Information item on the Local Plan Inspector’s Report; the Adoption version of the Plan and Sustainability Appraisal.  To accord with statutory regulations a Full Council resolution to adopt will be sought.

Item to follow as soon as Inspector’s Final Report is released from Planning Inspectorate.

Report published 20 June 2017.

The Chairman introduced the report which outlined the main findings of the Inspector’s Final Report on Bearing Fruits: The Swale Borough Local Plan 2031.  The Chairman thanked officers for their work and expressed his gratitude to them for helping the Council achieve a sound Local Plan.  He also thanked Panel Members for their support.  The Chairman stated that the Plan must be adopted by Council on 26 July 2017 and warned that not doing so would leave the Council exposed to “planning by the back door” and all local planning controlled by inspectors.

The Spatial Planning Manager stated that the report was for information and that a full report and appendices, including a version of the Plan incorporating the Inspector’s recommendations, would be presented to Full Council on the 26 July 2017.  She explained that officers had only received the Inspector’s report at 11.15am that morning but the full document and appendix was on the Council’s website and had been circulated to all Members.  The covering report and main Inspector’s report was tabled for Members and the main modifications which were included at Appendix A to the Inspector’s report was also on the Council’s website, but unfortunately due to the size of the document it had not been possible to table this for Members.  The Spatial Planning Manager explained that the Table of further additional modifications, which were minor and consequential changes to text could be viewed on the examination library page SBCPS137.

The Spatial Planning Manager stated that a Press release had gone out that day and letters would be sent to all those that took part in the local plan hearing advising that the document was available.  She explained that an in-depth briefing guiding Members through the documents was planned, before they were considered at Full Council.

The Spatial Planning Manager guided Members through the Inspector’s main report.  She explained that the Inspector considered that the  process the Council had undertaken had been found sound, and the duty to cooperate with statutory consultees had been met.  The Inspector also considered that the Development Strategy focusing on Sittingbourne and West Sheppey was sound and the Settlement Strategy was also sound. 

The Spatial Planning Manager reported that the housing target was confirmed as 776 dwellings per annum and for the period 2014 - 2031 would be a total of 13,192 dwellings.  The Inspector had found that the main modifications process to identify new sites to meet target and the sustainability appraisal supporting the Plan at all stages to be found sound.  The proposed new allocation at South West Sittingbourne was confirmed as Policy MUX1, as proposed in main modifications plan, not the developers proposed extended version Policy MUX1a.  The Spatial Planning Manager confirmed that with the main modifications, the Local Plan was confirmed as having a 5.4 year housing land supply, which she stated was critically important.  She explained that the Inspector had agreed to calculate this on the basis of the Liverpool method with a 5% buffer.  She explained that this meant that if the Council was deficient in meeting its housing target in any one year the deficit could be met over the rest of the plan period and not the immediate future five years.  She therefore stressed the importance of adopting the Plan to ensure the Council had a firm planning framework in place to assist with determining planning applications, and as a basis to support the Council when defending appeal decisions.  The Spatial Planning Manager reported that the affordable housing policy had been confirmed as sound.  This confirmed the Council’s approach in Policy DM8, which was variable around Borough depending on viability and the policy had a clause to take account of changes in viability.  The Spatial Planning Manager advised that there would be a review of the plan by April 2022 due to the highway issues raised.  The Inspector, Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation, and Highways England were all satisfied that development in the Local Plan was deliverable and achievable until 2022, and the review would have to deal with transport requirements after that point.  The Inspector had agreed with the Council’s approach to gypsy and travellers needs assessment; however the housing and planning requirements for the local plan review would require a new gypsy and traveller assessment in-line with the description at Section 124 Housing and Planning Act (2016).  The Inspector supported the important countryside gaps and local landscape designations as development management tools, and the Local green spaces sites allocated found sound.  The Inspector’s Report was binding and the Plan was only sound for adoption if all of the main modifications outlined in her reported were incorporated.  

Members considered the report and raised points and asked questions which included: the pages that outlined the proposed housing allocations in Appendix A (main modifications) should have been tabled as this information was of most concern to local residents; the settlement strategy favoured Faversham; a legal challenge may come forward; what happens if the housing target set was not achievable?; would like figures for Full Council on what the recent allocations and expected allocations for the next 5 years are, and also an idea of phasing and how the Council envisages housing plans coming forward, and the impact they would have on traffic congestion along the A249; pleased that the green spaces would be protected; the Inspector’s main modifications should have been tabled and the meeting delayed to allow Members to consider it properly; residents in south west Sittingbourne were concerned that the infrastructure was not in place; residents feared that it would give developers ‘carte blanche’ to ‘cherry-pick’ the best sites; congratulated officers on a difficult task; infrastructure issues were clearly highlighted within the report regarding pinch-points and secondary road network problems at Teynham; Key Street, Sittingbourne; and Newington; the infrastructure to provide schools and doctors surgeries was not there, and residents were quite rightly concerned about this; the cumulative impact of buildings on the highway network and also air quality impact areas where other planning authorities such as KCC had granted permissions which had large traffic movements, and Medway had no plan in place and were subject to speculative development in places that disadvantaged Swale - how would this information be captured within the review and be interpreted into the planning applications as they come forward?; the Air Quality Management Committees needed to have fully functioning plans in place as this informs officers on the relevant mitigation measures that were required and how information was transferred to the planning officers in asking for mitigation measures; a commitment was required from the Council to hold a public briefings at The Swallows, Sittingbourne, Sheerness, and Faversham to go through the findings of the Inspector; pleased that the Inspector supported the broad proportional balance of growth between the two planning areas; Faversham was also being “hammered with development”; pleased that the Inspector and Highways England said there was no justification for the A2/M2 link road for Kent Science Park (KSP); frustrating that local residents were not listened to previously in respect of policy wording for KSP, but pleased that the Inspector has agreed to change this; considered the Plan was light on environmental and landscape policies; needed to ensure that Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) had strong buffer zones; a 5 year review was not long-term planning; would there be a Masterplan for Kent Science Park?; the proposed members briefing should be open to the public; and pleased that the plan would be reviewed in 5 years, as there was not adequate infrastructure to support the developments.

In response to queries, the Spatial Planning Manager stated that the period for any legal challenge was 6 weeks from the Full Council resolution to adopt the Plan.  She stated that monitoring for housing land delivery for 2016/17 was in-hand but the figures would not be available until the end of August 2017.  The latest paper on phasing and how the expected land allocations were likely to come forward could be viewed on the public examination library at SBCPS113.  With regard to the M2 junction 5 delivery, Highways England were working on the public consultation which would take place this Autumn.

The Spatial Planning Manager advised that with regard to infrastructure issues, a cumulative impact study of all the original and new allocations had been dealt with in the implementation and delivery schedule and there was a full list of infrastructure to support the plan which the Inspector had found to be adequate.  The Spatial Planning Manager explained that with regard to Air Quality Management, the wording for Policy DM6 had been strengthened so the cumulative impact of development schemes within or likely to impact on air quality management areas would be considered.  Transport assessments had to be submitted with applications and research work on these had already commenced.

The Head of Planning explained that with regard to Air Quality Management, action plans were supposed to be attached to air quality areas, and there was to be a review of this within the next year or two and a different approach may come forward.  When planning applications were received developers had to ensure that developments did not exceed air quality levels so that the necessary mitigations could be imposed.  The Kent Science Park were not required to produce a Masterplan, as although large scale development was promoted through the local plan process and at the Examination in Public, no evidence of deliverability within the plan period was demonstrated.  Policy New Regen 4 provided a framework for determining development proposals at KSP.

The Chairman advised that with regard to holding public meetings, the Council would need to look at whether resources were available for this, bearing in mind that the date for adoption was 26 July 2017.

The Head of Planning stated that the 5.4 year supply was fragile, and there were assumptions within the Local Plan about how soon sites would come forward, so it was critical to maintain a 5.4 year supply as without it the Council was vulnerable at appeal.  It was critical therefore that the Council proceed with adopting the Plan. 

Recommended:

(1)  That the report for information be noted, and that it also be noted that the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) Statutory Regulations requires a Full Council resolution to adopt the Local Plan.