TEYNHAM AREA OF OPPORTUNITY (TAO)
IT IS NOT "SOUND"
RESOURCES: LONG TEXTS AGAINST THE "TEYNHAM AREA OF OPPORTUNITY" (TAO) and POLICY AO1
DEADLINE: 30TH APRIL 2021
Community website put together by some residents - it helps with TAO submissions - offering a quick and easy way of registering your views without the pain of the SBC Portal website!
Use the Interactive Form. Very clear and easy to read. Spread the word. This is a good place to start.
- KCC Highways warnings on lack of capacity along the historic parts of the A2.(1) Local Plan Panel Meeting to discuss "Looking Ahead" responses on 29th October 2018 (full text below); (2) Proposal on Lynsted Lane - recommendation for rejection (full text)
- THIS IS KCC'S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO THE LOCAL PLAN - FAIRLY DAMNING OF SBC'S HANDLING OF THE LOCAL PLAN
- Paragraph 1.0.8. - A general challenge on the "soundness" of the Local Plan, especially as it has led to the surprise TAO
- Policy AO1 - challenges to the Policy that lays out specific ideas on our future in Greenstreet, Teynham and Lynsted with Kingsdown Parishes, without meaningful consultation or supporting evidence. Nigel Heriz-Smith long text.
- Short Summary of Key Points under "compliance Headings" - Nigel Heriz-Smith's checklist for Policy AO1. Using the headings of relevant tests of deliverability, justification, legal compliance, compliance with national policy. This may help identify the grounds for arguing "unsoundness" in all the other paragraphs if you want to go there! Please do!
- CPRE Study challenges road-building declares you CANNOT build your way out of congestion [see extract below] - The end of the road? Challenging the road-building consensus. Learning from previous road schemes for a better future." (March 2017)
and/or email SBC - Lpcomments@swale.gov.uk or call SBC for advice on (01795) 417014
|The boxes look too small to use.||There is no limit to the length of comments; the box scrolls; SBC Portal suggests draft your comments in Word and cut and paste into the paragraph comment box. Cut and Paste keeps tables and formatting.|
|Can I include pictures or other files||Yes, but the Site only allows you to attach one file; if you have several documents, then put them all into one PDF - listing the documents in the PDF at the head of the PDF; Give them a reference (e.g. Doc1, Doc2) and point to them from your text in the box. If you are really stuck, send me the files and I will have a go for you and return the joined-up file..|
|When I press "Submit" can I make any more comments?||Yes. But you have to open a new document.
You just open the Portal, click on a paragraph to Add Comment and you will then be told to "Sign In" - you will see a Notice that you last commented on xyz date - Ignore that. Go to the paragraph and start typing - you have to put your personal details in again. This does not replace your earlier "Submitted" document. So, knock yourselves out right up to 30th April!
|How will I know my "Submit" has been accepted?||Once you click on "Submit", there is a short delay while SBC Officers check they are compliant with their rules (not abusive for example) and you should get an email. However, it is worth going back to the Portal to check. Go to "What People Say" (top of page) - go to a paragraph you know you commented on and see if/when it arrives. I have one report of "Submit" failing and needing to be repeated.|
The first link is to the example comments. The second link takes you to the paragraph on the portal
to save you time!
|What is this paragraph about....?||Sample texts||Links to Portal paragraphs|
|Paragraph 5.5.30||Teynham described as a "Rural Local Service Centre"||Long Text.||Link to Portal|
|Paragraphs 5.5.31 and 5.5.32||Describing the historical patterns of development and rich heritage of our communities. Which SBC seeks to coalesce into an amorphous blob.||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.33||Landscape Sensitivity Analysis - invented by developers with SBC to fit a preferred outcome||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.34 and 5.5.35||Describing the land south of the A2, Lyn Valley (to be crossed by the bypass), south of Greenstreet (to be built over with options to develop further south).||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.36||No Comment. Rejects development north of the railway. Good idea.||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.37||Defining Countryside Gaps to coincide with SHLAA Sites and allocations||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.39||The fallacy of “centrality in the Borough” as an asset - the TAO Trap||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.40 to 5.5.43||Obstacles to Teynham Area of Opportunity and damage caused through pollution. Misdirected assertions, unproven claims and ambitions. Inserted the same text in each paragraph on the Portal. These comments are interlinked||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.44||The arbitrary assertions surrounding accessibility, "centrality" in the Borough and "active travel" as a rural option.||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.45||Drawing lines around the Teynham Area of Opportunity based on SHLAA Sites rather than any attempt at further analysis or justification.||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.46||The masterplan pretence at flexibility but creating facts on the ground that cannot readily be undone - the TAO Straightjacket||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.47||Itemising the lack of evidence behind the Teynham Area of Opportunity but making heroic assumptions. This is where the bypass is excused without analysis to support it.||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.48||Missing Sustainability Appraisal - no compliance with normal Local Plan at Reg 19||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.49||Dependency on a bypass ("southern relief road") for delivery of the Teynham Area of Opportunity. See below for CPRE evidence.||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.50||The Masterplan imagined - but puts the cart before the horse with the TAO and Policy AO1 being without foundation and potential for legal challenge.||Long Text||Link to Portal|
|Paragraph 5.5.1||Features of a masterplan introduced as a limiting factor to future freedoms in our communities.||Long Text||Link to Portal|
- CPRE Study. "The end of the road? Challenging the road-building consensus. Learning from previous road schemes for a better future." (March 2017) - "Unsurprisingly, evidence from the 13 cases analysed in detail for traffic impact concluded that road schemes generate more traffic. On average, traffic grew 47% more than background levels, with one scheme more than doubling traffic within 20 years. None of the four schemes assessed in the longer-term showed the promised reduction in congestion; all put pressure on adjoining roads.
As for economic impact, of 25 road schemes justified on the basis that they would benefit the local economy, only five had any direct evidence of economic effects at all. Even then there was no evidence the road was responsible for them, or hadn’t simply moved economic activity from elsewhere. And as regards the longed-for congestion relief, median journey times hardly changed, with savings of 90 seconds during peak periods."