To agree an interim planning policy statement to support the use of park homes  in appropriate locations as set out in the proposed policy’s criteria.

The Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the report which sought to provide the Council with a policy on park home sites should planning applications come forward in the future.  He reminded Members that there was no policy in the current Local Plan and the policy would enable officers to set conditions and guidelines. He proposed the recommendation.

In seconding the proposal, Councillor Alastair Gould reserved his right to speak.

The Leader reminded Members that the policy was Borough-wide, would meet a need and diversify the Council’s housing supply.

The Leader of the opposition expressed his concerns over the policy which he said was poorly thought through and had been rushed, with variations to the policy in a short space of time.  He warned of unforeseen and unexpected consequences further down the line.  The Leader of the opposition had concerns that significant support came from those that would benefit financially, and he drew attention to those who objected to the policy, mostly from the Isle of Sheppey, whose residents were not being listened to.  He added that if a policy was to be introduced it needed to be properly thought through and properly examined by the PDRC.

In the debate that followed, Members raised points including:

·         Supported the principle of a policy but had concerns over the wording in the policy and that existing holiday park owners would convert their sites to park homes sites;

·         there was a desperate need for park homes for the elderly;

·         the criteria to be met was strong;

·         why did the original consultation only refer to holiday parks on the Isle of Sheppey if it was a Borough-wide policy?

·         five out of six Parish Councils objected but were ignored;

·         concerns it would open the floodgates;

·         locations were not sustainable – retired people needed access to better infrastructure and facilities;

·         concerns on the impact on tourism;

·         this policy conflicted with other policies;

·         more detail was required;

·         concern that developers would take advantage of sites that would become sustainable, and apply for permanent housing;

·         the policy did not remove the requirement to go through the usual planning process;

·         the policy would not fill the 5-year housing supply gap;

·         the policy should be considered as part of the Local Plan process; and

·         suggested the policy should be referred to the PDRC.

Discussion ensued and Members were advised that a planning policy should not be considered at the PDRC but might be considered by the Local Plan Panel (LPP) again.

Councillor Mike Whiting proposed an amendment, that the Policy be re-considered by the LPP before being brought back to Full Council.  Councillor Mike Dendor seconded the proposal.

Councillor Mike Baldock spoke against the amendment, and said that the policy had already been considered by the LPP.

In speaking to the amendment, Members raised points which included:

·         The criteria set out in the Local Plan still needed to be met and was subject to Section 106 requirements for infrastructure;

·         concerns were already raised at the LPP that there was not enough information to make a decision;

·         the current policy under consideration was different to that considered at the LPP and the current proposal had not been debated;

·         there needed to be more Member involvement and the policy should be-reconsidered;

·         should take the time to get it right; and

·         the policy was being made ‘on the hoof’.

Councillor Mike Baldock disagreed that the policy was made ‘on the hoof’ and said that the minor changes made to the policy were reflective of the points raised at the LPP meeting. 

On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.

Speaking to the substantive motion, Councillor Alastair Gould drew attention to the policy on pages 56 and 57 of the report and in particular sustainability. He said that SBC needed to bring forward a different strand to housing in the Borough.

Councillor Mike Baldock said that there was confusion about the policy initially but the current policy was about addressing park homes, and much of the Parish Council’s opposition was directed at holiday homes.  He said that it had always been a Borough-wide policy and estimated that there would be a few hundred applications coming forward in the initial phase and up to 800 applications through the lifetime of the Local Plan.  Councillor Baldock stressed that there was currently no policy to set guidance for a planning application on park homes sites.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19 (2), five Members requested a recorded vote, and voting was as follows:

For: Baldock, Bonney, Carnell, Davey, Ellen, Gibson, Gould, Harrison, Jackson, Knights, Benjamin A Martin, Ben J Martin, McCall, Palmer, Perkin, Pugh, Rowles, Saunders, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thomas, Truelove, Valentine, Whelan, Winckless, Woodford. Total equals 26.

Against : Beart, Bowen, R Clark, Darby, Dendor, Fowle, A Hampshire, Horton, Hunt, Neal, Simmons, Tatton, Whiting. Total equals 13.

Abstain: S Clark, Hall, N Hampshire, Ingleton, Jayes, Marchington. Total equals 6.

Resolved:

(1)  That the Interim Planning Policy as set out in paragraph 3.2 be adopted as a material planning consideration.