Audio Recording

There was a Minute’s Silence in memory of Gill Harris, Spatial Planning Manager, who had recentlypassed away after a short illness.

The Chairman and other Members paid tribute to Gill.

The Head of Planning Services praised Gill’s very professional approach to her work and said that she would be sadly missed at the Council.

The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park. Nobody must leave the assembly point until everybody can be accounted for and nobody must return to the building until the Chairman has informed them that it is safe to do so; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Chairman ensured that those present were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meetings held on  25 July 2019 (Minute Nos. 162 - 166) and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 5 September 2019 (Minute Nos. 198 – 201) as correct records.

The Minutes of the Meetings held on 25 July 2019 (Minute Nos. 162 – 166), and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 5 September 2019 (Minute Nos. 198 – 201) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as correct records.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

The Head of Planning Services introduced the report which set out the results of the strategic transport modelling which had been undertaken as part of the Local Plan Review.  He said that broad conclusions would be given at the end on what the data had indicated and he recommended that further testing should be carried out on some of the scenarios at lower housing numbers of 550 dwellings per annum (dpa), and the 776 dpa in the current Local Plan, to assess their impacts on the local and strategic highway networks.  This would form some of the Local Plan evidence base and help identify what required further research.  The Council was not yet in the position to rule out any sites on highways and transportation grounds.  Many of the results indicated that they needed to be refined and a great deal more work was needed to identify highway mitigations, including public transport, and including what might arise from any specific site allocations.  A lot more work was to be done on transport modelling.  This was a strategic look at alternative ways of distributing the housing requirements around the Borough.  The evidence would form part of the technical evidence base for the Local Plan Review.  It would inform the transport strategy of the Local Plan, identify mitigation and might help with public funding bids.

The Principal Transport & Development Planner (Canterbury & Swale) gave a presentation on the Transport Modelling Evidence which covered the following themes:

·         Purpose of Transport Modelling

·         What modelling had been undertaken and by whom?

·         What does the model do?

·         Model dates and Study Area

·         Map of Study Area

·         Model inputs

·         Highways Improvements in all future scenarios tested

·         Development Quantities in future scenario testing

·         Scenario Testing: Future Reference Case

·         Scenario Testing: Future Reference Case: Results

·         Future Scenario Testing: Scenario 1, 2, 3 and 4, plus results

·         Sittingbourne Area Traffic Flows at 2037 morning peak

·         Faversham Area Traffic Flows at 2037 morning peak

·         Sheppey Area Traffic Flows at 2037 morning peak

·         Summary and Conclusions

·         Next Steps

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.  In response, the Principal Transport & Development Planner explained that the M2 required three lanes in all four scenarios to support Local Plan growth and to accommodate increased traffic as a result of the Lower Thames Crossing.  He added that the modelling highlighted where issues were and where solutions had to be sought.  Interventions and mitigations would enable growth and there needed to be a shift towards walking, cycling and public transport.  The traffic modelling also took into account growth outside the Borough.

There was some discussion on the recommendations in the report which included:

·         This was a stark message;

·         it was pointed out that whilst there was always the suggestion that public transport could mitigate the problem, in reality services were constantly being cut;

·         the best option was significantly worse than it was at the moment;

·         more local employment was needed;

·         there needed to be a modal shift;

·         there should be more town centre developments;

·         lack  ...  view the full minutes text for item 311.

The Senior Planner introduced the report which considered an assessment of the risks, opportunities and uncertainties associated with the four submitted garden communities in Swale.  The assessment looked at a variety of issues such as viability, infrastructure needs, affordable housing provision, and landscape impact.  This was the second stage assessment of the four schemes, and if the recommendations were agreed, the proposals would be fed into the Local Plan Issues and Options paper in Spring 2020 and there would be a public consultation.  The Senior Planner added that by not including these schemes, there would be a serious risk for the Council in terms of achieving a ‘sound’ Local Plan.

The Chairman welcomed Jo Lee and Richard Pestell from Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA) to the meeting.

Jo Lee explained that the process was driven by the need for sites for housing, and allowed delivery of schools, employment, local facilities and highway schemes.  She reminded Members that the process had begun 18 months ago when there had been a call for sites, and Members had agreed to further work being carried out on the four sites at their meeting in March 2019, and there had been many changes since then.

Mrs Lee gave a presentation on the Second Stage Assessment of the Four New Garden Community Proposals, a summary of which is outlined below:

Changes since first assessment

NS1:  South East Sittingbourne:  Dwellings reduced to 8,000, with 20% affordable housing, and the road re-aligned to reduce the landscape impact.

NS3:  Land at Bobbing, west of Sittingbourne: Dwellings set at 2,500 with the option to rise to 3,000, with 40% affordable housing.

NS4:  South East Faversham:  No changes to the scheme.

NS5:  Land at Ashford Road, South of Faversham:  No changes to the scheme.

Completion dates

NS1:  2024 to 2042

NS3:  2021 to 2036

NS4:  2023 to 2037

NS5:  2023 to 2042

Mrs Lee said that all promoters had worked with the Council and PBA, and issues had been identified and addressed.  She added that all the sites had taken into account sustainable and green technology, their heritage assets, investigative utility work, transport assessments had been undertaken, and had included affordable housing, with a mix of tenure, employment and sustainability.

Mrs Lee explained that there had not been a standard approach for each new community.

NS1:  there were landscape concerns which reduced the scale of the development, the road had been re-aligned and the site now included the Kent Science Park.

NS3:  more open space to the north of the site had been added, and some highway changes.

NS4:  there had been no changes.

NS5:  landscape and highway changes.

Mrs Lee explained that the highways authority had assessed the highway options and PBA had looked at the proposals and identified changes and met with the promoters; utilities infrastructure work had been undertaken; and the Council commissioned Aspinall Verdi to undertake a viability appraisal of each scheme.

Key issues and risks:

·         Transport issues and timing with other major works, such as Junction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 312.

The Chairman invited Members to make suggestions for items for the Future Work Plan.

Members made the following suggestions:

·         Modal shift – see what developments this had worked with, in terms of more options for walking and cycling;

·         look at public transport, buses and trains, and rail freight;

·         Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on elderly provision;

·         SPD for 1-2-1 employment/housing numbers;

·         SPD on environmental standards;

·         explore waterway infrastructure; and

·         air quality should not be restricted to Air Quality Management Areas; a strong policy was needed on green technology.

The Head of Planning Services explained that the issue was timing, and some projects need to be costed out, and some would be difficult choices for Members through the Local Plan review process.   He suggested Climate Change as a whole could be built into policies.

Resolved:

(1)      That the suggestions above be noted.

The Meeting was adjourned from 8.05pm to 8.16pm.