The Project Manager (Policy) introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.  The report sought recommendation to Full Council that the proposed Vision and objectives, and Growth Option 6 be taken forward for consultation to enable the drafting of the Local Plan Review Regulation 18 Report.  He said the report had been considered by the Planning and Transportation Working Group (PTPWG) on 8 August 2024.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and points raised included:

• Referred to Figure 2 on page 174 of the report and said that the PTPWG had made it clear that they were not happy with the phrasing ‘meeting local needs’ within the Revised Draft Vision;
• this was not local needs it was government targets and that should be made clear in the document;
• the proposed housing levels were unsustainable and beyond anything that the residents of the borough needed;
• would like the Faversham Community Land Trust document included within the minutes as it made it clear that Faversham would be taking a disproportionate amount of housing compared to the rest of Swale;
• considered the sentence “sympathetic and symbiotic” to be a nonsense sentence and Option 6 was neither of those things;
• the removal of reference to the A2 specifically in terms of air quality would result in a devasting failure on the Council’s air quality commitment to the A2, and have “catastrophic consequences” for  residents living along the A2 at Ospringe, Faversham, Dunkirk and Boughton;
• Faversham would not be a “thriving small historic market town” if it grew by 80% in 20 years;
• Sittingbourne could not regenerate and do all the work it wanted to do on connectivity if it took no development and received no Section 106 funding;
• the Isle of Sheppey could not meet its goals if took no development and received no Section 106 funding;
• this was a plan letting down all the residents of Swale in its lack of ambition;
• building thousands of new houses in Faversham would not secure funding to upgrade the Brenley Corner junction;
• Faversham’s other problem motorway junction was running over capacity and dangerous, there was no mention of it for improvement in the document;
• the dwellings proposed for Faversham would have to be towards Graveney and the solar farm located there.  The Council had already deemed that site to be dangerous to residents in Faversham so how would the council’s Planning officers be able to support housing applications closer to it;
• the Faversham Community Land Trust, Faversham’s Future, Faversham Society, and Faversham Town Council were already discussing how they could oppose the Local Plan;
• it would not be appropriate to attach the Faversham Community Land Trust document to the minutes as this could set a precedent;
• the areas of Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey had taken 85% of the housing in previous years and this proposal would be a rebalance of the distribution of housing across Swale;
• the PTPWG had considered the document thoroughly and supported their recommendation;
• putting 4,000 dwellings in Faversham was not symbiotic or sympathetic and would ruin a historic and medieval market town;
• would have preferred to see a recommendation for a strategic site in the west of the borough to disperse the development more evenly;
• not sure how deliverable the proposals were in terms of highways;
• there were only three Members representing the east of the borough on the PTPWG and considered that was unfair;
• recommendation (2) should be amended to make it clear that all the options would be progressed through to the consultation;
• at this stage Members were only being asked to agree to go out to consultation, not to agree a particular option;
• Members were aware that wherever houses were put forward for development in the borough there would be issues, including highway issues, and felt that the Government were constantly asking Local Authorities to put forward the impossible;
• improvements to Brenley Corner would certainly not happen without development;
• there was no sustainable solution for the housing, and the government might need to make the decision and they would have to ensure the highway improvements were made;
• historically the west of the borough had been “loaded” with housing but had not received the infrastructure to support it;
• there was an east/west split across the borough in terms of housing development which had divided Members;
• the current infrastructure was at breaking-point;
• not upgrading Brenley Corner would adversely impact on neighbouring boroughs as well as Swale;
• affordable housing was desperately needed across the borough;
• the PTPWG had agreed that the housing targets for Sittingbourne town centre were too low, and work was being undertaken to address that;
• it was important to remember that there was still a lot of housing to be developed within the west of Swale from the previous Local Plan;
• the reports considered by the PTPWG showed that the greatest viability for delivering on biodiversity and affordability came from the east of the borough;
• we needed to get across to the Government that there could be no more development in Kent otherwise the garden of England would be lost;
• Kent County Council (KCC) were consulting on their Local Transportation Plan (LTP5), which was woefully inadequate for Swale.  It spoke about an A2/M2 link road which in no way tackled the absolute deficit of public transport.  As a higher tier authority KCC should be working alongside local authorities who had to put a Local Plan in place and plan for services that were needed;
• Swale were in a double deficit with the Government and KCC who did not understand the specific issues Swale faced with its transportation, health and education networks;
• the Chair of the PTPWG should have been invited to attend the meeting;
• there should be a briefing for all Members to assist them in understanding the various growth options;
• the Chair of the PTPWG had voted against option 6;
• the proposals would see approximately 75% of affordable and social rent being in Faversham; and
• affordable rent in Faversham was not affordable because it was lower than the local housing allowance rate.  Those on housing benefits did not get their full rent covered when getting an affordable housing property in the Faversham area.

The Vice-Chair moved the following amendments:  That the first line of the Revised Draft Vision be amended to read “It is 2040.  Development in Swale has come forward to meet imposed Government Targets”.  That point 1) of the Draft Objectives be amended to read “To provide for homes and jobs that are best suited to meet the imposed Government Targets”.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer.  On being put to the vote the amendments were agreed.

Councillor Angela Harrison moved the following amendment:  That the item be deferred so that a Member briefing could be held to assist Members in understanding what they were being asked to agree.  This was seconded by Councillor Dolley Wooster.

Members considered the amendment for a Member briefing and points raised included:

·         Did not support a Member briefing as any Member could have attended the PTPWG and read the reports;

·         Members/groups had a responsibility to know what each committee was considering and had the opportunity to inform themselves;

·         could not support deferment or delaying the process; and

·         rather than deferring the item a Member briefing could be arranged prior to Full Council.

Following discussion, the motion to defer the item was withdrawn by the proposer and seconder.

In response to comments from a Member, the Head of Place apologised that the wording for recommendation (2) did not make it clear that all the options would be consulted upon and suggested the wording be amended to read “as the Council’s preferred option, with a requirement for a Member briefing on all six options being progressed, prior to Full Council” to be added at the end of the paragraph. 

In response to a question from a Member, the Project Manager (Policy) explained that it was necessary to put forward a preferred option otherwise six versions of the documents would be required which would be resource intensive.  It was possible to test all the options through the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which ran alongside the regulation 18 consultation. The SA would also provide recommendations on which options were considered the best in terms of sustainability. 

The Vice-Chair proposed the recommendations, as amended.  These were seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer.  It was agreed that a recorded vote would be taken on both of the recommendations.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting on recommendation (1), as amended, was as follows:

For: Baldock, Bonney, Bowen, T Gibson, Hunt, Jayes, Last, R Palmer, Speed, and Wise. Total equals 10.

Against: Harrison, C Gibson and Wooster. Total equals 3.

Abstain: Total equals 0.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting on recommendation (2), as amended, was as follows:

For: Baldock, Bonney, T Gibson, Hunt, Jayes, R Palmer and Wise. Total equals 7.

Against: Bowen, Harrison, C Gibson, Last, Speed and Wooster. Total equals 6.

Abstain: Total equals 0.

Recommendations to Council

(1)  That the proposed Vision and Objectives for the Draft Plan Regulation 18 document, as amended by the Policy and Resources Committee, be approved.

(2)  That Growth Option 6 be progressed to regulation 18 consultation stage as the Council’s preferred option, with a requirement for a Member briefing on all six options being progressed, prior to Full Council.