To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting held on 20 March 2012.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2012, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

No declarations of interest were made.

There were none.

The Chairman read out an email that had been circulated earlier that day by the Group Planning Manager concerning the discussion at the last meeting of revised charges for pre-application enquiries, which Members noted.

Members will develop a schedule of work over the year to reflect the terms of reference of the Committee focussing on the Council's priorities for policy development. This includes opportunities to invite  other organisations who provide services in the District to provide information to the Committee and discuss issues of importance to the Community.

The Chairman proposed the following amendments and additions to the Work Plan which were agreed by Members:

·         ‘Excessive Street Furniture’ to be removed as no further information had been forthcoming from Members as to what this referred to

·         The following items to be added to September 2012: Bold Steps for Aviation (KCC discussion paper); Fly tipping; and, Allocations and Development Management Plan (ADMP)

·         Railways and Trains (Southern and South Eastern operators) to be moved to October

·         The following items be added to October 2012: Village Design Statement (Seal and Underriver); Gypsies and Travellers Plan (Consultation on potential sites); Final draft after consultation of the  Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL); and

·         Bus Companies be moved to January 2013.

The Head of Community Development gave a comprehensive power point presentation on all the on going arrangements for the Paralympic cycling event to take place in the District at Brands Hatch.  She explained the road closures and safety arrangements which included the hire of a private security firm in addition to the volunteer stewards, and the work undertaken to keep local businesses informed.  The Head of Environmental and Operational Services explained his role as Chairman of the Safety Advisory Group which was not a new role but now had a higher profile due to the event.  The District was under its normal obligations to keep the roads clean and free from litter including those areas of the field of play.  The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) however, had asked the Council and given the contract to clean the course where not covered by the District’s responsibility.

Action 1: Copy of the power point presentation to be circulated along with the minutes of the meeting.

In response to concerns expressed by some Members with regards to crowd control for the Olympic Torch relay through the District, the Head of Environmental and Operational Services advised that zones were being provided and they were aware of pinch points where barriers would be needed.  There were adequate volunteer stewards and qualified security staff.  If there were not the capacity people would be moved on, and the Police were on hand for any civil disturbance.   The Head of Community Development reported that every Head Teacher had been written to, twice, asking for numbers of children attending and copies of their risk assessment.  Where this was known fixed barriers were in place at the road with retractable side barriers to keep the children together.  The pavements had been measured and assessed against the national safety guidelines and capacity was based on adults.

The Chairman thanked and congratulated the Head of Community Development for all the hard work and time that had been put in and commended Officers for managing it on top of their already busy workloads.  She thanked the Chairman but pointed out that it had been very much a corporate endeavour with many different council departments involved such as development control, environmental health, parking and legal.

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented a report on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which was a new mechanism for securing contributions from developers towards the provision of infrastructure that was required to support development.  In order to begin charging the Council needed to prepare a Charging Schedule to set out what developers would need to pay in £ per sq m of new buildings and any variations by area or type of development.  The consultation document at Appendix B to the report would form the first formal stage in the Council’s preparation of CIL and it was proposed that this should be subject to a 6 week consultation between June/July and August 2012.

In response to questions the Planning Policy Team Leader advised that the report would also be considered by the Local Development Framework Advisory Group and Cabinet in June 2012, so the consultation should begin at the end of June before the holiday season.  The Planning Policy Team Leader agreed to check with theEnvironment Agency the figures given by them on the cost of a Flood Defence and Water Quality Infrastructure.  With reference to supplying evidence for the need for infrastructure to support new development she explained that this was prescribed by legislation and the wording came from the regulations.  It was a grey area, but it could potentially be used to assist with existing problems if a new development would add to the infrastructure problems.

A Member queried the demographics; was concerned that if district wards were stuck to certain areas that could cope with the higher charge would only face the lower charge and therefore an opportunity would be lost; and due to revenue costs wondered how many of the projects could actually be realised.  In response to these queries, the Planning Policy Team Leader agreed to double check the demographic forecasts; explained that ward boundaries were used as a lot of data was provided on that basis and that it may be something that came out in the consultation process; and that the CIL could be used for on-going funding of schemes, and she did not believe there was a time limit for this but would double check.  In response to further questions she advised that developers were largely supportive of CIL as it was more predictable than s.106 agreements and could be more easily factored into their costings.  If a Parish Council did not respond TO THE request for evidence of infrastructure needs, it would not be a lost opportunity and they would still receive a share of the money to spend on local infrastructure projects.  Areas of development exempt from the CIL were affordable housing, charitable purposes and exceptional circumstances to be used on rare occasions.  The Planning Policy Team Leader noted the concern expressed that Gypsy and Traveller sites were not mentioned.

Resolved: That it be recommended to Cabinet that, subject to the discussions above:

a)       the CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document be agreed and published for consultation;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.