Swale Borough Council, local planning authority for an area of Kent, was due to determine planning applications totalling 8,400 homes in a garden village on 7 November.  However, just three hours before the meeting was to be held, the applications were called-in.

Quinn Estates, submitted the applications to the Council in 2021.  Together the proposals include 7,150 homes to the South and East of Sittingbourne and 1,250 homes West of Teynham, sheltered and extra care accommodation, new schools, green infrastructure, open space, commercial space, pubs, sports and leisure facilities and relief roads.

The proposals are unsurprisingly controversial, 700 letters of objection were submitted.  The officers report advised, in very brief summary that: the proposals are not in accordance with the development plan; do not benefit from the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’; and whilst they would provide a number of economic, social and environmental benefits, these are outweighed by the harm, including the harm to, heritage assets, landscape and other impacts;  harmful aspects of the development are in breach of the development plan; and the benefits do not amount to material considerations sufficient to outweigh the development plan breach. The report recommended that planning permission for both applications be refused.

Before members got the opportunity to take their decision, Angela Rayner took it from their remit.  However the meeting went ahead and members resolved that they would have been minded to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the officers report.  The applications will now be determined by a planning inspector at an Inquiry and then a recommendation will be made.  The decision will ultimately be taken by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

It is an example of the tension between local decision making and addressing the housing shortage.  -Government have been clear and ambitious about housing delivery from the outset.  Calling in this scheme signals bravery to take unpopular decisions, and determination to achieve housing delivery.  It will be interesting to see if the inspector comes to the same conclusion as the Council - and whether the Secretary of State concurs if it does.