Agenda and minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Cuming, Mrs Mannering, McLoughlin and Naghi.

There were no applications for dispensations.

Councillor Munford disclosed an Other Significant Interest in the question to be asked of the Leader of the Council by Mr Doug Smith.  He explained that he was a Member of Boughton Monchelsea Parish Council and part of the question related to the payment by the Borough Council of costs incurred by the Parish Council in obtaining Counsel’s opinion in relation to the calculation of the five year housing land supply and the treatment of windfalls.

All Members except Councillors Black, McKay, Paterson, Pickett, Warner and Watson stated that they had been lobbied.

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

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed.

The Mayor announced that he wished to:

·  Thank all those Members who had attended the Garden Party at Turkey Mill; and

·  Remind Members to confirm whether they would be attending the reception for the Grenadier Guards on 24 September 2013.

There were no petitions.

It was moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Garland, that the meeting be adjourned for a short period to enable Members to receive a presentation by the Head of Planning and Development on the five year housing land supply methodology, and to ask questions thereon.

RESOLVED:  That the meeting be adjourned for a short period to enable Members to receive a presentation by the Head of Planning and Development on the five year housing land supply methodology, and to ask questions thereon.

Following the presentation and questions by Members on the issues raised, the meeting re-convened at 6.55 p.m.

Questions to the Leader of the Council

Mr Paul McCreery asked the following question of the Leader of the Council:

Is the Borough Council aware that:

NPPF, paragraph 48, allows a windfall allowance to be included in the five year supply if there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply; and

Over the years 2006 to 2011 windfall completions averaged 332 dwellings per annum and were just about half (49%) of all completions; and

Based on the last five years figures KCC projected future annual windfall average is 332 dwellings per annum (or 1660 dwellings over five years).  Based on the above figures, I agree with the KCC projection which would give Maidstone a supply of 7.5 years; and

Based on MBC figures there is a shortfall in the five year supply of 370 dwellings, with no windfalls included.  That means that windfall completions would only need to average 74 dwellings per annum (370 dwellings over five years) for Maidstone to achieve a five year supply of housing land and no shortfall; and

The most recent completed Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for Maidstone is dated May 2009.  Paragraph 6.1.12 (page 41) identifies a windfall capacity of 628 dwellings for 2013-2018 (125 dwellings per annum); and

The 2010-2011 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) at Table 3.2, page 20, predicts windfalls at a rate of 145 dwellings per annum for the years 2022/23 to 2025/26 (725 dwellings for a five year period); and

For the last two years 1/4/11 to 31/3/13 Maidstone Borough achieved annual completions averaging 751 dwellings (873 dwellings plus 630 dwellings).  This is above the average level of completions for the previous five years.  If nil windfalls are available how does the Borough Council explain that Maidstone has continued to achieve such high levels of completions; and

Based on the above data Leading Counsel has expressed an opinion that Maidstone has a housing land supply of between 5-7 years and no shortfall; and

I have lived and worked in Maidstone as a Chartered Town Planner since 1976 and that based on the above data it is abundantly clear to me without any shadow of doubt that a mistake has been made and that Maidstone does have a five year land supply at this time?

The Leader of the Council responded to the question.

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

Mr McCreery asked the following supplementary question of the Leader of the Council:

If Mr Lockhart-Mummery QC is right, based on the facts given in my question, and if the Council is allowed a separate windfall allowance, would you agree that Maidstone does have a five year land supply and no need to immediately release a large number of greenfield sites before they can all be assessed by Members in the production of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

There were no questions from Members of the Council.

We, the undersigned, hereby requisition an extraordinary meeting of Maidstone Borough Council to consider the following notice of motion:

“In light of the fact that Boughton Monchelsea Parish Council has obtained Leading Counsel’s Opinion which states that:

1.  Maidstone Borough Council does have between a 5-7 years land supply; and

2.  Members were misdirected by using advice in the now cancelled PPS3 instead of the quite different advice contained in the NPPF and that if this advice was used in determination of planning applications, (to the effect that there is a lack of a five year supply), this would be a legal misdirection; and

3.  The twin tests of paragraph 48 of the NPPF relating to windfall sites have been met and that windfall sites have consistently become available in the local area, and the clear evidence is that they will continue to provide a reliable (and indeed significant) source of supply; and 

4.  Members have been given information regarding the Langley Park Farm development which was a misdirection and misleading, and that any planning permission granted based on this advice would be liable to be quashed in the courts as it is clearly a departure from the Local Plan.

We propose that:

1.  With some urgency, an all party investigation is carried out by Members to address the situation where we (the Members) are being given unsound advice (in the opinion of Leading Counsel) and that the investigation team has delegated powers, if necessary, to seek a further opinion from Counsel on this matter.

2.  The investigation team should report back to full Council with its recommendations for future actions to be taken by this Council regarding this matter.”

NOTICE IS GIVEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 17 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING ACT 1989 THAT ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES OUTSIDE THE USUAL POLITICAL BALANCE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO AGENDA ITEM 11.

It was moved by Councillor Munford, seconded by Councillor Newton, that the following motion be adopted by the Council:

In light of the fact that Boughton Monchelsea Parish Council has obtained Leading Counsel’s Opinion which states that:

1.  Maidstone Borough Council does have between a 5-7 years land supply; and

2.  Members were misdirected by using advice in the now cancelled PPS3 instead of the quite different advice contained in the NPPF and that if this advice was used in determination of planning applications, (to the effect that there is a lack of a five year supply), this would be a legal misdirection; and

3.  The twin tests of paragraph 48 of the NPPF relating to windfall sites have been met and that windfall sites have consistently become available in the local area, and the clear evidence is that they will continue to provide a reliable (and indeed significant) source of supply; and 

4.  Members have been given information regarding the Langley Park Farm development which was a misdirection and misleading, and that any planning permission granted based on this advice would be liable to be quashed in the courts as it is clearly a departure from the Local Plan.

It is agreed that:

1.  With some urgency, an all party investigation is carried out by Members to address the situation where we (the Members) are being given unsound advice (in the opinion of Leading Counsel) and that the investigation team has delegated powers, if necessary, to seek a further opinion from Counsel on this matter.

2.  The investigation team should report back to full Council with its recommendations for future actions to be taken by this Council regarding this matter.

Amendment moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Garland, that the motion be deleted and the following inserted:

The issues of housing targets and how they are to be achieved in the short and long term futures are complex and of significant public interest.

It is therefore imperative that all the key stakeholders, in particular elected Members, the Maidstone community and the house building industry have confidence in the Council’s housing policies, assessment of need and supply, and monitoring arrangements.

To confirm and make transparent the soundness of the advice given by Officers to Cabinet and Planning Committee under the terms of the NPPF relating to the construction of the five year land supply, it is agreed that:

1.  Elected Members are provided with the opportunity to both scrutinise the methodology and judgements that need to be made in calculating the five year housing land supply through Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

2.  The issues to be considered at a single item agenda of the Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 17 September 2013 and Overview and Scrutiny Committee should report its findings to Full Council as soon as practicable and in any case should report the position it has reached to the Full Council scheduled for 18 September 2013.

3.  In the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

6.30 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.