Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies.

There were no Substitute Members.

The Chairman stated that there was an urgent update to the following items to provide additional information on the proposed programme of Conservation Area Appraisal and Management (CAAMP) which was requested by the Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Management after publication of the agenda:

·  Item 11 – Bearsted Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan and boundary extension;

·  Item 12 – Detling Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan and boundary extension; and

·  Item 13 – Otham Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan and boundary extension

There were no Visiting Members.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

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

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2025 be approved as a correct record and signed.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2025 be approved as a correct record and signed.

A query was raised on whether an item on changes to Community Infrastructure Levy fees would be added to the Forward Plan.

The Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Management stated that the time, money and risk had previously been determined as too great to reassess the CIL fees, with no guarantee that it would result in a more favourable rate, which was why it had not progressed.

The Leader agreed that this had been previously discussed and would provide an update on the item outside of the meeting once available.

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 stated that report was the next step in having an up-to-date plan and that they were trying to achieve as much as possible in the lead up to devolution.

The Principal Conservation Officer outlined the urgent update, which included a revised programme for completion of conservation area appraisals following changes to the Local Plan Review, requests from Parish Councils and changes to staff. It was also advised that there were now annual, informal reviews to pick up illegal works.

It was proposed to create a corridor linking the two, separate conservation areas at the Green and church and to include the ragstone wall. There was a further boundary change to include Victorian railway buildings suggested in the original appraisal. It was also proposed to remove an area already covered by the Woodland Trust.

The Committee were in support of the recommendations proposed.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET MEMBER: That

1.  The proposed Bearsted 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 Bearsted Conservation Area be agreed in accordance with page 12 of Appendix 3 to the report, and the Head of Development Management be given authority to undertake necessary steps to publicise this in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 regulations.

The Principal Conservation Officer introduced the report and stated that the review for Detling was undertaken following a request from the Parish Council. The proposed extension included community facilities including a shop and playground to the west, which contributed to the rural character of the settlement. It also included the former estate of East Court and part of Pilgrims Way to the east, which was of high historical importance.

The Committee were in support of the recommendations proposed.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET MEMBER: That

1.  The proposed Detling 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 Detling Conservation Area be agreed (in accordance with page 12 of Appendix 3 to the report) and the Head of Development Management to be given authority to undertake necessary steps to publicise this in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 regulations.

The Principal Conservation Officer introduced the report and stated that the proposed enlargement of the existing boundary allowed protection of views between the Church and core of the historic village and protected the Medieval settlement pattern and the larger estate houses to the south. It was advised that, although this was a large extension, it was considered justified.

It was raised that the new estate being built near the church at Willington was not included on proposed boundary maps in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 to the report. The Principal Conservation Officer agreed that this would be added before finalisation.

In response to queries and in reference to the urgent update, the Principal Conservation Officer confirmed that the CAAMPs for Loose and Tovil were almost complete and would be presented to their Parish Councils imminently. It was advised that, if Members had suggestions for areas that should have Conservation Areas, they could contact the Conservation team.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET MEMBER: That

1.  The proposed Otham 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 Otham Conservation Area be agreed (in accordance with page 7 of Appendix 3 to the report), and the Head of Development Management to be given authority to undertake necessary steps to publicise this in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 regulations.

The Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Management introduced the report and stated that it had been decided to reaffirm the CIL bidding document from 2019 with some updates rather than changing the process.

The Head of Development Management advised that a pot of £5 million had been accumulated and that increased housing numbers were putting a burden on infrastructure, which could be delivered through a second CIL bidding round.

The Leader of the Council highlighted Appendix 2 to the report, which outlined areas the Cabinet had discussed as priorities, including water cycles, active transport, climate change and nature recovery, for outside bodies to consider when making an application.

During the discussion, several Members raised concerns that the priority areas decided at informal Cabinet and referenced in Appendix 2 were not what residents wanted and that other infrastructure, such as health care facilities and highways, would be put at a disadvantage or discouraged from applying if this priorities list were included in the prospectus. Other Members expressed that the priorities list would not prevent stakeholders from bidding and disagreed that including it would cause issue.

In response to queries, the Leader advised that the Cabinet wanted to focus on areas that were usually neglected, which the priorities list highlighted, but that all bids would still be considered. The Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Management added that the priorities listed simply reflected the priorities in the local plan.

A few Members raised concerns around monies assigned to Kent County Council during the first bidding round and when it would be spent. The Head of Development Management reassured that, as the Kent County Council scheme for Junction 7 had been put on hold, the allocated funds had not yet been issued and that CIL was never issued until it was ready to be spent.

The Committee discussed recommending that Appendix 2 be disregarded, but ultimately voted against this and approved the recommendation as presented.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET: That the proposed prospectus and timetable for a second round of strategic CIL bidding be agreed.

The Head of Finance introduced the report setting out the financial and performance position for the services reporting into the Committee as at 31 March 2025 (Quarter 4). It was noted that:

·  Overall, there had been an improvement in position. There had been a projected overspend of £450,000 but, reflecting the controls around recruitment and push for heads of service to focus on critical spend only, there was now an underspend of £107,000 for this financial year;

·  This Committee had a £680,000 overspend, which was an improvement on Quarter 3. This was broadly the same three areas: the vacant units at Lockmeadow complex, which had now been filled; an under-recovery in development management income, for which an additional budget of £650,000 had been allocated to account for loss of income in the upcoming financial year and; an underspend in Planning Policy because of lower demand of work needed for the local plan; and

·  In terms of Capital, the overall position for the committee was a year-end expenditure of £2.1 million, an underspend of £7.7 million against the budget of £9.9 million. This was due to works at the leisure centre taking longer than anticipated and a lack of schemes coming forward for infrastructure delivery.

In response to queries, the Head of Finance advised that the units at Lockmeadow were filled in the first quarter of this financial year.

The Committee were in support of the recommendations proposed.

RESOLVED: That:

1.  The Revenue position as at the end of Quarter 4 for 2024/25 be noted; and

2.  The Capital position at the end of Quarter 4 for 2024/25 be noted. 

The Leader of the Council introduced the report, which outlined changes to the Year 1 Action Plan in response to the impact of Local Government Reorganisation. This included the addition of an action to support Local Government Reorganisation following the allocation of £100,000 of unringfenced grant by Cabinet in February 2025. The Leader advised that:

• As part of the ambition to deliver a ‘Vibrant Town Centre’ three pieces of work had been refocused around the town centre including: the Integrated Transport Strategy; the Exemplar Heritage Strategy and; work on the creative maker space;
  
  
• Other projects had been narrowed in scope, including: delivering one pump track instead of two; one citizen’s assembly instead of two; and undertaking Gypsy Romany Traveller Community Outreach; and
  
  
• A study into leisure facilities options in the Borough and developing higher and lifelong learning would be deferred for the time being.

Some Members raised disappointment that projects had been narrowed or deferred.

The Leader acknowledged the disappointment but advised that there was not the capacity to do all that was originally planned. In response to queries, it was clarified that work on affordable homes would continue.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET: That the revised Year 1 action plan be approved.

The Cabinet Member for Healthier Stronger Communities introduced the report and outlined the details of the fund, along with a list of eligible work examples. The Cabinet Member stated that many local businesses had expressed interest or shared completed actions to green their businesses via the business terrace, which was promising.

The Economic Development Manager clarified that the funding was for capital projects only, to support new and existing rural businesses to develop new products and facilities of benefit to the wider public. The total £162,000 needed to be spent by the end of this financial year or be returned to central government and was proposed to be given in grants of £500 to £15,000 to successful applicants. This would be a grant of 80% with 20% match funding from the business. The applications would be available from the Council website and dash platform, with a short list presented to a final, decision-making, panel including the Economic Development Manager, the Cabinet Member for Healthier Stronger Communities, the Director of Strategy, Insight and Governance and an independent stakeholder.

In response to queries, the Economic Development Manager agreed that a Councillor representing a rural area could be considered for the panel as well as alternative means of application for those who were not able to apply online.

The Committee were in support of the recommendations proposed.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the CABINET: That

1.  The Rural Investment Grant scheme be approved; and

2.  The Director of Strategy, Insight and Governance be given delegated responsibility for awarding grants in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Healthier and Stronger Communities.

6.30 p.m. to 8.07 p.m.