Two questions had been received from Members in accordance with paragraph 19.3 of Part 2 (The Council and District Council Members) of the Constitution.

Question 1:   Cllr. Mrs. Sargeant

“Would the Leader of this Council Please explain why he has allowed 106 Money to be used for the most recent Swanley Housing Survey, as to which the results may be used in evidence to support a Green Belt Planning Application”. 

Response: Leader of the Council

The District Council works with Action for rural Communities in Kent and three Housing Needs surveys had been factored in (using  s.106 planning gains under the relevant criteria  for affordable housing) and this was an opportune time to gain valuable data on the District’s second largest town in order to effectively plan for all of Swanley’s housing need and demand going forward into the future.  This data will supplement any future Strategic Housing Market Assessment data by providing a more detailed analysis of the respective area.  The study was intended to inform future strategy development and allow any scheme proposals, including that of Birchwood, to be objectively assessed.  Before the survey, current data was inadequate and this could have left the District Council in a weak position when considering planning applications.  This study was similar to the Balanced Housing Market Report which accompanied a previous District-wide housing needs study and fits within the priorities in the Member approved spending criteria for the s106 funding.  The initial results of the survey have just been received indicating a need for 10 units of accommodation for over-55s in the Swanley area.        

Supplementary question: Cllr. Mrs. Sargeant

Please explain the discrepancy between the email dated 3 September 2014 where the Leader stated this was not undertaken for the Birchwood planning applications, and the email from a Council Officer to the Clerk of the Town Council on 19 August 2014 proposing the survey be carried out on 15 September 2014 in order to be able to produce a report by 10 November 2014 as this would be the latest timescale for it to be submitted as comments for the Birchwood application as there was likely to be a resubmission before 12 December 2014.

Response: Leader of the Council

The report was for future strategy and to help with any scheme including Birchwood and the objective had been achieved.  To reiterate, the initial results of the survey indicated a need for 10 units of accommodation for over-55s in the Swanley area.        

There was no further discussion.

Question 2: Cllr. Mrs. George

"Could the Leader of this Council explain why a member of staff made contact in August 2014, with an SDC Deputy Cabinet Member of the Local Planning & Environment Advisory Committee? With regard to help with the recent Swanley Housing Survey and Swanley Town Council.  For Transparency why did this member of staff not contact the Town Clerk?"

Response: Leader of the Council

Throughout this process, officers have been in contact with various local Members regarding housing needs generally in the respective area and, of course, the proposed scheme at Birchwood – including various direct communications between yourself and officers, such as Gavin Missons and Liz Crockford.  Back in August 2014, contact was made with Cllr Searles,  a District Council Member who also sits on the Town Council.  Officers do generally  communicate  with relevant elected councillors in order to move forward strategy and policy work.  In this case an email was sent to Cllr Searles, of Swanley Town Council and an elected Member, asking for suggestions as to the best way to engage the Town Council on this matter.  Direct communication with the Town Council then followed with Julie Pilbeam, as you know, as soon as she returned from leave (on 18/08/14) dialogue commenced verbally and by email.

Supplementary question: Cllr. Mrs. George

Who paid for the aborted letter.

Response: Leader of the Council

Swanley Town Council was billed for the letter, as the Clerk had received an executive instruction from the Town Council to send it out in the Mayor’s name which was then withdrawn.

There was no further discussion.