Agenda and minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Beerling, Brindle, Field, Mrs Gooch, Miss Langley, Sharp and Thick.

Councillors Ash, Burton, English, Mrs Gibson, Harwood, Hinder, Mrs Hinder, Horne, Marchant, B Mortimer, D Mortimer, Nelson-Gracie, Parr, Sams and J A Wilson disclosed personal interests in the petition to be presented and the questions to be asked of the Cabinet Member for Community Services relating to the concurrent functions scheme.

Councillors English and J A Wilson also disclosed personal interests in the petition and questions relating to the concurrent functions scheme by virtue of being the Secretary and the Chairman of the Maidstone Area Committee of the Kent Association of Local Councils respectively.

Councillors FitzGerald and Mrs Stockell disclosed personal interests in the petition and questions relating to the concurrent functions scheme by virtue of being members of the Executive Committee of the Kent Association of Local Councils.

All Members stated that they had been lobbied on the petition to be presented relating to the concurrent functions scheme.

All Members of the Planning Committee and Councillors Bradshaw, Burton, FitzGerald and Greer stated that they had been lobbied on the petition to be presented relating to development which had taken place on land to the south of the village school in Church Hill, Boughton Monchelsea.

RESOLVED:  That the items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Borough Council held on 10 November 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed.

There were no announcements.

(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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Questions to the Cabinet Member for Community Services

Ms Sara Evans asked a question of the Cabinet Member for Community Services.

The Cabinet Member for Community Services responded to the question.

Councillor Mrs Wilson, the Leader of the Opposition, and Councillor FitzGerald, the Leader of the Independent Group, then responded to the question.

Mrs Pat Marshall MBE asked a question of the Cabinet Member for Community Services.

The Cabinet Member for Community Services responded to the question.

Councillor Mrs Wilson, the Leader of the Opposition, and Councillor FitzGerald, the Leader of the Independent Group, then responded to the question.

Mrs Marshall asked a supplementary question of the Cabinet Member for Community Services.

The Cabinet Member for Community Services responded to the question.

Questions to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

Mr Doug Smith asked a question of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration responded to the question.

Councillor Harwood, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, and Councillor FitzGerald, the Leader of the Independent Group, then responded to the question.

Mr Smith asked a supplementary question of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration responded to the question.

Councillor Harwood, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, and Councillor FitzGerald, the Leader of the Independent Group, then responded to the question.

(a)  Leader of the Council

(b)  Cabinet Members

(c)  Chairmen of Overview and Scrutiny Committees

(d)  Chairmen of other Committees

Questions to Cabinet Members

Councillor FitzGerald asked a question and a supplementary question of the Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture.

Having first stated that he had been lobbied, the Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture responded to these questions.

There was no report from the Leader of the Council on current issues.

It was moved by Councillor FitzGerald, seconded by Councillor Mrs Joy, that the recommendation of the Licensing Act 2003 Committee relating to the adoption of the Statement of Licensing Policy for the period ending 6 January 2014 be approved.

RESOLVED:  That the Statement of Licensing Policy for the period ending 6 January 2014, attached as Appendix A to the report of the Licensing Act 2003 Committee, be adopted.

It was moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councillor B Mortimer, that the recommendation contained in the report of the Head of Change and Scrutiny relating to the appointment of Overview and Scrutiny Committee Substitute Members be approved.

RESOLVED:  That the wishes of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Group Leaders relating to the appointment of Overview and Scrutiny Committee Substitute Members, as set out in Appendix A to the report of the Head of Change and Scrutiny, be accepted.

It was moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Horne, that the recommendation contained in the report of the Head of Change and Scrutiny relating to the absence from Council meetings of Councillor Miss Langley be approved.

RESOLVED:

1.  That the reason of ill-health for non-attendance at Council meetings by Councillor Miss Langley be approved.

2.  That the approval of the reason for absence be reviewed at the next ordinary meeting of the Council scheduled to be held in March 2011.

It was moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councillor J A Wilson, that the recommendation contained in the report of the Head of Change and Scrutiny relating to the calendar of meetings for the forthcoming Municipal Year be approved.

RESOLVED:  That the calendar of meetings for 2011/12, attached as Appendix A to the report of the Head of Change and Scrutiny, be approved.

The Mayor announced that this report was for information only.

7.30 p.m. to 9.20 p.m.