Agenda and minutes

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.

There were no declarations of interest made, within the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members.

Members of the Council should indicate which item(s) they wish to speak on and the nature of their concern/question/request for clarification (in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 18).

There were no other members of the Council who had registered their wish to address the Board within the provisions of Council Meetings Procedure Rule 18.

The Chairman will move that the minutes of the previous meeting, dated 16 January 2017, be signed as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.

In accordance with Council Meetings Procedure Rule 16.1, the Chairman will sign the minutes of today’s proceedings at the next scheduled meeting.

The minutes of the Board meeting dated 16 January 2017 were submitted.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Board meeting dated 16 January 2017 be agreed.

The Board received its work programme for the period up to 31 July 2017, which was based on the issues set out in the Council’s Forward Plan.

RESOLVED – That the work programme be noted.

Jonathan MacDonald, the Director of Planning and Development, presented a report which explained that the authority would be undertaking a period of formal public consultation on its Five Year Plan. A draft of the updated document was appended to the report, which – subject to the approval of the Cabinet on 13 April – would form the basis of the public consultation process.

Mr MacDonald drew attention to the reasons why the document was being refreshed. He advised that, since the Plan had first been approved in April 2014, there had been substantial changes to both the national and the local government landscape which had impacted upon the authority. Mr MacDonald added that there were other factors which had contributed to the need to review the document, principally the effects of continued austerity measures and the results of the recent Local Government Association (LGA) Peer Challenge report.

The report pointed to a number of successes which had been achieved during the course of the Plan period, with the completion of several projects and initiatives.

Mr MacDonald drew attention to how the refreshed Plan proposed to respond to one of the key messages which the LGA Peer Challenge had set out, namely a greater focus on the authority’s day-to-day services, rather than the various projects which were linked to securing economic growth and financial sustainability. There was thus a new section set out in the updated document, centred upon improving services over the next five years.

Adrian Berendt, the Chairman of the Town Forum, had registered to speak on this item and raised the following points:

·         He welcomed the list of aspirations that were set out in the revised Plan. However, he said that he had significant doubts that some of the proposed actions would support the achievement of those aspirations. In support of this argument, he pointed to the ‘improvement to roads’ section, which he very much doubted would ease congestion or reduce air pollution. He added that there was no evidence to support the theory that by-passes would help, based upon the fact that the town centre was the destiny for 90% of traffic entering the town.

Similarly, Mr Berendt said that there was also little evidence to suggest that road widening or road building in town centres brought any benefits. He felt strongly that this should not be a default choice for local authorities. He also drew attention to a report which had been published that day by the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), who had concluded (among many other issues) that for every highway congestion ‘bottle-neck’ removed, a further two resulted.

Members of the Advisory Board considered the report and its recommendations and raised the following issues:

·         Councillor Backhouse said that part of the justification for reviewing the Five Year Plan was because of the changed policies laid down by central government. He added that he also endorsed the views of Mr Berendt in respect of the problems of congestion and air quality, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item PT59/16

Kelvin Hinton, the Planning Policy Manager, presented a report, which provided an update on progress made towards the new Local Plan evidence base; it also explained the context of an ‘Issues and Options’ consultation paper, a copy of which was appended to the report.

Mr Hinton advised that, over the past 12 months, the Planning Policy team had been focusing on the establishment of an evidence base, which would form the foundations of the new Local Plan. He added that the evidence base had a number of key elements, namely: (i) the establishment of an ‘objectively assessed need’ with regard to housing, through the production of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA); (ii) the completion of an Economic Needs Study; (iii) similarly, the completion of a Retail and Leisure Study; and (iv) the preparation of a Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA).

Mr Hinton said that the outcomes of the above evidence base had led to the preparation of a draft Issues and Options document, a document which focused on possible options to deliver the scale and distribution of new development throughout the Borough, for the period up to 2033.

There were two public speakers who had registered to address the Board on this item, as follows:

First, Adrian Berendt, Chairman of the Town Forum. He welcomed the Issues and Options paper, which he said had set out all of the relevant matters in a clear and concise manner.

Parish Councillor Julia Newman, Chairman of Hawkhurst Parish Council, raised the following detailed issues:

(a)  Councillor Newman asked if the map on page 10 could be enhanced by means of including the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

(b)  On pages 18/19, she felt that there were several negative references made to small ‘piecemeal’ developments, which might be interpreted as a lack of appreciation of the opportunities such sites could bring to manage growth and infrastructure improvements in a sympathetic way;

(c)  On page 21, Councillor Newman believed that, from a strategic view, local housing needs should be prioritised over external ones;

(d)  On page 22, she felt that an important issue for the Borough was the impact that new housing has on its setting, an element which she felt should be considered first, and the ‘within site’ issues second. Councillor Newman said that the reverse prioritisation was annoying many people;

(e)  Councillor Newman felt that ‘light pollution’ should be a part of sustainability considerations (page 30);

(f)    On page 31, Councillor Newman felt there was a need for a policy for HGV routing and control across the Borough, working with the six adjoining districts;

(g)  She asked whether the settlement groupings set out on page 32 could be listed alphabetically;

(h)  On page 32, Councillor Newman said that, while development in rural areas was important to sustainability – and was acknowledged – it was also constrained by the AONB and other factors specific to rural areas, such as preserving farmland, she added. She continued: within strategic option  ...  view the full minutes text for item PT60/16

David Scully, the Landscape and Biodiversity Officer, presented a report, which explained the context within which a draft Borough Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document had been prepared.

Mr Scully said that the existing Landscape Character Assessment, which had been prepared in 1999/2000, had been in need of updating, to take account of some physical changes in the landscape as well as some major developments that had been implemented in the intervening years. He added that, since 2000, the Council had also obtained further information on historical elements of the landscape, including ancient woodland, former railway lines etc, which had been incorporated into the revised document.

Mr Scully added that a revised Landscape Character Assessment would feature as a key piece of evidence in the preparation of a new Local Plan which the authority was currently undertaking.

The report contained a link to the updated document, which was being proposed for approval and for formal public consultation.

Members of the Advisory Board considered the report and its recommendations and indicated their support for the proposals.

RESOLVED – That the recommendations set out in the report be supported.

The Democratic Services Officer will advise if there have been any urgent items of business which have arisen for the Board’s consideration since publication of the agenda.

The Democratic Services Officer advised that there were no additional items for the Board’s consideration which had arisen since publication of the agenda.

The date of the next meeting is Thursday 1 June 2017, at 6.30pm in Committee Room A, at the Town Hall, Tunbridge Wells.

The following items are scheduled on the Forward Plan (which is subject to change) to be discussed:

·         *Civic complex planning development framework

·         Borough Landscape Character Supplementary Planning Document

·         Draft Hawkhurst Neighbourhood Plan

·        *Ashdown Forest Mitigation Policy

It was noted that the next meeting of the Board was scheduled to take place on Thursday 1 June at 6.30pm, when the following items would be discussed, based on the current Forward Plan:

·         Civic complex planning development framework

·         Borough Landscape Character Supplementary Planning Document

·         Draft Hawkhurst Neighbourhood Plan

·         Ashdown Forest Mitigation Policy