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 Meeting held on 17 October 2019 (Minute Nos. 307 - 314) as a correct record, subject to an amendment to Minute No. 312, on the second to last paragraph on page 359, to read:

‘A Member acknowledged the risks of the sites and suggested that it would be prudent to keep NS5 given that whilst potential adverse impacts on the AONB had been identified, he did not consider it necessary at this stage to remove the site from consideration as other sites had also been identified as also having potential adverse impacts on the AONB.’

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 October 2019 (Minute Nos. 307 – 314) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to an amendment to Minute No. 312, on the second to last paragraph on page 359, to read:

‘A Member acknowledged the risks of the sites and suggested that it would be prudent to keep NS5 given that whilst potential adverse impacts on the AONB had been identified, he did not consider it necessary at this stage to remove the site from consideration as other sites had also been identified as also having potential adverse impacts on the AONB.’

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.

Urgent Item - Strategic Development Options (New Garden Communities) Change in AONB Unit Advice

With reference to the above item, Councillor Mike Baldock explained that he had resigned from the Borden Residents Against Development (BRAD) Committee in May this year, and Councillor Monique Bonney stated that she was not the Chairman of the Five Parishes Group and had resigned from the group in May 2019.?

The Chairman advised that the Urgent Item would be considered first, and the order of the rest of the items was also changed, as minuted.

Tabled Paper added 29 November 2019.

The Chairman introduced the tabled report which informed Members that the AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) Unit had updated their position in relation to NS1 SE Sittingbourne, following consideration of the Second Stage Assessment of the Four New Garden Community Proposals at the Local Plan Panel meeting on 17 October 2019.  A letter was also tabled for this item from a chartered surveyors and property consultants company.

Recommended:

(1)      That the updated advice from the AONB be noted.

(2)      That it be agreed that the updated advice from the AONB unit be attached as an amendment to the PBA report.

The Senior Planner introduced the report which provided an update on work carried out by engineering and environmental consultants, JBA, on the Swale Borough Council Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA).  She explained that the SFRA was used as part of the evidence base for the Local Plan Review; and that SFRAs were required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and would be used to inform the sequential approach to allocating development.  Further clarification was being sought from the consultants, in liaison with the Environment Agency (EA) and Kent County Council (KCC) with regard to groundwater issues.

Members were invited to ask questions.

In response to a question about whether areas within a flood plain, with appropriate mitigation measures, could be brought forward for consideration, the Senior Planner explained that the NPPF sought to direct new development away from flood risk areas, but these areas could be developed by going through the process of a detailed Sequential Test and an Exception Test.  There would need to be overriding reasons to build on a flood plain, that safe access, egress and resilience would need to be proved and developments would need to demonstrate, through Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs), that they would not increase flood risk elsewhere.  She added that it was not national policy to build on a flood plain.  The Member referred to paragraph 3.3 in the report and suggested that developers be given the option to potentially build on flood plain areas, subject to mitigation measures that the developers would put in place.  The Senior Planner referred to Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan and explained that the flood plain area here was confined, and so not too difficult to demonstrate that safe egress could be achieved, and so in this case, the Environment Agency (EA) agreed that the flood designation could be changed.

In response to a question, the Senior Planner explained that once the SFRA was on the website it would be clearly labelled as ‘2019’.  This would enable this study to be distinguished from any subsequent updates which would need to be referenced in FRAs.

A Member asked whether the UK Climate Projections 18 (UKCP18) projections had been taken into account in the report.  The Senior Planner explained that 2018 updates from UKCP18 had not yet been included in the EA modelling and were therefore not included in the SFRA.  This approach had been discussed with the EA and agreed as appropriate as the SFRA was using the best available evidence.  The Senior Planner said that developers needed to use the most up-to-date figures and then do their own modelling which should include the UKCP18 projections.  A Level 2 report would also likely use the UKCP18 projections.  The EA had advised that the most significant impact was the frequency of flooding.

In response to a question, the Senior Planner clarified that Appendix C on page 137 of the report indicated the existing flood zones, and Appendix D indicated the impact of climate change.   In response to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 379.

The Planner introduced the report which explained that Hernhill Parish had applied to the Council requesting that the Parish of Hernhill be designated as a neighbourhood area for the purpose of the creation of a neighbourhood development plan (neighbourhood plan).

Recommended:

(1)      That it be agreed that the application complies with the initial requirements of the Regulations and officers proceed to the first stage in the designation process which is for the Council to publicise the application.

Paper to be tabled added 25 November 2019.

The Planner introduced the report which explained that as part of the Local Plan Review, a Strategic Future Needs Report had been prepared to demonstrate the likely need for open space, sport and recreation facilities as a result of a new dwellings per annum target that needed to be planned for.  He referred to the tabled paper which set out recalculations for the requirements for open space, sport and recreation facilities for three growth scenarios of annual dwelling figures of 1054, 776 and 550. 

The Planner advised that the calculations would be updated with the relevant figures when the Council decided which dwelling target it would submit the Local Plan Review with.

In response to a question, the Planner confirmed that the whole report, plus tabled paper, would be published, although the tabled paper should have some more formal commentary added to be included in the evidence base.  The Chairman suggested changing the recommendation so that the report and tabled paper be noted and the officer be given delegated authority to write a more formal commentary.  Members were happy with this approach.

A Member suggested other sports, such as ice-skating, dry slope skiing, skate park, bowling centres and BMX facilities also be included.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that these activities were based more on leisure needs.  She reminded Members that the Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment had been considered by Members earlier in the year.  She said there was nothing in the current Local Plan which would preclude a proposal for these activities if they were in the right location.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that it could be investigated with operators on how to accommodate these in the broader sense.  The Head of Planning Services explained that the above activities were commercial activities, rather than public-funded ones.

Recommended:

(1)      That the contents of the Strategic Future Needs Report and the tabled paper be noted and published and used as part of the evidence base for the Local Plan Review, and officers be given delegated authority to add more formal commentary to the tabled paper.

The Senior Planner introduced the report which provided an update on work carried out by landscape consultants, LUC, on the Swale Landscape Sensitivity Assessment.  She explained that 46 land parcels had been analysed to see how sensitive these areas were to landscape change as a result of development.  The Senior Planner drew attention to Figures 3.1 and 3.2 which showed the headline results.  A 6-week consultation had been carried out and responses were received from 6 parish councils, one amenity group and nine developers or their agents.  As a result of the consultation, a few minor amendments and clarifications to the report were made, but no overall results were changed.

A Member asked why Figure 1 on page 240 of the report indicated ‘Proposed’ Local Landscape Designation?  The Senior Planner explained that the current areas were local landscapes in the adopted Local Plan, and ‘proposed’ local landscape designations had come about as a result of the 2018 Local Landscape Designation review which had been reported to the Local Plan Panel in November 2018, but had yet to be adopted through the Local Plan process.

A Member asked who decided the ‘Kent level’ and the ‘Swale level’ indicated on Figure 1, on page 240 of the report.  The Senior Planner advised that this was a long-standing designation, with ‘Kent level’ coming from the Kent Structure Plan and ‘Swale level’ coming from Swale.  The Member considered there was no logic in what was high level and what was not.  The Senior Planner explained that the designations had been considered by the Local Plan Panel in November 2018.  The Member considered the map was arbitrary and not a reflection of what was true and accurate. 

In response to why some areas were not included within the report, the Senior Planner explained that the scope of the study did not include the whole Borough, just major towns with a 2 kilometre radius and smaller settlements with a 1 kilometre radius out from them.

The Chairman was disappointed more Parish Councils had not responded to the consultation. 

The Head of Planning Services advised that the report was one of a multitude of other evidence that a Planning Inspector would expect to see, as part of the Local Plan process. 

The Vice-Chairman proposed the following recommendation:  That the Landscape Designation Review, considered by the Local Plan Panel in November 2018, be brought back for the Panel to review.  This was seconded by the Chairman, and agreed by Members.

Recommended:

(1)      That the findings of the Swale Landscape Sensitivity Assessment which will form part of the evidence base for the Local Plan Review be noted.

(2)      That the Landscape Designation Review, considered by the Local Plan Panel in November 2018, be brought back for the Panel to review. 

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

Members made the following suggestions:

·         Revisit the Landscape Designation Review, considered by the Local Plan Panel in November 2018;

·         look at the Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment again, no report required; Members be sent a link to the report and then feed their comments back; and

·         look at a policy for private unadopted estate roads, to get them to the same standard as adopted roads.

Members were advised that a Design Panel Workshop would be held in the new year.

Resolved:

(1)        That the suggestions above be noted.