The Planning Manager (Policy) introduced the report which set out the findings of the Important Countryside Gaps (ICGs) Review 2024.  She referred to the Gaps review summaries and policy recommendations set out on pages 22 and 23 of the report, Appendix I (Existing and proposed gap changes), and Appendix II (Swale ICGs Review).  She highlighted that there was an error in Appendix I of the report on page 13 and page 38 of the study itself, showing a proposed gap in purple hatching.  That map would be removed from the study before it was uploaded on to the website.  Members were asked to note the findings of the review and the amendment to remove ICG SG4: Sittingbourne and the satellite village of Bobbing.

The Chair invited comments from Members, and points raised included:

·         Considered it inappropriate to remove ICG SG4, as whilst it was close to the A249 the area had a very rural feel and considered the ‘hatched’ area should be included;

·         the map for SG4 was incorrect as it did not show the development opposite Rooks View, Bobbing;

·         there was a lot of green space provided within developments at both Tunstall and Iwade, could the ICGs be revisited once the developments had been agreed, and incorporated within the ICGs for those areas?;

·         understood that some areas of the proposed country park at Iwade would remain agricultural, so it was ‘countryside’ rather than a ‘country park’.  Further detail needed to be included and explored for Iwade at SG5;

·         referred to an error on page 49 of the report, the first line of the first paragraph should read ‘…..south of Bobbing’ not Bapchild as stated;

·         referred to pages 70 and 77 of the report where it stated ‘Bobbing does not have a very strong individual settlement identity’ and disagreed with that statement;

·         there was a typographical error on page 48 of the report as the wording ‘mature hedgerows and result in no views’ made no sense;

·         referred to page 54 of the report and the first photograph should refer to Barton’s Point and not Sheerness Golf Course;

·         the land within SG4 had not changed since it was designated so could not understand why the consultants were recommending that it be removed;

·         SG4 should remain as an ICG otherwise there would be a continued corridor of housing from Key Street through to Bobbing and there was not the infrastructure to support this; and

·         referred to pages 84 and 85 of the report and reference to the Spring Acres development in Sittingbourne and requested that the wording be amended to make it clear that land to the east of Spring Acres to act as a buffer, would be a country park.

In response, the Planning Manager (Policy) advised that green spaces agreed as part of developments were not countryside in character but valuable open recreational spaces for local residents so would not be considered as part of any ICGs.   She said that the location of the ICGs would be considered further at the Local Plan policy making stage.  With regard to the comment about Bobbing not having a strong individual settlement identity, this was specific criteria in respect of the landscape character, not the identity people felt as residents.

The Head of Place clarified that whilst the report was suggesting the removal of the ICG at SG4 it was not saying the area should not be protected, but that it was more appropriate to be protected by another designation.  The Planning Manager (Policy) said that national designations such as local green spaces might be considered more appropriate in some cases, and they also offered more protection than ICGs which were local designations.  She confirmed that there was set criteria for an area to be designated as a local green space and SG4 would likely be too large an area to fit the criteria. 

A Member queried how the lack of support for proposed boundary changes could be recorded, given that the report was ‘for noting’.  It was confirmed that Members could express concerns and caveats whilst ‘noting’ the report.

Councillor Mike Baldock then moved the following additional recommendations:  That Members’ views be noted that the Countryside Gap SG4: Sittingbourne and the satellite village of Bobbing should be retained.

That Members’ views be noted that the SG5 at Iwade be considered further.

These were seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote the additional recommendations were agreed by Members.

Recommended:

(1)   That the findings of the Important Countryside Gaps Review 2024 be noted.

(2)  That Members’ views be noted that the Countryside Gap SG4: Sittingbourne and the satellite village of Bobbing should be retained.

(3)  That Members’ views be noted that the SG5 at Iwade be considered further.