Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

Councillor Monique Bonney declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect to item 4 Housing Economic Land Availability Assessment 2025 findings, Local Plan growth strategy and sites for allocation discussion as she was Chair of the Five Parishes Group, and Chair of Rodmersham Parish Council.

The Chair changed the order of business as minuted.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) introduced the report which set out newly-introduced time constraints around the adoption of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and the importance of such an SPD to address the Council motion of 1 October 2025 which related to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO).  He referred to paragraph 2.2 in the report which set out the issues which needed to be addressed by the SPD, and paragraph 2.24 which set out the timeframe, with adoption of the SPD in late June 2026.

The Chair invited questions and comments from Members and these included:

·         Welcomed the minimum off-street parking requirements proposed for HMO’s;

·         it was important that it was clear that when a building was converted to a HMO, and there were on-street parking restrictions, that parking permits were not issued to residents of the HMO;

·         clarification sought as to whether a 4-bedroom HMO property was regarded in the Local Plan as one dwelling or separate households;

·         acknowledged and thanked officers for getting the report done so quickly; and

·         considered the gap should close between the end of the consultation and the proposed Extraordinary Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group meeting as at the moment the meeting was too close to the final date for adoption.

In response, the Project Manager (Policy) confirmed that a 4-bedroom HMO property counted as one dwelling in terms of housing supply.

The Head of Place acknowledged the comment on deadlines and explained that the dates had been set to take into account the potential level of consultation responses and said that a date in mid-May 2026, rather than at the end of May 2026, could be looked at.

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed the recommendations, which were seconded by Councillor Mike Whiting.

Resolved:

(1)      That the new time constraints for the adoption of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) be noted;

(2)      That the importance of this SPD to the Council motion be noted; and

(3)      That it be recommended to the Policy and Resources Committee (P&R) that it approves a consultation draft based on the core principles of the motion and the parameters as set out in the report (without the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group (PTPWG) formally reviewing the draft).

Appendix III added 19 January 2026

The Project Manager, Planning Policy introduced the report which set out the process of discussing and agreeing the preferred growth approach for the Local Plan and the non-strategic sites for allocation, as part of drafting the Regulation (Reg) 19 version of the Plan.  The Project Manager explained that he would speak on each recommendation in turn.  He explained that the report came at a critical point in progressing the Council’s Local Plan review.  As part of agreeing the latest version of the Council’s local development scheme, it was agreed to carry out a Reg 19 Local Plan consultation during the summer of 2026, and submit the Plan for examination by the end of December 2026. He stressed the importance of making the decisions set out in the report to give officers time to prepare the Reg 19 document and to complete key whole plan evidence, and failure to agree would mean the Council would be unable to submit the Local Plan in line with the agreed timetable. 

Recommendation (1)

The Project Manager reminded Members that they had been informally briefed on the HELAA in 2024 and 2025.  The HELAA took a detailed robust approach reviewing sites that had been made available to the Council through a number of call for sites exercises and representations received from historical Local Plan consultations.  These sites were investigated into further by officers to assess their suitability, and tested against the Local Plan’s whole plan viability assessment which was considered by the PTPWG in November 2024, to assess whether those sites could be delivered against the emerging draft policy requirements of the Local Plan.  The Project Manager said the HELAA gave an overall conclusion for sites subject to detailed assessment which considered three main issues: suitability on planning matters; whether a site remained available within a 15-year time frame for a Local Plan; and whether it was financially deliverable against the emerging draft Local Plan policy requirements.  Sites were overall found to be potentially suitable where further evidence was required and development impacts might be mitigable and unsuitable on any of the three main issues.  He explained that a new category was introduced where brownfield sites were only unsuitable against the financial viability element where there was a policy requirement of 30% affordable housing.  These were potentially suitable if the policy requirements were amended to 10% affordable housing.  The HELAA took a robust approach which presented a series of sites that could be considered for plan drafting.  He reminded Members that the HELAA findings did not determine whether a site should be allocated in the Local Plan or that it should be granted planning permission. The HELAA provided a stock take of the sites put forward for consideration for the Local Plan drafting.  The HELAA would be updated as part of plan drafting and beyond.

The Chair invited questions and comments from Members and these included:

·         Considered being asked to note the findings was questionable as some sites were marked as ‘unsuitable’ and did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 642.

The meeting was adjourned from 8.16 pm until 8.30 pm and from 9.44 pm until 9.55 pm.

At 10 pm and 10.30 pm, Members agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders in order that the Working Group could complete its business.