Minutes:
Visiting member Councillor Stewart, who had registered her wish to address the Advisory Board on this issue, began by saying that she had gained a good understanding of the significance of the issue through a number of briefings at meetings of the Planning Policy Working Group.
Councillor Stewart felt that the issue should be deferred, because key documents referred to were not yet available. Specifically, she advised that there were: (i) the Ashdown Forest Air Quality Impact Assessment 2018; (ii) a summary of the Ashdown Forest discussions on air quality; and (iii) a revised practice note on Habitat Regulations Assessment of planning applications.
Councillor Stewart felt it would be a breach of process for the Advisory Board to be asked whether they supported the recommendations, in the absence of these documents. She also asked that the outstanding documents be presented to the Planning Policy Working Group, as the issue fell within that group’s remit.
In response, David Scully, the Landscape and Biodiversity Officer, asked the Deputy Monitoring Officer, Keith Trowell, to advise on whether it was appropriate for the Advisory Board to comment on the report as it stood.
Mr Trowell, the Interim Team Leader (Corporate Governance) and Deputy Monitoring Officer, said that, while an incomplete report at this stage was not ideal, Mr Scully would be able to explain the background and rationale and why this matter needed to be resolved urgently. He added that, while the Advisory Board would not be able to say whether it supported the three recommendations set out, it would have the chance to do so once the outstanding appendices were circulated, ahead of the Cabinet meeting.
Mr Scully was then invited by the Chairman to explain why this report was being presented at this stage. He began by emphasising how the authority was under pressure to respond to a series of objections from Wealden District Council, due to the stance they were taking to proposed development within the Tunbridge Wells Borough. He also apologised for the incomplete report, caused by the delays in assembling all of the necessary advice needed to compile a revised practice note.
Mr Scully’s report provided further details on the Borough Council’s procedure in respect of the ‘habitat regulations’ as applicable to ‘European protected sites’; he added that this was relevant in the case of Ashdown Forest, which was both a European Special Area of Conservation and a Special Protection Area.
Mr Scully said that there were two key issues which had caused the authority to re-evaluate its approach. First, he said that, since that procedure had been established in 2013 – set out in a practice note, a copy of which had been appended to the report – there had been a High Court decision. Secondly, Mr Scully advised that Wealden District Council had raised a number of objections to the Borough Council’s policy. He added that the basis of those objections was Wealden’s assertion that any planning application that generated a single additional vehicle movement would have a ‘likely significant effect’ on Ashdown Forest.
As a result, Mr Scully advised that a number of studies had been commissioned, as well as legal advice sought, which would lead to a revised practice note being produced. He added that this would be presented to the Cabinet on 12 April and to the Full Council on 25 April.
Members were advised that the key focus of the current work was on air quality. Mr Scully said that the Borough Council was therefore working with a partnership of planning authorities, all of whom potentially might be affected by air quality issues as a result of new development, in the completion of an Ashdown Forest Air Quality Impact Assessment.
Mr Scully responded to one other point raised by Councillor Stewart: he said that, while her reference to S106 developer contributions was not part of the air quality discussions, it was relevant in respect of visitor numbers. He added that this element would, therefore, be coming forward to the Planning Policy Working Group in the format of a supplementary planning document in due course.
Members of the Board considered the report and its findings and raised the following issues:
· The Chairman asked if Wealden’s objections referred to development within any part of the Tunbridge Wells Borough or just within a specified range of Ashdown Forest. Mr Scully advised that Wealden’s objections had the potential to apply to the whole of the Tunbridge Wells Borough, on the basis that ‘a single vehicle’ could have an adverse impact on the air quality of Ashdown Forest. Mr Scully stressed, therefore, the importance of having a proper guidance note process in place as soon as possible.
· Councillor Elliott expressed his dismay at the current situation and urged that there be far greater direct discussion with Wealden, to come to an agreed position. Mr Scully said that there had been a long period of discussion, but nevertheless, many attempts to find an agreeable way forward had failed. The Chairman added that there had been discussions at a very high political level with Wealden, but these too had not led to a solution.
· Councillor Hannam expressed some sympathy for the approach being taken by Wealden. He felt that more local authorities should ‘push back’ against the Government’s insistence on the huge increase in housing provision, which he felt would lead to the ruination of the South East.
· Councillor Hamilton asked whether Wealden had a ‘duty to co-operate’ under the terms of planning legislation. She asked whether the point of ‘being obstructive’ had now been reached. Mr Scully said that, while such a duty did exist, it was apparent from many direct discussions that Wealden felt unable to co-operate more fully on this issue. Mr Scully added that the legal advice obtained by the Borough Council was that Wealden had not reached the point of being obstructive.
· Councillor Scholes said that he was unhappy with the current situation and asked whether the Advisory Board was able to express a view on whether it supported the recommendations set out in the report, in the absence of the three appendices. The Chairman proposed that the most sensible way forward might be to conclude that, with inadequate evidence at this point, the matter should be deferred until such time as the outstanding appendices became available.
Members of the Advisory Board agreed with the Chairman and felt that the Advisory Board should be reconvened before Cabinet was due to consider the matter on 12 April; it was noted that the Full Council would be making the final determination on this matter on 25 April. It was noted that the majority of the Board’s membership was due to attend another Planning Policy Working Group meeting on 10 April and that this date might be appropriate for further discussion and for a view to be formed.
RESOLVED – That the Cabinet Advisory Board defers coming to a conclusion on this issue, by virtue of there being inadequate evidence at this point, and reconvenes before 12 April, to be able to advise the Cabinet.
Supporting documents: