Issue - meetings

It was proposed by the Leader and seconded by the Deputy Leader:

“(1)   That Council agree to proceed with the draft Local Plan as recommended to Council on 18 January 2018, with the revised distribution of sites and other amendments set out in this report, in the Addendum at Annex 2 and from the recommendations of the Cabinet meeting of 19 July namely to;

 -  Amend Addendum reference AD05 (final paragraph) to read:

“In the event that a DCO or CPO process is not accepted or granted, or does not proceed, the Council will need to consider the best use for this site, in the next Local Plan review after a minimum of two years.”

(2)  That Council agree for inclusion in the draft Local Plan the main changes in Annex 4 of the Council report of 18 January 2018, as modified by any decision on Recommendation (1) above (set out in Annex 1);

(3)  That Council agree for inclusion in the draft Local Plan the other changes set out in this report regarding the identification of additional Local Green Spaces, and a proposed new policy relating to foster homes in the district (also set out in the Addendum at Annex 2);

(4) That, subject to the other recommendations above, that authority be delegated to officers to make such minor technical and factual amendments to the draft Plan as are necessary for clarity and consistency;

(5)  That the draft Local Plan (as amended), together with the associated evidence base, including the Sustainability Appraisal/Habitat Regulations Assessment, and the draft Transport Strategy, be published for comment (under Reg 19) for a period of six weeks, and then subsequently be submitted for Examination (under Reg 22);

(6)  That the Council request the Examination Inspector, under Section 20(7) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) to recommend any modifications to the draft Local Plan, which they consider are required in order to resolve problems that would otherwise make the Plan unsound or not legally compliant.”

Members raised the following points:

·  Concerns were raised regarding the increase in allocated sites on green sites and the impact of housing numbers on villages and towns in the district. There was debate about whether the proposed draft Local Plan would result in more or less employment in the district and what the impact would be on public services.

·  Concerns were raised regarding the soundness of the proposals and the potential for intervention from the DCLG but Members were keen to move forward with the Local Plan process.

The Monitoring Officer conducted a recorded vote on the motion as follows:

31 Member voted in favour of the motion: Councillors Ashbee, Bambridge, Bayford, Buckley, K Coleman-Cooke, Curran, Dawson, Day, Dennis, Dexter, Edwards, Evans, Game, Gregory, Hayton, Jaye-Jones, Martin, Messenger, Parsons, L Piper, S Piper, Pugh, Rogers, Rusiecki, D Saunders, M Saunders, Savage, Shonk, Taylor, Taylor-Smith and Tomlinson  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19

Cabinet considered the recommendations from the Executive, Policy & Community Safety Scrutiny Panel and Members were advised that proposals from the 02 July Cabinet had been considered by the Panel on 11^th July 2018. The Panel then agreed to forward the following recommendations to Cabinet:

1.  That housing development being proposed in the Local Plan be phased to be implemented towards the end of the Plan period; and

2.  That the committee report at paragraph 2.11 and the draft Local Plan text be amended to indicate that if a DCO or CPO process has not been agreed within two years that the status of the site be reviewed.

The following Members spoke under Council Procedure 20.1:

Councillor Campbell;

Councillor Messenger;

Councillor Bambridge;

Councillor Lin Fairbrass;

Councillor Wells.

After consideration of the views from the Panel, Councillor Bayford proposed, Councillor Savage seconded and Cabinet agreed the following recommendations:

1.  Recommendation 1: amend Appendix B (housing supply phasing) of the draft Plan and other relevant references in the document to show an amended phasing; and

2.  Recommendation 2: amend Addendum reference AD05 (final paragraph) to read:

“In the event that a DCO or CPO process is not accepted or granted, or does not proceed, the Council will need to consider the best use for this site, in the next Local Plan review after a minimum of two years.”

Adrian Verrall, Strategic Planning Manager introduced the item and said that the report before the Panel had been considered by Cabinet on 02 July 2018. At that meeting Cabinet adopted Option 2.

The Chairman then invited members of the public to make representation to the Panel. Ms Ruth Bailey and Mr Craig Solly addressed the meeting.

The Chairman invited non Panel members to speak under Council Procedure 20.1 and the following Members spoke:

Councillor Jaye-Jones;

Councillor Lin Fairbrass;

Councillor Grove;

Councillor Brimm;

The key points of their contributions to the discussions were as detailed below:

·  Crawley Local Plan set aside several acres of land for the possible expansion of Gatwick Airport. This allowed them to reduce their housing numbers by nearly 3,500 houses. Why should Council not include the Manston airport site in the Local Plan as a potential site for housing development in order to reduce the number of such sites being located elsewhere in the district?

·  Any decision on the Local Plan that was not based on available evidence runs the risk of being unsound and there was also the risk that the MLCG would intervene and take over the planning process;

·  There were higher risks associated with Option 2;

·  Panel should recommend to Cabinet that the Option offered to Members at the 18 January 2018 Council meeting be considered again;

·  Councillors had been inundated with emails from residents living in the villages who are worried by the possibility of housing development in the villages;

·  The public consultation should be extended from 6 weeks to 8 weeks;

·  Consultation should be conducted during the summer holidays;

Contributing to debate Panel Members asked questions and made comments as following:

·  There were on-going discussions between a landowner and Kent County Council regarding seven acres of land on a site where the Parkway Stations was being proposed to be built. However this station is being considered without any consideration to housing development for that area. Could housing development allocation be considered for this site as this would spare the impacts being proposed for Westgate and Birchington in the draft Local Plan;

·  Protecting Manston Airport site for aviation use for a period of two years should be clearly referenced in the Local Plan;

·  Lack of Policy SP05 and EC04 which would provide protection of Manston Airport site for aviation use;

·  This was a strategic site for the district and for cross boundary purposes with Dover District and Canterbury City Council;

·  There was a need for clear policy regarding this site particular with housing development in mind;

·  Amending text to provide protection for the Manston airport site was not adequate as texts would not constitute policy. Text did not carry any weight in comparison to policy which would carry maximum weight on planning matters;

·  There was a need to reinstate Policy SP05 (Airport site);

·  Council would need to come up with policy that would make reference to the NPPF Aviation Policy Framework and Designated Airports National Policy Statement, particularly about the importance of aviation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6