The Planning Policy Manager introduced the report which set-out the main issues raised through the Regulation 18 consultation that took place at the end of 2021.  The Planning Policy Manager reminded Members that the Regulation 18 document contained a series of questions which sought views on the issues facing the Borough and how they could be addressed through the Local Plan Review (LPR).  She said that it had included development strategy options and the preferred options of having a more even distribution of the total requirements across the main urban centres when combined with allocations within the current adopted plan, Bearing Fruits.

The Planning Policy Manager reported that a total of 3,477 individual responses had been received and she drew attention to Appendix I of the report which contained a summary of the responses by question.  The main issues raised predominantly focussed on: Local Housing Need; and the distribution of growth.  There was considerable support amongst residents and local organisations for challenge in the use of the standard method and in the level of local housing need arising, citing the borough’s constraints – natural and landscape designations, flood risk and infrastructure limitations as the main justification in taking such an approach.  The Planning Policy Manager said that unsurprisingly, this was not an approach supported by those promoting development sites, and reasons as to why Swale should meet its needs included the amount of unconstrained land available, that the environmental constraints were not unique to Swale and not meeting housing needs in full would exacerbate housing affordability problems and hinder economic growth as well as delivery of infrastructure.

The Planning Policy Manager advised that the Council needed to present additional, robust evidence as to why meeting needs wholly within the Borough was no longer possible if this was the case.  The Council would need to satisfy the Local Plan Inspector that all potential sources of housing supply had been robustly explored and tested, that the Council had left no stone unturned in doing everything possible to meet its local housing need.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that responses relating to the distribution of growth fell into two categories – residents and other groups who opposed one or more of the options which would see development take place in a particular part of the Borough.  Those landowners, developers and agents who supported the option/options as they saw them, being the best fit to achieve their aims of securing development of their sites.

The Planning Policy Manager said that comments on the preferred option (and other options, equally) raised concerns on common themes relating to infrastructure capacity and included highways, wastewater, health and education, air quality, settlement and landscape character and the loss of countryside and agricultural land.  Statutory consultees commented that there would be a need to clearly demonstrate and evidence why option 3 was preferred and Kent County Council (KCC) highlighted that this option appeared, based on the currently available evidence to have a significant detrimental impact on the road network and that there were no obvious alternative options that could deliver the quantum of development required by the standard method within the timescale of the LPR period without creating a significant impact on traffic and air quality.

The Chairman proposed the recommendation in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.

The Chairman invited questions and comments from Members and these included:

·         Where was the early evidence gathering in paragraph 2.8 carried out?;

·         at what point would the issues be accommodated within Swale;

·         would another call for sites be carried out before or during Regulation 19;

·         how could planning challenge those providers that did not give the local plan the consideration it deserved?;

·         how could the statutory consultees be challenged when they just gave a “no comment” response?;

·         did not consider that the comment from developers that “the environmentally sensitive areas in Swale were not excessive” was correct and were officers happy to include that in the report?;

·         should have undertaken a Regulation 18 two years ago;

·         surprised that there was not a preferred option;

·         would rather officers took their time with the document to ensure it was accurate;

·         the Covid-19 Pandemic had a profound change to the Borough and new ways of working and lifestyle; and

·         concerned about the major economic disaster and its effect on development but recognised the Council had to carry on.

In response the Chairman said that the “evidence gathering” referred to in paragraph 2.8 of the report was from the Autumn 2019 evidence.  The Planning Policy Manager advised that at that time the Council did not know what the local housing numbers would be using the standard method.  The Council had asked consultants to look at best and worst case scenarios and commissioned a specialist demographer to assess how Swale’s population compared with the data used to make the projections and whether there were any “exceptional circumstances” to justify not using the standard method, and there were not.  The Planning Policy Manager explained that officers needed to ensure that they “left no stone unturned” to explore all options for meeting its local housing need.  She advised this had not been achieved by any other local authority in the country, however some authorities were due to submit their Regulation 19 and officers were watching the outcome very closely.  The Planning Policy Manager explained that officers were working closely with KCC Highways and Transportation, National Highways and neighbouring authorities to identify what capacity existed within the road network and how much housing could be delivered but it was a complicated and specialised area of planning. 

The Planning Policy Manager said that there would be another call for sites exercise and anyone could promote land for consideration and development.  The Chairman confirmed that this would need to be submitted before Regulation 19.

The Chairman advised that the Council was in communication with highway providers and it was fair to say that the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) particularly were late in understanding their role in terms of the local plan and planning applications.

Councillor Monique Bonney advised that in her capacity as Cabinet Member for Economy and Property she had met with the CCG and had complained to them about the significant shortfall in Swale of health provision, particularly in Sittingbourne which had seen significant housing growth.  She said the CCG had agreed to do a strategic needs review of health care in Sittingbourne, however she had not heard anything further.  With regard to education provision, the Chairman considered that more strategic planning from KCC was needed.

The Head of Planning advised that officers held infrastructure delivery meetings and did challenge statutory consultees but ultimately they were the provider.

The Planning Policy Manager said that 60% of Swale was covered by a national or international protected area, however she considered that the point the developers were making was that most areas of Kent also had these ‘special’ areas.

Recommended:

(1)      That the summary of main issues, as set out in Appendix I, raised by representations received during the Swale Local Plan Issues and Preferred Options consultation be noted.