Agenda and minutes

extraordinary, Executive, Policy & Community Safety Scrutiny Panel
Wednesday, 11th July, 2018 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent. View directions

Contact: Charles Hungwe 

Items
No. Item

4.

Apologies for Absence

    Minutes:

    Apologies were received from the following Members:

     

    Councillor Dixon, substituted by Councillor Wells;

    Councillor Curran, substituted by Councillor Messenger;

    Councillor Rusiecki, substituted by Councillor Lynda Piper;

    Councillor Linda Potts, substituted by Councillor Stuart Piper.

5.

Declaration of Interests

    To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the advice contained within the Declaration of Interest form attached at the back of this agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete that form and hand it to the officer clerking the meeting and then take the prescribed course of action.

    Minutes:

    There were no declarations received at the meeting.

6.

Thanet Local Plan - Publication stage (Regulation 19) & Submission for Examination (Regulation 22) pdf icon PDF 149 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    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.