Appendix C – Planning, Transport and Development OSC
(A) Completed SCRAIPs
Cabinet Member for Planning, Transport and Development – Priorities
Maidstone Borough Local Plan Public Consultation
(B) Incomplete
Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment
Maidstone Borough Local Plan Development Management Policies
Community Infrastructure Levy
(C) Other
Although
not a SCRAIP, the minutes from Council (October, 2013) are attached, following
scrutiny of the methodology and the judgements that need to be made in
calculating the five year housing supply
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SCRAIP)
Committee: Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Meeting Date: 18 June 2013
Minute №: 8
Topic: Cabinet Member for Planning, Transport and Development - Priorities for the Municipal Year 2013/14.
Recommendation |
Cabinet Member |
Response
|
Timetable |
Lead Officer |
It was resolved that:
a) The Cabinet Member for Planning Transport and Development would champion the transport needs of rural communities with KCC, in particular:
· Bus Services and improved use of Community transport; and · Maintenance of access to rural transport links i.e. footpaths;
|
Councillor Paine |
Noted – to feedback at Committee meeting |
|
N/A |
b) The Cabinet Member for Planning Transport and Development ensuring that a process is put in place that ensures all ward Councillors have an early opportunity to feed into the pre planning discussions on strategic site allocations, including commercial sites.
|
Councillor Paine |
Noted – to feedback at Committee meeting |
|
N/A |
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SCRAIP)
Committee: Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Meeting Date: 20 August 2013
Minute №: 19
Topic: Maidstone Borough Local Plan Public Consultation
Recommendation |
Cabinet Member |
Response
|
Timetable |
Lead Officer |
RESOLVED that:
a) With regards to the consultation methods in the Council’s Consultation Plan: Meetings with Parish councils – at meetings with designated Parish Councillors, these meetings should also include the relevant Borough and County Councillor(s) to ensure a comprehensive viewpoint is sought and provided;
|
Cllr Stephen Paine |
Recommendation accepted. Where meetings with parish councils are proposed, the consultation plan is to be amended to extend the invitation to the relevant borough and county councillor(s). |
6 September 2013 |
Emma Boshell |
b) With regards to the consultation methods in the Council’s Consultation Plan: Meetings with designated neighbourhood areas - at meetings in non-parished areas with representatives from designated neighbourhood areas, these meetings should also include representatives from relevant residents and amenity groups, as well as the relevant Borough and County Councillor(s) to ensure a comprehensive viewpoint is sought and provided;
|
Cllr Stephen Paine |
Recommendation accepted. Where meetings in the non-parished areas are proposed, the consultation plan is to be amended to extend the invitation to representatives of relevant residents and amenity groups, as well as the relevant borough and county councillor(s). |
6 September 2013 |
Emma Boshell |
c) Where appropriate, officers find opportunities to link wards and parishes together at meetings as part of its consultation process;
|
Cllr Stephen Paine |
Recommendation accepted. There is a large number of meetings proposed in the consultation plan, so where appropriate, and particularly in the non-parished areas, wards and parishes will be linked together and joint meetings will be held. The consultation plan is to be amended to make this clear. |
6 September 2013 |
Emma Boshell |
d) In order to overcome the perceived perception that developers representations are listened to ahead of those of residents; when the findings of the consultation are presented, the representations should be presented in a similar way to a planning application committee report i.e. clearly stating the number of representations made ‘for’ and ‘against’ with a comment from the developer;
|
Cllr Stephen Paine |
Recommendation accepted. Whilst this is not an issue for the consultation plan itself, the report to Cabinet Member is to be amended to explain how the results of the consultation are to be presented. |
6 September 2013 |
Emma Boshell |
e) It be communicated on the website and all forms of council communications that all representations will be considered but the council cannot guarantee that it will agree or disagree with individual representations;
|
Cllr Stephen Paine |
Recommendation accepted. Managing the expectations of the public is important, so the message that all representations will be considered but the council cannot guarantee that it will agree or disagree with individual representations is to be communicated on the council’s website, on acknowledgement letters and on other consultation material. |
6 September 2013 |
Emma Boshell |
f) That the public notice in relation to the Maidstone Borough Local Plan is placed in the Downs Mail as well as the Kent Messenger; and
|
Cllr Stephen Paine |
Recommendation accepted. The consultation plan is to be amended to include the placing of advertisements in the Downs Mail and the Kent and Sussex Courier as well as the Kent Messenger, to ensure that the consultation is advertised as widely as possible. |
6 September 2013 |
Emma Boshell |
g) The following information requests be provided:
i. The number/percentage of people who attended meetings during the public consultation in 2011 be provided to the Committee; and
ii. Copies of the consultation documents be circulated to ALL members of the Council.
|
Cllr Stephen Paine |
i. Recommendation accepted. The council keeps records of all consultation events and this information is to be provided to the committee.
ii. Recommendation accepted. The report to Cabinet Member is to make clear that all members of the council will receive copies of the consultation documents. |
6 September 2013 |
Emma Boshell |
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SCRAIP)
Committee: Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Meeting Date: 18 June 2013
Minute №: 9
Topic: Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment 2012 (2013 amended version)
Recommendation |
Cabinet Member |
Response
|
Timetable |
Lead Officer |
It was resolved that the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transport and Development adopts the Landscape Character Assessment 2012 (2013 amended version).
|
Councillor Paine |
|
|
Rob Jarman/Deanne Cunningham |
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SCRAIP)
Committee: Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Meeting Date: 20 August 2013
Minute №: 20
Topic: Maidstone Borough Local Plan Development Management Policies
Recommendation |
Cabinet Member |
Response
|
Timetable |
Lead Officer |
a) Further thought be given to the environmental net gain of Development Management Policies;
|
Councillor Paine |
|
|
Rob Jarman |
b) Further thought and investigation be given to ways in which to incentivise the development of brownfield sites for regeneration in the borough;
|
Councillor Paine |
|
|
Rob Jarman |
c) The appropriate Development Management Policies be explored and developed to include explicit reference to, and criteria for, the following:
· Windfarms · Live work units and the expansion of existing units in rural areas; and · Car Parking Standards.
|
Councillor Paine |
|
|
Rob Jarman |
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SCRAIP)
Committee: Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Meeting Date: 15 October 2013
Minute №: 48
Topic: Community Infrastructure Levy
Recommendation[i] |
Cabinet Member[ii] |
Response[iii]
|
Timetable[iv] |
Lead Officer[v] |
RESOLVED
That the Committee agree the recommendations, as set out at 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 of the report, subject to the following amended rewording of recommendation 2: ‘That the PTD OSC recommends that the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transport and Development approves the methodology for guidelines for determining which infrastructure is included on the list of relevant infrastructure as follows:
If applications are being submitted that require infrastructure based mitigation before the adoption of CIL. |
Councillor Paine |
|
|
Rob Jarman/Darren Bridgett |
The Committee requests that further information be provided to it on the percentage distribution of CILs payments across the borough and how this will be managed equitably and fairly, especially with regards the relationship between those areas covered by ward councillors, parishes and/or residents associations and those areas where the only representation is through ward councillors
Furthermore, the Committee recommends the dissemination of accurate information on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), by the Council, particularly in areas of the borough where there is no parish council, neighbourhood, resident or community group representation. |
Councillor Paine |
|
|
Rob Jarman/Darren Bridgett |
That a progress update on CIL be provided to the Committee at its meeting on 21 January 2014. This should include further information on what the CIL rate may be and comparable rates from other areas. |
Councillor Paine |
|
|
Rob Jarman/Darren Bridgett |
That a training session on CIL be provided to the Committee in preparation of its January meeting |
Councillor Paine |
|
|
Rob Jarman/Darren Bridgett |
Notes on the completion of SCRAIP
[i] Report recommendations are listed as found in the report.
[ii] Insert in this box the Cabinet Member whose portfolio the recommendation falls within.
[iii] The Officer/Cabinet Member responsible for responding to the recommendation should indicate in this box either the acceptance or rejection of the recommendation.
If the recommendation is rejected an explanation for its rejection should be provided. The ‘timetable’ and ‘lead officer’ boxes can be left blank
If the recommendation is accepted an explanation of the action to be taken to implement the recommendation should be recorded in this box. Please also complete the ‘timetable’ and ‘lead officer’ boxes.
[iv] The Officer/Cabinet Member responsible for responding to the recommendation should indicate in this box when the action in indicated in the previous box will be implemented.
[v] The Officer/Cabinet Member responsible for responding to the recommendation should indicate in this box the Officer responsible for the implementation of the action highlighted in the ‘response’ box.