The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency.

The Chairman drew attention to the evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 June 2015 (Minute Nos. 77 - 82) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 June 2015 (Minute Nos. 77 – 82) 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.

The purpose of this report is to update Members on the work that is being done to prepare a CIL Schedule for Swale and seeks approval for publication of a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule for public consultation.

The Head of Planning Services introduced the report which updated Members on the work that was being undertaken to prepare a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for Swale, and sought approval that a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule is published for public consultation for six weeks during early Spring 2016. He advised that it was hoped that Swale Borough Council would adopt the CIL and the Regulation 123 list.  He drew Members’ attention to the viability report at Appendix I in the report which outlined the affordable housing rate, and the recommended CIL rate, for the different areas within Swale. He presented a map for Members to view which set out the proposed charging areas.  The Head of Planning Services advised that once the CIL was in place, it was not negotiable, it was impossible to state the likely revenue that would be generated, but it was probably in the region of £50million up to the end of the Local Plan period (2031).  He advised that 15% of this would be transferred to parish councils, and 25% if they had a Neighbourhood Plan in place in both cases where the development occurred in that parish.

The Head of Planning Services explained that the charge rates could be reviewed at any time but would be subject to new viability review and consultation, so would normally be reviewed on a two/three year basis.  He outlined the process of the Regulation 123 list to include infrastructure items for CIL income, however anything on that list could not then be considered for Section 106 Agreement (Section 106) funding.  The list had been compiled through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, and this had shown that there was a funding gap.  The Planning Advisory Service suggested keeping the Regulation 123 list as confined as possible to leave more scope for requesting Section 106 and Section 278 Agreement (Section 278) contributions.

The Head of Planning Services reported, that after speaking with Kent County Council (KCC), they had urged not to include the Grovehurst Junction for CIL funding as they suggested a Section 278 was a better way to fund this, so he suggested this was not added to the Regulation 123 list.  Also that they recommended splitting the through school project into two, one for primary and one for secondary, as they might need to bring the primary project early as the site developed in order to get use of the school early on.  This would be funded through other sources rather than CIL.  The cost of the through school was around £26million.  He suggested that 80% was pooled for the school itself, and 20% used for smaller schemes in the Regulation 123 list.  He further advised that the Regulation 123 list could be reviewed at any time.

In response to a question, the Head of Planning Services advised that there was an amendment to Table 3.7, to show that extra care and retirement dwellings should be at £125 CIL rate for Faversham and rural areas only.  For Sittingbourne and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 534.

The first tranche of Interim Findings were received from the Local Plan Inspector on 4 February 2016.  As expected, they cover the housing target issue and a recommendation that it now be increased.  The item presents the interim findings, their implications, and sets out an indicative programme to progress the Local Plan through the Proposed Main Modifications stage of the process, during the remainder of the year.

This report provided an update on progress on the Local Plan; the Inspector’s Interim Findings (IF) from the Examination in Public; and the way forward.

The Chairman congratulated the Spatial Planning Manager and her Team on the work that they had carried out.  He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 2.10 in the report, particularly bullet point four: ‘the Plan’s settlement strategy of two planning areas is confirmed, with the focus of development on the Kent Thames Gateway part of the Borough.  A ‘proportional’ boost to allocations in Faversham and rural areas in a sensitive way without detriment to the settlement strategy is also recommended’.

The Spatial Planning Manager explained that the Examination in Public (EIP) was still live, but had paused for the Inspector to make recommendations to the Council in respect of Proposed Modifications.  The new housing target had been published early to enable the Council to make an early start on the work to support that.  The Spatial Planning Manager advised that at the submission stage, the Inspector had been formally requested to make any recommendations necessary to render the plan sound.  She reported that there was a new Government Gypsy and Traveller Policy (August 2015) which had changed the definition of  a gypsy and traveller; consequently the needs assessment for pitches over the plan period had been re-worked.  The Inspector appeared satisfied with the new evidence on this and further Interim Findings on this and other matters discussed at the EIP is expected with the next week or two.

Some Members considered that 776 houses would be a struggle to deliver, both viability and deliverability-wise.

In response to questions, the Spatial Planning Manager advised that over 80 possible new sites for housing had come in as a result of a call for sites (triggered by new sites presented both at the EIP Hearings and independently of the Local Plan process).  The idea was to consider all through the same criteria and these were being assessed for deliverability and infrastructure requirements.  She advised that the consultation on Proposed Modifications was likely to commence in late June; the Inspector had endorsed the bulk of the housing being in the Thames Gateway; she confirmed it was the Council’s choice to determine the choice of additional allocations.  The sites’ ranking list which was produced for the Hearings alongside site sustainability work was done to give the Inspector the confidence that the housing target could be increased if necessary, without conflict with key environmental designations; affordable housing need was built into the 776 houses per year; Kent County Council Highways & Transportation Officers had advised the EIP that the existing Borough network of roads would cope with the 776 houses target; and the Inspector endorsed the Borough’s settlement strategy as sound.

A Member explained that residents would want to know where the additional 80 sites in the call for sites were, and further advised that the pre-election period for the forthcoming Police and Crime Commissioners election affected the timetable for the Proposed Modifications  ...  view the full minutes text for item 535.