Apologies for absence were received from the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council. Therefore in accordance with 11.2 (a) of Part 2 of the Council’s Constitution (The Council and District Council Members) the election of Chairman for the meeting took place. Cllr Esler was duly elected as Chairman.

(Cllr. Esler in the chair)

There were none.

a)    Electoral Review – Consultation on Warding Patterns

The Chairman introduced the item. Following the Government White Paper on devolution, which highlighted the potential for local government reorganisation, the recommendations as set out in the papers still required a decision. She expressed her thanks for the hard work in getting proposals ready before the submission deadline.

It was moved by Cllr. Horwood and duly seconded by Cllr. Hogarth that the recommendations in the supplementary agenda be agreed. The supplementary agenda also set out the proposed warding patterns to be submitted in response to the current Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBCE) consultation. There was a three-point criteria the LGBCE took into account when designing ward boundaries: electoral equality (plus or minus 10%), community identity and interest, and proposals must be convenient and effective for local government. The consultation response would need to be made by 20 January 2025.

Cllr Horwood spoke to the motion setting out that as agreed by the LGBCE, the number of Councillors for the District would be 48 which equated to around 1,987 electors per councillor. As such the wards had to conform within a 10% variance of that figure. He noted there were difficulties to ensure the figures were within the guidance set out by the LGBCE. The final ward boundaries would be consulted on in May 2025, once this first stage of consultation had been completed and representations received from several stakeholders. Some feedback had been received from the working group and some minor adjustments would be required. 

Debate commenced on the motion. Cllr Leaman moved an amendment that “Council notes that a working party was established by the Governance Committee at its meeting on 20 January 2024 to advise the Council on matters relating to the Local Government Boundary Commission. Council regrets that the member working party did not meet to consider any proposals for new ward boundaries.” The amendment was seconded by Cllr Purves. Cllr Leaman spoke to the amendment expressing that there was no requirement from the Boundary Commission for the Council to put in a submission from the Council. The work undertaken by the Working Group previously with Councillor numbers considered the options that were available and took account different views. Whereas on the complex issue of ward boundaries, this had not taken place with a lack of commentary explaining the rationale for the boundaries as proposed. He further expressed his dissatisfaction with the Working Group only receiving any information on the proposals on the Friday, before Governance Committee met on the Monday to consider and make recommendation to Council.

The amendment was debated. Some Members of the working group and Governance Committee expressed their agreement with comments made by Cllr Leaman concerning short time frames, and lack of consultation. Other Members considered the difficulty with the complex nature of the warding numbers and that a review had not taken place for over 20 years this would be a starting position as the numbers in each ward were important.

Cllr Leaman  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

It was moved by Cllr Hogarth and duly seconded that the Leader of the Council writes on behalf of the Council to the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government asking her to rescind the ridiculous 63% increase on top of existing housing targets for existing housing targets for Sevenoaks District, forcing the Council to consider additional Green Belt to meet the new housing target. Furthermore, that a request be made Councils be given the mechanisms to encourage development to come forward or be implemented where planning permission has been granted.

Speaking to the motion the Leader expressed that he did not believe that the beautiful district of Sevenoaks both historic and its special relationship to London had been fully taken into account in the assessment by Government.  He would be making the most vigorous representation possible to avoid the effects that such a proposed development programme imposed on the district would have.

Members debated the motion expressing their support for the motion noting high levels of green belt and one of the highest proportions of Natural Landscape (previously known as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.) Other Members expressed their support but queried what the practical outcome would be from the communication with the Secretary of State. Cllr Skinner moved an amendment to the motion to delete the following words “to rescind the ridiculous 58% increase on top of existing housing targets the Sevenoaks District forcing the council to consider additional green belt to meet the new housing target.” And replace with “asking her to confirm that any centrally imposed housing target will only stay in place until such time as the local plan for Sevenoaks with its associated housing target has been signed off.” The amendment was duly seconded by Cllr. Shea.

Speaking to the amendment Cllr Skinner stated that his belief was that the council would have an opportunity for setting the target and doing so in a way that reflected reality rather than arbitrary calculations as it was very important that those that knew the area could make sure that people were able to continue to live in area as adults ensuring a balance of social and affordable housing and to contribute properly to the national need for housing as well as being in the position to balance those needs with the imperative of protecting the countryside for both residents and visitors. He also expressed the importance of Government respecting the Council as a credible negotiator with the language used in the letter.

Members debated the amendment noting the importance of being on a united front with views to the Government and the numbers being imposed by Government would have an impact on the green belt. Concerns were expressed regarding negotiations and how government had the local plan set out a clear processes with evidence to say what housing was needed. At the end of debate on the amendment, Cllr Skinner gave his right of reply urging a unity approach. Cllr Hogarth gave his right  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.