Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (Statement added 13.2.17).

The Leader presented his Statement, which gave updates on the Swale Borough Local Plan; LG Challenge; Rural Policing; and HGV Fly Parking.  The Leader invited Members to ask questions.

Swale Borough Local Plan

The Leader of the UKIP Group referred to the latest hearing on the Local Plan and the early revision date of 2022, and asked the Leader if he agreed that it was necessary to go back to the drawing board, and that the Borough should be treated as one place?

The Leader explained the reason why the area had been split, to reflect that two thirds of the Borough were in the Thames Gateway area and so had benefited from improved infrastructure.  This may change in the future but only after there was investment in infrastructure in the east of the Borough.  In terms of starting again, he advised that this would be done if the Inspector requested it, but the Local Plan offered some protection and so he did not understand why he argued that point. 

The Leader of the Labour Group paid tribute to the work of the Local Plans team.  He referred to the hearing and shared disquiet that it appeared an objection from a developer (in his ward) had been treated with credence, and said that the increase in housing numbers proposed was not deliverable because of the road network.  He expressed concern that KCC  Highways and Transportation’s view on this had changed.  He considered that the number of new houses would be nearer to 540 than 760 but expressed concern that developers would want to cherry-pick.  He asked the Leader for his view on this?

The Leader considered that 540 houses was most deliverable and expressed his great disappointment that the Council had been asked to increase this.  A change of view by Highways England had put KCC Highways and Transportation in that position.  He did not want more than 540 houses to be built and referred to the planning policy system.  He did not have the same impression regarding the Inspector’s consideration of the objection, and they awaited the result of the Inspector’s report.

The Leader of the Independent Group added his thanks to the Local Plans team, and asked if the Local Plan was in place by middle of June 2017, would the Council be ‘under the cosh’ to make its own decisions on planning applications.  Could the Council start to demand better houses, in terms of design, quality and reducing the carbon footprint,  from developers?

The Leader advised that they had been previously overruled by the Planning Inspectorate regarding requiring ‘better’ development, but he would love to see better quality housing for sale and rent.  He wished he shared the Member’s optimism regarding not being ‘under the cosh’, but only if they were not required to build more than 540 houses.  In terms of cherry-picking, which was mentioned in an earlier question, he referred to the Compulsory Purchase Order powers available, and a recent report to the Cabinet.  He would ask the Council to support using them if necessary.

Rural Policing

The Leader of the UKIP Group referred to the Kent Association of Local Council’s Swale Area Committee, and advised that the Police and Crime Commissioner would be attending their next meeting in June 2017.  The Leader said he would make every effort to attend, and asked to be notified of the date of the meeting.  A Member asked if the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras could track quad bikes, referring to an issue in Teynham.

HGV Fly Parking

The Leader of the UKIP Group welcomed the update and said he would be leaving the meeting at this point, as he had another meeting to attend.

The Leader of the Independent Group referred to 579 notices issued, and drew attention to an area where a lorry was often parked.  The Leader advised he was aware and would make sure this was not missed.  He acknowledged that illegal and inappropriate lorry parking was not a problem that could be solved 100% by fines. 

A Member advised that there were no dedicated sites and suggested that this should be looked at in Minster and Iwade.  The Leader acknowledged that, and referred to problems experienced by the behaviour of some lorry drivers, and said he had been active in suggesting potential sites.  Another Member suggested that there should be a site in Queenborough, and asked how many of the 579 mentioned were on the Isle of Sheppey.  The Leader advised that the majority were on the A249 corridor and on the A2, near Gate Services, but the KCC Leader had specifically mentioned the corridors into and out of Sheerness.

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Rural Affairs advised that the issue was raised at regular policing meetings, and asked the Leader if he agreed that the issue needed to be addressed Borough-wide?  The Leader agreed and said the right sites needed to be put in place; the Police were concentrating on the areas that caused the most problems to residents and road-users.  Another Member referred to the support on this issue from Helen Whateley MP, and asked if more pressure could be put on KCC and the Government for lorry parks and appropriate enforcement action.  The Leader advised that pressure was already being applied, and also welcomed the support from Helen Whateley MP.

In response to a question regarding how many of the fines had been issued to foreign lorry drivers, the Leader advised he was aware that 100% of fines had been collected, and would ask for a breakdown of the figures.  Another Member advised that fines for foreign vehicles were collected at the road-side.