(1)  Notice has been given pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 11 of the intention to present a petition in the following terms:-

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

We, the undersigned, call on Maidstone Borough Council to commission a new Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment that protects green spaces and ensures that any new areas identified for housing are served properly by existing schools, roads and other infrastructure.

(2)  Notice has been given pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 11 of the intention to present a petition in the following terms:-

Development on Land South of the Village School in Church Hill, Boughton Monchelsea

We, the undersigned, request Maidstone Borough Council to refuse to grant planning consent for the development which has taken place on land south of the Village School in Church Hill, Boughton Monchelsea and to take enforcement action on the basis that the unauthorised development is damaging to the open countryside.

(3)  Notice has been given pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 11 of the intention to present a petition in the following terms:-

  Concurrent Functions

  We, the undersigned, believe that the removal of the Concurrent Functions Grant will seriously undermine the provision of essential local services or lead to a significant percentage increase in the tax burden on residents of parished areas.  We further believe that the proposal will cause a grossly unfair difference in the treatment of residents between parished and unparished areas.  We call upon Maidstone Borough Council to rescind its proposed abolition of the Concurrent Functions Grant and replace this with cuts in line with Maidstone Borough Council’s overall three year budget reduction strategy, i.e. an approximate across-the-board 10% reduction.

1.  Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

Mr Ian McDonald presented a petition in the following terms:-

  “We, the undersigned, call on Maidstone Borough Council to commission a new Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment that protects green spaces and ensures that any new areas identified for housing are served properly by existing schools, roads and other infrastructure.”

During the discussion on the petition, Members made a number of points, including:-

·  The original Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was fundamentally flawed; it included potential housing sites which should not be included.  Members were beginning to adopt a more nuanced and sensible strategy which reflected the points made in the petition.

·  The Council was looking very seriously at the use of agricultural land and green belts etc.  It was vital to identify those areas Members believed to be of great interest and importance to the wellbeing of the people of Maidstone.  The original document had some good points, but it was flawed.  However, it would be counter productive to spend extra money on outside consultants at this stage by asking for another strategic review when the Council was already doing detailed work in this area.  The Council was looking very seriously at the question of the environment around Maidstone, not just the town, but the whole area.

·  The countryside and green areas were the Borough’s greatest assets and Members would fight to protect them.  The Council now had more freedom in terms of planning and the extra housing and quality employment needed could be accommodated without damaging the landscape and biodiversity.  There were ways of achieving this through regeneration and the use of sites with limited biodiversity or landscape interest.  A Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was needed which reflected this reality.  It was felt that the Council could achieve the development required without the damage that might have occurred using older models.

·  There was a need for a balanced approach.

·  The Council was taking a new direction on the LDF and, by and large, there was cross party consensus on this.  A new Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment would be commissioned to assist the LDF and it would take into account the protection of appropriate green spaces and ensure that any new areas identified for housing were served properly by existing schools, roads and other infrastructure.  In the current economic climate, there was no money available for additional infrastructure beyond that which developers or other agencies would be able to provide.

RESOLVED:  That the petition and the points made by Members during the debate be referred to the Leader of the Council for consideration.

  2.  Development on Land South of the Village School in Church Hill, Boughton Monchelsea

  Councillor Steve Munford, the Chairman of Boughton Monchelsea Parish Council, presented a petition in the following terms:-

“We, the undersigned, request Maidstone Borough Council to refuse to grant planning consent for the development which has taken place on land south of the Village School in Church Hill, Boughton Monchelsea and to take enforcement action on the basis that the unauthorised development is damaging to the open countryside.”

RESOLVED:  That the petition be referred to the Planning Committee for consideration.

3.  Concurrent Functions

Councillor Peter Coulling presented a petition in the following terms on behalf of the Maidstone Area Committee of the Kent Association of Local Councils:-

“We, the undersigned, believe that the removal of the concurrent functions grant will seriously undermine the provision of essential local services or lead to a significant percentage increase in the tax burden on residents of Parished areas.  We further believe that the proposal will cause a grossly unfair difference in the treatment of residents between Parished and un-Parished areas.  We call upon Maidstone Borough Council to rescind its proposed abolition of the concurrent functions grant and replace this with cuts in line with Maidstone Borough Council’s overall three year budget reduction strategy, i.e. an approximate across-the-board 10% reduction.”

It was noted that the original proposal was to phase out grant funding for concurrent functions over three years.  Through negotiation and discussion with the Parishes, a revised proposal would be considered by the Cabinet as follows:-

Ø  To carry out a comprehensive review of the existing arrangements for the funding of concurrent functions, to include consultation with Parish Councils in accordance with the Parish Charter; and

Ø  To reduce the direct funding of concurrent functions by 30% in 2011/12.

During the discussion on the petition, Members made a number of points, including:-

·  Whilst Parish Councils accepted that there was a need for some budget cuts, there was concern about the consultation process given that in terms of the Parish Charter six weeks was the norm.

·  The unfairness of the proposed cuts in concurrent functions funding creating a risk of double taxation of people living in Parish areas.

·  The need for the proposed review of the existing arrangements to start at an early date and for consideration of an innovative, radical and consistent approach to the delivery of services for all residents of the Borough to be central to the discussion.

·  The Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet Member would be willing to be involved in the discussions.

·  The importance of having regard to the strength of feeling on this matter.

·  The need to appreciate that Parish Councillors with their local knowledge had a greater understanding of the priorities in their areas.

·  The need for a review to be undertaken of how the concurrent functions grant was spent by Parish Councils.

·  The cuts were first mooted some eighteen months ago, and Parish Councils were aware of the situation.  Notification had been received of a 16.58% cut in the Council’s direct grant from Central Government.  The Council’s objective was to ensure that resources were focussed on its strategic priorities.  There were differences of opinion regarding the Council’s priorities and those of Parish Councils, but Parish Councils had the ability to precept to deliver their priorities.  It was a difficult situation, but following discussions and negotiations, a compromise had been reached.  The Council would not be withdrawing support, but delivering it in a different way in consultation with the Parishes.

·  The petition was very well presented and the sentiments were well meant.  The Council wanted its good relationship with its Parishes to continue.  The review would take place as planned and the views expressed by Parishes would be taken into account.  It was time to move forward together constructively.

  RESOLVED:  That the petition and the points made by Members during the debate be referred to the Cabinet for consideration when it discusses the revised proposal regarding the concurrent functions scheme.