Venue: Committee Room A, Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, TN1 1RS. View directions
Contact: Mark O'Callaghan Scrutiny and Engagement Officer
To receive any apologies for absence.
There were no apologies.
To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda. For any advice on declarations of interest; please contact the Monitoring Officer before the meeting.
There were no disclosable pecuniary or other significant interests declared at the meeting.
To note any members of the Council wishing to speak, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 28.4, and which item(s) they wish to speak on.
Councillor Hamilton had registered as wishing to speak at minute CAB49/19.
The Chairman noted that 5 other persons had registered to speak at minute CAB49/19.
To approve the minutes of a previous meeting as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.
Members reviewed the minutes. No amendments were proposed.
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 01 August 2019 be approved as a correct record.
To receive any questions from members of the Council, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 28.3, to be submitted and answered.
There were no questions from members of the Council.
To receive any questions from members of the public, of which due notice has been given in accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 28.5, to be submitted and answered.
Pursuant to Cabinet Procedure Rule 28.5, Mr Andrew Halford, a resident, had submitted the question as follows:
“Please can you tell me why our planners are not considering all brown field sites rather than arable and Greenbelt land? Is it because on smaller brown field sites under 10 houses the council don’t get a S106 or CIL kick back from the developer?”
In response, Councillor McDermott answered as follows:
“Thank you for your question.
I’ll respond to it, and also provide some further commentary on larger sites comprising brownfield land, which is also known as previously developed land.
As you will be aware, a lot of the suitable and available previously developed sites in the main urban area of Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough already have planning permission for their redevelopment. These have been identified through previous local plans.
For those sites in the main urban area which do not have planning permission and are still available and suitable for development, the Council has looked again to see if they could be developed more intensively than previously thought whilst still ensuring high quality development. In a number of instances the proposed numbers of residences included in allocations at those sites have been increased.
Furthermore, as part of the work undertaken in the preparation of the Draft Local Plan, TWBC has assessed over 450 sites submitted in the “call for sites”, including those which comprise both previously developed land, and those which are not, and whether a site comprises previously developed land has been an important factor in this assessment: you will note that there are a number of previously developed sites proposed for allocation.
In relation to the smaller brownfield, or previously developed, sites which you have mentioned in your question, para 4.11 of the Draft Local Plan deals specifically with smaller sites which are not allocated, which will include those small sites on previously developed land. The Council has factored in that 50 houses per year would be delivered from what is known as small (less than 10 dwellings) “windfall” sites for the period 2022 – 2036. This is based on analysis of the amount of housing delivered on such sites over the past decade.
So in direct answer to your question, small brownfield site have been considered, and have been factored into the overall supply of housing already. The proposed allocations of non-brownfield land is in addition to this, and has been arrived at through a thorough assessment of those sites.”
To note forthcoming items as set out on the Forward Plan.
The Chairman, Councillor McDermott, noted that an email had been circulated to all members informing them that full reports on Calverley Square would be brought forward at the Full Council meeting on 25 September 2019.
Councillor March advised that the initial meeting of the Climate Change Task Force would take place once a representative for the Liberal Democrats had been confirmed.
RESOLVED – That, subject to the above comments, the Forward Plan as at 24 July 2019 be noted.
To consider and decide on the recommendations set out in the report.
1. That a six-week period of consultation on the Draft Local Plan 2016 – 2036 (Regulation 18) and Sustainability Appraisal from 20 September – 01 November 2019 be agreed; and
2. That the Head of Planning be authorised to make minor modifications to the Draft Local Plan and Sustainability Appraisal prior to 20 September 2019 to ensure robustness and for consistency, with any minor modifications to be agreed with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation.
REASON FOR DECISION:
To facilitate the production of the Local Plan, allowing planning decisions to be made in a “genuinely plan-led” approach, and to reflect the extensive work undertaken in the preparation of the Plan to this point.
Margaret Borland, resident of Southborough, had registered to speak which included the following comments:
· There’s confusion in the draft Local Plan about the location and boundaries for allocation ALSO3, land at Mabledon and Nightingale.
· From an ordinary residents perspective, the way information is given on the website and all the documents contained with will influence how people respond to the consultation.
· The key diagram in the report to the Planning and Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board didn’t show the intended housing development of site ALS03.
· ALS03 was highlighted within the report as a site for development but mislabelled as ‘within the Southborough urban area’.
· Some other issues have been covered in errata sheet.
· Development locations and boundaries particularly near AONB should be visible.
Stewart Gledhill, resident of Capel, had registered to speak which included the following comments:
· Residents of Capel are extremely concerned about flooding.
· There was no flood assessment for CA1 site in Tudeley despite parts of the site flooding regularly nor was there an assessment on the effects of this development on the surrounding communities on this flood plain.
· Recent examples in Yorkshire and the damn breach in Derbyshire showed that flooding was an increasing risk.
· There were several uncertainties with regards to the adjacent stone quarry. KCC were considering the planning application for a new processing plant and the minerals plan was with the inspector. There was a question over safeguarding mineral assets and the implications of the existing landfill areas.
· Wider national issues economically and politically provided further uncertainty.
· Cabinet were requested to delay the publication of this plan to allow for a comprehensive flood risk assessment and for a reconsideration once the wider contextual uncertainties and their implications become better understood.
Councillor Maggie Fenton, Vice Chairman of Capel Parish Council but speaking as an individual, had registered to speak which included the following comments:
· Good planning depended upon community engagement and Local Authorities should ensure communities are engaged early with appropriate strategies for strong for community involvement.
· The Duchy of Cornwall enterprise near Newquay was an interesting example, over 7 years consultation, instead of the 1,000 homes proposed, the local community now supported 4,000 organically over 50 years.
· This was achieved by working with the local community to ensure development met their needs. Plans were not imposed on the community and instead a detailed engagement process was undertaken. Compared with Capel where after 4 years consultation still no local engagement had taken place.
· Property ran the risk of being devalued or subject to CPOs. There had been no thought for the needs of the existing community. Responses to these concerns had been inadequate.
· The example of Sevenoaks should be followed and green belt only released for development if there was a local need, Capel had no need for 400 new homes.
Farah Brooks-Johnson, for Save Capel campaign group, had registered to speak which included the following comments:
· In 2017 it was said in the Issues and Options Conclusions that a new settlement would provide most of ... view the full minutes text for item CAB49/19
To consider any other items which the Chairman decides are urgent, for the reasons to be stated, in accordance with Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.
There was no urgent business.
To note that the date of the next scheduled meeting is Thursday 12 September 2019 at 10.30am.
The next meeting was scheduled to be held on Thursday 12 September 2019 commencing at 10am.