To agree the minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Committee held on 11 July 2024, as a correct record.

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2024 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Any interests not already registered.

There were none.

There were none.

The Portfolio Holder gave an update on the services within her portfolio. The Council had responded to the national consultation on revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The response had been examined by Cabinet and a number of Council departments, and had been published as Portfolio Holder Decision 08 (2024/25).

The Portfolio Holder outlined some of the key elements of the consultation and the Council’s response. It was proposed to make the standard method for calculating housing need mandatory, rather than an advisory starting point. The Council’s response emphasised that establishing and maintaining the character of an area was important, and the need for a mechanism for councils to pressure developers to build out permissions that had been granted.

The council opposed the proposed move from household projections to a “stock” base approach in the calculation of housing need, as it was a static measure that did not account for demographic variation and local context. The proposed new method would result in a 58% increase in Local Housing Need for the district – this would require building 1,113 houses per year.

The council supported the proposed definition of “grey belt” land, but noted that not all “grey belt” land would be in sustainable locations and therefore may not be suitable for development. The council therefore suggested that a sustainability criteria be added to the definition of “grey belt”, and that it should be designated as such by the local authority.

It was further proposed in the consultation that planning application fees be uplifted to allow for full cost recovery for all planning applications, with fair apportionment for fees for cross-boundary applications, which the council supported. The council further supported funding for additional work for updates to local plans which the changes to the NPPF would require. The response also called for the proposed 200-unit cut-off between existing and proposed housing need to instead be a percentage of proposed housing need.

Kent County Council were consulting on the draft Local Transport Plan 5, which was designed to balance between economic and environmental demands. Road, rail, and active travel improvements for Edenbridge, Sevenoaks, Swanley, and improvements to the bus plan and EV charging infrastructure in the district were included in the plan.

The Development Management team processed 93% of major applications, and 98% of all other applications, within their target time. Planning applications had declined across the country, due to uncertainty regarding a new government, but the council’s service remained the busiest in Kent. The Planning Enforcement team had introduced new case monitoring procedures, and changes to its performance monitoring, metrics, and communications to help customers understand the limits on the service.  

Members of the Development Management Committee had visited the Council’s built-out schemes in a planning design tour earlier in September. The Portfolio Holder explained that for future tours all members would be invited and encouraged committee members to attend.

In response to questions, the Portfolio Holder advised that the consultation did not clarify whether highly-performing Green  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

There were none.

At the discretion of the Chairman, two members of the public addressed the Committee. They spoke regarding the proposed new housing target for the district, and echoed the Council's concern that it did not adequately consider the local situation. They expressed concern that further large scale developments in Farningham would contribute to pollution at Junction 3 of the M25, and desired for Pedham Place to be excluded from the Local Plan in the future. They further expressed concern regarding the provision of affordable housing and sustainability at the site, and felt that it did not meet the specific housing needs as identified in the Local Plan. They made reference to sites that had been suggested to the Council by Dartford Borough Council and members of the public, and hoped that these sites were explored as the plan was redeveloped.

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented the report, which updated the committee on the Local Plan following the government consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF. The consultation set out a significant change in the calculation of local housing need, which would result in a need of 1,113 homes/year; the council currently delivered ~250-300 homes/year. These results would be mandatory. The method utilised current housing stock, rather than household projections, and the Council felt this did not reflect demographic variation, local trends, and affordability. The Council had already undertaken two Green Belt reviews, in line with the proposed changes. The consultation also sought to define exceptional circumstances in which green belt could be released, which included where authorities could not meet their needs through other means. The Council suggested that Grey Belt should be defined by the local authority and have sustainability criteria within its definition. The response also requested a transitional period before the changes were introduced to allow local authorities to assess grey belt land before planning applications could be submitted.

The officer set out the transitional arrangements included in the proposal. Where local plans had a significant gap, defined as more than 200 homes, between the current and the proposed new housing need figure, plans had to be revised in line with the emerging NPPF. The government had advised that funding would be available to support these revisions, but it was currently proposed that this only be made available to plans which were already at the Regulation 19 stage. The Council felt that this funding be made available to plans that had been out to consultation. The government stated that they wanted to publish the revised NPPF by the end of 2024, but it was felt that this was unlikely given the number of responses to the consultation.

The officer updated the committee on the progress of the evidence base for the Local Plan. The council had received PropTech 4 funding from government, which would be used to help identify potential Grey Belt sites. The cumulative transport assessment had been completed, but further work would be required to test the impact of any changes required by the revised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Work Plan was noted with the following changes:

5 December 2024

·         Local Plan Update

·         Fawkham Neighbourhood Plan Publication

·         Infrastructure Funding Statement – Priorities

·         CIL Governance & Social Value review

·         Budget