Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 May 2012

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2012, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Any interests not already registered

No declarations of interest were made

(a)              Consultation on Community Infrastructure Levy  (Response from Cabinet – 14 June 2012)

(a)       Community Infrastructure Levy (Response from Cabinet – 14 June 2012)

The response from Cabinet was noted.

The action from the previous meeting was 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 advised that the ‘Final Draft Community Infrastructure Levy’ and ‘Gypsies and Travellers Plan’ would be moved to the meeting in January 2013.  It was noted that the Work Plan was light for the rest of the year and the Chairman asked the Committee to make suggestions for future reports.

The Vice Chairman introduced the report as it had been placed on the work plan at his request, and commented that the figures did not fit the public perception of what was actually happening. 

Julian Cook, District Manager for Kent County Council (KCC) Highways Sevenoaks Area was introduced to the Committee.  He advised that he dealt with reactive maintenance of the highways which would include  commercial fly tipping on the highway.  The Committee was advised that the District Council was responsible for removing fly tipped  household waste and KCC was responsible for removing fly tipped commercial waste, on the highway.  There were grey areas but the authorities would liaise.  Neither were responsible for removing fly tipped waste  on private land.  One of the problems was the District’s proximity to London, and some London Boroughs had put up the price of skip hire.  There had also been an increase in the fly tipping of waste containing  asbestos which took longer to remove as it required  specialist contractors.  They worked closely with the ‘Clean Kent Team’ and recently using covert cameras had caught one offender from the Lewisham area who was responsible for at least eighteen offences. 

It was noted that the figures presented were of all fly tipping reports but the removals recorded were only those the District Council were responsible for removing that could be found.

Action 1:  For future reports an extra column to be included to show the number of reported incidents that were on private land.

In response to questions the District Manager Sevenoaks (KHS), advised that the strategy for dissuading against fly tipping was working closely with the District Council and the Clean Kent campaign (www.cleankent.co.uk) which encouraged a vigilant public to report fly tipping which would hopefully lead to more prosecutions.  The use of Smart Water, cameras and sorting through rubbish all aided evidence collection.  The Head of Environmental and Operational Services reported that robust evidence was often difficult to find, these were very often professional criminals and vehicles used were not always registered with the DVLA. Many members of the public were not aware that that they were under a duty of care and if employing anyone to take waste  away from their home should check they had a waste carrier registration number.  He further advised that it now cost £90-100 per tonne to legitimately dispose of waste.  KCC had just carried out a full review of recycling centres and would be introducing some relaxations such as height restrictions whilst endeavouring to discourage trade using domestic sites.

Action 2:  The Head of Environmental and Operational Services to liaise with KCC and a report to come back for consideration in May 2013 on the impact of the KCC review of household recycling centres.

A Local Parish Councillor was allowed to address the Committee and reiterated that perception certainly did not marry with all the work that was obviously undertaken and was pleased with the information provided.

Resolved:  That the report be noted.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Committee considered the report of a discussion document released by KCC called 'Bold Steps for Aviation' which  included numerous proposals including that a Thames Estuary hub airport was not progressed and that airport capacity was increased by a second runway at Gatwick after 2019, and supported by a high speed rail link to Heathrow.  The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Improvement had commented on the document suggesting that KCC should not identify capacity expansion at Gatwick as its preferred option prior to the social, environmental and economic impacts of all options being considered fully.  KCC had replied that they would take the comments into account in drafting its final Bold Steps for Aviation document.  It was understood that the Government was planning to publish a consultation document in the Autumn on options for expanding airport capacity and was currently consulting on a Draft Aviation Framework document. This paper had been published in advance of the consultation on airport options and appeared to have been drafted primarily to counter proposals from the Mayor of London that a Thames Estuary airport should be considered as a realistic option. 

Resolved:  That the report be noted.

The Development Control Team Manager introduced the report which reviewed the feasibility of producing a List of Locally Listed Buildings.  One of the Members who had not been able to attend the meeting had forwarded and email which he read to the Committee which appreciated the cost implications of completing the survey but noted that a fair amount of work had already been done and suggested that the district be approached in sections and offer work experience to those in the process of qualifying or newly qualified in planning or conservation, to complete this section of the work.  He responded to these points by stating that there were still cost and staff time implications and was not hopeful for the calibre that would be required. 

Resolved:  That the report be noted.

The report sought Members support for a new Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan for Edenbridge. The new plan had been prepared to meet local Best Value performance requirements and as part of background work which would contribute to the Local Development Framework (LDF).

Resolved:  That the Edenbridge draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, attached as Appendix  B (Appraisal & Management Plan) to the report, be RECOMMENDED to Cabinet for adoption as informal planning guidance.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which provided an update on the Allocations and Development Management Plan (ADMP) which had been revised in light of the principles and policies set out in the Government’s new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, March 2012).   Comments received on the supplementary site allocations consultations, together with the Council’s response to the comments and any further necessary action was also reported.

Members also considered the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which provided additional interpretation of the Green Belt policies set out in the Allocations and Development Management Plan.  The report was also to be considered by Local Development Finance Advisory Group on 3 October, Cabinet on 11 October before Full Council on 16 October 2012. 

A Member was very concerned that a member of the public had had access to information contained within the report concerning Broom Hill Swanley, prior to its publication and therefore prior to Members.  The Principal Planning Officer explained how this had happened and apologised.  This would be fed back to the Team to try to ensure it did not happen again.  The Member asked whether the residential development on the site was seen as enabling the employment development.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that officers did not consider this to be the case.  It was also explained that the landowner of the area previously proposed for residential development had not been told that they could not submit a planning application. 

The Member was concerned by the site capacity for United House Swanley being increased and changed to purely residential use.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that this had been proposed following evidence provided by the landowner to suggest that an employment development on the site is unlikely to be attractive to developers or occupiers after the existing occupiers move off of the site.  This evidence had not been made available to the committee.  The Principal Planning Officer said that he would speak to the Planning Policy Team Leader to see if this information could be made available.  The reporting process was reiterated to highlight further available channels to consider and amend the report. 

It was moved by Cllr. Searles and duly seconded that the Site Allocation – United House Swanley, revert back to the previous proposal of approximately 115 residential units and mixed use to ensure that some land was retained for employment use.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

4 votes in favour of the motion

            4 votes against the motion

5 abstentions.

The Chairman exercised his second vote against the motion, and declared the motion to be LOST.

Resolved:  That the revised Allocations and Development Management Plan be noted and supported and that the Plan be RECOMMENDED to Cabinet and Full Council for pre-submission publication.