Agenda item

Up to 60 minutes is allowed for this part of the meeting unless extended by the Chairman of the Council or on a motion moved, duly seconded and approved by the Council.  Members may ask one supplementary question in addition to their original question.

Members may ask one supplementary question in addition to their original question.

The questions received are set out in the order received in the agenda papers.

In accordance with Rule 12(1) of the Council Procedure Rules, Members of the Cabinet responded to the following questions:

(1)  Councillor H M Williams asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment, Councillor N S Kenton:

“Cllr Williams will ask Cllr Kenton Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment about the housebuilding targets for the Dover area as stated in the new local plan, recently submitted to the government. However since then, Rishi Sunak announced on 5 December that the compulsory targets will become advisory. Councils will be allowed to build fewer homes if they can show that hitting the original target would significantly change the character of an area. This applies particularly to rural areas. Can you say if DDC intends to review its annual targets?”

In response, Councillor N S Kenton stated:

“DDC is not looking to review its annual targets in its emerging Local Plan following this announcement.

Following Rushi Sunak’s announcement, the government has published a consultation on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to take the proposals forward.

With regard to the potential for LPAs to reduce their housing targets, and when considering whether adverse impacts mean that the housing need should not be met, the following additional consideration is proposed in the consultation draft of the NPPF:

‘such adverse impacts may include situations where meeting need in full would mean building at densities significantly out of character with the existing area’. (Para11b)ii)) This is supported by a footnote (8) which states ‘Taking into account any design guides or codes which form part of the development plan for the area, or which are adopted as supplementary planning guidance’.

We have considered whether this potential addition to the NPPF impacts the draft Plan and its evidence base and whether this would potentially justify reducing the housing target in the Plan.

When determining the indicative capacities for the sites proposed for allocation in the Plan, the density and character of the surrounding area has been considered. The draft Plan also includes design and placemaking policies which require this to be considered when planning applications are received.

We do not consider that the emerging Local Plan strategy will require building at densities significantly out of character with the existing area that would justify reducing the housing target.

Moreover, such an approach would delay the plan being submitted for examination. This would run the risk that housing need (based upon the methodology the government prescribes) will increase due to worsening affordability in the District. We could potentially then be in the position of needing to identify further sites to be included in the Plan.

It should also be recognised that the Council’s current adopted Local Plan is considered to be out of date in some respects and we are therefore currently relying upon national policy to guide decisions on planning applications for new housing development. This is providing limited control over where new housing proposals are acceptable. It is important that we proceed with the emerging Plan to ensure we have up-to-date local policies in place to manage new development.”

There was no supplementary question asked.

(2)  Councillor S J Jones asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment, Councillor N S Kenton:

“Cllr Sue Jones will ask Cllr Kenton, the portfolio holder for planning and the environment if he can explain why the contributions for SPA mitigation secured in the last infrastructure spending statement of £199,546 along with the £108,896 projected income for the next 5 years is only allocated to fund the district councils legal obligations to SPA mitigation on the THANET COAST (providing an officer to count birds, put up signs and talk to visitors, projected costs to be £162,264 over the next 10 years)?”

In response, Councillor N S Kenton stated:

“The monies have been collected specifically to address the issue of additional recreational pressure on the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area because of additional visitors from new housing development in the area.

The monies contribute to the delivery of a mitigation strategy to ensure that new development does not have a significant adverse effect on the European Protected Site. This is a requirement of the Habitats Regulations.

The Council developed a mitigation strategy originally in 2012 and updated in 2022 as part of the new Local Plan. The level of contribution has been calculated taking account of the cost of delivering the mitigation strategy in perpetuity, which is a requirement of the Habitats Regulations. The monies have been collected for a specific purpose and will be needed to deliver the mitigation strategy. They can therefore not be spent on anything else.”

A supplementary question was asked in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6.

(3)  Councillor S J Jones asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment, Councillor N S Kenton:

“Cllr Sue Jones will ask Cllr Kenton the portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment why the policy cannot be amended to allocate the clear surplus to the mitigation of the impact of housing development on the 95% of green spaces around the main urban areas of the District which also have legal designation as local nature reserves, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special interest?”

In response, Councillor N S Kenton stated:

“There is not a surplus. The monies will be spent on the updated mitigation Strategy which must be provided in perpetuity, to meet the Council’s legal requirements under the Habitats Regulations.

The other sites referred to are not covered by the Habitats Regulations which applies a precautionary principle. It is unlikely that a blanket requirement like the SPA mitigation could be justified to be applied to those sites.

However, the Local Plan does include policies in relation to green spaces and other designated sites, to ensure the impacts upon them are considered on a case-by-case basis. Where mitigation is required, this would be secured through the planning permission.”

A supplementary question was asked in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6.