Amendment 1 added 30 March 2026

Amendment 2 and appendix 1 and 2 added 30 March 2026

Amendment 3 added 30 March 2026

In proposing the recommendations, Councillor Charles Gibson, Chair of the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group (PTPWG) praised the work of officers and recognised the considerable time and effort Members had invested in debate to advance the Local Plan to its current position. He acknowledged the Local Plan was not perfect, but said it was fair, equal, and served the borough for the future as well as it was hoped. Councillor Gibson drew attention to how central government policy constrained Councils in delivering high housing numbers. He acknowledged that the working group had not always agreed and Members views’ had changed as the plan evolved but, including an amendment which he would later be proposing, it delivered a local plan that served the whole community.  Councillor Gibson said agreeing the Local Plan with the proposed amendment made clear the Council’s commitment to plan-led development, and that the Council stood in opposition to rogue and mercenary developers concreting over green belt and flood plains but was in support of development that served residents.  He added that agreeing the proposed amendment also showed the Council’s commitment to fighting the Highsted Park, Sittingbourne development as it was unsuitable for the community.

 

The Vice-Chair of the PTPWG, Councillor Hayden Brawn, seconded the recommendations and reserved his right to speak.

 

The Mayor confirmed all Members had seen the briefing note that had been circulated and tabled. She then advised that three amendments had been received, circulated to Members and published on the Council’s website. She invited Councillor Mike Baldock to propose the first amendment.

 

Councillor Baldock proposed:

 

“That this Council adopts Growth Option 6 as the Council’s agreed Strategic Settlement Strategy for the next Local Plan and Regulation 19 consultation, in line with the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group’s well-considered recommendation to Policy & Resources, as set out in the officer’s report of 11 March 2026.”

 

He said the PTPWG selected Option 6 after going through extensively all the different development proposals and sites, and this was then overturned at the Policy and Resources Committee “on the hoof.” Councillor Baldock said Members should listen to what the PTPWG said and Option 6 was chosen on viability. He said that if SBC wanted the high levels of environmental protections that its own policies sought, they were more deliverable in the east of the borough as there was higher levels of affordable housing and environmental protection.

 

Councillor Baldock said Option 6 included a strategy for buses and the alternative in Bobbing Garden Village was entirely car dependent. He added that SBC’s policies were boosted by choosing option 6 and development in the east of the borough. Councillor Baldock said by building in the east of the borough, the Council could be reasonably sure it would meet its targets, and building in the west of the Borough had issues such as the impact development would have on traffic, particularly around the A249 and the Eurolink Industrial Estate, and a lack of school places. He also warned that if the Highsted Park appeal was granted, there would be development at both ends of Sittingbourne at the same time and the likely traffic chaos it would cause. Finally, he drew attention to the reduction in affordable housing in the policy proposed and he asked Members to agree the proposed amendment.

 

The seconder of the amendment, Councillor Mike Whiting, reserved his right to speak.

 

Responding to the amendment, Councillor Charles Gibson said that the current bus service that the Faversham Town Council ran was not a good enough or long term service for the area, and the Stagecoarch service had been reduced and was barely functional most of the working day, and there was not efficient buses and connections in Faversham. He said that much of what Councillor Baldock had said about traffic and development in the west of the borough was true of Faversham also, and it had already had and continued to have substantial development. Councillor Gibson said that Faversham continued to take more than its fair share of development in Option 4 also, but that it was the fairer policy for the borough. He said that option 6 would not deliver the five year land supply and greenfield sites would remain vulnerable to speculative developers. Finally he said there was no viable maths route to retaining option 4 and not allocating some of the Highsted Park development in that allocation, and that Highsted Park was inappropriate for the borough, and he would not support the amendment.

 

Other Members were invited to debate the amendments and comments included:

 

·         Highlighted that the PTPWG had spent a lot of time discussing the options which were overturned by the P & R Committee after a relatively short discussion, so would support the amendment;

·         could not support the amendment as the P & R Committee voted for Option 4;

·         drew attention that whilst it was well considered, the vote for Option 4 at PTPWG was a knife-edged decision, only carried by one vote;

·         there should not be such high volumes of housing dumped in the east of the borough as it was not proportionate;

·         Option 4 was not a re-balance but an over-balancing of the distribution of housing;

·         Option 4 had the lowest residual requirement for non-strategic sites, so reduced the pressure on other settlements to accommodate the remaining development;

·         Option 4 splits the burden on primary and acute health care between two different NHS trusts and East Kent would buckle under the strain of all development being in the east of the borough;

·         referred to the recent announcement that the long-promised Brenley Corner upgrade was no longer going to happen until it was considered again in another ten years;

·         highlighted that planning permission had just been granted as part of the Duchy development for 2,500 homes around Faversham and without the Brenley Corner upgrade the junction would not be able to cope with the extra traffic;

·         the last 25-30 years has already seen constant development in Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey, with little in Faversham until more recently;

·         it was fair to have more housing to the east of the borough and the amendment should be supported;

·         there had been investment at Grovehurst and Stockbury junctions but this was to support future growth already planned in the local plan;

·         National Highways had already advised that even with the planned development within the current local plan, the Stockbury roundabout was already at capacity;

·         there were already 1,500 houses still to be built out at north west Sittingbourne;

·         what was the point of working groups like PTPWG if they were not listened to?;

·         Members that did not sit on PTPWG or other committees historic or current, did still read reports from those committees;

·         Option 4 meant that SBC did not make the same mistake they had made for the last two local plans of trying to put the majority of development in one particular area;

·         supply and demanded dictated that if all development was in one area, there would be an over-supply, leading to a reduction in price so developers slowed their building rates – as had happened in the Maidstone area who now have no five-year land supply and had speculative development;

·         there were benefits to the local plan policies that had been developed;

·         had sympathy for those in the west of the borough but needed a policy that delivered for the whole borough;

·         Option 4 was the best option for the whole borough;

·         PTPWG were a working group, the parent Committee were the decision makers;

·         needed to be clearer with working groups about what was wanted;

·         reminded Members they were making a decision at Full Council for the whole borough, not just their ward;

·         referred to the recent news around refused applications being considered by the Secretary of State, and said that Option 4 crystallised what would likely happen anyway and in the process minimised the number of houses that had to be found across other sites in the borough;

·         if Option 6 was agreed and planning permission was granted for Bobbing village, more agricultural land would be lost;

·         Option 4 reflected reality and met the housing targets in the best way and limited the damage across the borough as a whole;

·         referred to historical development as part of Thames Gateway;

·         there was not the infrastructure to what has been developed and what was permitted to be developed, particularly around GP’s and the GP to patient ratio in the Sittingbourne area was already significantly high;

·         all infrastructure in the west of the borough had been impacted by the constant dumping of houses;

·         residents on the Isle of Sheppey had suffered more than other areas with traffic delays on the A249, trying to get to work and school;

·         drew attention that previous meetings were recorded and could be viewed so discussions and decisions made in the past could be seen; and

·         criticised Members for a lack of realism regarding planning applications and for missing opportunities to agree developments that could have delivered resident benefits through Section 106 agreements, resulting instead in approvals at appeal with minimal Section 106 improvements.

 

The seconder of the amendment, Councillor Whiting acknowledged that many of the points raised by objectors to the amendment to agree Option 6 had been raised at PTPWG but Option 6 was agreed by the majority at the working group. He objected to the suggestion that Members were not acting on behalf of the borough and outlined the many hours Members had considered all information, concluding that Option 6 should be put forward. Councillor Whiting said the Members who discussed the recommendations at the P & R Committee did not have the benefit of many hours of detailed discussion around the many reports previously presented to PTPWG and whilst it might be expected that a parent committee may tweak a recommendation, it would not be expected to completely change it. He questioned if a parent committee disregarded a working group’s conclusion, what purpose did they serve? Councillor Whiting went through the different aspects the PTPWG considered before coming to their conclusion which was then overturned by the P & R Committee, and urged Members to vote in favour of the amendment.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

 

For: Councillors Pollard, Carnell, Hunt, Baldock, MacDonald, S Stephen, C Palmer, P Stephen, R Palmer, Jayes, Chapman, Bonney, Wooster, Whiting, Marchington and Nundy. Total equals 16.

 

Against: Councillors T Gibson, Harrison, Jackson, C Martin, Brawn, Thompson, B Martin, Perkin, Last, Wise, Miller, S Clark, Winckless, Gould, C Gibson, Speed, Bowen and Cheesman. Total equals 18.

 

Abstain: Councillors Watson, Moore, Booth, Noe and Cavanagh. Total equals 5.

 

The Mayor announced the amendment had fallen.

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Charles Gibson to propose amendment two, which had been circulated to Members and published on the website:

“To proposed to replace Annex 1 in the Agenda pack with the annex agreed at the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group meeting held on 12 March 2026.”

 

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Charles Gibson explained that the Annex included follow on work since the previous PTPWG meeting, which changed the growth option, and included the new list of non-strategic sites that were more naturally matched to growth Option 4.  He said it had removed all reference to Highsted Park and some of the smaller allocations to the western villages of the borough that the PTPWG were least comfortable with in the previous allocation.

 

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

 

Members were invited to debate the motion and made points including:

 

·         Supported the amendment as it removed Highsted from the list of allocated sites;

·         referred to the outcome of the Highsted Park public inquiry expected to be received in June 2026, and the Reg 19 Local Plan consultation planned for July 2026;

·         including Highsted Park would have sent a message to the Secretary of State that the Council had accepted that the Highsted Park development would proceed;

·         developers could argue that the Council had allocated the land at Highsted Park for housing if it had been included;

·         referred to the need to have held an emergency PTPWG meeting because the process had been muddled;

·         was critical of the delays and process in reaching agreement;

·         referred to amendment 3, yet to be heard, to amend a suite of documents that had been agreed by the PTPWG but included Highsted Park, and which the P & R Committee could not support; and

·         supported the amendment.

 

The seconder of the amendment, Councillor Gould, said brownfield sites across the borough would still be prioritised and it crystalised the benefits of Option 4 as it included the minimum number of strategic sites.

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

 

Councillors Baldock, Chapman, Hunt, MacDonald, C Palmer, R Palmer and Whiting all voted against the amendment.

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Paul Stephen to propose the third amendment which had been published on the Council’s website and circulated to Members.  Before it was proposed, Councillor Stephen and Councillor Baldock withdrew the amendment.

 

Members then debated the substantive motion.

 

The Leader said none of the proposals were anything that any Members would have wished to have voted for but a Local Plan was needed.  He said there had been delays and the Council were currently in a position of being open to speculative development and failure to adopt a Local Plan would result in one being imposed on the Council.

 

The Leader of the Conservative Group said it was a difficult decision that nobody wished to take, and it impacted everyone in the borough for many years, but the alternative of not having a Local Plan was too risky. He acknowledged that Option 4 was not perfect but it was the best option for the borough. The Leader of the Conservative Group reflected on the delays for which he considered the previous coalition members were responsible for, and the hopes that housing numbers might change, and said that if a decision was not made now, the choice would be taken away under the current guidelines.

 

The Leader of the SIA Group said Members were being asked to condemn the borough to over development as it was being asked to over-allocate on a target that was already too high. He added that if the Highsted Park appeal was lost there would be an overallocation of 3,500 houses. In urging Members to reject the Plan he said that Option 4 would not deliver a 5 year housing supply and Members should not be accepting a Local Plan that was well above what was needed to settle a government timetable.

 

The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group expressed her frustration at the process and the lack of deliverability from the planning process, but said it was important that included policies were constructive and ambitious so the borough could grow. She said that future planning decisions looked to exclude local voices in discussions and she urged that a Local Plan needed to be in place before that happened. The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group spoke about the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan that was considered to be one of the best neighbourhood plans nationwide but said the lack of a Swale Borough Local Plan had meant it had largely been ignored by developers and the Planning Inspectorate. She criticised the planning system but urged Members to vote in support.

 

The Leader of the Reform UK Group said the borough’s infrastructure and GP’s could not take any more development and it was time to stand up for the people of the borough. He said he could not support the recommendation.

 

The Leader of the Green Group said not having a Local Plan meant SBC would be shooting itself in the foot for the little protection it had against the problems faced, and with or without a Local Plan, housing would likely be built. He said the infrastructure issues might be better with a Local Plan, but would not be better by not having one. He said nobody wanted more housing and it was not sustainable on water, environmental, or agricultural grounds but Members needed to vote for what was the least worst of a bad situation.

 

The Mayor invited other Members to speak and comments made included:

 

·         Would reluctantly support the recommendation;

·         housing number allocations were faulty and it was unlikely that developers would deliver the social housing needed;

·         registered providers should be confirmed when planning permission was granted;

·         there was no definition of ‘sunstainable’ and many of the elements included in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) needed to be strengthened or changed;

·         Swale was unique and there needed to be an individual understanding of the area to protect it;

·         an economy based on house building was not sustainable;

·         the Government’s aim was 1.5million homes by the end of the current parliament;

·         Swale would end up with more development, and less infrastructure in agreeing Option 4;

·         agreeing Option 4 gave the green light to the Bobbing application deferred at the previous week’s Planning Committee;

·         could not support the recommendation;

·         agreed and apologised for the mistakes and delays made under the previous coalition;

·         it was better to have a Local Plan set by elected Members than allow decisions to be made by a Secretary of State from anywhere in the UK, with no affinity to the area, or allowing developers to pick and choose where they wanted to build;

·         the needs of future and existing residents needed to be balanced;

·         shared the frustration of others that the housing targets were double the numbers needed to be built for local population growth;

·         the Government’s timetable would be missed, and the plan would have to be developed under a different regime, with less influence, if a decision was delayed;

·         much of the debate was discussed seven years ago and SBC were no further forward;

·         would not support as it was the wrong Local Plan to be taking forward even if a Local Plan needed to be in place;

·         Swale was up to capacity in highway movements in the west of the borough;

·         there was still a lot of unbuilt development with planning permission yet to be commenced;

·         highlighted the lack of school places, and connectivity between housing and school provision and said the borough could not cope with any more housing;

·         it was a difficult decision for Members to be forced to make;

·         by not choosing an option, the Council were not stopping development but were giving up control over it;

·         no plan was perfect;

·         expressed disappointment that the current Labour Government had not redressed the housing target numbers;

·         the Council could not ignore the consequences of the impact of the absence of a valid Local Plan;

·         pushing development decisions to the Planning Inspectorate lead to an increase in costs to the Council;

·         this was an opportunity to finally progress a Local Plan rather than speculative development with ad-hoc infrastructure filling the gaps;

·         no single part of the borough could accommodate all of the housing development;

·         made reference to a previous comment made in the chamber that a Local Plan was not required and decisions could be made by Government;

·         spoke about applications that had been approved because of the delay in agreeing a Local Plan;

·         drew attention that Local Plans had to be reviewed every five years;

·         major sites had been allocated in the past and developers had failed to deliver which impacted on the five-year supply; and

·         suggested that the process might still be subject to Judicial Review.

 

Councillor Brawn, the seconder of the recommendations, said Members could either vote for the Local Plan before them or not but, by not voting for it, would allow developers to build where they chose and that did not protect residents.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

 

For: Councillors C Gibson, Wooster, Speed, Bowen, Marchington, Cheeseman, Wise, Miller, Gould, Clark, Winckless, Booth, B J Martin, Perkin, Last, Noe, Harrison, Jackson, C Martin, Brawn and T Gibson. Total equals 21.

 

Against: Councillors Nundy, Jayes, Chapman, Bonney, C Palmer, P Stephen, R Palmer, Thompson, Pollard, Carnell, Hunt, Baldock, MacDonald and S Stephen. Total equals 14.

 

Abstain: Councillors Watson, Whiting, Cavanagh and Moore. Total equals 4.

 

The Mayor announced the recommendation was approved.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)  That Growth Option 4 as the growth strategy for the drafting of the Regulation 19 Local Plan consultation be agreed.

 

(2)  That the non-strategic allocations set out in appendices I to VI for the drafting of the Regulation 19 Local Plan consultation be agreed

 

(a)Non-strategic housing allocations

(b)Gypsy and Traveller allocations

(c)Employment land allocations.