Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Kehily and Spooner.

The following Substitute Members were noted:

·  Councillor Milham for Councillor Kehily

·  Councillor Parfitt for Councillor Spooner

There were no urgent items.

There were no Visiting Members.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

Councillor Greenan stated that they had been lobbied on Item 10: Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD - Preferred Approaches (Regulation 18b) consultation and Item 11: Kent Local Transport Plan 5.

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

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2024 be approved as a correct record and signed.

In response to a query, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Kent Cycling and Walking Infrastructure consultation response was expected to come to the November Committee meeting.

RESOLVED: That the Forward Plan relating to the Committee’s Terms of Reference, be noted.

The Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Management introduced the report and outlined the consultation process along with some suggested areas of discussion for the Committee, including whether organic growth in existing sites would be enough and associated issues that could come with new sites and might need clarification, including increased hardstanding and use classes.

The Principal Planning Officer provided background to the second stage (preferred approaches) of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document (DPD) and the recommended six week public consultation. It was noted that:

• Overall need was for 529 pitches and 7 plots over the plan period, 2023 to 2040. These were preferred rather than final spatial strategy approaches and methods of meeting identified needs- as much as possible within existing sites- but also identifying new public sites;
  
  
• Longer term, there may be a need for discussions with neighbouring authorities to accommodate needs the Council are unable to fulfil under the formal duty to cooperate process for strategic planning;
  
  
• The report did not identify sites at this stage as these would be influenced by feedback on the preferred spatial strategy included in the consultation. Specialist consultants were undertaking a pitch deliverability assessment, with wider stakeholder engagement to take place alongside the actual consultation; and
  
  
• The Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report, at Appendix 6 to the report, would be published alongside the consultation with the feedback used to refine the policies and decide on the appropriate sites to allocate and include in the proposed submission plan, expected March 2025.

In response to queries, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the housing requirement for gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeople is considered separately from other housing need and that the assessment for it is more localised. Some Committee Members voiced concerns around the timeline and that the consultation should be as inclusive as possible.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET MEMBER: That

1. The summary of feedback from the 2023 Regulation 18a public consultation and Call for Sites exercise be noted;
   
   
2. The Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document – Preferred Approaches (Regulation 18b) (Appendix 1) and associated Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix 6) be agreed for a six-week public consultation between Thursday 31 October and Thursday 12 December 2024; and
   
   
3. The Head of Service be given delegated authority to finalise the format of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD Preferred Approaches Document, including any non-material corrections required prior to consultation.

The Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Management introduced the report and expressed that there was not much space for nuance in the consultation response, with many other Council’s writing separately to the Secretary of State for Transport. He raised concerns around the Thames Crossing and that this could be harmful to Maidstone and that there was not enough focus on alternative means of transport or cycling and walking infrastructure.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the content of the proposed responses and background to the consultation including nine perceived challenges and 10 outcomes to overcome them. The summary of responses at Section 4 to the report was highlighted and comprised from a review of the Council adopted strategies and policies, such as the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the Integrated Transport Strategy and the Local Plan Review.

Several Members raised concerns around the Thames Crossing as an area for more in depth consideration and response as well as alternative means of transport and cycling and walking infrastructure. The Leader of the Council advised the Committee that a new, Integrated Sustainable Transport Strategy was in progress to address some of these concerns.

It was proposed to add to the recommendations that the Cabinet Member should take on board the comments of the Committee to sharpen up the response and produce an additional letter to the Secretary of State for Transport setting out concerns around collateral impacts from the Lower Thames Crossing.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET MEMBER: That

1.  The response to the Kent Local Transport Plan 5 consultation, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, be submitted to Kent County Council;

2.  The Cabinet Member take on board the comments of the Committee to sharpen up the response; and

3.  A letter be written to the Secretary of State for Transport setting out concerns around collateral impacts from the Lower Thames Crossing.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced and outlined the contents of the report. It was noted that:

·  Kent County Council (KCC) deal with all applications for extinguishment, diversion and creation of all public rights of way under the Highways Act 1980 but that Maidstone Borough Council deal with a limited number of diversions that derive from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

·  Changes (new sections 118ZA and 119ZA) to the Highways Act 1980 would give landowners a “right to apply” to divert or close public paths on some types of their private land. The recommendations advise delegation for these types of application to go to KCC; and

·  All Kent Councils were being offered the opportunity to delegate and this would be under Section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972. It would be reversible and Maidstone Borough Council and Parish Councils would be consulted on applications, with appeals going on a weekly list viewable by Ward Members.

In response to queries, the Principal Planning Officer advised that these would be small, private lengths of land unlikely to be used by traffic. Several Members stated that the recommendation was sensible.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET MEMBER: That an agreement be made for applications for the extinguishment or diversion of Public Rights of Way, under the Highways Act 1980 Amendments (Sections 118ZA and 119ZA), to be delegated to Kent County Council under Section 101 Local Government Act 1972.

The Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Management introduced the report and Principal Conservation Officer outlined that it had gone through public consultation and had involvement from the Parish Council from the beginning. The Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) had been delayed due to staff and administration changes and was now recommended including a boundary extension proposal. The officer advised that there would be a follow up where notifications would be put in the local paper and London Gazette. Land Registry and the land owners would be also be informed about the boundary extension.

In response to a query, the Principal Conservation Officer advised that review of Article 4 directions would be considered separately.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET: That

1.  The proposed Headcorn Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) guidance document, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be adopted as a material planning consideration; and

2.  The proposed boundary extension to the Headcorn Conservation Area be agreed as shown on page 42 of the CAAMP at Appendix 1 to the report.

The Principal Conservation Officer introduced the report and advised that it had been written in the last 18 months and been out to public consultation with involvement from the Parish Council from the beginning of the process. It was highlighted that the proposed boundary extension would include Iden Manor to protect the historic parkland, part of the original farmstead and the wider gardens of the manors on that plot.

In response to queries, the Principal Conservation Officer clarified the boundary and stated that the map would be reprinted to make the boundary clearer.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET: That

1.  The proposed Staplehurst Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) guidance document at Appendix 3 to the report be adopted as a material planning consideration; and

2.  The proposed boundary extension to the Staplehurst Conservation Area be agreed (in accordance with page 62 of Appendix 3 to the report).

6.30 p.m. to 7.54 p.m.