Tabled Papers added 7 May 2020.

The Planning Policy Manager introduced the report which sought a way forward on the holiday parks planning policy position by seeking to adopt an interim policy statement that would be a material consideration in determining future planning applications.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions and make comments.

Councillor Cameron Beart commented that most of the sites where the 200 planning enforcement notices were issued, did not meet the criteria on page 533 of the report.  He explained that the majority of holiday parks were on the Isle of Sheppey, and that most Parish Councils had objected to the proposal.  Councillor Beart also added that some people had not been able to comment as they had not received the information because the holiday parks had closed due to Covid-19.  The Planning Policy Manager gave a brief overview of the process that had taken place.  She advised that the Council had written to Park Home owners and operators in January/February 2020 to gauge interest in whether there was an appetite for a revision to the Policy.  There had been a 60% response rate, with the majority supportive of the policy change, and 23% did not support it.  All operators were written to on 6 March 2020 and asked to submit comments on the policy by 6 April 2020, and this was later extended to 20 April 2020.  The Planning Policy Manager explained that the Council could not consider comments made in January/February 2020 as comments on the draft policy because that correspondence was received in response to the initial letter as above.  This was why they had subsequently been contacted specifically with regard to the draft policy.

Councillor Benjamin Martin asked for clarification on the use of the sites as fully residential.  The Planning Policy Manager said that all individual sites would be assessed on their individual merits.  Each site would need to come forward with its proposals like any other planning application.

Councillor James Hunt asked what the impact on individual residents would be, i.e. with Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Scheme (SAMMS) payments, and he also asked how many residents would be affected by this policy, and where they were in the Borough?  The Chairman explained that this was across the Borough, not solely on the Isle of Sheppey.  He added that most park homes on the Isle of Sheppey were in a flood risk zone, and this limited numbers coming forward.  The Planning Policy Manager confirmed that SAMMS payments would still need to be paid.  Councillor Hunt considered this change in policy was happening too quickly and the full implications had not been looked into, with residents being left with costs they did not know about.  He said that more information was required, and the Council needed to listen to the Parish Councils.

Councillor Richard Palmer spoke in support of the interim policy and said the park home sites would need to come up to standard, and that not every holiday park would change to residential.  He considered any problems could be ‘ironed-out’ at the planning application stage.

Councillor Cameron Beart said that this would legitimise occupants of holiday parks who had been issued enforcement notices.

Councillor Monique Bonney said that the proposal would work better than the existing system which was difficult to enforce, and doing nothing would make the matter worse.

Councillor Harrison asked whether the number of units that became permanently residential would count towards the Council’s allocation of housing, and the Planning Policy Manager confirmed that it would.

Councillor Richard Palmer agreed that enforcement action should continue if planning permission for permanent residential use did not go ahead.

Councillor James Hunt moved a motion to defer the decision until more information had been received, on the numbers involved and the impacts on those residents taking up the option.  This was seconded by Councillor Carole Jackson.  On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

On being put to the vote, Members agreed the substantive motion.

Recommended:

(1)      That the report and appendices be noted.

(2)      That the Interim Planning Policy as set-out in paragraph 3.2 be agreed..

(3)      That the Interim Planning Policy be adopted as a material planning consideration.