Contact your Parish Council
|
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE Leisure and Prosperity Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on Tuesday 14 September 2010 |
|
PRESENT: |
Councillor Paine (Chairman) Councillors Burton, Butler, English, Nelson-Gracie, Mrs Smith and Mrs Wilson |
26. The Committee to consider whether all items on the agenda should be web-cast
Resolved: That all items on the agenda be web cast.
27. Apologies
Apologies were received from Councillors Joy, Pickett and Thick.
28. Notification of Substitute Members
It was noted that:
a) Councillor Mrs Wilson was substituting for Councillor Joy;
b) Councillor English was substituting for Councillor Pickett; and
c) Councillor Butler was substituting for Councillor Thick.
29. Notification of Visiting Members
It was noted that Councillor Mortimer and Councillor Chittenden were visiting members with an interest in Agenda Item 7: Core Strategy: Housing Targets and Distribution of Development.
30. Disclosures by Members and Officers:
There were no disclosures of interest or whipping. Councillor Paine disclosed that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 7, Core Strategy: Housing Targets and Distribution of Development.
31. To consider whether any items should be taken in private because of the possible disclosure of exempt information
Resolved: That all items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.
32. Core Strategy: Housing Targets and Distribution of Development:
The Chairman welcomed David Edwards, Director of Change, Planning and the Environment and Sue Whiteside, Team Leader Planning Policy to the meeting. Mr Edwards stated that they welcomed comments regarding the methodology used and in particular on any aspect that the Committee felt was missing or required more information.
The Committee considered the methodology diagram set out at Appendix A. They noted that the methodology had previously been very prescriptive but that new regulations for plan making were not yet in place. The Committee discussed the contents of the methodology, and suggested that Environmental Capacity and Land Availability aspect should be separated within the document to ensure that a complete evaluation could be made. They also commented that the broader geographical context should be included for example travel to work areas which were not the same as borough council boundaries.
Members commented that the preservation of some open spaces reduced the number of dwellings allowed within that space and queried the reliance on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). Ms Whiteside advised the Committee that sites were not static and constraints may be lifted or imposed but that these would be assessed prior to making land allocations. The Committee was pleased to hear that the Local Development Document Advisory Group (LDDAG) would be undertaking a spatial planning exercise and requested that this be considered as part of the methodology and included in the diagram.
Members debated the format of the methodology diagram. They concluded that the current format implied that equal weighting would be given to all aspects however; the Committee noted that not all aspects should be equal and thought it would be useful to illustrate the prioritisation of each aspect in the methodology through an alternative diagram such as a pyramid. It was noted that work was already underway on designing a matrix which would help the prioritisation of the methodology aspects further.
The Committee queried the emphasis that was being placed on historical figures and asked how much evidence had already been gathered. It was noted that no one aspect was yet complete but that the majority of the evidence was expected by the end of September. With this in mind the Committee suggested that the figures of 8,200 and 10,080 should be the starting point for testing as they had previously been tested and there should be a greater emphasis on infrastructure, place shaping and regeneration.
A Member queried the average density figure of 45 dwellings per hectare and questioned if it would be prudent to look at slightly higher and lower density figures for testing purposes. Ms Whiteside confirmed that this was the average figure tested and that some sites would be developed at higher or lower densities. The Committee agreed that both higher and lower densities should therefore be tested.
Members agreed that the Council should to be clear about the vision for the borough and that any option considered should have emphasis on incentives for regeneration and renewal. There was a concern that rural communities could be swamped if a Strategic Development Area (SDA) was introduced in rural parts of the borough. Members felt it was important to make clear that an SDA would not be ruled out but should only be considered if there were no other options.
Visiting member Cllr Mortimer queried if pollution and congestion had been considered within the methodology, in light of the 5 major hotspots for pollution in the town. Ms Whiteside confirmed that these were already being considered within the methodology.
It was noted that the use of the term targets could be misleading and that it would be more appropriate to refer to them as ‘what if scenarios’ to mitigate any concerns or preconceptions that the Council was limited to just three options.
The Committee commented that the report itself required more evidence and could be considered leading in parts. The Committee sought assurance that that the recommendations from LDDAG were accurate. They requested that a further report be made to the 25 October meeting of the Advisory Group to set out further evidence and recommend a housing target and distribution for agreement by Cabinet as the basis of the draft Core Strategy for public consultation. A Member expressed their frustration with the lack of empirical evidence provided. Mr Edwards articulated the importance of using robust data and that he was happy to distribute historic submissions and more recent data to Members but stressed that some of the data concerned would not have been tested and that there was a need for assurance that nothing had fundamentally changed since the previous targets were set. Members requested that the data and empirical evidence be circulated as it emerged to Councillors.
Resolved: That
(a) the methodology and approach to target setting outlined in diagram Appendix A and section 1.3 of Cabinet’s report be endorsed, together with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s amendments and additions as set out below:
That:
1. The diagram of methodology and approach, attached at Appendix A to Cabinet’s report be amended as follows:
1.1 The diagram of methodology and approach be reformatted to depict priorities, such as by using a pyramid shape;
1.2 The environmental capacity and land availability be listed separately in the diagram to ensure that environmental capacity was not overlooked; and
1.3 The Local Development Document Advisory Group’s spatial planning exercise be included in the diagram.
2. A broader geographical context be considered to include Maidstone’s relationship with travel to work areas;
3. Less emphasis be placed on historical evidence, more emphasis given to infrastructure and place shaping, including an emphasis on regeneration; and
4. Higher and Lower density dispersal patterns be applied to all three options.
(b) all three options be tested without preconceptions, but as an initial hypothesis the 8,200 and 10,080 be used as a starting point. This being due to the fact that both these figures have been tested in the recent past;
(c) any option considered should have emphasis on incentivising regeneration and renewal and be dispersed to avoid any swamping of communities arising from strategic development areas: in order to advance the place shaping objectives set out in the vision statement;
(d) the testing options be referred to as ‘What if Scenarios’ rather than targets to avoid confusion and preconception that the Council are limited to the three options being tested.
(e) a further report be made to the 25 October meeting of the Advisory Group that sets further evidence and recommends a housing target and distribution for agreement by Cabinet as the basis of the draft Core Strategy for public consultation; and
(f) Cabinet notes the Committee’s regret that the content of the methodology report contains strong presumptions of untested outcomes and the Committee’s frustration born through the lack of empirical evidence available to Members and welcomes the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment’s assurance that existing and new empirical data will be distributed to Councillors as it emerges to inform policy direction with immediate effect.
33. Core Strategy: Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Target
The Chairman welcomed Sarah Alderton, Principle Planning Officer to the meeting. The Committee was informed that the Council needed to set a target for Gypsy and Traveller pitches as well as encouraging Kent County Council to assist in this area. Miss Alderton stressed the importance of having an evidence based target. The report identified the number of pitches needed for the period 2006-2016. The number of pitches identified to meet local need was 95 some of which were already in place leaving a shortfall of 28 pitches. Currently the department were taking legal advice on the weather local criteria can be included. As there was no established methodology or best practice of how local pitch targets should be set a third party review was planned. In response to questions Miss Alderton stated that the third party reviewed had not yet been appointed but they were considering the Planning Officers Society and the Planning Advisory Service, which had also been used by KCC.
A Member expressed the need to be proactive regarding the formulation of new guidance and discussed possible lobbying with the aim of allowing local Councils to set local housing needs targets. The Committee concurred that lobbying of Members of Parliament, the Local Government Association and the Local Government Rural Forum was a wise idea in order to inform and influence national guidance and to gain support for the introduction of Local Housing Needs Policies.
A Member expressed concern that if at the end of the process another site is required that there may not be the funds within the Capital Programme to pay for it. It was recommended that Cabinet should be made aware that they may need to find a significant capital sum if at the end of the process another site was required and that this should be included in their discussions on the forward capital programme.
There was a query as to why the targets for Gypsy and Traveller sites only went up to 2016 when the Core Strategy ends in 2026. It was noted that post 2016 the evidence base would be dated and the current plan was to do a desktop update for the period between 2016 and 2026. The Committee recommended that this was made explicit in the Core strategy document.
It was noted by the Committee that the Council had resolved to have a Development plan Document that would allocate Gypsy and Traveller sites, however, this document could not be put in place ahead of the Core Strategy.
The Committee expressed their support for and endorsed the recommendations and complimented Miss Alderton on her report. It was agreed that the Committee would keep a ‘watching brief’ on developing a local needs housing policy that would include Gypsy and Travellers once further legal advice has been received.
It was resolved that:
a) the Committee endorses the recommendations of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment as set out in the Core Strategy Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Target report;
b) the Council lobbies Members of Parliament, the Local Government Association and the Local Government Rural forum in relation to the special circumstances regarding the gypsy and traveller provision prevailing in the Borough to inform and influence national guidance and in particular to allow local planning authorities to adopt local housing need policies relating to this policy area.
c) Cabinet discusses the resources required for funding a site and notes that this may require a significant capital sum and therefore could impact on the capital programme;
d) reference be made in the Core Strategy about how Gypsy and Traveller pitch needs will be reviewed beyond 2016;
e) the Committee:
1. Be informed who the third party reviewers are once it is known ; and
2. Maintains a watching brief on developing a local needs housing policy to include gypsy and travellers once legal advice has been received.
34. Future Work Programme and Forward Plan of Key Decisions.
Resolved: That the future work programme be noted.
35. Duration of the Meeting
6.30pm to 9.35pm