The Principal Planner introduced the report which presented the current state of the work undertaken by officers and consultants Peter Brett Associates and Land Use Consultants, and sought a steer on whether work on new garden communities should continue.  He drew Members’ attention to Appendix I which included the consultant’s draft assessment, with key issues, assessment and recommendations.  From page 266, the appendices to the consultant’s report and the assessments for each individual submission was included.  Appendix II showed the landscape work to inform the assessment work.  The Principal Planner explained that work on this had been carried out in the past year and was about the challenges of meeting the Council’s development needs.  In February 2018, PBA had submitted their ‘Choices for Housing Growth’ report to the Council, and a Swale New Garden Communities (NGC) Prospectus was published.  He explained that the report this evening was about whether progress on NGCs had been sufficient for them to be a possible option for the Council to consider as part of the Local Plan review.

The Principal Planner introduced Richard Pestell from PBA who gave a presentation, a summary of which is outlined below.

Emerging Findings

·         The next Local Plan needed to achieve 1,050 dwellings per annum (dpa) which was not negotiable and might even be more than this;

·         the ‘Choices for Housing Growth’ document tested the feasibility of Garden Communities in Swale; and

·         there had been five expressions of interest for the Garden Communities, and four sites were included in the Prospectus.

Assessment Process

·         The sites were not being recommended at this stage;

·         the Assessment Process looked at deliverability, with risks and issues being flagged up;

·         extensive feedback from consultees was considered;

·         this was about de-risking the four options prior to a decision being made on their implementation; and

·         the process had benefits for the Council in that it could shape any early proposals, and check and challenge before a decision was made.

Key Issues

·         Looked at potential non-starters on technical grounds, such as highway constraints;

·         timing and viability – slippage for Swale was a major problem so needed to get viability and deliverability addressed before any sites went forward, with a detailed viability assessment being carried out for all the sites;

·         Transport – Garden Communities themselves might assist as they offered the chance for more infrastructure funding.  However, there were no show-stopping issues in terms of transport; utilities work was still ongoing; and

·         Landscape and Environment – all four sites had impacts; independent landscape consultants confirmed these, and offered possible ways to mitigate them.  It was about addressing issues early on in the process.

Summary

The assessment process was not about making a decision.  When the time came for the decision to be made, this could be done knowing there was lots of evidence behind it.  However, at this point in time, there were no ‘showstoppers’.

The Principal Planner explained that the decision this evening was not about the individual sites, but the concept and he drew Members’ attention to paragraph 2.20 in the report.  Members were not being asked to allocate a site, but bring Garden Communities forward to see their role within the Local Plan.  He said that Garden Communities were a distinctive alternative to other housing schemes.  This process endeavoured to see if the sites were available, suitable and deliverable.  He added that they were available – with four schemes proposed; they were suitable at the moment, and were deliverable. 

The Principal Planner gave an overview of the three recommendations in the report.  These collectively would allow the progress of including New Garden Communities as reasonable housing alternatives.  In respect of recommendation (c), he explained that the proposed New Garden Communities Council resolution was intended to reduce uncertainties, and drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 in the report.  He added that a word was missing:  the third line should read: ‘….comprehensive way….’

The Principal Planner outlined the next steps which included a steer on spatial options (Summer 2019); the agreement of options for consultation (Autumn 2019); publication of a Draft Local Plan (Autumn 2020); the Local Plan Examination in Public (Spring 2021); and adoption of the Local Plan (Summer 2023).

The Chairman invited Members to debate the recommendations in the order of (b), (a) and then (c) and the following points were made:

Recommendation (b)

·         Concerned that there was considerable development on first class agricultural land, and stating that there was a lot of this type of land was a poor reason for doing so;

·         what was ‘rush money’?

·         what were the legal implications of the resolution in paragraph 3.9?

·         there was a risk that one of the four sites might be rejected, and there might be a challenge by the developer;

·         needed to understand that the risks in relation to transport issues were significant for the four sites, and these would get worse, with worsening air quality;

·         it would be beneficial to include the economic aspect of the sites as this progressed;

·         seemed in principle that they were very carefully sited locations, carefully designed and complete communities;

·         there was a lot to commend as a NGC would prevent urban sprawl across the Borough;

·         happy for work to be continued;

·         hoped all four options did not come forward, there were show-stoppers on all of them;

·         there was a danger that the risks were so bad and spending years on this and nothing happened, when other more deliverable sites could have been looked at;

·         considered that totally different strategies could have been put forward;

·         suggest say ‘no’ to this route and get a better strategy;

·         this was just giving this ‘the nod’, the decision had already been made;

·         without NGC to meet housing targets, there would be major development throughout the Borough which was unacceptable;

·         securing the Northern Relief Road, and improvements to Junction 5 of the M2 were essential before this goes ahead;

·         paragraphs 9.22 and 9.23 summarised the situation very well;

·         risk was not always bad, it helped to keep the focus;

·         relationships with existing communities was critical;

·         positive that highway issues were being embraced;

·         utility issues needed to be addressed;

·         caution needed on increasing impact on already busy infrastructure;

·         did not like how this was being dealt with by the Council, the developers were getting too many ‘bites of the cherry’;

·         all four options posed significant highway issues;

·         had not seen any detailed transport modelling;

·         before this goes forward, needed to see other options, this was too premature;

·         too much money was being spent on consultants;

·         viability issues;

·         not happy with the report and the evidence;

·         brownfield sites should be used first;

·         NGC could help ‘fix’ a lot of the issues raised in the consultation;

·         highway issues would come up with whatever alternative strategy was chosen;

·         there were major problems in different parts of the Borough, ruling out NGC was not the right option; and

·         needed to achieve the housing numbers and look at solutions which would change the infrastructure.

Mr Pestell explained that ‘rush money’ was the situation when a lot of money was put into a scheme and, as a result, it was realised quicker.  He acknowledged that highways was the biggest risk, but explained the benefits of de-risking, spotting issues early and keeping Highways England (HE) informed so that they could mediate at an early stage.

The Principal Planner explained that this recommendation gave developers the confidence of engaging with New Garden Communities. 

The Principal Planner explained that the Council was not neglecting alternative options, and other sites would be brought forward for housing allocation.  He stated that there were no show stoppers at this point.  He said that there was always a residual amount of risk, but added that the huge advantage of this process was that the risk was being ‘flushed out’ early in the process.

The Principal Planner explained that alternative options would be brought to the Panel later in the year so there would be a full picture of potential land allocation.  He said that NGC was potentially the most complex strategy and advised that Rushenden was put forward as a NGC but had not met the criteria, and was moved into the Strategic Land Availability Process so could get to the Local Plan allocation via that route.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(2) a recorded vote was taken on Recommendation (b), and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Andy Booth, James Hunt, Gerry Lewin, Peter Marchington, Roger Clark and David Simmons.  Total = 6.

Against:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Monique Bonney and Richard Darby.  Total = 3.

Abstain: 0

Recommendation (a)

·         The NGCs would bring more housing than what was actually needed up to 2038;

·         questioned why rate of delivery of houses needed to increase (page 199 of report);

·         if this goes ahead, do not limit to just four, better sites might come up in the future;

·         considered only one or two of the four sites would come forward; and the Local Plan gets reviewed every five years in any case;

·         health care had not been considered;

·         the size and scale of the NGC needed to be looked at;

·         Junction 5 upgrade needed to be added to NS1 option (page 198); and

·         this looked like it was a foregone conclusion.

Recommendation (c)

The Principal Planner acknowledged that the wording of the proposed resolution was ‘tricky’, and drew Members’ attention to paragraph 3.8 of the report.  This would mean that land within the submission area would be a material consideration in the planning process.  He considered it was a useful message to send out to developers and land owners.

Members comments included:

·         Could not see the benefit of the additional recommendation on page 207 of the report;

·         not right to consider a planning application on the basis that a NGC might or might not come through;

·         this was limiting and premature;

·         detrimental effect on the planning process;

·         would be more effective once the NGC route had been taken;

·         legal advice was needed on the resolution;

·         the resolution did not protect the Council, and could have a negative impact, i.e. in the appeal process;

·         protection of the Local Plan was at stake;

·         urged caution on what had been suggested;

·         was important to involve the public, community engagement needed to be increased;

·         seemed that by accepting NGCs as a material consideration this became a means of preventing other applications coming forward; and

·         did not support as it stood.

The Principal Planner explained that he did not read the resolution as saying that the Council would consider NGC, but that it was just a process and Local Plan-led.  He added that the resolution had been designed to assist Members with their position when making a decision.

The Principal Planner suggested the resolution be given further consideration by officers, together with legal advice.

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed:  That recommendation (c) be deferred.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  On being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

Recommended:

(a)      That the draft technical assessment material in Appendix I and II be noted and its finalisation and publication be agreed.

(b)      That work on new garden communities continued in order that their position be considered as a potential option(s) for the Local Plan Review process.

(c)      That the recommended resolution on new garden communities for decision-making purposes noted on page 207 of the report be deferred for further consideration and legal advice.