Documents

Here are the documents relevant to the various council meetings but note that some of the documents were not published as part of the agenda papers.

 

Cabinet Meeting 7 February 2017

The officer’s report

Exhibition

Updated Strategic Leisure Report

 

Cabinet Meeting 13 April 2016

The officer’s report

Land use options

 

Cabinet Meeting 4th November 2015

The officer’s report

Lloyd Bore Environmental Report 2015:

3609_RP_001-Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Savills Land Value Assessments:

Land Value Assessment Report

The IDOM Merebrooks Geo-Environmental Assessment:

Contamination report

and the rest of the  additional reports published by Shepway can be read here:

http://www.princesparade.co.uk/plans.html

 

Cabinet Meeting 28th May 2014

Officer’s report

Princes Parade – Decision Number 14001

The Strategic Leisure report

rcabt20140528 App.1.Princes Parade.Strategic Leisure Report

The GVA report

rcabt20140528 App.2.Princes.Parade.GVA.report

Cabinet Meeting 23 July 2013

The second URS/GVA/Allies & Morrison report:

http://www.shepway.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s11604/rcabt20130723%20Princes%20Parade%20-%20Appendix.pdf

The officer’s report:

http://www.shepway.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s11655/rcabt20130723%20Princes%20Parade.pdf

Minutes

http://www.shepway.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=2677&x=1

 

Cabinet Meeting December 2012

The original brief to the consultants:

Brief to consultants Rev 3

The Princes Parade and Swimming Pool Feasibility Reports:

new_pool_feasibility_study_august2012

urs_environmental_report

princes_parade_consultation_report_october2012_web

princes_parade_consultation_report_appendices_october2012_web

New Pool Feasibility Study – Decision number 12_053

Princes Parade Project Initial Study – Decision number 12_054

 

 

Hythe Town Clerk’s Reports

Town Clerk Report 05-12 PRINCE’S PARADE CONSULTATION

Town Clerk Report 06-12 SWIMMING POOL

The 2011 Report into rebuilding on the existing pool site

2011 Swimming Pool Study

The Inspector’s report from 2004 (see pages 86 to 90):

inspectors-report-2004-final

The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

shlaa

The SHLAA update document

SHLAA Update – July 2011

(see p62 in particular. Note the number of houses on the existing swimming pool and Seabrook School sites including Eversley Road although inclusion in the SHLAA does not mean that the site will definitely be developed.)

In 2011, Shepway commissioned a report from DTZ to look at the brownfield sites in Shepway

Site assessment Shepway District Local Brownfield Strategy

The consultants looked at  Prince’s Parade (although it doesn’t fall into Shepway’s own description of a brownfield site) and concluded:

“However any built development proposed may encounter significant public opposition.

The site faces development challenges such as flooding, topography and potential contamination and bio-diversity issues. It may be appropriate to retain the site’s existing use. We consider the flood risk issue to be significant as the site is located between the coast and an existing water course.

Detailed analysis would be required to assess the site- specific development constraints and any associated costs. The costs associated with facilitating development may significantly affect project viability, particularly in the prevailing market conditions. Costs could arise to address flood risk, topography, potential contamination and bio- diversity issues and any requirements from the status of the adjoining watercourse as a Local Wildlife Site.”

If you would like some basic information on how the planing system works , read this:

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1454776/planning_handy_guide_2012_5_final.pdf

 

The National Planning Policy Framework which says:

 

4. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including

playing fields, should not be built on unless:

● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open

space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

● the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by

equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable

location; or

● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the

needs for which clearly outweigh the loss

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf