Cabinet considered the recommendations from the Extraordinary Local Plan Panel meeting on 29 October 2020.

The Chairman invited the Cabinet Member for Planning, and Chairman of the Local Plan Panel, to speak on Minute Nos. 222 (1 - 3) and Minute Nos. 223 (1 – 15).  The Cabinet Member for Environment raised concerns of over-intensive development to the east of Faversham and spoke against Minute No. 222 (5).  The Cabinet Member for Planning said that to reject the sites would have a huge impact on the Settlement Strategy and the three development sites were working on a joint masterplan to deliver the objectives, which included a new secondary school in Faversham.  The Cabinet Member for Housing said that a critical mass needed to be reached in order to deliver infrastructure projects and viability was best in the east of the Borough.  He added that to achieve the environmental aspects, affordable housing, employment and infrastructure, the development area as set out needed to be supported.  On being put to the vote, Members agreed to Minute No. 222 (5).

The Cabinet Member for Economy and Property referred to Minute No. 223 (7) and raised concerns on the visual and environmental impact any development might have.  She said it was an important part of the Aquifer and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and would set a precedent for further development in the area.  The Cabinet Member for Planning had some concerns that the site could be challenged at the Examination in Public (EIP) and referred to an adjacent site which SBC had won an appeal, on the impact on the landscape.  In the discussion that followed, the Cabinet Member for Planning explained there was a possible alternative option if the site was taken out.  Other members raised concern of the suitability of the development site and sought an alternative.  The Cabinet Member for Planning said that fewer dwellings in the rural areas were needed now and he said there should be 1100 in Teynham, not 1000.   On being put to the vote Members voted against Minute No. 223 (7).

The Cabinet Member for Environment spoke against Minute No. 223 (8).  He said that the site was in an AONB, had previously been considered to be unsuitable and he feared ribbon development.  He said the scale of the development in the location was too big and the railway service needed to be substantially improved prior to any development. The Cabinet Member for Environment raised highway safety concerns as there was no footpath to the school from the development site.  A Member said there was a proposal in the Kent Strategic Rail Network, to double the number of trains per hour stopping at Selling train station and development sites near a train station gave options.  The Cabinet Member for Housing said that without controlled expansion of villages, facilities would be lost.  On being put to the vote, Members agreed Minute 222 (8).

The Cabinet Member for Planning referred to Minute 222 (10), advising of the typing error which should say 1100 dwellings not 1000.  He added that the allocation was not expected to come forward until 2028 due to the proposed Southern bypass at Teynham which would take traffic, including HGV traffic away from the A2. The Cabinet Member for Planning said there would also be a green space buffer between Teynham and Bapchild.  The Cabinet Member for Environment said that putting in a bypass would increase traffic and affect the Air Quality Management areas along the A2 and he did not support Minute 222 (10).

Resolved:

(1)  That the recommendations in Minute Nos 222 (1), (2) and (3) be agreed.

(2)  That the recommendations in Minute Nos. 223 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10, (11), (12), (13), (14) and (15) be agreed but Minute No. (7) not be agreed and taken out of the plan.