The Leader introduced the report and proposed the recommendations.

In seconding the recommendations, Councillor Monique Bonney, Vice-Chair of the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group reserved her right to speak.

The Leader of the Conservative Group said this was another example of the impact of the Highsted Valley applications and that the Council’s hands were effectively ‘tied’.  He said that were a lot of unknowns at the moment.  This was not in the best interests of residents and left the Council open to similar applications.

The Leader of the Green Group, deferred to Councillor Gould who said it was important to note that the housing targets the Council were agreeing had been imposed by the Government.  He said that the Local Plan process was very constrained and that a lot was not decided locally, and the Council had to follow the National Planning Policy Framework which did not consider important local factors such as best and most versatile agricultural land.

The Leader of the SIA Group, did not consider the recommendations were exactly what had been agreed by the Policy and Resources Committee (P&R) who had considered challenging the housing targets.  He referred to paragraph 2.9 on page 67 of the report and said that was an essential part of what had been discussed by P&R.  He then referred to the final sentence of paragraph 4.2 on page 68 of the report, which he considered should not be under ‘Alternative Options Considered and Rejected’, it was what the Council should be doing.

Councillor Baldock referred to recommendation (4) in the report to P&R and referred to Appendix III of the report, Housing Targets Exceptional Circumstances Study, that indicated there might be problems in delivering the proposed housing targets and may need further work as evidence comes forward as agreed at P&R but missing from the report and should be reinstated.

Councillor Baldock moved the following motion without notice.  That the following be included as a recommendation.  That further work be carried out on the Housing Targets Exceptional Circumstances Study.  This was seconded by Councillor Bonney.

The Mayor said he would not accept the motion and suggested the item be deferred, and he considered the options with the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer.

Councillor Baldock raised a point of information, that the recommendations at P&R supported the additional work so it did not need to come to Full Council for decision.  The Monitoring Officer advised that the recommendations being considered by Full Council were the ‘verbatim’ recommendations agreed by P&R, but the content of the report was different.

The Chief Executive clarified that P&R had not agreed the additional funding for modelling, but had agreed work on unsustainable commuting patterns, and it was not a recommendation to Full Council.

A Member referred to recommendation (2) and whilst he had no issues with the proposed delegations, he was aware of large developments coming through which he felt should be considered by the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group.

Councillor Mike Whiting moved the following motion without notice:  That any additional planning permissions granted, new dwellings completed, annual changes in government published statistics and any evidence which concludes previously granted or allocated sites are no longer deliverable be considered by the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group.  This was seconded by Councillor Baldock.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

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

·         The Council needed to get on with its Local Plan as it had been delayed too many times;

·         officers had already advised Members prior to money being spent on work to establish that the Council did not have any exceptional circumstances and Members needed to be mindful of that in the future to avoid wasting money;

·         the Council could not reach the current housing targets so how would it meet these increased ones;

·         Members should continue to raise at Planning Committee the lack of GP facilities and serious problems in relation to traffic, highways and education; and

·         the Council needed to take a stand as the houses were not being built for local residents, but for people to move down from the London boroughs as it was cheaper.

Councillor Bonney said that the Council were in a ‘hideous’ position with the imposed housing targets and that a contributing factor was the government-owned site at Queenborough and Rushenden.  The Government had previously promised 2,100 dwellings and only 95 had been built, and now they are saying this was due to no funding.  This meant that applications such as Highsted Park were going to be ‘pushed through’, because the government could not deliver on its own site.  She said that it was a ‘hideous farce from some kind of nightmare’.  She reported that the NHS had advised they had enough property and yet Swale had the worst GP-to-patient ratio in the country.  Over the last ten years the Council had increased its housing stock, which sadly was not affordable, far more than the rest of Kent but did not have the health and education infrastructure and there was no plan for it.  This did not meet the plan for the Borough’s needs.

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

For: Councillors Bowen, Brawn, Cavanagh, Cheesman, S Clark, Eyre, C Gibson, T Gibson, Harrison, Hunt, Jackson, Last, Lehmann, B Martin, C Martin, Miller, Perkin, Tucker, Watson, Wooster, Whiting, Winckless and Wise.  Total equals 23.

Against: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Carnell, Chapman, Jayes, Marchington, Mishchuk, Moore, Neal, Noe, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Speed, P Stephen and Thompson.  Total equals 16.

Abstain: Councillors Gould and S Stephen.  Total equals 2.

Resolved:

(1)   That the approach to setting a Local Plan housing target, as set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group report on Housing Targets, including the 5% buffer for consultation and examination resilience be considered.

(2)   That the proposed growth within the draft Plan Regulation 18 consultation of 7,990 dwellings, including the review of the remaining Local Plan Bearing Fruits (1,703 dwellings), as well as the balance of housing need (6,287 dwellings) be considered, and that the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group consider prior to delegation being given to the Head of Place to amend figures, with the Policy and Resources Committee Chair and Vice-Chair, solely in line with any additional planning permissions granted, new dwellings completed, annual changes in government published statistics and any evidence which concluded previously granted or allocated sites that were no longer deliverable.