Petition calling upon the Council to help protect the open countryside.

The Chairman introduced the Reference from Council to the Scrutiny Panel and explained that the item had been referred to the Committee from the Regeneration and Economic Development Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

It was noted that there were four requests within the petition:

1.  The Greensand Ridge and the Greensand Way are protected from development.  That the access to and rural nature of the walk, and views across and from the Weald are maintained.

2.  Any planning development is in keeping with the open countryside. 

3.  Any development at Wierton Place is in keeping with the scale, appearance and character of the Grade 2 designation, involves the restoration of the Manor House and Greenhouse and is restricted to those buildings currently used as residential.

4.  Maidstone Borough Council co-ordinate with Kent County Council and other agencies to act swiftly to enforce established planning policies in dealing with all unlawful developments.

The Chair then invited the Panel to comment. Team Leader for Spatial Policy, Sue Whiteside informed the Panel that the petition had also been submitted as a formal representation for the Core Strategy at the public consultation stage and was being analysed by Officers with the other representations received. The Panel noted that the publication version of the Core Strategy was due to the Panel in January and that the report would include details of amendments arising from the representations. The Chair thanked Mrs Whiteside for clarifying the relation to the Core Strategy.

Members queried if demands one and two would be automatically considered in relation to the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) or if the petition would need to be resubmitted for this. The Scrutiny Panel were told that the petition could be looked at in relation to the LCA when the representations on the Core Strategy were considered in January.

The Panel agreed that demands one and two were clear policy issues and was due to the Panel as part of their review of Core Strategy consultation in due course.

The Scrutiny Panel concurred that demand three was not something that was appropriate for the Panel to comment on.  It was agreed that demand three should left for the Planning Committee to be considered as, when and if an application occurs.

The Scrutiny Panel discussed demand four and it was felt that those who had brought the petition to Council had concerns that the Council was not taking appropriate enforcement action when breaches occurred. It was suggested that undertaking comparative work in this area would be beneficial in assessing if there was any other approaches that could be taken to planning enforcement as well as demonstrating that the Council was acting appropriately. Members noted that there had been a Scrutiny Review on the Enforcement of Planning Conditions and Compliance with section 106 agreements in 2008/09 and requested an update on the recommendations arising from this review and recent statistics on development enforcement activity.

In addition it was noted that the Head of Development Management had recently attended the annual parish meeting and briefed them on what the enforcement process and why some breaches were pursued and others were not. 

It was resolved that:

Demand three from the petition be passed to Planning Committee for consideration if such an application affecting this area was received;

Cabinet consider commissioning a comparative exercise on Development Enforcement to assess if there was anything new that could be learnt and to evidence Maidstone Borough Council’s process; and

The Panel be circulated an update on the recommendations of the Scrutiny review of Enforcement of Planning Conditions and Compliance with section 106 agreements in 2008/09 including up to date statistics on enforcement activity.