In introducing the report, the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group (PTPWG), Councillor Charles Gibson, advised that it had already been considered at other Committees and he paid tribute to Planning Policy and Democratic Services officers for the quick turn around in changes to plans and minutes from other Committee meetings in order for it to be considered by Full Council, so that the timetable could be commenced. Councillor Gibson said it was not the desired timetable but repeated restraints by Government and others outside of the Council had led to the way forward to achieve a Local Plan as quickly as possible.

Councillor Gibson referred to the protection and benefits that would be achieved from a Regulation 18 consultation, whilst using the current model,  acknowledging it was not ideal, as outlined in the recent letter received from the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). Finally, he referred to the delays in the Highsted Park planning appeal and changes in planning legislation that had significantly set back the process.

In seconding the recommendation, the Vice-Chair of the PTPWG, Councillor Brawn supported the Chair’s comments. He reminded Members that recommendations had been approved unanimously at PTPWG and the Policy and Resources Committee previously.

Members were invited to speak and raised points including:

·         Agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair’s comments;

·         referred to the call-in of the Highsted Park planning application and the difficult position it had left the Council in;

·         speculative planning applications could be submitted for many years to come;

·         the outcome of Highsted Park might not be known for more than a year after the inquiry commenced; and

·         clarity sought on documents and timelines contained within the report.

There was a discussion on timelines in the report and a Member considered pushing the date from December 2025 to January/February 2026 for the Regulation 18 draft local plan consultation, would cause an unnecessary delay and December 2025 was achievable. In response, the Chair of the PTPWG advised that as officers were also heavily involved in the Highsted Park appeal inquiry, there was a lack of resource to meet the December 2025 deadline. He reminded Members the dates had been agreed at the PTPWG  and Policy and Resources Committee meetings earlier that month.

Members continued the debate and made points including:

·         Welcomed a commencement date for the Regulation 18 consultation and for discussions of policies that could be included;

·         none of the options were palatable and SBC were being held to ransom by developers;

·         had concerns there would be further delays to the timetable;

·         the proposal meant the Council remained vulnerable for another year;

·         the delay and outcome of Highsted Park appeal were unknown;

·         the delay to the Regulation 18 was not in the Council’s interest; and

·         referred to discussion at the Highsted Park inquiry around policy wording and ongoing debates, and urged for focus on policy wording so it was more effective.

Councillor Monique Bonney proposed that the key dates in the original timeframe as set out below, be agreed:

This was seconded by Councillor Julien Speed and was debated by Members who made points including:

·         Supported the amendment;

·         said the original recommended timeline was very tight and relied on optimism to get a Regulation 19 to adoption by the Government’s deadline;

·         needed to build in ‘slippage’ times and the amendment did that;

·         understood the resource implication on staff, but this was important;

·         the public needed to consider policies and implications and the Regulation 18 gave that opportunity to do that as early as possible so that feedback could be acted on;

·         appreciated the workload on officers but noted there were recent additional planning policy officers;

·         officers had advised there was not the capacity – did Members expect officer resource to be taken from the Highsted Park Inquiry?;

·         shared the frustration that it had taken eight years to get to this point;

·         the reference to additional officer capacity raised by a previous Member was not actually additional, it was filling empty vacancies to achieve the correct budgeted capacity;

·         praised the work of officers working under capacity for an extended period;

·         ‘slippage’ had already been written into the plan, but the Highsted Park Inquiry was the ‘slippage’;

·         would have preferred the original timetable or even holding the Regulation 18 a year ago as agreed, but it was not possible, and it was now not possible to create more time for officers either;

·         it was important to get it right and rushing officers who had already advised there was not the capacity was not the right way to do it;

·         referred to the report that was agreed by the PTPWG and Policy and Resources Committee and questioned whether Full Council were challenging the long deliberation the working group carried out and the proposal agreed?;

·         could not support the amendment, when the proposal had already been discussed at length at PTPWG and Policy and Resources Committee, and officers had advised there was not the capacity; and

·         spoke of the detrimental impact pushing officers too far might have.

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

For: Baldock, Bonney, Carnell, MacDonald, Mishchuk, Nundy, Pollard, Speed, P Stephen, S Stephen and Whiting. Total equals 11.

Against: Booth, Brawn, Cavanagh, Cheesman, C Gibson, T Gibson, Golding, Gould, Harrison, Jackson, Last, Marchington, Ben J Martin, C Martin, Miller, Thompson, Watson, Winckless and Wise. Total equals 19.

Abstain: Bowen and Moore. Total equals 2.

The Mayor announced the amendment had fallen.

Members continued to debate the substantive motion and made comments including:

·         had raised concerned at the Policy and Resources Committee over the delays and whilst disappointing, realistically the timetable proposed now was how to move forward; and

·         urged Members to support the recommendation.

In summing up, Councillor Charles Gibson said whilst nobody was happy with the current situation, the Council must have a Local Plan, and the proposal would get the Council where it needed to be.

Resolved:

(1)  That the updated Local Plan Development Scheme as set out in Option 1 of the report from the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group be agreed.