — children experiencing illness, accidents and disability; Education — education outcomes including attainment, school attendance and destinations at age 16; Crime — personal or material victimisation of children; Housing — access to housing and quality of housing for children; Environment — aspects of the environment that affect chi|dren’s physical we||—being; Children in need — vulnerable children receiving LA services. .li:||cin '.4I."'cfll1fl'|l'II|II i.1 R.-uxlhnl Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J Q Equity and prosperity: Children (2) Children in ‘out of work‘ (receiving IB/IS/J SA) households Pupil attainmentat Key Stage 1 and Key Stage2 3 25 0, 35 302 27.6 27.7 -E E 30 % 20 -_..-----_.._......--_-......_-..~“ "_- -____-_. U) 25 2 ~-~--,-—— _,u"u. E 20 E -------------u---.................................... ..--"' ""----.. '5 15 CD -...,___u____..- n. 5 15 g 10 -Q E 5 E (D E 5 0 g Key Stage 1 Key Stage 2 “5 $ KS1 Average Point Score per pupil is made up from the Reading, Writing, Mathematics and Science point scorfi where score of 27=level 4, 21=level 3, 15=level 2 (the expected level), 9=level 1, 3=below level 1.KS2 Average Point Score per 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' pupil is made up from the Reading, Writing, Mathematics and Science point scorfi where score of 33=level 5, 27=level 4 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (the expected level),21=level 3, 15=level 2. Bridge -------U Kent ----- Eng|and I Bridge I Kent I England Childre” “Vi”9 i” '°”e parem families Gap in pupil attainment at Key stage 4 (difference from the National average) ,,, 30 E 1_-_-__-----_-_----__--------——------------------ 120 .§ 25 - 0"“____,...---..........,,_______.__,,,.................................................. E 100 % 20 _ g 5 U) 60 .Q ‘- 2 15 - -E 40 2° I I E E & I ‘J I I « I % I Q I Q I T 5 - - 0 0 o N \ '19 »° «§‘° «»°° '19 »° '19 «s 0 . . . . . 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 National average = 0, ascore of >0 = better than the national average, ascore of< 0 = worse than Bridge Kent ----- England national average Source: Children in out of work households (H MRC 2011), Children lone parent households (HMRC 2010), Pupil attainment at Key Stage 2 and 4 (Department for Education 2010/11) juflllcwl '.4|.'lI CI'.II1rru'II|II I.1 Earl‘-Iilfll Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J Q Equity and prosperity: Poor health and disability Health is a fundamental factor in wellbeing and quality of life, having a direct impact on an individual’s ability to live a fulfilling and enjoyable life and also indirectly impacting on their ability to sustain standards of living through income. Poor health may also have a severe effect on other people, either directly through changing relationships (for example forcing family members into informal unpaid care), or through indirect effects such as change in household income. What information is shown here? The data in the first information box shows whether any local areas are highly deprived based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) health domain 2010, and if so identifies how many people are living in such areas. The other information boxes show the number (and proportion) of people who identified themselves as having a limiting long—term health issue, as well as those receiving government benefits for reasons of poor health (Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance). The chart on the right shows the number of people in Bridge living in each health deprivation decile on the IMD health domain. The charts on the following page show the time trends for Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance claimants, as well as the proportion of people with limited long term illness in the local area with local and national comparators. Where next? For information on access to transport, travel times and distances to health services (hospitals and GPs) see the sections on Transport (page 34) and Services (page 38). .I::I|OI'I '.u.'IICI'.Inrru'I||II I.I Ran Iirrll Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L Numberofpeople in each deprivation decile, Health domain Lower health deprivation 1,000 - 900 - 800 - 700 ' 600 - 500 - Number of people 400 ' 300 - 200 ' 100 - 0 0 Least Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 depnved 10% 922 0 Number of people living People with a limiting Attendance Disability Living in health deprivation long—term illness (aged Allowance claimants Allowance 'hotspots' 16-64) (aged 65+) claimants Higher health deprivation 0 0 0 0 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Most deprived 10% Source: lndices of Deprivation 2010 Health domain, Limiting long—term illness (Census 2011), Attendance Allowance/Disability Living Allowance (DWP Aug—12) Q Equity and prosperity: Poor health and disability Adults with adisability (receiving Disability Living Allowance) People with a limiting long-term illness 6.0 - 5.0‘ _.—-—-"—o-""".-J: .. ~ .. —— -* ’ ’ — — ...-..,.............-------- People withalimitinglong—tenn illness (0-64) § 3.0 - x 2'0 - Allpeople with limiting |or1Q~term illness 1.0 - 0.0 .......................................... %ofal|P90P|e 0 5 10 15 20 25 §”9'”9‘”9'” 9"‘9°’9°’s§°9“’9">9s:“°9‘°9“9":~°:~°:~":~":3' 4 4 4 ~\ 4 ~\ 4 ~\ 4 ~\ 5"‘ e° ‘:3’ e° ‘$0 e° ‘st’ e° xv‘ e° 5*‘ e° $5 e° «'0 e° $7‘ e° 5*‘ =\° $5 . IBr|dge IKent IEngland Bridge Kent - -- - England O'der pe°p'e with Sociamare needs (receiving Atte”da”CeA"°Wa”Ce) Source: Limiting long-term illness (Census 2011), Attendance Allowance/Disability Living Allowance (DWP 2 . 5 Aug—12) CD 57 m 20 - 2 ‘Q an : 9 _% 15 _ __ _ __ J-__. 8 ..... Q sun 0- In E 10 _ % 8 E 5 ' Increase in 2009 following change in definition of k pensionable age (excluding females aged 60-64) 0 ......................................... 9”’s$”s$”.o"~’sa"9“9‘°9‘°9°’ "s$‘s>“’9“s>°9":~°:~°:~":~":~‘” ‘st’ e"“ 9'5‘ e°‘ xv" e°“ xv‘ e°‘ 5°‘ $4 $45‘ :9“ 5°‘ e°‘ ‘>0 e°“ 5°‘ e°“ 9*‘ e"“ 9'6‘ Bridge """" " Kent ‘ - “ England l.:||cwI 14:.-u Cfll1fl'|l'II|II I.1 Earl‘-Iinnl Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J £ Economy: Introduction People in employment What does a sustainable community look like ? Thriving, with a flourishing and diverse local economy What do sustainable communities ofi'er? A wide range ofjobs and training opportunities; Sufficient suitable land and buildings to support economic prosperity and change; Dynamic job and business creation, with benefits for the local community; A strong business community with links into the wider economy; o Economically viable and attractive town centres. Using this repon‘ to explore data on the Economy for Bridge Sub heading Indicators Economic activity, Hours worked, Industry of Employment People out of work Jobseekers Allowance claimants, Employment Support Allowance/Incapacity Benefits/Out of work benefits, Available jobs What are skills levels like? Qualifications Whatjobs do residents have? Industry of Employment , Occupation Group .I:|mn '..|.'i-Cnrlrrurllnl .. n.r.?im: L Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. What other information might be a I/ai/ab/e ? Up—to—date information on employment and jobs for local rural areas is scarce. The Annual Population Survey (APS) provides data for local authorities, but not for smaller areas. The Annual Population Survey also contains estimated data on the levels of job- related training and work based learning in the area. Because of the sample size of the survey, figures are only available at Local Authority level, see www.data4nr.net/resources/226. Some communities have carried out local surveys identifying which skills and courses are most wanted by local residents, and whether there were enough appropriate spaces to carry out training. The national BRES survey provides more detailed local area data on employee jobs by industry of employment and by public/ private sector. To get this data at local area level, you need to request access from the Office of National Statistics (there is a charge, currently £125). Data is available at Local Authority Level and modelled down to Super Output Area, www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/select/getdatasetbytheme.asp?theme=27. There is also published information on local businesses by sector (www.data4nr.net/resources/527), and some areas have also carried out surveys to find out more about what local businesses see as priority issues. The Employers Skills Survey provides information relating to skills gaps reported by employers http://www.ukces.org.uk/ounivork/local—data £ Economy: People in employment Employment levels are usually higher in rural than urban areas, with a gradual shift in many areas towards commuting (see the later section on Transport for information on how far people travel to work from the local area). However, there are also large numbers of economically inactive, part—time employees and people working from home, many of whom may be in the local area during the day and so needing services and facilities. What information is shown here? The data shown opposite shows the number of the ‘economically active’ (i.e. those either working or unemployed, see the following page), and ‘economically inactive’ (including students, home—makers, and retired) groups resident in the local area. Also shown are numbers and proportions of those working, including full or part—time status, self-employed, working from home, and those working in the public sector. The chart on the left shows people in employment by employment status in the local area with national comparator. The chart on the right shows whether residents are working primarily in public or private sectorjobs, for your area compared to England. Where next? Data on unemployment, skill levels and jobs are on the following pages, and data on how far people travel to work is shown in the section on Transport (page 34). mm. m.-n Eunnurwlll .. nur.fi.n: Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L Economically active Economically . . residents inactive residents Full-time employees Part-time employees 680 302 339 1 52 69.2% of people aged 16-74 (England average = 69.9%) 30.8% of people aged 16-74 (England average = 30.1%) 34.5% of people aged 16-74 (England average = 38.6%) 15.5% of people aged 16-74 (England average = 13.7%) Working 49+ hours per week Employed in the Sememployed public sector Working from home 13.3% of people aged 16.5% of people in 16-74 (England employment (England average = 9.8%) average = 13.3%) 275 42.2% of64O people in employment (England = 28.2%) 6.2% of people aged 16-74 (England = 3.5%) People in empbyment’ by empbymentstatus People employed in public and private sectorjobs 70 _ Bndge 60 50 40 30 . England 8% 20 10 0 % of total population aged 16-74 flPeople employed in ‘public’ sectorjobs Bridge England IFull-time I Part-time Iself employed flpeople employed in .private. sectorjobs This data is based on standard definitions: ‘Public sectorjobs‘ are defined asjobs in Health, Education or Public Administration industry sectors. ‘Private sectorjobs‘ are those in other sectors. Voluntary sectorjobs are not identified separately but are included within the public and private Sector figures‘ Source: Census 2011 (tables KS601EW, KS604EW and KS605E\/\/) £ Economy: People out of work (1) Jobseekers Allowance Employment Support Many rural communities have been affected by the recent economic downturns, with Joctigfiaftr: claimants claiming for more Aucwancc / Incapacity unemployment levels rising even in areas that have had few people out of work in the than 12 months (FGM3) Be”e“t°'alma"‘5 (A1194?) past. Being out of work can have a severe impact on an individual’s quality of life, and 08 00 23 not just economically. People out of work may also feel excluded from the local 1.0% of working age adults 0.0% of working age adults 2.8% of working age adults community, and the impacts can also affect partners and children, notjust the person (E"g'a"e average = e'e%) (E"g'a"e average = 1'e%) (E"g'a"e average = em) out of Work‘ Unemployment to 'Available All people receiving 'out of Knowing the number of people out of work — and how this is changing — may help you ‘Jobs. Ratio (NOHZ) Work’ benefits (A”9’12) identify relevant actions for your community plan. For example, areas have used this to 3750 Claimants think about whether suitable training is available, or support for people to start their own per J-Ob 28 businesses, or whether broadband access is good enough forjob—hunting, and so on. 34% ofworking age adults England average = 343.44 (England average = 9-8%) W/731‘/nformal/on is shown here? Unemploymentbenefit(JobseekersAllowance)claimants The best available local data on people out of work is generally claimant data from 4.5 - Jobseekers Allowance (those who are unemployed) and Employment Support Allowance (those who are unable to work due to sickness). 4.0 - 3.5 - The information boxes show the number and proportion of people receiving out—of—work 3'0 a benefits locally, as well as the unemployment to available jobs ratio. The line chart on the right shows the trend in unemployment claimant rates (Jobseekers Allowance) over time compared with the national average. As seen nationally, most areas saw significant increases following the start of the downturn in September 2008. 2.5 - 2.0 ' --.I' 1.0 - % ofworking age population(16—64) 0.5 - The line charts on the following page show the proportion of the working age population 0-0 - claiming incapacity benefits and the ratio of unemployment to available jobs over time. The bar chart shows the total number of vacancies notified to job centre plus in the local area from January 2011 to November 2012. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I &§§@§99°§§909§ we‘ s"°§o\»°»sr skews Vows ssooxs Where next? For data on deprivation and vulnerable groups in the local area see the section on Equity & prosperity (page 13) Source: Jobseekers Allowance claimants (DWP Feb 2013), Employment Support Allowance/Incapacity Benefits/Out of work benefits (DWP Aug 2012), Available jobs (Job Centre Plus Nov 2012) .I:|mn '..|.'i-Cnrlrrurllnl .. itm:ei..: Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J L £ Economy: People out of work (2) Working age population claiming inacapacity benefits (Employmentsupport Allowance and Incapacity Benefit) 8 - _‘_—~-__—~_——~__-~_ C 7 _---- --,_______ ~ _- 3 6 -aIItau¢o0II"""'I -------- ... . . . - - - - - cu ...... nu.-ooauu . n - . . - nu-no-0 --- "'u -. 9- """ "o uuuu no 8 _ Q, 5 01 (E .2 4' E 3 3 ' *5 s’ 2 ' 1 . 0 9% 9Qv9\9\v9WQWv9‘b9‘b°9VQsv9°3b°9b9©v§\§\v9%9%v9%Q%.®.$\N\N(L{L , . . V , V . V v°“v<° \~°“<<° v°‘°«° e’°°<<° v°°<<° >°°’<<° v°°5:° v°“v<° \~°g<<° v°"v<° :~°°<<° >°°<<° \»"°<<° v°°‘ Bridge """" " Kent ----- England Ratio of unemployment (Jobseekers Allowance claimants) to jobs (vacancies notified to JobCentre Plus) 00 O O O O O O O O Unenlployment )3 avagableoiobsogatiofl O O ’‘N'‘\'‘ "'5," \"\"\"\";s"v{'lrv{'1"3’»3"3'r{‘r'3'»3"{1';{1'>{1' . KN . V ‘I , , \ . V . 9, 3"? ¢<° $3’ Y9‘ ‘@ 3°“ 3° V99 9°‘? 0° 9°‘ o°° 9° ~’<° ‘)3’ Bridge ....... .. Kent - ‘H. Action u-I‘.-L Itonno-mu. nu man! In: Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. Total number of vacancies notified to Job Centre Plus g 25 E 21 9 E 20 o E 15 9 15 8 11 E 10 9 E 7 7 TD .9 E 5 (U U (U > 0 r\’‘\’‘\'‘\'‘ " " " "\"\"\"\"v{1'r3'v3'>3"3’r{lr'3'r{lrr{‘/>3'r3' « ‘d V ‘z o ¢ \o t V 44 t o 6 Q Q : ¢ \o o V 4; 3'” ‘<° ‘*3’ Y9 $55‘ 9° 3° v9°"9°Q’ 0° 9° o°° 3'5‘ Q° 9° Y9 \\~"§ 9° 5° V99’ 9”‘: 0° 9° Source: Employment Support Allowance/Incapacity Benefits (DWP Aug 2012), Unemployment and Available jobs (DWP/Job Centre Plus Nov 2012) £ Economy: What are skills levels like? Skill levels in the local population can be an important driver of community sustainability. In general, those with low or no skills are more likely to experience exclusion, and be vulnerable to changes in the economy, such as increased demand for higher—skilled workers. By contrast, those with high—level skills are more likely to be in secure better—paid jobs, and are more likely to run or start their own businesses. Employers are also more likely to locate in areas with a good supply of skilled workers. Knowing whether there are ‘skills gaps’ has helped communities think about whether there are enough learning and training opportunities locally; for example, many communities run IT and other courses. What‘ information is shown here? There is little published data on local ‘skills’, but one commonly—used proxy is ‘qualifications’ (although of course many people with low or no qualifications may be highly—skilled). The information boxes on the right show the number and proportion of people locally by their level of qualification, and compared to local authority and national averages. The bar chart on the right shows how your local area compares to the local authority and England averages for the number of people with no qualifications, as well as degree level (and higher) qualifications. mm. |.rI.'f' cmnumu. ll mrfiimi Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L 19.4% of people aged 16+ (England: 22.5%) People with no People with highest People with highest People with highest qualifications qualification: Level 1 qualification: Level 2 qualification: Level 3 People with highest qualification: Level 4 (degree level qualifications) 505 39.4% of people aged 16+ (England: 27.4%) 7.9% of people aged 16+ (England: 13.3%) 15.2% of people aged 16+ (England: 15.2%) 10.0% of people aged 16+ (England: 12.4%) ‘Level 1’ qualifications are equivalent to a single O—level, GCSE or NVQ. ‘Level 2’ qualifications are equivalent to five O—|eve|s or GCSEs. ‘Level 3’ qualifications are equivalent to two A levels. ‘Level 4’ qualifications are equivalent to degree level or higher. Source: Census 2011 (table KS501E\/\/) People with no qualifications and degree levelqualifications % aged 16-74 45' People with no qualifications I Bridge 39.4 People with Level 4+ (degree) qualifications I England £ Economy: What jobs do residents have? Second largest employment Third largest employment The jobs that residents have reflect the opportunities in the local area, and within Largest e'"p'°V"‘e”tSe°t°’ sector sector commuting distance. Although some areas have a proportion ofjobs in agriculture, Ed t_ Health and social R I _I overall the sector makes up only 3% of employment in rural areas, the property and “Ca '0“ Work e a' wholesale and retail trade is the largest employer in rural (and urban) areas nationally. 135 employees (21% of 640 of 95 employees (15% of 640 of 75 employees (12% of 640 of people in employment) people in employment) people in employment) Some communities have identified that developing economic diversity is a local priority, for exam le hel in identif ossible business sites, or su ortin a ro riate lannin - - - - _ _ p p g _ y p _ pp g pp p p g Managerial PrOfeSS'(?nta| (Or Adm'mSt¥at'.V|e or Skilled trades Elementary apphcahons for C0mmerC'a| prem'3e3- occupations assoc? e) Secre a.na occupations occupations occupatlons occupatlons What information is shown here? 95 255 70 65 45 - - - - 14 cw of 640 39 87 of 640 10 9% of 640 10 27 of 640 72% °f 640 The lnformatlon boxes show the three largest employment sectors for resldents ln the ' ° _ ' ° _ ' ° _ ' ° _ people in I I I th b d t f I d I k_ _ h f people ln people ln people ln people ln employment oca area, a so e num er an percen age 0 emp oye peop e wor lng ln eac 0 employment employment employment employment (England = these sectors. Numbers are also shown by type of occupation (e.g., managers, (England =11-5%) (England = 30.3%) (England =11.5%) (England =11.4%) 11_1%) professional, administrative). People in professional and elementary occupations The bar chart on the right compares your local area with the local authority and national 50 54.5 averages, for people working in senior and elementary occupations. 50 Where next? 4° 30 The number of people in work is in the “People in work” section above, including numbers by part—time / full—time, whether they are self—employed, and whether they work in the public sector. 20 10 % of people in employment 0 People working in managerial, professional or People working in elementary occupations associate professional occupations I Bridge I Kent I England Source: Census 2011 tables (KS605EW and KS608E\/\/) .l:|wn |.rI.'II|=nruIurI'I|II .. mufiml Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J A fl "6; What does a sustainable community look like? Well designed and built, featuring a quality built and natural environment What do sustainable communities otter? o A sense of place — a place with a positive ‘feeling’ for people and local distinctiveness; o User—friendly public and green spaces with facilities for everyone including children and older people; o Sufficient range, diversity, affordability and accessibility of housing within a balanced housing market ; o Appropriate size, scale, density, design and layout, including mixed—use development, that complement the distinctive local character of the community; o High quality, mixed—use, durable, flexible and adaptable buildings, using materials which minimise negative environmental impacts; o Buildings and public spaces which promote health and are designed to reduce crime and make people feel safe; o Accessibility ofjobs, and key services by public transport, walking and cycling. Using this repon‘ to explore data on Housing for B/7'o’ge What type of housing is in the local area? Dwelling type Tenure Council Tax Band , House prices, Affordability Ratio Source: Overcrowding, Central heating, Vacant Do people rent or own their homes? How affordable is local housing? Housing in poor condition household spaces, Fuel Poverty .I::I|clI'I '.4I.'lIcfll'!fl'|J'II|II I.1 Ran Iilfll Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L Housing & the built environment: Introduction What other information might be a I/ai/ab/e ? o The main source of housing data across the country is the Census. The 2001 census provides breakdowns of type of dwelling by access to central heating (www.data4nr.net/resources/housing——households/750/), tenure (www.data4nr.net/resources/housing——households/745/) and type of household space, i.e. shared dwellings etc. (www.data4nr.net/resources/housing—— households/743/). Census 2011 data with these breakdowns is due to be published at the end of 2013. In addition, many local communities have carried out their own surveys to provide up—to—date infonnation on the number and type of houses in the local area, as well as need for affordable housing. o DCLG publish annual data on social housing stock levels, including Local Authority, Housing Association and Registered Social Landlord housing (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical—data—sets/live—tables—on—dwelling—stock— including—vacants). o DCLG also compile a code for sustainable homes measuring the energy efficiency of homes, www.data4nr.net/resources/housing——households/1412/. o The Land Registry tracks all housing transactions, with this data published by DCLG at local authority level (more detailed data may be available from commercial or estate agent sites), including median (www.data4nr.net/resources/housing——households/986/) and lower quartile (www.data4nr.net/resources/housing——households/987/) house—prices. The CLG produce estimates of rental costs for social rented dwellings www.data4nr.net/resources/housing——households/991/) Housing & the built environment: What type of housing is in the local area? Detached houses Semi—detached houses Terraced houses . . . . 278 213 120 recently have far outstripped average lncreases ln earnlngs, mean that local people may be priced out of the housing market in the area in which they grew up. For a ‘ community to sustain a fair and balanced housing market, it must provide affordable housing accessible to the local community. However, local housing development can Flats (purpose built) Flats (other) also strain local services, as well as affect the character of the area (although a larger population may be able to sustain more shops, businesses and local amenities). 51 22 00 With levels of overcrowding increasing, record population growth and the limited supply ‘ of affordable homes, evidencing the type and availability of housing in the local area will Dwelling type breakdowns be essential to community planning. 45 - 406 Housing is an important issue in rural communities. Increases in house—prices, which Caravan or other temporary accommodation . . . 40 - What /nformal/on /5 shown here? 35 - The data shows the housing types in the local area. Data is taken from Census 2011 30 - and offers the most up to date account of the types of housing in the local area. 24.3 24.5 25 The bar chart on the right shows how your area compares against the local authority and national averages on the type of housing. % of household spaces Where next? 5 The following pages Show data on housing tenure (Owner Occupied: Social housing: Detached Semi—de-tached Terraced Purpose—built Flats Other Flat Caravan or mobile private rented), affordable housing, overcrowded housing and housing in poor condition. home IBridge I Kent I England Source: Census 2011 (table KS401E\/\/) mm. Ln.'lICunrrurI|||I .. mrfiiml Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J Housing & the built environment: Do people rent or own their homes? _ _ _ _ _ _ Housing that is Housing that is Housing that is Other rented The mixture of owner—occupied, social rented and private rented accommodation in the owneroccupied sooiai romeo private romeo accommodation area is an important component in the sustainability of the local community. With high 512 40 house—prices, it may be difficult for less affluent people (for example younger people or 71 23 families who have grown up in the area) to stay in, or move to, areas which have low ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ levels of social or private rented housing. Housing tenure breakdowns Knowing this information may be useful in demonstrating evidence that there is a need 90 - for certain housing in the area, and has been used by communities to prioritise actions, 793 such as supporting sympathetic development proposals that increase the stock of 80 ' 68 2 needed housing. 70 - ' 64.1 . . . 60 - What /nformal/on /5 shown here? 50 - % ofhouseholds The data shows housing tenure in the local area and is taken from the Census 2011, the most up to date source of information on housing tenure in the local area. Although trends in housing tenure have varied across the country since 2001, nationally owner occupied housing has declined (—5%) and private renting has gone up (6%) to 2011. This trend is particularly acute when considering age breakdowns, with “Generation Rent” becoming a common term as young people are increasingly out priced of the 0 ' housing market. 40- 30' 20 - 14.6 . 5.0 10 1.2 Bridge Kent England The bar Chart Shows how your area Compares against the local authority and national lOwner Occupied lLocalAuthority Rented IHousing Association rented El OtherRented averages on levels of owner occupation and renting. W/76‘f6‘ /79X!‘-7 Source: Census 2011 (KS402E\/\/) See the Social and Cultural section at the beginning of this profile for information on household types, who lives in your local area and migration into and out of the area (page 5). For data on deprivation and vulnerable households, see the section on Equity & prosperity (page 13). lnforrnation on the local economy and employment status is on page 22. .I:||on ui.-h Cnnrvurlhul .. Ears:-Hull Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J Housing & the built environment: How affordable is local housing? (1) Affordability ratio The need for affordable housing is a critical issue in rural areas, with house—prices (ineelian neiise Dwellings in ceiineil Dwellings in ceiineil Dwellings in ceiineil increasingly beyond the reach of many groups wanting to stay in, or move to, the local Pfifjas a_S “a“° OT Tax Band A Tax Band '3 Tax Band 0 area. Whilst many communities recognise the need for additional housing, development me an memes) needs to be balanced with the impact on the character of the local area, as well as 1 1 '2 24 58 131 The information shown here can help local groups identify, and provide evidence for, the need for affordable housing. Some communities have supported specific housing _ _ Median neiise price; _ _ _ _ _ Median house price: . Median house price: Median house price: developments, e.g. where such development might meet current (and future) needs for Deteeheel heeeee Semrgduestgghed Terreeeel heueee plate mixed housing, and offer affordable opportunities for people to stay living locally. £310,000 £190,000 £159,325 £134,000 The housing affordability ratio is based on comparing house prices to earnings. Rather Dwelling Stock by counciltax band than compare average house prices and incomes, we have compared the “lowest 30 _ quartile” (the lowest 25%) of prices to the lowest quartile of household incomes — which is more representative of groups trying to get onto the housing ladder. An affordability 25 - index of 10 would mean that lowest quartile house prices are 10 times as high as lowest quartile incomes. This data is only available for the local authority, not the local area. 27.9 20- The data on Council Tax bands shows the number (and proportion) of houses in bands A, B or C (the lowest price bands) locally. These price bands are set nationally, so can be used to show how the cost of all local property (notjust those properties that have recently been sold) compares with other areas; the chart on the right compares your 5 _ area against the local authority and national averages for these Council Tax bands. % of households The information boxes on the bottom row show the median house price by household type in the local area. The line charts on the following page show the same information as trends over time, with local and national comparators. I Bridge I Kent I England Band A Band B Band C Band D Band E Band F Band G Band H Where next? Source: Council Tax Band (Valuation Office Agency 2011), House prices (Land Registry 2009), The Social and Cultural section has data on household composition and migration in __ _ _ Affordability Ratio (Land Registry/ONS 2007/08) and out of the area (page 5). For data on deprivation and vulnerable households, see the section on Equity & prosperity (page 13). Information on employment status is on page 22. Julian -....-Mtm-in-uuiiu ll Ian! imi Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J How affordable is local housing? (2) Median house price for detached houses Median house price for terraced houses 3 £400,000 - 3 £250,000 2 8 E £350,000 . "_____ ______ __---_._ E 8 .1’ £200,000 3 £300,000 - -- E -E -I5-’-'°'"°" -3 $1 5250000 ' § £150,000 3 £200,000 - E .E -5 £150,000 - 5 £100,000 8 8 2 £100,000 - § £50,000 £50,000 - £0 - - - - - - £0 . . . . . . . 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Bridge Kent ----- England Bridge Kent ----- England Median house price for semi-detached houses Median house price for flats '33 £250,000 £180,000 - E Tn‘ g 5 £160,000 LL 2 £200’000 3 £140,000 E -2 9 £150 000 % 51201000 3 E’ £100,000 1- .: § £100,000 5 £80,000 - 8 8 _ .E E £60,000 = £50,000 § £40,000 - E £0 . . . . . . . 5201000 ' 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 £0 ' ' ' ' ' ' 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Bridge Kent ---" England Bridge Kent ----. England Source: Land Registry (2009) Isaac:--11.:-an-n-nIiiu:4'u§gEuI"""Itf_-u_§ '“* Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J Housing & the built environment: Housing in poor condition The highest levels of non—decent homes (that do not pass the Housing Health & Safety rating system) are found in smaller rural communities, particularly those more isolated areas. This is often due to the age of properties, with older housing (more common in rural areas) most likely to be in this condition. Housing conditions can indicate other issues, for example overcrowded housing can highlight areas with pressing needs for more affordable housing. Where central heating is not present, fuel poverty is significantly more likely. W/731‘/nformal/on is shown here? Whether a household is overcrowded is based on a standard definition using the number of inhabitants, and number of rooms. Housing without central heating is self- reported. These indicators and the vacant household spaces data are shown in the information boxes and in the bar char on the right, with local and national comparators. Under this definition, a household is said to be in fuel poverty if they have required fuel costs that are above average (the national median level); were they to spend that amount they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line. It is calculated using the income of households, the cost of fuel required, and the ability of their home to retain heat. In January 2013 the government launched the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) with a focus on reducing levels of fuel poverty and poor housing conditions in rural areas. The rural element of this energy efficiency measure is due to the fact that fuel poverty and poor quality housing tends to be higher in rural areas and therefore a priority for improving the quality of life of residents in rural communities. Where next? See the Social and Cultural for information on household composition and who lives in the local area (page 5). For data on deprivation and vulnerable households, see the section on Equity & prosperity (page 13). Data on unemployment is on page 22. .l:||on u..-r-r:m-"mm... .. mrfiimu Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. k. The definition of fuel poverty is based on the Low Income High Costs (LIHC) framework. Households living in Households without Vacant household Households . overcrowded Central heatin S aces estimated to be In conditions 9 p 'Fue| Poverty’ 22 O7 38 70 Housing environment A O n f\.) O.) -J> 01 G3 \I oo (0 n u n n n n n u Bridge Kent England I Overc rowded housing Ivacant Dwellings I Lacking central heating Source: Overcrowding/Central heating/Vacant household spaces (Census 2011 KS403E\/\/), Fuel Poverty (Department for Energy and Climate Change 2011) Transport and connectivity: Introduction What does a sustainable community look like ? What other information might be available? Well connected, with good transport services and communication linking people to jobs, 0 DVLA data on local car registrations has been obtained by some local groups as SCh00|S, health and Other Services part of their community planning, which provides data over time for the level of car ownership in the area. o Census 2011 data provides breakdowns for vulnerable groups with no access to What do sustainable communities ofi'er? o Transport facilities, including public transport, that help people travel within and car, including pensioners living alone, unemployed, and those with a limiting long- between communities and reduce dependence on cars; term illness (www_data4nr_net/resources/24)_ o Facilities to encourage safe local walking and cycling; 0 Your local authority may hold more detailed information on local commuting o An appropriate level of local parking facilities in line with local plans to manage patterns, for example if they have carried out local transport and commuting road traffic demand; surveys. In addition, many communities have carried out their own local surveys on o Widely available and effective telecommunications and Internet access; how far residents travel to work, and whether they might be interested in o Good access to regional, national and international communications networks. employment opportunities nearer to home. o Many communities have also carried out local surveys to highlight where travel times affect peopIe’s ability to use facilities or amenities. o If there is a local train station, data may also be available on the numbers using the Access to private transport Car Orvari avaiiabiiiiy service, which can be useful to highlight where there is pressure on local amenities How far do people travel to work Working from home, Distance travelled to work, Such as pérkmg' _ _ _ _ _ Travei to empioymerii centres o More detail on estimated travel times by foot or public transport to key services is published by DfT in the ‘Core Accessibility’ dataset, at www.data4nr.net/resources/841 . Using this repon‘ to explore data on Transpo/t ano’ Connectivity for Bridge Travel times by public transport Core Accessibility indicators L Julian i.n.-I- Eu:-Inun1u.in In-I hm Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J Q Transport and connectivity: Access to private transport No cars One car Two cars Three cars Four+ cars People in rural areas rely more on private transport and, in general, spend more on 105 260 225 40 15 transport than their urban counterparts (nationally, higher transport expenditure accounts for almost half the higher expenditure by rural households than urban ones)3. Overall, the residents of rural hamlets and villages travel nearly twice as far by car each year compared to urban residents. Carownership Combined with information on public transport and distance to services, this information may help you evidence the need for improvements in public and community transport. Four+ cars What information is shown here? Three cars The data shows the number of households who do not have access to a car, as well as those households with one or more cars. Data is taken from Census 2011. TWO Cars The bar chart on the right shows how your local area compares with the local authority and England averages. One car Where next? N0 Cars For information on distance to services see the next section (page 38). % of households I Bridge I Kent I England Source: Census 2011 (table KS404E\/\/) 3 Taken from the Office for National Statistics 2011 report “Rural and urban areas: comparing lives using rural/urban classifications”. Acu¢mr'd»:o-w-Iun-'- Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L W J D Transport and connectivity: How far do people travel to work? There are typically fewerjobs in rural areas than urban, and those local jobs are often lower—paid than their urban counterparts. Many rural communities act as “commuter villages”, providing a higher quality of life for residents who commute to urban areas for work (although there can also be large numbers of people working from home). Understanding how far people travel to work may help identify actions based on potential demand for local employment. For example, some communities may identify priorities to support local businesses and develop more opportunities for local employment, which could include actions such as supporting local planning applications for appropriate business premises or small business parks. What information is shown here? The data shown on how far people travel to work is taken from Census 2011, based on actual commuter data. The travel time data is from the Department for Transport, based on travel times (by car, cycle and public transport/ foot) to employment centres (which are defined as Super Output Areas with more than 500 jobs). The bar chart on the right shows how your area compares to the local authority and England averages, in terms of how far people travel to work. Where next? For information on distance to services see the next section (page 38). -A. kilm u-I‘.-Ia tonne-nu. nu bra In! Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. K. People travelling less than People travelling 40km+ to 2km to work (2001) work (2001) 60 85 55 Travel time to nearest employment centre by public People working from home Average travel time to nearest employment centre by car Average travel time to nearest employment centre by cycle transport/walking 5 14 13 — — — Distance travelled to work People travelling 40km+ to work People travelling less than 2km to work People working from home (%> 0 5 10 15 20 25 I Bridge I Kent I England Source: Working from home (Census 2011 QS701E\/\/) Distance travelled to work (Census 2001 UV 35), Travel to employment centres (DfT 2011) Q Transport and connectivity: Travel times by public transport Many rural communities highlight a lack of good public transport as a real barrier in accessing public services such as post—16 education, health, sport and leisure services, employment, financial services and training. Knowing the average travel times by public transport — and the frequency of public transport — can help make the case for improving local public transport provision. For example, helping show that there is a need for additional community transport services or alterations to existing routes, or additional evening /weekend services. What information is shown here? The travel time data is from the Department for Transport, based on travel times (by car, cycle and public transport/ foot) to key amenities, and the people travelling to work is taken from Census 2011 commuter data. The bar chart on the right shows how travel times from the local area to particular services compare to the national average. Where next? Data on distance commuted by local residents to work is on the previous page, and distance to key services is in the next section on Services. Acfl¢m-i'dv|:¢-n.IIlHnI‘- ‘ Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. Average travel time Average travel time Average travel time . to nearest People travelling to to nearest hospital to nearest town . . supermarket by . work by public by public . centre by public transport/walking pubhc . transport/walking transport transport/walking 23 8 14 49 Average travel time (mins) by walking or public transport to the nearest key service 35 - 32 30 30 25 20 mins Employment Further GP Hospital Primary Secondary Supennaiket Town centre centre Education school school Institution lBridge IKent I England Source: DfT 2011 E Services: Introduction What does a sustainable community look like ? Well served, with public, private, community & voluntary services that are appropriate to people’s needs & accessible to all What do sustainable communities ofi'er? o Well—performing local schools, further and higher education institutions, and other opportunities for lifelong learning; o High quality local health care and social services, integrated where possible with other services; c High quality services for families and children (including early years child care); o Good range of affordable public, community, voluntary and private services (e.g. retail, fresh food, commercial, utilities, information and advice) which are accessible to the whole community; o Service providers who think and act long—term and beyond their own immediate geographical and interest boundaries, and who involve users and local residents in shaping their policy and practice. Using this repon‘ to explore data on local services in Bridge How far away are key services? Road distance to key services .IcHaIc-f£b|:hnn-.IIHn:’- Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. What other information might be a I/ai/ab/e ? o Many communities have carried out local surveys to highlight where people have difficulty using key services. c More detailed information on rural Services data: Service locations are used to calculate numbers of households within distance of key service indicators, www.data4nr.net/resources/820. o The lndices of Deprivation contains indicators measuring road distances to key sen/ices: primary school http://www.data4nr.net/resources/1487/; food shop http://www.data4nr.net/resources/1485/; GP http://www.data4nr.net/resources/ 1486/ ; Post Office http://www.data4nr.net/resources/ 1484/ . E Services: How far away are key services? Access to services is a major factor in quality of life for people in rural communities, where services and amenities may be some distance away. This is especially likely to cause difficulties for people without cars or who are unable to drive, whose mobility is limited, and in areas where public transportation is poor. Many rural communities have identified a lack of facilities and amenities as a priority locally. These facilities might include shops, post offices, pubs, leisure facilities, and meeting places for young people. What information is shown here? The data shown is taken from Commission for Rural Communities data on rural services, and shows average road distances from houses in the local area to a set of key services. The bar chart on the right shows how the local area compares to the local authority and England averages in terms of road distances to these services. Where next? Data on distance commuted by local residents to work, and travel times to key services, are in the previous section on Transport & connectivity (page 34). Acfla1u1‘£bChInnmfiI\:’- Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. Road distance to sen/ices Road distance from a POSt Office (km) Road distance from a Public House (km) Road distance from a GP (km) Road distance from a Secondary School (km) Road distance from a Job Centre (km) Road distance from a Job Road distance from a Secondary Road distance from a GP Centre (2010) School (2010) (2010) 6.4km 2.9km 0.9km Road distance from a Public Road distance from a Post House (2010) Office (2010) 0.5km 0.6km Kilometres (km) I Bridge I England Source: Commission for Rural Communities 2010 What does a sustainable community look like ? What other information might be a I/ai/ab/e ? Environmentally sensitive, providing places for people to live that are considerate of the 0 At local authority level there is data on the quality of green—space, parks, beaches eFlViF0nmen’I and so on. More detailed small area data is available from DEFRA on indicators relating to air emissions and background concentrations of pollutants, e.g. nitrogen oxide at www.data4nr.net/resources/environment/503/. What do sustainable communities ofi'er? o Actively seek to minimise climate change, including through energy efficiency and 0 There is a lack of ‘hard’ data on climate change and other issues that might be the U86 0f Fenewables; identified as local priorities (although Local Authorities have been graded on their o Protect the environment, by minimising pollution on land, in water and in the air; actions to mitigate climate change — o Minimise waste and dispose of it in accordance with current good practice; www_data4nr_net/resources/environment/1246/)_ o Make efficient use of natural resources, encouraging sustainable production and 0 Many local areas have also carried out their own surveys to identify priorities for Consumption; improving the local environment. o Protect and improve bio—diversity (e.g. wildlife habitats); o Enable a lifestyle that minimises negative environmental impact and enhances positive impacts (e.g. by creating opportunities for walking and cycling, and reducing noise pollution and dependence on cars); o Create cleaner, safer and greener neighbourhoods (e.g. by reducing litter and graffiti, and maintaining pleasant public spaces). Using this repo/t to explore En vironmentai data for Bridge Quality of the local environment Waste statistics, Population, Living Environment domain, CO2 emissions AEIIOI1 '.4I.'lIcDl'|fl'|J.'II|II I31 Ran‘ Klfll Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J The local environment can play a major role in quality of life in rural communities, and conserving and improving the quality of the environment is a priority in many community plans. Concerns often relate to local issues such as physical environment, including fly tipping, graffiti etc, environmental sustainability, including recycling, renewable energy use, and the built environment, including the character of housing developments. Wider issues can also be raised, such as actions to tackle climate change. What information is shown here? There is a lack of good environmental data available for local communities; data collected at local authority level includes data shown for CO2 emissions and recycling. Population density is based on the local population size and geographical area. Figure 22 shows how the population density compares to the local authority and England. Data is also shown for the level of “outdoors environment deprivation” as measured in the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2010. This is based on levels of air pollution, and road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and/or cyclists. The data shows whether local areas are identified as having poor outdoors environment, based on the environment domain of the IMD 2010. Where next? See the Social and Cultural section at the beginning of this profile for information on population growth, migration and types of people living in the local community (page 5). Information on private and public transport is on page 34 and data on fuel poverty and quality of local housing can be found from page 28. .I::I|OI'I '.u.'IICI'.Inrru'I||II I.I Ran Iirrll Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. K. CO2 emissions (ktonnes — kt) per head Household waste that is recycled or composted Residual household waste per head 6OKt 47%) Population density (people per hectare) Number of people living in Living Environment deprivation ‘hotspots’ 386 Population density (persons per hectare) Persons per hectare -J>-J>-l>-J>-J>-J>-l>-l>-l>-l>-l> I I I Bridge I Kent 45OKg I England Source: Waste statistics (DEFRA WasteDataF|ow system, 2009), Population Density (Census 2011), Living Environment domain (lndices of Deprivation 2010, CLG) CO2 emissions DEFRA 2008) Governance: Introduction What does a sustainable community look like ? Well run, with effective and inclusive participation, representation and leadership What do sustainable communities ofi'er? o Representative, accountable governance systems which both facilitate strategic, visionary leadership and enable inclusive, active and effective participation by individuals and organisations; o Effective engagement with the community at neighbourhood level, including capacity building to develop the community's skills, knowledge and confidence; o Strong, informed and effective partnerships that lead by example (e.g. government, business, community); o A strong, inclusive, community and voluntary sector; o A sense of civic values, responsibility and pride. Using this repon‘ to explore data on Go I/emance for Bridge Indicators Sub heading Place Survey governance questions, Active Charities How engaged are people locally? 'l-_ Juxhorl mrfi Ennnurllnu ll Hui Klnl Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L What other information might be a I/ai/ab/e ? o Place Survey data may be available from your local authority, and provide more detailed measures of civic participation. Data from the electoral commission can also provide more information relating to voter participation in local, national and European elections (www.electoralcommission.org.uk/home). .11.... E Governance: How engaged are people locally? A recent report by the Office for National Statistics found that over 50s are more likely to feel they belong to their communities than younger people and subsequently feel happier4. Community engagement across all groups within an area is therefore an important aspect of resident wellbeing, often even more so in rural areas due to the remote nature of many communities. Some areas have found that the process of developing a community plan can help increase the engagement with people living and working locally; and other actions to improve engagement with particular local groups might also be seen as priorities for local community plans. What information is shown here? The data shown is from the national ‘Place Survey’, collected by all local authorities in 2008. Data is only published for the local authority area; however more detailed information may be available from local surveys. The chart on the right shows how your local authority compares with the national picture. Across England, nearly 30% of people asked felt they could influence local decisions, but less than half that number had actually participated in a group making such decisions in the past year. Where next? Information on the strength of the local neighbourhood and community safety can be found in the Social and Cultural section (page 5). Adults who have participated in a group People who feel they which makes decisions can influence decisions Active charities that affect their local in their locality area in the past year 3.0 er 1 000 12% 28% '° 3 population Data shown is for Data shown is for Canterbury (England = Canterbury (England = 14%) 29%) Data shown is for Canterbury (England = 2.6 per 1,000) Indicators of civic engagement 28.9 Can influence decisions in the local area 28.2 Involved in decisions thataffect the local area I I I I I I I % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 I England I Kent I Canterbury Source: Place Survey 2008, Active Charities (NCVO 2009) 4 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring—nationa|—we||—being/o|der—peop|e—s—neighbourhoods/art—o|der—peop|e—s—neighbourhoods.html 'l-_ Juxhon mrfi Ennnunflnu ll Hui Klnl Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L Data tables for Bridge Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. \ Indicator Bridge Canterbury England N Rate Rate Rate All People (2011) 1,575 Males (2011) 710 45.2 48.1 49.2 Females (2011) 865 54.8 51.9 50.8 Aged 0-15 (2011) 285 18.0 17.3 18.9 Working age (2011) 815 51.6 63.9 64.7 Aged 65+ (2011) 480 30.4 18.8 16.3 Dependency Ratio (2011) 0.9 0.6 0.6 Female, aged 0-4 (2011) 40 4.6 4.6 6.0 Female, aged 5-9 (2011) 40 4.9 4.6 5.4 Female, aged 10-14 (2011) 55 6.6 5.2 5.6 Female, aged 15-19 (2011) 55 6.6 8.7 6.1 Female, aged 20-24 (2011) 25 3.1 10.6 6.6 Female, aged 25-29 (2011) 25 2.8 5.4 6.8 Female, aged 30-34 (2011) 20 2.5 4.7 6.5 Female, aged 35-39 (2011) 35 4.2 5.3 6.6 Female, aged 40-44 (2011) 60 6.9 6.2 7.3 Female, aged 45-49 (2011) 55 6.6 6.3 7.3 Female, aged 50-54 (2011) 60 6.8 5.7 6.4 Female, aged 55-59 (2011) 40 4.5 5.5 5.6 Female, aged 60-64 (2011) 50 5.9 6.4 6.0 Female, aged 65-69 (2011) 50 6.0 5.4 4.8 Female, aged 70-74 (2011) 50 5.8 4.3 4.0 Female, aged 75-79 (2011) 55 6.1 3.7 3.4 Female, aged 80-84 (2011) 50 6.0 3.3 2.7 Female, aged 85-89 (2011) 60 7.1 2.4 1.9 Female, aged 90+ (2011) 25 2.9 1.5 1.1 Male, aged 0-4 (2011) 30 4.5 5.3 6.5 Male, aged 5-9 (2011) 40 5.9 5.3 5.8 Male, aged 10-14 (2011) 45 6.6 5.9 6.1 Male, aged 15-19 (2011) 55 7.7 9.0 6.6 Male, aged 20-24 (2011) 20 2.8 10.9 6.9 Male, aged 25-29 (2011) 25 3.7 6.0 7.0 Male, aged 30-34 (2011) 25 3.4 4.9 6.7 Male, aged 35-39 (2011) 30 3.9 5.1 6.8 Male, aged 40-44 (2011) 45 6.0 6.4 7.4 Male, aged 45-49 (2011) 65 9.0 6.6 7.4 Male, aged 50-54 (2011) 45 6.3 5.8 6.5 Male, aged 55-59 (2011) 45 6.5 5.6 5.7 Male, aged 60-64 (2011) 55 7.6 6.4 6.0 Male, aged 65-69 (2011) 30 4.5 5.1 4.7 Male, aged 70-74 (2011) 45 6.5 4.2 3.7 Male, aged 75-79 (2011) 35 4.6 3.2 2.9 Male, aged 80-84 (2011) 30 4.4 2.4 2.0 Male, aged 85-89 (2011) 30 3.9 1.41.4 1.1 Male, aged 90+ (2011) 15 2.2 0.6 0.4 Indicator Canterbury Rate All households (2011) Pensioner households (2011) Lone pensioner households (2011) Student households (2011) One person households (2011) Married households (2011) Cohabiting households (2011) Other households (2011) Households of one pensioner (as % of all pension households) (2011) Lone-parent households (as % of households with dependent children) (2011) Households of one pensioner (as % of all households) (2011) Households of one lone-parent family (as % of all households) (2011) White British (2011) White (Non British) (2011) Non—white (2011) Mixed (2011) Asian (2011) Black (2011) Arab (2011) Other ethnic group (2011) People born in England (2011) People born in Scotland (2011) People born in Wales (2011) People born in Northern Ireland (2011) People born in Republic of Ireland (2011) People born in other EU countries (2011) People born in other EU Accession countries (2011) People born elsewhere (2011) People who have moved address in the last year (2001) Population turnover rate, total inflow (per 1,000 pop) (2009/10) Inflow of people aged 1-14 (per 1,000 pop aged 1-14) (2009/10) Inflow of people aged 15-24 (per 1,000 pop aged 15-24) (2009/10) Inflow of people aged 25-44 (per 1,000 pop aged 25-44) (2009/10) Inflow of people aged 45-64 (per 1,000 pop aged 45-64) (2009/10) Inflow of people aged 65+ (per 1,000 pop aged 65+) (2009/10) Population turnover rate, total outflow (per 1,000 pop) (2009/ 10) Outflow of people aged 1-14 (per 1,000 pop aged 1-14) (2009/10) Outflow of people aged 15-24 (per 1,000 pop aged 15-24) (2009/10) Outflow of people aged 25-44 (per 1,000 pop aged 25-44) (2009/10) Outflow of people aged 45-64 (per 1,000 pop aged 45-64) (2009/10) Outflow of people aged 65+ (per 1,000 pop aged 65+) (2009/10) National Insurance Number registrations of overseas nationals (2011/12) Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. Data tables for Bridge Indicator Bridge Canterbury England N Rate Rate Rate Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 1 (least deprived) 00 0.0 0.0 10.1 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 2 00 0.0 8.9 10.1 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 3 1,505 100.0 24.8 10.1 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 4 00 0.0 15.0 10.0 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 5 00 0.0 16.0 10.1 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 6 00 0.0 11.5 10.0 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 7 00 0.0 7.2 9.9 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 8 00 0.0 8.7 9.9 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 9 00 0.0 7.9 9.9 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, Population in Decile 10 (most deprived) 00 0.0 0.0 9.8 Working age DWP benefit claimants (Aug—2012) 45 5.8 11.4 14.0 Households deprived on four deprivation characteristics (2001) 00 0.2 0.5 0.5 Income Support (Aug—2012) 10 1.1 2.6 3.2 Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Claimants (2005) 65 9.9 17.8 20.6 Children experiencing income deprivation (Economic Deprivation Index 2009) 05 2.1 16.9 20.3 All people experiencing income deprivation (Economic Deprivation Index 2009) 30 3.1 10.1 13.5 Pension Credit claimant (Aug—2012) 50 10.4 20.3 24.4 Households below 60% of the median income, after housing costs (2007/08) 14.9 21.5 21.5 Net weekly household income estimate after housing costs (E) (2007/08) 540 435 423 Total weekly household income estimate (E) (2007/08) 820 651 673 Children in lone parent families (2010) 45 12.5 25.5 27.9 Children in poverty (2010) 15 5.7 18.5 21.0 Children in out of work families (2011) 10 3.2 16.5 19.2 Average Point Score: Key Stage 1 pupils (score) (2011) 15.4 15.6 15.5 Average Point Score: Key Stage 2 pupils (score) (2011) 30.2 27.9 27.7 Average Point Score: GCSE pupils (score) (2011) 465.6 487.0 475.8 Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. K J Data tables for Bridge Indicator Bridge Canterbury England Attendance Allowance claimants (Aug—2012) 75 16.1 17.1 16.7 Disability Living Allowance claimants (Aug—2012) 40 2.5 4.9 5.1 Limiting—long—term illness aged (all ages) (2011) 350 22.3 18.1 17.6 Limiting—long—term illness aged 0-64 (2011) 75 9.0 11.8 12.8 Economically active (2011) 680 69.2 63.8 69.9 Economically inactive (2011) 300 30.8 36.2 30.1 Full—time employees (2011) 340 34.5 31.2 38.6 Part—time employees (2011) 150 15.5 12.8 13.7 Self—employed people (2011) 130 13.3 9.6 9.8 People working more than 49 hours (2011) 105 16.5 14.4 13.3 People employed in the public sector (2011) 275 42.2 36.5 28.2 People employed in the private sector (2011) 375 57.8 63.5 71.8 Jobseekers Allowance claimants (Feb—2013) 10 1.0 2.5 3.9 All people receiving ‘out of work’ benefits (Aug 2012) 30 3.4 7.6 9.8 Incapacity benefits claimants (Aug—2012) 25 2.8 5.2 6.1 People with no qualifications (2011) 250 19.4 20.5 22.5 People with Level 1 qualifications (2011) 100 7.9 11.8 13.3 People with Level 2 qualifications (2011) 195 15.2 14.3 15.2 People with Level 3 qualifications (2011) 130 10.0 17.6 12.4 People with Level 4+ (degree) qualifications (2011) 505 39.4 27.3 27.4 Employees by industrial sector: Agriculture, forestry & fishing (2011) 10 1.7 0.8 0.8 Employees by industrial sector: Mining & quarrying (2011) 00 0.3 0.0 0.2 Employees by industrial sector: Manufacturing (2011) 30 4.3 5.1 8.9 Employees by industrial sector: Electricity, gas, (2011) 00 0.3 0.3 0.6 Employees by industrial sector: Water supply; waste management (2011) 00 0.2 0.5 0.7 Employees by industrial sector: Construction (2011) 55 8.6 8.3 7.7 Employees by industrial sector: Reatil (2011) 75 11.5 16.9 15.9 Employees by industrial sector: Transport & storage (2011) 25 3.5 3.9 5.0 Employees by industrial sector: Accommodation & food service (2011) 30 4.8 6.5 5.6 Employees by industrial sector: Information & communication (2011) 15 2.6 2.6 4.1 Employees by industrial sector: Financial & insurance activities (2011) 10 1.5 2.6 4.4 Employees by industrial sector: Real estate activities (2011) 10 1.7 1.2 1.5 Employees by industrial sector: Professional, scientific & technical (2011) 65 9.7 5.8 6.7 Employees by industrial sector: Administrative & support service (2011) 20 3.2 3.9 4.9 Employees by industrial sector: Public administration & defence; (2011) 40 6.3 5.7 5.9 Employees by industrial sector: Education (2011) 135 20.9 16.3 9.9 Employees by industrial sector: Human health & social work activities (2011) 95 14.9 14.5 12.4 Employees by industrial sector: Other sectors (2011) 25 3.8 5.0 5.0 Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. K Data tables for Bridge Indicator Bridge Canterbury England N Rate Rate Rate Managers and senior officials (2011) 95 14.6 10.6 10.9 Professional occupations (2011) 175 27.2 20.5 17.5 Associate professional and technical occupations (2011) 80 12.6 11.8 12.8 Administrative and secretarial occupations (2011) 70 10.9 9.8 11.5 Skilled trades occupations (2011) 65 10.2 11.3 11.4 Personal service occupations (2011) 55 8.2 10.2 9.3 Sales and customer service occupations (2011) 35 5.5 9.4 8.4 Process; plant and machine operatives (2011) 25 3.5 5.1 7.2 Elementary occupations (2011) 45 7.2 11.2 11.1 Unemployment to ‘Available Jobs‘ Ratio (Nov—12) 37.5 404.7 3.4 Detached housing (2011) 280 40.6 31.4 22.3 Semi—detached housing (2011) 215 31.1 30.1 30.7 Terraced housing (2011) 120 17.5 18.7 24.5 Purpose—built Flats (2011) 50 7.5 13.3 16.7 Flat in Converted or Shared House (2011) 15 1.9 4.1 4.3 Flat in Commercial Building (2011) 10 1.3 1.4 1.1 Caravan or other mobile or temporary home (2011) 00 0.0 1.1 0.4 Second homes (2011) 05 0.5 0.9 0.6 Owner occupied households (2011) 510 79.3 66.8 64.1 Households that are owner—occupied and owned outright (2011) 310 47.7 35.5 30.6 Households that are owner—occupied and owned with mortgage or loan (2011) 205 31.4 30.5 32.8 Households that are owner—occupied in shared ownership (2011) 00 0.2 0.8 0.8 Social rented households (2011) 40 6.2 12.2 17.7 Housing rented from Council (2011) 30 5.0 8.3 9.4 Housing rented from Housing Association or Social Landlord (2011) 10 1.2 3.9 8.3 Housing rented from private landlord or letting agency (2011) 70 11.0 17.5 15.4 Housing rented from other (2011) 10 1.4 2.0 1.4 Households living rent free (2011) 15 2.2 1.4 1.3 Dwellings in Council Tax Band A (2011) 25 3.7 9.4 24.8 Dwellings in Council Tax Band B (2011) 60 8.8 20.4 19.6 Dwellings in Council Tax Band C (2011) 130 19.9 31.0 21.8 Dwellings in Council Tax Band D (2011) 160 24.4 19.3 15.3 Dwellings in Council Tax Band E (2011) 120 18.4 10.6 9.4 Dwellings in Council Tax Band F (2011) 65 10.2 5.9 5.0 Dwellings in Council Tax Band G (2011) 90 13.5 3.2 3.5 Dwellings in Council Tax Band H (2011) 10 1.2 0.2 0.6 Median houseprice: Detached Houses (E) (2009) 310,000 263,957 320,268 Median houseprice: Flats (E) (2009) 134,000 136,565 131,110 Median houseprice: Semi—detached houses (E) (2009) 190,000 181,542 211,043 Median houseprice: Terraced (E) (2009) 159,325 163,658 174,653 Median houseprice to household earnings ratio (2008) 11.2 18.2 15.4 Houses lacking central heating (2011) 05 1.1 2.2 2.7 Overcrowded housing (2011) 20 3.4 7.6 8.7 Vacant household spaces (2011) 40 5.6 5.1 4.3 Households living in ‘Fuel Poverty‘ (2011) 70 11.1 10.2 10.9 Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. K J Data tables for Bridge Indicator Bridge Canterbury England N Rate Rate Rate Households with no cars or vans (2011) 105 16.3 22.9 25.8 Households with one car or van (2011) 260 39.9 43.6 42.2 Households with two cars or vans (2011) 225 35.0 25.6 24.7 Households with three cars or vans (2011) 40 6.2 5.7 5.5 Households with four or more cars or vans (2011) 15 2.6 2.1 1.9 People working from home (2011) 60 6.2 3.7 3.5 People travelling less than 2km to work (2001) 85 12.9 25.1 20.0 People travelling 2km to less than 5km to work (2001) 145 22.3 13.7 20.1 People travelling 5km to less than 10km to work (2001) 120 120 15.4 18.3 People travelling 10km to less than 20km to work (2001) 90 13.7 11.1 15.2 People travelling 20km to less than 30km to work (2001) 35 5.6 7.0 5.3 People travelling 30km to less than 40km to work (2001) 05 0.8 2.9 2.4 People travelling 40km to less than 60km to work (2001) 15 2.6 2.6 2.2 People travelling 60km and over to work (2001) 40 5.8 6.8 2.7 People working at an offshore installation (2001) 05 0.5 0.1 0.1 Travel time to nearest employment centre by car (mins) (2011) 5 6 5 Travel time to nearest employment centre by cycle (mins) (2011) 14 6 7 Travel time to employment centre by Public Transport/walk (mins) (2011) 13 10 10 Travel time to Further Education Institution by Public Transport/walk (2011) 18 18 17 Travel time to nearest GP by Public Transport/walk (mins) (2011) 10 10 10 Travel time to nearest Hospital by Public Transport/walk (mins) (2011) 23 21 30 Travel time to nearest primary school by Public Transport/walk (mins) (2011) 8 9 9 Travel time to secondary school by Public Transport/walk (mins) (2011) 18 17 15 Travel time to nearest supermarket by Public Transport/walk (mins) (2011) 8 9 9 Travel time to nearest town centre by Public Transport/walk (mins) (2011) 14 15 17 People travelling to work by public transport (2011) 50 5.0 6.1 11.0 Road distance from the nearest Job Centre (meters) (2010) 6,387 2,721 4,637 Road distance from the nearest Secondary School (meters) (2010) 2,889 2,501 2,124 Road distance from the nearest GP (meters) (2010) 864 1,145 1,154 Road distance from the nearest Pub (meters) (2010) 473 687 728 Road distance from the nearest Post Office (meters) (2010) 608 1,085 978 Population density (persons per hectare) (2011) 3.9 4.9 4.1 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 1 (least deprived) 00 0.0 7.4 10.6 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 2 00 0.0 8.6 10.1 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 3 00 0.0 16.9 9.9 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 4 00 11.8 11.8 9.8 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 5 00 0.0 14.3 9.8 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 6 1,505 100.0 17.2 9.8 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 7 00 0.0 11.7 9.8 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 8 00 0.0 8.4 9.9 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 9 00 0.0 1.1 10.0 ID 2010 Outdoors Living Environment, Population in Decile 10 (most deprived) 00 0.0 2.5 10.3 Overall polution concentrations (score) (ID 2010) 0.8 0.9 1.0 Benzene concentrations (score) (ID 2010) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations (score) (ID 2010) 0.3 0.4 0.5 Particulates (PM10) concentrations (score) (ID 2010) 0.4 0.4 0.4 Sulphur Dioxide concentrations (score) (ID 2010) 0.0 0.0 0.1 Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L J Par/sh/U/iban area definitions The Parish and urban area boundaries used in this report are defined using the ONS Census 2011 Geography Iookup tables http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide- method/geography/products/census/lookup/index.html. The ONS Geography Iookup tables give information on the relationship between 2011 Output Areas and parish and urban area boundaries. All parish and urban area boundaries are ‘best—fitted’ from Output Areas (see the paragraph below for definition of Output Areas) in line with the Geography Policy for National Statistics. In other words, a parish or settlement is defined as being made up of one or more Output Areas — a best fit definition means that a whole Output Area is either in or out of a Parish/Urban area. To create this profile report, OCSI have collected key socio—economic datasets for Output Areas in Britain. These estimates have then been aggregated to Parish and urban areas. Census Outout Areas Census Output Areas (OAs) are a statistical geography created for the purpose of presenting Census and other neighbourhood statistics. All data presented within this report is based on OA boundaries aggregated to Parish/Urban area level. Unlike wards, OAs are designed to produce areas of approximately equal population size, with the mean population of LSOAs being around 300 people. This standardised population size makes the OA geography well suited to identifying smaller pockets of deprivation that may be averaged out over large wards. From the 2011 Census, there are 171,372 OAs in England. One of the main strengths of OAs is that they are relatively static over time (unlike wards, which change for electoral purposes). However, a small proportion of OAs have been changed in the 2011 Census to ensure consistent population size. hum v.n'r£v Do-nunithu nu an-‘nrt-n’ Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. L Data in this repo/t The analysis in this report uses data published for all small areas across the country, aggregated to parish and urban areas. There is a range of interesting data that is published for larger areas such as Local Authorities, regions, counties, or parliamentary constituencies but we cannot include this data in the reports as the data is not available for parishes. Additional detailed local datasets may be available from organisations such as the local authority. The introduction pages to each of the sections outline in detail the indicators used in the reports. Changes from the previous version of the place profile repo/ts There are several key changes from the previous place profile. 1. Up-to-date data. The indicators in these reports are up—to—date as of May 2013. The most significant update from the previous release is the inclusion of Census 2011 data which was not available in the previous set of profile reports. As a result, the majority of indicators are now for 2011. Note that it is difficult to show change over time between the 2001 and 2011 Census because of boundary changes in parish and urban areas (see below). 2. New palish and urban area definitions. The parish and urban area definitions are now based on 2011 ONS Iookup tables, taking into account any changes in parish boundaries and urban settlements following house building and demolition, urban sprawl or changing political arrangements. In addition, some Output Areas (used to define parish and urban area boundaries) have changed between 2001 and 2011 leading to further changes to parish and urban areas. . 0 ~52 r COMMUNITIES IN RURAL ENGLAND ac ACTION WITH Action with Communities in Rural Kent kfl¢n¢r'IJDlIIIIIIl$vII'I,lI;:_||-hli. Ab0utAct/on with Commun/'1‘/es in Rural Eng/and (ACRE) Action with Communities in Rural England is the national umbrella body for the 38 charitable local development agencies who make up the Rural Community Councils. Our vision is to champion vibrant, sustainable, inclusive and diverse rural communities by working in partnership with our members. The Network o employs approximately 1,000 staff with a variety of specialist skills o engages in 1,300 different partnerships, including working with 58 different higher—tier local authorities o has over 12,000 fee—paying members and o reaches 40,000 grass roots contacts and organisations in the 11,000 rural communities across England. Our members have years of experience in finding innovative solutions to the challenges facing rural communities. Advice and support is available on projects relating to housing; Neighbourhood and Community—Led Planning; transport, facilities and services; fuel poverty and energy generation; broadband; and community assets, such as village halls. For more information, or to find out how to contact your local Rural Community Council member, please visit our website at www.acre.org.uk Ab0utAct/on with Commun/'1‘/es in Rural Kent Action with Communities in Rural Kent works to try and ensure that nobody is disadvantaged because they live or work in a rural location. The organisation provides guidance, information and networking opportunities to help communities identify, articulate and address their needs. Core areas of work include Community—|ed and Neighbourhood Planning, Community Asset Management, Local Needs Housing and Access to Services (including economic development, healthcare and leisure provision) http://www.rura|kent.org.uk/. Community profile for Bridge (Parish), © ACRE, OCSI 2013. Local Green Space Site assessment — Site 1 Code LGS Site Church Meadow Address/location Brewery Lane, Bridge Size ??? Ownership Privately owned Public Access None Map showing potential Local Green Space allocation with site outlined Aerial Photo Photographs of site Site Description Flat, low lying, liable to flooding, agricultural meadow with fine views towards St Peter's Parish Church and ancient graveyard. Marks the start of the "Green Corridor” along the Elham Valley. Currently used for sheep grazing. Local Plan 2006 allocations Conservation Area and Flood Zone No ? Proposed Local Plan allocations Conservation Area and Flood Zone No ? Does site contribute to LP strategic requirements for provision of homes, employment or services? No If allocated as local green space can it endure beyond plan? Why? Yes. Area is important as a water meadow and as an area which soaks up water and prevents flooding in Brewery Lane and the High Street. There are springs and underground streams in this location. It provides surface water drainage for the village. Is it in close proximity to the community it would serve? le within 400m Yes. Immediately adjacent to the village. Does the site have local significance? Yes. Views of historic Grade II listed church. 0 Is it well used by wide range of community? 0 Is it multi-use space? 0 Is it currently publicly available for use? Previously used for annual village bonfire. No No 0 Is it beautiful? [Is the area attractive with high Yes, with idyllic (and much photographed) views of the church and countryside. visual amenity] 0 Does it have historic Yes. Immediately adjacent to the church, the origins significance? ofwhich date back to the 12”‘ Century, and its surrounding historical graveyard. 0 Does it have recreation value? including playingfields, is it usedformally or informallyfor sports No 0 Is it tranquil? Is it a peaceful place away from noise and bustle Yes. Very peaceful with far reaching views. 0 Does the site have wildlife value? Biodiversity Yes. Biodiversity and wildlife value, encouraged by the open space. It is protected by mature trees with appropriate wildlife along its southern boundary. Is the site local in character? [ie able to service the local community and not extensive] Yes, with the Elham Valley Way and National Cycle Route No 17 passing on its north side. Should it be designated as local Green Space or not? Why? Yes. Essential for flood protection for the village. It enhances the historic setting ofthe Grade II listed church. It is an important part of the "Green Corridor” which links the villages along the Elham Valley. Local Green Space Site assessment — Site 3 Code LGS Site Water Meadows Address/location off Brewery Lane Size ??? Ownership Privately owned Public Access Yes Map showing potential Local Green Space allocation with site outlined Aerial Photo Photographs of site Site Description Flat low lying fields crossed by public rights ofway, situated along the Nailbourne and adjacent to Grade II listed properties Local Plan 2006 allocations Conservation Area and Flood Zone No ??? Proposed Local Plan allocations Conservation Area and Flood Zone No ??? Does site contribute to LP strategic requirements for provision of homes, employment or services? No If allocated as local green space can it endure beyond plan? Why? Yes. The water meadows protect the village from flooding caused by the occasional stream known as the Nailbourne. Is it in close proximity to the community it would serve? le within 400m Yes Does the site have local significance? Yes, due to public footpaths and proximity to historic listed buildings. 0 Is it well used by wide range of community? 0 Is it multi-use space? 0 Is it currently publicly available for use? Yes. In constant use by ramblers and dog walkers. Limited — majority use is for farmland. Only the public footpaths. 0 Is it beautiful? [15 the area attractive with high visual amenity] Yes, with wide ranging views and the setting of historic buildings. 0 Does it have historic Ancient water meadows and setting of historic significance? properties. 0 Does it have recreation value? including playingfields, is it usedformally or informallyfor sports Yes — for walkers. 0 Is it tranquil? Is it a peaceful place away from noise and bustle Yes, very peaceful. 0 Does the site have wildlife value? Biodiversity Yes, site has biodiversity and wildlife value, particularly related to the riparian vegetation, hedgerows and mature trees. Is the site local in character? [ie able to service the local community and not extensive] Yes, forms part of the Elham Valley Way, leading to one ofthe original Kentish hop gardens. Should it be designated as local Green Space or not? Why? Yes. It provides protection from flooding. The footpath along with the riparian vegetation next to the river has recreational value, high biodiversity value as well as public amenity value. Local Green Space Site assessment — Site 4- Code LGS Site The Nuttery Address/location Off Mill Lane (meadow between Little Bridge Place and the Brickfield Size ??? Ownership Privately owned Public Access No Map showing potential Local Green Space allocation with site outlined Aerial Photo Photographs of site Site Description Field, fenced, with some mature trees and bordered on NW side by a private lane. Local Plan 2006 allocations Conservation Area Proposed Local Plan allocations Conservation Area Does site contribute to LP strategic requirements for provision of homes, employment or services? No If allocated as local green space can it endure beyond plan? Why? Yes, because it has potential for community use. Is it in close proximity to the community it would serve? le within 400m Yes Does the site have local significance? Provides setting for adjacent Grade II listed building. 0 Is it well used by wide range of community? 0 Is it multi-use space? 0 Is it currently publicly available for use? No No No 0 Is it beautiful? [15 the area attractive with high visual amenity] Has wide views of the countryside and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 0 Does it have historic significance? Setting for adjacent Grade II listed building. 0 Does it have recreation No value? including playingfields, is it usedformally or informallyfor sports 0 Is it tranquil? Is it a peaceful place away from noise and bustle Yes. It is hidden but accessible with wide ranging views and is bordered by country lane on one side and the water meadows. 0 Does the site have wildlife value? Biodiversity Yes. It has biodiversity and wildlife because of its tranquillity and location near to water meadows and mature trees. Is the site local in character? [ie able to service the local community and not extensive] Yes Should it be designated as local Green Space or not? Why? Yes. Site has potential for use as a community orchard and designated for such use in our Neighbourhood Plan. Local Green Space Site assessment — Site 5 Code LGS Site Patrixbourne Road/ Riverside Close Address/location Riverside Close Size ??? Ownership Privately owned Public Access No Map showing potential Local Green Space allocation with site outlined Aerial Photo Photographs of site Site Description Well maintained grassed area with some mature trees and bordered by the Nailbourne. Local Plan 2006 allocations Conservation Area and Flood Zone 3. Proposed Local Plan allocations Conservation Area and Flood Zone 3. Does site contribute to LP strategic requirements for provision of homes, employment or services? No If allocated as local green space can it endure beyond plan? Why? Yes. It is communally owned by residents of adjacent properties. Is it in close proximity to the community it would serve? Yes le within 400m Does the site have local Provides setting for adjacent award winning significance? housing. 0 Is it well used by wide range of community? 0 Is it multi-use space? 0 Is it currently publicly available for use? No No No 0 Is it beautiful? [15 the area attractive with high Enhances the rural aspect ofthe village and provides tranquillity for adjacent housing. visual amenity] 0 Does it have historic No significance? 0 Does it have recreation No value? including playingfields, is it usedformally or informallyfor sports 0 Is it tranquil? Is it a peaceful place away from noise and bustle Yes. It provides a green "oasis" for the surrounding properties. 0 Does the site have wildlife value? Biodiversity Yes. The site has biodiversity and wildlife value related to riparian vegetation and mature trees. Is the site local in character? [ie able to service the local community and not extensive] Yes. Imaginative aspect of the award winning development. Should it be designated as local Green Space or not? Why? Yes. It has ongoing value in maintaining the rural aspect of the village and provides flood protection for the nearby housing. Local Green Space Site assessment — Site 6 Code LGS Site Conyngham Lane — North Side Address/location Conyngham Lane, Bridge Size ??? Ownership Privately owned Public Access No Map showing potential Local Green Space allocation with site outlined Aerial Photo Photographs of site Site Description Heavily wooded strip ofland, some 10-15 metres at its widest but tapering off towards its eastern end and planted.with spring flowers at its road edge. It acts as a buffer between the houses and the field on higher ground to the north. Local Plan 2006 allocations Conservation Area Proposed Local Plan allocations Conservation Area Does site contribute to LP strategic requirements for provision of homes, employment or services? No If allocated as local green space can it endure beyond plan? Why? Yes. Area of tranquillity enhancing and protecting existing buildings including historic dwellings. Trees protect against local flooding and run-off agricultural land above. Is it in close proximity to the community it would serve? Yes. le within 400m Does the site have local Ancient woodland and adjacent to the old village significance? laundry, hence the original name of the road, Laundry Lane. 0 Is it well used by wide range of community? 0 Is it multi-use space? 0 Is it currently publicly available for use? No No No 0 Is it beautiful? [15 the area attractive with high Yes, mature ancient woodland. visual amenity] 0 Does it have historic significance? Yes, adjacent to the old village laundry. 0 Does it have recreation value? including playingfields, is it usedformally or informallyfor sports No 0 Is it tranquil? Is it a peaceful place away from noise and bustle Yes, peaceful wildlife haven. 0 Does the site have wildlife value? Biodiversity Yes, biodiversity and wildlife value related to ancient woodland. Is the site local in character? [ie able to service the local community and not extensive] Yes, in close proximity to properties oflocal historic significance. Should it be designated as local Green Space or not? Why? Yes. It borders the "Green Gap" and is important in maintaining the biodiversity and local wildlife. Local Green Space Site assessment — Site 7 Code LGS Site Bridge Allotments Address/location Town Hill, Bridge Size ??? Ownership Privately owned Public Access No Map showing potential Local Green Space allocation with site outlined Aerial Photo Photographs of site Site Description Fully rabbit fenced site of 14 (some sub-divided) designated plots with sheds and fine views over the village and beyond. Local Plan 2006 allocations Conservation Area Proposed Local Plan allocations Conservation Area Does site contribute to LP strategic requirements for provision of homes, employment or services? Yes. It provides an opportunity for residents to grow their own produce. It also has recreational value. If allocated as local green space can it endure beyond plan? Why? Yes because it has lasting community value as allotments. Is it in close proximity to the community it would serve? le within 400m Yes Does the site have local significance? Yes, due to community use and extensive views of the countryside. 0 Is it well used by wide range of community? 0 Is it multi-use space? 0 Is it currently publicly available for use? Yes No No — available to members. 0 Is it beautiful? [Is the area attractive with high visual amenity] Yes, well maintained plots with views of the countryside 0 Does it have historic Long-standing pre WWI amenity for the district. significance? 0 Does it have recreation value? including playingfields, is it usedformally or informallyfor sports Yes. It provides opportunity for recreational gardening. 0 Is it tranquil? Is it a peaceful place away from noise and bustle Yes — very peaceful. 0 Does the site have wildlife value? Biodiversity Yes. The site has biodiversity and wildlife value encouraged by the variety of produce grown, particularly important for butterfly, bee and insect conservation. Is the site local in character? [ie able to service the local community and not extensive] Yes. It provides an important amenity for the local community. Should it be designated as local Green Space or not? Why? Yes. It has recreational and high biodiversity value and provides a healthy amenity for the local community. Notes of meeting of Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Committee and Canterbury City Council. Tuesday 14 March 2017 10.00 am. Canterbury City Council Offices, Military Rd, Canterbury. Present: Lisa Gadd (Planning Policy Officer CCC), Karen Britton (Planning Policy and Heritage Manager CCC), Simon Cook (Leader and Nailbourne Ward member CCC), Joe Connor (Chair BNPC), Alan Atkinson (Chair of Bridge Parish Council and member of the BNPC) and Philip Wicker (Clerk to Bridge Parish Council and member of BNPC). The BNPC advised that a potential housing site had been put forward (Land adjacent to Conyngham Lane) that lies within the Green Gap, as identified on the Proposal Map in the emerging Local Plan. LG advised that if this site was taken forward in the Neighbourhood Plan it would not be in general conformity with the emerging Local Plan. Karen Britton advised that the BNPC may wish to bring this to the |nspector’s attention through the current Local Plan Main Modifications consultation. She advised that to date the Inspector had made no suggested changes through the Examination process relating to this Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury. The BNPC also highlighted that Site 3, Land to the Rear of Bridge primary School (SHLAA 201) was a potential housing site for consideration given the planning constraints on Site 2, land adjacent to Conyngham Lane. o LG offered to speak to a transport colleague regarding access to Site 3. o LG asked for an updated timescale for the next stages of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan. (Action for Jim Boot) Discussion then took place about the Neighbourhood Plan consultation process and the Duty to Cooperate o LG advised that her colleagues in the communications team may be able to provide guidance to the BNPC. o KB/LG will advise on the process for ensuring the NPC are meeting all the requirements of the Council's Statement of Community Involvement and the Duty To Cooperate as appropriate. o LG reminded the NPC that statutory consultees include Neighbouring Parish Councils KB advised that there may be potential funding for progressing the Neighbourhood plan through the Community Housing Fund. o KB advised that the NPG should consult with the Housing Enabling Officer at Canterbury City Council to discuss the details of this and he will advise on whether there is funding available. It was also decided that the next meeting should take place between CCC planners and the NPC at the end of April/, or start of May once the BNPC have completed the SEA and Local Housing Needs Assessment. Local Green Spaces Additional Sites not included in the Assessment The following have not been included in the Local Green Spaces Assessment because of their size, but are nevertheless of significant value in maintaining the rural aspect of the village and in providing and conserving wildlife habitats. Several of these sites contain mature trees. 1. Green strip in front of the Affordable Housing Scheme at Brickfields Close. Green strip at the top of Union Road in front of numbers 44 — 54 Patrixbourne Road l between car parking area and Doctors’ Surgflg Convngham Lane — Junction with High Street Off Convnqham Lane - Area between Bridqe Primarv School and The Haven Residential Care Home The green open spaces at Green Court/Western Avenue and Ford Close/Western Avenue are being developed by the local residents supported by Bridge Parish Council to provide a tranquil setting and to encourage wildlife. Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee May2017 Strategic Environmental Assessment for Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Quality information Scoping Report Prepared by Checked by Approved by Anthony Lavers Nick Chisholm—Batten Steve Smith ASSiSt8“t E”ViF0“m€“t8' Principal Consultant Technical Director Consultant Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee Prepared by: AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Aldgate Tower. 2 Leman Street. London El 8FA, UK T: +44 (0) 207 798 5001 aecom.com © 201 7 AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited ("AECOM") for sole use of our client (the "Client") in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Scoping Report Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............... .. 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................. ..1 1.2 Relationship of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan with the Canterbury District Local Plan .................................................................................................................................................................................. .. 2 1.3 SEA explained ............................................................................................................................................................ .. 2 1.4 SEA ‘scoping’ explained ........................................................................................................................................ .. 3 1.5 Structure of this report .......................................................................................................................................... .. 3 2. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................... .. 5 3. Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................................ .. 7 4. Climate Change .................................................................................................................................................. ..13 5. Landscape and Historic Environment ........................................................................................................ ..22 6. Land, Soil and Water Resources ................................................................................................................... ..28 7. Population and Community ............................................................................................................................ ..31 8. Health and Wellbeing ........................................................................................................................................ ..38 9. Transportation .................................................................................................................................................... ..41 10. Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................ ..45 10.1 Subsequent stages for the SEA process ................................................................................................. .. 45 10.2 Consultation on the Scoping Report ........................................................................................................... .. 45 10.3 Download and viewing details ......................................................................................................................... .. 45 Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Acronyms AQMA ASR BAP CO2 DPD EU FRMP GhG IMD LCT LNR UNS LSOA NCA NERC NBNP NPPF NPPG NVZ SEA SPZ SSSI SuDS UKCP \NFD Air Quality Management Area Annual Status Report Biodiversity Action Plan Carbon dioxide Development Plan Document European Union Flood Risk Management Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index of Multiple Deprivation Landscape Character Type Local Nature Reserve Local Wildlife Site Lower Super Output Area National Character Area Natural Environment Research Council Natural Environment White Paper National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Strategic Environmental Assessment Groundwater Source Protection Zone Site of Special Scientific Interest Sustainable drainage systems UK Climate Projections Water Framework Directive Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee Scoping Report AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Scoping Report 1. Introduction 1.1 Background AECOM has been commissioned to undertake an independent Strategic Environmental Assessment in support of Bridge’s emerging Neighbourhood Plan. The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan, which covers Bridge Parish in Kent, is currently being prepared as a Neighbourhood Development Plan under the Localism Act 2011 and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is being prepared in the context of the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan. It is currently anticipated that the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan will be submitted to Canterbury City Council in 2017. Key information relating to the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is presented in Table 1.1. Table 1.1: Key facts relating to the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Name of Responsible Authority Bridge Parish Council Title of Plan Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Subject Neighbourhood Plan Purpose The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is being prepared as a Neighbourhood Development Plan underthe Localism Act 2011 and Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. The plan will be in general conformity with the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan. The emerging Bridge Neighbourhood Plan will be used to guide and shape development within Bridge Parish. Timescale To 2031 Area covered by the plan The Neighbourhood Plan area covers Bridge Parish in Kent. It is located within the Canterbury City Council area. (Referto Figure 1.1 below) Summary of content The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan will set out a vision, strategy and range of policies for the Neighbourhood Plan area. Plan contact point Philip Wicker, Clerk to Bridge Parish Council clerk@bridgevillage.org.uk Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Scoping Report 1.2 Relationship of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan with the Canterbury District Local Plan The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is being prepared in the context of the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan. Following Submission of the Local Plan to the Planning Inspectorate in 2016, and subsequent initial Examination hearings, consultation on Proposed l\/lain Modifications to the Local Plan was undertaken in February and March 2017. Neighbourhood plans will form part of the development plan for the district, alongside, but not as a replacement for the Local Plan. The Local Plan seeks to give communities a solid framework within which appropriate community—led planning policy documents, including neighbourhood plans, can be brought forward. Neighbourhood plans are required to be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and can develop policies and proposals to address local place—based issues. In this way it is intended for the Local Plan to provide a clear overall strategic direction for development in Canterbury District, whilst enabling finer detail to be determined through the neighbourhood planning process where appropriate. A number of key provisions are set out for Bridge in the latest version of the Local Plan, as follows: a Bridge is classified as a Local Centre in the settlement hierarchy and a Larger Local Village Centre. o A new green gap between Canterbury and Bridge is proposed. - The provision of a new A2 interchange near Bridge will be required as an integral part of development proposals in the area. a Provision of new housing that is of a size, design, scale, character and location appropriate to the character and built form of Bridge will be supported provided that such proposals are not in conflict with other local plan policies relating to transport, environmental and flood zone protection and design, and the Kent Downs AONB. The emerging Local Plan does not allocate any sites for housing in the Neighbourhood Plan area. 1.3 SEA explained The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan has been screened in by Canterbury City Council as requiring a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEA is a mechanism for considering and communicating the potential impacts of an emerging plan, and potential alternatives in terms of key environmental issues. The aim of SEA is to inform and influence the plan—making process with a view to avoiding and mitigating potential negative impacts. Through this approach, the SEA forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan seeks to maximise the emerging plan's contribution to sustainable development. SEA is undertaken to meet specific requirements prescribed by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the SEA Regulations). Two key procedural requirements of the SEA Regulations are that: 1. When deciding on ‘the scope and level of detail of the information’ which must be included in the Environmental Report there is a consultation with nationally designated authorities concerned with environmental issues; and 2. A report (the ‘Environmental Report’) is published for consultation alongside the Draft Plan (i.e the Regulation 14 version of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan) that presents outcomes from the environmental assessment (i.e. discusses ‘likely significant effects‘ that would result from plan implementation) and reasonable alternatives. Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Scoping Report This scoping report This ‘Scoping Report’ is concerned with item 1 above. It presents a suggested scope for the SEA so that the designated authorities (Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency) can provide timely comment. 1.4 SEA ‘scoping’ explained Developing the draft scope for the SEA as presented in this report has involved the following steps: 1. Defining the broader context for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan and associated SEA (i.e. EU, UK Government and local policy and commitments), to summarise the regulatory and legislative landscape; 2. Establishing the baseline for the SEA, (i.e. the current and future situation in the area in the absence of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan, in order to help identify the plan's likely significant effects); 3. Identifying particular problems or opportunities (‘issues’) that should be a particular focus of the SEA; and 4. Developing a SEA Framework comprising objectives and appraisal questions on the basis of these issues which can then be used to appraise the draft plan. 1.5 Structure of this report Key sustainability issues The outcomes of the scoping elements introduced through steps 1 -4 above have been presented under a series of key environmental themes, as follows: - Air Quality a Land, Soil and Water Resources - Biodiversity - Population and Community - Climatic Factors (including flood risk) - Health and Wellbeing o Landscape and Historic Environment o Transportation The selected environmental themes incorporate the ‘SEA topics’ suggested by Annex l(f) of the SEA Directive‘. These were refined to reflect a broad understanding of the anticipated scope of plan effects. It is intended that presenting the scoping information under these themes will help enable the reader to easily locate the information of greatest interest to them. Once agreed (i.e. subsequent to consultation on this Scoping Report), the suggested scope presented under eight themes will provide a methodological ‘framework’ for the environmental assessment of the draft plan and reasonable alternatives. The discussion of the scoping information for each theme is presented in Sections 2 to 9. SEA Framework to assess policy proposals The SEA Framework provides a way in which environmental effects can be defined and subsequently analysed based on standard ‘tests’. Each proposal within the emerging Bridge Neighbourhood Plan will be assessed consistently using the framework. The SEA objectives and appraisal questions proposed for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan SEA are presented under each of the themes in Sections 2 to 9 below. 1 The SEA Directive is ‘of a procedural nature’ (para 9 of the Directive preamble) and does not set out to prescribe particular issues that should and should not be a focus, beyond requiring a focus on ‘the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors’ [our emphasis] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 3 . mm LLdu F-Vmhoufif’ THIS DRAWVNG Is To BE USED ONLY FOR IME PURPOSE OF H ‘H H °”5° ISSUE rm :1 ms ISSUED FOR mo IS suuecr Y0 mennuusm LEGEND Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Area "an ~‘r,- y \ RC, Howmtts Farmhouse Hm Housn Hmm, L 6"‘"5.\/ ’n. ///We N Bekesbourne Be kesbourne H ill So / /0’ I/ 4’ Q f Bekesbourne Q)’ The (cam , n \ ~ House V?‘ '“ Qu‘ ‘~ V, \\ xx . 6° ‘wf Q Patrixbourne s», , ~m, xv, M g O\d Ronwhe Farmhouse 73' Nackington "r Mm Collages ’o Shepherds "U /n 0 Z r: o V 07 ,5 C * ottago u 't % Cownghl Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown Copyrighl and database right 2017 (hate The Coa(h House Whwtr-hxilv./OOr1 Pnvwu M Issu- Street End DRAFT Mlddk‘ — OHLJ D*’‘‘‘‘ R Pen Farmhouse M D «<\~‘ “ L.w‘= cm um Q,.m,.,W BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN House \.‘A‘.‘OU(“«lV"(}*, \.‘A/UL‘u! WW‘ Boumo Pct! Farm Home Ruseduwn vmpa rm Lower Hardres ‘L: 1 ismw -.- BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Llltie Eaton Farm Bishopsbourne 3\:h0<)V 1 5'9“ Dtawlng we Cottage Crows Camp new BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD ‘fix Noruvolvn Farm House PLAN AREA ga‘ Lodge 5 Kc-npc-r's (5 — ; (wage Lg cum cneaea wwuved Date ; )'3/;,G COOVS 7-W“ CN JW NOB 21/04/2017 Pett Bottom *3; AECUM |mema\Fm}e:lNc // Young‘; Fmm ’~“ «A sweau 60538603 1:20,000 Hm Lad mzs oocuuznvms aeznvwsmasn vukwwmmosuucrvonz 90 law: nuzcuus u-oommem av ws mm AECOMACLEPVS uouuaurv r MR mm av ns omowu cum on rouomucaecous EXPRESS mnszwem V0 sucx usi mo ouu rm ma vuavoszs mu wmcn n was Pnzvmzn MD women (/0 ‘ 1 E = ac it The Dower Garsm Wmd House Womr ,2 Soul mu 1 Navwhu Ron 1» — mam M2567 mzoa m mess» Jlazm L w». nmntnm s L’“’We.s Court Rm .3 s\<‘\¢ 0 Z i E E L A4 °’""""°" "" , _ FIGURE 1.1 01 2 km 5* 90, o 0‘: o F3 on on File Name I \5004 - Inimnalnn Sy5|ems\605386U3_Necghbourhood_Plan_LnI6_Yeal3\0Z_Maps\Budge NF‘ Sleenng Groun\FIgure 1«| « Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Area mxd Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2. Air Quality Focus of Theme: - Air pollution sources - Air quality hotspots - Air quality management 2.1 Headline Sustainability Issues c There are no Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in the Neighbourhood Plan area. o The nearest AQMA is located in the centre of Canterbury, approximately 5 km to the north—west. - Future development within the Neighbourhood Plan area has the potential to increase traffic along the main routes through Bridge, particularly Bridge Road, Station Road and Bridge Hill. Due to the absence of significant air quality issues within the Neighbourhood Plan area, air quality has been scoped out for the purposes of the SEA process. 2.2 Policy Context Key messages from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) include: a ‘Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan’. a New and existing developments should be prevented from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of air pollution. Released in 2009, the Air Quality Action Plan2 for Canterbury district details district—wide actions in addition to specific actions for the one AQMA in the district. As there are no AQMAs within the Neighbourhood Plan area boundary, the following district—wide actions are relevant to this SEA theme: a Delivery of improvements in emissions standards, where practicable: - Supporting and promoting the Kent—wide car share scheme; a Exploring the potential for Car Club schemes in Canterbury; o Improving the Canterbury local cycle route network; - Working with relevant City Council departments to ensure that air quality is taken into account in the planning process: and o Delivery of a planning guidance document to assist with air quality assessments for development proposals. In terms of the local context, Canterbury City Council is required to monitor air quality across the district under Section 82 of the Environment Act (l 995), report regularly to Defra and take action where nationally set levels are likely to be exceeded. Monitoring is undertaken to assess levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, benzene and particulates. Where exceedances exist, areas are declared as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and local authorities are required to produce an Action Plan to improve air quality in the area. 2 Canterbury District Council (2009) Air Quality Action Plan [online] available from: https://www.canterburv.qov.uk/media/63923/air—c1ualitv-action—D|an.pdf [Accessed 10/04/2017] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2.3 Baseline Summary 2.3.1 Summary of Current Baseline In fulfilment of Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, Canterbury City Council — as part of the Kent and Medway Air Quality Monitoring Network — released an Annual Report3 in July 201 6, with the report considering all results and relevant data recorded during 2015 within Canterbury district and Kent as a whole. There are currently no AQMAs within the Neighbourhood Plan area, although there is an AQMA located in Canterbury city centre. Air quality in the Parish is therefore generally considered good. 2.3.2 Summary of Future Baseline Future development within the Neighbourhood Plan area has the potential to increase traffic along the main routes into Bridge, placing pressure on the existing highways network. The goals of improving district—wide sustainable transport options in the most recent Canterbury District Transport Strategy and Canterbury City Council Air Quality Action Plan might lead to improvements in air quality over a wider area. 3 Kent and Medway Air Quality Partnership Monitoring Network (201 6): ‘Kent and Medway Air Quality Monitoring Network- Annual Report 201 5', [online] available to download via: last accessed [21/O4/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 3. Biodiversity Focus of Theme: - Nature conservation designations - Habitats - Species - Geodiversity 3.1 Headline Sustainability Issues - Four SSSls are located in the vicinity of the Neighbourhood Plan area: lleden and Oxenden Woods SSSI (to the east); Chequer’s Wood and Old Park SSSI (to the north); Larkey Valley Wood SS SI (to the west): and Lysnore Bottom SSSI to the south. o The northern section of the Neighbourhood Plan area is located within a SSSI Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for the Chequer’s Wood and Old Park SSSI. c There are two Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within the Neighbourhood Plan area: Whitehill Wood and Lower Hardres, and the River Nail Bourne. There is also a LWS directly adjacent to the southern border of the Neighbourhood Plan area, Gorsley Wood. 3.2 Policy Context At the European level, the EU Biodiversity Strategy4 was adopted in May 201 l in order to deliver an established new Europe—wide target to ‘halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020’. Key messages from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) include: - Contribute to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity by minimising impacts and achieving net gains in biodiversity wherever possible. - Promote the ‘preservation, restoration and re—creation of priority habitats, ecological networks’ and the ‘protection and recovery of priority species’. Plan for biodiversity at a landscape—scale across local authority boundaries. o Set criteria based policies for the protection of internationally, nationally and locally designated sites, giving weight to their importance notjust individually but as a part of a wider ecological network. o Take account of the effects of climate change in the long term. Adopt proactive strategies to adaptation and manage risks through adaptation measures including green infrastructure (i.e. ‘a network of multi—functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities’). a Plan positively for ‘green infrastructure’ as part of planning for ‘ecological networks’. a High quality open spaces should be protected or their loss mitigated, unless a lack of need is established. The Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP)5 sets out the importance of a healthy, functioning natural environment to sustained economic growth, prospering communities and personal well—being. ltwas in part a response to the Ul<’s failure to halt and reverse the decline in biodiversity by 2010 and it 4 European Commission (201 1) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 [online] available at: last accessed [10/04/17] 5 Defra (201 2) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature (Natural Environment White Paper) [online] available at: last accessed [10/04/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan signalled a move away from the traditional approach of protecting biodiversity in nature reserves to adopting a landscape approach to protecting and enhancing biodiversity. The NEWP also aims to create a green economy in which economic growth and the health of our natural resources sustain each other and markets, business and Government better reflect the value of nature. It includes commitments to: o Halt biodiversity loss, support functioning ecosystems and establish coherent ecological networks by 2020; o Establish a new voluntary approach to biodiversity offsetting to be tested in pilot areas; - Enable partnerships of local authorities, local communities and landowners, the private sector and conservation organisations to establish new Nature Improvement Areas; and - Address barriers to using green infrastructure to promote sustainable growth. Reflecting the commitments within the Natural Environment White Paper and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, ‘Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem services’ aims to ‘halt overall biodiversity loss, support healthy well—functioning ecosystems and establish coherent ecological networks, with more and better places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people '5. The emerging Canterbury District Local Plan aims to ‘protect and enhance the countryside, acknowledging its own intrinsic value, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife and recognising that a high quality rural environment contributes to the economic, social and cultural well- being ofthe District7. Emerging Local Plan policies provide protection for the nationally designated Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (policy LB1) and protection for sites of international conservation importance (policy LB5), including three Ramsar sites at Stodmarsh, Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay, and the Swale. Policy LB6 protects Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSls), while policy LB8 includes provision to pursue opportunities for biodiversity improvement in Biodiversity Opportunity Areas. Finally, policy LB9 aims to ensure that development avoids a net loss of biodiversity andlor nature conservation value, especially in areas where there are protected species or links andlor buffers between designated wildlife sites. 3.3 Baseline Summary 3.3.1 Summary of Current Baseline SSSls and lRZs Notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 , lleden and Oxenden Woods SSSI is 8645 ha in size and is located to the east of the Neighbourhood Plan area. The citation for the SSSI statesg: ‘The site is representative of east Kent plateau woodland on Upper Chalk and thin chalk drifts. The range of soil types present is reflected in the variety of stand types and the diversity of the ground flora. Two of the stand types represented on this site are nationally rare. The rotational coppicing of large areas, combined in a mosaic with high forest stands adds to the structural diversity of the wood and has resulted in the presence of a very rich breeding bird community including nightingale (7 7 pairs in 7985) and hawfinch. Two nationally rare plants also occur’. 6 DEFRA (201 1): ‘Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem services’, [online] Available to download from: last accessed [16/04/17] 7 Canterbury District Local Plan, chapter 6. [online] available at: http://canterbum consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/cdlp 2014/cdlp publication 2014?pointld=1394624366172#section—1394624366172> last accessed [10/04/2017] 8 Natural England (no date): ‘lleden and O> last accessed 12/04/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Based on the most recent condition assessment, 85.35% of the SSSI has been classified as ‘favourable’, while 14.65% is classified as ‘unfavourable — recovering’. SSSI Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) are a GIS tool/dataset which maps zones around each SSSI according to the particular sensitivities of the features forwhich it is notified. They specify the types of development that have the potential to have adverse impacts at a given location. Natural England is a statutory consultee on development proposals that might impact on SSSls. The Neighbourhood Plan area does not fall within the SSSI Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) for the lleden and Oxenden Woods SSSI. Notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Chequer’s Wood and Old Park SSSI is 106.7 ha in size and is located to the north of the Neighbourhood Plan area. The citation forthe SSSI states9: ‘The woodland in the valley is a good example of a base—rich springline alder wood. Unimproved acidic grassland is present on the dry sandy plateau in the western part of the site. In addition a variety of other habitats are present including pedunculate oak—birch woodland, dense scrub and a pond. Some uncommon plants occur and the area also supports a diverse breeding bird community The mosaic of grassland scrub and woodland gives this site considerable interest. The acidic sandy soils of the plateau contrast with the base—rich peaty soils of the valley bottom. There is consequently a wide variety of plants present’. The most recent condition assessment suggests that 68.32% of the SSSI is in ‘favourable’ condition, while 31.68% is in ‘unfavourable — recovering’ condition. The northern third of the Neighbourhood Plan area falls within the IRZ for the Chequer’s Wood and Old Park SSSI. Development proponents should therefore consults Natural England on risks to the SSSI from infrastructure, oil and gas, air pollution, combustion and discharges. Larkey Valley Wood SSSI was notified in 1985 under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and is 44.09 ha in size. It lies to the west of the Neighbourhood Plan area. The citation for the SSSI states‘°: ‘Ash—maple coppice is the predominant woodland type on the slopes of this dry chalk valley This grades into beech high forest on the thin calcareous soils of the upper slopes with hornbeam coppice on the deeper soils in the valley bottom. The varied ground flora includes a number of uncommon plants. The wood also supports many breeding birds. The ash—maple woodland has a varied coppice layer under pedunculate oak standards. While ash and hazel are the most common coppiced species, field maple, birch, sweet chestnut and wild cherry are also present and hawthorn is a common shrub. In the valley bottom the coppice is more uniform. Hornbeam and hazel are the predominant coppiced species with occasional ash and field maple and a few oak standards. The high forest on the upper slopes is dominated by mature beech with some oak. The shrub layer under the beech is sparse in heavily shaded areas but elsewhere, especially along the woodland edge, there is a variety of species including wild privet, spindle and wayfaring tree; shrubs characteristic of chalk soils’. Based on the most recent condition assessment, 100% of the SSSI has been classified as ‘favourable’, The Neighbourhood Plan area does not fall within the SSSI Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) for the Larkey Valley Wood SSSI. Finally, Lysnore Bottom SSSI was notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in 1985. The SSSI is due south ofthe Neighbourhood Plan area, and is approximately 70 ha in size. The citation for the SSSI states“: 9 Natural England (no date) Chequer’s Wood and Old Park SSSI [online] available via: < https://necmsi.esdm.co.uk/PDFsForWeb/Citation/1 003485.pdf> last accessed 12/04/2017] ‘O Natural England (no date) Larkey Valley Wood SSSI [online] available via: < https://necmsi.esdm.co.uk/PDFsForWeb/Citation/1 00001 1 .pdf> last accessed 12/04/2017] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan ‘This is a good example of a traditional coppice—with—standards woodland containing a variety of tree species. Ash—maple and pedunculate oak—hornbeam stands are the main woodland types on the eastern side of the valley On the western slopes there is ash and sweet chestnut coppice, both with pedunculate oak standards. The site is also noted for the presence of several uncommon plants, particularly the lady orchid Orchis purpurea, a species restricted in Britain to Kent. The eastern woodlands, Fryarne Park Wood and Mill Bank, are the most varied. Hazel and ash are the most common coppiced species on the chalk soils of the lower slopes with ash and hornbeam on the clay—with—flints soils of the upper slopes. Pedunculate oak and beech standards are present throughout. Other species include birch, field maple, whitebeam and shrubs such as wayfaring tree‘. Based on the most recent condition assessment, 4.62% of the SSSI has been classified as ‘favourable’; 61.74% has been classified as ‘unfavourable — recovering’ and 33.65% as ‘unfavourable — no change‘. The Neighbourhood Plan area does not fall within the SSSI IRZ for the Lysnore Bottom SSSI. Locally Important Sites Whitehill Wood and Lower Hardres (79.82 ha), and the River Nail Bourne (13.27 ha) are both Local Wildlife Sites within the Neighbourhood Plan area. Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)‘support threatened habitats, such as chalk grassland or ancient woodland‘ and seek to create a better connected landscape of wildlife buffers, corridors and stepping stones”. They are seen as integral in meeting both local and national targets for biodiversity conservation. BAP Priority Habitats In regards to BAP Priority Habitats, there is one small area of Ancient and Semi—Natural Woodland in the Neighbourhood Plan area at Whitehill Wood, as well as Deciduous Woodland. In addition, there are small areas of the following BAP Priority Habitats: o Wood pasture and parkland; and o Broadleaved woodland. 3.3.2 Summary of Future Baseline Habitats and species have the potential to come under increasing pressures from housing and infrastructure development in the Neighbourhood Plan area, including the nationally and locally designated sites. This includes a loss of habitats and impacts on biodiversity networks. This may be exacerbated by the effects of climate change, which has the potential to lead to changes in the distribution and abundance of species and changes to the composition and character of habitats. 1‘ Natural England (no date) Lysnore Bottom SSSI [online] available via: http://wvvvv.sssi.naturalendland.orq.uklcitation/citation photo/1 0001 64.pdf [last accessed 12/04/2017] 12 Kent Wildlife Trust (2017): ‘Local Wildlife Sites‘, [online] available to View via: last accessed [21/04/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 1O File Name H5004 « Iniormzuon Syslems\60536603_NeighbourhoodAP|an_LoIfi4Year3W2)l|aps\Bridge NP Sleenng Gronpifigure cu - Bcodwerslly Deslgnahons and Hahrials mm 0.5 0.5 44/4 Am“ , A av-.cm‘a‘ R” ‘W _-—-_-_-_ __,-— -_ \ s ‘ ‘ § ‘ \ I ‘\ ’ \ I’ om Renwiie ‘\ Farmhouse ‘ ' \ ’ \ I s — ’ '9, O4 *0 ‘*4 e,/ um“ I 4 ‘\ Finn! ,’ ‘ 59'-mar _ I THIS DRAWING Is TO BE USED ONLY FOR ms PURPOSE 07 iSSUE THAT IT WAS ISSUED FOR AND IS SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT LEGEND . - -I Bridge Neighbourhood I. - .. Plan Area Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats - Deciduous Woodland Good Quality Semi-improved - Grassland 2 Traditional Orchard OOWWN Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown Copyrighl and daiabase right 2017 © Crown 2017 copyright Deira via uk-air.deira,gov‘uk. licenced under the Open Government Licence (OGL) Purwxautlsme DRAFT Chem BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN STEERING GROUP mm rm: BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Driving we BIODIVERSITY DESIGNATIONS AND HABITATS ovm Cnaolwd loo-mu: Daie CN JW NCE 21/04/2017 AECOM Internal Proyecl No scue @ as 60538603 1:20,000 us oocumarr Ms new mans» vvasumr mm: sumzcr To us TERN5 or Azc/anus woummr av rrs cusm Ascou Accms no Luwrv 2km X saw m or ms uocuuw own wwuv us mm on roLL<7mMsA£coM 2 osuo< use uouuwron ms msesroammivmswznmmmmwosu AECOM SM rm. A-vw um n--ma. _ mm... Rozvrw A Yawn-n:im15lilvn2oa in umsa» mm mum own Draw Nunbu M Strategic Ervironmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan mg r:.e“-,y .. . ., . ’ h_e\'1fier'syM{8_g\Zl *9. ‘ old Pa(§S§_I?/ «t'/2'.~:;:.; ‘J ‘ r -.:-.*7.:. ac _ i ‘rm ,. !‘ r‘ 4“ 3 - If \ .s 4: ‘ ‘ " - ' “\ 1 ‘ . " ‘Q ,."fl:?\ Meadows -3;“ V . . Uvbor Hora? V .i (“WM pm‘ ‘l u ' F '..*.*_"z I ' ‘E *1; T" 1 vllfinn Ia .. . fixgtifi I I 1 a. I 2 _- . ' g -< *. 4')‘ .5 - / ~‘i I I’ I ~"‘9 p _Map prgchced ljy Mffilcon 2 May. 2017.‘~ ,3, 2. ‘Ci,-'.'(c)~O'§_INr'I Copyright and dat'ah‘a7s‘_righIs_'2_Q17. 22861. ‘ I In Oialnance Survey’ 1 5 ‘iv’. :3 ' last accessed [15/03/17] ‘4 GOV.UK (2008): ‘Climate Change Act 2008', [online] accessible via last accessed [20/03/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 14 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan The Climate Change Act includes the following: o 2050 Target. The Act commits the UK to reducing emissions by at least 80% in 2050 from 1990 levels. o Carbon Budgets. The Act requires the Government to set legally binding ‘carbon budgets’. A carbon budget is a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the UK over a five—year period. The carbon budgets are designed to reflect the cost—effective path to achieving the UK’s long—term objectives. The first five carbon budgets have been put into legislation and run up to 2032. o The Committee on Climate Change was set up to advise the Government on emissions targets, and report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. o The National Adaptation Programme requires the Government to assess the risks to the UK from climate change, prepare a strategy to address them, and encourage key organisations to do the same. For more detail, visit the UK adaptation policy page“? Key messages from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) include: o Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate as a ‘core planning principle’. c There is a key role for planning in securing radical reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including in terms of meeting the targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008”? Specifically, planning policy should support the move to a low carbon future through: - Planning for new development in locations and ways which reduce GHG emissions: - Actively supporting energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings; - Setting local requirements for building's sustainability in a way that is consistent with the Government's zero carbon buildings policy; - Positively promoting renewable energy technologies and considering identifying suitable areas for their construction: and - Encouraging those transport solutions that support reductions in GHG emissions and reduce congestion. a Direct development away from areas highest at risk of flooding, with development ‘not to be allocated if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding’. Where development is necessary, it should be made safe without increasing levels of flood risk elsewhere. o Take account of the effects of climate change in the long term, taking into account a range of factors including flooding. Adopt proactive strategies to adaptation and manage risks through adaptation measures including well planned green infrastructure. The Flood and Water Management Act” highlights that alternatives to traditional engineering approaches to flood risk management include: o Incorporating greater resilience measures into the design of new buildings, and retro—fitting properties at risk (including historic buildings); o Utilising the environment in order to reduce flooding, for example through the management of land to reduce runoff and through harnessing the ability of wetlands to store water: o Identifying areas suitable for inundation and water storage to reduce the risk of flooding elsewhere; 15 Committee on Climate Change (2017): ‘UK Adaptation Policy’ [online] accessible via last accessed [17/04/17] ‘6 The Climate Change Act 2008 sets targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions through action in the UK of at least 80% by 2050, and reductions in CO2 emissions of at least 26% by 2020, against a 1990 baseline. *7 Flood and Water Management Act (201 0) [online] available at: http://\/vww.leqislation.qov.uk/ukpqa/2010/29/contents Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM T5 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan o Planning to roll back development in coastal areas to avoid damage from flooding or coastal erosion; and o Creating sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)‘8 Further guidance is provided in the document ‘Planning for SuDs‘.‘9 This report calls for greater recognition of the multiple benefits that water management can present. It suggests that successful SuDS are capable of ‘contributing to local quality of life and green infrastructure’. Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMP) explain the risk of flooding from rivers, the sea, surface water, groundwater and reservoirs, in addition to setting out how risk management authorities will work with communities to manage flood and coastal risk, usually over 6-year cycles. At the regional level, the most recent FRMP for the South East2° covers the period 201 5-2021, with the South East River Basin Management Plan“ (SERBMP) (201 5) developed alongside the FRMP to form an important part of a collaborative and integrated approach to catchment planning for water. The following social, economic and environmental objectives from the FRMP for the South East are relevant: - Minimise impact to people, property and to critical infrastructure and services from all sources of flooding and coastal erosion, increasing the focus on community resilience; o Protect and enhance sustainable recreational and amenity opportunities where appropriate, recognising the important contribution of income from these activities to river and coastal management; o Minimise flood risk impact to the local economy, and seek opportunities to promote economic growth, regeneration and partnership funding; a Ensure development in areas at risk of flooding is appropriate, does not increase flood risk and reduces risk wherever possible. Promote the use of sustainable drainage systems in development to help reduce pressure on existing drainage networks; o Conserve and enhance biodiversity, internationally and nationally designated nature conservation sites, and promote opportunities to create freshwater habitat when managing flood risk; a Support climate change adaptation by making space for water, both inland and at the coast; o Increase partnership working between risk management authorities, communities, landowners and other groups/organisations in the management of flood and coastal erosion risk; and o Continue appropriate and affordable levels of river, watercourse, tidal and coastal defence maintenance to reduce the risk of flooding to people and property. In relation to the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan, Chapter 7 (Climate Change, Flooding, Coastal Change and Water Resources) Policy CC1 ‘Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Development‘ and Policy CC2 ‘Reducing Carbon Emissions from New Development‘ directly relate to the Climate Change SEA theme. *8 N.B. The provision of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 201 0 came into force on the 1 st of October 2012 and makes it mandatory for any development in England or Wales to incorporate SuDs. ‘9 ClRlA(2010) ‘Planning for SuDs — making it happen’ [online] available to access via <> last accessed [14/03/17] 2° Environment Agency (201 5): ‘South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan’, [online] available to download via: last accessed [13/04/2017] 2‘ DEFRA & Environment Agency (201 6): ‘South East River Basin District River Basin Management Plan’, [online] available to download via: last accessed [1 7/04/1 7] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 16 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 4.3 Baseline Summary 4.3.1 Summary of Current Baseline Contribution to Climate Change In relation to GhG emissions, source data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change indicates that Canterbury District has had consistently lower per capita emissions total than that of both the South East and England as a whole since 2005. However, Canterbury has observed a smaller percentage decrease in total CO2 emissions per capita between 2005 and 2012 (14.5%) in comparison to the South East of England (1 5.9%) and England (16.6%). See Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Carbon dioxide emissions and sources, plus emissions per capita, 2005-201222 Industrial and Domestic Transport Total Commercial (t CO2) (t CO2) (t CO2) (‘E CO2) Canterbury 2005 2.0 2.4 1.8 6.2 2006 2.0 2.4 1.8 6.2 2007 1.9 2.3 1.8 6.0 2008 1.9 2.3 1.7 5.9 2009 1.7 2.1 1.7 5.4 2010 1.8 2.2 1.6 5.6 2011 1.6 1.9 1.6 5.1 2012 1.7 2.1 1.5 5.3 South East 2005 2.5 2.6 1.8 6.9 2006 2.5 2.6 1.8 6.9 2007 2.4 2.5 1.8 6.7 2008 2.4 2.4 1.7 6.5 2009 2.1 2.2 1.6 5.9 2010 2.2 2.3 1.6 6.1 2011 2.0 2.0 1.5 5.6 2012 2.1 2.2 1.5 5.8 England 2005 3.0 2.5 1.7 7.2 22 Department of Energy and Climate Change (201 1) Official statistics: Local Authority carbon dioxide emissions, UK local and regional CO2 emissions: subset dataset (emissions within the scope of influence of local authorities) available at: 2005 to 2012 accessed on [13/04/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 17 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Industrial and Domestic Transport Total Commercial (t CO2) (t CO2) (t CO2) (t C02) 2006 3.0 2.5 1.7 7.2 2007 2.8 2.4 1.7 6.9 2008 2.7 2.4 1.6 6.7 2009 2.4 2.2 1.5 6.1 2010 2.5 2.3 1.5 6.3 2011 2.3 2.0 1.5 5.7 2012 2.4 2.2 1.4 6.0 Potential effects of climate change The outcome of research on the probable effects of climate change in the UK was released in 2009 by the UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) team”. UKCP09 gives climate information for the UK up to the end of this century and projections of future changes to the climate are provided, based on simulations from climate models. Projections are broken down to a regional level across the UK and are shown in probabilistic form, which illustrate the potential range of changes and the level of confidence in each prediction. As highlighted by the research, the effects of climate change for the South East of England by 2050 for a medium emissions scenario“ are likely to be as follows: - The central estimate of increase in winter mean temperature is 22°C and an increase in summer mean temperature of 2.800; and o The central estimate of change in winter mean precipitation is 16% and summer mean precipitation is -19%. Resulting from these changes, a range of risks may exist for the Neighbourhood Plan area. These include: o Effects on water resources from climate change; a Reduction in availability of groundwater for abstraction; o Adverse effect on water quality from low stream levels and turbulent stream flow after heavy rain; - Increased risk of flooding, including increased vulnerability to 1:100 year floods; o A need to increase the capacity of wastewater treatment plants and sewers; o A need to upgrade flood defences; - Soil erosion due to flash flooding; - Loss of species that are at the edge of their southerly distribution; o Spread of species at the northern edge of their distribution; a Increased demand forair—conditioning; o Increased drought and flood related problems such as soil shrinkages and subsidence; 23 The data was released on 18th June 2009: See: last accessed [14/03/17] 24 UK Climate Projections (2009) South East 20508 Medium Emissions Scenario [online] available at: last accessed [10/04/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 18 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 0 Risk of road surfaces melting more frequently due to increased temperature; and - Flooding of roads. Flood Risk Flood risk Scotland HIHS l5n;l: Lili- " £;r_:;..;q-.: "°_‘£:.'. l';1:artin': H1."-;itl' Farm Ln'*|*3bUU'n H|gh \ - ,\ L:_'itLr,*L'% ~ _ _\\ \\ \ \~~. \ \\ ‘\ Be‘l;c:_-bournc- Medium i |-':: ‘L! !_::tt; *':‘:—. \ ‘Xx _ I H P an i:-: b ournc ‘~ _\ ‘~___../”"'—_'—"“ Ex ‘ i _ 50% , Low Nackington _ ‘ Bud’ ~f'L'pl'::x'Ja -’_‘;~LV.;:','»;' HIM C ;~'.Y.-.1 Very low Strc-cw’. End ,.i,_. Location of the BI:-hopsbour ~ rm-.:r r... l! postcode you 1.1;--;»l.'<; l—-.m:. Pt"-rt Bottom entered Barham D \ Lv.'Jl";7'.Hli I-'~_ir'v' \ "LHVYI ‘F-'.Il‘IZ>]5tOl‘I Uppcr Hardrc-2 r‘ . Lourt ‘M’ Hm» Figure 4.1: Fluvial flood risk within the Neighbourhood Plan area“ As shown in Figure 4.1, land adjacent to the Nail Bourne is within Flood Zone 3 (medium—high risk of fluvial flooding) meaning that they are classified as having a 1% or greater chance (1 in 100 chance) of being affected by river flooding in any given year. In addition, some areas along the Nail Bourne fall within Flood Zone 2 (low—medium risk) meaning that they are classified as having a 0.1 —l % chance (l in 1000 to l in 100 chance) of being affected by river flooding in any given year. 25 GOV UK (201 7): ‘Long term flood risk assessment for locations in England’, [online] available to access from: last accessed [20/03/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 19 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan _j/3; —<~~ -4 - Flood risk _t_ '' I.'tl..l :--_rr-.i|l: -'.<.ri“l'i.::I.l=»: High Medium Low Very low .. Location of the postcode you entered H ~;;:r‘r'1i.:r" —::rl W:ri‘ "izn.-l'i.:ll 2 l u I / Figure 4.2: Surface water flood risk within the Neighbourhood Plan area Surface water drainage and sewer flooding is also a risk for some parts of the Neighbourhood Plan area. Highlighted in Figure 4.2, land directly adjacent to the Nail Bourne, along with land along Pett Bottom Road, is at medium—high and/or medium—low risk. Based on the most recent Strategic Flood Risk Assessment” for Canterbury City Council, published in 201 1, there are no Critical Drainage Areas within the Neighbourhood Plan area, and hence there are no surface water management plans currently in place. 4.3.2 Summary of Future Baseline Climate change has the potential to increase the occurrence of extreme weather events in the Neighbourhood Plan area, with increases in mean summer and winter temperatures, increases in mean precipitation in winter and decreases in mean precipitation in summer. This is likely to increase the risks associated with climate change (including fluvial flooding) with an increased need for resilience and adaptation. 26 Canterbury City Council (201 1): ‘Strategic Flood Risk Assessment — August 201 1 ', [online] available to download via: last accessed [1 3/O4/1 7] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 20 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan In terms of climate change mitigation, per capita emissions are likely to continue to decrease as energy efficiency measures, renewable energy production and new technologies become more widely adopted. However, future development will comprise an increase in the built footprint of the Neighbourhood Plan area, which may lead to a future increase in overall emissions. A number of policies within the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan seek to increase the uptake of renewable energy and improve the provision of public and sustainable transport. The effective implementation of such policies has the potential to reduce future emissions within the Neighbourhood Plan area. 4.4 What are the SEA objectives and appraisal questions for the Climate Change SEA theme? SEA objective Assessment Questions Reduce the level of Will the option/proposal help to: contribution to climate I I I eiietiee made by eetivitiee - Promote the use of sustainable modes of transport, including Witiiiii the Neieiibetimeed walking, cycling and public transport? Plall area o Increase the number of new developments meeting or exceeding sustainable design criteria? a Generate energy from low or zero carbon sources? - Reduce energy consumption from non—renewable resources? Support the resilience of Will the option/proposal help to: the Neighbourhood Plan I I I I etee to the eetetitiei etteete o Ensure that inappropriate development takes place in areas at higher of eiimete eiietiee risk of flooding, taking into account the likely future effects of climate including flooding Cha“9e7 o Improve and extend green infrastructure networks in the plan area to support adaptation to the potential effects of climate change? - Sustainably manage water run—off, reducing surface water runoff (either within the plan area or downstream)? - Ensure the potential risks associated with climate change are considered through new development in the Neighbourhood Plan area? a Increase the resilience of biodiversity in the plan area to the effects of climate change, including enhancements to ecological networks? Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 5. Landscape and Historic Environment Focus of Theme: - Landscape and townscape character and quality - Designated and non—designated sites and areas - Setting of cultural heritage assets - Archaeological assets 5.1 Headline Sustainability Issues o The Neighbourhood Plan area is located within the North Downs National CharacterArea. o Over half of the Neighbourhood Plan area falls within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 0 The Neighbourhood Plan area has a rich historic environment, including two Grade II* listed buildings, 41 Grade II listed buildings and one scheduled monument nationally designated fortheir cultural heritage resource. - Parts of the Neighbourhood Plan area fall within a Conservation Area, although no Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan has been prepared. 5.2 Policy Context Key messages from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) include: o Protect and enhance valued landscapes, giving particularweight to those identified as being of national importance. a Heritage assets should be recognised as an ‘irreplaceable resource’ that should be conserved in a ‘manner appropriate to their significance’, taking account of ‘the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits’ of conservation, whilst also recognising the positive contribution new development can make to local character and distinctiveness. o Set out a ‘positive strategy’ for the ‘conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment’, including those heritage assets that are most at risk. a Develop ‘robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area. Such policies should be based on stated objectives for the future of the area and an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics’. o Consider the effects of climate change in the long term, including in terms of landscape. Adopt ‘proactive strategies’ to adaptation and manage risks through adaptation measures including well planned green infrastructure. The Government's Statement on the Historic Environment for England” sets out its vision for the historic environment. It calls for those who have the power to shape the historic environment to recognise its value and to manage it in an intelligent manner in light of the contribution that it can make to social, economic and cultural life. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) aim primarily to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. They also aim to ‘meet the need for quiet enjoyment of the countryside, and 27 HM Government (201 O) The Government's Statement on the Historic Environment for England [online] available at: last accessed [15/03/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 22 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan to have regard for the interests of those who live and work there’28. The 20i 4—20i 9 Management Plan for the Kent Downs AONB aims to keep the ‘qualities and distinctive features of the Kent Downs AONB, the dramatic south—facing scarp, secluded dry valleys, network of tiny lanes, isolated farmsteads, churches and oasts, orchards, dramatic cliffs, the ancient woodlands and delicate chalk grasslands along with the ancient, remote and tranquil qualities’ valued, secured and strengthened”. In relation to the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan, Policy HEi ‘Historic Environment and Heritage Assets’ directly relates to this SEA theme. Additionally, the following policies within the emerging Local Plan are relevant: a Policy HE5 Development Affecting and Changes to Listed Buildings; o Policy HE6 Conservation Areas: - Policy HE8 Heritage Assets in Conservations Areas: o Policy Hi i Archaeology; a Policy Hi 2 Area of Archaeological Interest: and 0 Policy Hi 3 Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens. 5.3 Baseline Summary 5.3.1 Summary of Current Baseline Landscape The Kent Downs were designated as an AONB in i968 under the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act i949. Following the introduction of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the government confirmed that the landscape qualities of National Parks and AONBs are equivalent. As such the protection given by the land use planning system to natural beauty in both types ofarea should be equivalent. The majority of the Neighbourhood Plan area is located within the AONB (Figure 5.1). Key features of the Kent Downs AONB include: o Dramatic white chalk cliffs at Dover and Folkestone; o Orchards, hop gardens, and cobnut platts; o Ancient woodlands and chalk grassland: and o Castles, isolated farmsteads and networks of small lanes. National Character Areas (NCAs) are landscape areas which share similar characteristics, following natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries. Developed by Natural England, NCA profiles describe the natural and cultural features that shape each of these landscapes, providing a broad context to its character. The Neighbourhood Plan area is located within the North Downs NCA. The following characteristics from the NCA profile are particularly relevant: NCA i i 9: North Downs3° - Traditional, small, nucleated villages, scattered farms, and large houses with timber framing, flint walls and Wealden brick detailing; 28 Landscapes for Life (20i 7): ‘Areas ofOutstanding Natural Beauty’, [online] available to download via: http://wvvvv.landscapesforlife.org.uk/further—information—about—aonbs.html > last accessed [21/04/201 7] 29 Kent Downs AONB (20i 4): @Management Plan 20i 4—20i 9’, [online] available to download via: last accessed [2i/04/20i 7] 3° Natural England (20i 4): ‘NCA Profile i i3: North Kent Plain’, [online] available to download via: last accessed [13/04/i 7] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 23 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 0 A chain of chalk hills extending from the Hog‘s Back in Surrey to the White Cliffs of Dover; o A broad dip slope that gradually drops towards the Thames and the English Channel; o Deep valleys cut by the Rivers Stour, Medway, Darent, Wey and l\/lole; o Large tracts of mixed arable and horticultural production; and o Woodland, including ancient woodland, and species—rich chalk grasslands. Historic Environment The Neighbourhood Plan area has a rich historic environment. Numerous features are recognised through historic environment designations, including the statutory listed buildings and scheduled monuments, which are nationally designated. Historic England is the statutory consultee for certain categories of listed building consent and all applications for scheduled monument consent. The historic environment is protected through the planning system, via conditions imposed on developers and other mechanisms. The Neighbourhood Plan area contains no Grade I listed buildings, two Grade II* and 41 Grade II listed buildings. The Grade II* listed buildings are as follows: a BridgePlace:and o ChurchofSt.Peter. Scheduled monuments are sites of national importance and protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. According to the National Heritage List for England3‘, there is one scheduled monument in the Neighbourhood Plan area, listed below: o Anglo—Saxon cemetery on Hanging Hill, immediately south west of Watling Street. There are no registered battlefields or registered parks and gardens within the Neighbourhood Plan area. Historic parks and gardens are noted as a fragile and finite resource by Historic England”, as they can easily be damaged beyond repair or lost forever. Parts of Bridge are designated a conservation area 33. The conservation covers the length of Bridge village, including several properties in the High Street, Bridge Hill and Patrixbourne Road. Conservation area appraisals are a tool to demonstrate the area's special interest, explaining the reasons for designation and providing a greater understanding and articulation of its character. Ideally, appraisals should be regularly reviewed as part of the management of the conservation area, and can be developed into a management plan. As of April 201 7, a conservation area appraisal or management plan has not been prepared for the Bridge Conservation Area. Since 2008, Historic England has released an annual Heritage at Risk Register. The Heritage at Risk Register highlights the Grade I, Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings, and scheduled monuments, conservation areas, wreck sites and registered parks and gardens in England deemed to be ‘at risk’. The latest Heritage at Risk Register34(2016) includes none of the listed buildings and scheduled monuments located within the Neighbourhood Plan boundary. However it should be recognised that the Grade II listed buildings have not been appraised in relation to whether they should be deemed to be ‘at risk’, and, given the lack of a conservation area appraisal, the Bridge Conservation Area has also not been evaluated. 3‘ Historic England: National Heritage List for England: last accessed [17/O3/2017.] 32 Historic England (2017): ‘Registered Parks and Gardens’ [online] available at: last accessed [10/04/1 7] 33 Canterbury City Council (2017): ‘Designated Conservation Areas’ [online] available at: last accessed [21/04/2017] 34 Historic England (2016): ‘Heritage at Risk Register: South East’ [online] available to access via: last accessed [10/04/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 24 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan It should be noted that not all of the area's historic environment features are subject to statutory designations, and non—designated features comprise a large part ofwhat people have contactwith as part of daily life —whether at home, work or leisure. Although not designated, many buildings and areas of historic interest and character are seen as important by local communities. Figure 5.1 shows the designated landscapes and historical sites located within the Neighbourhood Plan area. 5.3.2 Summary of Future Baseline New development has the potential to lead to small, but incremental changes in landscape and townscape character and quality in and around the Neighbourhood Plan area; for instance, through the loss of landscape features and visual impact. However, new development need not be harmful to the significance of a heritage asset, and in the context of the Neighbourhood Plan area there is opportunity for new development to enhance the historic setting of the key features and areas and better reveal assets’ cultural heritage significance. Additionally, new development areas in the Neighbourhood Plan area have the potential to impact on the fabric and setting of cultural heritage assets; for example, through inappropriate design and layout. It should be noted, however, that existing historic environment designations, the provisions of the NPPF, and policies within the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan offer a degree of protection to cultural heritage assets and their settings. Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 25 _Neimt1uIut)ood_Plan_Lr7t6_Voar3\02_MapaiEridge NP Staering Gvouvlfigure 5-1 - Historic Environment aid Landscqu Deaignafionmum Flo Namo:|:\5w¢ ~ Information , 0.5 00, '1" 3 2km nus DRAWING Is 10 BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE of SSUE THAT IT WAS ISSUED FOR AND IS SUBECTTO AMENDMENT LEGEND . - .I Bridge Neighbourhood L - - Plan Area 0 Listed building - Record of Scheduled Monument - Conservation Area , Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty WWW Contains Ordnance Survey Data 9 Crown Copyright and database right 2017 0 Natural England material is reproduced with the permission of Natural England 2017 0 Historic England 2017. Contains Ordnance Survey data 9 Crown copyright and database right 2017 The Hstoric England GIS Data contained in this material was obtained on 21/W2017. Conservation Area: data digitised indimtivsty from 0 Historic England data H-wuwlma DRAFT Clint BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN STEERING GROUP Pm‘p:| Tit: BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Drvnwtllto HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT AND LANDSCAPE DESIGNATIONS Drlivn moarad wow ou- ON JW NOB ZIIIWZOI7 pecou imunnmpaun. sane» 60538603 1:20.000 mmalwxrmummnnmznmmivwmswnvmm Imnornsemswounanwnsaatvmomwcsmmmunv roanmtssornanocinacvonsrnwcnvnsoaiomtcuatrm ravzasmrosiiomszunutvroarie Puwostsroamcicnmsvnsnlasunwnovnaa AECOM IE: .. FIGURE 5.1 01 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 5.4 What are the SEA objectives and appraisal questions for the Landscape and Historic Environment SEA theme? SEA objective Assessment Questions Protect, maintain and Will the option/proposal help to: enhance the cultural heritage resource within . . . . h ? the Neighbourhood Plan Home mterest area, including the historic Support the integrity of the historic setting of key buildings of environment and cultural heritage interest? archaeological assets‘ o Support the integrity of the Bridge Conservation Area? Conserve and enhance buildings and structures of architectural or - Conserve and enhance local diversity and character? o Support access to, interpretation and understanding of the historic environment? Protect and enhance the Will the option/proposal help to: Character and quality of Conserve and enhance landscape and townscape features? landscapes and townscapes. a Support the integrity of the Kent Downs AONB? - Conserve and enhance landscape and villagescape? o Support the integrity of the Bridge Conservation Area? Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 6. Land, Soil and Water Resources Focus of Theme: - Soils resource - Waste management - Watercourses - Water availability - Water quality 6.1 Headline Sustainability Issues - An agricultural land classification assessment has been undertaken in certain parts of the Neighbourhood Plan area,with both Grade 1 (‘Excellent’) and Grade 2 (‘Very good’) agricultural land present. o l\/lost parts of the Neighbourhood Plan area are designated as a Groundwater Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ). 6.2 Policy Context The EU’s Soil Thematic Strategy35 presents a strategy for protecting soils resources in Europe. The main aim of the strategy is to minimise soil degradation and limit associated detrimental effects linked to water quality and quantity, human health, climate change, biodiversity, and food safety. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) drives a catchment—based approach to water management. In England and Wales there are 100 water catchments and it is Defra’s intention is to establish a ‘framework for integrated catchment management’ across England. The Environment Agency is establishing ‘Significant Water Management Issues’ and recently presented second River Basin Management Plans to ministers. The plans seek to deliver the objectives of the WFD namely: o Enhance the status and prevent the further deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and associated wetlands which depend on aquatic ecosystems; - Promote the sustainable use of water; a Reduce the pollution of water, especially by ‘priority’ and ‘priority hazardous’ substances: and o Ensure the progressive reduction of groundwater pollution. Key messages from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) include: o Protect and enhance soils. The value of best and most versatile agricultural land should also be taken into account. - Prevent new or existing development from being ‘adversely affected’ by the presence of ‘unacceptable levels’ of soil pollution or land instability and be willing to remediate and mitigate ‘despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate’. o Encourage the effective use of land’ through the reuse of land which has been previously developed, ‘provided that this is not of high environmental value’. Whilst there is no longera national requirement to build at a minimum density, the NPPF requires local planning authorities to ‘set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances’. o Produce strategic policies to deliver the provision of a variety of infrastructure, including that necessary for water supply. 35 European Commission (2006) Soil Thematic Policy [online] available at: last accessed [17/03/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan - With regards to waste, the NPPF does not contain any specific waste policies as waste planning policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan. Other key documents at the national level include Safeguarding our Soils: A Strategy for England”, which sets out a vision for soil use in England, and the Water White Paper”, which sets out the Government's vision for a more resilient water sector. It states the measures thatwill be taken to tackle issues such as poorly performing ecosystems, and the combined impacts of climate change and population growth on stressed water resources. In terms of waste management, the Government Review of Waste Policy in England38 recognises that environmental benefits and economic growth can be the result of a more sustainable approach to the use of materials. In relation to the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan, Chapter 7 (‘Climate Change, Flooding, Coastal Change and Water Resources’) includes Policy CC13 Water Resources, which relates directly to the SEA theme. 6.3 Baseline Summary 6.3.1 Summary of Current Baseline Quality of Agricultural Land The Agricultural Land Classification classifies land into six grades (plus 'non—agricultural' and ‘urban‘), where Grades 1 to 3a are recognised as being the ‘best and most versatile’ land and Grades 3b to 5 are of poorer quality. In terms of the location of the best and most versatile agricultural land, there are areas of both Grade 1 and Grade 2 Agricultural Land along the northern border of the Neighbourhood Plan area, and also in the south—eastern corner. Watercourses The main watercourse flowing through the Neighbourhood Plan area is the Nail Bourne, which flows through Bridge in the eastern side of the Parish. Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs) have been defined by the Environment Agency in England and Wales to protect groundwater sources such as wells, boreholes and springs that are used for public drinking water supply. The zones show the risk of contamination from activities that might cause groundwater pollution. As of April201 7, there is a Zone 3 SPZ over half the Neighbourhood Plan area that stretches from its south—western to north—eastern corner. The Nitrates Directive (91 /676/EEC) requires Member States to identify areas where groundwater has nitrate concentrations of more than 50 mg/l nitrate or is thought to be at risk of nitrate contamination. Areas associated with such groundwater are designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) within which Member States are required to establish Action Programmes in order to reduce and prevent further nitrate contamination. NVZs for 201 7-2020 started on January 13‘ 201 739, with most of the north—western corner of the Neighbourhood Plan area designated as a Groundwater NVZ area, defined as water held underground in the soil or in pores and crevices in rock, which has or could have if action is not taken, a nitrate concentration greater than 50mg/l. 36 Defra (2009) Safeguarding our Soils: A strategy for England [online] available to download from: last accessed [16/03/17] 37 Defra (201 1) Water for life (The WaterWhite Paper) [online] available at last accessed [1 6/03/1 7] 38 Defra (201 1) Government Review of Waste Policy in England [online] available at: last accessed [16/03/17] 39 GOV.UK(2017): ‘Nutrient Management: Nitrate Vulnerable Zones’ [online] available to access via: last accessed [17/03/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 6.3.2 Summary of Future Baseline Due to increasing legislative and regulatory requirements, there are increasing pressures to improving recycling and composting rates. In terms of water quality, the requirements of the Water Framework Directive are likely to lead to continued improvements to water quality in watercourses in the wider area. Water quality has the potential to be affected by pollution incidents in the area, the presence of non—native species and future physical modifications to water bodies. 6.4 What are the SEA objectives and appraisal questions for the Land, Soil and Water Resources SEA theme? SEA objective Assessment Questions Ensure the efficient and Will the option/proposal help to: effective use of land. _ o Promote the use of previously developed land? o Minimise the risks to soils and groundwater? o Avoid the development of the best and most versatile agricultural land, which in the Neighbourhood Plan area may comprise Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land? Promote sustainable waste Will the option/proposal help to: management solutions that 7 encouragethereductionl - Reducetheamountofwasteproduced. fe'USe arid FGCYCHHQ Of a Support the minimisation, reuse and recycling of waste? waste. o Maximise opportunities for local management of waste in order to minimise export of waste to areas outside? o Encourage recycling of materials and minimise consumption of resources during construction? Use and manage water Will the option/proposal help to: resources in a sustainable manner. o Support improvements to water quality? o Minimisewaterconsumption? - Protect groundwater resources? Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 7. Population and Community Focus of Theme: 7.1 7.2 - Population size - Population density - Age structure - Deprivation - House prices and affordability - Homelessness - Education and skills Headline Sustainability Issues Based on the most recent census data available (201 l), the population increase within the Neighbourhood Plan area is in keeping with the trends for the South East and England. However, it is 4.3% less than the population increase for Canterbury District. There is an ageing population within the Neighbourhood Plan area, with 37% of residents being over the age of 60, significantly higher than the averages for Canterbury District (25.2%), the South East (23.3%) and England (22.3%). Within the Neighbourhood Plan area, there is also a significantly lower percentage of under 24 year old residents (26.6%) relative to Canterbury District (35.1%), the South East (30.2%) and England (30.8%). Households within the Neighbourhood Plan area are relatively not deprived (50.6%) in comparison to the local, regional and national averages. The majority of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area own a household either outright or by mortgage (72.6%) at a higher rate than the local, regional and national averages. Within the Neighbourhood Plan area, the largest employment sector are Professional occupations (22.8%), which aligns with the high percentage of Level 4 Qualifications among residents (36.5%), both at a higher rate than the local, regional and national averages. Policy Context Key messages from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) include: Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee To ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’, local planning authorities should meet the ‘full, objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing’ in their area. They should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess theirfull housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period. With a view to creating ‘sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities’ authorities should ensure provision of affordable housing onsite or externally where robustlyjustified. In rural areas, when exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where appropriate. Authorities should considerwhether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs. AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan - The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. It explains how good design is a key aspect in sustainable development, and how development should improve the quality of the area over its lifetime, notjust in the short term. Good architecture and landscaping are important, with the use of design codes contributing to the delivery of high quality outcomes. Design should reinforce local distinctiveness, raise the standard more generally in the area and address the connections between people and places. a The social role of the planning system involves ‘supporting vibrant and healthy communities’. - The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities o Promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship. o Ensure that developments create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Places should contain clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public spaces, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas. o Ensuring that there is a ‘sufficient choice of school places’ is of ‘great importance‘ and there is a need to take a ‘proactive, positive and collaborative approach‘ to bringing forward ‘development that will widen choice in education‘. The ‘Ready for Ageing?‘ report, published by the Select Committee on Public Service and Demographic Change“ warns that society is underprepared for an ageing population. The report states that ‘longer lives can be a great benefit, but there has been a collective failure to address the implications and without urgent action this great boon could turn into a series of miserable crises‘. The report recognises that the supply of specialist housing for the older generation is insufficient for the demand. There is a need for central and local Government, housing associations, and house builders to ensure that these housing needs are betteraddressed, giving as much priority to promoting an adequate market of social housing for the older generation as is given to the younger generation. 4° Select Committee on Public Service and Demographic Change (201 3) Ready for Ageing? [online] available at: last accessed [1 8/O4/l 7] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 7.3 Baseline Summary 7.3.1 Summary of Current Baseline Popu/at/on Table 7.1: Population growth 2001 -201 14‘ Date Bridge Canterbury South East England 2001 1,467 135,278 8,000,645 49,138,831 2011 1,576 151,145 8,634,750 53,012,456 Population Change 7.4% 11.7% +7.9% +7.9% 2001-2011 Between 2001 and 2011 the population of Bridge increased by 7.4%, significantly lower than the 11.7% average for the district but in line with the regional and national rate of 7.9% shown in Table 7.1. Age Structure Table 7.2: Age Structure (201 1)“ Bridge Canterbury South East England o_15 18.7% 16.8% 19.0% 18.9% 16_24 7.9% 18.3% 11.2% 11.9% 25_44 16.7% 22% 26.5% 27.5% 45_59 19.7% 17.7% 19.9% 19.4% 60+ 37% 25.2% 23.3% 22.3% 1,576 120,988 8,634,750 53,012,456 Total Population As shown in Table 7.2, 26.6% of individuals within Bridge are between 0-24 years of age, significantly lower than the values for Canterbury District (35.1 0/0), the South East (30.2%) and England (30.8%). Additionally, there is a higher proportion of individuals in Bridge aged 60+ in comparison to the District, regional and national levels. The working population of Bridge (aged 25-59) is 36.4%, lower than the values for Canterbury (39.7%), the South East (46.4%) and England (46.9%). Household Deprivation Census statistics measure deprivation across four ‘dimensions’ of deprivation, summarized below: - Employment: Any person in the household (not a full—time student) that is either unemployed or long—term sick. 0 Education: No person in the household has at least a level 2 qualification and no person aged 16- 18 is a full—time student. 4‘ ONS (no date): Census 201 1: Population Density 2011 (Table QS102EW): Population Density 2001 (Table UV02) 42 ONS (no date): Census 201 1 : Age Structure 2011 (fable KS102EW) Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan - Health and Disability: Any person in the household that has generally ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ health, or has a long term health problem. o Housing: The household accommodation is either overcrowded (with an occupancy rating of -1 or less), in a shared dwelling or has no central heating. Table 7.3: Relative household deprivation dimensions“ Bridge Canterbury South East England Household not 50.6% 44.1% 47.7% 42.5% deprived Deprived in 1 33.4% 33.4% 32.2% 32.7% dimension Deprived in 2 14.1% 18.1% 16.0% 19.1% dimensions Deprived in 3 1.7% 4% 3.7% 5.1% dimensions Deprived in 4 0.15% 0.46% 0.4% 0.5% dimensions Based on the information shown in Table 7.3, 49.6% of households within Bridge are deprived in at least one dimension. This value is lower than the trend for Canterbury (559%), similar to the trend for the South East (52.3%) and notably lower than the trend for England (57.5%). Therefore, as a whole, the South East contains fewer households which are deprived in comparison to the national average. Housing Tenure 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% I Bridge 40.0% I Canterbury 30.0% I South East 20.0% I England 10.0% 0.0% Owned Shared Social Private Living Rent Ownership Rented Rented Free Figure 7.1: ‘Tenure by Household’ 44 Within the Neighbourhood Plan area, 72.6% of residents either own their home outright or with a mortgage, significantly higher than the values for Canterbury district (66.0%), the South East (67.6%) and England (63.3%). Notably, fewer residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area are living in socially or privately rented properties (25%) than in Canterbury (31 .7%), the South East (30%) and England 43 ONS (no date): Census 201 1: ‘Households by Deprivation Dimensions 201 1' (Table QS119EW) 44 ONS (no date): Census 2011:Tenure—Households 2011 (Table QS405EW) Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan (34.5%). Furthermore, 2.1% of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area are living rent free, which is slightly higher than the local, regional and national trends shown in Figure 7.1. Education 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20-0% I Bridge 150% I Canterbury I South East 100% I England 5.0% 0.0% Figure 7.2: ‘Highest level of Qualification’ 45 As Figure 7.2 highlights, within the Neighbourhood Plan area there is a significantly higher number of residents with a Level 4 Qualification and above (36.5%) than Canterbury District (27.3%), the South East (29.9%) and England (27.4%). Conversely, the number of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area with No Qualifications (21.6%) generally aligns with the local and national average, however is notably higher than the South East average (1 9.1 0/0). For Level 2 Qualifications and Apprenticeships, the number of residents with this level of education within Neighbourhood Plan area aligns with the local, regional and national averages. Notably, the number of residents with Level 1 Qualifications (9.0%) and Level 3 Qualifications (9.9%) within the Neighbourhood Plan area is markedly less than the local, regional and national averages. For Level 3 Qualifications, the Neighbourhood Plan area value is 7.7% less than the Canterbury district average. Employment 69.4% of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area are in employment, which is higher than the employment figures for Canterbury District (58.7%), the South East (679%) and England (64.7%). The majority of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area are employed within Professional occupations (22.8%), which is higher than the values for Canterbury district (20.5%), the South East (18.7%) and England (17.5%). There are also a notably higher percentage of residents employed as Managers, Directors and Senior Officials within the Neighbourhood Plan area (14.3%) than the local, regional and national averages. The least employed occupation within the Neighbourhood Plan area is Process, Plant and Machine Operatives (3.3%), significantly less than the local, regional and national average, reflecting the areas rural and non—industrial nature. Employment figures are also lower than the local, regional and national averages within the Neighbourhood Plan area for Elementary occupations as well as Sales and Customer Service occupations, as can be seen in Figure 7.3. 45 ONS (no date): Census 201 1 : Highest Level of Qualification 2011 (Table QS501EW) Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Elementary Process, Plant and Machine Operatives Sales and Customer Service Caring, Leisure and Other Service I England Skilled Trades I South East I Canterbury Administrative and Secretarial I Bridge Associate Professional and Technical Professional Managers, Directors and Senior Officials 0.0% 5.0% 1 0.0% 1 5.0% 20.0% 25.0% Figure 7.3: ‘Occupation of usual residents aged 16 to 74 in employment“ 7.3.2 Summary of Future Baseline The population of the Neighbourhood Plan area increased between the years 2001 -2011 at approximately the same rate as the regional and national trends, however at a rate 4.3% less than for Canterbury District. 37% of residents are aged 60+ within the Neighbourhood Plan area, indicating the presence of an aging population. 46 ONS (no date): Census 201 1: ‘Occupation 2011'(Table KS608EW) Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 7.4 What are the SEA objectives and appraisal questions for the Population and Community SEA theme? SEA objective Assessment Questions Cater for existing and Will the option/proposal help to: future residents’ needs as I I I We“ es the needs of o Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible dttteteet eteuee tn the community facilities? COmmUflity. arid lmDf0Ve o Encourage and promote social cohesion and encourage active 800988 t0 '0C8'. high‘ involvement of local people in community activities? quality community services I I I and taetttttee o Minimise fuel poverty? o Maintain or enhance the quality of life of existing local residents? Improve the availability and accessibility of key local facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people? Reduce deprivation and promote a more inclusive and self—contained community. o Support the provision of land for allotments and cemeteries? Provide everyone with the Will the option/proposal help to: opportunity to live in good I I I euettty ettetdebte heUetneI a Support the provision ofa range of house types and sizes? arid GHSUFG all 8DDfODfl8te a Support enhancements to the current housing stock? mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenutee o Meet the needs ofall sectors of the community? - Provide quality and flexible homes that meet people's needs? o Promote the use of sustainable building techniques, including use of sustainable building materials in construction? o Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities? Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 8. Health and Wellbeing Focus of Theme: - Health indicators and deprivation - Influences on health and well—being 8.1 Headline Sustainability Issues o The majority of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area consider themselves to have ‘very good health’ or ‘good health’, however at a lower percentage in comparison to the local, regional and national average. a 6.5% of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area consider themselves as having ‘bad health’ or ‘very bad health’, which is slightly higherthan the local, regional and national average. a 21.8% of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area consider their activities limited to some degree, notably higher than the local, regional and national average. - The relatively low percentage of residents with ‘very good health’ and ‘good health’ aligns with the higher percentage of residents that consider their activities to be limited. With a high number of residents in the Neighbourhood Plan area also being 60+ in age, it can be inferred that age may be factor in lowering health and activity figures. 8.2 Policy Context Key messages from the NPPF include: o The social role of the planning system involves ‘supporting vibrant and healthy communities’. o A core planning principle is to ‘take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all’. - The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities’ o Promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship. o Set out the strategic policies to deliverthe provision of health facilities. a Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well—being of communities. In relation to other key national messages in relation to health, Fair Society, Healthy Lives“ (‘The Marmot Review’) investigated health inequalities in England and the actions needed in order to tackle them. Subsequently, a supplementary report was prepared providing additional evidence relating to spatial planning and health on the basis thatthat there is: “overwhelming evidence that health and environmental inequalities are inexorably linked and that poor environments contribute significantly to poor health and health inequalities”. The increasing role that local level authorities are expected to play in providing health outcomes is demonstrated by recent government legislation. The Health and Social Care Act 201 2 transferred responsibility for public health from the NHS to local government, giving local authorities a duty to improve the health of the people who live in their areas. This will require a more holistic approach to health across all local government functions. 47 The Marmot Review (201 l)The Marmot Review: Implications for Spatial Planning [online] available to download from: last accessed [15/03/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 8.3 Baseline Summary 8.3.1 Summary of Current Baseline Health Indicators and Deprivation Deprivation is a significant contributor to poor health and can have adverse effects on wellbeing, with elements related to housing quality, living environment, income and employment previously discussed in detail in Chapter 7. As highlighted in Figure 8.1, 77.8% of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area consider themselves as having ‘very good health’ or good health’, notably less than the total for Canterbury district (81 .4%), the South East region (83.6%) and England as a whole (81.4%). Comparatively, 6.5% of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area report either ‘bad health’ or ‘very bad health’, which is slightly higher than the total for Canterbury district (5.2%), the South East (4.4%) and England (5.4%). 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% I Bridge 300% I Canterbury 200% I South East I England 10.0% 0.0% Very Good Good Health Fair Health Bad Health Very Bad Health Health Figure 8.1: ‘General Health"‘3 The lower levels of ‘very good health’ and ‘good health’ within the Neighbourhood Plan area observed in Figure 8.1 align with the disability data presented in Table 8.1. Within the Neighbourhood Plan area, 21.8% of residents report that their daily activities are limited in some way, which is higher than the average for Canterbury District (1 8.1 0/0), the South East (1 5.7%) and England (17.6%). Table 8.1: Disability“ Bridge Canterbury South East England Day-to-Day Activities 10.9% 8.2% 6.9% 8.3% Limited a Lot Day-to-Day Activities 10.9% 9.9% 8.8% 9.3% Limited a Little Day-to-Day Activities Not 78.3% 81.9% 84.3% 82.4% Limited Summary of Future Baseline An ageing population has the potential to place additional pressures on health services in the area. 48 ONS (no date): Census 201 1: ‘General Health, 201 1’ (QS302EW) 49 ONS (no date): Census 2011:’Long—term Health Problem or Disability 201 1’ (Table QS303EW) Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 8.4 What are the SEA objectives and appraisal questions for the Health and Wellbeing SEA theme? SEA objective Assessment Questions Improve the health and Will the option/proposal help to: wellbeing residents within I H _ I the Noiohooorhooo ploh o Promote accessibility to a range of leisure, health and community area. facilities, forall age groups? o Provide and enhance the provision of community access to green infrastructure, in accordance with Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards? o Reduce noise pollution? o Promote the use of healthier modes of travel? o Improve access to the countryside for recreational use? Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 9. Transportation Focus of Theme: - Transportation infrastructure - Traffic flows and congestion - Accessibility - Car ownership - Travel to work 9.1 Headline Sustainability Issues a The Neighbourhood Plan area is well served by road, with the A2 providing access to Canterbury and the M2 to the north and Dover to the south. c There are no railway stations with the Neighbourhood Plan area. The closest station is located c.2km north—east of Bridge village, providing access to Canterbury and Dover. Within Canterbury, two railway stations provide services to the rest of Kent and to London. - A relatively high percentage of residents within the Neighbourhood Plan area have two or more cars orvans (48.3%), significantly higher than district, regional and national averages. o Driving in a car orvan is most popular method of transport to work (463%). 9.2 Policy Context European and UK transport policies and plans place emphasis on the modernisation and sustainability of the transport network. Specific objectives include reducing pollution and road congestion through improvements to public transport, walking and cycling networks and reducing the need to travel. National policy also focuses on the need for the transport network to support sustainable economic growth. Kent County Council is currently developing its latest Local Transport Plan: Local Transport Plan 4: Delivering Growth without Gridlock 2076-2037.. 9.3 Baseline Summary 9.3.1 Summary of Current Baseline Rail Network No railways stations are located within the Neighbourhood Plan area. The closest station is located 2km to the north—east in Bekesbourne, an approximate 5 minute drive or 30 minute walk from Bridge. This station provides links to Canterbury to the west and Dover to the east. Within Canterbury, there are two train stations; Canterbury West and Canterbury East. The latter is located closer to Bridge, approximately 10 minutes’ drive or 18 minutes’ busjourney away. Canterbury West provides linkages to the north—east (Margate) and south—west (Ashford). Canterbury East provides linkages to the north- west (Chatham) and the south—east (Dover). Both provide regular access to London, with high speed services from Canterbury West taking approximately 1 hour to reach St Pancras International. Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Bus Network In regards to the bus network the main service provider is Stagecoach“. The two major services that pass through Bridge are service no. 17 (Canterbury — Folkestone) and 89 (Canterbury — AyleshamlDover). The main bus stops are located by the White Horse Inn. The no. 17 runs every 30 minutes during mornings and hourly in the afternoon. The no. 89 provides two services an hour, one terminating in Aylesham and another with an extended route to Dover5’. Road Network and Congestion A crossroad to the north of Bridge is the main point of access to the northern part of the Neighbourhood Plan area. This is linked to BridgelStation Road to the west, Bekesbourne Road to the north and Town Hill to the east. 500m north of the crossroad is the A2, the main strategic route linking the parish with the M2 and Canterbury with Dover. The A2 can also bejoined to the south of Bridge via Bridge Hill road, which is the only main route south. To the west and south—west, a series of small lanes provides access to the Downs and small hamlets. Cycle and Footpath Network Regional Cycle Route 17 crosses through the Neighbourhood Plan area, traversing west—east. To the west, the route takes in the Kent Downs AONB before reaching Folkestone or Dover. Route 17 links with Regional Cycle Route 16, adjacent to the Neighbourhood Plan area, travelling north—south between Canterbury and Whitfield52. The Elham Valley Way is a 36.21 km route between Canterbury and Hythe using existing public rights of way which pass through the Neighbourhood Plan area. The North Downs Way trail passes adjacent to the Neighbourhood Plan area. Availability of Cars and Vans Figure 9.1 below highlights the availability of cars and vans within the Neighbourhood Plan area. The proportion of households with no access to a car or van is 12.1 %, which is significantly lower than the average for Canterbury District (22.9%), the South East (186%) and England (25.8%). The Neighbourhood Plan area has a slightly lower percentage of households with one car or van (396%), however it has a significantly higher percentage of two or more cars (48.3%) in comparison to Canterbury district (335%), the South East (39.7%) and England (32%). 5° Stagecoach (2017): [online] viewed at: last accessed [18/O4/17] 5‘ Stagecoach (2017): '17 Bus Route and Timetable’ and '89 Bus Route and Timetable’, [online] available to download via: last accessed [18/O4/17] 52 Sustrans (no date): ‘National Cycle Network Route Map’, [online] available to view via: last accessed [1 5/O3/1 7] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30-0% I Bridge 0 250 /0 ICanterbury 200% s th E t I OU as T 5.0% 10 0% I England 5.0% 0.0% No Cars or Vans 1 Car or Van in 2 Cars or Vans in 3 Cars or Vans in 4 or More Cars or in Household Household Household Household Vans in Household Figure 9.1: ‘Car and van ownership'53 Travel to Work Not in Employment Other Method of Travel to Work On Foot Bicycle Passenger in a Car or Van I England Driving a Car or Van I South East Motorcycle, Scooter or Moped I Canterbury Taxi I Bus, Minibus or Coach Train Underground, Metro, Light Rail, Tram Work Mainly at or From Home 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% Figure 9.2: ‘Method of Travel to Work'5“ 53 ONS (no date): ‘Car or Van Availability 201 1', (Table QS416EW) 54 ONS (no date): Census 201 1: ‘Method of Travel to Work 201 1' (Table QS701EW) Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Based on the most recent census data, the most popular method of traveling to work in the Neighbourhood Plan area is via driving a car or van (46.3%), shown in Figure 9.2. This is significantly higher than the average for Canterbury District (34.2%), the South East (41 .3%) and England (36.9%). The second most popular methods of travelling to work within the Neighbourhood Plan area is on foot and passenger in a car orvan (both 3.9%). As is typical fora rural area, travelling on foot is significantly lower than the average of Canterbury district (9.3%) and regional and national averages, while the proportion travelling by passenger in a car or van is in keeping with the local, regional and national average. A higher percentage of people within the Neighbourhood Plan area work mainly at or from home (6.8%) than averages for Canterbury District (3.7%), the South East (4.5%) and England (35%). 9.3.2 Summary of Future Baseline Given the rural nature of the parish, and the lack of a rail station, car use is likely to continue to remain high in the Neighbourhood Plan area. There is likely to be an increase in the proportion of people working from home due to an increase in modern working patterns, including agile and flexible working. 9.4 What are the SEA objectives and appraisal questions for the Transportation SEA theme? SEA objective Assessment Questions Promote sustainable Will the option/proposal help to... transport use and reduce I the need to travel. o Reduce the need to travel through sustainable patterns of land use and development? c Encourage modal shift to more sustainable forms of travel? o Enable sustainable transport infrastructure enhancements? o Facilitate working from home and remote working? - Improve road safety? a Reduce the impact on residents from the road network? Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 1 0. Next Steps 10.1 Subsequent stages for the SEA process Scoping (the current stage) is the second stage of the SEA process55 1 . Screening; 2 Scoping; 3. Assess reasonable alternatives, with a view to informing preparation of the draft plan; 4 Assess the draft plan and prepare the Environmental Report with a view to informing consultation and plan finalisation; 5. Publish a ‘statement’ at the time of plan adoption in order to ‘tell the story’ of plan—making / SEA (and present ‘measures decided concerning monitoring’) The next stage will involve appraising reasonable alternatives for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan. This will consider alternative policy approaches for the Neighbourhood Plan, including spatial strategies. The findings of the appraisal of these alternatives will be fed back to the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee so that they might be taken into account when preparing the draft plan. Once the draft (’pre—submission version’) plan has been prepared by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee, it will be subjected to SEA and the Environmental Report prepared for consultation alongside it. Following consultation on the draft Neighbourhood Plan and the Environmental Report, the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan will be finalised and submitted to Canterbury City Council for subsequent Independent Examination. 10.2 Consultation on the Scoping Report Public involvement through consultation is a key element of the SEA process. At this scoping stage, the SEA Regulations require consultation with statutory consultation bodies but not full consultation with the public. The statutory consultation bodies are the Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England. The Scoping Report has been released to these three statutory consultees. Consultees are invited to comment on the content of this Scoping Report, in particular the evidence base for the SEA, the identified key issues and the proposed SEA Framework. 10.3 Download and viewing details The Scoping Report can be downloaded at: http://www.bridclevillaCle.orq.uk/nhp.asp This consultation period runs from 11“ May 2017 until 15“ June 2017. Comments on the Scoping Report should be sent to: Philip Wicker, Clerk to Bridge Parish Council clerk@bridgevillage.org.uk All comments received on the Scoping Report will be reviewed and will influence the development of the SEA where appropriate. 55 In accordance with the stages set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM aecomcom Dear Historic England, South East, Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee is currently preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan for Bridge Parish near Canterbury in Kent. To accompany the development of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan, a Strategic Environmental Assessment is currently being undertaken to inform and influence the plan- making process. A Scoping Report has now been prepared for the SEA On this basis, please find attached the Scoping Report for your comment. The consultation period will begin today (12“‘ May 2017) and ends Friday 16”‘ June 2017. This incorporates the statutory five week period for scoping consultation. We look forward to Historic England’s comments. In the meantime, if you have any questions on the SA process currently being carried out for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Best regards, Nick Chisholm-Batten Nick Chisholm-Batten Principal Consultant, Policy and Appraisal D +44-01752-676721 M +44-07824-413331 nick.chisholm-batten@aecom.com AECOM Portwall Place Portwall Lane Bristol, BS1 6NA, United Kingdom aecom.com Built to deliver a better world Linkedln Twitter Facebook lnstagram Dear Environment Agency, Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee is currently preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan for Bridge Parish near Canterbury in Kent. To accompany the development of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan, a Strategic Environmental Assessment is currently being undertaken to inform and influence the plan- making process. A Scoping Report has now been prepared for the SEA. On this basis, please find attached the Scoping Report for your comment. The consultation period will begin today (12“‘ May 2017) and ends Friday 16”‘ June 2017. This incorporates the statutory five week period for scoping consultation. We look forward to the Environment Agency’s comments. In the meantime, if you have any questions on the SA process currently being carried out for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Best regards, Nick Chisholm-Batten Nick Chisholm-Batten Principal Consultant, Policy and Appraisal D +44-01752-676721 M +44-07824-413331 nick.chisholm-batten@aecom.com AECOM Plumer House Tailyour Road Crownhill, Plymouth PL6 5DH, UK aecom.com Built to deliver a better world Linkedln Twitter Facebook lnstagram Dear Natural England, Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee is currently preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan for Bridge Parish near Canterbury in Kent. To accompany the development of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan, a Strategic Environmental Assessment is currently being undertaken to inform and influence the plan- making process. A Scoping Report has now been prepared for the SEA. On this basis, please find attached the Scoping Report for your comment. The consultation period will begin today (12“‘ May 2017) and ends Friday 16”‘ June 2017. This incorporates the statutory five week period for scoping consultation. We look forward to Natural England’s comments. In the meantime, if you have any questions on the SA process currently being carried out for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Best regards, Nick Chisholm-Batten Nick Chisholm-Batten Principal Consultant, Policy and Appraisal D +44-01752-676721 M +44-07824-413331 nick.chisholm-batten@aecom.com AECOM Plumer House Tailyour Road Crownhill, Plymouth PL6 5DH, UK aecom.com Built to deliver a better world Linkedln Twitter Facebook lnstagram COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM CPRE RE THE SCOPING REPORT FOR BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN RECEIVED 16 June 2017 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2 Air Quality NPPF 124, quoted in 2.2 Policy Context, states that planning policies should take account of the presence of AQMA and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. The emerging local plan which has been to examination includes land at Montfield Park for 4,000 homes plus employment uses. This will potentially have an impact on air quality in the City Centre. The application is subject to a Judicial Review to be heard later this year. Whilst there are no AQMAs within the Neighbourhood Plan area boundary development within the NP area in combination with the Mountfield Park and other major allocations in the emerging local plan could result in a worsening of air quality within the existing Canterbury AQMA as well as result in the need to extend the AQMA along the A2050 and B2068. This section does not refer to the November 2016 High Court ruling by Mriustice Garnham (Client Earth). The recent Defra and DforT consultation on ’Tackling nitrogen dioxide in our towns and cities’ published in May 2017 at paragraph 2 states ’This consultation proposes that, where the evidence shows persistent air quality exceedances, local authorities must develop plans to achieve compliance within the shortest time possible.’ There is one NO2 diffusion tube on New Dover Road which was introduced this year. The readings for March and April show levels of NO2 which exceed the EU compliance figure (see table below): Canterbury District N02 diffusion tube results for (Jan - Dec 2017) pg m-3 Site Environmen Name Site Location (Address) t Easting Northing January February March 61564 CA53 lampost o/s 47 New Dover Rd, Canterbury ROADSIDE 5 157192 — — 47.6 Source: http://www.kentair.or2.uk/home/text/802 Consideration needs to be given to drafting an air quality assessment question along the following lines: ’Will the option/proposal help to: 0 Sustain compliance with and contribute to meeting air quality limits?’ 3 Biodiversity General point that is enhanced upon below is that Figures 3.1 and 3.2 do not show all the baseline biodiversity sites and should, especially given the statement in 3.3.2 which reads: ”Habitats and species have the potential to come under increasing pressures from housing and infrastructure development in the Neighbourhood Plan area, including the nationally and locally designated sites. This includes a loss of habitats and impacts on biodiversity networks. ...” The absence of mapping means that the impact of proposed allocations or development on biodiversity may be overlooked. It will also make it harder to answer the appraisal questions set out in section 3.4 SEA Objectives and appraisal questions SSSI and IRZ Figure 3.2 shows three of the four SSI referred to in this section. Lysnore Bottom SSSI is not shown and should be shown. The section refers to SSSI Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) and states that the northern third of the Neighbourhood Plan area lies with the IRZ for the Chequers Wood and Old Park SSSI. It would be helpful for Figure 3.2 to show the IRZ for the four SSSI. Locally Important Sites Whitehill Wood and Lower Hardres, and the River Nail Bourne are referred to but are not mapped. They should be shown. BAP Priority Habitats The section refers to a small area of Ancient and Semi—Natura| Woodland. It should be shown on Figure3.1. If the these designations are not mapped it will make it difficult for members of the public considering the reasonableness of any assessments in subsequent stages of the SEA process. 4. Climate Change Section 4.4 SEA Objectives and appraisal questions The first question on ’$upport the resilience of the Neighbourhood Plan ..’ reads ’Ensure that inappropriate development takes place in areas at higher risk offlooding, ..’ This should surely read ’.. inappropriate development does not take place in areas of higher risk of flooding ..’ 5 Landscape and Historic Environment Section 5.3.1 on Historic Environment on page 24 states: ’Parts of Bridge are designated a conservation area.’ Looking at the emerging local plan Proposals Map, it is more than parts, it is around half of the Neighbourhood Plan area. Three Conservation Areas lie within the area: The Bridge Conservation Area, the Renvi||eFarm and Bridge Railway Station (Bridge) Conservation Area, along with the northern part of the Bourne Park (Bishopsbourne/ Bridge) Conservation Area. Watling Street runs through the area and it is likely that there could be important archaeology or finds along its course. The KCC Heritage Maps (http://webaDDs.kent.gov.uk/KCC.HeritageMaDs.Web.Sites.Public/Defau|t.aspx) show a wealth of archaeological sites and finds in the Neighbourhood Plan area and should be referred to in the text and used in assessments. 5.4 SEA Objectives and appraisal questions Protect, maintain and enhance the cultural heritage resource: NPPF 128 states: ’In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.’ The second assessment question is ’$upport the integrity of the historic setting of key buildings of cultural heritage interest?’ There is no explanation of what ’key building’ means. The assessment question would preclude listed buildings and heritage assets and their setting not deemed to be a ’key building’ contrary to the NPPF and emerging local plan policies HE1 Historic Environment and Heritage Assets, and HE4 Listed Buildings. The assessment question needs to be amended to read ’$upport the integrity of the historic setting of h heritage assets?’ The third assessment question relates to the Bridge Conservation Area. There are three Conservation Areas in the Neighbourhood Plan area: The Bridge Conservation Area, the Renvi||eFarm and Bridge Railway Station (Bridge) Conservation Area, along with the northern part of the Bourne Park (Bishopsbourne/ Bridge) Conservation Area. They should all be referred to. The emerging local plan policy HE6 Conservation Areas in the second paragraph states: ’Development, in or adjoining a conservation area, which would harm its character, appearance, or setting will not normally be permitted.’ The assessment question needs to be amended to read: ’$upport the integrity of the Bridge Conservation Areas and their setting? Protect and enhance the character and qualitv of landscapes and townscapes. Trees and hedgerows add quality to the environment and may reflect ancient field boundaries, or be protected by individual or group Tree Preservation Orders. It would be helpful for the first question to be amended to read: ’Conserve and enhance landscape and townscape features, including trees and hedgerows? This is not in line with the NPPF Emerging local plan policy LB1 Kent Downs AONB in the first paragraph reads: ’High priority will be given to conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the Kent Downs AONB and planning decisions should have regard to its setting.’ Given the policy approach the second assessment question should be amended to read: ’$upport the integrity of the Kent Downs AONB and its setting.’ 6. Land, Soil and Water Resources The section refers to agricultural land classification, Groundwater Nitrate Vulnerable Zone, Groundwater Source Protection Zones which are not mapped and referred to in the assessment questions. The absence of mapping will make it harder to answer the appraisal questions and for members of the public considering the reasonableness of any assessments in subsequent stages of the SEA process. 7. Population and Community Tables 7.1 to 7.3: it would be helpful to provide the data for rural Canterbury (the parishes outside Canterbury and Herne Bay / Whitstable urban areas) as this would help understand if the changes in Bridge reflect the Canterbury rural area as a whole — that is are common to rural parishes. The commentary on table 7.2 Age Structure does not pick up that the 0-15 age group is higher than Canterbury and in line with SE and England. Commentary on Table 7.3 Relative household deprivation dimensions in the last sentence refers to the South East and I wonder if it should be Bridge? 7.4 SEA Objectives and appraisal questions. The third objective is to Provide everyone with the opportunity to live in good quality, affordable housing and ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures.’ It is not clear who ’everyone’ is. Is it people identified by a Parish Housing Needs Survey as needing to live in Bridge, or anyone who wishes to live there? The emerging local plan does not allocate any sites for housing in the Neighbourhood Plan area. The objective needs clarifying. 9. Transportation Section 9.1 refers to the area being well served by road, with the A2 providing access to Canterbury. There is no reference to A2050 (New Dover Road) or the park and ride which give more direct access to the city centre? Are pensioners able to use their bus pass on the park and ride? The Baseline Summary (9.3) makes no reference to the Park and Ride facility on New Dover Road. Census data relates solely to travel to work. It does not address matters such as how the retired, travel to shop, nor how school children travel to school. The Assessment questions could benefit from a question that considers these groups of people, just as the fourth question asks if an option / proposal would facilitate working from home and remote working. DRAFT NOTES Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Meeting with Canterbury City Council Tuesday 23 May 2017. 10.30 am Present: Cllr A Atkinson, Philip Wicker (Clerk and note taker), ]im Boot (Consultant BNPC), Karen Britton, (Planning Policy and Heritage Manager CCC) Lisa Gadd, (Planning policy officer CCC), Mike Bailey (CCC Strategy team) and Lorna Ford (Head of Strategy, Communications and Community Engagement, CCC) Current state of play-an update: 0 The meeting was advised ofthe current composition of the committee and the anticipated timeline for completion ofthe NP. 0 ]B spoke of the Strategic Environmental assessment process now underway through AECOM. ]B reviewed the process required to take the plan through to regulation 15 consultation. 0 It was agreed that the Visual Design Statement would be adopted by CCC from within the NP. How to carry out consultations? 0 Discussion took place on the best methods of reaching the entire village for the regulation 15 consultation, including use of online as well as paper-based resources. 0 CCC will draw up a consultation plan, to assist the NP information gathering exercise as required, using what is known of the village demographics and can also help the NP group with question setting and spreadsheet analysis of responses. Funding should be available for the consultation process via CCC, as well as the use of in housing printing and online resources such as Sticky World. 0 BNPC will need to draw up a non-technical summary document. 0 the housing needs survey is an important part ofthe evidence base for the Plan. Lorna and Mark left the meeting at this point. CCC planners and BNPC continued the meeting: 0 NPC will publish the ACRK housing needs survey after the NP Committee meeting (26 May). 0 A copy ofthe housing needs survey to be sent to KB (PW to action) The scoping report from AECOM 0 to be sent to Kent Highways (Matthew Hogben) and to the AONB (Kate Miller) 0 CCC concerned that the new Bridge A2 interchange and the Park and Ride scheme appear not to figure on the scoping report. 0 All proposed housing sites will be considered as part ofthe SEA process. 0 CCC said the green gap is a strategic policy of the council. Next meeting was scheduled for either 18 or 25 ]uly 2017 depending on diaries. HISTORIC ENGLAND RESPONSE TO SCOPING REPORT RE BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN From: Lloyd Sweet, Robert [mai|to:Robert.L|oydSweet@HistoricEng|and.org.uk] Sent: 16June 2017 17:10 To: Chisho|m—Batten, Nick Subject: Re: SEA scoping consultation: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan, Canterbury, Kent Dear Nick Thank you for consulting Historic England on the draft scoping report for SEA of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan. The scope of the SEA should in part be directed by the aspirations of the plan writers in order to ensure it provides evidence and an assessment framework that is appropriate to the nature of the likely significant environmental effects of the plan. We gather from the Neighbourhood Plan website that there may be some consideration of sites for ‘organic growth‘ of the settlement, as well as potential provision of car parking. As such, the scoping report does need to consider the potential of constraints on options for land allocation with a focus on areas that would support organic growth of the settlement. As the plan is at an early stage it is also sensible to gather a broad range of evidence to identify any further environmental issues affecting the area that could be addressed through the plan, or that plan options should avoid contributing to as cumulative effects. We note that the National Heritage List has been consulted and that the presence of a number of listed buildings identified in addition scheduled monument at Hanging Hill. Features of these designated assets that might helpfully be identified in order to inform policy making include the focus of a large number of listed buildings either side ofthe High Street — Bridge Hill route, within the conservation area, suggesting an area of particularly high sensitivity for effects on the historic built environment. Similarly, the hill top location of the scheduled monument comprising an extensive Ang|o—Saxon cemetery including a number of surviving burial mounds, appears to have been chosen for its commanding location in the landscape, which, therefore is considered to be an important element of its significance. Any impacts on its role in the landscape (i.e. affecting its setting) would therefore need be considered carefully, in addition to direct impacts within the scheduled monument area or on other associated archaeological remains in the wider area. The area ofthe monument is particularly prominent in views from Bourne Park Road. We note that the conservation area is extensive, covering a large part of the Parish, suggesting it has a particularly high value for its historic character and, as such is highly sensitive to change. We note the comments in the scoping report with regard to non—designated heritage assets. Unfortunately we feel that these lack sufficient precision to provide guidance for plan making. The Historic Environment Record (HER) maintained by the County Council provides the best record of non—designated heritage assets within the neighbourhood plan area. This is highlighted in the National Planning Practice Guidance as an important source of information for Neighbourhood Plans and we would expect it to be reviewed as matter of course in all neighbourhood plan SEA Scoping report where potential site allocations are being considered. A brief search of the HER via the Exploring Kent's Past website (http://webapDs.kent.gov.uk/KCC.Exp|oringKentsPast.Web.Sites.Public/Defau|t.aspx) reveals that 101 records refer to historic sites or buildings within the Parish. A total to 44 of these are likely to replicate features on the national heritage list. However, 57 records relate to otherwise non—designated heritage assets. Notable among these are the course ofthe major Roman road Watling Street, one of the foremost highways of Roman Britain, which, in—fact runs through the heart of the settlement of Bridge and is marked as a Roman road on the Ordnance Survey base map used for the SEA scoping report mapping. Bridging points on Roman roads frequently form minor foci of activity and, as such it is likely that the settlement has a high potential for the presence of remains of Roman activity. Records of observation of surviving evidence ofthe Roman road surface and settlement activity are contained within the HER for a site at High Street, Bridge (Monument record number TR 15 SE 371), whilst a 4th century Romano—British burial site is recorded at Brdge Hill (HER monument number TR 15 SE 7). Aerial photography reveals the evidence of a complex settlement of late Prehistoric or Roman form just to the north west of Bridge at Station Road, depending on its state of preservation this is likely to be considered a site of, at least, regional importance (see attached screen capture of Google satellite imagery). This site is likely to be highly sensitive to harm resulting from development but may also be currently affected by ongoing ploughing, which is likely to have a cumulative negative effect over the long term. The HER also contains evidence of Bronze Age activity at Star Hill and Bishopsbourne within the Parish. Parts ofthe parkland of the 17th century estates of Bourne House and Bifrons lie within the south and east ofthe parish respectively and would be considered as non- designated heritage assets in their own right. The HER also contains records of a number of military features relating to the defence of Britain in the Second World War. The Scoping Report highlights the potential for development or other change of management resulting from plan policies to have either beneficial or harmful impacts to heritage assets but doesn't provide any indication of what current issues may exist or what opportunities for benefits to heritage assets may be present. We have identified a number of areas with potential sensitivity to change above. Nevertheless, the potential to provide better understanding of the medieval and earlier settlement of Bridge, as well as the archaeology of its surroundings and to make this information available to its residents and visitors is one opportunity we would expect the Scoping report to highlight. The course of the dismantled railway track (Part of the former Elham Valley Line) provides one obvious area that has been identified as having special interest through its inclusion in the conservation area that could possibly provide benefits through improved access as part of a linked recreational route connecting numerous attractive areas along the Elham Valley. The historic focus of settlement within the village follows the single, linear corridor of High Street — Bridge Hill (the former Watling Street), which also acts as the main artery of vehicle movement generated by local need and is used for on—street car parking along several stretches. This creates an area of high sensitivity for the historic environment in a narrow space that also has high demand for traffic. Development resulting in a substantial increase in traffic along this corridor can be predicted to have a harmful impact on the historic environment. The village lies within a green valley setting with potential for views from higher ground to the north and south. The village's historic architecture is typified by the use of clay peg tiles on pitched roofs with a general two—storey scale. As such, there is potential for a distinctive appearance ofthe settlement in its landscape setting, that may be appreciated from the footpath network and which reveals part of its historic and architectural interest. It would be helpful to highlight the potential for impacts on views ofthe village (in addition to other parts of the conservation area) from its rural setting through innapropriate development. I hope these points are helpful but I would like to request that in future Aecom make greater use of the existing evidence within the now readily accessible County historic Environment Records, which, as I have said, are highlighted in the Government's planning advice as an important source of evidence that should be used for neighbourhood planning. Where this evidence is not used and is shown to be relevant we will be minded to state that scoping reports have not had a satisfactory level of information gathering relating to the historic environment effects of plans. I would also request that these reports avoid generic statements about the potential for benefits or harm to heritage assets where issues or opportunities can be reasonably deducted from the available evidence. Yours sincerely Robert L|oyd—Sweet Rob L|oyd—Sweet | Historic Places Adviser | Historic Places | South East Direct Line: 01483 252028 Mobile: 07825 907288 Historic England | Eastgate Court | 195 — 205 High Street Guildford | GU1 3EH NATURAL ENGLAND RESPONSE TO SCOPING REPORT ON BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Our Ref: 215437 Dear Mr Wicker Thank you for your consultation regarding the above. Please accept my sincere apologies forthe lateness ofthis response — unfortunately I have been off sick and my team has been experiencing significant resourcing issues such that this consultation could not be reallocated. I hope my brief comments below are still of some use. Overall this came across as a high quality scoping report covering the majority ofthe relevant issues within Natural England’s remit. My comments are focused on the SEA Objectives and appraisal questions as we have learned from experience that this is where we, as an organisation, can add the most value. Biodiversity SEA theme Natural England is pleased to see a comprehensive list of appraisal questions underthis theme along with references to enhancement as well as protection. You might wish to revise the green infrastructure appraisal question so that this also covers protection of existing assets as well as enhancements. Climate Change SEA theme While not particularly relevant to our remit we note that the first appraisal question relating to SEA objective “Support the resilience ofthe Neighbourhood Plan area to the potential effects of climate change, including flooding” is somewhat oddly worded and something that you may wish to revisit — “Will the option/proposal help to ensure that inappropriate development takes place in areas at higher risk of flooding, taking into account the likely future effects of climate change?” Development inappropriate in what way? Surely one ofthe aims of the NP is to avoid inappropriate development? Landscape and Historic Environment SEA theme We are pleased to see impacts on the Kent Downs AONB explicitly covered by one of the appraisal questions in this section. Given that more than half of Bridge Parish, including the main settlement area, is covered by the AONB designation we would strongly encourage you to seek the views of the AONB Unit on the scope ofthe SEA even if they are not a statutory consultee. Land, Soil and Water Resources SEA theme Natural England welcomes the inclusion of an appraisal question covering Best and Most Versatile (BM\/) agricultural land as in our experience this is a commonly neglected issue. Health and Wellbeing SEA theme We welcome the focus in this section on improving people’s access to green infrastructure and the countryside but currently none ofthe appraisal questions relate to potential impacts on existing recreational assets (quality and or extent). We suggest adding the following bullet point “Avoid impacts on the quality and extent of existing recreational assets, such as formal or informal footpaths?” Kind Regards Heather Twizell Lead Adviser Sustainable Development Team Sussex and Kent Natural England 3rd Floor, Guildbourne House, Chatsworth Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 1LD 0208 0268024 / 07824 335572 Natural England scoping report response Our Ref: 215437 Dear Mr Wicker Thank you for your consultation regarding the above. Please accept my sincere apologies forthe lateness of this response — unfortunately I have been off sick and my team has been experiencing significant resourcing issues such that this consultation could not be reallocated. I hope my brief comments below are still of some use. Overall this came across as a high quality scoping report covering the majority of the relevant issues within Natural England’s remit. My comments are focused on the SEA Objectives and appraisal questions as we have learned from experience that this is where we, as an organisation, can add the most value. Biodiversity SEA theme Natural England is pleased to see a comprehensive list of appraisal questions underthis theme along with references to enhancement as well as protection. You might wish to revise the green infrastructure appraisal question so that this also covers protection of existing assets as well as enhancements. Climate Change SEA theme While not particularly relevant to our remit we note that the first appraisal question relating to SEA objective “Support the resilience of the Neighbourhood Plan area to the potential effects of climate change, including flooding” is somewhat oddly worded and something that you may wish to revisit — “Will the option/proposal help to ensure that inappropriate development takes place in areas at higher risk of flooding, taking into account the likely future effects of climate change?” Development inappropriate in what way? Surely one of the aims of the NP is to avoid inappropriate development? Landscape and Historic Environment SEA theme We are pleased to see impacts on the Kent Downs AONB explicitly covered by one of the appraisal questions in this section. Given that more than half of Bridge Parish, including the main settlement area, is covered by the AONB designation we would strongly encourage you to seek the views ofthe AONB Unit on the scope of the SEA even if they are not a statutory consultee. Land, Soil and Water Resources SEA theme Natural England welcomes the inclusion of an appraisal question covering Best and Most Versatile (BM\/) agricultural land as in our experience this is a commonly neglected issue. Health and Wellbeing SEA theme We welcome the focus in this section on improving people’s access to green infrastructure and the countryside but currently none of the appraisal questions relate to potential impacts on existing recreational assets (quality and or extent). We suggest adding the following bullet point “Avoid impacts on the quality and extent of existing recreational assets, such as formal or informal footpaths?” Kind Regards Heather Twizell Lead Adviser Sustainable Development Team Sussex and Kent Dear Philp/James Thanks for forwarding the Scoping Report to the AONB Unit. The only comments I have are that in the section on Landscape and Historic Environment, under key messages from the NPPF, it may be worth mentioning that para 14 of the NPPF indicates that during p|an—making, the AONB is a matter that can restrict development, advising that local planning authorities should positively endeavour to meet their areas objectively assessed development needs ‘unless specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted’. Footnote 9 to this paragraph identifies that such policies include those relating to AONBs. This paragraph therefore acknowledges that there will be some circumstances in which a local planning authority may legitimately not be able to meet its objectively assessed development needs within its own administrative area due to, for example, the need to prevent harm to an AONB. Also, the identified key features of the Kent Downs AONB are rather generic and not particularly specific to the parish of Bridge. While reference is made to the National Character Area, again this covers the whole of the North Downs and it might therefore be useful to have reference to more localised characteristics, such as those identified in the Landscape Character Assessment of the Kent Downs AONB which places Bridge in the East Kent Downs Character Area. Within this character area, key characteristics include long wooded ridges, dry valleys with open valley bottoms, thick shaws or overgrown hedges on the valley sides, narrow uncultivated banks or ‘shaws’, large arable fields on ride top plateaux and a maze of sunken on track lanes. I hope you find these comments useful. Happy to discuss further if this would be helpful. Kind regards Katie Katie Miller Planning Manager Kent Downs AONB Unit West Barn, Penstock Hall Farm Canterbury Road East Brabourne Ashford TN25 5LL Tel: 01303 815170 www.kentdowns.org.uk Sign up to the Kent Downs AONB Newsletter: www.kentdowns.org.ukzannouncementszkent-downs-aonb-newsletter ‘QB. '5 ‘9 -96)‘ '0 4/WITH cuM\~‘° Bridge Housing Needs Survey July 201 7 Tessa O'Sullivan Rural Housing Enabler Action with Communities in Rural Kent Contents |—L 9. Executive Summary Introduction Background Information Method Results Local Housing Costs Assessment of Housing Need 7.1 Assessment of need for affordable housing 7.2 Assessment of the need for housing for older households Summary of Findings 8.1 Summary of findings for affordable housing 8.2 Summary of findings for housing for older households Appendix B1 — Question 8 comments 10. Appendix B2 — Question 22 comments 11. Appendix B3 — Letter to residents and housing need sun/ey Page 18 21 21 29 37 37 38 39 45 46 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Rural Housing Enabler (RHE) undertook a parish wide sun/ey to ascertain if there are shortfalls in affordable housing provision within the parish of Bridge and the need for alternative housing for older households of any tenure, who may want to downsize/move to more suitable housing for their needs. This report provides overall information as well as analysis of housing need. A survey was hand delivered to every household within the parish in June 2017. Approximately 686 surveys were distributed with 224 surveys being returned, representing a 33% response rate. Analysis of the returned sun/ey forms identified that 89% of respondents are owner occupiers. 64% of respondents have lived in the parish for over 10 years. High property prices and a predominance of privately owned homes means that some local people are unable to afford a home within the parish. At the time of writing the report the cheapest 2 bed house for sale in the parish was £240,000; to afford to buy this home a deposit of approximately £36,000 would be required and an income of £58,256. To afford to rent privately an income of approximately £36,000 would be required to afford the cheapest property found to rent in the parish which was a 2 bed house for £900 pcm. This house was a let agreed property; no properties were found that were available to rent in Bridge at the time of writing the report. A need for 6 affordable homes, for the following local households was identified: - 3 single people - 2 couples 0 1 family - 5 households currently live in Bridge and 1 lives outside but has local connections to the village The sun/ey also identified a requirement for 10 homes for the following older households: 7 single people 3 couples The 10 households all currently live in Bridge 5 of the older households need affordable housing. These affordable homes are required in addition to the 6 affordable homes identified above. Overall the sun/ey has identified a total need for 11 affordable homes; 5 of which are for older households. In addition there is a requirement for 5 open market properties suitable for older households who want to downsize/move to more suitable housing for their needs. 2. INTRODUCTION TO THE BRIDGE HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY The Rural Housing Enabler worked with Bridge Parish Council to undertake a housing needs survey within the parish. The aim of the survey was to identify the needs for affordable housing in the village and the needs of older households of all tenures. The aim of this survey is to identify in general terms if there is a housing need from local people. It is not to provide a list of names and addresses of individuals requiring a home. 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In a report published in December 2014, the Rural Housing Alliance has stated that ‘For many rural households, finding somewhere affordable in their local community remains a barrier, with homes costing over eight times the average salaiy in 90% of rural local authority areas. This is an affordability gap which, in many areas, is even more extreme given low paid rural employment.’1 Small developments of local needs housing schemes can provide affordable housing for local people, thereby enabling them to stay in their community and contribute to village life. This can make a real difference to the vitality of village services. In 2007 Matthew Taylor, then MP for Truro and St Austell, was asked by the then Prime Minister to conduct a review on how land use and planning can better support rural business and deliver affordable housing. Many rural communities are faced by a combination of higher than average house prices and lower than average local wages. This can create challenges for individual families, the local economy and the wider sustainability of the community. On July 23“ 2008 Matthew Taylor presented his Review to the Government. The then Government issued their response to the review in March 2009 where they accepted the majority of Matthew Taylor's recommendations (Department of Communities and Local Government 2009). The Government believe that the Community Right To Build will shift power from them to allow local people to deliver homes that are needed in their communities so that villages are vibrant places to live and younger people are not forced to move away because of a shortage of affordable homes? The Community Right to Build forms part of the neighbourhood planning provisions contained in the Localism Act 2011. The Rural Housing Enabler Programme, which is delivered in Kent through Action with Communities in Rural Kent — the Rural Community Council for Kent and Medway, is supported by Local Authorities across Kent and Medway including Canterbuiy City Council. Action with Communities in Rural Kent is a registered charity (No. 212796) whose purpose is to improve the quality of life of local communities, particularly for disadvantaged people, and to facilitate the development of thriving, diverse and sustainable communities throughout rural Kent. Since March 1998 Action with Communities in Rural Kent has employed a Rural Housing Enabler whose role is to provide independent support, advice and information to Parish Councils and community groups concerned with the lack of local needs housing in their rural communities. 1 Affordable Rural Housing: A practical guide for parish councils. December 2014. Rural Housing Alliance 2 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/neighbourhoodplansimpact The RHE will assist with carrying out a housing needs survey, analyse the results and help identify suitable sites in conjunction with the local authority and others, for a local needs housing scheme. Once a partnership has been established between the Parish Council, the chosen housing association and the local authority to develop a scheme, the independent role of the RHE helps to ensure the project proceeds smoothly and to the benefit of the community. 4. METHOD The Rural Housing Enabler from Action with Communities in Rural Kent agreed the format of the survey and covering letter with Bridge Parish Council; a copy of the sun/ey was hand delivered to eveiy household in the parish in June 2017. Surveys were returned in pre paid envelopes to Action with Communities in Rural Kent. Copies of the survey were available to complete for anyone who had left the parish and wished to return, these were held by the Rural Housing Enabler. It was asked that completed survey forms were returned by 14th July. All surveys received at Action with Communities in Rural Kent by that date are included in this report. Approximately 696 surveys were distributed with 224 returned by this date representing a return rate of 33%. Some surveys were not fully completed therefore the results are shown for the total answers to each question. 5. RESULTS Section 1 Listed below are the results of each question asked by the housing needs sun/ey. Question 1. What type of housing do you live in? 8 Council property 10 Private rented 1 Tied tenancy 3 Housing Association rented 0 Housing Association shared ownership 197 Owner occupier (with or without mortgage) 0 Living with relatives 2 Other Other Living with relatives Owner occupier (with or without mortgage) Housing Association shared ownership Housing Association rented Tied tenancy Private rented Council property 0 100 Frequency 89% of respondents are owner occupiers Question 2. Number of bedrooms in your home? 2181244227732624 21252 56 Number of people that currently live in the property? 24_164 17 90 80 Y \I o 60 50 40 30 20 10 Frequenc Question 3. How long have you lived in Bridge? 2 13 Less than 1 year 2 35 1-5 years 231 6-10 years [29 11-15 years 2 34 16-25 years 2 79 26+ years 26+ years 16-25 years 11-15 years 6-10 years 1-5 years Less than 1 year 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Frequency 172 respondents (64%) have lived in the parish for over 10 years. Question 4. Have any members of your family/ household left the parish in the last 5 years? |K 33Yesj175No| 160 140 I-- N O 100 80 60 40 20 Frequency Yes No Question 5. If you answered yes to question 4, please state what relationship they have to you. 2 29 Child 2 0 Parent 2 1 Other relative 2 3 Other |\J U1 0 Frequency i—- i—- N o U1 OU1 Child Parent Otherrelative Other Question 6. Please indicate the reason why they left. 2 8 Lack of affordable housing j 15 To attend university/college 2 11 Employment 2 40ther Other Employmen To attend university/college Lack of affordable housing 0 5 10 15 Frequency The most frequently given reason for leaving the parish was to attend university/college. Reasons given under ‘Other’ include moved in with partner, divorce and travelling/moved abroad. Question 7. Would they return if more suitable accommodation were to be available? 212Yes223No 20: 515- : . G) . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Lt : 5. 0' . . Yes No Question 8. Would you support a small development of affordable housing if there was a proven need for people with a genuine local connection to Bridge? _180Yesj 40NoI Yes No 82% of respondents who answered the question (80% of all respondents) said they would support a development of affordable housing for local people. Question 9. Please use this space if you wish to explain your answer to Q8. There were 103 responses to this question; a full list of responses can be found in Appendix B1. Question 10. Do you or a member of your household need separate or alternative accommodation either now or in the next 2 or 5 years? Z 195 No 2 6 Yes, now 2 5 Yes, next 2 years 2 8 Yes, next 5 years 180 160 140 i—-i—- O|\J OO Frequency ox 00 O O -I3 O |\J O O No Yes, now Yes, next 2 years Yes, next 5 years 19 respondents (9%) said they need separate or alternative accommodation now or in the next 2 or 5 years. 10 Section 2 — Housing Needs Only those respondents who deemed themselves in need of alternative housing were asked to complete Section 2. Question 11. Are you completing this form for yourself or someone else? I) 13 Self 2 6 Someone else I 12 10 Frequency OI\J-#0100 Self Someone else Question 12. If you are completing this form for someone else please state their relationship to you and where they currently live. Respondents were mainly completing the form for their adult children living in the parental home Question 13. Personal details of respondents are not included in this report. Question 14. If you live outside the parish of Bridge do you wish to return? 22Yes21No Frequency Yes No 11 Question 15. If you live in the parish of Bridge do you wish to stay there? 214Yes2 1N0 I- -I3 I-- N Frequency l—‘ O O|\J-#0100 Yes No Question 16. What is your connection with the parish of Bridge? Respondents were asked to indicate all connections that applied to them. Local connection FREQUENCY I currently live in the parish and have done so continuously for the 5 last 5 years or more I currently live in the parish and have done so for the last 10 years 11 or previously live in the parish for at least 10 years I have immediate family which has lived continuously in the parish 4 for at least 5 years and is still living there I have immediate family which has lived continuously in the parish 6 for at least 10 years and is still living there I am in permanent part time or full time employment in the parish 0 I provide an important service in the parish 0 I need to move to the parish to give or receive support to or from 0 an immediate family member Question 17. What type of household will you be in alternative accommodation? 2 11 Single person 2 5 Couple 2 2 Family 2 O Other I- 0 Frequency OI\J-#0100 Single person Couple Family Other 12 Question 18. How many people in each age group need alternative accommodation? AGE 0 — 9 10 -15 16 — 19 20 -24 25 — 44 45 — 59 60 — 74 75+ Male 1 0 O 2 1 3 1 1 Female 1 0 1 2 1 4 4 3 Total 2 0 1 4 2 7 5 4 Question 19. Why are you seeking a new home? Other Difficulty maintaining home Access problems To move to a better/safer environmen Lodging Sheltered accom due to age/infirmity New job Disability/disabled Divorce/separation Setting up home with partner Retiremen To be nearer work To be nearer family Private tenancy ending Current home affecting health First independent home Present home in need of major repair Cannot afford existing mortgage Present home too expensive Need smaller home Need larger home 0 2 4 6 8 Frequency The most frequently given reason for seeking a new home was ‘Present home too expensive’ 13 Question 20. What is your current housing situation? 2 5 Owner occupier with/without mortgage 2 7 Renting privately 2 Renting from Housing Association 1 Renting from Council 0 Shared ownership 1 Tied tenancy 3 Living with relatives 0 Other Other Living with relatives Tied tenancy Shared ownership Renting from Council Renting from Housing Association Renting privately Owner occupier with/without mortgage 0 2 4 6 Frequency Question 21. Are you an older person / household wanting to downsize/ move to more suitable housing for your needs? 29Yes28No Frequency Oi-l\JU-J-l>U10\\lOO\0 Yes No Question 22. Please tell us in your own words why you need to move and what prevents you from doing so. There were 14 responses to this question. A full list of responses can be found in Appendix B2 14 Question 23. What type of housing do you need? 2 7 Flat K 7 House 8 Bungalow 3 Accommodation suitable for older persons without support 2 Extra Care housing (suitable for elderly people with range of support options) 1 Other Other Extra Care housing (suitable for elderly people with range of support options) Accommodation suitable for older persons without support Bungalow House Fla 0 5 Frequency Question 24. Which tenure would best suit your housing need? 11 Renting — Housing Association/Council 3 Shared ownership — Housing Association 9 Owner occupier 0 2 2 2 2 Other Other Owner occupier Shared ownership — Housing Association Renting — Housing Association/Council 0 5 10 Frequency 15 Question 25. How many bedrooms will you need? 271 282 203 214 ;05+ Frequency 0 I—- N LA) 43 U1 03 \l 00 1 2 3 4 5+ Question 26. Please indicate the total gross annual income of the household in housing need. More than £60,000 £50,000 - £60,000 £40,000 - £50,000 £35,000 - £40,000 £30,000 - £35,000 £25,000 - £30,000 £20,000 - £25,000 £15,000 - £20,000 £10,000 - £15,000 Under £10,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency Question 27. How much money would you be able to raise as a deposit towards buying your own home? The following answers were given: - 1 x £150,000 - 1 x £200,000 - 2 x £300,000 Question 28. How much money would you be able to raise as a deposit towards buying your own home? 0 1 X £2000 0 1 X £10,000 0 1 X £20,000 0 1 X £25,000 0 1 X £30,000 16 Question 29. Do you have any particular or specialised housing requirements? Five respondents said they had the following requirements: Fortunately at present, no particular need, but with a 7 year age difference between us it would mean either one or the elder will have a special need in the foreseeable future of the coming 5 years Need wet room and shower, wheel chair access, ramps and hand rails, allow dogs, car parking, small garden I need one with no stairs and a downstairs toilet Have arthritis, insipient Parkinson's and am on hemodialysis I have no special needs at present and obviously no need to move at present. I would like to stay in Bridge. I anticipate I may find it difficult to maintain my present house, especially the garden which I already pay for. A few purpose—built small properties would certainly fill a gap in the housing in Bridge when you are considering planning permission. Question 30. Are you registered on Canterbury City Council's housing register? Frequency 16 14 12 I-‘ O|\J-#03000 2 2Yes216No NO YES 17 6. LOCAL HOUSING COSTS To fully assess local housing need it is important to look at open market prices in the private sector of houses both to rent and buy. Propem for sale Searches of www.rightmove.co.uk which markets property for a number of leading local estate agents, in July 2017, found the following cheapest properties for sale in Bridge. Type of Property Number of Price Bedrooms £ Terraced house 2 240 000 Terraced house 3 325 000 Detached house 3 339 500 Semi-detached bungalow 4 375 000 Semi-detached house 4 465 000 Proper :1 t0 rent A similar search for rental property found nothing available, so the search included let agreed properties where one was found: Type of Property Number of Price £pcm. Bedrooms Terraced house 2 900 Household income reguired to afford current market prices Using local information, the table below shows gross income level needed to purchase a property in the area. The figures are calculated assuming a 15% deposit and using 3.5 x gross income. Monthly repayment is based on a 2 year fixed standard with HSBC at 3.69% (July 2017) 25 year mortgage term and is calculated using HSBC’s mortgage calculator. It should be noted that in the current economic climate lenders have made the borrowing criteria for potential mortgagees stricter by requiring at least a 15% deposit, making securing a mortgage difficult for some first time buyers, especially those on lower incomes. Although there are now higher LTV mortgages available, they tend to attract a higher interest rate. Type of Property Price £ Deposit Gross Income Monthly (15%) Level Repayment Terraced house 240 000 36 000 58 286 801 Terraced house 325 000 48 750 78 929 1084 Detached house 339 500 50 925 82 450 1133 Semi-detached 375 000 56 250 91 071 1251 bungalow Semi-detached house 465 000 69 750 112 929 1551 18 To gauge the income level required to afford to rent privately the following calculations assume that 30% gross income is spent on housing. (A household is considered able to afford market rented housing in cases where the rent payable would constitute no more than 30% of gross income). Type of Property Price Approx. Gross Annual income £ pcm £ 2 bed house 900 36 000 Affordable Rent The Government has introduced changes relating to rents charged to new tenants of social housing from April 2011. Affordable Rent properties allow landlords to set rents anywhere between current social rent levels and up to 80% of local market rents. The following table shows housing benefit levels, known as Local Housing Allowance (LHA) for the CT 4 (Canterbury BMRA) area. These levels have been used to estimate affordable rent charges due to a lack of information on average private rent charges in the area. Size of Property Affordable Rent Levels £ 1 bed 537 2 bed 671 3 bed 782 4 bed 1216 The table below shows income needed to afford the affordable rent levels using 30% of gross income as the indicator of what is affordable. Property Price Gross annual £ pcm Income £ 1 bed 537 21 480 2 bed 671 26 840 3 bed 782 31 280 4 bed 1216 48 640 19 Shared ownership To give an indication of respondents’ ability to afford shared ownership, levels of income and rent/mortgage have been taken into consideration on purchasing a 30% share of a property with estimated values of £190,000 for a 1 bed properw, £250,000 for a 2 bed property and £350,00 for a 3 bed property. These values are taken from costs found on the Help to Buy website www.helptobuvese.ord.uk and www.rightmove.co.uk Affordability is calculated using the Homes and Communities Agency's target incomes calculator. Calculations are made assuming a 10% deposit of mortgage share. Property Share Deposit Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Gross price £ Required mortgage rent E Service total £ Income £ £ charge required 190 000 30% 5700 350 305 80 735 26 496 250 000 30% 7500 461 401 80 942 33 953 350 000 30% 10 500 646 561 80 1287 46 381 20 7. ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING NEED This section provides an assessment of the responses to Section 2 of the survey. It is divided into two categories; the need for affordable housing (excluding older households) and the need for alternative housing for older households of all tenures. There were a total of 19 surveys returned stating a housing need. 7.1 Assessment of the need for affordable housing (excluding older households) This analysis is divided into categories of those who need housing now, in the next 2 years and in the next 5 years. At this stage some respondents might be excluded if they do not want/are not eligible for affordable housing or if they do not provide sufficient information for an assessment of their eligibility to be made. In total 9 respondents said they had a need for affordable housing in the following timescales: 0 Now x 2 o In the next 2 years x 3 o In the next 5 years x 4 Assessment of the 2 households seeking housing now The 2 households seeking housing now are: c 1 x single person - 1 x couple Single people — there was 1 single person Age Frequency 25-44 1 Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency Present home in need of major 1 repair Present home too expensive 1 Current home affecting health 1 To move to a better/safer 1 environment To be nearer family 1 Disability/disabled 1 Difficulty maintaining home 1 Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Renting privately 1 21 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency Flat/ house 1 Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Renting HA/Shared ownership 1 Number of bedrooms required: The answers given relate to the number of bedrooms respondents sought/preferred rather than an assessment of their need. No of bedrooms Frequency 1 1 Household's joint gross annual income: Income Frequency £10,000 — £15,000 1 Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: There was no response to this question Amount available towards a deposit: The following answer was given - c £30,000 Particular or specialised housing requirements: None Registered on Canterbury City Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 1 The respondent indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live outside the parish but have immediate family living there. The following table shows the respondent's ability to afford the various forms of tenure they said they require plus affordability of open market housing to buy and rent. It should be noted that actual affordability of the various forms of tenure required depends on income and the ability to pay the required deposit and other finances necessary to buy a home. Income Number of Renting Shared Open Private respondents HA Ownership market rent purchase £10,000 — 1 1 with HB 0 0 0 £15,000 22 It is assumed that respondents who cannot afford the housing association rent (affordable rent) will be eligible for housing benefit (HB) Couples — there was 1 couple. The table below shows the ages of all members of the household Age Frequency 45-59 2 Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency Present home too expensive 1 Disability/disabled 1 Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Renting privately 1 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency House/ bungalow 1 Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Renting HA 1 Number of bedrooms required: The answers given relate to the number of bedrooms respondents sought/preferred rather than an assessment of their need. No of bedrooms Frequency 2 1 Household's joint gross annual income: Income Frequency £20,000 — £25,000 1 Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: There was no response to this question Amount available towards a deposit: There was no response to this question Particular or specialised housing requirements: None 23 Registered on Canterbury City Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 1 The respondent indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live in the parish. The following table shows the respondent's ability to afford the various forms of tenure they said they require plus affordability of open market housing to buy and rent. It should be noted that actual affordability of the various forms of tenure required depends on income and the ability to pay the required deposit and other finances necessary to buy a home. Income Number of Renting Shared Open Private respondents HA Ownership market rent purchase £20,000 — 1 1 0 0 0 £25,000 24 Assessment of the 3 households seeking affordable housing in the next 2 years Two respondents were excluded from this final assessment for the following reasons: - One respondent did not want to stay in the parish - One respondent did not indicate sufficient information for an assessment of their need to be made The 1 household in need of housing in the next 2 years is: o 1 x couple Couples — there was 1 couple. The table below shows the ages of all members of the household Age Frequency 45-59 2 Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency Other (Possible redundancy) 1 Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Tied tenancy 1 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency House/ bu ngalow 1 Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Renting HA 1 Number of bedrooms required: The answers given relate to the number of bedrooms respondents sought/preferred rather than an assessment of their need. No of bedrooms Frequency 1 1 Household's joint gross annual income: There was no response to this question Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: There was no response to this question Amount available towards a deposit: There was no response to this question Particular or specialised housing requirements: None 25 Registered on Canterbury Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 1 The respondent indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live in the parish. Assessment of the 4 households seeking affordable housing in the next 5 years 1 respondent was excluded because the only tenure they wanted was open market purchase. The 3 households in need of housing in the next 5 years are: c 2 x single people 0 1 x family Single people there were 2 single people Age Frequency 16-19 1 20-24 1 Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency First independent home 2 Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Living with relatives 2 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency Flat 1 Flat/ house 1 Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Renting HA 2 26 Number of bedrooms required: The answers given relate to the number of bedrooms respondents sought/preferred rather than an assessment of their need. No of bedrooms Frequency 1 1 2 1 Income: The respondents did not answer the question because they are young people not currently earning and wanting accommodation in 5 years’ time. Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: There were no responses to this question Amount available towards a deposit: There were no responses to this question Particular or specialised housing requirements: None Registered on Canterbury Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 2 The respondents indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live in the parish. Families — there was 1 family Age Adult Adult Child Child Child Age Age Age Age Age Family 1 25-44 0-9 M Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency Present home too expensive 1 First independent home 1 Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Renting privately 1 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency House 1 27 Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Shared ownership/Renting HA 1 Number of bedrooms required: The answers given relate to the number of bedrooms respondents sought/preferred rather than an assessment of their need. No of bedrooms Frequency 2 1 Household's joint gross annual income: Income Frequency £25,000 — £30,000 1 Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: There was no response to this question Amount available towards a deposit: The following answers were given — 0 Maximum £2000 Particular or specialised housing requirements: None Registered on Canterbury Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 1 The respondent indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live in the parish. The following table shows the respondent's ability to afford the various forms of tenure they said they require plus affordability of open market housing to buy and rent. It should be noted that actual affordability of the various forms of tenure required depends on income and the ability to pay the required deposit and other finances necessary to buy a home. Income Number of Renting Shared Open Private respondents HA Ownership market rent purchase £25,000 — 1 1 0 0 0 £30,000 28 7.2 Assessment of the need for housing for older households This section assesses the needs of older people for all tenures; open market and affordable housing Ten respondents said they were an older person/household wanting to downsize/move to more suitable housing for their needs. They wanted to move in the following timescales: - 4 x now - 2 x next 2 years c 4 x next 5 years Assessment of the 4 households that need alternative housing now: The 4 households that need alternative housing now are: - 3 x single people - 1 x couple Single people — there were 3 single people e F uen 45-59 1 60-74 1 75+ 1 Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency Need smaller home 1 Disability/disabled 2 To be nearer family 1 Present home too expensive 2 To move to a better/safer 1 environment Sheltered accom. due to 2 age/infirmity Access problems 1 Other (Pet/dog friendly) 1 Cannot afford existing 1 mortgage Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Owner occupier 2 Renting privately 1 29 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency Bungalow 2 Flat/bungalow/accommodation 1 suitable for older persons without support Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Open market purchase 2 Renting HA 1 Number of bedrooms required: No of bedrooms Frequency 1 3 Income: Income Frequency Under £10,000 2 £10,000—£15,000 1 Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: The following answers were given — - Nil o £200,000 - £300,000 Amount available towards a deposit: The following answers were given — - Nil c £10,000 - £300,000 Particular or specialised housing requirements: The following answers were given — - Have arthritis, insipient Parkinson's and am on haemodialysis - Need — wet room and shower, wheelchair access, ramps and handrails. Allow dogs, car parking, small garden Registered on Canterbury City Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 3 The respondents indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live in the parish. 30 Couples - there was 1 couple. The table below shows the ages of both members of the household Age Frequency 45-59 2 Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency Disability/disabled 1 Present home too expensive 1 Current home affecting health 1 Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Renting privately 1 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency Bungalow 1 Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Renting from HA 1 Number of bedrooms required: The answers given relate to the number of bedrooms respondents sought/preferred rather than an assessment of their need. No of bedrooms Frequency 1 1 Income: Income Frequency £20,000—£25,000 1 Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: The following answer was given — 0 None Amount available towards a deposit: The following answer was given — 0 None Particular or specialised housing requirements: The following answer was given — o I need one with no stairs and downstairs toilet 31 Registered on Canterbury City Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 1 The respondent indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live in the parish. Assessment of the 2 households that need alternative housing within the next 2 years: The 2 households in need of alternative housing within the next 2 years are: c 2 x single people Single people - there were 2 single people Age Frequency 60-74 2 Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency Need smaller home 1 Present home too expensive 2 Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Renting HA 1 Renting privately 1 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency Flat 1 Bungalow 1 Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Renting HA 2 Number of bedrooms required: The answers given relate to the number of bedrooms respondents sought/preferred rather than an assessment of their need. No of bedrooms Frequency 1 1 2 1 32 Income: There were no responses to this question. Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: There were no responses to this question. Amount available towards a deposit: There were no responses to this question. Particular or specialised housing requirements: None stated Registered on Canterbury District Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 2 The respondents indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live in the parish. Assessment of the 4 households that need alternative housing within the next 5 years: The 4 households in need of alternative housing within the next 5 years are: c 2 x single people - 2 x couple Single people - there were 2 single people _Age Frequency 60-74 1 75+ 1 Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency To move to a better/safer 1 environment Need smaller home 1 Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Owner occupier 1 Rent from council 1 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency Bungalow 1 Accommodation suitable for 1 older persons without support 33 Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Renting HA 1 Owner occupier 1 Number of bedrooms required: No of bedrooms Frequency 1 1 2 1 Income: Income Frequency £10,000 — £15,000 2 Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: There were no responses to this question. Amount available towards a deposit: The following response was given — o I would be able to fund a smaller property with courward garden if I sold my current house Particular or specialised housing requirements: The following response was given — o I have no special needs at present and obviously no need to move at present. I would like to stay in Bridge. I anticipate I may find it difficult to maintain my present house in particular the garden which I already pay for. A few purpose—built small properties would certainly fill a gap in the housing in Bridge when you are considering planning permission. Registered on Canterbury City Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 1 Yes 1 The respondents indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live in the parish. 34 Couples - there were 2 couples. The table below shows the ages of both members of the household Age Frequency 60-74 2 75+ 2 Reason for seeking new home: Reason Frequency Need smaller home 1 Retirement 1 To move to a better/safer 1 environment Sheltered accom. due to 1 age/infirmity Other (Need off—road parking) 1 Current housing: Current Housing Frequency Owner occupier 2 Type of housing needed: Type of housing Frequency Bungalow 1 Extra care/Accommodation 1 suitable for older persons without support Tenure best suited: Tenure Frequency Owner occupier 2 Number of bedrooms required: No of bedrooms Frequency 2 2 Income: Income Frequency £20,000 — £25,000 2 35 Amount able to raise towards purchase of property: The following responses were given — 0 Current sales of housing in our road are circa £500,000 - £300,000 Amount available towards a deposit: The following responses were given — 0 That would depend on present house sale (circa £500,000) - Total cost Particular or specialised housing requirements: The following response was given - - Fortunately at present, no particular need but given the age difference between us, it could mean either one, or the elder, will be in need of a special need in the foreseeable future of the coming 5 years. Registered on Canterbury City Council's Housing Register: Housing Register Frequency No 2 The respondent indicated at least one of the local connection criteria; they currently live in the parish. 36 8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The summary is divided into two sections; summaiy of the need for affordable housing (excluding older people) and summary of the needs of older households of all tenures. 8.1 Summag of the need for Affordable Housing (excluding older households) The sun/ey has found a need for 6 affordable homes for local people; they are 3 single people, 2 couples and 1 family. 2 of the households need housing now, 1 in the next 2 years and 3 in the next 5 years. The 6 respondents in need of affordable housing indicated strong local connections to Bridge; 5 currently live in the parish and 1 lives outside but wants to return. 3 respondents are currently renting privately, 2 are living with relatives and 1 is a tied tenant. In total, the 6 households said they require the following number of bedrooms: 3 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 beds. Actual size of property that respondents are eligible for in terms of rented housing will depend upon the council's allocation policy. See below. 2 respondents indicated an interest in shared ownership but did not indicate sufficient finances to afford that tenure. Taking into account the council's allocation policy, the mix of accommodation that respondents would be eligible for is: Rented from a Housing Association: 0 5 x 1 bed 0 1x2bed 37 8.2 Summary of the need for alternative housing for older households The survey has found a need for alternative housing for 10 older households; 7 single people and 3 couples 4 households need alternative housing now, 2 in the next 2 years and 4 in the next 5 years. All 10 households currently live in Bridge. 5 of the households are owner occupiers without a mortgage, 3 rent privately, 1 is a housing association tenant and 1 is a council tenant. The most frequently given reasons for needing a new home was present home too expensive followed by needing a smaller home and disability/disabled. Other reasons include needing sheltered accommodation due to age/infirmity, to move to a better/safer environment, access problems, current home affecting health and cannot afford existing mortgage. The older households require the following tenure, type and size of property: Rented from a Housing Association 1 x 1 bed flat 1 x 1 bed bungalow/extra care 2 x 1 bed bungalow 1 x 2 bed bungalow It should be noted that in terms of the size of property an older person/couple needing affordable housing is eligible for, may only be 1 bedroom. Open market purchase 1 x 1 bed bungalow 1 x 1 bed flat/bungalow/accommodation suitable for older persons without support 1 x 2 bed accommodation for older persons without support 1 x 2 bed bungalow 1 x 2 bed extra care/accommodation for older persons without support 38 9. APPENDIX B1 Question 9. Please use this space if you wish to explain your answer to Q8. On condition that the application was entirely transparent and monitored by trustworthy panel i.e. not the council 'e|ders' Question is what do you mean by affordable? What is needed in rented social housing The City Council is building 4,000 houses on farmland. There is no need to destroy even more. Additionally housing was built for this purpose on Brickfields Because there is a need Nothing should be built in a rural exception site. Bridge should not be expanding The previous development was very successful but there is a need for more This has been a longstanding need and with the rapid increase in value of property in Bridge there is an insurmountable gap between housing need and affordability. Some kind of housing association is required We would support a limited development 8-10 homes, where houses are either rented or part sold to tenants, because there would be more control over them and standards of care maintained We would really appreciate an affordable house. My partner works 7 days a week as I am registered disabled and unable to work due to this. So we are struggling financially Provided the scheme will provide a selection of different needs, rent and ownership, and to house range of age groups and disabled and pets allowed I personally don't feel housing is needed in Bridge at all. Please see separate sheet I would love to stay here and this would be ideal for us in our situation It all depends on what is considered to be affordable, as any figure that is fixed as affordable will still be unaffordable to others Only if parking is adequate for households in new housing I would prefer to keep Bridge a unique small village, keep down crime, pollution and traffic and keep the green land It is very difficult for people to get onto the housing ladder Youngsters cannot get on the housing ladder at present prices and some older fold find rents very high Depends on your meaning of the word 'support' in Q8, e.g. financial or otherwise Only if the persons had a genuine personal connection with residents or business in the village 39 We feel there is no need for extra housing in Bridge when there are already plans to build 4 thousand homes of various designs to suit the needs of all local residents with 1.5 miles from Bridge. Thank you With the development of Mountfield Parkjust two fields away to the north of the village, hundreds of affordable homes will be within walking distance of the village As long as these people were correctly vetted and were not alcoholics who intimidate the local community There is no need for any further housing in Bridge. If Canterbury City Council are building more houses up to Bridge's boundary, will be a few yards walk to further housing. NIMBY We would support a small 8-10 development as long as it was on the outskirts, a good site would be next to the health centre on the Patrixbourne Road Provided they were offered to people with a genuine need, not because they know someone with influence on the allocating committee Last development! A development like Brickfield — well designed and attractive looking would add to the quality of the area A development like Brickfield is well done and attractive to the area Bridge people only (only that was born in Bridge). Only for people from and born in Bridge so no to a (not connection)! As to Brickfield site drug wars and alcoholics. Who put these people in Brickfield (should be sacked). (Why was these bad people put in Brickfield site) No to housing we could getjust about anybody so no. Depending on what part of the village to be allocated for this We need more social housing This is a beautiful and much needed green space that would be ruined by any more building I am sure that this parish cannot decide that it will not grow, that its population will not increase, so we must plan for a gentle increase over the next 20 years I believe it is important for local villagers to be able to stay in the village when they leave their family home and pursue purchasing their own home My answer to Q8 would depend on the site eventually chosen. Church Meadow, for example? No! No! Farmland beyond Mill Terrace? No! No! To build where there are already the affordable houses Not because we don't need affordable housing but it will take more green belt land and we have lost so much of that already The building of Brickfield Close was immediately followed by a suggestion that 40 houses be built in the adjoining field. We are not confident that further approval for a small build would not open the flood gates again 40 1. Young families need a place of their own space 2. Older people may wish to down size What is meant by 'support'? No space — crowded already I am concerned that the existing S106 agreement covering the present affordable housing scheme is not being implemented. Canterbury City Council and the Southern Housing Group do not seem to be aware of its provisions and have not advertised vacancies widely within the parish. We would need very strong assurances that house swaps and allocations fulfil the local connection criteria in future Bridge is having increased pressure on its roads already. Local amenities do not support increased population I would stress the words Small, Proven Need and Genuine Local Connections in the above The village is very short of affordable housing and quality small houses I would support additional housing. However as a pensioner living in social housing and wanting to remain independent caution should be given to protect those that may feel vulnerable to change There are far too many large unaffordable houses in Bridge. The Canterbury City Council is also too fond of allowing huge unnecessary extensions to small affordable family homes Important to maintain a good housing mix in the village and in the last 30 years there has been a predominance of market housing The 'yes' is in principle — but the eternal question is how long do the first people/family stay in those 8 -10 homes? If there's no limit then after a few years (or even one year) there will be demands for 8 -10 more houses, and so on, and on .... .. One small development would be good. Please keep Bridge a village Young people are needed to keep the village alive To allow young people who grew up in Bridge There are many local people who cannot find or afford accommodation in this area Only on condition that the homes blend well with current property within this parish, and are in keeping with those in areas of outstanding natural beauty which forms part of the parish There is an obvious need for a small development in this village of all types of housing Bridge as a village provides a wide range of house values from a few £000,000 and over £1 M. Any initiative for cheaper homes is unnecessary The current proposals to expand Canterbury to the south come very close to Bridge; cannot this provide affordable housing for Bridge parishioners? 41 The houses are needed to help keep young people in the village All communities must find space for homes for all homeless It would depend on where the site was. We would support it if it was near to the health centre Housing in the village is required — both affordable and market rate. There is defined space for expanding The small development already created has been a success and I see no reason not to create another similar development for local people I served on the council when we finally succeeded in getting the first batch of affordable housing completed after six years of trying We all have to move on to different locations in life, there is no divine right to live where you were born. Last time a similar questionnaire came round we were told just 8 affordable homes would be built and now more are being suggested Wonderful idea There is a great need for affordable housing in Canterbury More housing is needed throughout the country so we cannot be parochial and say no to development I think it important that families can remain close if they wish and property in Bridge is expensive and difficult to acquire I have 5 other children who like to live in Bridge but can't afford to and my mother and sister both live in Bridge with theirfamilies As I have always lived in and around the south coast area I am a country girl and will never change. I do not like to see the countryside covered in concrete and roadways. Leave the villages alone and get back to the nature of the beauty of them Bridge is big enough. No parking, too many cars Nobody has a right to live anywhere — allow the free market to dictate through natural fluctuation of prices. I am however very keen for additional housing for the village but I do not believe this should be social housing (unless a small % of them was for social occupation Bridge needs modern affordable social housing to continue with the balanced community, particularly if it wants to maintain the cross section of inhabitants it has at present, for starters in home ownership I would approve/disapprove if I knew where the development was to be. I fear for Mill Lane and fields. Nimbyism? Partly, but there is such wildlife and such beauty and it would be so easy to ruin all by destroying part 42 Extra housing for local people is required but must be low density and in keeping with village status We must provide for the next generation and the housing shortage is chronic Housing in the village is expensive — if the younger generation wish to purchase/live in the village they can't afford to! Also as people like ourselves get older we would not be able to afford to downsize — prices too high. There are to my knowledge a number of pockets of land including that already owned by the council (for many years!) which could be built on for this purpose Because I believe that we must encourage the young people to stay in the village because if not the village school will in time be filled with children from outside as none will come from the village Yes if carefully sited I am in accord for more affordable housing in Bridge and also for people in larger houses opting to downsize For a village to survive it must grow a little. We need more young people in the village and this is a way of encouraging that People on low income are especially dependent on family support networks, and I would approve of the village making it possible for local residents in this category to be able to afford to live close by family Because the proposed amount of homes is way over average! There is a lack of suitable accommodation for single people 50+ with medical/disabled needs I feel that Bridge has enough housing. Build any more and it will lose its countryside feel and village aspect Both my sons moved from the village as no affordable house available. Both live within 4 miles of Bridge and are buying homes there. Their children go to Bridge School. It would be good if they could move back to their roots where they were born But not on green field sites To help others who need housing + daughter would like to come back to Bridge if possible in renting property I hate seeing all our lovely green areas covered by concrete, affecting insufficient drainage, no longer able to call ourselves a village Both sons can't afford to live in Bridge as there are not enough affordable homes with 2 or more bedrooms As a village Bridge has mixed community with different needs, including housing for those who cannot afford to buy but work locally and have local connections, and family to support and be supported by To help local people live where they were born or have lived most of their lives 43 To supply affordable housing as a small proportion of properties within a new housing development, even if the ration were 50/50 is too high a price for east Kent/Canterbury to pay, given the inadequacies of infrastructure; roads, hospitals, schools, water and sewerage services are not sufficient. We have benefited from rise in property prices in this area to the loss of other people not being able to afford to live here any more. Feel strongly that more needs to be done to help people (younger in particular) stay in their community. Traffic is already bad in Bridge. The countryside around the village is beautiful and should not be touched. Canterbury is already expanding — there is no need to add houses to Bridge. There can be no proven need for new houses in the parish with thousands of new homes about to be built locallyjust outside the parish. This area is in an AONB and should be protected from development. We all benefit from a socially diverse community. I am a private landlord. I rent mainly to HB tenants. I try to select suitable tenants but find it increasingly difficult to do that as most HB tenants are unreliable. This is especially true of housing association tenants. I am a single mother, brought up in Bridge and came back here with my daughter five years ago. There is no way I can afford a deposit for a house in Bridge and pay high rent to be close to my family for support. Although only recently moved to the parish, I have little faith in affordable housing schemes. Those who promote them and their relationship with developers of such schemes. I moved to Bridge because it's a great place to live and this is the thin edge of the wedge that could change or dilute the very soul of the community. Think there has been too much development already. But only if the affordable housing remains affordable to maintain this facility. The houses sold via assisted purchase schemes will simply rise in value to that of the area so we must maintain the affordability by low rent schemes rather than selling them. 44 10. APPENDIX B2. Question 22. Please tell us in your own words why you need to move and what prevents you doing so. Currently in sixth form and living with parents but would like my first independent home within the next five years Next 5 years age and infirmity will mean living and keeping a family sized home and large garden will become beyond us both. It would be good for more developments like Mansfield Court to be built, for those couples to release family housing in the village, and yet to be able to stay n Bridge, with all its amenities and cohesive company we love I need a bungalow or ground floor property with wheelchair access with wet room and shower. Also parking and small garden. There is a lack of 1 bedroom bungalows with my requirements to rent and properties are unaffordable and not dog friendly I am renting in Canterbury from September. After I year I will need accommodation but may not stay in the area Me and my wife have bad credit so can't private rent anywhere else I only have government pension, am using savings at present to pay for all Am actually moving to an I bed bungalow next door to my daughter who will be able to provide more care as I become more disabled, and new home will be future proofed with wet room/wide doors/ramp to front door. But have to move out of Bridge to achieve this I am living in a secure tenancy and feel because this property is ideal for a large family. However I would not be prepared to move if a future tenancy was not to my liking 1. Availability of appropriate property for sale i.e. bungalow 2. Parking — need off road parking desperately I wish to move to sheltered accommodation. There is none available in Bridge I live in a council owned flat on the ground floor. The noise from the above flat is intrusive but not intentional. The accommodation is old, kitchen and bathroom are tiny. I worry if I fall behind the door there is no exit other than the front door. I would be happy to downsize and have better living space to be independent I do not want to move, but it may be that I have no choice. Also we have several pets which makes it difficult to move as not many landlords allow pets — we have 3 dogs, 3 cats and several ferrets! I am priced out of the current market in Bridge. I would ideally prefer a scheme whereby I didn't have to put up such a big deposit in order to own my own home. We currently have a 2 bedroom (with study) but have 3 young children and would like to move to a 4 bed. It is difficult to find a 4 bed in the village within budget. 45 BRIDGE PARISH COUNCIL Housing Needs Survey June 2017 Dear Householder, As you may know, an advisory committee of Bridge Parish Council is developing a Neighbourhood Plan for the area served by Bridge Parish Council. A very important element of the plan will be the allocation (or otherwise) of future site(s) for housing development. The plan must be based on perceived needs, as expressed by the local community. The last such survey was conducted 12 years ago and the committee has decided that the information gathered then (which contributed to the development at Brickfield Close) needs to be updated. Owing to the high cost of housing in this area, the Parish Council is considering whether there might be a need for additional affordable housing in Bridge Parish so that residents who cannot afford to buy or rent locally will not be forced to move away. This type of affordable housing is also known as local needs housing; they are homes that can be rented or part bought (shared ownership) from a Housing Association. The reason for providing local needs housing is to help local people of all ages who would like to stay or return to their parish and contribute to the village sen/ices that still exist. See Q24 for further information on shared ownership. We also want to know if there are older people in the parish who would like to downsize/move to more suitable housing for their needs but stay in the village. This includes people who own their current property or rent privately or through Canterbury City Council or a housing association. We are sending out this Housing Needs Survey to assess the demand and gauge the level of support a small scheme might have in our community. We are doing so with the approval of Canterbury City Council, whose housing officers have approved this questionnaire. Tessa O’Sullivan, the Rural Housing Enabler from Action with Communities in Rural Kent is assisting us to carry out this sun/ey. The survey will be analysed by the Rural Housing Enabler, with all information given being kept confidential. She will then give a summary report to the Parish Council. Depending on the outcome of this survey, we may try to find a suitable site within the parish of Bridge. The most likely type of site would be what is known as a ‘Rural Exception Site’, within or on the edge of the village whereby: - All homes on the site are owned by a Housing Association - Houses are either rented or part—sold (shared ownership) to tenants - Only households with a genuine local connection are eligible to be tenants/ part owners Once a site is found a village consultation event will be held so that residents of the parish can view and discuss the proposals and put their views forward. This is a very important issue, so please take time to fill in this survey. We want to know your views. Please return this form using the FREEPOST envelope provided by 14"‘ July 2017. If any further information or additional questionnaires are required please contact the Rural Housing Enabler on 01303 813790 or email tessa.osullivan@ruralkent.orq.uk Yours sincerely, Alan Atkinson, Chairman Bridge Parish Council HDU-SING \NEElDS IN TIHE PARISH OF BRIDGE Q‘--=-**" Please complete this survey on behalf of your household. SECTION 1 G11. Wllat type oil?" ho-‘using -do you Eve-uin'_1 |:|-BmlI:?I'p'qpedy |:|.PIiuale-.renl!ed |:|TedIemH1cy |:|Lim'rIgIwfl'.f.I.riehEiwes Ijflunigflsmddimvflfimdommfllh |:|-DMIEromIapiar.FI'i'i‘Ioru!flIoIflflM1m9agEJ |:|-any I 132. Please -entertlhe folutwilng Iinnfurmdfionn - "’‘'-lT'b*E'FD'I'hE'd'FD0"|5 3“ ‘.I'°"J" I|'3""E‘ I: Numlzuervof people Ilhat I::1..I':r=e|1|fl_.r Ilime iin Ilhe I: Q3. Hour long have you lxiured iitllue parish? |:|J.msn=.um1uma.- |:|14:yea.-s |:|eto,-ears DH-Ifiye-an |:|1'e25y:-ac: D2I’:'5+ye-an I-‘I:-IL Hawearlynmlnlhersnfymmrhmiflfllumselmflleflfluepafislhinfluelastfiyears? Ifjnm|aIIs'|IerisHn,pIeas»ego-ciectlytofll I:I"'E“ I:I'”° Q5. Ilfirnu leiulenad jeston Q-I, phase haveto you. |:|+::md GPHIEIE |:||D'liher pbaseqreoflfir, RE. Please indicate Ihe reisuII‘Inhy'I:he1|I left |:|.LaI:lrofafood!alE|lel|o1I.smg DTodmd D |:| Dlflher . I-1:7. H‘-owullsd ling xrehon if more if-un:IaIfle hm| enuld lhe D Yes D “D Illieruoulld Iilketuurelmnnn liI1-eyaemlelnelnetunonqalleleasumey and can reqlest a funnu Why fl lihe Rwuxnl VH0-Lfixilg Erulller on I11 3»: E13191! -or emi tessa.o:sIuIivaIm@'Lr.=I|I’:eI1tmu.:u‘t Ill}. ‘Ho-ullzlyousupport:flnfldwewdogmlemulafhlldihhhnusingflflmmuasaprmemrnedhrpeuphliflna flEl|lalli'lEII1lfl:fl onnneoalion lnlhe parish? flfivelageshze oflleeall nueeolshnusing sollienles anrel —1|l] hoolues} |:|1rm |:|m H9. Please I.Ee’flIis space i}‘lfl.IH|i'."nhT:u‘El[tI-Ill yultilsvnertu fiiolnu B. 1111!]. Do-youolranmlnhuflymrhnladmflmmeds-epamhwflhnufiveamxmnodafimm-eflhunnwumflw malt!-ourfiyears? Ijhlb D‘l"e.s,Ir|eJd.2'}-etats Ij'|"es,rIm‘5ye-ears IF ‘YOU ANSWERED YES PLEASE CONTINUE WITH SECTIDN 2. IF YOUR ANSWER WIIS NU, PLEASE IICIW RETURN THIS SURVEY IN THE FREEPDST ENVELOPE PRCWIDED SEG11-fifl 2 lfyrau or anyone else Ii-urilg in you home is in need of allvternalive Iiuusinn, please continue wifll lhe .- - ~ -- ' '~ -- \ rfjreuneedanelherfenn Q1l1l_ AI‘-E ynu ucrllqa-lletilgfllfi hnnfnr]'uIM'_-ieinlr mnemmeebe? |:|:.anr Q1|2_ llfirnu are eolliplelilng li1.i5fnr5nn|enIrueelse please Elaha-flneir rrelaliansllia-tuyrnualtd Irllem-flnn_-f Ei.II'I'I!lIIIff llitnee-gnllitll pienls, plriude etc. Pleam euntinlle tn cnrrmlete this form In‘ alswerinn me m1e:5tiuI1s iii respect M flle |ll".'l'B'-l:ll'l.|rIId1\l.I5E!IIl2IIl2I in need of altematil.-e Bl:-CDl'I'IlllDI‘.hIiDl'I‘. Q13. Plla-a5e|pm'uidelhe name efadnlfiessnfflteheade-fihelhnusehnltl in Manila Iuaed. Y-nuuI'I:lEta.i|lsIIII remineaamlfidemlialtufluafluliflmmsing Ena.hlerat.ll.c'|i»nn'IliiMEoInmuniIies.iIFlJIu|IIaJI£ent W-Ema]:-I|.|5e thisilfurillafiulltounlrlantyullagai|1ihuI!-InaedtuLqpu:la.te1i|elildi|g5d?lIIis.5|Iue;nimlihefiulnJrE_ Hana: Adltfisz Pnslnnlhr Email Address: lJ:1!.-L Irym iuemlside me pal'EI1 of Bridge do you 1mis.|1.‘bn relnlrn? |:| Ye-cs |:| _Hp ng1\5_If1ruuIi1uI-Ei|fliEpa'isl|1nfBlidg~ednynu‘uishter5Iay'tIteerE? Drm |:|_u-..;_. Q‘||E. Wllatnis ywwr Iizlm flu: pmish nfflridge? I'|aa5e'I:i::k all fliatqmply DJ'u;||'I1!rd!br.fie mmepa-muauham ume.sn.mnfimwyiu-flae.Ia:.t.5,-an-sarnne DJ‘ nun!-rflllyfie |'nfl1epan'.'n‘.Iar|dba|E dmmmmIiImuflyh'flm.la3t1flyams-wpe|fmm§r.WBdhHEpmimfin'aflaafl ffl year: |:|:mmmmdue-rmaymim.rm.hedmmmuyhuapamm:amau5yem:mau DJfia|Einmufide‘faJi}rufitfi.fIas.hEduwn£hmud}rhflwEpafihhraf.lEai fwE.'I}naa':ar:dEs:flil’nfiuIi1g.lf1eIIE D.l'am“i|Jpemmanem‘pa'HinE**nI'fi1lI‘i'nmE empluymmtiu flue-pariah |:|:mea:nmwmumpaimmgiwmmoene.smpmmmnmmmmuiana*:aumrnmmy D.!pImi:le.ani'mpuIh|'Itsenieei1la‘|epa.ri5h. He-m-spacing.» 'II1'Ir|e:|!i¢aIJe = Irnclhrar. 17:113. Gliiflfllflflx ll’ |‘mIIE|1'5i5Iar 'PatIimr|e =a mfn»hIm|fl1\fl|hI:I1I5pa'Inae‘k Q11. Wllitfpe oi llnlaehnlclvmillyr-nu be in altemiliwe alnnutrlnnddinrl? |:Isme.pe-sun |:|c'n-me |:|Fa-may Elmer . l.'11I.JHu»II'mIn1r pea-plefml eacll. aaegmup need dlalmalive inn? HALE I1-9 |:| H]-1\5 |:| I6-1|QI|:| 2||H!*| |:| 2544 CI 45-59 |:| fi|fl—i"-1 |:| 75+ |:| FINALE Ill-9*|:| 1u-—I5|:| 1n_19|:| zmzuag 254-1D 45-259': *3*”'7“|:| 75+ D {I11 Tfl|l1]r ;fl'E‘}‘-IIII.I seeking a new lmllle-|'p|Ea.5e-finliniizflat qlpllfl |:|Pmentmmn.meuamqurmp.ur DTDHE-.rneaalarfa|1ij.r DTul:ene.'In:-rlnutk Dgefiflmm Dfiaaedhumbaejqaanflve |:|.Il"eBd' :uI'|alUH.han-|e- Dn~ |:|mmemm.-nwmmgmm |:|.P|rhIale-lanamyamfi-my Elfinthdemmmthwm Eltadm D3-elfiwguplhmnewnihparmer |:|.ueea-mugerrmm DDv'm:I.|!_].rmaaiIIia'hitng.In:Ir|E ljfihdfiafidammnduebamfirflnfly‘. '= DD DGa‘mmfafl'nI=d'exi:n'.Ii1gn1£I'i_|ag7e- |jTnm:nehabeflan7ai'e1I'aw!irmmIai |:|Ameasp.-uuam Down I I120. Wllat Wis-‘}'£I.Il'I:I.I1'I!l|lIZ|I'I1.'l-I.3_g sihlafin-n? |:|Rmaing1rmn»+m¢uaagAssm';afim |:ITedmIa-w I:IHHfir-ypfiwt-fr I:If-Wver lI:2’.1_ All! you :1 alder M-H wirltirlq to to mun: sliahle housing for jrauur needs‘? |:|‘I"e: |:|NuI Q21 \F‘||a-asetefllus ilyourunnuurlh-Ilwymm nave-I:|t£rmIu‘II:a.n:l'lmit|p|re1:enl5 yawuhulndnirln so. "313. ‘Il|hItl:_Ifp-E uni’ hnusilng -do jail need‘? Please fink anffllat amply. |:|.F.Ia! |:|H,..,_,.=_. DB.u'nga|:|||I' ljflmannudflimadahh-iwuiflwpastmsvlfiflmflappmt |:|mmar Q2-I. Wlhinlntemlewmldh-eststitynurhnusilglinad? |:|Rem&ny-Fun-‘um " ' ' D3ha:Edmma'9?IiJ—Haa:sIi1g.Aswa'afiarr |:|mnemmpier Damn SaeavEIrIaalln\reli4ni1it3r:|ite|r1iaIur5I|arE1:lmIneI5h'ql To: be eliglizrle for shared nurrlelrshiau, you must have a.lho1Eelln-olld ineuolne of I-35 flrarrr Iilllglllllfl peer arumml and not I:I.I'I'EllI‘fl]' mm: To-umust also tare: hiflnelnouglr lineaorna tonifond shared 3lI'Id re-olrre-gr for atlloist 3 1|lHI- ‘the sllrareflratjrorur lorry. lnrlurtheriillrrrlatiorn I125. I-llotu maII1rIJe<:i'ooIiI'|s.vriymI need? |:|r |:|2 |:|3- |:|=! |:|5++ liw2E_ lPl-elue Fmhdlieah tmmu [|t|et'ore 13:] of the household lilI'I housing need Ijloirt ii 1 emqnh]. Do not Iimollrle housing hee|1~eliunr'r:-orlrcilltalrr lb-ernlit Dt.Fnder£‘.m_,tJtJl!J |:| £.m— £3j,tJtJl!J| |:|-.s:1'n,.mo—m.aom |:| £:a:5,non—.£-more |:|m..-mm - mum |:| £4q— mlrm |:| £.5qann—.£aa,lnro |:|.t'e:,-mo — £39,000 |:| More manamoso fl2.'f_ |Hot'III much rnonejr -Illrlyro-u lmise Imlirds the pnrnltllaseof a properly; talfmrg iliso zoomed: any an-oE.s.1roIl lhaweton oqaiital te.g. e-gulf in your haornenolrsauvilngsj E Ilellll asfin-eillroulntyoru rid I|IJl'I1l1fl -on a. mmtoaue? HEB. I-llou rrn.Ir'.h mmrrefnrmlrlynu I§E'flIEt(lIf!iE'35-ilk-|MEliI£t1fiIl'III5<|IiII.If_Ilfi pnurnum llrolrre? Q29; Do you lraveally lpiricullr urspeeifllised housing reqlufmernenls e_g. to assist |I'i‘I:Ilr aldiisallity-or special need? {Please prrmliiia details]. (130. Are you l -on C-IlI'IEl'Il.'iII.Il'_'f Cit]! hnrfililng Dire; G M5,. Contact details for extra forms or information are: Tessa D'5*ul|lilran,, ll?turaIl lHo*using Enabler, Aciioln wlilh flomrnmilies in Iflurml Ilterrt ill13l]3 E13TQl] 1e5sa_osulivar@~mraIltent_oI=g_uk lnfonnalion on ilris form will be used to provide a summary level of Irousiru; need in Bridge. Personal information will remain confidential to Action with Communities in Rural Kent THAHK "l"'DU FDR TAKING THE TIME TD CEIHPLETE THIS SURVEY. PLEASE NOW REIIIRH IT III THE FHEEPDST EHVELDPE PRDVIDED B"? 14tlI -.!UlL"I' 201? , \ \ M \ NOTES V’ Th15 drawn; 15 tie DDWHQM ufThr1ve Amhwects L 3,. AH Hqhfi reserved. V Drdralwe Survey Data (£1 E1 awn cnvvngm AH r1QM51e5:r\/ed mm Va mmmnss Do NOT s(a|efmmth1sdrzw1r19 cu1m..m,smm1m1s and W1.“ m cm 3.1 ra1e\.ar1t d1mar1s|ar*5ar1dle\/913 or .15 511a and mmg hm (mrrr1ar1:1r1q arvv gm dr=w1rqsuvbu11z11r1g W1 NW <11scr€Dzrc1$sV1uu1d be rammed .1, me Arcmled Where 2|>D11t:b1a ems drax/.1r1g1s 1.» be read m mr1]ur1<11n|1 1/.1111 n-5 €or1su1L1r1s' arm/.1119: [ _ ’ r 1 GREAT PETT ' 7 _ OAST // /\ 1 \\ 1 g / \ \\ ' I Q // OAST \\ ‘ COTTAG E nsv usscmanom ms 1.051401: cm: GREAT PETF FARM KEV |:| sue Boundary 112 Hot Number M1 HmJS9TypP tlrxriva. architects Ramsey Office ammmg 30D,1ha Gvange Ramsey Rnad‘M1:r1e|mev:h 5051 DA: PRIVATE 1 01794367703 1 01794367275 WWW A>1r-veavcnrtecxs co uk House Type No of Sufi No man W,,Ec— Bedrooms sqn Great Pett Farm 4B.A 4 1575 2 3150 5a.c 5 2000 2 4000 Bridge 53 5 5 2000 4 3000 5“ 5 2500 2 5000 For: Cant1ey Ltd TOTALS 10 20150 awn: Pnvuve housing p1o1areu:(sqf1] 20150 Sketch Layout - 0 l NeLdeve1opu_b1e area (__acres] f 7 _1 41 _ Coverage sqfl/acre 14291 sns vonus 10 20150 su:A1.E we Aumox two To1a1Hou51ng p1o1areas[sqfi] 20150 1:500 @ A1 22/03/17 CI/hm - 1o1a1 Ne! deve1opub1e meo {acres} 1 41 W W BMW M KEV Io1o1 Covevage sqfi/acre 14291 ' ' CANTl703l7 SKL-01 - PRIVATE House Type N1: of sqn No Iaiul Bedrooms sqn 30.74 3 1001 3 3003 35 B 3 1001 1 1001 43 B 4 1200 2 2400 43.4 4 1575 2 3150 55c 5 2000 2 4000 55 B 5 2000 4 0000 5B.A 5 2500 4 10000 TOTALS 18 31554 Pnvave hausing 0101 areas (sqm 31554 Ne1deve1apan1e med [acres] 2 53 Coverage sqn/acre 12472 AFFORDABIE House Type No of sqn No tonal ledlooms sqn A 25 2 550 7 5750 A 35 3 1001 5 5005 TOTALS 12 104755 Afforaame Housmg mar areas (sqm 105755 Ne1aeve1apaa1e area [acres] 0.79 Coverage sqn/acre 13557 SITE 1011415 30 42509 1a1a1 Housmg a1a1 areas [sqfl] 42509 1a1a1 Ne! deve1opab1e mea {acres} 332 1o1a1 Cm/evage sqfl/acre 12804 GREAT PETF FARM GREAT PETT / /1 /% / ‘\ COTTAG E \\‘ NOTES Th15 drawn; 15 we mvvngm ufThr1ve A1:h1\ecL5 Ltd AH 10111: reserved. Drdranue Survey Data :1 awn cnvvnghl AH r1qM51e5=r~/ed L1(er0< V0 monuvzss Do NOT s(a|e fmm 0.15 drzmrvg (011tmuI:I<: (mm In: my ‘I t ACCESS Bridge , /~ VIANEW BRIDGE For: Cantley Ltd muwme Sketch Layout — 01 /\IfovduI>Ic Shared Owncrdxhip Housing DIOI ovens Isqm Nel aevegepeue (yea Iuz rm} Covcmgc sqwaeyc sous em mm c>« last accessed [15/03/17] Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 22 Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan to have regard for the interests of those who live and work there’28. The 2014-2019 Management Plan for the Kent Downs AONB aims to keep the ‘qualities and distinctive features of the Kent Downs AONB, the dramatic south-facing scarp, secluded dry valleys, network of tiny lanes, isolat- ed farmsteads, churches and oasts, orchards, dramatic cliffs, the ancient woodlands and delicate chalk grasslands along with the ancient, remote and tranquil qualities’ valued, secured and strengthened29. In relation to the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan, Policy HE1 ‘Historic Environment and Heritage Assets’ directly relates to this SEA theme. Additionally, the following policies within the emerging Local Plan are relevant: - Policy HE5 Development Affecting and Changes to Listed Buildings; - Policy HE6 Conservation Areas; - Policy HE8 Heritage Assets in Conservations Areas; - Policy H11 Archaeology; - Policy H12 Area of Archaeological Interest; and - Policy H13 Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens. CDLP POLICY LB2 states “V\fithin areas OF AHLV, development will be considered in relation to the extent to which its location, scale, design and materials would protect the local landscape character and enhance the future appearance of the designated landscape and its nature conser- vation interest. Bridge is within an area ofAHLV. This should be referenced. CDLP policy DBE3 covers the conservation, integration, extension, connection and man- agement of existing natural features including trees and hedgerows to strengthen local dis- tinctiveness, character and biodiversity. This should be referenced. Historic England’s guidance on the approach to be taken in development plans (httpszll content.historicengland.org.uklimages—books/publications/historic—environment—and—site— allocations—in—local—plans/heaci074—he—and—site—aIlocation—local—plans.pdfl) states: Site allo- cations should be informed by an evidence base and an analysis of potential effects on heritage assets; heritage assets affected by potential site allocation should be identified; there should be an understanding of the site’s contribution in its current form to the signifi- cance of the heritage asset, including cultural and intellectual associations; there should be identification of impact of development and consideration of maximising enhancements and avoiding harm; and a determination of soundness of the proposed site allocation. The guidance concludes: Decisions should be clearly stated and evidenced in the local plan particularly where allocations are put fon/vard where some degree of harm cannot be avoided and be consistent with legislative requirements. This should be referenced. 5.3.2 Summary of Future Baseline New development has the potential to lead to small, but incremental changes in landscape and townscape character and quality in and around the Neighbourhood Plan area; for instance, through the loss of landscape features and visual impact. However, new development need not be harmful to the significance of a heritage asset, and in the context of the Neighbourhood Plan area there is opportunity for new development to enhance the historic setting of the key features and areas and better reveal assets’ cultural heritage significance. Additionally, new development areas in the Neighbourhood Plan area have the potential to impact on the fabric and setting of cultural heritage assets; for example, through inappropriate design and layout. It should be noted, however, that existing historic environment designations, the provisions of the NPPF, and policies within the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan offer a degree of pro- tection to cultural heritage assets and their settings. Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM 25 trategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Excavation around the A2 and in Bridge has previously located archaeological features, so it's like- Iy that there is an archaeological requirement. The Portable Antiquities Scheme (finds.org.uk) lists objects from those areas. Other known finds are also from the area that are not listed when Bridge is searched on PAS because locations are restricted, but those too should be taken into account. 5.4 What are the SEA objectives and appraisal questions for the Landscape and Historic Environ- ment SEA theme? SEA objective Protect, maintain and enhance the cultural heritage resource within the Neighbourhood Plan area, including the historic environment and archaeological assets. Protect and enhance the character and quality of landscapes and townscapes. Assessment Questions Vlfill the option/proposal help to: - Conserve and enhance buildings and structures of architectural or historic interest? - Support the integrity of the historic setting of key buildings of cultural heritage interest? - Support the integrity of the Bridge Conservation Areas including spatial issues such as important views into and out of conservation areas? - Conserve and enhance local diversity and character? - Support access to, interpretation and understanding of the historic environment? Vlfill the option/proposal help to: - Conserve and enhance landscape and townscape features? Protect key archeological sites? - Support the integrity of the Kent Downs AONB? IE, is there visibility in long range views from wider AON B? What is the quality of the landscape? Would there be significant change to wider qualities or character of the landscape? Are there key/long panoramic and sensitive views into the wider AONB and conservation areas? Are there dominant elements in the fore, mid-ground and on the distant skyline? Is there landscape capacity to accommodate built intrusion and change? Is open space eroded harming setting and context? Is AONB landscape enclosed? Is there existing built environment? Are there containing landscape features? Supports conservation of trees and hedgerows? - Conserve and enhance landscape and villagescape? 6.3.1 Summary of Current Baseline Quality of Agricultural Land The Agricultural Land Classification classifies land into six grades (plus ‘non-agricultural’ and ‘ur- ban’), where Grades 1 to 3a are recognised as being the ‘best and most versatile’ land and Grades 3b to 5 are of poorer quality. In terms of the location of the best and most versatile agricultural land, there are areas of both Grade 1 and Grade 2 Agricultural Land along the northern border of the Neighbourhood Plan area, and also in the south-eastern corner. Include a plan/map to indicate soil gradings in the village. 7.2 Policy Context Key messages from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) include: - To ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’, local planning authorities should meet the ‘full, ob- jectively assessed need for market and affordable housing’ in their area. They should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbour- ing authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The Strategic Hous- ing Market Assessment should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period. BUT THIS MESSAGE IS DISAPPLIED BY NPPF 14 which says Local Plans should meet objec- tively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: — any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or — specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted (footnote 9) For example, those policies relating to sites protected under an Area of Outstanding Natural Beau- ty - With a view to creating ‘sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities’ authorities should ensure provision of affordable housing onsite or externally where robustly justified. - In rural areas, when exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites where ap- propriate. Authorities should consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs. Prepared for: Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee AECOM Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Scoping Report Bridge Neighbourhood Plan - The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. It explains how good design is a key aspect in sustainable development, and how development should improve the quality of the area over its lifetime, notjust in the short term. Good architecture and landscaping are important, with the use of design codes contributing to the delivery of high quality outcomes. Design should reinforce local distinctiveness, raise the standard more generally in the area and address the connections between people and places. PROPOSED VILLAGE DESIGN STATEMENT IS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED AS A MESSAGE http://wvvw.bridgeviIIage.org.uk/NHP/Bridge_ViIIage_Design_Statement.pdf 7.4 What are the SEA objectives and appraisal questions for the Population, and Community SEA theme? SEA objective Cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the com- munity, and improve access to local, high- quality community services and facilities. Reduce deprivation and promote a more inclusive and self-contained community. Provide everyone ??? this is not realistic/achievable who is everyone? with the opportunity to live in good quality, affordable housing, and ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures. 10. Next Steps 10.1 Subsequent stages for the SEA process Scoping (the current stage) is the second stage of the SEA process55 1. Screening; 2. Scoping; 3. Assess reasonable alternatives, with a view to informing preparation of the draft plan; There are a number of alternatives to be tested including SH LAA 201/221. SHLAA 223 is not a reasonable alternative given status of strategic green gap; to include this in the NP would result in general non conformity with LP. 8 July 2016 Alan Atkinson Chairman Bridge Parish Council Swan Game“ E: sgarnett@savi||s.com By email only DL: +44 (0)23 8071 3923 F: +44 (0)23 8071 3901 2 Charlotte Place Southampton SO14 OTB T: +44 (0)238 071 3900 savi||s.com Dear Alan BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN I write with reference to the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan and following the public consultation event back in April 2016. The public consultation allowed four sites within Cantley’s ownership to be considered for residential development, with residents able to rank them in order of preference along with two other non-Cantley sites and also to specify the number of houses they considered would be appropriate. From BPC’s analysis of the results, this appears to show Cantley’s site at Conyngham Lane to have scored the highest number of preferences. Furthermore, your analysis applying the Single Transferable Preference approach suggested Cantley’s second ranked site was Site 4, adjacent the surgery on Patrixbourne Road. I am aware of other parties in the village having undertaken their own analysis of the data too, which has arrived at different conclusions to BPC. To allow full concentration of the proposed development sites within the village, Cantley consider it appropriate to now focus discussions on only two of its sites, those being:- Conyngham Lane and Patrixbourne Road. To ensure robustness and flexibility in the drafting of the Neighbourhood Plan’s (NPs) proposed housing allocation policy and to encourage local democracy and decision making, I propose that both the Conyngham Lane site and the Patrixbourne Road site are included in the Neighbourhood Plan to enable further public consultation. The approach to this may be to suggest a ‘Preferred Policy’ (e.g. Conyngham Lane) and an Alternative Policy (e.g. Patrixbourne Road) with representations then made on both sites. By considering an alternative site, this would allow a greater degree of robustness to the draft NP. It would also allow local residents to make representations to each site, allowing BPC to fully assess the benefits and disbenefits for either site before concluding upon a single site proposed for allocation in the Submission version of the NP. Both sites could be subject to site specific criteria, which could, for example, require development to be of a high quality design; subject to landscape planting; provision of suitable means of access, etc to ensure either site would be entirely appropriate to that location, the village and the wider area. I trust that this suggestion can be incorporated into the draft Neighbourhood Plan as Cantley considers it to be very important that whichever of its sites is proposed to be allocated, that they benefit from good local support. Offioes and associates throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia Pacific, Africa and the Middle East. _, Savills (UK) Limited. Chartered Surveyors. Regulated by RIOS. A subsidiary of Savills pic. Registered in England No. 2605138. Registered office: 33 Margaret Street, London, W1G ouo Yours sincerely »-_":”§”,.«-l:_.—.-.~_-"_;’-+ _ 1' J Stuart Garnett Savills Planning cc. Philip Wicker, Clerk Charlie Gooch, Cantley Ltd Page 2 RESPONSE TO THE SCOPING REPORT RELATING TO BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN RECEIVED FROM VILLAGER MIKE BURNS-STARK 16 June 2017 Dear Parish Clerk, Following publication of the Scoping Report for Bridge Parish I wish to make a complaint about its content. The report begins with various introductory paragraphs, including the following: "1.2 Relationship of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan with the Canterbury District Local Plan A number of key provisions are set out for Bridge in the latest version of the Local Plan, as follows: Provision of new housing that is of a size, design, scale, character and location appropriate to the character and built form of Bridge will be supported provided that such proposals are not in conflict with other local plan policies relating to transport, environmental and flood zone protection and design, and the Kent Downs AONB. " National Planning Policy Framework 2012 makes it clear that building development in AONBs should be restricted. NPPF 2012 item 14. (Pdf page 12) states: "14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan—making and decision—taking. Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: — specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. (9) (9.) For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion." However, the Scoping Report for Bridge Parish goes on to indicate that building development will be maximised as much as possible: "1.3 SEA explained The aim of SEA is to inform and influence the plan—making process with a view to avoiding and mitigating potential negative impacts. Through this approach, the SEA for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan seeks to maximise the emerging plan’s contribution to sustainable development. " This represents a wholly inappropriate approach with which to conduct a Scoping Report and SEA within a designated AONB. Any such initiative to "maximise development" would constitute a clear breach of national planning regulations on the protection of AONBs. Paragraph 1.3 suggests that the individuals responsible for this report are just out to sanction as many houses as possible and don't give a fig for our protected landscape. This company should either be dismissed from the entire parish assessment, or, where that is not possible, they must at least be re-briefed on the project so that they have a clearer understanding of their responsibilities and moral obligations and the parish council's unambiguous legal duty to protect the AONB. The offending paragraph '1.3 SEA explained‘ must be rewritten to include reference to protecting our AONB from development as national planning law requires. Sincerely, Mike Burns-Stark RESPONSE TO THE SCOPING REPORT RELATING TO BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN RECEIVED FROM VILLAGER MIKE BURNS-STARK 16 June 2017 Dear Parish Clerk, Following publication of the Scoping Report for Bridge Parish I wish to make a complaint about its content. The report begins with various introductory paragraphs, including the following: "1.2 Relationship of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan with the Canterbury District Local Plan A number of key provisions are set out for Bridge in the latest version of the Local Plan, as follows: Provision of new housing that is of a size, design, scale, character and location appropriate to the character and built form of Bridge will be supported provided that such proposals are not in conflict with other local plan policies relating to transport, environmental and flood zone protection and design, and the Kent Downs AONB. " National Planning Policy Framework 2012 makes it clear that building development in AONBs should be restricted. NPPF 2012 item 14. (Pdf page 12) states: "14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan—making and decision—taking. Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: — specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. (9) (9.) For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion." However, the Scoping Report for Bridge Parish goes on to indicate that building development will be maximised as much as possible: "1.3 SEA explained The aim of SEA is to inform and influence the plan—making process with a view to avoiding and mitigating potential negative impacts. Through this approach, the SEA for the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan seeks to maximise the emerging plan’s contribution to sustainable development. " This represents a wholly inappropriate approach with which to conduct a Scoping Report and SEA within a designated AONB. Any such initiative to "maximise development" would constitute a clear breach of national planning regulations on the protection of AONBs. Paragraph 1.3 suggests that the individuals responsible for this report are just out to sanction as many houses as possible and don't give a fig for our protected landscape. This company should either be dismissed from the entire parish assessment, or, where that is not possible, they must at least be re-briefed on the project so that they have a clearer understanding of their responsibilities and moral obligations and the parish council's unambiguous legal duty to protect the AONB. The offending paragraph '1.3 SEA explained‘ must be rewritten to include reference to protecting our AONB from development as national planning law requires. Sincerely, Mike Burns-Stark Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft 6 August 2017 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................. .. 3 Our vision .............................................................................................. .. 3 Objectives .............................................................................................. .. 3 Map .............................................................................................. .. 4 Background ............................................................................................... ..4 Objective A. Building a Strong, Competitive Economy & Ensuring the Vitality of the Village Centre ................. .. 5 Objective B. Promoting Sustainable Transport ........................................ .. 8 Objective C. To Deliver A Choice of High Quality Homes With Good Design ...................................... .. 11 Objective D. Promoting Healthy Communities ........................................ .. 14 Objective E. Meeting the Challenges of Climate Change and Flooding 17 Objective F. Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment ....... .. 19 Objective G. Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment ....... .. 22 The Consultation Statement ...................................................................... .. 24 Notes ............................................................................................................ .. 25 Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Draft 6 —August 2017 Introduction This Plan sets out our vision for the future of Bridge until 2030 and lays down policies to help achieve that vision. This Plan has been drawn up under the provision ofthe Localism Act 2011. Objectives The Neighbourhood Plan is constructed around seven objectives, which are: a) to build a strong, competitive economy and ensure the vitality of the village centre; b) to promote sustainable transport; c) to deliver a choice of high quality homes with good design; d) to promote a healthy community; e) to meet the challenges of climate change and flooding; f) to conserve and enhance the natural environment; g) to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Map (IV I '/ V ‘:0 0 "T." 4=.~'- Q s '-‘V M iii ..-7. ‘t"”" A / = 00 7 , , Q /a ‘Kano O '“ fr °%\ N // I f/ BEKE E~Wl "'$.'in““"' // 0 , .. -6? @ “ 5 4 13 1 I o 9 - 5. ¢. 5 T a e «'5 I 9 M ' ea / 4 ¢ 45 o 4: 4 4: :3 Nu! —‘ C e a a an 9 9} 0 nun: ) 4‘ o c- 4: ma Q o 4 ‘P 4’ ° anumvarlx 3 Q: -a 4 9 ea 5 as M--— ¢ 0 o 0 9 ca o 494 W ‘3 mm” e an o -as :5 as 4: 4 1:4: "ur"'-m"" * _ 4* 4 5 6 o la M """'»=_ W 9 5 as A a "M G’ R H 4 e a 5 Q 0 “'9' 9 .. W at-. V 4 an t) Kay‘ "" ’ G —'_Paris~n Bnundary \ I . town Copyright All rlnlat: rumea, ' ' em Nu. 100044254 __ 3% ii Area covered by the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Background The village of Bridge (51.2N 1.12E) lies in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and covers an area of 341 hectares (843 acres) to the south east of the City of Canterbury in the County of Kent. The village has a population of 1576 people (Census of 2011) living in 690 properties, of which 63 are listed buildings. The majority of the population (51%) is of working age and 55% are female. A significant number (39%) of people are qualified to NVQ level 4 (HNC) or above, which is rather greater than the average (30%) for the South-East of England. Objective A. Building a Strong, Competitive Economy & Ensuring the Vitality of the Village Centre The village has a variety of business premises (Appendix A] but this Plan recognises that some may be unable to support economically viable employment for the full term of the Plan. The Plan will therefore endeavour to support any potential appropriate long-term employment opportunities. New small-scale business development in the village will be encouraged, wherever possible. A number of villagers already work from home and the Plan aims to encourage this by supporting measures that work towards good internet and communication networks in existing and any new development. Most wage earners work outside the village. Plans to increase the size of any Village Business Park are to be welcomed if they help to secure more work for local people. Policy A1 The loss of business premises used for A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses to other uses where this requires planning permission will not be permitted unless: a) it can be demonstrated that the use of the premises for these purposes is no longer viable; or b) the proposed alternative use would provide benefits for the local economy and community equal to or greater than the current use. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that ‘planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth’. Policy A2 Proposals for the development of new B1 business uses and Live-Work Units, within the built up area boundary of Bridge, will be permitted provided they: i. do not lead to the loss ofA1 shops or of community facilities; ii. do not harm local residential amenity; and iii. comply with other relevant policies in the Development Plan. The NPPF states that the Plan should ‘facilitate flexible working practices such as integration of residential and commercial units’. Policy A3 To support the proposed conversion of redundant farm buildings at Great Pett Farm to units within use Class B1 appropriate to the rural setting, and within the current footprint, to provide local work opportunities, as long as this does not lead to increased road development and does not significantly increase traffic within the village. CDLP 3.49 states that ‘there are also potentially quite significant benefits to be gained in relation to reducing traffic congestion, and hence improving air quality’ therefore home working should be supported. Objective B. Promoting Sustainable Transport Bridge is well served by bus services to Canterbury, Dover and Folkestone. There are train connections from Canterbury to London and other destinations, including a high-speed link from Canterbury West to St Pancras. Bekesbourne railway station is approximately one mile from Bridge and provides an alternative to the journey by road to Canterbury, which has its own traffic congestion and parking difficulties. This line only serves the Canterbury East route. The Canterbury District Local Plan has strategies relating to sustainable transport in the District and these form the Plan's policies as far as they relate to Bridge. Bridge currently lacks a safe cycle route to Canterbury. The Plan regards this as an essential development for the village. The Canterbury District Local Plan (CDLP) has provision for this development, which is strongly supported by this Neighbourhood Plan. Project B1 To control the level and environmental impact of vehicular traffic and improve air quality, by: Parents collecting and dropping off children at school times create congestion in the village. Local parents will be encouraged to walk children to school individually or by 'Walking Bus’ using drop off points away from the centre of the village. The Neighbourhood Plan will seek to make the environment safer for children by limiting and controlling vehicular access to the school at peak times. This would reduce congestion, alleviate car parking problems and improve air quality. The introduction of electric charging points for cars in residential areas should be supported as technology allows. Bridge has a good bus service, which is well used and valued by the community. Encouragement should be given to all residents to help the environment and reduce pollution by using the buses. The current cycle route is along the busy A2050. A safe cycle route would enable children from Bridge to cycle to the secondary schools in South Canterbury. This would reduce car use on 'school runs’ and provide health benefits. Policy B1 Development proposals must integrate with and take opportunities to expand the local cycle route network especially the cycle routes shown on Map 12. Bridge has no car park. This is a problem especially pressing on weekdays in term time and a shortage of parking spaces drives people away from village shops and businesses. Employers should be encouraged to find their staff alternative parking away from the High Street. The potential for providing a village car park should be examined together with ways of increasing existing parking bays. Policy B2 All development proposals will provide adequate provision for off street parking , in accordance with Kent County Council Highways parking standards, as set out in Interim Guidance Note 3: Residential Parking Standards or any update to this document. Development applications that would significantly increase parking problems in Bridge will be refused. 10 Objective C. To Deliver A Choice of High Quality Homes With Good Design The Neighbourhood Plan will encourage the limited amount of housing required to meet local needs. The recent affordable homes project of eight units with ‘Local Connections’ criteria was over—subscribed. The village was divided on the need for more housing. In the March 2016 consultation, 21.7% of participants indicated a preference for no additional building anywhere in Bridge. The Housing Needs survey carried out by ACRK in ]uly 2017 identified a need for a small number of affordable housing units for local people. The Parish Council has welcomed the completion of a Village Design Statement (VDS) which analyses the aesthetic makeup of the village and sets out the criteria, which should be applied to all new development. Policy C1 All new development must be designed to a high quality which responds to the heritage, landscape and locally distinctive character of Bridge as described in the Village Design Statement This will include careful consideration of: a) the height, scale, spacing, density, layout, orientation, design and materials of buildings; b) the scale, design and materials of the public realm (highways, footways, open space and landscape); C) the need to conserve and enhance the fabric and setting ofany heritage asset; d) the need to conserve and enhance Conservation Areas and the Kent Downs AONB as set out in guidance in the Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans, and the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan and its associated Design Guidance; e) utilising sustainable building design, including energy efficiency and use of renewable energy; f) incorporating the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ (SBD31) and, wherever possible, achieve SBD accreditation to ensure that a safe and sustainable community is maintained; g) providing sufficient garden space for any existing and new dwellings in character with this rural area; 11 h) respecting the natural contours of the site; retaining existing important landscape features such as trees, hedges and ponds; and contributing towards landscape enhancement, including new open space where appropriate; i) utilizing native species in new landscaping to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area and provide appropriate habitats for native fauna; j) creating safe, accessible and well— connected environments that meet the needs of users; k) avoiding unacceptable levels of light, noise, air or water pollution, and protecting the tranquillity and dark night skies of the area; 1) making best use of the site to accommodate development m) respecting the privacy, tranquility and setting of existing neighbouring properties. New developments should encourage Bridge's current community ambiance by strengthening neighbourliness through shared public spaces and access. Any further new housing should consist of mixed scales and designs e.g. some 2-3 bed dwellings mixed in with 1 bedroom flats and some ground floor and single storey housing for the elderly. Policy C2 Support further development for up to 8 affordable, rentable homes with ‘local connection’ restrictions. Affordable Housing must comply with the criteria and provisions in the existing Section 106 Agreement and should be held in trust to prevent sale on the open market. Policy C3 Support limited housing development of up to 30 houses on a site yet to be agreed. Any development must comply with all the relevant policies set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. Policy C4 Development proposals on brownfield sites will be permitted subject to the other relevant policies in the Development Plan. Development proposals on greenfield sites must demonstrate that the use of alternative brown field sites for the development has been fully explored and justify why the use of a greenfield site is necessary. The Plan will not entertain any development which includes gardens which are not proportional to the size of the dwelling and will not give support to any development that does not adhere to this Policy. Recognizing the likely impact on the privacy and 12 amenity of neighbouring properties, new developments must respect the separation between buildings and between buildings and the site boundaries. The Plan will encourage energy saving and environmental benefits. The Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) was the national standard designed to improve the sustainability of new homes. Any replacement code will be endorsed by the Neighbourhood Plan. The Planning Sub-Committee of the Parish Council will work to ensure that any proposed new housing is built to the highest environmental standard. Planning decisions should utilise Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so. It will not be acceptable for surface water run off to enter the foul water system. Southern Water will improve reduction of ground water seepage into the sewage system. Any new development must not place further pressure on the environment and compromise Water Framework Directive objectives. In view of recent flooding in the village (2000/2001 and 2013/14) any new housing development must have adequate drainage and sewerage facilities incorporating appropriate property level flood resilience measures. It is important that surface water and draining facilities of any new housing development do not adversely affect those of existing housing and the general village environment. Policy CS No new development shall take place on any site unless a thorough, independent archaeological investigation of the site has been undertaken, and measures put in place to record and preserve any important archaeological features. Bridge is part of a significant historical area and important finds and sites have been and are still being discovered. Some of these are of national importance. It is therefore imperative that before any development begins, an archaeological survey is carried out by an independent organisation. 13 Objective D. Promoting Healthy Communities The Neighbourhood Plan will aim to protect the current high standard of living and low crime rate in Bridge. It will endeavour to ensure that sufficient leisure and community facilities are maintained to serve the village, and to promote new provision as the village develops. Facilities and groups that promote a sense of community and maintain these values will be supported and encouraged. The Neighbourhood Plan will protect existing green spaces within the village and encourage walking and enjoyment ofthe open spaces in and around the Village. Government guidelines state that ‘Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well being of communities.’ The NPPF states that open spaces, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields should generally not be built on unless and assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, building or land to be surplus to requirements. The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect existing open spaces and recreational facilities within the village and on its outskirts. Open spaces such as the recreation ground and allotments and natural open space located both within and outside the village will be protected for the health and benefit of villagers and tourists alike. 14 Bridge is fortunate to have a strong community spirit, as reflected by the number and scope of groups and activities which take place within the village. These groups have strong co-ordinating bodies such as the Parish Council, the Parochial Church Council, sports clubs, school based activities and uniformed organisations as well as many interest groups (Appendix DX). Bridge has very few places in which groups can meet. The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that existing facilities are retained and where possible improved for the use ofthe community. The Bridge Village Sports Pavilion will be retained for use within the recreation ground. Policy D1 The loss of services and facilities of use to the community will not be permitted unless: a) they are to be replaced with services and facilities of an equal or higher quality and value to the community on the same site or another equally suitable site within the parish; or b) where the services and facilities can be demonstrated to be no longer needed or viable, any proposed alternative use would provide equal or greater benefits to the local economy and community, including through contributions to development on other sites. The primary school is the hub of activity for the children in the community. It has expanded rapidly in recent years and now many of the pupils have little or no connection with the village. This policy would assist us in achieving our Environmental and Transport objectives by reducing commuting and congestion and encouraging walking and cycling. It would also promote a stronger feeling of community among our children and young people. Bridge Health Centre is modern and purpose built in accessible premises on the edge of the village. It provides a wide range of GP services, therapies and treatments. Bridge is also fortunate to have a private dental practice. It is important that these facilities are maintained and supported as the village grows and more pressure is placed on services by development in South Canterbury. The Neighbourhood Plan supports the deployment of a shared PCSO within the village and would welcome more involvement of a PCSO within the community. It 15 seeks to strengthen links with the police. It supports the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme and would encourage its expansion. It also supports the Speedwatch Scheme, which is organised by the Parish Council with local volunteers and helps to make our village streets safer. It supports the introduction of a 20mph speed limit within the village. Policy D2 Development proposals must retain and where appropriate enhance public rights of way and open green spaces around the village, as shown on Map X, which contribute to the health and well being ofthe residents. Enjoyment of the countryside and preservation of its peace and quiet is important to the well-being of our rural community The Plan will maintain green spaces both within the Village and on its outskirts. Public footpaths will continue to be maintained, supported by the parish council and volunteers, as a supplement to the limited work of Kent Highways Authority. The enjoyment of green spaces and the effect that loss of access to it will have on the community will be a material factor to be considered should any proposal be put forward for whatever purpose which reduces the existing green spaces round the village. Any proposal which would reduce the potential for such enjoyment will be opposed. See map Dx The Neighbourhood Plan envisages the retention of the Mill Centre and the use of it and other Village assets for the use of its youth groups which draw young people from the south of the District to participate in a range of sporting and cultural activities. 16 Objective E. Meeting the Challenges of Climate Change and Flooding The Neighbourhood Plan supports the stance in Canterbury District Local Plan (CDLP) chapter 7. With reference to Bridge this indicates taking steps to minimise vulnerability and providing resilience with respect to the impact of climate change, and supporting the delivery oflow carbon energy. CDLP Policy CC3 on Combined Heat and Power calls for large developments to provide site- wide renewable or gas fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or connect to an existing CHP distribution network, but provides for exceptions based on viability. The economic viability of such a scheme should not override the necessity for energy use reduction. Therefore this Neighbourhood Plan will strengthen the CDLP policy by reducing the terms ofthe exception. Policy E1 The prevention of flooding All development proposals need to be supported by surface water management strategy, which uses sustainable drainage system features to attenuate and restrict the rate and volume of surface water leaving the site. Surface water strategies should demonstrate that it will be feasible to balance surface water run—off to the greenfield run—off rate for all events up to the 1 in 100 year storm (including additional 30% climate change allowance) and set out how this will be achieved. Where sites are brownfield a strategy should always seek a betterment in the surface water runoff regime taking into consideration the Environment Agency document Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3). Surface water strategies should also include details of a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development Most of the built area of Bridge lies within the catchment area of the Nailbourne. As observed about the recent floods (see also CDLP 7.29-7.35), fluvial flooding, groundwater flooding and sewer overtopping are of particular concern to Bridge. The Neighbourhood Plan supports the CDLP 7.34 in regard to Southern Water continuing to repair the sewer to secure against ingress and the prevention of any significant further 17 development until the major improvements have been carried out (such as new culverted outfalls, major pumping at outlets or large attenuation lakes). The Neighbourhood Plan Objective will tighten the CDLP Policy CC11 on Sustainable Drainage Systems by only permitting surface water drainage back into the ground. This will reduce the strain on the drains and the Nailbourne itself. The policy is also enhanced to include all planning decisions, notjust those in the flood risk area, since the whole catchment area impacts upon the flood risk. The risk identified is so great that no development will be permitted in Flood Zone 2 or Flood Zone 3 areas. 18 Objective F. Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment The National Planning Policy Framework states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan will seek to ensure that the existing natural environment is conserved, protected and enhanced. The Plan will protect existing green spaces in the village and on the outskirts to preserve and improve biodiversity where possible. Canterbury District Local Plan (CDLP) (10.1) states "One of the City Council's objectives is to protect and enhance the countryside, acknowledging its own intrinsic value, the diversity of landscapes, heritage and wildlife and recognising that a high quality environment contributes to the economic, social and cultural well-being of the district.” CDLP (11.11) states "Open space performs a wide range of roles in enhancing the liveability of cities, towns and rural villages. Protecting open space for its amenity, ecological, educational, social and community benefits are now well established principles among planning authorities and other organisations”. The Canterbury District Environmental Policy 2009 (Reviewed 2012) states "The protection and enhancement of open space is key to providing green space for wild life and people”. The Planning Committee of the Parish Council will follow the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan and ensure that "garden grabbing" i.e. the use of gardens to develop as building plots does not take place in Bridge. Any new building should take place on brown field sites. The Parish Council Planning Committee will recommend the refusal of planning permission to pave over front gardens for car parking. Apart from aesthetic and environmental aspects this would help to prevent local flooding. The Plan will seek to maintain these open spaces. The Draft Open Space Strategy for the Canterbury District 2014-2019 3.7 states that "...the design of public open space sets the scene for the housing, that it is considered 19 at the start and throughout the design process, not as an afterthought and should provide an attractive setting as well as opportunities for leisure and recreation use”. The Parish Council will work vigorously to ensure that provision for new green spaces is incorporated into any emerging development by scrutinising the planning applications and objecting to unsuitable plans. Policy F1 Development proposals that reduce a sense of openness and separation between Bridge and Canterbury will not be permitted to ensure that the individual identity of these two settlements is retained. CDLP (11.42) states "The objective of the green gap policy is to retain separate identities of existing settlements, by preventing their coalescence through development”. The Neighbourhood Plan will continue to object to unwanted development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) on the south side of Canterbury to maintain the existing open space. 90% of respondents to the Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire opposed the merging of Bridge with South Canterbury, which would result in Bridge losing its identity as a thriving rural community CDLP (11.44) states "The Council is concerned that this gradual coalescing between existing built up areas not only harms the character of the open countryside, but is having an adverse impact on the setting and special character ofvillages". The Neighbourhood Plan will encourage the conservation of the character of Bridge and the High Street in particular. The Parish Council will seek to maintain open spaces which are of particular value for use in the community. The NPPF (2012) (1.2) states that "Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities”. 20 NPPF (2012) (1.3) states "They help bring neighbourhoods together, and provide access, light, air and setting for neighbourhood buildings". The Parish Council will continue to encourage people of all ages to use and enjoy, volunteer to help with and maintain the recreation ground. The Council will encourage the education of local school children to participate in the Wild Flower Project on the recreation ground. CDLP (11.14) states "It is important that allotments are retained where they can perform an important open space function and contribute to the City Council's wider sustainable development objectives, including the production of local fresh produce and enhanced quality of life in terms of health, social activity...and wild life habitats". The Parish Council will actively encourage the take up and maintenance of the allotments in the village to provide local fresh produce and enhance the social wellbeing of the residents of Bridge. Policy F2 Applications for additional external lighting within the Conservation Area will be refused if they would increase light pollution within the village and/or adversely affect their surroundings. The Neighbourhood Plan supports measures to reduce light pollution and promote the visibility and clarity of the night sky. The Plan will encourage and support the use of land to establish sustainable farming, allotments and community orchards to provide employment and enrich the well- being of local residents. A suitable area of land will be identified for a community orchard. 21 Objective G. Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment The village draws some of its character from the fact that it stands on the Roman road from Dover to London through Canterbury. This road became known as Watling Street. The bridge at Bridge is built over the Nailbourne, an intermittent stream which is often completely dry but is also capable of rising rapidly to flood low-lying areas in the village. The Nailbourne lies in a valley so that Watling Street rises up-hill in both directions from the centre of the village. Consistent with its age and location the village has more than sixty listed buildings dating from the early fifteenth century onwards. Policy G1 To respect the existing village charm and character in terms of scale, style and setting of new developments as defined in the Village Design Statement The Plan will continue to ensure that any new development is appropriate to merge with the present building infrastructure. CDLP Policy DBE1 states "All development should respond to the objectives of sustainable development and reflect the need to safeguard and improve the quality of life for residents, minimise waste and protect and enhance the environment”. 22 "The City Council will therefore require development schemes to incorporate sustainable design and construction measures that must satisfy the criteria...” The Parish Council Planning Committee will closely monitor the building materials intended for use in any proposed new building. While this applies to all buildings it is of particular significance to those intended for conservation areas in the village. The CDLP Policy HE1 states that ‘Development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal, the significance of heritage assets and their settings. Development will not be permitted where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of heritage assets or their settings.” The Neighbourhood Plan strongly supports this policy and the Parish Council will endeavour to maintain the distinctive historic character of Bridge. 23 The Consultation Statement In the final version, this section will contain a statement prepared to comply with the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012. It will contains details ofthe persons and bodies were consulted about the proposed NP, explains how they were consulted, summarise the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted and describe how these issues and concerns have been addressed in the NP. Who was consulted. How people were consulted. Main issues and concerns raised. 24 Notes Schedule 9 Part 1 of the Localism Act 2011 sets out the requirements for a Neighbourhood Development Plan in relation to the development and use ofland in the whole or any part of a particular neighbourhood area specified in the plan. The period of the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is up to 2030 or 16 years. The Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions if- a) having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to make the NP, b) the making of the NP contributes to the achievement of sustainable development, c) the making of the NP is in general conformity with the strategic policies in the development plan for the area of the authority (Canterbury City Council?) d) The making of the NP does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations, and e) Prescribed conditions are met in relation to the NP and prescribed matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the NP. Bridge Parish Council is a qualifying body and entitled to submit a NP for its own parish. The Bridge NP expresses policies relating to the development and use of land within the neighbourhood area. It does not include any provision for excluded development such as national infrastructure. There is no other NP in place in this neighbourhood area. National Policies and Advice 1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) refers to Neighbourhood Plans and seeks that those plans have regard to the policies in the NPPF and to be in ‘general conformity’ with the Strategic Policies of the Local Plan. 2. The Bridge NP has regard to relevant policies within the NPPF. Appendix 1 List of organisations Art in Bridge Cribbage and Pot Boys Guild Fish Scheme, which supports the elderly, Nailbourne Horticultural Society, Bridge And District History Society Women's Institute 25 Hereon is notes and etc: Work to do. Reorganize the appendices, maps, etc. A para about the Objectives, Policies and Proposals. Pg8 W690 Policy A2 >> Appendix F >> Flood Risk Map. Pg 11 W 1217>> Map12. Policy B1 >> Cycle Route on a local map?? Pg 12 W 1416 >>Appendix V>>Village Design Statement Pg 12 W 1420 >> Appendix for results of March 2016 Consultation. (And others?) Pg 13 W 1750 >> as above Pg12 1420 >> results of March consultation Pg 18 W 2178 .Policy D4>> MapDx >>Green Spaces PROW etc Pg 19 W 3154 >> Flood Map (to be Appendix F (see pg 8 )) Pg 24 W 4449 >>Need a ‘proposals map’ (Combine With Map Dx?) Section F5 Pg 23 W4314 >> put all this into a map and a list of sites and a commentary? Appendix? A Glossary Appendix for the building classes, A1, A2, etc? that are mentioned early on? Redo the page numbers and Contents page (do this point last) 26 Draft notes Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Meeting with Canterbury City Council Thursday 5"’ October 2017 Present: Cllr A Atkinson, Philip Wicker (Clerk), Jim Boot (Consultant BNPC and note taker), Karen Britton, (Planning Policy and Heritage Manager CCC) Lisa Gadd, (Senior Planning Policy Officer CCC). General update Review of Conservation Areas. The Council does not currently have a work programme for Conservation Area reviews, however the Council will always notify and involve the community in any review process. The new A2 junction only requires 400/4000 or 10% dwellings on the Mountfield site completed before work starts. The Kent Downs AONB Unit have commissioned new and more detailed Landscape Character Assessments of the AONB that will include Bridge. JB to request a copy. CCC have appointed Lichfields to consider the impact of the govemment’s recent release of population and housing data— including looking at student numbers — and there will be a report on this in the New Year. The Bridge Housing Needs Assessment undertaken by Action for Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK) had identified ‘A need for 6 affordable homes, for the following local households: 0 3 single people 0 2 couples 0 1 family 5 households currently live in Bridge and 1 lives outside but has local connections to the village The survey also identified a requirement for 10 homes for the following older households: 0 7 single people 0 3 couples The 10 households all currently live in Bridge. 5 of the older households need affordable housing. These affordable homes are required in addition to the 6 affordable homes identified above.’ Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environment Agency had responded to the SEA Scoping Report referring to their previous responses and against building in flood risk areas. Historic England has given a very detailed response including referring to the Kent Historic Record, the importance of protecting views, the setting, Watling Street, impact on the Conservation Areas and High Street. CPRE Kent, although not a statutory consultee, had included reference to air quality, mapping biodiversity and ancient woodlands. The Kent Downs AONB Unit response reminded that the AONB is a matter that can restrict development. AECOM have confirmed that they will be sending through their ‘assessment of reasonable alternatives’ by end of October including ‘alternative policy approaches for the NP including spatial strategies’. Site allocations CCC re-affirmed that the Conyngham Lane site (Site 2 — see map below) would be contrary to a strategic policy in the draft Local Plan (Green Gap). National Planning Policy Guidance, Para 8 states that a drfat Neighbourhood plan or order must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development in force. The new Cantley proposal for 40 homes on parts of Sites 3 & 4 was discussed. It was asked whether it would be possible to commute the affordable housing requirement on the Cantley site to another site in the parish ie Brickfields and CCC advised that this would need to be considered as part of any application.. It was asked if Great Pett Farm could be allocated for commercial use within the NP and this was confirmed. If a parish poll on the site allocations is intended, that a request should be made to CCC Democratic Services for assistance. That any poll should take place after AECOM‘s assessment of reasonable alternatives is completed. Alternatively, the site allocations could be consulted on at the Regulation 14 consultation when the Parish Council formally consults on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan. It was recommended to speak to Andrew Patterson in CCC regarding the Community Housing Fund and affordable housing in Bridge. The ‘short-list’ of Important Local Greenspaces should be sent to AECOM to be assessed. It was confirmed that it is the intention of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Group to still to undertake the Regulation 14 consultation when the Parish Council formally consults on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan in January. However, the group concluded that undertaking a parish poll could significantly delay this process. It was suggested to ask Planning Aid for a list of potential Examiners. Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 4. What has plan making / SEA involved to this point? 4.1 Introduction In accordance with the SEA Regulations the Environmental Report must include... 0 An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with; and 0 The likely significant effects on the environment associated with alternatives / an outline of the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in light of alternatives appraised. The ‘narrative’ of plan—making / SEA up to this point is told within this part of the Environmental Report. Specifically, this chapter explains how preparation of the current version of the Bridge NP has been informed by an assessment of alternative locations for no n-strategic scale development in the Neighbourhood Plan area. 4.2 Overview of plan making / SEA work undertaken since 2015 Plan—making for the Bridge NP has been underway since 2014. Initial work incorporated a numberof informal and formal consultation exercises carried out by the Neighbourhood Plan Group, including on the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan. A significant number of consultation events have since been carried out forthe Neighbourhood Plan. This has included a range of exhibitions, public meetings and questions and answer sessions as well as workshops. The following sections discuss the evolution of the Bridge NP in association with the SEA process. 4.3 Assessment of reasonable alternatives for the Neighbourhood Plan A key element of the SEA process is the appraisal of ‘reasonable alternatives’ for the Bridge NP. The SEA Regulatio ns7 are not prescriptive as to what constitutes a reasonable alternative,stating only that the Environmental Report should present an appraisal of the ‘plan and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan’. The following sections therefore describe how the SEA process to date has inform ed the preferred development strategy for the Neighbourhood Plan area and potential locations for housing development. Specifically, this chapter explains how the Bridge NP’s development strategy has been shaped through considering alternative approaches for the location of non—strategic scale development in the Neighbourhood Plan area. 4.3.1 Housing delivery options The Canterbury District Local Plan was adopted in July 2017 and provides strategic planning policy for Canterbury District. A number of key provisions are set out for Bridge in the adopted version of the Local Plan, as follows: 0 Bridge is classified as a Local Centre in the settlement hierarchy and a Larger Local Village Centre. 0 A new green gap between Canterbury and Bridge is proposed. 0 The provision of a new A2 interchange near Bridge will be required as an integral part of development proposals in the area. 0 Provision of new housing that is of a size, design, scale, character and location appropriate to the character and built form of Bridge will be supported provided that such proposals are not in conflict with other local plan policies relating to transport,environmental and flood zone protection and design, and those of the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan,where applicable;. 7 Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 AECOM 13 Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan The Local Plan does not however allocate any sites for housing in the Neighbourhood Plan area, or provide a housing number for the Neighbourhood Plan to deliver. Whilst the Neighbourhood Plan Group recognised that the Bridge NP is not required to deliver asignificant level of additional housing in the Neighbourhood Plan area, it was viewed that possible options for growth should be explored with the potential aim of supporting the vitality of the parish and help meet local housing needs. To support decision—making on this element of the Bridge NP,the SEA process considered three broad options relating to the scale of housing delivery to be taken forward for the purposes of the Neighbourhood Plan. These options were then considered through the SEA Framework of objectives and assessment questions developed during scoping (see Section 3.3). The three options are as follows: 0 Option 1 : Deliver no further growth in association with the minimum requirements of the Canterbury District Local Plan. Recognising that there is no requirement to deliver additional housing in the parish, this would only allow very limited development within the parish over the plan period. 0 Option 2: Facilitate some growth through the Neighbourhood Plan over the plan period to 2031, amounting to between 25-75 dwellings.This would deliver limited housing growth in the parish during the plan period. 0 Option 3: Facilitate significant growth in the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan area in the plan period to 2031 through placing no restrictions on housing numbers.This would deliver additional growth of over 75 dwellings during the plan period. Table 4.1 presents the findings of the appraisal of Option 1 to Option 3 outlined above. To support the assessment findings, the options have been ranked in terms of their sustainability performance against the relevant theme. It is anticipated that this will provide the reader with a likely indication of the comparative sustainability performance of the three options in relation to each theme considered. AECOM 14 Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Table 4.1 :Appraisa| findings: Housing delivery options Option 1 :Deliver no further growth in association with the minimum requirements of the Canterbury District Local Plan. Option 2: Facilitate some growth through the Neighbourhood Plan over the plan period to 2031 , amounting to between 25-75 dwellings. Option 3: Facilitate significant growth in the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan area in the plan period to 2031 through placing no restrictions on housing numbers. Rank of preference Theme Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options 1 2 3 In terms of biodiversity constraints in the vicinities of Bridge, the village and surrounding area is not within an SSSI Impact Risk Zone for the types of development with the potential to be taken forward through the Neighbourhood Plan. In terms of other biodiversity constraints, significant areas of Woodpasture and Parkland BAP Priority Habitat are present to the south of the village, interspersed with smaller areas of Deciduous Woodland BAP Priority Habitat scattered across the parish. In this context the delivery of a higher level of housing in Bridge has the potential to result in an increased negative effect on biodiversity in and around the village. This includes through loss of habitats, ecological connections and key landscape features of biodiversity value. As such Option 3 has increased potential to lead to negative impacts on biodiversity when compared to Option 1 an 2. Biodiversity 1 2 3 A larger scale of housing delivery may however increase opportunities for biodiversity enhancements in the Neighbourhood Plan area, such as through green infrastructure improvements and also enhancements to ecological networks through developer led contributions. All allocations have the potential to have a negative effect on biodiversity assets if located inappropriately or have poor design and layout. Likewise, all allocations have the potential to promote net gains in biodiversity value (if appropriate measures are agreed with developers). Therefore, the potential effects on biodiversity will vary depending on the specific site plans and developer lead contributions. However, while bearing this inherent uncertainty in mind, it is considered that a large scale of housing delivery in the Neighbourhood Plan area will result in a wider range of negative impacts on the parish’s biodiversity resource. AECOM 15 Opt Opt Opt Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Option 1 :Deliver no further growth in association with the minimum requirements of the Canterbury District Local Plan. Option 2: Facilitate some growth through the Neighbourhood Plan over the plan period to 2031 , amounting to between 25-75 dwellings. Option 3: Facilitate significant growth in the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan area in the plan period to 2031 through placing no restrictions on housing numbers. Rank of preference Theme Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options 1 2 3 In terms of climate change mitigation, the options which facilitate an increased level of development (Option 3, and to a lesser extent, Option 2) will lead to an increased level of greenhouse gas emissions due to an enlarged built footprint of the parish. Option 3, through facilitating larger scale sites, may however enable more effective improvements to walking and cycling and public transport links through the infrastructure opportunities afforded by larger allocations. Overall however, Option 3 is likely to lead to the largest increases in emissions of the options through facilitating additional growth. In terms of climate change adaptation, enhancements to the Neighbourhood Plan area’s green infrastructure networks will be a key means of helping the plan area adapt to the effects of climate change. Climate Change This includes through helping to regulate extreme temperatures and 1 2 3 regulate surface water run—off. In this context the direct provision of green infrastructure improvements to accompany new development areas may be more achievable through the development proposed through Options 2 and 3, including through mechanisms such as the community infrastructure levy. In terms of flood risk, fluvial flooding and surface water drainage flooding are an issue for the Neighbourhood Plan area. This includes in the area adjacent to the Nail Bourne. This has the potential to increase as a result of land use change and climate change. However it is considered that the provisions of the NPPF and national policy will help guide development away from flood risk areas and ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. AECOM 16 Opt Opt Opt Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Option 1 :Deliver no further growth in association with the minimum requirements of the Canterbury District Local Plan. Option 2: Facilitate some growth through the Neighbourhood Plan over the plan period to 2031 , amounting to between 25-75 dwellings. Option 3: Facilitate significant growth in the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan area in the plan period to 2031 through placing no restrictions on housing numbers. Rank of preference Theme Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options 1 2 3 Over half of the Neighbourhood Plan area is within the Kent Downs AONB, including all of the built up part of the village. As such all development in the parish has the potential to impact the setting of the AONB without appropriate design and layout. The Neighbourhood Plan area also has a rich historic environment, as highlighted by the significant number of listed buildings and the presence of the Bridge Conservation Area and the Bifrons Park (Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne/ Bridge) Conservation Area. Through increasing the scale of development to be taken forward in Bridge for the purposes of the Neighbourhood Plan, Option 3 has Landscape and increased potential to lead to impacts on landscape character in the area nisioiic and the setting of the historic environment. This includes through loss of environment landscape features, visual impacts and impacts on noise quality linked to increased traffic flows. In this context Option 1 and 2,through promoting a more limited scale of development, are less likely to lead to significant effects on landscape and townscape character. Options 2 and 3 increase opportunities for supporting the reuse and rejuvenation of existing heritage assets in the Neighbourhood Plan area. This will support the settlement’s historic environment resource, if high quality design and layout is incorporated within new provision. Option 2 however provides more of a balance between providing opportunities to rejuvenate existing underutilised heritage assets and protecting landscape character, visual amenity and the setting of the historic environment. AECOM 17 Opt Opt Opt Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Option 1 :Deliver no further growth in association with the minimum requirements of the Canterbury District Local Plan. Option 2: Facilitate some growth through the Neighbourhood Plan over the plan period to 2031 , amounting to between 25-75 dwellings. Option 3: Facilitate significant growth in the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan area in the plan period to 2031 through placing no restrictions on housing numbers. Rank of preference Theme Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options 1 2 3 Options 2 and 3, which will deliver additional new housing in the Neighbourhood Plan area, have the potential to facilitate development on greenfield land in the vicinities of the settlement. Whilst recent detailed agricultural land classification has not been carried out in the Neighbourhood Plan area,the options have increased potential to lead to the loss of areas of the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural land present in the area (including, potentially Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land). Therefore, due to the likelihood for increased landtake, Option 3 has increased potential to lead to the loss of productive agricultural land. However the additional delivery of housing through the Bridge NP may also increase the likelihood of rejuvenating areas of brownfield land in the Landysoil and settlement. Whilst such areas are very limited in the parish, Option 2 may Water resources enable a scale of development which leads to increased opportunities 1 2 3 for rejuvenating underutilised land, whilst also not leading to the significant loss of greenfield land. Given the limited availability of previously developed land however, the option is likely though to lead to the loss of greenfield land. In terms of water quality, it is difficult to come to a conclusion regarding the potential for development at any given location to result in negative effects without an understanding of the design measures that will be put in place. For example sustainable drainage systems — SuDS — are an effective means of minimising surface water runoff and hence pollution. However it should be noted that there is likely to be more scope for the implementation of measures such as SuDS within the larger scale of development promoted by Options 2 and 3. AECOM 18 Opt Opt Opt Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Option 1 :Deliver no further growth in association with the minimum requirements of the Canterbury District Local Plan. Option 2: Facilitate some growth through the Neighbourhood Plan over the plan period to 2031 , amounting to between 25-75 dwellings. Option 3: Facilitate significant growth in the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan area in the plan period to 2031 through placing no restrictions on housing numbers. Rank of preference Theme Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options 1 2 3 In terms of affordable housing, such provision may be easier to deliver through the allocations delivered through Option 3. Whilst all new developments involving one or more dwellings are liable for the community infrastructure levy, concentrating the delivery of housing at larger sites may help enable the securing of additional contributions to site specific mitigation through Section 106 planning agreements (it should be noted however that such contributions are typically required to make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms that would not otherwise be acceptable). The small sites affordable housing contributions policy was introduced by the UK Government in November 201 4 to help boost housing delivery and incentivise brownfield development. It introduced a national threshold of ten units or fewer (and a maximum combined gross floor space of no more than 1,000 square metres) beneath which affordable housing contributions should not be sought. Within AONBs, the exemptions would apply only to developments not exceeding 5 new homes; developments of 6 to 10 homes could pay a commuted sum, either at or after completion of the development. The policy was introduced to address the burden of developer contributions on small 3 1 2 scale developers, custom and self—builders. In this context both Options 2 and 3 provide opportunity for delivering affordable housing in the village, and helping to meet local housing needs—. Population and Community In terms of the provision of services and facilities, the delivery of CIL monies and similar mechanisms are likely to be more achievable through the allocations facilitated through Options 2 and 3. Similarly potential enhancements to the vitality of the village provided by an increased population growth through these options may support the availability and viability of services, facilities and amenities and public transport links. Conversely however, larger scale development may have effects on the setting and character of the area and increase pressure on local services. On balance, and in light of the fact that there is no requirement forsignificant growth in the village through the Local Plan, it is concluded in this regard that Option 2 provides the level of growth to facilitate housing delivery which will meet local needs, support existing services, facilities, and community vitality, whilst also enabling the impact of growth to be managed. The delivery of housing provision through larger scale allocations has the potential to concentrate effects on road safety and noise quality from Heauh a”d increased traffic flows at certain locations. This may have effects on the Wellbeing health and wellbeing of residents. Impacts however depend on the location of new development areas and the integration of elements such as sustainable transport and green infrastructure provision. AECOM 19 Opt Opt Opt Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Option 1 :Deliver no further growth in association with the minimum requirements of the Canterbury District Local Plan. Option 2: Facilitate some growth through the Neighbourhood Plan over the plan period to 2031 , amounting to between 25-75 dwellings. Option 3: Facilitate significant growth in the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan area in the plan period to 2031 through placing no restrictions on housing numbers. Rank of preference Theme Discussion of potential effects and relative merits of options 1 2 3 The provision of new and improved sustainable transport infrastructure to accompany new housing development, including pedestrian/cycle and public transport links may be more feasible with the larger scale of development proposed through Option 3. Option 2, through promoting smaller scale housing provision across the Transportation plan area, has increased potential to facilitate the development of new 3 1 2 housing at locations which are more integrated with the existing built up area of the village.This has the potential to allow at some locations easier access to services and facilities by public transport and walking and cycling. In this context, the provision of an increased level of housing through Option 3 has the potential to increase congestion issues in the village. 4.3.2 Site allocation options for housing The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group has identified a number of sites which it is viewed should also be considered as potential sites for allocation through the Bridge NP. Five sites in total were therefore considered by the Steering Group. The sites, and their location are presented in Figure 4.1 overleaf. To support the consideration of the suitability of these sites,the SEA process has undertaken an appraisal of the key environmental constraints present at each of the five sites and potential effects that may arise from new housing development. In this context the sites have been considered in relation to the SEA Framework of objectives and decision making questions developed during SEA scoping (Section 3.3) and the baseline information. The tables below present a summary of this appraisal, and provide an indication of each site’s sustainability performance in relation to the seven SEA themes. AECOM 20 Opt Opt Opt me MI11a.I.‘.:'&fl0d.\MUFIIIiViun Sy!*vrns\Eu5'33€03,NewqI&Iuud1wd Middle FE: Farm .- .— \ Wamn Wood woodland! W Th: Shiv! Lrnls Fan - Fm “».‘\'¢"(..'lia" M fllllon Lonhlfl 200 0 400 600 800 L000 rn :..a| Flrlh Bifron's Park l'i:ILl IAUOUUIH C.-: Warren Plnmmzon Huraedluc Plantation Baum E Park \ YKIS DRAWING I5 10 BE USED ONPFFORTHE PURPOSE OF sue INA‘. rr was ISSUED FDR AND IS SUEJEDT ID AMENDMENT LEGEND D Bridge Neighbourhood PianArea D site cnawu;-I Conlam Olchance Surveqr Data © Crown Copyright and database nght 2017 Pulpouenllsuo: DRAFT GWEN BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN STEERING GROUP men Im- SEA FOR THE BRIDGE NEVGHBOURHOOD PLAN Drama Tm D-ml Pbnrwed NGB SVTES ASSESSED FOR THE SEA umegxu Arrnu lnlnml P‘:-men! 5|: 9 E111.-mxr 30538603 1:10.000 'u1sLL|.uU(»|uA2InIM4&vrRLDFI.Iis\:m|IL\mu9JuJ[.' 'oInL mum afilfi.-'r\wAswurmENI In M n nu JFD«'nurH:=Ywn|i:n|mr cu: Anrunt U4 IHIS no-uunmlntn rww mrs ml/3m\1I.,\'J4I an mu nmnn»: mus Fawn: ac :IruHn:\\:H use am an v mm M oJ>::mux mmnzuu W>.sv|1[W\fi.|Jn\rU PRWOC|.' IEGGM - AZCOM mu-»w..... FIGURE 4.1 01 Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Table 4.2:Site A SEAtheme Biodiversity Climate change Landscape and historic environment Land, soil and water resources Population and Commentary, Site A The site is located adjacent to an area of Deciduous Woodland BAP Priority Habitat, which is located along the dismantled railway to the west. The site is not located within an SSSI Impact Risk Zone for the types of development likely to be taken forward through the Neighbourhood Plan. As such allocations at this site are unlikely to have effects on SSS|s present in the wider vicinity of the parish. The north eastern corner of the site may be of some biodiversity value due to the types ofvegetation present. In relation to adapting to the effects of climate change, the site is not located within identified flood risk zones for fluvial flooding; the site is located entirely within Flood Zone 1. A small proportion of the site to the south (approximately 10%) is at risk of surface waterflooding;development would need to ensure this risk is managed. The site is located in good proximity to village amenities and bus stops. However development at the site will increase the built footprint of the village and is likely to result in increases in car use,with an associated increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The site is located within the Bridge Conservation Area. As such development at this location has the potential to impact on integrity of the conservation area through effects on its fabric and setting. The site is also located within the Kent Downs AONB. The site is not well screened from existing built up areas to the south. As such it is considered that development on this site would not relate well to its surroundings and would result in adverse effects on the conservation area. Development of the site would also have significant impacts on the setting of the northern part of the village, with impacts on views into the AONB. In this context it is likely that development of the site would lead to significant effects on the landscape and villagescape character of the area. No nationally or locally listed buildings are present on or adjacent to the site, though the site is within c.50m of seven nationally listed structures. Development at the site has the potential to have impacts on the setting of some of these features. It is not possible to confirm if the site will lead to a loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, as recent land classification has not been undertaken at this location. However, pre—1988 agricultural land classification indicates that the site has the potential to be located on the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land. The site is located within aZone 3 Source Protection Zone. Located within 200m of village centre amenities and bus links, the site is located with Community good proximity to local services and facilities. Health and The site is located close to pedestrian routes, public rights of way and open countryside. Wellbeing This will support the health and wellbeing of residents through enhancing recreational opportunities. Transportation The site is located with good proximity to local facilities and public transport networks. In this context it is located within 200m of village centre amenities and bus links. Kev Likely adverse effect (without mitigation measures) Likely positive effect Neutral/no effect Uncertain effects AECOM 22 Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Table 4.3:Site B SEAtheme Biodiversity Climate change Landscape and historic environment Land, soil and water resources Population and Community Health and Wellbeing Transportation Commentary, Site B Whilst the site contains a number of mature trees, the site does not contain significant biodiversity value. No BAP Priority Habitats are present on the site. Whilst the site is close to a significant area of Woodpasture and Parkland BAP Priority Habitat associated with Bifrons Park,this is located on the far side of the A20 trunk road. The site is not located within an SSSI Impact Risk Zone for the types of development likely to be taken forward through the Neighbourhood Plan. As such allocations at this site are unlikely to have effects on SSS|s present in the wider vicinity of the parish. In relation to adapting to the effects of climate change, a small part of the southern central edge of the site contains a limited area of Flood Zone 2 and 3. A similar area is also at risk of surface water flooding. Development would need to ensure this risk is managed. The site is located in good proximity to village amenities and bus stops, including by an existing footpath. However, development at the site will increase the built footprint of the village and is likely to result in increases in car use, with an associated increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The site is located within the Bifrons Park (Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne / Bridge) Conservation Area. As such,development at this location has the potential to impact on the integrity of the conservation areathrough effects on its fabric and setting. The site is located within the Kent Downs AONB. The site is not well screened from existing built up areas to the north, west and south. As such it is considered that development on this site would not relate well to its surroundings and would result in adverse effects on the AONB and conservation area. In this context it is likely that development of the site would lead to significant effects on the landscape and villagescape character of the area. No nationally or locally listed buildings are present on or adjacent to the site. Given the distance to listed buildings present in the centre of the village (c.200m) and existing screening provided from other buildings, there are unlikely to be significant effects on theirsettings. It is not possible to confirm if the site will lead to a loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, as recent land classification has not been undertaken at this location. However, pre—1988 agricultural land classification indicates that the site has the potential to be located on the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land. The site is not located within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone. Located within 200m of village centre amenities and bus links, the site is located with good proximity to local services and facilities. It is also located adjacent to the school and recreation ground/sports facilities. The site is located adjacent to the A20 trunk road. This has the potential to lead to impacts on health and wellbeing due to noise pollution issues. The site is located close to pedestrian routes, public rights of way and open countryside. It is also located adjacent to the school and sports facilities. This will support the health and wellbeing of residents through enhancing recreational opportunities. The site is located with good proximity to local facilities and public transport links. In this context it is located within 200m of village centre amenities and bus links. It is also located adjacent to public rights of way. Kev Likely adverse effect (without mitigation measures) Likely positive effect Neutral/no effect Uncertain effects AECOM 23 Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Table 4.4:Site C SEAtheme Biodiversity Climate change Landscape and historic environment Land, soil and water resources Population and Community Health and Wellbeing Transportation Commentary, Site C The site does not contain significant biodiversity value. No BAP Priority Habitats are present on the site, and whilst the site is close to a significant area of Woodpasture and Parkland BAP Priority Habitat associated with Bifrons Park, this is located on the far side of the A20 trunk road. The site is not located within an SSSI Impact Risk Zone for the types of development likely to be taken forward through the Neighbourhood Plan. As such allocations at this site are unlikely to have effects on SSS|s present in the widervicinity of the parish. In relation to adapting to the effects of climate change, approximately half of the site (the southern and western parts of the site) is located within an area of Flood Zone 2 and 3, associated with the Nail Bourne. A similar area is also at risk of surface water flooding. This is asignificant constraint to development on the site. The site is located in good proximity to village amenities and bus stops, including by an existing footpath. However, development at the site will increase the built footprint of the village and is likely to result in increases in car use, with an associated increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The site is located within the Bifrons Park (Bekesbourne with Patrixbournel Bridge) Conservation Area. Development at this location has the potential to impact on the integrity of the conservation area through effects on its fabric and setting. The site is located within the Kent Downs AONB. No nationally or locally listed buildings are present on or adjacent to the site. Given the distance to listed buildings present in the centre of the village (c.250m) and existing screening,there are unlikely to be significant effects on their settings. It is not possible to confirm if the site will lead to a loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, as recent land classification has not been undertaken at this location. However, pre—1988 agricultural land classification indicates that the site has the potential to be located on the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land. The site is not located within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone. Located within 250m of village centre amenities and bus links, the site is located with good proximity to local services and facilities. It is also located adjacent to the recreation ground/sports facilities. The site is located adjacent to the A20 trunk road. This has the potential to lead to impacts on health and wellbeing due to noise pollution issues. The site is located close to pedestrian routes, public rights of way and open countryside. It is also located adjacent to sports facilities. This will support the health and wellbeing of residents through enhancing recreational opportunities. The site is located with good proximity to local facilities and public transport links. In this context it is located within 250m of village centre amenities and bus links. It is also located adjacent to public rights of way. Kev Likely adverse effect (without mitigation measures) Likely positive effect Neutral/no effect Uncertain effects AECOM 24 Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Table 4.5:Site D SEAtheme Biodiversity Climate change Landscape and historic environment Land, soil and water resources Population and Community Health and Wellbeing Transportation Commentary, Site D The eastern edge of the site (adjoining Bourne Park Road) and the southern edge of the site contain areas of Deciduous Woodland BAP Priority Habitat. These areas provide important habitat for protected species. The site is not located within an SSSI Impact Risk Zone for the types of development likely to be taken forward through the Neighbourhood Plan. As such allocations at this site are unlikely to have effects on SSS|s present in the wider vicinity of the parish. In relation to adapting to the effects of climate change, most of the site (and in particular the western part) is located within an area of Flood Zone 2 and 3, associated with the Nail Bourne. The northern half of the site is also at risk of surface water flooding. Flood risk is therefore asignificant constraint to development on the site. The site is located in good proximity to village amenities and bus stops. However, development at the site will increase the built footprint of the village and is likely to result in increases in car use,with an associated increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The site is located within the Bifrons Park (Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne / Bridge) Conservation Area and adjacent to the Bridge Conservation Area. The site is very visible from properties in the Brewery Lane area. As such, development at this location has the potential to impact on the integrity of the two conservation areas through effects on their fabric and settings. In this context the site comprises an important element of the open aspect of this part of the Bifrons Park (Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne / Bridge) Conservation Area and the setting of the Bridge Conservation Area located to the north east. The site is also located within the Kent Downs AONB, and provides a key contributor to landscape character south of Bridge. No nationally or locally listed buildings are present on or adjacent to the site. Whilst the site is within approximately 100m of four listed buildings, clue to existing screening there is unlikely to be asignificant effect on theirsettings. It is not possible to confirm if the site will lead to a loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, as recent land classification has not been undertaken at this location. However, pre—1988 agricultural land classification indicates that the site has the potential to be located on the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land. The site is not located within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone. Located within 150m of village centre amenities and bus links, the site is located with good proximity to local services and facilities. The site is located close to pedestrian routes, public rights of way and open countryside. It is also accessible to sports facilities. This will support the health and wellbeing of residents through enhancing recreational opportunities. The site is located with good proximity to local facilities and public transport links. In this context it is located within 150m of village centre amenities and bus links. It is also located close to public rights of way. Kev Likely adverse effect (without mitigation measures) Likely positive effect Neutral/no effect Uncertain effects AECOM 25 Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Table 4.6:Site E SEAtheme Commentary, Site E Biodiversity Site E adjoins asmall area of Traditional Orchard BAP Priority Habitat, which is located to the south of the site. However new development is unlikely to impact on this habitat if appropriate provisions for biodiversity are included within new development areas. The site is not located within an SSSI Impact Risk Zone for the types of development likely to be taken forward through the Neighbourhood Plan. As such allocations at this site are unlikely to have effects on SSS|s present in the wider vicinity of the parish. Climate change The site is not within an area at risk of fluvial or surface water flooding. The site is located in relatively good proximity to village amenities and bus stops. However, development at the site will increase the built footprint of the village and is likely to result in increases in car use, with an associated increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Landscape and The site is located within the Bifrons Park (Bekesbourne with Patrixbourne/ Bridge) historic Conservation Area. As such,development at this location has the potential to impact on environment the integrity of the conservation area through effects on its fabric and setting. The site is also located within the Kent Downs AONB. Development at this location has the potential to impact on the landscape setting of this part of the village. It will also affect views to and from the Grade II* listed Bridge Place located to the south east of the site, and the Grade II listed Little Bridge Place, which is located to the east of the site. Land,soil and It is not possible to confirm if the site will lead to a loss of Best and Most Versatile water Agricultural Land, as recent land classification has not been undertaken at this location. resources However, pre—1988 agricultural land classification indicates that the site has the potential to be located on the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land. The site is not located within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone. Population and Located within 250m of village centre amenities and bus links, the site is located with Community relatively good proximity to local services and facilities. Health and The site is located close to pedestrian routes, public rights of way and open countryside. Weiibeing This will support the health and wellbeing of residents through enhancing recreational opportunities. Transportation The site is located with relatively good proximity to local facilities and public transport links. In this context it is located within 250m of village centre amenities and bus links. It is also located close to public rights of way. Kev Likely adverse effect (without mitigation measures) Likely positive effect Neutral/no effect Uncertain effects AECOM 26 Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulation 14 Environmental Report forthe Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 4.4 Current approach in the Bridge NP and development of Neighbourhood Plan policies 4.4.1 Spatial strategyforthe Neighbourhood Plan 4.4.2 Regulation 14 Bridge Neighbourhood Plan policies To support the implementation of the vision for the Neighbourhood Plan discussed in Section 2.2, and the spatial strategy described above, the current Regulation 14 version of the Bridge NP puts forward Ipolicies to guide development in the Neighbourhood Plan area. The policies,which were developed following extensive community consultat ion and evidence gathering, are as follows: Table 4.7: Bridge NP policies, and summary of policy objectives An initial version of these policies was assessed through the SEA process in December 201 7 and a number of recommendations made. This was undertaken with the aim of identifying particular elements of the plan which could be updated to support the sustainability performance of the Bridge NP. The Neighbourhood Plan policies were then updated in response to these recommendations. The latest version of the policies has been assessed in the next chapter. AECOM 27 Draft notes Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Meeting with Canterbury City Council Thursday 5"’ October 2017 Present: Cllr A Atkinson, Philip Wicker (Clerk), Jim Boot (Consultant BNPC and note taker), Karen Britton, (Planning Policy and Heritage Manager CCC) Lisa Gadd, (Senior Planning Policy Officer CCC). General update Review of Conservation Areas. The Council does not currently have a work programme for Conservation Area reviews, however the Council will always notify and involve the community in any review process. The new A2 junction only requires 400/4000 or 10% dwellings on the Mountfield site completed before work starts. The Kent Downs AONB Unit have commissioned new and more detailed Landscape Character Assessments of the AONB that will include Bridge. JB to request a copy. CCC have appointed Lichfields to consider the impact of the govemment’s recent release of population and housing data— including looking at student numbers — and there will be a report on this in the New Year. The Bridge Housing Needs Assessment undertaken by Action for Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK) had identified ‘A need for 6 affordable homes, for the following local households: 0 3 single people 0 2 couples 0 1 family 5 households currently live in Bridge and 1 lives outside but has local connections to the village The survey also identified a requirement for 10 homes for the following older households: 0 7 single people 0 3 couples The 10 households all currently live in Bridge. 5 of the older households need affordable housing. These affordable homes are required in addition to the 6 affordable homes identified above.’ Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environment Agency had responded to the SEA Scoping Report referring to their previous responses and against building in flood risk areas. Historic England has given a very detailed response including referring to the Kent Historic Record, the importance of protecting views, the setting, Watling Street, impact on the Conservation Areas and High Street. CPRE Kent, although not a statutory consultee, had included reference to air quality, mapping biodiversity and ancient woodlands. The Kent Downs AONB Unit response reminded that the AONB is a matter that can restrict development. AECOM have confirmed that they will be sending through their ‘assessment of reasonable alternatives’ by end of October including ‘alternative policy approaches for the NP including spatial strategies’. Site allocations CCC re-affirmed that the Conyngham Lane site (Site 2 — see map below) would be contrary to a strategic policy in the draft Local Plan (Green Gap). National Planning Policy Guidance, Para 8 states that a drfat Neighbourhood plan or order must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development in force. The new Cantley proposal for 40 homes on parts of Sites 3 & 4 was discussed. It was asked whether it would be possible to commute the affordable housing requirement on the Cantley site to another site in the parish ie Brickfields and CCC advised that this would need to be considered as part of any application.. It was asked if Great Pett Farm could be allocated for commercial use within the NP and this was confirmed. If a parish poll on the site allocations is intended, that a request should be made to CCC Democratic Services for assistance. That any poll should take place after AECOM‘s assessment of reasonable alternatives is completed. Alternatively, the site allocations could be consulted on at the Regulation 14 consultation when the Parish Council formally consults on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan. It was recommended to speak to Andrew Patterson in CCC regarding the Community Housing Fund and affordable housing in Bridge. The ‘short-list’ of Important Local Greenspaces should be sent to AECOM to be assessed. It was confirmed that it is the intention of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Group to still to undertake the Regulation 14 consultation when the Parish Council formally consults on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan in January. However, the group concluded that undertaking a parish poll could significantly delay this process. It was suggested to ask Planning Aid for a list of potential Examiners. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft 7b Draft 7 —November 2017b Introduction This Plan sets out our vision for the future of Bridge until 2033 and lays down policies to help achieve that vision. This Plan has been drawn up under the provision of the Localism Act 2011. Our Vision By 2033 Bridge will be a sustainable, identifiable village community that values its open space and separation from Canterbury. It will have developed local services and transport links that provide residents with a strong safe community identity. The historic fabric of the Village will be preserved. Objectives The Neighbourhood Plan is constructed around seven objectives, which are: a) to build a strong, competitive economy and ensure the vitality of the village centre; b) to promote sustainable transport; c) to deliver a choice of high quality homes with good design; d) to promote a healthy community; e) to meet the challenges of climate change and flooding; f) to conserve and enhance the natural environment; g) to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Reading this Neighbourhood Plan To more easily follow this Plan, we have marked out numbered Policies and Projects. Policies are set in grey shaded text boxes and are expected to be firm rules. Projects are set out in green and are more aspirational in nature. There is additional text setting out the context for these Policies and Projects which sits within each chapter. Policies These are set in grey shaded text boxes and are expected to be firm rules. Objective A. Building a Strong, Competitive Economy & Ensuring the Vitality of the Village Centre Policy A1 The loss of business premises used for A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses to other uses where this requires planning permission will not be permitted unless: a) it can be demonstrated that the use of the premises for these purposes is no longer viable; or b) the proposed alternative use would provide benefits for the local economy and community equal to or greater than the current use. Policy A2 Proposals for the development of new B1 business uses and Live-Work Units, within the built up area boundary of Bridge, will be permitted provided they: i. do not lead to the loss ofA1 shops or of community facilities; ii. do not harm local residential amenity; and iii. comply with other relevant policies in the CDLP Development Plan. Policy A3 To support the proposed conversion of redundant farm buildings at Great Pett Farm to units within use Class B1 appropriate to the rural setting, and within the current footprint, to provide local work opportunities, as long as this does not lead to increased road development and does not significantly increase traffic within the village. Project A1 To support residents with their plans to work from home by encouraging the spread of high speed internet access throughout the parish by maintaining and upgrading existing facilities when technology allows and by supporting the introduction of the most modern new communication systems within the Village. Project A2 To support the presence of a Post Office within the Village. Objective B. Promoting Sustainable Transport Project B1 To control the level and environmental impact of vehicular traffic and improve air quality, by installing air monitoring equipment and by encouraging driving instructors and delivery drivers to switch off engines while stationary. Project B2 To work tov Project B3 To promote the use of public transport and retain the existing bus service through Bridge. Project B5 To explore ways to alleviate parking difficulties. | Project B4 Policy B1 tW€€1’1 Development proposals must integrate with and take opportunities to expand the local cycle route network especially the cycle routes shown on Page 10. Policy B2 All development proposals will provide adequate provision for off street parking , in accordance with Kent County Council Highways parking standards, as set out in the CDLP Appendix 4: Local Parking Standards. 4 Objective C. To Deliver A Choice of High Quality Homes With Good Design Policy C1 All new development must be designed to a high quality which responds to the heritage, landscape and locally distinctive character of Bridge as described in the Village Design Statement. This will include careful consideration of : a) the height, scale, spacing, density, layout, orientation, design and materials of buildings; b) the scale, design and materials of the public realm (highways, footways, open space and landscape); C) the need to conserve and enhance the fabric and setting of any heritage asset; d) the need to conserve and enhance Conservation Areas and the Kent Downs AONB as set out in guidance in the Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans, and the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan and its associated Design Guidance ; e) utilising sustainable building design, including energy efficiency and use of renewable energy; f) incorporating the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ (SBD) and, wherever possible, achieve SBD accreditation to ensure that a safe and sustainable community is maintained; g) providing sufficient garden space for any existing and new dwellings in character with this rural area; h) respecting the natural contours of the site; retaining existing important landscape features such as trees, hedges and ponds; and contributing towards landscape enhancement, including new open space where appropriate; 5 i) utilizing native species in new landscaping to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of 4-1..-. r\1/It\r\ “.44 .....,“n'.J.-. n........,u....:n4—.-. Lnl..:4—n4—.. FI\1H ...n4—:".-. Fn.....n. Policy C2 Before any development takes place in any designated land a thorough investigation must be undertaken related to the drainage and sewage systems and any potential increase in flood hazard in Bridge and the surrounding areas. Policy C3 Support limited housing development ofup to 40 houses on the site between the recreation ground and the AZ. This is to include an element of affordable housing for people with a Bridge connection. Any development must comply with all the relevant policies set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. Policy C4 Development proposals on brownfield sites will be permitted subject to the other relevant policies in the Development Plan. Development proposals on greenfield sites will normally be refused unless a thorough investigation into brownfield site alternatives has been explored. It must be demonstrated that there is an over riding necessity for greenfield development and that such a development would benefit the village as a whole. Policy CS No new development shall take place on any site unless a thorough, independent archaeological investigation of the site has been undertaken, and measures put in place to record and preserve any important archaeological features. Objective D. Promoting Healthy Communities Policy D1 The loss of services and facilities of use to the 6ommunity will not be permitted unless: Policy D2 Development proposals must retain and where appropriate enhance public rights of way and open green spaces around the village, as shown on Map X, which contribute to the health and well being of the residents. Objective E. Meeting the Challenges of Climate Change and Flooding Policy E1 All development proposals need to be supported by a surface water management strategy, which uses sustainable drainage system features to attenuate and restrict the rate and volume of surface water leaving the site. Surface water strategies should demonstrate that it will be feasible to balance surface water run-off to the greenfield run-off rate for all events up to the 1 in 100 year storm E. I 1. H.. Iago; 1. I H J I I 1. .1] Objective F. Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Policy F1 Development proposals that reduce a sense of openness and separation between Bridge and Canterbury will not be permitted to ensure that the individual identity of these two settlements is retained. Policy F2 Additional development outside the village as defined in (Map 1?) will only be supported where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated. Policy F3 Developments that detract from the following views into, out of, and within the Village will not be supported. Policy F4 Applications for additional external lighting within the Conservation Area will be refused if they would increase light pollution within the village and / or adversely affect their surroundings. The Neighbourhood Plan supports measures to reduce light pollution and promote the visibility and clarity of the night sky. Objective G. Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment Policy G1 To respect the existing village charm and character in terms of scale, style and setting of new developments as defined in the Village Design Statement. 10 Draft Minutes of a Neighbourhood Planning Advisory Committee meeting with planners from Canterbury City Council held on Monday 15 July at 2.00 p.m. in 1. the Military Rd offices. Present: Cllr Alan Atkinson, Jim Boot, Philip Wicker (notetaker) Karen Britton (Planning Policy and Heritage Manager CCC) and Lisa Gadd (Senior Planning Officer CCC) The meeting focussed on editing the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Lisa and Karen provided a host of useful comments which are to be added to the plan in time for its submission to the Parish Council for the February 8 meeting. Other actions agreed: CCC will report back to Bridge Parish Council as soon as possible about the licensing of maps and whether or not the licenses held by Canterbury City Council can be used to cover the maps included in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. A discussionabout regulation 14 and 15 procedures was carried out with timescales also considered. Once the amendments suggested at this meeting have been incorporated, the draft plan will be sent to AECOM for its enironmental assessment. Cllr Atkinson outlined the additions which still need to be made to the plan, especially those referring to local green space. Cllr Atkinson was advised to show the draft plan now to both Southern Water and the Environment Agency for their initial comments about sewerage and flooding issues, in case they have any concerns CCC fed back comments on how to improve the proposed consultation form drawn up by Mr Boot and shared this at the meeting. These comments refer to how respondents can show degrees of support for proposals and the requirements of the new data protection law. It was discussed that the likely anticipated timescale for Examination and Referendum is potentially Autumn/Vlfinter 2018, once all of the statutory processes are completed and an Inspector appointed. It was agreed that the proposed NPC meeting in Bridge scheduled for 22 Janary would no longer be necessary and should eb cancelled. BRIDGE PARISH COUNCIL Notice is given that the Draft Neighbourhood Plan for Bridge is being consulted on from February 26 until 16 April 2018. Copies of the plan can be accessed: 0 By post. Write to the Clerk 47 High St Bridge Ct4 5JZ 0 On|ine—fo||ow the links on www.bridgevi||age.org.uk/nhp 0 Visiting businesses in the High St which show they have a copy. Public responses to this Regulation 14 consultation to be received by 16 April 2018 can be sent by post to the parish office at 47 High St Bridge CT4 5JZ or online via www.bridgevi||age.org.uk/nhp Public consultation events in Bridge Village Hall Sunday 18 March 2- 5 p.m. + Saturday 7 April 5-8 p.m. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft Response Form Parish Gnu noil Caring for the village N umber of responses: 50 Online 18 36.0% Paper 32 64.0% Part 1: About the consultation draft plan Q1 Do you agree with the Draft Neighbourhood Plan Vision? ‘By 2033 Bridge will be a sustainable, identifiable village community that values its open space and separation from Canterbury. It will have developed local services and transport links that provide residents with a strong safe community identity. The historic fabric of the Village will be preserved.’ Strongly agree 30 60.0% Agree 14 28.0% Neither agree/disagree 2 4.0% Disagree 4 8.0% Strongly disagree — — Q2 If you disagree with any part of the Vision, what do you wish to see changed? A limit to the number of ‘good quality‘ homes. Agree but objective unlikely to be achieved. Disagree with the use of photo on page 11. Seems to imply potential further development. F3 View 4 — View from Pheasants Croft has been added to protected view and was not there at public consultation. Please omit this from Policy F3. NB Councillor's private view!! I agree with the statement in principle but am concerned that in reality more building will lead us to become closer to Canterbury and subsequently less defined as a village. Should read: By 2033 Bridge will have continued to be... As it stands, the sentence implies that at present the village is none ofthese things. Q3 The Housing policy. No development should be permitted on greenfield land. Bridge is a village and at high risk of being joined to Canterbury. It will lose its special character/distinctiveness if it is allowed to spawl. Neighbourhood planning is a cynical Government wheeze to enable development to go ahead in places where development ought not to be permitted. Apart from the serious sewerage capacity issues which have been swept under the carpet by the EA and Southern Water (by way of the arguably unlawful Infiltration Reduction Plan which allows sewage pollution to be pumped into the Nailbourne, should that measure be necessary). This is a policy that is in breach ofthe Environmental Permitting Regs 2010. The vision is a statement of where we are now. It is not aspirational, inspiring or challenging. The vision is a statement of where we are now. It is not aspirational, inspiring or challenging. The vision is a statement of where we are now. It is not aspirational, inspiring or challenging. The Neighbourhood Plan is constructed around seven objectives. Do you agree with the Draft Neighbourhood Plan Objectives (please respond for each objective)? i) To build a strong, competitive economy and ensure the vitality of the village centre; Strongly agree 24 48.0% Agree 22 44.0% Neither agree/disagree 3 6.0% Disagree 1 2.0% Strongly disagree — — ii) To promote sustainable transport; Strongly agree 32 64.0% Agree 18 36.0% Neither agree/disagree — — Disagree — — Strongly disagree — — iii) To deliver a choice of high quality homes with good design Strongly agree 16 32.0% Agree 18 36.0% Neither agree/disagree 1 2.0% Disagree 10 20.0% Strongly disagree 5 10.0% iv) To promote a healthy community; Strongly agree 35 70.0% Agree 13 26.0% Neither agree/disagree 1 2.0% Disagree — — Strongly disagree 1 2.0% v) To meet the challenges of climate change and flooding; Strongly agree 39 78.0% Agree 11 22.0% Neither agree/disagree — — Disagree — — Strongly disagree — — vi) To conserve and enhance the natural environment; Strongly agree 42 84.0% Agree 8 16.0% Neither agree/disagree — — Disagree — — Strongly disagree — — Q4 vii) To conserve and enhance the historic environment. Strongly agree 39 78.0% Agree 11 22.0% Neither agree/disagree — — Disagree — — Strongly disagree — — If you disagree with any of the objectives, what do you wish to see changed (please state which number ie iii)? (iii) With space for new housing being limited would a policy of providing housing for elderly singles, many of whom occupy their fami|y—sized homes but would like to stay in Bridge, quitting larger accommodation for newer families. You can see how bungalows in this village do not need an estate agents efforts — folk line up when a bungalow owner is taken ill or on the Church prayer list! Can't disagree with the above statements — but seem to be hopes and aspirations — how are these objectives to be reached? Deliver in iii) implies to build further houses within the village and I do not feel this is necessary with such large developments within a short distance already planned. iii) works against the other objectives which are more important to me. I do not believe further homes are required. I don't want more houses i) There is no evidence that adding more houses will sustain the shops. iii) There is no need to build any houses in the AONB — let's keep what we have. iii) Do not see the need for new homes except for Corralls Yard, Mill Centre and Clives Garage. Mill Centre should be removed and business transferred to new village hall. iii) If ‘deliver’ means ‘build’ then I strongly disagree. I would like ‘deliver’ to be changed to ‘maintain’ or ‘preserve’. It is important to limit the conversion of small houses into big houses by extension eg bungalows converting to 4 bed houses. Maintain a mix of residents of different types and sizes to meet different housing needs. iii) It is not for the NP to deliver choice, but to ensure good high quality design. iii) It is not for the NP to deliver choice, but to ensure good high quality design. iii) It is not for the NP to deliver choice, but to ensure good high quality design. iii) Most ofthe village is classed as an AONB on which homes should not be built. Q5 Q6 Point iii) should include ??? ??? a range of homes at different prices/something about affordable housing. Remove iii re housing for the reasons set out above. The building of high quality large homes will make them unaffordable for the younger people who in my mind is who we are trying to attract. Also the children who have grown up in Bridge will be unable to afford them. We have sufficient large 4 bed houses. There is also a shortage of the smaller homes for people who want to downsize. There is no need for building in Bridge. With 4,000 new homes planned to the north ofthe village, we should retain a village identity. We should maintain a choice of high quality homes. We have this already. We do NOT need to build more — 4,000 between Canterbury and us is enough. What happened to safe, secure, environment and happiness? Without disagreeing with iii) per se, the definition of ‘high quality‘ needs careful consideration. Important to stress that the village needs smaller homes, including bungalows, notjust more 'executive' housing. Do you agree with Policy A1 aimed at preventing the loss of existing businesses? Strongly agree 17 34.0% Agree 29 58.0% Neither agree/disagree 3 6.0% Disagree 1 2.0% Strongly disagree — — Do you agree with Policy A2 supporting new B1 businesses in the existing built up area? Strongly agree 14 28.0% Agree 22 44.0% Neither agree/disagree 10 20.0% Disagree 4 8.0% Strongly disagree — — Q7 Q8 Do you agree with Policy A3 to convert redundant farm buildings at Great Pett Farm to B1 businesses to provide local work opportunities? Strongly agree 14 28.0% Agree 22 44.0% Neither agree/disagree 7 14.0% Disagree 4 8.0% Strongly disagree 3 6.0% If you disagree with Policies A1, A2 or A3, what do you wish to see changed (please state the policy number ie A2)? (A2) There are bats, barn owls and nightingales that can be seen/heard in the vicinity. Their habitat would be disrupted with any proposed alteration to existing buildings. 6. Bridge is already congested with traffic and difficult parking. The development of ‘business’ or ‘mixed’ properties within established residential areas would exacerbate these problems to the detriment of existing residents. 6. Policy A2 — Do not support non—retai| businesses — it is moving towards Bridge being a twilight zone of Canterbury, as Wincheap and Sturry are. 7. Policy A3 — Question — how many local people work at Highland Court Farm Industrial Park? No guarantees for local workers. Any development here threatens the Green Gap between Bridge and Canterbury. A2 — new businesses could compensate for lost concerns — eg ironmonger, greengrocer. A3 — provided this does not include heavy vehicles. A2) There are business parks around Canterbury. We do not need more in Bridge. A2) Leave it rural! A3 Any development of G P Farm should involve an upgrade of existing road A3 Any development of G P Farm should involve an upgrade of existing road A3 Any development of G P Farm should involve an upgrade of existing road Farming should be encouraged. If buildings are converted it would lead to expansion and possible pollution. Drainage is virtually non—existent in the dip. Road traffic would be increased. A3. Great Pett Farm should not be developed so that it can no longer function as a farm. No building at Great Pett Farm. We are a beautiful village in an AONB — let's preserve this for future generations. Q9 Q10 Q11 Re Policies A2 and A3. I would probably agree provided that any such undertaking be tastefully designed and in keeping with existing environmental features. Why not keep a village atmosphere rather than turn Bridge into a town or suburb? Do you agree with Policy B1 that new developments must integrate with and take opportunities to expand the local cycle network? Strongly agree 28 56.0% Agree 16 32.0% Neither agree/disagree 6 12.0% Disagree — — Strongly disagree — — Do you agree with Policy B2 requiring adequate off-street parking in new developments and refusing permission to developments that can't provide it? Strongly agree 31 62.0% Agree 14 28.0% Neither agree/disagree 1 2.0% Disagree 1 2.0% Strongly disagree 1 2.0% No reply 2 4.0% If you disagree with Policies B1 or B2 what do you wish to see changed (please state the policy number ie B2)? 10. Policy B2 — is missing from the online Local Plan document! — Can't comment, but parking is an issue for the village. However, a car park could encourage park and ride behaviour — especially mum's dropping at school and workers commuting into Canterbury. B1 — extension of safe cycle tracks could be beneficial in reducing use of cars and pollution. B1 — It must be remembered that not everyone has a car! Some walk or cycle or use a bus. B2—Car free housing/development on brownfield site or redevelopment of existing properties to being car free should be encouraged. Q12 Q13 I cannot see that expanding local cycle networks will be used for more than leisure activities. One realises that part of the thinking is to encourage cycling for better air quality, but the car will always win! Perhaps more should be done for electric engines/vehicles as being relatively less harmful. It may be too restrictive to absolutely refuse permission to potential developments which do not provide parking: some current developments have not provided parking and may be delivering less general benefit than potential future projects. Policy B2 has not been made available for some reason. How can I comment? Do you agree with Policy C1 that all new development must comply with the design codes set out in the Bridge Village Design Statement? Strongly agree 32 64.0% Agree 10 20.0% Neither agree/disagree 7 14.0% Disagree — — Strongly disagree — — No reply 1 2.0% Do you agree with Policy C2 aimed at assessing the flood risk caused by any new development? Strongly agree 39 78.0% Agree 6 12.0% Neither agree/disagree 3 6.0% Disagree 1 2.0% Strongly disagree — — No reply 1 2.0% Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Do you agree Policy C3 to build up to 40 houses on the site between the recreation ground and A2 to include an element of affordable housing for people with a Bridge connection? Strongly agree 16 32.0% Agree 15 30.0% Neither agree/disagree 5 10.0% Disagree 2 4.0% Strongly disagree 12 24.0% Do you agree Policy C4 to support development proposals on brownfield sites and refuse permission on greenfield sites unless brownfield alternatives have been explored? Such a development would need to benefit the village as a whole. Strongly agree 32 64.0% Agree 14 28.0% Neither agree/disagree 1 2.0% Disagree 1 2.0% Strongly disagree 2 4.0% Do you agree with Policy C5 that no development should take place unless an independent archaeological investigation and measures to record and preserve important finds put in place? Strongly agree 22 44.0% Agree 18 36.0% Neither agree/disagree 6 12.0% Disagree 3 6.0% Strongly disagree 1 2.0% If you disagree with Policies C1, C2, C3, C4 or C5 what do you wish to see changed (please state policy number)? #12 No one should have to live next to the A2 as this is against the ideal of Bridge community 4 iii) and 15 refer C2—I disagree that this policy can adequately deal with the sewerage incapacity issues that ultimately causes the flooding. C3—I object to any housing on a greenfield site. C4—Po|icy needs to be redrafted to be only policy on housing as long as sewerage capacity issues can be addressed. C3 — I agree there should be houses built in this site — but 40 seems excessive and no mention of how many affordable houses! C3 — provided there is a significant proportion of affordable housing. C3) There is no need to build houses in our AONB. 40 houses is just the start. Once the infrastructure is in place the site adjacent will be developed and also on until the whole fie|d(s) is covered in 20 years time! CCC will regard Bridge as a perpetual option for new build once the first development is approved. C4 — Potential for back door development. C3 — Not necessary. Cantley bribe. C5 — leave to CCC Planners. C5 Should be subject to proviso if recommended by CCC designated officer. C3 There is sufficient allocated housing in recently adopted local plan without further allocations required in the village. Housing is being provided only to secure the recreation ground. C5 Should be subject to proviso if recommended by CCC designated officer. C3 There is sufficient allocated housing in recently adopted local plan without further allocations required in the village. Housing is being provided only to secure the recreation ground. C5 Should be subject to proviso if recommended by CCC designated officer. C3 There is sufficient allocated housing in recently adopted local plan without further allocations required in the village. Housing is being provided only to secure the recreation ground. Has Policy C3 considered the possibility of a need to extend to CP school again? Do we, or will we, have sufficient infrastructure to satisfy an increase in population — whatever the nature ofthat incoming population? I find questions 12-14 difficult to answer as they are assuming that you agree with building in the village. Of course is developments do go ahead then I expect all houses to meet those requirements mentioned in q12—14 but I feel there should be another option to tick if you are opposed to building new developments. If one were to count 40 homes on Bridge Down, it would become clear that the space next to the by—pass on Patrixbourne Road is too small — do you want to create a slum of the future when properties are juxtaposed so closely, one wonders. No building in Bridge, but if absolutely essential then I accept the site between the Recreation Ground and A2 is the best site in Bridge; it represents infill and does not extend the built confines of the village as significantly as other earlier proposals like the Brickfields site and site north of Conyngham Lane would. Q18 Not a good site — noise from the by—pass. Since affordable houses are what are needed why only ‘an element‘ ofthese? Not a good idea to reserve any houses built for ‘those with a connection to Bridge. How is it possible to prioritise in this way? Such buyers will know early on that houses are coming up for sale and will be in a position to head the queue ifthere is one. Policy C3 — Do not support the building of 40 extra houses in Bridge. BUT if necessary this site is a good site. ANY development should include affordable housing. Policy C3: I would like this Policy C3 to be removed from the plan! I do not support the development of houses on this Greenfield site which is outside the envelope of the village and is irresponsibly situated next to and at same level as a major highway, 4,000 new homes within 2 miles — no more houses needed in Bridge! Policy C4 should include the prevention of garden grabbing (p21) by specifically excluding gardens from brownfield site designation. Re 14 Policy C3. I do not believe it is necessary to have 40 houses built on AONB land. The reasons given for including this development are in error as there are other ways of preserving the recreation ground for the village that have not been explored. This is seen as the thin end of the wedge once Cantley land value is increased ifthis went ahead. Re: 12 — Building here is directly in contravention of 3(iv)(v) and (vi). No one should have to live so close to A2. This is important green space. More allotments here and build on allotment site! Policy No C3. We would not build on any greenfield site — so we should remove the idea of building 40 houses on recreation site. Use A1 brownfield sites. What about environment impact assessments? Do you agree with Policy D1 aimed at avoiding the loss of community services and facilities? Strongly agree 26 52.0% Agree 22 44.0% Neither agree/disagree 1 2.0% Disagree — — Strongly disagree 1 2.0% Q19 Q20 Q21 Do you agree with Policy D2 to retain and enhance Public Rights of Way and Important Local Green Spaces? Strongly agree 39 78.0% Agree 10 20.0% Neither agree/disagree — — Disagree — — Strongly disagree — — No reply 1 2.0% Do you agree with Policy E1 requiring all development proposals to make provision for surface water management to avoid flooding? Strongly agree 41 82.0% Agree 7 14.0% Neither agree/disagree — — Disagree 1 2.0% Strongly disagree — — No reply 1 2.0% If you disagree with D1, D2 or E1 what do you wish to see changed (please state policy number)? 18. Policy D1 — This leaves the village too open to the development of a hospital on the site of the Medical Practice! The policy should be changed to disallow expansion of current facilities beyond services currently provided. D1 : this should not be allowed to prevent the upgrade of facilities : there would have to be a mechanism for the weighing up of an overall net benefit for the Village idea. E1—must include sewerage capacity. We cannot rely on the EA to do the job properly. They have been ordered by Government to ‘not regulate‘ and have so little staff that they can not do their jobs properly anyway. I agree BUT this does NOT include increasing and developing community services beyond what the village needs. Policy D1 and the management of how this is done is very important. If proper negotiating is not conducted it could be used to drive up the value of Cantley land Q22 Q23 Q24 and allow them to sell for further development throughout all green areas. This must not be used as an excuse for poor management. RE Recreational Space — Any housing may well involve replanning of Rec Space. Current area may need to move, but overall should not decrease. Quality ie level field would help. Do you agree with Policy F1 to maintain the ‘green gap’ between Canterbury and Bridge? Strongly agree 43 86.0% Agree 4 8.0% Neither agree/disagree 2 4.0% Disagree 1 2.0% Strongly disagree — — Do you agree with Policy F2 that additional development not identified in the plan will only be supported where sustainable significant overall benefit to the village or exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated? Strongly agree 25 50.0% Agree 11 22.0% Neither agree/disagree 4 8.0% Disagree 4 8.0% Strongly disagree 5 10.0% No reply 1 2.0% Do you agree with Policy F3 to protect important views into and out of the village? Strongly agree 28 56.0% Agree 17 34.0% Neither agree/disagree 3 6.0% Disagree — — Strongly disagree 1 2.0% No reply 1 2.0% Q25 Q26 Q27 Do you agree with Policy F4 to reduce light pollution and promote the visibility and clarity of the night sky? Strongly agree 30 60.0% Agree 14 28.0% Neither agree/disagree 3 6.0% Disagree — — Strongly disagree — — No reply 3 6.0% Do you agree with Policy G1 that new development should respect the village charm and character in terms of scale, style and setting of new developments as set out in the Village Design Statement? Strongly agree 35 70.0% Agree 9 18.0% Neither agree/disagree 3 6.0% Disagree 1 2.0% Strongly disagree — — No reply 2 4.0% If you disagree with F1, F2, F3, F4 or G1 what do you wish to see changed (please state policy number)? 23. Currently the Recreation Ground is being used as an exceptional circumstance, next will be how we fund the village amenities planned and so on. People who own land want to make money out of it so the result of working with them needs to be considered. More building, more money — this motivates! As 21 — Green space for Rec Ground may be best retained by moving it to allow for better access if roads are re—p|anned for any housing. Ref F3 — re views — NOT VIEW 4. F1 — Council to maintain character and identity of the village. F4 — Provided consistent with safety. F1—conflicts with policy C3. C3 needs to be removed and policy F1 to be effective needs to be reworded . F2—On|y brownfield sites should be permitted if sewerage capacity permits. G1—As above F2 — sole support of Cantley proposal is commercially rash at this stage. Must be conditional on good result of negotiations — village hall and parking. F2 No additional development. F2. This is far too general and subjective. It provides an easy way for developers to build where they want. F3 Yes subject to definition of important views. F1 The strategic green gap should be clearly identified by a map or plan F3 Yes subject to definition of important views. F1 The strategic green gap should be clearly identified by a map or plan F3 Yes subject to definition of important views. F1 The strategic green gap should be clearly identified by a map or plan F4 — Bright lights can be a problem — but it has to be remembered that older people and anyone with eye problems need to be able to walk safely around the village — otherwise they stay indoors! I would agree with this policy IF it did not include the development of 40 houses on the recreation site. I would like to comment that without the ‘green gap’ maintained then the introductory paragraph regarding the aim ofthe plan would lose it's meaning. To be an identifiable village and to preserve the community we need to ensure we do not become a suburb of Canterbury. It is important for the village to remain a ‘village’ and therefor to ensure the ‘green gap’ is maintained. Ideas of Views and Charm may be difficult to sustain. If you allow 23 there will always be a '|et—out' for additional building outside NP. If you allow 23, this encourages further undesirable growth within the village Policy F2 — I do NOT support the development in Appendix F and would like this statement to be removed from this policy! Policy F3 has been amended post public consultation to include the view from Councillor Atkinson's own home (Pheasants Croft)!! This is the Chairman's private view and was not voted on by the public. Why should this view (No 4) following Policy F3 suddenly appear in the latest draft of the NP?? Q28 The Plan contains a small number of Projects aimed at improving the parish. If you disagree with any Projects in the Draft Neighbourhood Plan, please state the Project number eg B3 and what you wish to see changed (please give a response for each policy you disagree with): Agree with all projects. All those currently included at the Reading Room and Mill Centre. Bl Monitoring equipment cost not stated — probably a waste of money. B2 Disagree with this. B2 — Not necessary for a village. Delivery vehicles are often ‘chill or frozen‘ food. This is more for towns and cities. C3. I do not agree with this 'project'. This has enormous implications for the village and we should not be seen to be supporting it. Such properties will be so close to the A2 that our aim for a ‘healthy‘ community will have to be shelved. Cantley proposals. Section 7. Section 5.2 ‘significant negative impact‘ — I could not agree more! C3. I do not support the limited housing development and this Policy C3 should be removed. There is sufficient housing being built in the local area and there is no reason to build within AONB in the village. The other reasons this policy has been driven into the plan are solvable through different routes. F2. This need to be reworded, as it currently implies that all a developer needs to do is provide a bit of orchard or something and they can build houses. Is developments the intended word here? I would just like to add my positive comments regarding new safe cycle routes for the schools for children. I would also like if possible a cycle route to Canterbury as many people work in Canterbury and that may encourage people to cycle and not use their car. The only policies I disagree with is the building which I have already mentioned. N/a as have already answered. On the whole the planners have done an excellent job here, and should continue to limit any excess new building, keeping the interference by outside agencies well at bay — thinking of the Highland Court proposals on Bridge‘s doorstep! See comment under question 8. This sounds like making Bridge part of Canterbury. Not needed in a village with no queueing traffic. Q29 If a new village hall were to be constructed, what facilities and/or activities would you like to see included? (1) Should include a plot of land at least of that at Lower Hardres Village Hall. (2) Village hall building of minimum size as Petham. (3) Indoor sports facilities essential. (4) Large parking area — min 60 cars. 1. Choir (singing for health). 2. Exercise group (over 65 for healthy ageing). A good kitchen — adequate car parking. A large room stage for drama productions/musical events/mobile film shows. A suite of clubrooms for Village clubs and societies to be able to hire. A large room with at least some bar and kitchen facility space available to serve as a function room. An office space for the Parish Clerk. It should sit on land owned by the Village. A small meeting room. A kitchen/hall integrated area that could be used for coffee mornings or meetings. An outdoor play/sports area. Parking. Activities are at present fine — plus possibly increased use for catering events. Sport eg table tennis, conferences/study days, concerts (if acoustics satisfactory). Improved kitchen advisable. Parking essential. All ofthe existing facilities of both the existing Village Hall and the Mill Centre. As replied to 4iii. If substantial development is permitted with the increase in population, where will this end. If the South Canterbury development goes ahead, there will be no need for more housing. Ifthere is a call for local people to be housed, they will only need to walk up Town Hill and they will be a stones throw from the village! Houses a plenty! Badminton courts and squash courts would be ideal Badminton courts. Good wifi. Inside/outside flow with terraced/grass access plus seating/tables. Bar/kitchen/food preparation. Attractive design would encourage use as community hub and lettings. Car park. Large enough to show films. Large enough for games storage for eg games — badminton, table tennis etc, games — table games, organisation already in the village. Stage for local productions. Good, spacious kitchen facilities. Children nursery space ie for Bridge Village Playgroup. Sports facilities ie badminton etc. Meeting room space for village clubs. Co—working office space. Do not want to see new village hall on greenfield site. Flexible, well sound proofed ‘spaces’ — meeting rooms/possibility of large venue. Good kitchen facilities. Sound proofing on the interior (the Barker White Hall is so noisy). Good car parking and access. Hall tall enough for badminton court. Stage. Kitchen. Meeting room. Screens and projectors. Heating. Substantial car parking. How is this potential new village hall going to be funded? I strongly oppose the 'deal' that is being done with the 40 houses for a space for a hall. The village has a village hall in the heart ofthe village — central, convenient for all villagers. I do not have strong feelings about this. It would seem a good idea to have a stage and facilities for badminton, table tennis etc. The current village hall has adequate facilities for meetings, art gallery, private parties etc. Parking would be even more necessary if a new hall were built the other side of the school. I am happy with the current hall as I live so near. Also I am of advanced years so don't have need for anything different! The opinion of younger people must be given priority. I have no strong feelings. What it provides at the moment seems to suit most elderly folk! I think this is secondary not difficult. The much bigger question is how we would get the Elm needed to build anything especially given we are already collecting for the Mill Centre. Even car parking construction will be expensive. If a village hall were found to be necessary to replace the current facility it should be a centre for the community and used for various purposes throughout the day. IF is a very big word. There is no signs of funding for this. Important that any new village hall should be a general use building including features such as catering facilities and design to allow indoor activities such as badminton. Consideration might be given to incorporating the Mill Centre users. Car parking is essential. Lower Hardres Hall is a good working model. Kitchen for children's parties, coffee mornings, events Display equipment for the showing of films etc for the different societies Ability for exercise classes in the hall Parking. A good kitchen. Markings for badminton. Table tennis table. Basket and net ball. Parking. Good sound proofing. Sprung floor for sport/dance. No access passed school (health and safety). Activities: badminton, yoga, keep fit. Green planting around the hall. Stage and stage lighting. Car parking. Good access road. Badminton. Indoor bowls. Committee Room. French doors from main hall leading to open space for leisure authorities. stage for major performance café/bar facilities and good sized kitchen meeting rooms and village office versatility Parking Stage, spacious well equipped kitchen Sufficient parking. The main issue for a new village hall would be provision of adequate parking. Q30 The village now possesses a considerable archive of documents and other materials, which is currently housed on its behalf in two private houses in the village. This is in the long (or even medium) term unsustainable. A new village hall would be the ideal place to store the stuff securely, in a dedicated room, or perhaps shared with the office of the village clerk, if that were agreeable. The room would need at least upwards of 25 feet of shelving for standard ring binders/boxes, a tall lockable cupboard to accommodate the 100+ exhibition boards, ca 3ft*4ft (?size A0), a sturdy table large enough to hold a microfilm reader (with access to a power source), and additional workspace, and a chair. Any further documents held by the clerk There should be sufficient space for a meeting of 100 people. There should be space for two meeting rooms for 20 people. There should be a kitchen, two toilets and a small workshop area. Use for p|aygroup(s)/toddler group(s); indoor sports; meetings — sma||—medium/large; plays — ?stage; small/medium group activities (yoga/fitness/gym/art classes etc); boy scout etc groups; opportunities for private hire for e.g. parties — possibility of transferring activities currently in the Mill Centre between village hall and pavilion — Will the pavilion still be available? Workable technology for sound — sharing films etc. Lots of storage space for chairs. Kitchen where three or four people can work comfortably. Parking. Have you any other comments about the Draft Neighbourhood Plan? (1) I strongly support Bridge being maintained as a village and not become a suburb or twilight zone to Canterbury. The building of 4,000 houses in South Canterbury poses a big threat to this and the Neighbourhood Plans should more strongly preserve the ‘village’ identity of Bridge. (2) A village does not need to be self- sufficient in terms of employment and I believe that any encouragement of business and commercial enterprises beyond shops etc will threaten the village community feel and only exacerbate the problems of parking, overcrowding etc. (3) There is no need to build any more housing in the village in the light ofthe 4,000 houses in South Canterbury. We should be working to preserve any green space! (1) There are areas very close to the village that don't seem to be part of Bridge parish, even though it would seem more appropriate that they would come under Bridge rather than Patrixbourne or other neighbouring parishes (eg the business park behind Bridge Down, Highland Court etc). Is there any possibility of getting some of these areas transferred to Bridge? (2) Even if suggestion 1 is not possible, new development or changes in activity in these adjacent areas are likely to impact on the lives of Bridge residents through increased traffic or noise or pollution or may be some positive benefits for employment/housing etc. So even if Bridge parish has no jurisdiction, I think that the parish should bring to Bridge residents attention changes that are being planned in the immediate neighbourhood, canvass village opinion and then make the appropriate representations to the neighbouring parishes and Canterbury council. (3) It is stated that bus routes are good but is that really the case? There can belong gaps at certain times of day and some buses can be very late. It might be worth checking opinion and finding out what proportion of residents who work or go to school in Canterbury (and vice versa) use the bus. There is no bus to Canterbury West. Perhaps we could do with more buses just between Bridge and all parts of Canterbury. (4) It does seem important to try to reduce numbers of cars coming in and out of Bridge each day on the school run. In US all children go to school via bus. Could that be a possibility here to be worked on with the city council? Could there be really strong incentives for Bridge school to monitor the number of children coming in each day by bus and to try to reduce this by 50% or more. Could it be suggested that the school have a no car day or a day when no car comes into the Bridge with just one child in it? (5) A cycle route to Canterbury is an important need, but even if delivered I think that only a minority of residents will make use of it. It is not fun or even safe cycling in strong winds or rain, so is there any possibility of a covered way. The hills may defeat other residents. Electric bicycles could be an answer but seem to be very expensive. Could the council investigate schemes for hiring or borrowing electric bicycles for residents to try. Could the council even afford a pool of bicycles that could be booked by residents? 1. Local children to attend Bridge School. 2. Allotments. 3. Parking spaces — school. 4. Speed limit 20mph (this does pose a problem, with no space ie Rogers garage) whereby cars moving at 20mph between junction of Western Avenue and the chemist, enable another car coming down Town Hill to hold the traffic up. A passing bay is essential. A lot of work! Well done. Great village — why change it!! Am really pleased to see that this plan recognises the importance of retaining a ‘green bap‘ between Bridge village and Canterbury. Am really concerned to have seen how the Neighbourhood Plan ‘committee’ has evolved, with important decisions concerning all villagers being taken by a minority. An excellent, well researched and detailed plan which I am in full support of. F3 — View 4. Why should BPC Chairman be able to specifically protect his own view/outlook. Delete please or offer privilege to all. F2 — Must ensure maximum benefit from Cantley deal, it will not come again! Having lived here for 26 years it is still a great place to live. In fact if you read ‘the vision‘ I that we are already there! For me it is more about preserving what we have which is in many ways quite unique. None of us can predict the impact of Mountfield or potential HICO but we are seriously threatened from the north and the south so let's not exacerbate the situation by building on areas that are at least in our control. I am happy with the overall idea ofthe plan — not changing it too much but most people come to Bridge because it is a village. Why try to make it more like a town? Also we do not need extra housing built on greenfield sites — if we maintain the current mix of housing and business people will be happy. We certainly should not be manoeuvred or blackmailed into accepting a 'deal' for a patch of land where we could build a village hall IF money was available. 4,000 houses being built between Bridge and Canterbury is quite enough. I know that much care, thought and consultation has gone into the production of this document. This is evident in the content, organisation and presentation Many thanks to those who have worked on it. I think it is a waste of public money. The majority of villagers do not want to see more development in Bridge. Neighbourhood planning is another Government wheeze to get round building in the countryside. It is a very well thought out document which has taken many hours and I hope it will be well used. It's unrealistic to expect all these proposals will work out — but it's good to aim high. A great deal of work carried out by the Neighbourhood Plan Committee Members so thank you to them all. NB The very nature of the questionnaire (ie electronic format) gives little room for anyone's precise reaction to the questions. Many of the projects are not bold enough. Weasels words such as to work towards are used too often. A project should have a clear aim. e.g. B2 should read To get a 20 mph speed limit throughout the village not work towards it. Project success or failure should be judged on the desired outcome, not on the valiant attempts to get there. Another example: B5 should read To alleviate parking difficulties within the village My overriding concern is that the Parish Council ensure that we retain Bridge as a village, separated from Canterbury by the green gap and also by not over developing it. If the village grows too large, it will no longer be a village. Any proposed developments ifthey do go ahead should be aimed at the younger people of Bridge or smaller houses for down sizing. Many people wish to remain in Bridge after their children have left but struggle to find a smaller home within the vacillate to move to. This would in turn also free up the larger houses) as opposed to building the 4/5 bedroom house. Thank you for your work on this. No. On paper it all sounds feasible. Only time will tell! Retention or extension of recreation ground is essential. Strongly back Cant|ey's proposals. If few replies received in respect ofthis we will not be surprised as not that many people look at website or are even computerised and this should have been better publicised with leaflets through letter boxes. This reply should count for the two of us. Provision should specifically have been made to count spouses and partners in agreement with each other so that two separate forms should not be necessary. Thank you to those involved for their efforts in compiling this comprehensive set of documents. The comment Employers should be encouraged to find their staff alternative parking away from the High Street (page 10 Neighbourhood Plan). Bridge village has become a 'free' park and ride for south Canterbury. Car owners (drivers), who do not live in the village, park on Town Hill and take the bus into Canterbury. More double yellow lines? The current lease position on the recreation ground is untenable. Ifthe plan is to succeed any land provided for the recreation ground, village hall and parking needs to be given to the parish council free of any leasehold constraints. Where is the funding for building the village hall, car parks etc? Traffic circulation around the village, including access to the school and to proposed car park and new build needs to be sorted. There are already problems with the traffic with children coming to and going home from school. It also needs to take into account diverted traffic when the A2 is closed, as happened again recently. The Mumsfield Court development on Turner's old field site has been very successful, and perhaps another simi|ar—sized provision could be thought about. It has meant those retiring there have released their property onto the market for new families to become residents ofthe village. That in turn keeps the school in business. One concern emerging is the closure of the limited postal facility at Londis Store. That was a stop gap measure after the Post Office/Royal Mail facility was removed from the village. Banking facilities locally are important by reducing the need of residents to travel by car into Canterbury. The Neighbourhood Plan is a thoughtful and comprehensive document which has taken much work to produce and forms an enlightened and realistic blueprint for the village and this is much appreciated and much congratulation is due. The Neighbourhood Plan must reflect the majority of the villagers‘ wishes, ie to retain the identity of our village by maintaining the Green Gap between Bridge and South Canterbury. We are a village in an AONB and must protect this for future generations. The plan is very impressive, adhering well to the principles of the Localism Act. The reasons the Parish Council cited for inclusion of the Policy C3 was that Cantley would not renew the lease for the Recreation Ground if we did not allow them the facility to build on their land. This land is currently agricultural and the building significantly raises the value of all their land. This is a Cantley stated business objective. There are other ways to approach the Recreation Ground lease without appeasing the requirements of Cantley to increase their land value. My strong believe is once this first step is taken they will be able to apply for further planning and it will be more easily granted as we have already compromised on C3. This village is in need ofjust two things, a hall and a car park. Ifthis means more homes, then so be it. But not on the green belt. If beside school, all the better, saving the children from walking too far! Traffic/parking management - enforcement is essential. Would of course complement the collection. Ifthe village has any interest at all in these materials, collected over a number of years, it will recognise that this need is getting more urgent by the day! If you agree for Bridge Parish Council to send you further information about the Neighbourhood Plan, please tick this box (Information supplied in Excel spreadsheet) Q33 Are you (please tick all that apply): A resident 49 98.0% Employed by a local business/organisation 1 2.0% Owner of a local business/organisation 2 4.0% A landowner/agent for a landowner 3 6.0% Other — please state: - - No reply 1 2.0% Q34 What is your age? Under 18 1 2.0% 18-24 3 6.0% 25-34 - - 35-44 4 8.0% 45-54 9 18.0% 55-64 10 20.0% 65-74 4 8.0% 75-84 15 30.0% 85 or over 2 4.0% No reply 2 4.0% Bridge Neighbourhood Plan ana|ysis.doc>< To help the inspector... 26 July 2016: Email from Jim Boot with notes of meeting attached 13 October 2016: Word document from Jim Boot summarises current state of discussions 17 Jan 2017: https://drive.aooa|e.com/drive/folders/1khCi Ou9b67C6ibOtOOis7Wrwx4|9ZP3c 14 March 2017: https://drive.aooa|e.com/drive/folders/1khCi Ou9b67C6ibOtOOis7Wrwx4|9ZP3c 23 May 2017: https://drive.aooa|e.com/drive/folders/1khCi Ou9b67C6ibOtOOis7Wrwx4|9ZP3c 4 October 2017: https://drive.aooa|e.com/drive/folders/1khCi Ou9b67C6ibOtOOis7Wrwx4|9ZP3c 15January 2018: https://driveaooale.com/drive/folders/1khCi Ou9b67C6ibOtOOis7Wrwx4|9ZP3c (has the wrong date—shou|d read January 15 not July 15) 12 June 2018??? INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN EXAMINER: Mary T O'Rourke BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Philip Wicker Clerk to Bridge Parish Council Lisa Gadd Senior Planning Policy Officer Planning Policy & Heritage Canterbury City Council Examination Ref: 01/MOR/BNP 9 October 2018 Dear Mr Wicker and Ms Gadd BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN EXAMINATION Following the submission of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan for examination, I would like to clarify several initial procedural matters. I also have a number of preliminary questions for Bridge Parish Council and Canterbury City Council. 1. Examination Documentation I can confirm that I have received the draft Plan and accompanying documentation, including the Basic Conditions Statement, the Consultation Statement and the Regulation 16 representations. Subject to the necessary clarification being received in answer to my attached questions, it appears that I will have what I need to enable me to undertake the examination. Subject to my detailed assessment of the draft plan, I have not at this initial stage identified any very significant and obvious flaws in the Plan that might lead me to advise that the examination should not proceed. 2. Site Visit I intend to undertake a site visit to the Neighbourhood Plan Area during the week commencing 15 October 2018. This will assist in my assessment of the draft Plan, including the issues identified in the representations. The site visit will be undertaken unaccompanied. It is very important that I am not approached to discuss any aspects of the Plan or the neighbourhood area, as this may be perceived to prejudice my independence and risk compromising the fairness of the examination process. 3. Written Representations At this stage, I consider the examination can be conducted solely by the written representations procedure, without the need for a hearing. However, I will reserve the option to convene a hearing Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 should a matter(s) come to light where I consider that a hearing is necessary to ensure the adequate examination of an issue, or to ensure that a person has a fair chance to put a case. 4. FurtherC|arification I have a number of initial questions seeking further clarification, which I have set out in the Annex to this letter. I would be grateful if you can seek to provide a written response within the next 2 weeks. Examination Timetable As you will be aware, the intention is to examine the Plan (including conduct of the site visit) with a view to providing a draft report (for ’fact checking’) within 4-6 weeks of submission of the draft Plan. As I have raised a number of questions I must provide both Canterbury City Council and Bridge Parish Council with sufficient opportunity to reply. Consequentially, the examination timetable will be extended. Please be assured that I will seek to mitigate any delay as far as is practicable. The IPe office team will seek to keep you updated on the anticipated delivery date of the draft report. If you have any process questions related to the conduct of the examination, which you would like me to address, please do not hesitate to contact the office team in the first instance. In the interests of transparency, may I prevail upon you to ensure a copy of this letter, and any responses to my questions, are placed on the Parish and City Councils’ websites. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Your sincerely Mary O’Rourke Examiner Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 ANNEX Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft June 2018 — Examiner's Preliminary Questions From my initial reading of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan and the supporting evidence I have a number of preliminary questions primarily directed to Bridge Parish Council (BPC), with the exception of question 7 specifically directed to Canterbury City Council. I have requested the submission of responses within two weeks of receipt of this letter but an earlier response would be welcome. 1. When was the decision taken by BPC to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan? 2. On what date was the formal application for designation as a Neighbourhood Plan Area made to Canterbury City Council? 3. Please provide further detail on the work carried out in preparing the Neighbourhood Plan, in addition to the information given in an attachment to the Plan (the page before the Glossary). When was the Plan Committee established? How many members did/does it have? How were they selected? Where can I find details of their meetings, minutes, etc? 4. I have a single bound document entitled the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft June 2018 at the back of which there is, in addition to six appendices A to F, a number of other documents. Page 32 is described as The Consultation Statement, and at page 39 a Basic Conditions Statement. Please clarify those parts of the June 2018 Consultation Draft that are not intended to form part of the Neighbourhood Plan that I am to examine, and which the Parish Council are asking to proceed to referendum and be made. 5. There is a consultation statement attached to the Plan (pages 32 to 38). However, as a simple timeline which finishes at 27 April 2017, it does not give the detail that I would expect to see to be able to be satisfied that consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan has followed a transparent, fair and inclusive process, which has had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance on plan preparation and in procedural compliance with the legal requirements. Please could you direct me to where I can find more detail of the consultation exercises that were carried out during the preparation of the Plan, detail of the responses received, and of the relevant issues identified that have directed the policies and proposals now found in the Plan. 6. Please confirm the dates of the Regulation 14 consultation and where I can find information on any representations made as a result of that consultation and on any response by the Parish Council to those representations, including changes proposed to the Plan and its policies. 7. Can Canterbury City Council please confirm the dates and period of the Regulation 16 consultation. 8. Please provide a plan showing the boundaries of the Conservation Areas in the parish and the dates of the respective designations. 9. Please provide a plan showing that part of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which lies within the parish. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 10. 11. 12. Policy F3 of the Plan seeks to protect seven Important Local Green Spaces which are shown on the map on page 25 of the Plan. Whilst the spaces are numbered on the schedule on page 26, they are not identified by their numbers on the map. Please provide a corrected map showing the spaces by number. Policy F4 of the Plan identifies 6 views to be preserved or enhanced, and these are numbered and their locations described in writing on page 27 of the Plan. There is also a map and photographs on page 28 showing ‘Views towards the village’. However, the views on that map are not numbered and their descriptions do not match with those of views 1 to 6 on page 27. Please clarify this confusion and, if necessary, provide me with an amended map. Policy G1 refers to the Village Design Statement which is appended to the Plan as Appendix A. It would be helpful to have more detail on the status of that Statement, when it was prepared, who by, how it was consulted on, and whether it replaced an earlier document. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN EXAMINER: Mary T O'Rourke BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Philip Wicker Clerk to Bridge Parish Council Lisa Gadd Senior Planning Policy Officer Planning Policy & Heritage Canterbury City Council Examination Ref: 01/MOR/BNP 9 October 2018 Dear Mr Wicker and Ms Gadd BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN EXAMINATION Following the submission of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan for examination, I would like to clarify several initial procedural matters. I also have a number of preliminary questions for Bridge Parish Council and Canterbury City Council. 1. Examination Documentation I can confirm that I have received the draft Plan and accompanying documentation, including the Basic Conditions Statement, the Consultation Statement and the Regulation 16 representations. Subject to the necessary clarification being received in answer to my attached questions, it appears that I will have what I need to enable me to undertake the examination. Subject to my detailed assessment of the draft plan, I have not at this initial stage identified any very significant and obvious flaws in the Plan that might lead me to advise that the examination should not proceed. 2. Site Visit I intend to undertake a site visit to the Neighbourhood Plan Area during the week commencing 15 October 2018. This will assist in my assessment of the draft Plan, including the issues identified in the representations. The site visit will be undertaken unaccompanied. It is very important that I am not approached to discuss any aspects of the Plan or the neighbourhood area, as this may be perceived to prejudice my independence and risk compromising the fairness of the examination process. 3. Written Representations At this stage, I consider the examination can be conducted solely by the written representations procedure, without the need for a hearing. However, I will reserve the option to convene a hearing Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 should a matter(s) come to light where I consider that a hearing is necessary to ensure the adequate examination of an issue, or to ensure that a person has a fair chance to put a case. 4. Further Clarification I have a number of initial questions seeking further clarification, which I have set out in the Annex to this letter. I would be grateful if you can seek to provide a written response within the next 2 weeks. Examination Timetable As you will be aware, the intention is to examine the Plan (including conduct of the site visit) with a view to providing a draft report (for ’fact checking’) within 4-6 weeks of submission of the draft Plan. As I have raised a number of questions I must provide both Canterbury City Council and Bridge Parish Council with sufficient opportunity to reply. Consequentially, the examination timetable will be extended. Please be assured that I will seek to mitigate any delay as far as is practicable. The IPe office team will seek to keep you updated on the anticipated delivery date of the draft report. If you have any process questions related to the conduct of the examination, which you would like me to address, please do not hesitate to contact the office team in the first instance. In the interests of transparency, may I prevail upon you to ensure a copy of this letter, and any responses to my questions, are placed on the Parish and City Councils’ websites. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Your sincerely 91/lary Ofiiourég Examiner Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 ANNEX Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft June 2018 — Examiner's Preliminary Questions From my initial reading of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan and the supporting evidence I have a number of preliminary questions primarily directed to Bridge Parish Council (BPC), with the exception of question 7 specifically directed to Canterbury City Council. I have requested the submission of responses within two weeks of receipt of this letter but an earlier response would be welcome. 1. When was the decision taken by BPC to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan? Minute 109/11-12 dating from the PC meeting held on 12 January 2012 records the start of the process. The first meeting of the NPC was held on 4 April 2012 (BPC minute 143/11-12 refers). 2. On what date was the formal application for designation as a Neighbourhood Plan Area made to Canterbury City Council? Bridge Parish Council Minute 37/12-13 (b) records that formal notification had taken place. (Parish Council meeting dated 12 July 2012). The matter was finally discussed and agreed at the meeting of the Executive of Canterbury City Council on 25 July 2013. 3. Please provide further detail on the work carried out in preparing the Neighbourhood Plan, in addition to the information given in an attachment to the Plan (the page before the Glossary). When was the Plan Committee established? How many members did/does it have? How were they selected? Where can I find details of their meetings, minutes, etc? The Committee: The first meeting of the NPC was held on 4 April 2012 (minute 143/11-12). At that point, there were 4 members. They were all originally parish councillors. Other parish groups were invited to send representatives to join the committee such as the Women's Institute and "Bridge Going Green”. In 2017 the composition and status of the Neighbourhood Plan Committee was revised by the Parish Council. From January 2017 it was announced that the committee would be formally constituted as a sub-committee of the Parish Council with membership of the committee determined by parish councillors annually at their May meeting. Agendas were henceforth published in conformity with the standing orders governing parish council meetings. From 26 May 2017 the parish clerk took responsibility for minuting the meetings and the publication of agendas. Details of NPC meetings: These can be found bv accessing the following website: www.bridgevi||age.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Once here, scroll down to the heading "documents”. Agenda and minutes since 1 January 2017 can be found by clicking the link which is called "NPC Agendas and minutes.” Paper copies are held of minutes of meetings held before 1 January 2017 in the Parish office and are arranged chronologically, going back to 2012. There is also a file on the parish computer which has most of these minutes and agendas as well. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 4. I have a single bound document entitled the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft June 2018 at the back of which there is, in addition to six appendices A to F, a number of other documents. Page 32 is described as The Consultation Statement, and at page 39 a Basic Conditions Statement. Please clarify those parts of the June 2018 Consultation Draft that are not intended to form part of the Neighbourhood Plan that I am to examine, and which the Parish Council are asking to proceed to referendum and be made. It is understood that it is policies rather than projects which are subject to your examination. If this is the case, then all of the following should be examined by you: o the policies, o site allocations / proposals map p.14 o important local greenspaces pp 25-26 o the views of the village p 27 o the Village Design Statement (Page numbers refer to the version of the plan mentioned in answer to questions 10 and 11 below). 5. There is a consultation statement attached to the Plan (pages 32 to 38). However, as a simple timeline which finishes at 27 April 2017, it does not give the detail that I would expect to see to be able to be satisfied that consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan has followed a transparent, fair and inclusive process, which has had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance on plan preparation and in procedural compliance with the legal requirements. Please could you direct me to where I can find more detail of the consultation exercises that were carried out during the preparation of the Plan, detail of the responses received, and of the relevant issues identified that have directed the policies and proposals now found in the Plan. I understand that the Neighbourhood Plan PPG states in paragraph 47: A qualifying body should be inclusive and open in the preparation of its neighbourhood plan or Order and ensure that the wider community: is kept fully informed of what is being proposed is able to make their views known throughout the process has opportunities to be actively involved in shaping the emerging neighbourhood plan or Order 0 is made aware of how their views have informed the draft neighbourhood plan or Order. The document attached entitled Timeline and documentary proof of consultation. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018 is an updated version of the timeline you have mentioned above which brings the process up to date and also contains an extra column showing how consultation brought about changes to the Plan itself. Those rows which are not shaded contain elements of change to the plan as a result of formal consultation or discussion with others. Bridge Parish Council minutes show that from 10 May 2012 until October 2018 the Neighbourhood Plan has been a standing item on the Agenda. Feedback and comments from the floor have been a regular feature of this agenda item. In addition the Annual Parish Meeting (held in April each year) has contained the NP as a standing item since April 2013. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 6. Please confirm the dates of the Regulation 14 consultation and where I can find information on any representations made as a result of that consultation and on any response by the Parish Council to those representations, including changes proposed to the Plan and its policies. The dates of the regulation 14 consultation were February 26 2018- 16 April 2018. The regulation 14 consultation responses document prepared by Canterbury City Council is available here www.bridgevi||age.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Go to "documents” and click on "”NPC Reports & papers.” and then open the file entitled "2018 06" A note on the changes made to the plan as a result can be seen in the document entitled Timeline and documentarv proof of consultation. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018 which is attached. 7. Can Canterbury City Council please confirm the dates and period of the Regulation 16 consultation. 8. Please provide a plan showing the boundaries of the Conservation Areas in the parish and the dates of the respective designations. This can be found on page 8 of the Village Design statement. The following conservation areas were designated in the years shown: 0 Bifrons Park (30.1.91) 0 Bridge ( 19.8.87) 0 Bourne Park (8.11.94) 9. Please provide a plan showing that part of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which lies within the parish. This can be found on p. 5 of the village design statement. The Clerk has a copy also that was included in the adopted Canterbury District Local Plan. 10. Policy F3 of the Plan seeks to protect seven Important Local Green Spaces which are shown on the map on page 25 of the Plan. Whilst the spaces are numbered on the schedule on page 26, they are not identified by their numbers on the map. Please provide a corrected map showing the spaces by number. This has been done. The revised map is currently on the parish computer as part of a document that is too large to be sent by email. Please advise how you would like to access this. I have a fully printed copy of the version as amended after the regulation 16 consultation. Shall I send this to you? 11. Policy F4 of the Plan identifies 6 views to be preserved or enhanced, and these are numbered and their locations described in writing on page 27 of the Plan. There is also a map and photographs on page 28 showing ‘Views towards the village’. However, the views on that map are not numbered and their descriptions do not match with those of views 1 to 6 on page 27. Please clarify this confusion and, if necessary, provide me with an amended map. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 This has now been done. The revised map is currently on the parish computer as part of a document that is too large to be sent by email. Please advise how you would like to access this. I have a fully printed copy of the version as amended after the regulation 16 consultation. Shall I send this to you? 12. Policy G1 refers to the Village Design Statement which is appended to the Plan as Appendix A. It would be helpful to have more detail on the status of that Statement, when it was prepared, who by, how it was consulted on, and whether it replaced an earlier document. The authors, Jessica Ringrose and Natasha Gandhi both BA (Arch) UKC, were year-out architectural students working in Mervyn Gulvin architects’ practice under the supervision of Mr Gulvin himself before returning to complete their Masters degree at UKC. They presented the work at UKC. They conducted the various surveys and prepared the document with Joe Connor (chair of the PC at the time) overseeing and with Mr Gulvin supporting. It was prepared in 2013 and the consultation document which is included in the Village Design Statement was circulated in the same year. It was consulted on in January 2017 —as is shown in the document "Time|ine and documentarv proof of consultation. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018" which is attached. Reference was also made to Canterbury City council adopting the Village Design Sttatement at the meeting held with Bridge NPC on 23 May 2017. It did not replace an earlier document. Responses prepared by Philip Wicker Clerk to Bridge Parish Council 24 October 2018 Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN EXAMINER: Mary T O'Rourke BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Philip Wicker Clerk to Bridge Parish Council Lisa Gadd Senior Planning Policy Officer Planning Policy & Heritage Canterbury City Council Examination Ref: 01/MOR/BNP 9 October 2018 Dear Mr Wicker and Ms Gadd BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN EXAMINATION Following the submission of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan for examination, I would like to clarify several initial procedural matters. I also have a number of preliminary questions for Bridge Parish Council and Canterbury City Council. 1. Examination Documentation I can confirm that I have received the draft Plan and accompanying documentation, including the Basic Conditions Statement, the Consultation Statement and the Regulation 16 representations. Subject to the necessary clarification being received in answer to my attached questions, it appears that I will have what I need to enable me to undertake the examination. Subject to my detailed assessment of the draft plan, I have not at this initial stage identified any very significant and obvious flaws in the Plan that might lead me to advise that the examination should not proceed. 2. Site Visit I intend to undertake a site visit to the Neighbourhood Plan Area during the week commencing 15 October 2018. This will assist in my assessment of the draft Plan, including the issues identified in the representations. The site visit will be undertaken unaccompanied. It is very important that I am not approached to discuss any aspects of the Plan or the neighbourhood area, as this may be perceived to prejudice my independence and risk compromising the fairness of the examination process. 3. Written Representations At this stage, I consider the examination can be conducted solely by the written representations procedure, without the need for a hearing. However, I will reserve the option to convene a hearing Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 should a matter(s) come to light where I consider that a hearing is necessary to ensure the adequate examination of an issue, or to ensure that a person has a fair chance to put a case. 4. Further Clarification I have a number of initial questions seeking further clarification, which I have set out in the Annex to this letter. I would be grateful if you can seek to provide a written response within the next 2 weeks. Examination Timetable As you will be aware, the intention is to examine the Plan (including conduct of the site visit) with a view to providing a draft report (for ’fact checking’) within 4-6 weeks of submission of the draft Plan. As I have raised a number of questions I must provide both Canterbury City Council and Bridge Parish Council with sufficient opportunity to reply. Consequentially, the examination timetable will be extended. Please be assured that I will seek to mitigate any delay as far as is practicable. The IPe office team will seek to keep you updated on the anticipated delivery date of the draft report. If you have any process questions related to the conduct of the examination, which you would like me to address, please do not hesitate to contact the office team in the first instance. In the interests of transparency, may I prevail upon you to ensure a copy of this letter, and any responses to my questions, are placed on the Parish and City Councils’ websites. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Your sincerely 91/lary Ofiiourég Examiner Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 ANNEX Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft June 2018 — Examiner's Preliminary Questions From my initial reading of the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan and the supporting evidence I have a number of preliminary questions primarily directed to Bridge Parish Council (BPC), with the exception of question 7 specifically directed to Canterbury City Council. I have requested the submission of responses within two weeks of receipt of this letter but an earlier response would be welcome. 1. When was the decision taken by BPC to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan? Minute 109/11-12 dating from the PC meeting held on 12 January 2012 records the start of the process. The first meeting of the NPC was held on 4 April 2012 (BPC minute 143/11-12 refers). 2. On what date was the formal application for designation as a Neighbourhood Plan Area made to Canterbury City Council? Bridge Parish Council Minute 37/12-13 (b) records that formal notification had taken place. (Parish Council meeting dated 12 July 2012). The matter was finally discussed and agreed at the meeting of the Executive of Canterbury City Council on 25 July 2013. 3. Please provide further detail on the work carried out in preparing the Neighbourhood Plan, in addition to the information given in an attachment to the Plan (the page before the Glossary). When was the Plan Committee established? How many members did/does it have? How were they selected? Where can I find details of their meetings, minutes, etc? The Committee: The first meeting of the NPC was held on 4 April 2012 (minute 143/11-12). At that point, there were 4 members. They were all originally parish councillors. Other parish groups were invited to send representatives to join the committee such as the Women's Institute and "Bridge Going Green”. In 2017 the composition and status of the Neighbourhood Plan Committee was revised by the Parish Council. From January 2017 it was announced that the committee would be formally constituted as a sub-committee of the Parish Council with membership of the committee determined by parish councillors annually at their May meeting. Agendas were henceforth published in conformity with the standing orders governing parish council meetings. From 26 May 2017 the parish clerk took responsibility for minuting the meetings and the publication of agendas. Details of NPC meetings: These can be found bv accessing the following website: www.bridgevi||age.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Once here, scroll down to the heading "documents”. Agenda and minutes since 1 January 2017 can be found by clicking the link which is called "NPC Agendas and minutes.” Paper copies are held of minutes of meetings held before 1 January 2017 in the Parish office and are arranged chronologically, going back to 2012. There is also a file on the parish computer which has most of these minutes and agendas as well. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 4. I have a single bound document entitled the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft June 2018 at the back of which there is, in addition to six appendices A to F, a number of other documents. Page 32 is described as The Consultation Statement, and at page 39 a Basic Conditions Statement. Please clarify those parts of the June 2018 Consultation Draft that are not intended to form part of the Neighbourhood Plan that I am to examine, and which the Parish Council are asking to proceed to referendum and be made. It is understood that it is policies rather than projects which are subject to your examination. If this is the case, then all of the following should be examined by you: o the policies, o site allocations / proposals map p.14 o important local greenspaces pp 25-26 o the views of the village p 27 o the Village Design Statement (Page numbers refer to the version of the plan mentioned in answer to questions 10 and 11 below). 5. There is a consultation statement attached to the Plan (pages 32 to 38). However, as a simple timeline which finishes at 27 April 2017, it does not give the detail that I would expect to see to be able to be satisfied that consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan has followed a transparent, fair and inclusive process, which has had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance on plan preparation and in procedural compliance with the legal requirements. Please could you direct me to where I can find more detail of the consultation exercises that were carried out during the preparation of the Plan, detail of the responses received, and of the relevant issues identified that have directed the policies and proposals now found in the Plan. I understand that the Neighbourhood Plan PPG states in paragraph 47: A qualifying body should be inclusive and open in the preparation of its neighbourhood plan or Order and ensure that the wider community: is kept fully informed of what is being proposed is able to make their views known throughout the process has opportunities to be actively involved in shaping the emerging neighbourhood plan or Order 0 is made aware of how their views have informed the draft neighbourhood plan or Order. The document attached entitled Timeline and documentary proof of consultation. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018 is an updated version of the timeline you have mentioned above which brings the process up to date and also contains an extra column showing how consultation brought about changes to the Plan itself. Those rows which are not shaded contain elements of change to the plan as a result of formal consultation or discussion with others. Bridge Parish Council minutes show that from 10 May 2012 until October 2018 the Neighbourhood Plan has been a standing item on the Agenda. Feedback and comments from the floor have been a regular feature of this agenda item. In addition the Annual Parish Meeting (held in April each year) has contained the NP as a standing item since April 2013. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 6. Please confirm the dates of the Regulation 14 consultation and where I can find information on any representations made as a result of that consultation and on any response by the Parish Council to those representations, including changes proposed to the Plan and its policies. The dates of the regulation 14 consultation were February 26 2018- 16 April 2018. The regulation 14 consultation responses document prepared by Canterbury City Council is available here www.bridgevi||age.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Go to "documents” and click on "”NPC Reports & papers.” and then open the file entitled "2018 06" A note on the changes made to the plan as a result can be seen in the document entitled Timeline and documentarv proof of consultation. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018 which is attached. 7. Can Canterbury City Council please confirm the dates and period of the Regulation 16 consultation. 8. Please provide a plan showing the boundaries of the Conservation Areas in the parish and the dates of the respective designations. This can be found on page 8 of the Village Design statement. The following conservation areas were designated in the years shown: 0 Bifrons Park (30.1.91) 0 Bridge ( 19.8.87) 0 Bourne Park (8.11.94) 9. Please provide a plan showing that part of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which lies within the parish. This can be found on p. 5 of the village design statement. The Clerk has a copy also that was included in the adopted Canterbury District Local Plan. 10. Policy F3 of the Plan seeks to protect seven Important Local Green Spaces which are shown on the map on page 25 of the Plan. Whilst the spaces are numbered on the schedule on page 26, they are not identified by their numbers on the map. Please provide a corrected map showing the spaces by number. This has been done. The revised map is currently on the parish computer as part of a document that is too large to be sent by email. Please advise how you would like to access this. I have a fully printed copy of the version as amended after the regulation 16 consultation. Shall I send this to you? 11. Policy F4 of the Plan identifies 6 views to be preserved or enhanced, and these are numbered and their locations described in writing on page 27 of the Plan. There is also a map and photographs on page 28 showing ‘Views towards the village’. However, the views on that map are not numbered and their descriptions do not match with those of views 1 to 6 on page 27. Please clarify this confusion and, if necessary, provide me with an amended map. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 This has now been done. The revised map is currently on the parish computer as part of a document that is too large to be sent by email. Please advise how you would like to access this. I have a fully printed copy of the version as amended after the regulation 16 consultation. Shall I send this to you? 12. Policy G1 refers to the Village Design Statement which is appended to the Plan as Appendix A. It would be helpful to have more detail on the status of that Statement, when it was prepared, who by, how it was consulted on, and whether it replaced an earlier document. The authors, Jessica Ringrose and Natasha Gandhi both BA (Arch) UKC, were year-out architectural students working in Mervyn Gulvin architects’ practice under the supervision of Mr Gulvin himself before returning to complete their Masters degree at UKC. They presented the work at UKC. They conducted the various surveys and prepared the document with Joe Connor (chair of the PC at the time) overseeing and with Mr Gulvin supporting. It was prepared in 2013 and the consultation document which is included in the Village Design Statement was circulated in the same year. It was consulted on in January 2017 —as is shown in the document "Time|ine and documentarv proof of consultation. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018" which is attached. Reference was also made to Canterbury City council adopting the Village Design Sttatement at the meeting held with Bridge NPC on 23 May 2017. It did not replace an earlier document. Responses prepared by Philip Wicker Clerk to Bridge Parish Council 24 October 2018 Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 37 Gay Street, Bath BA1 2NT Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 101001 18. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84 Timeline and documentarv proof of consultation. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018 (Shaded rows indicate that consultation was not taking place and therefore changes in the Neighbourhood Plan did not necessarily follow) NPC= Neighbourhood Planning Committee CCC=Canterbury City Council NP=Neighbourhood Plan CDLP= Canterbury District Local Plan Date NPC meeting Evidence Electronically held? Analysis % available response Changes made as a result of feedback given (italics indicate a learning point for the NPC or a change to procedures which did not directly afiect the composition of the plan itself) 26.01.2012 Clerk's first notes on NP process 19.04 2012 Plans set for questionnaire to village residents—before production of first draft. 20.04.2012 Letter to Adrian Verrall of CCC—he had visited NPC earlier that month 8.06.2012 Closing date for receipt of questionnaire returns. Questionnaire covers new housing, car parking and green spaces. 19.06.2012 335 replies received to June 2012 questionnaire. 50/50 split on more housing. 720 issued—one V 47% See below for 25 August 2012 to each household. 7.7.12 Formal request by NPC to CCC to register the NP 31.7.2012 V 09.8.2012 V 20.08.2012 V 25 August 2012 Village Hall exhibition 47% Insufficient provision for cyclists in Bridge (appeared showing results of in the final 2018 Regulation 16 NP as policy B1). questionnaire- a list of relevant issues emerged Strong resistance to expansion of the school (76% of from this. respondents)—exp|ains project D2 in the final 2018 Regulation 16 NP plan. 30.08.2012 CCC has no objection to NP area nor to the Parish Council bringing one forward 21.09.2012 V 09.10.2012 V Stella Stella outlined the limitations ofa NP to the Meesters committee—what it can and cannot achieve for a local from community Planning Aid 25 October BNPC committee 2012 members meet Adrian Verra||—as still no response to letter of 7 July 2012 had been received. 05.04.2013 V 26.04.2013 V 24.05.2013 V Spring 2013 Parish newsletter to all households outlines the NP to villagers 1.06.2013 Village Hall exhibition 102 Exhibition invited villagers to raise issues to be placed representing results of residents in the NP. August 2012 atte“ded- 0 By November 2013 these resulted in draft ql-|e51'l0nn3l"'-‘ 42 objectives for the NP (NPC meeting of 15 Nov questionn 2013) alre-5 0 The creation of a website (13 December 2013 ret”med' meeting of the NPC) 11.06.2013 V 25.06.2013 School Fete exhibition Repeated the exhibition of 1 June 2013 @ Bridge Primary School June 2013 Village Design Statement published July 2013 Approval accorded by CCC for a NP to be prepared 08.07.2013 V 09.08.2013 V Stella Underlined need to separate policies from projects. Scrivener from Planning Aid September NP article for Parish 2013 news-update on NP progress 13.09.2013 V 24.10.2013 Invite from NPC chair to villagers via parish magazine to join the NPC. 15.11.2013 V Deletion of initial references in the emerging plan to the Oil Depot site. 13.12.2013 V 10.01.2014 V Stella Underlined need to separate policies from projects. Scrivener Guidance on composition of a typical NP and common from pitfalls to avoid. Planning Aid 14.02.2014 V 14.03.2014 V 11.04.2014 V 08.05.2014 V Adrian Verrall (CCC) May 2014 Parking Paper 110 Led to policies B4 and B5 in the October 2014 draft, Survey residents now project B5 in the final regulation 16 2018 + 21 non consultation document. Parking is also addressed in residents Appendix F of the 2018 regulation 16 consultation responded document. 13.06.2014 V 11.07.2014 V 29.08.2014 V 19.09.2014 V 03.10.2014 V October 2014 First Consultation Draft issued by 21 volunteers with covering letter to all households 20.10.2014 Comments from Stella These comments were reviewed at NPC meetings in Scrivener (Planning Aid) Jan and Feb 2015 on October 2014 draft 1 November Consultation event —BVH- 21 November 2014 minutes of the NPC record a need 2014 10-1 P-m- —expressed in the consu|tation—to 0 add a page showing membership of the committee. 0 publish minutes on website 0 to explain abbreviations used 21.11.2014 V December 2014 Village poster encouraging responses to the ongoing consultation 15.12.2014 Deadline for receipt of comments on first consultation draft 23.01.2015 V 131 All sections of the plan to be reviewed in light of the responses comments received and analysed by Mr Esdale. based on the 0 Section on housing is deemed by many to be October contradictory and to be rewritten collectively. 2014 draft 0 All other sections of the plan given to an NPC member to review. 27.02.2015 V 10.04.2015 V 02.09.2015 V 13 and 20 Information events on Access to proposed housing site in Appendix F of the October 2015 housing proposals held in 2018 final regulation 16 version is presaged by a Parish Church-with comment made by a villager at the event on 13 questions recorded and October. answered as given recorded by the Clerk 12.11.2015 V November 2015 Version 1.5 of the plan completed 12.02.2016 V 23.02.2016 V 20 and 22 2 Village hall consultations V March/April about site preferences for 2016 housing 11.04.2016 Deadline for return of 14% Preferences expressed for Site 2 (Conyngham Lane) housing preference forms then for Brickfields then for site 4 (recreation ground near the surgery). Full analysis to be found at: www.bridgevi||aae.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Go to "documents” and click on "NPC Reports & papers.” and then open the file entitled " 2016 04 April NP” 25.04.2016 V 28.04.2016 Annual Parish Meeting- feedback on NP given 06.05.2016 V Record made of changes made to Section C of the plan. 27.05.2016 V 10.06.2016 V June 2016 Rural community profile Profile added as Appendix D to the NP. received from ACRK June 2016 Appointed Jim Boot as advisor 25 June 2016 School fete display on NP 56 The clear outcome of this consultation was that the responde Conyngham Lane site for housing was not popular. 29 nets. negative comments about this site: just 9 in favour. In marked contrast to the consultation carried out in March 2016 (above). 26 July 2016 Met with Cathy McNab of CCC suggested sustainability CCC appraisals of sites considered for inclusion in the NP. planners This idea was adopted. This meeting led to the emergence of policy A3 regarding Great Pett Farm. 29 July 2016 V CCC reportedly have made it clear they would like Recreation Ground sites considered for housing. This became NP policy after August 2017 (see below). 25 August 2016 Decision taken to carry out sustainability appraisals- later emerged in the final regulation 16 version of the NP as Appendix B 30 September 2016 Up to date flood map provided by the Environment Agency—for inclusion in the final version of the plan- though a version dating May 2018 was eventually included in the NP 13 October 2016 Met with CCC planners Checklist of all aspects of the N Plan and conformity with emerging CDLP and other suggestions offered. The document is available here www.bridgevi||aae.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Go to "documents” and click on "Click here for all Neiohbourhood Plan Committee (NPC) agendas, minutes, reports etc.” and then open the folder entitled "NPC docs” 28 October 2016 CCC suggestion that a cycle route plan is added to the plan is adopted. Now policy B1 of the NP. 25 November 2016 Checklist of requests made by CCC in October 2016 and their implementation within the plan (19 of these in total covering all sections of the plan). December 2016 Update to all villagers via the website on progress of the NP written by consultant Jim Boot- summarising work from June to December 2016 Dec 2016 Met with CCC planners December 2016 Health check with Claire Tester-published on the NP website Housing allocations to be made within the NP—though a Strategic and Environmental assessment will be needed. Clearer distinction made between policies and projects as a result of her comments and the use of different colours to denote policies and projects within the plan. 6 Jan 2017 Minutes of NPC Outlines new constitution of the Committee. Brickfields site is no longer supported by inspector examining the CDLP. He (Mr Moore) also announced that he would expect the emerging NP to determine where housing in Bridge should be located. w/c 9 January 2017 Traffic survey conducted Results fed into the NP. (It now sits within the evidence section of the Plan). Speed as recorded in the survey are well within the range of 20 mph as required by Kent Highways (as revealed in minutes of NPC dated 30 September 2016) 12 January 2017 Bridge Parish Council meeting Minute 110/16-17 (11) sets out the new governance issues for the NPC—agreed to by all Parish Councillors present. 17 January 2017 Met with CCC planners 20 January 2017 NPC committee meeting decided to revise the employment section in the plan as a result of communication from Cantley about their plans for Great Pett Farm. 21 January 2017 Village hall consultation on green spaces Photos of 14 proposed green spaces were on display as well as a copy of the Tester Health Check report of December 2016 and the village design statement. Draft 5 of the plan was also available. 24 Feb NPC meeting told that AECOM are likely to be employed and paid for by public grant to do the Strategic Environmental Assessment. NPC is moving away from support for the Conyngham Lane site 14 March 2017 Met with CCC planners March and June NPC raises doubts about the proposed Conyngham Lane site. No decision taken as such but Cantley proposals alter the whole issue. (see below August 2017)as did the adoption of the CDLP in July 2017 and the strategic policy referring to the green gap between Bridge and Canterbury 27 April 2017 Annual Parish Meeting- feedback given on NP. April 2017 Further advice received Her advice to conduct site assessments for the from Claire Tester re the housing sites becomes part of the AECOM SEA report. NP 23 May 2017 Met with CCC planners 26 May 2017 First meeting of reconstituted NP Committee June 2017 Housing needs survey Results fed directly into the NP as Appendix C distributed to all households 13 July 2017 Canterbury City Council Green gap is now confirmed in the CDLP. Proposals adopts its local plan for housing in Conyngham Lane do not conform. August 2017 Cantley withdraw housing Adopted into the plan as Appendix F—a|ong with site in Conyngham Lane suggested sites for village hall. and propose site as shown in Appendix F 4 October 2017 Met with CCC planners 15 January 2018 Met with CCC planners Feb 2018 Aecom produce updated version of their Strategic En vironmen tal Assessment for Regulation 14 consultation. Feb—Apri| 2018 2 public exhibitions were held on Sunday 18 March 2-5 p.m. and Saturday 7 April 5-8 p.m. in Regulation 14 consultation Printed copies of the NP, the consultation response form and the appendices were available. Events advertised on village website, social 50 or so comments received 28 villagers attended over both days. According to CCC the Basic Conditions statement is "sufficiently thorough”. The regulation 14 consultation responses document is available here www.bridgevi||aae.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Go to "documents” and click on '"’NPC Reports & papers.” and then open the file entitled "2018 06" At its meeting on 8 May 2018 the committee agreed the village hall— media and noticeboards. revisions to the plan as a result of the Regulation 14 villagers could consultation. The NPC worked through all the gain more changes to the plan line byline. They were very minor information and of no consequence to the Plan since those who about the agreed or strongly agreed with all aspects of the plan consultation were in a clear majority in all of the responses. plan from members of the committee. 3 May 2018 2 CCC planners walked the Suggestions from the CCC planners were adopted to village with members of reduce the number of green spaces to include only the committee to review those now contained within the regulation 16 2018 the proposed green version of the NP (reduced from the 12 potential spaces. green spaces outlined in the NPC meeting of 28 October 2016) 8 May 2018 10 May 2018 Parish council voted to adopt fully the regulation 15 version of the plan. 16 May 2018 12 June 2018 Meeting with CCC Basic Conditions Statement judged to be satisfactory. Paragraphs need to be numbered—this revision was made and is to be found in the final regulation 16 version of the NP 18 June 2018 12 July 2018 Parish council voted to adopt fully the regulation 16 version of the plan 6 July — 7 Regulation 16 consultation Policy C1 (m) amplified. (requested by CCC) September Policy C7 (second sentence added)(requested by CCC). 2018 p. 25 —green spaces numbered (requested by inspector) p.27 new pictures and views added to illustrate more accurately the narrative in the text (requested by Inspector) (All decided at 16 October 2018 meeting) 16 October 2018 Philip Wicker Clerk to Bridge Parish Council 23 October 2018 Further stakeholder discussions: Letter to Sent on Reply received Highland Investment Co Ltd 01.03.2014 18.03.2014 Savills 15.06.2012 CCC Estates dept 01.03.2014 Dental practice 12.06.2012 Health Centre 06.09.2013 16.10.2013 Owners of all shops in Bridge (including Pharmacy, Post Office, Woodlands, Bridgeway 12.06.2012 06.07.2012 (one and only reply Stores, Nicholas James, Alfie and Trish photography, Laurie Wakeham) received) Bridge School 12.06.2012 08.04.2013 18.04.2013 06.09.2013 Roger's Garage 10.03.2014 Mr V Macdonald (landowner) 01.03.2014 By email Timeline and documentarv proof of consultation. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018 (Shaded rows indicate that consultation was not taking place and therefore changes in the Neighbourhood Plan did not necessarily follow) NPC= Neighbourhood Planning Committee CCC=Canterbury City Council NP=Neighbourhood Plan CDLP= Canterbury District Local Plan Date NPC meeting Evidence Electronically held? Analysis % available response Changes made as a result of feedback given (italics indicate a learning point for the NPC or a change to procedures which did not directly afiect the composition of the plan itself) 26.01.2012 Clerk's first notes on NP process 19.04 2012 Plans set for questionnaire to village residents—before production of first draft. 20.04.2012 Letter to Adrian Verrall of CCC—he had visited NPC earlier that month 8.06.2012 Closing date for receipt of questionnaire returns. Questionnaire covers new housing, car parking and green spaces. 19.06.2012 335 replies received to June 2012 questionnaire. 50/50 split on more housing. 720 issued—one V 47% See below for 25 August 2012 to each household. 7.7.12 Formal request by NPC to CCC to register the NP 31.7.2012 V 09.8.2012 V 20.08.2012 V 25 August 2012 Village Hall exhibition 47% Insufficient provision for cyclists in Bridge (appeared showing results of in the final 2018 Regulation 16 NP as policy B1). questionnaire- a list of relevant issues emerged Strong resistance to expansion of the school (76% of from this. respondents)—exp|ains project D2 in the final 2018 Regulation 16 NP plan. 30.08.2012 CCC has no objection to NP area nor to the Parish Council bringing one forward 21.09.2012 V 09.10.2012 V Stella Stella outlined the limitations ofa NP to the Meesters committee—what it can and cannot achieve for a local from community Planning Aid 25 October BNPC committee 2012 members meet Adrian Verra||—as still no response to letter of 7 July 2012 had been received. 05.04.2013 V 26.04.2013 V 24.05.2013 V Spring 2013 Parish newsletter to all households outlines the NP to villagers 1.06.2013 Village Hall exhibition 102 Exhibition invited villagers to raise issues to be placed representing results of residents in the NP. August 2012 atte“ded- 0 By November 2013 these resulted in draft ql-|e51'l0nn3l"'-‘ 42 objectives for the NP (NPC meeting of 15 Nov questionn 2013) alre-5 0 The creation of a website (13 December 2013 ret”med' meeting of the NPC) 11.06.2013 V 25.06.2013 School Fete exhibition Repeated the exhibition of 1 June 2013 @ Bridge Primary School June 2013 Village Design Statement published July 2013 Approval accorded by CCC for a NP to be prepared 08.07.2013 V 09.08.2013 V Stella Underlined need to separate policies from projects. Scrivener from Planning Aid September NP article for Parish 2013 news-update on NP progress 13.09.2013 V 24.10.2013 Invite from NPC chair to villagers via parish magazine to join the NPC. 15.11.2013 V Deletion of initial references in the emerging plan to the Oil Depot site. 13.12.2013 V 10.01.2014 V Stella Underlined need to separate policies from projects. Scrivener Guidance on composition of a typical NP and common from pitfalls to avoid. Planning Aid 14.02.2014 V 14.03.2014 V 11.04.2014 V 08.05.2014 V Adrian Verrall (CCC) May 2014 Parking Paper 110 Led to policies B4 and B5 in the October 2014 draft, Survey residents now project B5 in the final regulation 16 2018 + 21 non consultation document. Parking is also addressed in residents Appendix F of the 2018 regulation 16 consultation responded document. 13.06.2014 V 11.07.2014 V 29.08.2014 V 19.09.2014 V 03.10.2014 V October 2014 First Consultation Draft issued by 21 volunteers with covering letter to all households 20.10.2014 Comments from Stella These comments were reviewed at NPC meetings in Scrivener (Planning Aid) Jan and Feb 2015 on October 2014 draft 1 November Consultation event —BVH- 21 November 2014 minutes of the NPC record a need 2014 10-1 P-m- —expressed in the consu|tation—to 0 add a page showing membership of the committee. 0 publish minutes on website 0 to explain abbreviations used 21.11.2014 V December 2014 Village poster encouraging responses to the ongoing consultation 15.12.2014 Deadline for receipt of comments on first consultation draft 23.01.2015 V 131 All sections of the plan to be reviewed in light of the responses comments received and analysed by Mr Esdale. based on the 0 Section on housing is deemed by many to be October contradictory and to be rewritten collectively. 2014 draft 0 All other sections of the plan given to an NPC member to review. 27.02.2015 V 10.04.2015 V 02.09.2015 V 13 and 20 Information events on Access to proposed housing site in Appendix F of the October 2015 housing proposals held in 2018 final regulation 16 version is presaged by a Parish Church-with comment made by a villager at the event on 13 questions recorded and October. answered as given recorded by the Clerk 12.11.2015 V November 2015 Version 1.5 of the plan completed 12.02.2016 V 23.02.2016 V 20 and 22 2 Village hall consultations V March/April about site preferences for 2016 housing 11.04.2016 Deadline for return of 14% Preferences expressed for Site 2 (Conyngham Lane) housing preference forms then for Brickfields then for site 4 (recreation ground near the surgery). Full analysis to be found at: www.bridgevi||aae.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Go to "documents” and click on "NPC Reports & papers.” and then open the file entitled " 2016 04 April NP” 25.04.2016 V 28.04.2016 Annual Parish Meeting- feedback on NP given 06.05.2016 V Record made of changes made to Section C of the plan. 27.05.2016 V 10.06.2016 V June 2016 Rural community profile Profile added as Appendix D to the NP. received from ACRK June 2016 Appointed Jim Boot as advisor 25 June 2016 School fete display on NP 56 The clear outcome of this consultation was that the responde Conyngham Lane site for housing was not popular. 29 nets. negative comments about this site: just 9 in favour. In marked contrast to the consultation carried out in March 2016 (above). 26 July 2016 Met with Cathy McNab of CCC suggested sustainability CCC appraisals of sites considered for inclusion in the NP. planners This idea was adopted. This meeting led to the emergence of policy A3 regarding Great Pett Farm. 29 July 2016 V CCC reportedly have made it clear they would like Recreation Ground sites considered for housing. This became NP policy after August 2017 (see below). 25 August 2016 Decision taken to carry out sustainability appraisals- later emerged in the final regulation 16 version of the NP as Appendix B 30 September 2016 Up to date flood map provided by the Environment Agency—for inclusion in the final version of the plan- though a version dating May 2018 was eventually included in the NP 13 October 2016 Met with CCC planners Checklist of all aspects of the N Plan and conformity with emerging CDLP and other suggestions offered. The document is available here www.bridgevi||aae.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Go to "documents” and click on "Click here for all Neiohbourhood Plan Committee (NPC) agendas, minutes, reports etc.” and then open the folder entitled "NPC docs” 28 October 2016 CCC suggestion that a cycle route plan is added to the plan is adopted. Now policy B1 of the NP. 25 November 2016 Checklist of requests made by CCC in October 2016 and their implementation within the plan (19 of these in total covering all sections of the plan). December 2016 Update to all villagers via the website on progress of the NP written by consultant Jim Boot- summarising work from June to December 2016 Dec 2016 Met with CCC planners December 2016 Health check with Claire Tester-published on the NP website Housing allocations to be made within the NP—though a Strategic and Environmental assessment will be needed. Clearer distinction made between policies and projects as a result of her comments and the use of different colours to denote policies and projects within the plan. 6 Jan 2017 Minutes of NPC Outlines new constitution of the Committee. Brickfields site is no longer supported by inspector examining the CDLP. He (Mr Moore) also announced that he would expect the emerging NP to determine where housing in Bridge should be located. w/c 9 January 2017 Traffic survey conducted Results fed into the NP. (It now sits within the evidence section of the Plan). Speed as recorded in the survey are well within the range of 20 mph as required by Kent Highways (as revealed in minutes of NPC dated 30 September 2016) 12 January 2017 Bridge Parish Council meeting Minute 110/16-17 (11) sets out the new governance issues for the NPC—agreed to by all Parish Councillors present. 17 January 2017 Met with CCC planners 20 January 2017 NPC committee meeting decided to revise the employment section in the plan as a result of communication from Cantley about their plans for Great Pett Farm. 21 January 2017 Village hall consultation on green spaces Photos of 14 proposed green spaces were on display as well as a copy of the Tester Health Check report of December 2016 and the village design statement. Draft 5 of the plan was also available. 24 Feb NPC meeting told that AECOM are likely to be employed and paid for by public grant to do the Strategic Environmental Assessment. NPC is moving away from support for the Conyngham Lane site 14 March 2017 Met with CCC planners March and June NPC raises doubts about the proposed Conyngham Lane site. No decision taken as such but Cantley proposals alter the whole issue. (see below August 2017)as did the adoption of the CDLP in July 2017 and the strategic policy referring to the green gap between Bridge and Canterbury 27 April 2017 Annual Parish Meeting- feedback given on NP. April 2017 Further advice received Her advice to conduct site assessments for the from Claire Tester re the housing sites becomes part of the AECOM SEA report. NP 23 May 2017 Met with CCC planners 26 May 2017 First meeting of reconstituted NP Committee June 2017 Housing needs survey Results fed directly into the NP as Appendix C distributed to all households 13 July 2017 Canterbury City Council Green gap is now confirmed in the CDLP. Proposals adopts its local plan for housing in Conyngham Lane do not conform. August 2017 Cantley withdraw housing Adopted into the plan as Appendix F—a|ong with site in Conyngham Lane suggested sites for village hall. and propose site as shown in Appendix F 4 October 2017 Met with CCC planners 15 January 2018 Met with CCC planners Feb 2018 Aecom produce updated version of their Strategic En vironmen tal Assessment for Regulation 14 consultation. Feb—Apri| 2018 2 public exhibitions were held on Sunday 18 March 2-5 p.m. and Saturday 7 April 5-8 p.m. in Regulation 14 consultation Printed copies of the NP, the consultation response form and the appendices were available. Events advertised on village website, social 50 or so comments received 28 villagers attended over both days. According to CCC the Basic Conditions statement is "sufficiently thorough”. The regulation 14 consultation responses document is available here www.bridgevi||aae.org.uk/NHP/index.asp Go to "documents” and click on '"’NPC Reports & papers.” and then open the file entitled "2018 06" At its meeting on 8 May 2018 the committee agreed the village hall— media and noticeboards. revisions to the plan as a result of the Regulation 14 villagers could consultation. The NPC worked through all the gain more changes to the plan line byline. They were very minor information and of no consequence to the Plan since those who about the agreed or strongly agreed with all aspects of the plan consultation were in a clear majority in all of the responses. plan from members of the committee. 3 May 2018 2 CCC planners walked the Suggestions from the CCC planners were adopted to village with members of reduce the number of green spaces to include only the committee to review those now contained within the regulation 16 2018 the proposed green version of the NP (reduced from the 12 potential spaces. green spaces outlined in the NPC meeting of 28 October 2016) 8 May 2018 10 May 2018 Parish council voted to adopt fully the regulation 15 version of the plan. 16 May 2018 12 June 2018 Meeting with CCC Basic Conditions Statement judged to be satisfactory. Paragraphs need to be numbered—this revision was made and is to be found in the final regulation 16 version of the NP 18 June 2018 12 July 2018 Parish council voted to adopt fully the regulation 16 version of the plan 6 July — 7 Regulation 16 consultation Policy C1 (m) amplified. (requested by CCC) September Policy C7 (second sentence added)(requested by CCC). 2018 p. 25 —green spaces numbered (requested by inspector) p.27 new pictures and views added to illustrate more accurately the narrative in the text (requested by Inspector) (All decided at 16 October 2018 meeting) 16 October 2018 Philip Wicker Clerk to Bridge Parish Council 23 October 2018 Further stakeholder discussions: Letter to Sent on Reply received Highland Investment Co Ltd 01.03.2014 18.03.2014 Savills 15.06.2012 CCC Estates dept 01.03.2014 Dental practice 12.06.2012 Health Centre 06.09.2013 16.10.2013 Owners of all shops in Bridge (including Pharmacy, Post Office, Woodlands, Bridgeway 12.06.2012 06.07.2012 (one and only reply Stores, Nicholas James, Alfie and Trish photography, Laurie Wakeham) received) Bridge School 12.06.2012 08.04.2013 18.04.2013 06.09.2013 Roger's Garage 10.03.2014 Mr V Macdonald (landowner) 01.03.2014 By email Call for sites Bridge Neighbourhood Plan: Call for Sites, Briefing Sheet and Application Process (June 2019) This is a call to all owners of land in the parish of Bridge who have an interest in proposing their land for development as part of the Bridge neighbourhood planning process. This builds on the results of public engagement in the process of forming the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan. Previous consultation has suggested that a demand exists for up to forty homes within the Parish to be constructed within the fifteen—year life of the Neighbourhood Plan. These forty homes would include a 30% element of affordable or below market rent properties. We are primarily looking for sites suitable for a mix of social, affordable and open market housing, but will also consider other proposals, such as any for commercial or light industrial use. The next stage in the process of forming the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is to move to an identification of potential development sites within the parish, each of which will be assessed by the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Committee, based on suitability, availability and achievability. If you are a landowner, business, developer or agent who would like to propose land for development, please provide us with the following information for us to properly consider your submission: - Your details: you must give your name and address for your comments to be considered. - Site details and ownership. - Land area and proposed development. - Possible constraints: we need to know about the suitability, availability and achievability of the proposed site. Please send the above details to the Parish Clerk by e—mail at clerk@bridgevillage.org.uk or by post to The Clerk, Bridge Parish Council, 8, The Dene, Canterbury, CT1 3NW The closing date for responses is Thursday 18"‘ July 2019 at 23:59 hours. For more information please contact the Clerk by email or phone (07733 759195). Comments made by CCC planners about the Neighbourhood Plan in mid January 2018 and the consequential changes made. Pages 42-50 of the regulation 16 version of the plan spell out in detail the conformity and cross referencing between the Canterbury local Plan and this development Plan. This has been as the result of numerous meetings held between CCC planners and the Neighbourhood Plan committee of Bridge Parish Council. Proposed change to NP Adopted? When adopted Policy A2—shou|d be Canterbury District Local YES For regulation 15 version—June 2018 P|an—not "development plan” Policy B2 this should be Canterbury Local Parking YES For regulation 15 version—June 2018 standards not KCC Policy C3—must comply with all the relevant No specific change to wording policies set put in the NP and CDLP requested Policy C4— CDLP not development plan Partially Regulation 15 version talks about ''local policies” Policy C5 —an initial archaeological assessment NO will be undertaken to decide if an archaeological investigation is required Policy D1—change the first sentence to the loss of YES For regulation 14 version—Feb 2018 the community services and facilities will be permitted if...(this is positive wording in line with the NPPF) Text above policy D2—Bridge health Centre is a YES For regulation 15 version—June 2018 modern and purpose built accessible premises (not inaccessible) Put PCSO in full YES Section 5.7 of regulation 16 version Policy D2— add in "Green Infrastructure " after YES For regulation 15 version—June 2018 open spaces p.21 CCC has adopted the KCC environment strategy. This was for information Bridge Neighbourhood Plan: 2012-2018 Record of community consultations (NPC= Neighbourhood Planning Committee; CCC=Canterbury City Council; NP=Neighbourhood Plan; CDLP= Canterbury District Local Plan) All public meetings to which flmembers of the community were invited in green font All written consultations with the local community are in red font Notes: 1. The order presented here is strictly chronological. For consultation outcomes with statutory consultees see this folder pp 36-38. 2. The headings for the columns of this document are taken from the letter to Bridge Parish Council by Inspector Mary O'Rourke dated 13 November 2018 3. Foototes point the reader to the documents arranged chronologically by year in the accompanying fo|ders.There is a separrate folder for each of the following years: 2005,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018. 4. Publications to the villageg which did not seek views and were therefore fo information only are also included in a red folder entitled ”Pub|ications to the village’’ Date What the community was Responses Issues and concerns were raised How issues and concerns informed the drafting of the asked for its views about received neighbourhood plan. Jan to Dec 2012 June 2012 Questionnaire issued to all 47% 50/50 split on more housing as All of these issues went into consideration of the first set of households covers new 335/7202 shown in document 2 objectives for the emerging NP. A clear statement of these housing, car parking and green spaces.1 One issued per household. Further analysisg showed strong resistance to expansion of the school (76% of respondents)—Question 21 of the questionnaire 73% believe traffic problems need resolution. Question 32 of the questionnaire 50.5% feel insufficient provision has been made for cyclists Question 29 of the questionnaire No need for large scale development in Bridge —see conclusion of the analysis in document 3questionnaire 95% of residents wish to retain the green gap (Question 35 of the questionnaire) objectives once they had crystallised can be found in document 5 in the 2013 folder. 1 See 2012 document folder 2 See 2012 document folder 3 See 2012 document folder 2012-2014 Letters to businesses in the Letter to Sent on Reply received Village 2012-14. A Copy Can Highland Investment Co Ltd 01.03.2014 18.03.2014 be found as document 3 (a) Savills 15.06.2012 in the 2012 f0|der- ccc Estates dept 01.03.2014 Dental practice 12.06.2012 Health Centre 06.09.2013 16.10.2013 Owners of all shops in Bridge (including 12.06.2012 06.07.2012 (one and Pharmacy, Post Office, Woodlands, Bridgeway only reply received) Stores, Nicholas James, Alfie and Trish photography, Laurie Wakeham) Bridge School 12.06.2012 08.04.2013 18.04.2013 06.09.2013 Roger's Garage 10.03.2014 Mr V Macdonald (landowner) 01.03.2014 By email EVENT 1 Exhibition for all villagers on Village Hall the results ofJune 2012 This event was repeated in June 2013 and further commentary is available in the row below. The display consisted 25/08/2012 questionnaire. Villagers were of charts taken from the 20102 questionnaire ana|ysis—as shown in document 3 (2012 folder) invited to raise issues for inclusion in the NP and to consider especially the vision statement of the NP. Jan to Dec 2013 EVENT 2 Exhibition Villagers invited to 102 residents Completed questionnaires produced Village Hall raise issues to be placed in attended. from the June 2013 consultations 1/06/2013 the NP and to comment on 42 more were analysed and a set of the results ofJune 2012 questionnaire. questionnaires were returned- in addition to objectives (highlighted in green) formulated as recorded in the NPC minutes of 15 November 2013.5 those returned in June 2012.4 They show a need to: 0 clarify objectives6 0 improve communication between the community and the NP writers. 0 Do more work on car parking7 All 3 of these bullet points are taken from NPC minutes dated 15 Nov and 13 December 2013. 0 Objectives were clarified as shown in document 5 0 A website was set up for the Neighbourhood Plan 0 led to parking survey of 2014 EVENT 3 Fete Exhibition Repeat of Event 2 above in a new |ocation—aiming to reach younger population involved with the school. Bridge Issues and concerns raised are included in the line above for Event 2 Primary School 25/06/2013 15 July 2013 Recreation ground lease to the Parish Council (due to expire in 2023) is not to be renewed8 Jan—Dec 2014 May 2014 Parking Survey in two 131 (110 Parking survey analysis (document Policies B4 and B5 in October 2014 draft (project B5 in the sections9 residents/21 10 of 2014 folder) regulation 16 2018 NP consultation). non- 1.non—residents residents)1° Parking is addressed in Appendix F of the regulation 16 NP 2.residents. version. 1. a car park is proposed (favoured by 51% ofthe 5 See 2013 document folder 4 See 2013 document folder 6 See 2013 document folder 7 See 2013 document folder 8 See 2013 document folder 9 1 See 2014 document folder 0 2014 car parking survey respondents) 2. to be free of charge (favoured by 66% of the 2014 car parking survey respondents—see document 10 in 2014 folder). Event 4 Consultation 10—1.0p.m.11 1/11/2014 Organised to assist villagers with the completion of the questionnaire on the first full draft NP document issued to all households in October 2014. A printed copy is to be found in the folder "Publication to the village” at section 3. 21/11/2014 Preliminary analysis of results 74 Section C (Housing) responses were These initial results were confirmed and amplified when to questionnaire shared with lowest (77%): all completed questionnaires were analysed on 23.01.2015 the NPC" Sections A,B,D,F,G all at 90%+ Section E (Climate change and flooding) at 85% Jan to Dec 2015 23.01.2015 First Consultation Draft full 131 Need to: analysis.” questionnaires returned: 662 comments received in total, of which 52 were about the plan in general. No response from Highways, CCC or local businesses. 0 Clarify abbreviations 0 show membership of the NPC 0 publish NPC minutes 0 add Village Design Statement (VDS) to website 0 consult with micro businesses Section C (housing) deemed by some to be contradictory: needed collective rewrite. Document 13 (a) 0 Abreviations clarified 0 Membership shown 0 Minutes published 0 VDS added to website (All 4 bullet points already all presaged in document 12- 2014 folder). Full summary analysis is available, with complete data to be found at: 11 See 2014 document folder 12 See 2014 document folder 13 See 2015 document folder CPRE response to this this consultation is attached to document 13. in the 2015 folder shows how and why the housing section (Section C) was amended. All other sections of the plan given to a NPC member to review. http://bridgevillage.org.uk/NeighbourhoodP|an2012/analy sis2014.asp Click on "comments” heading in the table to see them in their entirety. EVENTS 5+6 Information events Potential 40 villagers attended on 13 October Questions (24 in total from both meetings) and answers Parish Invitation to comment on housing 2015. Another 25 attended on 20 recorded by the Clerk.“ Church housing proposals proposals in October (including a representative 13+ 20/10 15 the NP. from Cantley Ltd) Autumn Housing in the 71 emails by Whether by email or letter (as No decisions were taken with regard to housing in the plan 2015 Neighbourhood Plan: outline 2/12/15 from shown document 16): at this stage. By the time the next version of the plan was proposals put forward by 32 villagers and published formally to villagers (Regulation 14 version in Cantley Ltd were published in 15 letters from 15 favour Conyngham Lane site February 2018) there had been many further significant parish news|etter15 villagers” developments about housing proposals, most importantly following on 24 against Conyngham Lane site the decision announced to the village by Cantley Ltd in from public their letter and proposed housing plans posted to all events on 13+ 4 seek more information residents in 2017 (see section 5 of the folder entitled 20/10/1517 "Publications to the Village”). 4 unclear See document 15 in the 2015 folder. Jan to Dec 2016 EVENTS 7+8 Housing consultationsls Site Written comments were gathered— Email responses were encouraged“ Village hall preferences for addressed in document number 20 20/03/16 housing19 (in the 2016 fo|der)2° 14 See 2015 document folder 15 See 2015 document folder 16 See 2015 document folder 17 See 2015 document folder 18 See 2016 document folder 22/03/16 11.04.2016 Deadline for return of 14% -166 in Preferences expressed for Site 2 Conyngham Lane site retained in the Neighbourhood Plan. housing preference forms totalzz (Conyngham Lane) then for Brickfields then for site 4 (recreation ground near the surgery) 61 comments were also received (see document 20 in 2016 folder for full details). Other comments were made on the preference sheets and are recorded. 23 EVENT 9 School fete Information 56 people spoke with consultant Jim Unpopularity of Conyngham Lane site for proposed Bridge event on the Boot or members of the NPC24 housing -29 negative comments about this site: 9 in School policies and favour. 25/06/2016 projects within the plan. Need to slim down number of policies and projects July 2016 Following earlier consultation, Cantley reduce potential development sites to 2 for potential inclusion in the NP25 Jan to Dec 2017 Jan 2017 Health Check report written Health Check made 7 by Claire Tester sent to BPC26 recommendations (p.6 of report): 1. Exclude housing numbers 1. and sites Not adopted 2. Get screening from CCC on 19See 2016 document folder 20 See 2016 document folder 21 See 2016 document folder 22 See 2016 document folder 23 See 2016 document folder 24 See 2016 document folder 25 See 2016 document folder 26 See 2017 document folder SEA and HRA 3. Produce a supporting document to explain choices in the plan as set on p. 3 4. Produce a site assessmen framework if sites are inlcuded 5. Explain more of the special character of Bridge and its landscape setting, what the community values about it and justifying the policies chosen 6. Get the VDS consulted on and examined 7. Modification suggested in the table are accepted 2. SEA by AECOM.HRA screening letter with Inspector 3. This document provides detials of the evolution of the plan and reasons. 4. Appendix B 5. Appendix D, analysis of questionnniare responses and reasons for policies shown in this document and in the usbmissions made with it. 6. Done 7. These were mostly accepted as the next editions of the plan were produced. EVENT 10 Exhibition and opportunity to Enable villagers 10.6% of registered voters attended Village hall express opinions via coloured to share views; (133/1253)" 21/01/17 post it stickers see progress of plan and share Need to preserve Church meadow Both spaces appear as green spaces to be preserved in the comments and recreation ground especially regulation 16 version of the plan. 14 proposed amongst the proposed green spaces green spaces” (see p.2 of document 29) (photos Also the need to preserve the green Once the Green Gap was formally designated by the CDLP disp|ayed—with gap between Bridge and Canterbury this automatically became the policy of the NP (in July map) was a strong feeling (see pp 5-6 of 2017). and Village document 29) Design 27 vv 28 See 2017 document folder Statement. Draft 5 of plan available and a copy of Health Check by Claire Tester May—June AECOM consultation on the Responses These responses are contained and commented upon by AECOM within the final SEA report 2017 emerging scoping report with from Historic published in February 2018 pp 6-17. statutory consu|tees: England and 0 Historic England Natural 0 Natural England England 0 Environment Agency F€CeiV€d June 2017 Housing needs survey 224 survey Need for 11 affordable homes; 5 of Results fed directly into the NP as Appendix C and also into distributed to all households. responses out which are for older households. the text at policy C3. (For full copy of the survey of 686 issued- and responses received see rate of 33%. Appendix C of the Regulation (89% of 6 version of the NP). responders were owner occupiers and 64% have lived in the parish for 10 years or more). 20 Nov 4.30— The Cantley proposa|s—to be Mr Gooch of 17 villagers spoke with Mr Gooch The Cantley proposals as published to the village by post in 7.00 voted on 5 days later. Cantley Ltd about their specific concerns. the first week of Nov 2017 remained unaltered; specific explained the latest housing proposals for those who details were clarified or noted by Cantley. wished to speak with him 25 Parish vote on the Cantley There were 329 Binary choice given to villagers in Very large majority (65%) in favour of the Cantley November housing proposals. Further votes cast. 215 this vote—either Yes or No. proposals ensured they were included in the final version 2017 details of the vote are at were for "yes”; of the NP section 6 of the folder 113 were for entitled "Publications to the "No” and 1 was village” unmarked. Jan to Dec 2018 Jan 2018 Comments received from CCC For full list see document at p. 33 of this folder All to be seen on p.33 of this folder Feb-April Regulation 14 consultation- 5029 According to CCC the Basic NPC agreed revisions to the plan on 8 May 2018 as a result 2018 the whole plan and its Conditions statement was of the Regulation 14 consu|tation.3° The full list of changes appendices were consulted upon. "sufficiently thorough”. Responses showed % of "agree and strongly agree” to the consultation questions: 4 questions were at 100% 12 questions were at 90-99% 5 questions were at 80-89% 3 questions were at 70-79% 2 questions were at 60-69% In total, 21/26 or 81% of questions received "strongly agree” or "agree”. made can be seen on pp 7-9 of this folder and mostly came from Canterbury City Council. (The CCC response to the regulation 14 consultation is to be found in full at p.10 of this folder). These changes were contained in the regulation 15 version sent to Canterbury City Council on June 25 2018, to be seen at p.13 of this folder. 21/26 or 81% of the questions received "strongly agree” or "agree” indications. The full list of comments can be seen at document 30 in the 2018 folder. 29 18 online and 32 on paper 30 See 2018 document folder Events 11 Information about the Reg 14 15 villagers in See document 30 (2018 folder) for +12 Village consultation p|an31. total attended analysis of written responses. Hall Printed copies of the NP, the these 18/3/18 2-5 consultation response form meetings. p.m. and appendices were 7/4/18 available. 25 June 2018 Regulation 15 consultation This version was a modified version of Regulation 14 version sent to Canterbury edition. For full list of differences see p.13 of this folder. City Counci|32 6 July — 7 Regulation 16 consultation. All 33 Most objections raised to the September Letter sent to all households responses34 following policies: 2018 in the village.33 summarised at htt s: drive. Policy C1 had 50% in favour and 50% Policy C1 (m) amplified (as requested by CCC) oog|e.com/driv objecting e/folders/1xFT vkdeWjhFBrMb Policy C3 had 44% in favour and 40% Policy C7 (second sentence added as requested by CCC). yB ecWj0cGOS objecting LAyMN?ogsrc= (Both decided at the most recent meeting of the NPC on 16 Q by CCC Policy F3 had 35.7% in favour and October 2018). 35.7% objecting October Examination begins. Changes already made recorded here ‘ p. 25 —Green spaces numbered 2018 p.27 —new pictures and views added to illustrate more accurately the narrative in the text Philip Wicker Parish Clerk and Clerk to the Neighbourhood Plan Committee 31 See 2018 document folder 33 See 2018 document folder 33 See 2018 document folder 34 See 2018 document folder Bridge Neighbourhood Plan: 2012-2018 Record of community consultations (NPC= Neighbourhood Planning Committee; CCC=Canterbury City Council; NP=Neighbourhood Plan; CDLP= Canterbury District Local Plan) All public meetings to which flmembers of the community were invited in green font All written consultations with the local community are in red font Notes: 1. The order presented here is strictly chronological. For consultation outcomes with statutory consultees see this folder pp 36-38. 2. The headings for the columns of this document are taken from the letter to Bridge Parish Council by Inspector Mary O'Rourke dated 13 November 2018 3. Foototes point the reader to the documents arranged chronologically by year in the accompanying fo|ders.There is a separrate folder for each of the following years: 2005,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018. 4. Publications to the villageg which did not seek views and were therefore fo information only are also included in a red folder entitled ”Pub|ications to the village’’ Date What the community was Responses Issues and concerns were raised How issues and concerns informed the drafting of the asked for its views about received neighbourhood plan. Jan to Dec 2012 June 2012 Questionnaire issued to all 47% 50/50 split on more housing as All of these issues went into consideration of the first set of households covers new 335/7202 shown in document 2 objectives for the emerging NP. A clear statement of these housing, car parking and green spaces.1 One issued per household. Further analysisg showed strong resistance to expansion of the school (76% of respondents)—Question 21 of the questionnaire 73% believe traffic problems need resolution. Question 32 of the questionnaire 50.5% feel insufficient provision has been made for cyclists Question 29 of the questionnaire No need for large scale development in Bridge —see conclusion of the analysis in document 3questionnaire 95% of residents wish to retain the green gap (Question 35 of the questionnaire) objectives once they had crystallised can be found in document 5 in the 2013 folder. 1 See 2012 document folder 2 See 2012 document folder 3 See 2012 document folder 2012-2014 Letters to businesses in the Letter to Sent on Reply received Village 2012-14. A Copy Can Highland Investment Co Ltd 01.03.2014 18.03.2014 be found as document 3 (a) Savills 15.06.2012 in the 2012 f0|der- ccc Estates dept 01.03.2014 Dental practice 12.06.2012 Health Centre 06.09.2013 16.10.2013 Owners of all shops in Bridge (including 12.06.2012 06.07.2012 (one and Pharmacy, Post Office, Woodlands, Bridgeway only reply received) Stores, Nicholas James, Alfie and Trish photography, Laurie Wakeham) Bridge School 12.06.2012 08.04.2013 18.04.2013 06.09.2013 Roger's Garage 10.03.2014 Mr V Macdonald (landowner) 01.03.2014 By email EVENT 1 Exhibition for all villagers on Village Hall the results ofJune 2012 This event was repeated in June 2013 and further commentary is available in the row below. The display consisted 25/08/2012 questionnaire. Villagers were of charts taken from the 20102 questionnaire ana|ysis—as shown in document 3 (2012 folder) invited to raise issues for inclusion in the NP and to consider especially the vision statement of the NP. Jan to Dec 2013 EVENT 2 Exhibition Villagers invited to 102 residents Completed questionnaires produced Village Hall raise issues to be placed in attended. from the June 2013 consultations 1/06/2013 the NP and to comment on 42 more were analysed and a set of the results ofJune 2012 questionnaire. questionnaires were returned- in addition to objectives (highlighted in green) formulated as recorded in the NPC minutes of 15 November 2013.5 those returned in June 2012.4 They show a need to: 0 clarify objectives6 0 improve communication between the community and the NP writers. 0 Do more work on car parking7 All 3 of these bullet points are taken from NPC minutes dated 15 Nov and 13 December 2013. 0 Objectives were clarified as shown in document 5 0 A website was set up for the Neighbourhood Plan 0 led to parking survey of 2014 EVENT 3 Fete Exhibition Repeat of Event 2 above in a new |ocation—aiming to reach younger population involved with the school. Bridge Issues and concerns raised are included in the line above for Event 2 Primary School 25/06/2013 15 July 2013 Recreation ground lease to the Parish Council (due to expire in 2023) is not to be renewed8 Jan—Dec 2014 May 2014 Parking Survey in two 131 (110 Parking survey analysis (document Policies B4 and B5 in October 2014 draft (project B5 in the sections9 residents/21 10 of 2014 folder) regulation 16 2018 NP consultation). non- 1.non—residents residents)1° Parking is addressed in Appendix F of the regulation 16 NP 2.residents. version. 1. a car park is proposed (favoured by 51% ofthe 5 See 2013 document folder 4 See 2013 document folder 6 See 2013 document folder 7 See 2013 document folder 8 See 2013 document folder 9 1 See 2014 document folder 0 2014 car parking survey respondents) 2. to be free of charge (favoured by 66% of the 2014 car parking survey respondents—see document 10 in 2014 folder). Event 4 Consultation 10—1.0p.m.11 1/11/2014 Organised to assist villagers with the completion of the questionnaire on the first full draft NP document issued to all households in October 2014. A printed copy is to be found in the folder "Publication to the village” at section 3. 21/11/2014 Preliminary analysis of results 74 Section C (Housing) responses were These initial results were confirmed and amplified when to questionnaire shared with lowest (77%): all completed questionnaires were analysed on 23.01.2015 the NPC" Sections A,B,D,F,G all at 90%+ Section E (Climate change and flooding) at 85% Jan to Dec 2015 23.01.2015 First Consultation Draft full 131 Need to: analysis.” questionnaires returned: 662 comments received in total, of which 52 were about the plan in general. No response from Highways, CCC or local businesses. 0 Clarify abbreviations 0 show membership of the NPC 0 publish NPC minutes 0 add Village Design Statement (VDS) to website 0 consult with micro businesses Section C (housing) deemed by some to be contradictory: needed collective rewrite. Document 13 (a) 0 Abreviations clarified 0 Membership shown 0 Minutes published 0 VDS added to website (All 4 bullet points already all presaged in document 12- 2014 folder). Full summary analysis is available, with complete data to be found at: 11 See 2014 document folder 12 See 2014 document folder 13 See 2015 document folder CPRE response to this this consultation is attached to document 13. in the 2015 folder shows how and why the housing section (Section C) was amended. All other sections of the plan given to a NPC member to review. http://bridgevillage.org.uk/NeighbourhoodP|an2012/analy sis2014.asp Click on "comments” heading in the table to see them in their entirety. EVENTS 5+6 Information events Potential 40 villagers attended on 13 October Questions (24 in total from both meetings) and answers Parish Invitation to comment on housing 2015. Another 25 attended on 20 recorded by the Clerk.“ Church housing proposals proposals in October (including a representative 13+ 20/10 15 the NP. from Cantley Ltd) Autumn Housing in the 71 emails by Whether by email or letter (as No decisions were taken with regard to housing in the plan 2015 Neighbourhood Plan: outline 2/12/15 from shown document 16): at this stage. By the time the next version of the plan was proposals put forward by 32 villagers and published formally to villagers (Regulation 14 version in Cantley Ltd were published in 15 letters from 15 favour Conyngham Lane site February 2018) there had been many further significant parish news|etter15 villagers” developments about housing proposals, most importantly following on 24 against Conyngham Lane site the decision announced to the village by Cantley Ltd in from public their letter and proposed housing plans posted to all events on 13+ 4 seek more information residents in 2017 (see section 5 of the folder entitled 20/10/1517 "Publications to the Village”). 4 unclear See document 15 in the 2015 folder. Jan to Dec 2016 EVENTS 7+8 Housing consultationsls Site Written comments were gathered— Email responses were encouraged“ Village hall preferences for addressed in document number 20 20/03/16 housing19 (in the 2016 fo|der)2° 14 See 2015 document folder 15 See 2015 document folder 16 See 2015 document folder 17 See 2015 document folder 18 See 2016 document folder 22/03/16 11.04.2016 Deadline for return of 14% -166 in Preferences expressed for Site 2 Conyngham Lane site retained in the Neighbourhood Plan. housing preference forms totalzz (Conyngham Lane) then for Brickfields then for site 4 (recreation ground near the surgery) 61 comments were also received (see document 20 in 2016 folder for full details). Other comments were made on the preference sheets and are recorded. 23 EVENT 9 School fete Information 56 people spoke with consultant Jim Unpopularity of Conyngham Lane site for proposed Bridge event on the Boot or members of the NPC24 housing -29 negative comments about this site: 9 in School policies and favour. 25/06/2016 projects within the plan. Need to slim down number of policies and projects July 2016 Following earlier consultation, Cantley reduce potential development sites to 2 for potential inclusion in the NP25 Jan to Dec 2017 Jan 2017 Health Check report written Health Check made 7 by Claire Tester sent to BPC26 recommendations (p.6 of report): 1. Exclude housing numbers 1. and sites Not adopted 2. Get screening from CCC on 19See 2016 document folder 20 See 2016 document folder 21 See 2016 document folder 22 See 2016 document folder 23 See 2016 document folder 24 See 2016 document folder 25 See 2016 document folder 26 See 2017 document folder SEA and HRA 3. Produce a supporting document to explain choices in the plan as set on p. 3 4. Produce a site assessmen framework if sites are inlcuded 5. Explain more of the special character of Bridge and its landscape setting, what the community values about it and justifying the policies chosen 6. Get the VDS consulted on and examined 7. Modification suggested in the table are accepted 2. SEA by AECOM.HRA screening letter with Inspector 3. This document provides detials of the evolution of the plan and reasons. 4. Appendix B 5. Appendix D, analysis of questionnniare responses and reasons for policies shown in this document and in the usbmissions made with it. 6. Done 7. These were mostly accepted as the next editions of the plan were produced. EVENT 10 Exhibition and opportunity to Enable villagers 10.6% of registered voters attended Village hall express opinions via coloured to share views; (133/1253)" 21/01/17 post it stickers see progress of plan and share Need to preserve Church meadow Both spaces appear as green spaces to be preserved in the comments and recreation ground especially regulation 16 version of the plan. 14 proposed amongst the proposed green spaces green spaces” (see p.2 of document 29) (photos Also the need to preserve the green Once the Green Gap was formally designated by the CDLP disp|ayed—with gap between Bridge and Canterbury this automatically became the policy of the NP (in July map) was a strong feeling (see pp 5-6 of 2017). and Village document 29) Design 27 vv 28 See 2017 document folder Statement. Draft 5 of plan available and a copy of Health Check by Claire Tester May—June AECOM consultation on the Responses These responses are contained and commented upon by AECOM within the final SEA report 2017 emerging scoping report with from Historic published in February 2018 pp 6-17. statutory consu|tees: England and 0 Historic England Natural 0 Natural England England 0 Environment Agency F€CeiV€d June 2017 Housing needs survey 224 survey Need for 11 affordable homes; 5 of Results fed directly into the NP as Appendix C and also into distributed to all households. responses out which are for older households. the text at policy C3. (For full copy of the survey of 686 issued- and responses received see rate of 33%. Appendix C of the Regulation (89% of 6 version of the NP). responders were owner occupiers and 64% have lived in the parish for 10 years or more). 20 Nov 4.30— The Cantley proposa|s—to be Mr Gooch of 17 villagers spoke with Mr Gooch The Cantley proposals as published to the village by post in 7.00 voted on 5 days later. Cantley Ltd about their specific concerns. the first week of Nov 2017 remained unaltered; specific explained the latest housing proposals for those who details were clarified or noted by Cantley. wished to speak with him 25 Parish vote on the Cantley There were 329 Binary choice given to villagers in Very large majority (65%) in favour of the Cantley November housing proposals. Further votes cast. 215 this vote—either Yes or No. proposals ensured they were included in the final version 2017 details of the vote are at were for "yes”; of the NP section 6 of the folder 113 were for entitled "Publications to the "No” and 1 was village” unmarked. Jan to Dec 2018 Jan 2018 Comments received from CCC For full list see document at p. 33 of this folder All to be seen on p.33 of this folder Feb-April Regulation 14 consultation- 5029 According to CCC the Basic NPC agreed revisions to the plan on 8 May 2018 as a result 2018 the whole plan and its Conditions statement was of the Regulation 14 consu|tation.3° The full list of changes appendices were consulted upon. "sufficiently thorough”. Responses showed % of "agree and strongly agree” to the consultation questions: 4 questions were at 100% 12 questions were at 90-99% 5 questions were at 80-89% 3 questions were at 70-79% 2 questions were at 60-69% In total, 21/26 or 81% of questions received "strongly agree” or "agree”. made can be seen on pp 7-9 of this folder and mostly came from Canterbury City Council. (The CCC response to the regulation 14 consultation is to be found in full at p.10 of this folder). These changes were contained in the regulation 15 version sent to Canterbury City Council on June 25 2018, to be seen at p.13 of this folder. 21/26 or 81% of the questions received "strongly agree” or "agree” indications. The full list of comments can be seen at document 30 in the 2018 folder. 29 18 online and 32 on paper 30 See 2018 document folder Events 11 Information about the Reg 14 15 villagers in See document 30 (2018 folder) for +12 Village consultation p|an31. total attended analysis of written responses. Hall Printed copies of the NP, the these 18/3/18 2-5 consultation response form meetings. p.m. and appendices were 7/4/18 available. 25 June 2018 Regulation 15 consultation This version was a modified version of Regulation 14 version sent to Canterbury edition. For full list of differences see p.13 of this folder. City Counci|32 6 July — 7 Regulation 16 consultation. All 33 Most objections raised to the September Letter sent to all households responses34 following policies: 2018 in the village.33 summarised at htt s: drive. Policy C1 had 50% in favour and 50% Policy C1 (m) amplified (as requested by CCC) oog|e.com/driv objecting e/folders/1xFT vkdeWjhFBrMb Policy C3 had 44% in favour and 40% Policy C7 (second sentence added as requested by CCC). yB ecWj0cGOS objecting LAyMN?ogsrc= (Both decided at the most recent meeting of the NPC on 16 Q by CCC Policy F3 had 35.7% in favour and October 2018). 35.7% objecting October Examination begins. Changes already made recorded here ‘ p. 25 —Green spaces numbered 2018 p.27 —new pictures and views added to illustrate more accurately the narrative in the text Philip Wicker Parish Clerk and Clerk to the Neighbourhood Plan Committee 31 See 2018 document folder 33 See 2018 document folder 33 See 2018 document folder 34 See 2018 document folder Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement November 2018 List of contents within this folder and showing date of publication: 1. Analysis of 2012 questionnaire which was published on the Parish Council website. (The questionnaire itself is at document 1 in the 2012 folder). 2. Parish newsletter (Spring 2013) feeding back on the survey and next steps. 3. Documents associated with the October 2014. consultation with the entire village (one copy delivered to every household). 4. Update on the Neighbourhood Plan progress published on the Parish Council website in January 2017. 5. Cantley housing proposals sent by post to all households by Cantley Ltd in first week of November 2017. 6. Documents relating to the village vote on housing proposals in November 2017 7. The policies and projects contained within the regulation 14 consultation of 2018. Made available at consultation events and published to the website. 8. Regulation 14 paper copy. (Most respondents accessed this document online). Documents 30 and 31 in the folder entitled 2018 refer). In addition to the above, the Neighbourhood Plan has been a standing item for feedback to the Parish Council (and therefore to the public) at every PC meeting since mid—2012. In addition there has been an annual report at the Annual Parish meeting every year since 2013. Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement November 2018 List of statutory and other consultee responses contained within this folder: Reg 14 AECOM SEA scoping Other Environment Agency Y Y Jan 2015- response to October 2014 draft of NP Historic England Kent County Council Y N 2016—f|ooding officer KCC Highways N N Sept 2016 Natural England Y Y—but too late for inclusion in report AONB Y Y May 2016 Local parish councils (no N N N responses were received) Canterbury City Council Y N October 2016 (see pp 10 and 33 of blue and December folder entitled 2014 ’’Consultation Statement” for more responses from CCC) Revision of Bridge NP after Regulation 14 Consultation 2018 The revisions to the Reg 14 consultation document are to be found in the regulation 15 consultation document published to Canterbury City Council in June 2018. The changes contained in the reg 15 document are highlighted in red font on p.13 of this folder. The following table shows each amendment; the page where it is to be found in the reg 15 document (p.13 of this folder) and, where available, the consultation response which provoked each amendment. NB: The complete Canterbury City Council response to the regulation 14 consultation is to be found at p.10 of this folder. In the table below: CCC= Canterbury City Council; KCC = Kent County Council; EA= Environment Agency; HE = Historic England; NP= Neighbourhood Plan Page Amendment Reason for the change Relevant consultation No number response 3 1 Updated version—now regulation 15 2 More accurate description of the village 3 Improved wording suggested CCC—reg 14 response p.10 4 1 More positive note than in previous version. "Maintain” rather than ''deliver’’ 5 1 Typo of 63 corrected with 43 HE 13 April 2018 6 1 Previous version falsely implied more than one village business park. Also policy A3 covers the issue of local employment 7 1 To provide more information about the Farm New wording taken directly mentioned in Policy A3 from the HE consultation response dated 13 April 2018 2 Opportunity taken to underline the importance of ensuring controls on parking 8 1 Improved grammar CCC—reg 14 response p.10 2 Improved grammar Number plate of car blanked out CCC reg 14 response p.10 10 1 Improved wording suggested CCC—reg 14 response pp.4—5 11 1 Addition of comment about road KCC response dated 16 April development 2018 (p.8) 12 1 More positive note than in previous version. "Maintain” rather than ''deliver’’ 13 1 HE suggestion New wording taken directly from the HE consultation response dated 13 April 2018 2 HE suggestion New wording taken directly from the HE consultation response dated 13 April 2018 3 Emphasis place on developers to ensure that Addresses drainage concerns drainage sewerage and flood risks are raised by KCC response dated Revision of Bridge NP after Regulation 14 Consultation 2018 shouldered by the, 16 April 2018 ( p.3) and the EA response dated 16 April 2018 (p1) 14 1 Use of the word "maximum” removes some CCC—reg 14 response p.5 of the uncertainty noted by CCC in the regulation 14 response on this issue 2 Reinforces notion of "maximum” 3 Represents a feeling held strongly by the NPC 4 Improved wording suggested CCC—reg 14 response p.5 5 Policy C5 is new. It is included as a means of 6 underlying the intent outlined on p.23 of the 7 regulation 15 version 8 15 1 Policy C6 is new to the Regulation 15 draft. Response to the Environment Agency call for more emphasis to be given to the protection of biodiversity; (EA response dated 16 April 2018) 2 Policy C7 is an updated version of policy C5 CCC—reg 14 response p.6. This in the reg 14 edition. It accommodates some policy also conforms to the of the requests made by CCC in their reg 14 request made by HE in their response (p.6) response dated 13 April 2018 (p.2) and to their request for a change to the wording of policy C5. In fact, their request now appears in policy C7. 16 1 This statement is more specific about the HE response dated 13 April historic sites in Bridge than in the previous 2018.(p.2)emphasises the version. It provides furtherjustification for historical importance of the inclusion of policy C7 in the reg 15 remains in the village. version. It also is in response to the response made by HE. 19 1 Reference to the Mill Centre has been removed because there have been growing doubts as to the long term viability of the centre. These doubts have surfaced increasingly in the period between the composition of the regulation 15 and the regulation 14 editions of the plan. 20 1 Improved wording suggested CCC—reg 14 response p.12 22 1 The map is an updated and larger scale 2 version of the EA map used in the regulation 14 version 23 1 Only Bridge Parish Council can do this: the NP cannot. 1(a) This sentence has been added at the request CCC—reg 14 response p.12—13 of CCC and replaces regulation 14 version sentence at the same place 2 Cross reference added to assist the reader. Policy C5 is new in the regulation 15 edition Revision of Bridge NP after Regulation 14 Consultation 2018 of the plan. 24 1 Improved wording suggested CCC—reg 14 response p.13 2 Improved wording suggested CCC—reg 14 response p.13 26 1 Improved clarity of wording regarding 2 Church Meadow 3 Provides more clarity about location and significance of the amenity. 4 This is an error. This particular line needs to be removed since it has been superseded by the line above about ''land between Brickfields and the Nail Bourne.” 5 Not included in regulation 14 version and should have been. Replaces line about Conyngham Lane in the reg. 14 version. 27 1 Improved wording suggested CCC—reg 14 response p.8 2 Provides greater clarity of location. 29 1 Use of wording " not supported” replaces Partial acceptance of CCC reg "refused”. 14 response (p.8) 30 1 Improved wording suggested CCC—reg 14 response p.9 and HE response dated 13 April 2018 (p.3) Please note: the Regulation 16 version of the NP has numbered paragraphs - at the request, made in April 2018, of Canterbury City Council. Responses to consultations replies from statutory consultees References in this document re to the NP regulation 16 version to be found at https://drive.goog|e.com/drive/folders/1k-8xDmoKTvMKJQKW-BKCsams-or|6zmw?ogsrc=32 on the Canterbury City Council website Context in which all of these comments were discussed: 1. Many of the comments made by statutory consultees were covered within the Canterbury District Plan (adopted in July 2017) with which this NP must accord. 2. Also, all planning applications which involve the village of Bridge need to be approved by the planning authority at Canterbury. However there were specific responses made in the plan to comments made by these consultees. The Environment Agency There were 3 formal communications for the EA 1. 5 January 2015: Suggested a rewording for policy E1 which was adopted in its entirety 2. 21 September 2016: Policy E2 was removed from the plan completely. Policy E1 contains the required reference to groundwater protection measures. 3. 16 April 2018: There is a reference to biodiversity in section F. It is in section 7.2. New policy C6 was added to increase the emphasis on biodiversity. The map in section 6.5 was added to address concerns about flooding and flood risk. The wording in this section was strengthened with reference to comments from the EA. The environmental concerns raised by the EA were considered to have been covered in section 7.2, talking of the need to protect conserve and enhance the natural environment. These are the very words used by the EA in page 2 of their 16 April response. Historic England Email dated 13 April 2018: 1. The regulation 15 version adopted all of the suggestions made by Historic England. Details are given in the document entitled "Revision of NP after Regulation 14 consultation 2018" There are 7 specific changes tot eh wording which refer directly to the Historic England response. Kent Highways Response dated 26 September 2016: 1. Spoke of the need for a traffic count to establish a 20 mph limit in the village. In January 2017 a traffic count was carried out and is included at Appendix E. Kent County Council: Environment, Planning and Enforcement Response dated 16 April 2018: The addition to policy B2 of a statement about road development stems from the KCC response p.8. Public rights of way are shown clearly in Appendix F. Section 5.9 stresses that public footpaths will continue to be maintained, supported by the parish council and volunteers, as a supplement to the work of Kent Highways Authority. Members of the Neighbourhood Plan committee met with the Chair of Governors and the acting headteacher of the primary school on 1 February 2018 and also with the local education officer, Marisa White on February 21 2018. In those meetings, the potential expansion of the school with local children who would not require transportation was brought to the attention of school leaders. It was felt that heritage and conservation comments were covered in sections 7.5 and 7.6 of the plan. Response dated 26 August 2016 from the KCC Flood Risk Project Officer: Latest mapping data was secured from the EA as suggested Natural England Response dated 16 April 2018: The request for a map supporting policy A3 is covered in responses accompanying this document. Policy C2 no longer contains the phrase "designated |and”. Canterbury City Council's own development plan (with which this accords) contains maps of the ancient woodland areas, and their accord in required for any planning developments within the village. Kent Downs AONB Response dated 28 March 2018: There were no specific requirements made for amendments at this stage. Response dated 10 August 2016: p.4 Project F2 was removed from the Plan. Policies G2 and G3 were also removed. p.4 Lighting is now mentioned in policy F5. p.3 The Conyngham Lane site no longer appears in the NP. BRIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Consultation statement Contents: Page number Page(s) 1 Introduction to timeline 3-4 Timeline 5 Introduction to changes made in response to consultation between regulation 14 (Feb 2018) and regulation 15 edition (June 2018) 7-9 Table showing changes made in response to consultation between regulation 14 (Feb 2018) and regulation 15 edition (June 2018) 10 Copy of Canterbury City Council's response to regulation 14 consultation 12 Introduction to regulation 15 edition 13 Copy of regulation 15 edition showing amendments 16 Introduction to chronological list of consultations (and responses) with the wider community of Bridge 17-27 Chronological list of consultations (and responses) with the wider community of Bridge 28-29 October 2014 draft showing comments from Planning Aid in margins 32 Introduction to changes made to regulation 14 edition as a consequence of comments from Canterbury City Council 33 Table showing changes made to regulation 14 edition as a consequence of comments from Canterbury City Council 36 Introduction to responses from statutory consultees 37-38 Responses from statutory consultees and how the plan was accordingly amended Timeline of key developments in the evolution of Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018 In this table: CDLP= Canterbury District Local Plan (adopted in July 2017) Year Canterbury Bridge Parish NP Editions of Context of NP Key elements of plan City Council Council Committee plan composed/revised Local Plan (those pubfished to the public in bold) 2005 Bridge Parish Plan published 2011 May Localism Act Elections: Cllr Hi||— Chair 2012 NPC set up— 8 Affordable Questionnaire to all Prof. Joe houses occupied villagers- Connor— on Brickfie|ds—7 "small scale Chair. years after initial developments” to be plans were laid encouraged. C|erk=vi||ager Esther Hall Objectives drawn up 2013 CDLP Cllr Hodges- Objectives finalised drafted and Chair 2014 consulted October Parking Survey. upon 2014 Draft NP published and consulted upon 2015 May Elections: Autumn: Housing Cllr A became a key focus for Atkinson— the emerging p|an—first Chair Cantley proposals. 2016 May: Planning consultant Jim Planning Boot engaged by Housing continues to be in-5PeCt0r lVlr the Parish discussed. lVl00re refer-S Council, using 8 July: Cantley limit t0 Bridge DCLG grant housing sites to 2. and the monies to pay his ernerging fees. In post NP1 until Spring 2018 2017 Jan 2017?? Traffic count completed NPC chaired (Jan) 1 The Inspector, Mr Moore, whose hearings were held in Autumn 2016, when assessing the most recent CDLP wrote (CDLP point 253) that ’’In the context of the size of the village and the general extent of the AON B, the scale of the development proposed could not be described as major.” This was for the 40 homes proposed for the village by Canterbury district at the Brickfields site which was within the AON B. development in Bridge is a matter that could be addressed in the NP.” At point 254, Mr Moore wrote "....The most appropriate location for further In this table: CDLP= Canterbury District Local Plan (adopted in July 2017) Timeline of key developments in the evolution of Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018 Green Spaces, Village Design Statement consulted upon (Jan) Health check on NP published May—June: AECOM scoping report published and consulted upon with statutory consultees Housing needs survey done and results published (June/July 2017) Green Gap in CDLP precludes Conyngham Lane housing site. 8 August: Cantley confirm this. Autumn: Cantley final housing proposals published (Appendix F) to villagers by post 1-3 November 2017 AECOM SEA published Feb 2018 Draft plan examined Ju|y—CDLP adopted with no housing allocated for Bridge. Green Gap is August formally (draft 6)2 adopted as part of the CDLP 2018 February Regulation 14 edition (known as draft 9) June Regulation 15 —NP to CCC Sept Regulation 16 edition Oct/Nov 2019 May Elections 2 August 2017 version (draft 6) added Gt Pett Farm policy (A3); refers to the now completed housing survey; indicates that the preferred housing site (C3) is not yet agreed; added policy F2 on light pollution P.26 of this draft outlined work still to be done. Timeline of key developments in the evolution of Bridge Neighbourhood Plan 2012-2018 In this table: CDLP= Canterbury District Local Plan (adopted in July 2017)