The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Minutes of the meeting of the Group held on 12 March 2012.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Advisory Group held on 12 March 2012 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Cllr. Fittock declared a personal interest in minute item 5 as a member of Swanley Town Council and in minute item 7 as it related to the Swanley Town Centre Regeneration area as a trustee of Swanley Town Centre Recreation Ground.

Cllr. Parry declared a personal interest in minute item 5 as a member of both Sevenoaks Town Council and Kent County Council.

Cllrs. Mrs. Davison and Davison declared personal interests in minute item 5 as members of Edenbridge Town Council.

The completed actions were noted.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the item and explained that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was to be a standard charge based on floorspace for new development in the district. Sums collected would be used for the provision of infrastructure necessary to support that development. This CIL would replace some monies previously received through section 106 agreements.

To introduce a CIL the Council must produce a charging schedule. Officers had created a draft charging schedule as part of the consultation.

The charging schedule was based on a viability assessment and an assessment of infrastructure required to support development. The viability assessment showed that a proposed CIL of £125/m² was unsustainable in northern areas of the district and in Edenbridge and therefore a second tier of £75/m² was considered for some wards. At this level it was expected that the CIL would raise £5-6million across the district in the period 2014-2026.

An Infrastructure Delivery Plan was prepared to support the CIL as an indicative list of infrastructure required to support the implementation of the Council’s Core Strategy plan. The list was drawn up in consultation with infrastructure providers, including Town and Parish Councils. This list would become more developed over time and following the consultation period. There was still time for further schemes to be added during and after the consultation.

A Member of the Group enquired why residential care homes would not be charged the CIL. The Senior Planning Officer clarified that it depended on the use class of residential care home and that those in class C3 would be charged.

Action: Officers to clarify in the document when residential care homes would be charged.

The Member also suggested the population projection and infrastructure costs provided by Kent County Council (KCC) were underestimates. He also proposed that the figures be rounded to indicate that they were only estimates.

Action: Officers to remove the specific population projection and to round the estimated costs of infrastructure projects.

It was suggested that the difference between the CIL tiers was significant and could lead to unforeseen results. Officers responded that if the CIL were reduced to £75/m² across the district then the sum received would reduce by approximately £1million. Further, the figure of £125/m² had been considered as unsustainable in some parts of the district by the viability assessment. Government guidance on the introduction of CILs recommended that they be kept as simple as possible but if intermediate tiers were proposed then the Council would need a further viability assessment to consider the impact.

Another Member suggested that having a lower level in some areas indicated that they were second-class wards. The lower CIL could also incentivise greater development in areas which were already overcrowded. The Officer reminded the Group that the CIL receipts would be put into a central fund for use across the district. It was not believed the 2 tier CIL would particularly incentivise development as it was more usual for Councils to set the CIL at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Council had decided a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment was required since the Government had terminated its Partial Review of the South East Plan and since the publication of the new draft national policy.

Officers believed the study carried out by the University of Salford was robust as it had received a good response rate. Financial savings were made by jointly commissioning the study with Maidstone Borough Council.

The study had shown a need for 40 pitches over the period 2012-2016. It was possible, but not a recommendation of the report, that some of the existing temporary and unauthorised pitches (approximately 31) could be used to provide permanent accommodation for households.  It was noted that this would need to be considered in preparing the Gypsy and Traveller DPD. A requirement of a further 32 pitches was estimated between 2016 and 2026. No need for Travelling Showpeople had been identified. Nor was a need for a dedicated transit site identified, however it was recommended that such needs be considered on a regional or county-wide basis.

Officers understood it would still be difficult to identify sites for the pitches but they believed the report was a good foundation for the Development Plan Document (DPD).

One Member commented that the survey should have gone wider than merely the existing residents in the district as the survey dealt with travelling populations. The survey would not therefore cover those who would move into or through the district.

Another Member, who was not on the Advisory Group, noted that there was an existing imbalance through the district of where Gypsy and Traveller accommodation was based. He asked that there be no presumption in the DPD that existing sites expand. Officers advised that the Accommodation Assessment would not be binding as to how any provision would be made and where.

Members commended the report and agreed that it was considerably better than the study in 2006.

Resolved: That the Council’s Gypsy and Traveller DPD be prepared on the basis of the findings of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment.

The Group Manager – Planning reminded Members that the Allocations and Development Management Plan reported to the Advisory Group on 12 March 2012 had been a working draft. The working draft was subject to changes in allocations and changes in the finalised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The report set out those changes to the Development Management Policies which would be needed since the NPPF had been finalised. The Group Manager – Planning emphasised that Policy NPPF 1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) was regularly being inserted by Inspectors into DPDs during examination. If the amendments proposed to bring the plan into conformity with the NPPF were not made then the document would be found unsound.

A Member noted that the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development stated that any development should be considered sustainable where it was in line with up-to-date local plans where they existed.

Action: Officers to add such wording to the document.

Another Member, not on the Committee, felt it was difficult to follow references to the NPPF and asked that paragraph references to the NPPF be added. Officers agreed but suggested some references to the NPPF would be only general in nature.

Action: Officers to add references to the appropriate paragraphs of the NPPF throughout the document.

The report also set out the responses to the consultation for site allocations. The Group Manager – Planning acknowledged that some further changes could be needed and so the recommendation at this time was not for immediate approval of the DPD but only for further discussion with stakeholders. He added that since the last report there had been interest in the Land West of Bligh’s Meadow, Sevenoaks to be retail led. Additionally the owners had requested that the boundary of Swanley Town Centre be extended to the recreation ground and this matter was still unresolved, but the Town Council, who own the recreation ground, had clarified that it would like the land to be retained as such.

The Group considered each of the additions or variations to the 2010 draft allocations in turn and comments were made on the following addresses:

School House, Oak Lane and Hopgarden Land

Concern was raised that the proposed allocations for this site would make it dense and out of keeping with the Character Area Assessment. This was particularly true of the lower site.

Johnsons, Oak Lane and Hopgarden Land

It was suggested that the concerns regarding School House would also apply to this site.

United House, Godsel Road, Swanley

It was noted that the site was subject to ongoing stakeholder discussions. Concern was raised about the impact development could have on density and that there would be no barrier to the paper mill. Development would also have an impact on air quality and highways, which had got worse in the area since the matter was considered in 2010.

The Manor House, New Ash Green

It was noted that the site was subject to ongoing stakeholder discussions. A Local Member, not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

There was no other business.

The proposed date of the next meeting of the Advisory Group was noted.