Members may ask questions on the Leader’s Statement.  (Statement added 15.2.16).

The Leader presented his Statement which gave an update on the Local Plan and invited Members to ask questions.

The Leader of the UKIP Group considered that Swale had failed to defend its target on housing (540 homes), and that some parts of the Borough would be the most under-developed in the County.  He asked if the Leader did not agree that all parts of the Borough were special and should have been treated equally in the Local Plan?

The Leader disagreed with this view, and considered that it was unfair to officers and the Inspector to say this.  The fact was part of Swale was designated as a growth area within the Thames Gateway, and because of this designation millions had been spent on infrastructure in some parts of the Borough, but none in others.  Infrastructure improvements were required to enable growth to take place, which was why this varied throughout the Borough.

The Leader of the Labour Group referred to the Examination in Public (EIP) which some Members had attended, and asked if, despite the housing target being set at 776 homes, this meant that this number would be delivered?  He expressed concern that developers would be allowed to cherry pick more attractive sites and Swale would not get the affordable or social housing it needed, and there would be a strain on existing infrastructure. In terms of infrastructure improvements, he asked whether the Leader thought it would be delivered in its entirety (including schools), and what his best estimate was of getting the infrastructure needed, particularly north west of Sittingbourne such as Grovehurst roundabout, junction 5 of the M2, and the A249?

The Leader responded by saying that the 776 allocation allowed a greater opportunity for developers to cherry pick site for development but there were many factors outside of the Council’s control.  He commended the efforts of officers, in particular the Local Plans Team, who had done an excellent job at the EIP in defending the number of homes as developers were arguing for 800 – 1,200 in the Borough.  With respect to infrastructure, the Leader was as confident as he could be but could not give a definitive answer.  The ‘pinch points’ were well recognised, and they would work together to make sure this stayed at the top of the agenda.  As to whether the new homes would be in the right place and how many would be delivered, this would be for the Planning Committee to consider when applications came forward, and the latter would be affected by economic factors.

The Leader of the Independent Group commended the work of the Local Plans Team and considered the confirmation of the two planning areas to be important.  It was not desirable to increase housing in an area without the infrastructure (schools, roads, doctors, etc).  He asked if the Leader would keep on fighting to ensure this?

The Leader agreed that he would, and once more thanked Officers and the work of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning, and the Local Development Framework Panel, and considered this had been a good team effort.

Another Member also congratulated the staff in the Local Plans Team, and considered it unfortunate that the law was such that it was not possible for the Council to insist on infrastructure first before development, in particular referring to the Lower Road on the Isle of Sheppey as an example.  Whilst the Council did not get a bad result at the EIP, it was difficult to explain this to people who were against more houses being built.  She asked the Leader how it was possible to communicate to the public how little say the Council had (due to legislation), but that the Council was doing its best for communities?  She referred to examples where planning permission had been refused and it had been overridden on appeal, sometimes with costs against the Council.

The Leader thanked the Member for her comments and advised the Council had to continue to get this message across, and be honest with people about this.

A Member said she was pleased with the Planning Inspector’s comments on the Plan, but was greatly concerned about infrastructure, not just in terms of roads but also education and health.  There were already difficulties for residents to get a doctor’s appointment due to demand, and problems with hospitals. There may not be enough development to trigger sufficient Section 106 monies or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  She asked ‘at what point will we get a grip?’

The Leader shared the Member’s frustration, acknowledging that a lot of this was outside of the Council’s control.  However, the Council had achieved a lower housing growth figure than many expected, but the pressure needed to be kept on regarding infrastructure, and, to continue to work on health issues with partners.  He encouraged the Member to get involved with the work on the CIL.

Another Member referred to ‘more attractive sites being cherry picked by developers’ and asked what effect this would have on ‘bombsites’, referring to the area between Morrisons and Charlotte Street, Sittingbourne?  The Leader recognised his frustration and said assurances had been given that proposals would come forward soon, which would be a matter for the Planning Committee to consider.

The Deputy Leader advised that the EIP was the easy bit and there was more hard work to do, in particular at stage two.  The process was hard to explain to the public, but there would be more consultation as part of this.  He asked the Leader if he would accept his gratitude that he and other Members had spoken so well, and thanked Members of the LDF Panel and officers, in particular on their exemplary performance at the EIP.  He asked that thanks be given to the Officers formally.

The Leader accepted and endorsed the sentiments, and again congratulated Officers, referring also to the positive comments at the recent Faversham Local Engagement Forum.