Please note Appendix I will be sent separately to the agenda, due to its size.

The Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the report, which set out the background to the process; the Inspector’s main findings and modifications; key findings of the Inspector’s report and detailed the adoption process.  In doing so, he referred to the housing allocation, in particular that the Inspector had increased the requirement to 776 and an increase in employment provision and other matters.  He referred to the Examination in Public that had reopened in January and February 2017, and the attempts by developers to increase housing allocation further, but the Inspector had not been persuaded.  The Inspector had found the plan “sound” to adopt, but had asked for an early review partly as a result of KCC Highways concerns about the highway network and an indication that the Government would be making it a requirement to review the Plan every five years. 

The Cabinet Member referred to opportunities for Members to give their views at Local Development Framework Panel meetings, briefings and the Examination in Public, but the issue now was for the Council to consider whether to adopt the Plan or not.  He advised that the Plan gave policy structure and whilst Members may have concerns about certain aspects, it was important to weigh that up against the overall benefit of the Plan in terms of agreed policies (site policy, good design, community provision, infrastructure etc.).  If the Plan was not adopted, the Council would have no basis to resist development and it would become open season for developers, with many applications likely to receive planning permission via appeal.  The cost of appeals would be a burden to the Council and the Secretary of State could consider exercising his/her powers.  He concluded by thanking the LDF Panel for their work and support, including visiting Members, and praised the Head of Planning and the Local Plans Team for their hard work, which had been recognised by winning Team of the Year in 2016.  He moved the recommendations in the report.

The Leader seconded the recommendations and reserved his right to speak.

The Leader of the UKIP Group spoke against the Local Plan referring to roads being gridlocked, increasing air pollution and loss of the best and most versatile farming land.  The housing targets had never been met, and never would be met, so he did not see how the Council could be advised that it had no choice; and he did not agree that if the Plan was not agreed, then developers could choose where they built and would win on appeal.  He considered that if the Plan was accepted, it would not increase housing numbers.

The Leader of the Labour Group referred to the dual responsibility of elected Members to the corporate aims of the Council and as community champions for their ward, and advised that he could not support the plan due to the housing allocation in Cryalls Lane and Wises Lane, Borden, which was unsustainable, and would add to transport problems.  He referred to the crisis of homelessness and the pressures forced on local councils by the Government, but that housing would not be delivered.

The Leader of the Independent Group advised that he did not like central Government’s stranglehold on the planning system, or the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as it took away local decision making.  He considered that 75% of the Plan was useful but the remaining 25% was a real problem.  He considered, however, that the Council had to approve the Plan, and the consideration of planning applications was a matter for the Planning Committee.

Debate then ensued regarding the Plan, during which comments were made as follows:

The planning system and how the Planning Inspectorate could over-rule local decisions, in particular for housing because of housing need; the likelihood that no Member would be 100% happy with the Plan; the need to look at the Plan as the whole Borough, not just as Ward Members; the role of the Planning Committee to determine planning applications and to consider mitigation via planning conditions; recognition of the work of the Local Plans Team; the lack of infrastructure to support the housing requirement; the potential for developers to ‘cherry-pick’ the best sites; recognition that the Inspector had asked for a review in five years as a result of infrastructure concerns; clarification that all elements of the Plan would be up for review in five years; the history of the housing market; the need for the Plan to accommodate growth, given the projection that the population would grow by 25,000 in the next 20 years; by agreeing the Plan it would allow for development with consideration of infrastructure needs; the need to trust the Planning Committee and not to give developers a free reign; and whether the Plan should be looked at again now.

The Leader, as seconder of the Motion, recognised that Ward Members might not like some aspects, but that the Plan should be considered as a whole, and emphasised it was the role of the Planning Committee to consider individual applications.  He drew attention to paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of the report and urged Members to support the recommendation.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, as proposer of the Motion, thanked Members for the debate and the proposal was put to the vote and agreed. 

Resolved:

(1) That the Inspector’s Final Report and Main Modifications be noted;

(2) That the Local Plan incorporating the Inspector’s Main Modifications, plus the further additional modifications, be adopted as the local development plan for Swale Borough;

(3) That the Proposals Map be updated to incorporate the consequences of the Main Modification as soon as possible; and that until this work can be completed, the Proposal Map will comprise the Map as submitted (April 2015), as amended by the Main Modifications shown at Chapter 9 of the adoption version of the plan at Appendix 1 to the report;

(4) The Local Plan adoption statement with the date of this Council be posted on the Council’s website and sent to all participants in the process;

(5) That the Sustainability Appraisal supporting the adoption version of the plan be noted and adopted;

(6) That the Equalities Statement supporting the adoption version of the plan be noted and endorsed;

(7) That the remaining saved policies of the former Swale Borough Local Plan (2008) are now completely replaced and will not be of any further relevance as the context for determining planning applications.