The Portfolio Holder for Local Planning and Environment gave a brief overview of his areas of responsibility and work programme.  He also advised that one of the legacies left by hosting the Paralympics for West Kingsdown had been an outside gym for residents.

The Chairman asked the Portfolio Holder to apprise the Committee of the challenges he was facing and any concerns forming.  He responded that he was concerned with monitoring consistency in decision making, monitoring the labour force (he was happy with current numbers), and encouraging development control pre applications. 

The Vice Chairman queried whether there was any ability to enforce developers to build, or complete a build, in order to prevent longstanding sites left demolished.  Were there any statutory powers that could be used or conditions imposed when granting applications?  On behalf of the Portfolio Holder the Chief Planning Officer advised that it was very difficult to enforce.  A completion notice could be served but the  opportunity to use those would depend on site specific circumstances and there were rights of appeal . 

A Member asked that when more Parish Councils were considering Neighbourhood Plans did the Council have the resources to support this; and, how could the current 33% recycling rate be improved and how was it calculated.  The recycling rate was calculated by weight.  It was imperative that recycling centres such as the one at Sainsbury’s not be lost (as Sainsbury’s nationally had decided to take recycling ‘in house’), and the Chief Officer Environmental & Operational Services was looking into whether other sites could be placed.   The Chief Planning Officer responded that there was a fully resourced planning policy team and there was still Government funding available for support.  The DCLG had confirmed the funding would be available for the next financial year. 

In response to a Member’s question on the number of appeals and the expense, the Portfolio Holder replied that ordinarily around 75% of appeals were dismissed.  He hoped that increased uptake in the pre-application process may reduce the future number of appeals. 

A Member asked how the Portfolio Holder intended to protect employees considering the reduction in funding, something had to give whether services or a reduction in staffing.  The Portfolio Holder advised that he hoped the labour force could be kept at a level to deal with throughput, for example enough trained planning officers in order to prevent more appeals through issues such as non determination.  If necessary he would fight for resources. 

In response to a question on flytipping he explained that if it was commercial Kent County Council (KCC) dealt with it; if domestic the Council; and if on private land it was up the landowner.  With reference to bottle banks he would investigate what had happened to the one in Kemsing car park. 

A Member requested further information on how the affordable hosing grant money was allocated.  There was to be a seminar for Members on affordable housing on 27 November 2013.  The Member also asked a question on what was happening with the ‘Cycling Strategy’ which had been developed in partnership with Kent County Council and the Sevenoaks Cycling Forum. 

In response to a question on whether the Council applied for costs on appeals, the Chief Planning Officer reported that it was not often applied for as it was quite hard to prove the requirement of ‘unreasonable behaviour’. 

A Member asked about timings of policies as she had expected for example the Allocations and Development Management Plan to have been finalised by now.  The Chief Planning Officer replied that the CIL examination would be taking place on 8/9 October 2013 but he believed would be over in one day.  The next one would be Allocations and Development Management Plan which was nearly ready to be submitted, after that would be the Gypsies and Travellers Plan which was due to be considered at the next Local Planning & Environment Advisory Committee on 27 November 2013.

The Vice Chairman requested that a breakdown of costs and spending on appeals, recovery amounts sought and awarded, further broken down into appeals against Officer decisions and those taken by the Development Control Committee be submitted to the next meeting. 

Action 1:  Appeals statistics on costings be submitted to the next meeting.