To elect a Chairman for the Municipal Year 2015/16.

Resolved:  That Councillor Gerry Lewin be elected Chairman for the Municipal Year 2015/16.

To elect a Vice-Chairman for the Municipal Year 2015/16.

Resolved:  That Councillor Bryan Mulhern be elected Vice-Chairman for the Municipal Year 2015/16.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 March 2015 (Minute Nos. 522 - 525) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 March 2015 (Minutes Nos. 522 – 525) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

A Member queried whether in respect of agenda item 6 (Draft Faversham Town Heritage, Landscape Setting and Characterisation Study May 2015) what the legal position was for any Member owning a property within the areas marked red or orange on the map contained within the report for that item.

The Chairman explained that the Member should seek advice from legal in the first instance, and that for this meeting he would not require any Member to make a declaration in that respect as this was a general, not specific, piece of work.

The report considers a consultant’s study into the landscape and heritage setting of the town, which will act as part of the evidence for the forthcoming Local Plan Examination in Public and to inform more detailed future work and decision making.

The Principal Planner introduced the report which considered the second area of evidence, drawing upon landscape and heritage evidence the consultants had defined a landscape and heritage setting for the town to inform future more detailed work and decision making.

The Principal Planner explained that Turley Heritage Consultants had been commissioned to undertake this study in support of the forthcoming local plan examination, which had arisen from the Settlement Strategy of the Local Plan which developed a Planning Strategy for the Faversham and Thames Gateway areas of the Borough.  The Planning Advisory Service had highlighted the need for the Strategy to be more clearly articulated and evidenced and the commissioned work was part of that action intended to represent impartial technical evidence to back-up the arguments advanced.  This work would support the Settlement Strategy and also provide technical support for Development Control officers when considering planning applications. 

The Principal Planner reported that the appointed consultants, Turley Heritage, had prepared the report in consultation with Swale Borough Council (SBC) officers including SBC’s Conservation Officer, Kent County Council (KCC) Archaeology and Historic England.  In response to a query, the Principal Planner advised that Historic England had not provided any comments.  Minor points raised by KCC Archaeology were included in Appendix I of the report.

The Principal Planner stated that the specific aim of the study, set out on Page 2 of the report, was to determine the extent of the character of Faversham and how much it derived itself from its surroundings.  The study had involved the merging of:

landscape character assessments; and historic heritage significance assessments.    The Principal Planner stated the importance of recognising that this was a strategic level document and a prompt for further site-based work rather than a decision making document.  

The Principal Planner drew attention to the key map, on page 4 of the report, which set out the different character areas and sub-areas of the study area.  He stated that at a strategic level, the map identified some variances between high level contribution and moderate contribution areas.  The Principal Planner explained that the strategic level of the study was not necessarily saying all development in Faversham would take place in the yellow areas and none in the red areas of the map, but simply provided context within which further analysis could take place.

The Principal Planner stated that the study provided some useful assistance for the Settlement Strategy of the Local Plan and clearly indicated that historic importance was an issue for the town and an important context for potential development.  The Principal Planner advised that as this work had been carried out post-submission of the Local Plan it was important to move this piece of work forward swiftly so that it could be made available to the Examination. 

A Member requested the following information: who had authorised the commissioning of the report?; what was the cost of the study?; aside from SBC officers who had inputted into the report?; and what process of consultation had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

To receive a verbal update on progress on the Local Plan submission and forthcoming Examination in Public, as this is progressing from day to day.

The Spatial Planning Manager gave a verbal update on progress on the Local Plan submission and forthcoming Examination in Public.

The Spatial Planning Manager stated that the Local Plan was published on 19 December 2014.  There was then a 6-week public consultation period before the document was finally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.  She stated that following that public consultation, 810 representations from 144 individuals and bodies were received and they had all been sent to the Inspector to consider.  She noted that this was fewer than the previous public consultation undertaken in August 2013 where 1,600 points from 342 individuals and bodies had been received.  Most of the representations received from the final public consultation had been from developers in respect of developer targets being too low and raising consequent queries on the soundness of the plan. 

The Spatial Planning Manager reported that the Local Plan, its supporting strategy documents and all the evidence base was submitted on 11 April 2015.  The Secretary of State had appointed Mrs Sue Turner to conduct the examination.  The Spatial Planning Manager explained that Mrs Turner was a very experienced Inspector who had recently considered the Chichester Local Plan.  The Chichester Local Plan had been found sound, subject to modifications. 

The Spatial Planning Manager further reported that a Programme Officer had also been appointed to assist the Inspector with the examination.  The Spatial Planning Manager explained that the Programme Officer’s role was to help the Inspector with practical arrangements and her contact details were on SBC’s website: www.swale.gov.uk/local-plan-submission-and-examination/.  All correspondence had to go via the Programme Officer as officers, and participants in the Examination may not contact the Inspector direct. 

The Spatial Planning Manager outlined the following items that could also be viewed via the website: library of documents that would form the background for the examination; statutory required documents; evidence base; and technical supporting documents.  The Spatial Planning Manager advised that officers would continually update the website as the examination progressed.   The Spatial Planning Manager stated that the Inspector had already made notes which were prefixed ID/ and drew attention to ID/3 and ID/4 where the Inspector had expressed concern about developer targets and the justification for these.  The Inspector had noted that the issues around developer targets were complex and she was content to hold the examination in public and explore those issues and let participants put their cases forward.

The Spatial Planning Manager advised that the Inspector had requested further evidence and justification on housing need issues and land supply and officers were working on that.  She explained that specifically officers needed to address changes in government planning guidance that had occurred even since the Local Plan had been submitted.  The Spatial Planning explained that the new ONS household projections that came out in March 2015 and the Government Planning Guidance had changed and officers needed to look at and provide commentary on that work.  The Inspector would need to look at the result of that work and other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.