Planning and Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board - Monday 13 November 2023, 6:30pm - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting

Planning and Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board
Monday, 13th November 2023 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Seat 3
  2. Slide 1Slide 1
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished
Slide selection

Seat 3 - 0:00:00
right. Thank you good evening, everyone and welcome to this planning and transport Cabinet Advisory Board. Today, Monday, the 13th of November 2023, I'm Councillor Hugo Pound, and I will be chairing this meeting before we start. Please give your full attention to the following announcements. Thank you Chair good evening everybody. In the event of the fire alarm ringing continuously, he must immediately evacuate the building at walking pace officers will escort you via the most direct available route, and no one is to use the lift. We will make our way to the fire assembly point by the entrance to the Town Hall Yard car park, on once and way, once outside a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left and no one is to re-enter the building and to advise it is safe to do so. This is a public meeting and proceedings are being webcast live. Online recording will also be available for playback on the Council's website shortly afterwards. Any other third party may also record or film meetings unless exempt or confidential information is being considered, but are requested as a courtesy to others to give notice of this to the clock. The Council is not liable for any third party recordings. Can I remind everyone to use the microphones when speaking and turn them off when you have when you are not the red light indicates that the microphone is on
any comments that are not recorded for the webcast may not be included in the minutes of the meeting, it is very important that the outcomes of the meeting of clear at the end of each substantive item, the Chairman will ask whether the matter is agreed in the absence of a clear majority of the Chairman decides a full vote is desirable, a vote will be taken by a show of hands.
members requesting a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken, members of the public who have registered to speak this evening will be asked to come to the microphone after the introduction of the relevant item, they will have three minutes to address the Committee after which they will return to their original seat.
thank you Chair, thank you for the benefit of the recording we're going to take a roll call, the clock will call your name and if you are present, please introduce yourself.
Councillor Barrass doesn't appear to be here, Councillor Barrington King.
thank you, Councillor Brice, thank you, Councillor O'Connell,
thank you, Councillor Parker is not here, Councillor Rogers, thank you, Councillor Warmington.
thank you, Councillor McMillan, present, thank you, Councillor LB present, thank you and officers this evening are Collison present, thank you, Ellen Gilbert and Kevin Hope, prison, I do apologise, I've forgotten Paul Councillor Robert sorry, that was in place.
apologies, Councillor Roberts.
thank you, Members of the Committee should be familiar with the process, but for the benefit of any members of the public who may be watching, I would like to explain a couple of things committee members have had their agendas for over a week and have had the opportunity to ask any factual questions of the officers ahead of this meeting when we come to the substantive item on the agenda this evening, the relevant officer will then set out their report registered speakers will have spoken before the report.

1 Apologies

to make their statements, we will then move into member discussion at the end of the debate, I will try to summarise the Committee's views, and members should ensure that any proposals or actions or amendments are correctly captured.
moving on to agenda item 1, if I may.

2 Declarations of Interests

we move to a note of apologies for absence for any members of the Committee, do we have any absences today, apologies to perceive being received from Councillor Pope and for the benefit of the recording Councillors, Barisan Opara are not present at the beginning of the meeting, thank you agenda item 2 is declarations of interest
agenda item 2 is to receive any declarations of interest on items on this agenda this evening because anyone have any such declarations to make.
I see none, thank you.

3 Notification of Persons Registered to Speak

notification of persons registered to speak agenda item 3, Do we have any such persons this evening?
thank you Chair the following individuals are registered to speak all on agenda item 6 Mr Stewart Gledhill, Mr Chris Wise statement will be read out on behalf of Mr dumb Kent Town, Councillor J Jeremy Thompson and Councillors Munday, Patterson and Atkins.
thank you Chair, thank you very much,
agenda item 4, then, is the minutes of the meeting dated the 4th of September 2023. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy, neither the Chair nor the Vice Chair were at that meeting. I think it was chaired in absentia by Councillor councillor women and children police
you clearly made an impact, I'm sorry.
are there any other any amendments to the these minutes other than the comment I just made?
now I see none, can we agree the minutes of that meeting please?

5 Forward Plan as at 1 November 2023

thank you agenda item 5, the Forward Plan, as of the 1st of November, we need to consider the forward plan as of the 1st of November, which is in your papers, do Members have any comments on the Forward Plan?

6 Response to the Inspector's Initial Findings Letter on The Local Plan

I see none are we agreed on the forward plan, please, yes, thank you.
we move on to agenda item 6 before I invite registered speakers to come forward to speak for up to three minutes. I just want to make a couple of comments before the officers also speak after the speakers. I just want to make it clear that we are here to consider the response to the Inspector's initial findings letter on the Local Plan
and that is laid out in the papers that you have had before you for over a week now we are not here to consider new matters, and I just advise speakers that if you are bringing a new matter forward this evening, that is not included in our response to the Inspector's initial findings, I will ask you to desist and stop. We are not here to consider new matters and neither are we here to re-examine any issue within the Local Plan which the Inspector has already found to be sound.
I would point Members particularly to paragraphs 94 and 96 of the Inspector's letter, in which he confirms that much of the plan that was submitted is sound and there are only matters that he has raised that need to be considered that we are considering this evening now on that basis and I would like to call the first speaker please which is Mr. Stewart Gledhill, thank you.
and you have three minutes.
thank you Chairman, good evening, everyone, I'm here, representing safe capable as a chairman, it will come as no surprise, I'm sure that Safe Cable would support the removal of Julie Village from the Local Plan in 2019 there was an overwhelming objection to the proposal in the unprecedented 8,000 responses to the public consultation.
despite this, the Council persisted and it has become increasingly clear that you had no plan B, ignoring the reasonable alternatives highlighted by Save Cable and many others Councillors, it is encouraging that you are now being asked to agree with the Inspector's initial findings a year ago.
we get the need for due diligence, but we are concerned about the time taken and the further costs incurred unnecessarily pursuing that shrewdly option. Crucially, the inspector has not determined that the proposal could ever be made inevitably sound, but I want to focus on the next steps. Save Cable, supports the progression of the Local Plan but continues to have serious concerns about the development strategy for East cable and policy S 1. We will set these now after studying the complete evidence when available and at the appropriate stages of the process. We are grateful to the officers for providing a large amount of evidence ahead of this meeting, something not done previously, where a lot was held back from the public
however, there are shortcomings, with the mapping being eligible in some of the reports map 28, for example, and David Lock's report seems to be incomplete, we have not seen the revised housing trajectory to explain an approximate 300 surplus after 10 years.
we understand this is not the final package, but Members may wish to obtain clarification of the updated infrastructure costs and the viability assessment when considering a representation accommodations.
in summary.
we urge you to accept the revised plan with the removal of Dudley village, given the national policy and political uncertainties a truly sustainable plan is needed as soon as possible and, finally, Mr. Chairman,
we ask that any public consultation does not commence before the middle of January to allow the community time to settle after Christmas new year and returning their kids to school.
thank you very much, thank you, Mr Gledhill, very much.
our second speaker this evening is Mr. Chris Wise.
Mr Wise, you have three minutes, thank you.
thank you, Mr. Chairman and good evening everybody.
I'm here to, although I am a member of the said Cable Executive for avoidance of doubt, I'm here very much speaking from the head and the heart as a Tudeley, resident and council tax payer.
I am concerned with the
Council money committed to the pursuit of to the garden village of TGV following the Inspector's letter back in a year ago, back in November 2022.
by that point, the council had committed 1.2 7 million pounds for external advice on the Local Plan, which includes a TGV.
and after the letter was received, then set aside a further 851,000 pounds to address the many problems set out in the Inspector's letter in the papers for this meeting, I counted seven or eight consultants, I think so I fear that much, if not all of the 851,000 pounds was probably committed council employees time costs of course are on top of those numbers.
to my mind, and I know to the minds of many others in my locality and any reader of Mr Burke and chorus November 2022 letter, expert or not.
I could see that the number severity and magnitude of shortcomings, especially in infrastructure and traffic capacity, would not be possible to address without enormous additional funding and delay.
and without certainty of delivery, Mr Burke and short language seemed to condemn tgwu TGV as a fantasy or at best he clinically set out why pursuing it was going to be costly, with a very high degree of risk, so much so that I read it as an instruction to desist and was shocked when the council announced that it was spending our money seeking answers to each of his concerns.
my concern is therefore why the Council's Executive chose to spend our tax money pursuing a dead duck and whether non non-executive councillors fulfil their for Dewsbury duties to challenge executives, so I close with five points number 1.
was there any external compulsion to address Mr Burke and shows a list of concerns, and if not, why did the Executive seats continue with TGV without a Plan B?
number 2
is everyone here today happy on reflection that the executive's expansive desire to continue with Daesh TGV was adequately challenged at Cabinet and Full Council number 3 between the decision to continue pursuing TGV and now were the non-executive councillors able to monitor adequately the advisers, output and costs to consider stopping their work on TGV number 4, as of today, are the non-executive councillors confident in their own information their opportunity and power to prevent similar costly mistakes being made in the future? And finally, number 5 will the wasted costs of pursuing TGV after the Inspector's November 2022 letter be a factor in council executives, variable compensation awards
thank you very much, thank you very much, Mr. Price.
just before we proceed, I just want to advise the meeting at the Councillor Barrass is now in attendance, thank you, our next speaker is a statement to be read, please, by the clock from Mr Don Kent, thank you, thank you Chair.
I would like to put forward my observations for Monday night's meeting on Planning. My name is John Kent and I am one of the town councillors for Paddock Wood, who happens to sit on our planning meetings? My first observation from this report is that there has been none undertaken by Tunbridge Wells planning department to include the Environment Agency sequential test appropriately. Secondly, no development within EEA designated flood zones had formed the basis of this study. Thirdly, the inspector determined that TW B C had not considered all alternatives before encroaching on modelling flood zones, which is pretty dam, are pretty damning. Damning indictment of the planning department of Tunbridge Wells. Fourthly, the Environment Agency Agency has just updated their flood risk assessment requirements with new modelling requirements. Again, this is also a damning indictment on the Environment Agency as they knew full well of the new local plans being pursued by borough councils and should have had their house in order. Now I come down to my arguments against some of these proposals. 2.1 7 of the Strategic Dare sites, document states to outline planning applications, Redrow and Persimmon whose which, to those not living in paddock, will just Church Farm extension. If you like joining the Elm Tree, this application wishes to a bat up to Flood Zone, 2 of which some of the houses would need to be raised so as not to flood. This contributions contributes the Inspector's wishes. As stated in my third point, the application also wishes to place the sewage works right right by Flood Zone. 2. Again going against the Inspector's wishes and further to this, they wish to dump 50,000 litres of treated sewage into the road stream the road stream for those who do not know it. Floods on occasions before we had the development in Church Farm due to the constraints of the culvert which allows water to pass under the railway embankment.
Church Farm development, which was given was given planning permission by yourselves a while ago and is still ongoing. My problem is that this application was given on unsound advice, as the Environment Agency has only just updated its flood risk assessment for Paddock Wood. Given that this has happened, Corkin residents of Paddock would be to be sure that the risk assessment is accurate. Did the risk assessment include not just the 1,200 or so extra houses, but also included the 50,000 litres plus litres of treated sewage being dumped in our road stream? Did the Flood Risk Assessment include a report into building right up to the Flood Zone 2 area
did the Flood Risk Assessment know that this flat, how flat this new development land is and very close to the water table and adjacent to the fluvial bone flood zone to this development would be, and if so, how shallow and how much larger the annual ocean basins may have to be. I would suggest that no treated sewage is discharged into the road and streams and this side of the railway, and that this application be sought to have a new culvert and so Colbert installed, so as to take this development. The last sentence please come on, that's fine. This development of fluvial flood water and its treated sewage to the other side of the railway line which keeps the residents of dimwits close and for the Church Farm safe from flooding. Thank you, Chair, thank you very much. Did you get through one something, so I don't think you could have spoken faster
thank you, thank you very much, so I hope you officers got all of those points for later, thank you, our next speaker is Town Councillor Jeremy Thompson, please.
you have three minutes, Ms Thomson, thank you.
Good evening, Chair Councillors and officers. I acknowledge that this is the first in a series of meetings to decide whether the revised local plan goes forward to public consultation. It might appear that Paddock Wood should be pleased with the Inspector's findings and a reduced number of homes. However, this leads to less money for infrastructure and projects and facilities that had previously been expected and now appear to be watered down. Paddock Wood deserves much better facilities and the master planning approach must continue. I would like to draw your attention to page 24 3.1 8 appraisal of existing and sports provision in Paddock Wood
it concerns me at this stage in the master planning process, there are inaccuracies as an example, the Memorial Playing Field, the cons are no existing sports provisions provision.
we have just had to LTA standard tennis courts built, there is an existing football pitch and the agreement that when the new community centre was built, that cricket would return to its quintessential home on the Memorial Playing Field, I could comment on other sites we can do that later in the consultation process when Paddock Wood Town Council have had the opportunity to discuss the overall proposals in detail.
I am sure that the planning officers are aware that Paddock Wood Town Council already have access to considerable 1 0 6 minutes that are allocated to the existing open spaces and sporting facilities in Paddock Wood.
it is fortunate that we have not signed contracts for this money to be spent in view of the current proposals, we need time to consider the revised plan with the users of our facilities.
with Richard Eastern of Ferrier, urbanization are planning a meadow paddock with neighborhood plan and planning consultant, and with the full Town Council.
I would like to thank the borough councillors and officers and trust that an open and transparent dialogue will help us come to an acceptable agreement for the local plan, thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Thompson.
our next speaker is Councillor Munday, please.
thank you Chair. I want to spoke last in July on this matter about the neighborhood plan, Paddock Wood, I emphasised the reports refer to a number of dwellings, but what we're really trying to do here is build houses and communities. That's my main area of concern with the plan we've got today in the local plan is that it still refers to houses two and a half thousand 1,000 deaths, which is great news but it still represents but a 75% increase on the current development in Paddock Wood or what's completed houses, let alone three housing developments, that's still under development, and we do have a concern that the shorter tenure timeframe means that we're going to be revisiting the Local Plan again in five years, so really has that thousand loss in houses really being lost within the 15 year timeframe, we have no currently with us.
no knock-on effect to that for me is on the infrastructure with lower housing numbers, we're not proposing to have farthing raid a new doctor's surgery, it is just an enlargement of the existing one, some curious, there has the existing health service.
being consulted there can they actually expand on their existing site.
or do they need new provision, the same with the pharmacy, I also noticed there is going to be three new road junctions on the A 2 2 8.
the report quite rightly refers to low traffic, neighborhoods, cycling, walking and all the rest I have concern those three extra junctions are we gonna do being encouraging rat runs now and we are waiting for the roundabout to be enlarged at dampers corner on the A 2 2 8 Battle Road No is having these extra three junctions.
throughout part word on the A 2 2 8 a way of doing away with that now, making our smaller junction rather than the large one that potentially it needs for, then move on to housing itself, I welcome the inclusion of a sheltered housing development and also the extra care scheme there anything now I was saying the report it wasn't clear as to whether there is for the elderly or people with disabilities.
I certainly would welcome both of those within Paddock Wood.
the last concern I would like to raise is around the proposed traffic changes, in particular the one way traffic lights on the railway bridge, no that is down for, I think, a medium term which I assume is three to seven years so we're looking at the timing and timeline of 10 years you've got the ambulance station to the north, the railway bridge DR station to the south car park exit station exit so I do think having that as being a traffic light, one way is just going to cause more congestion when you already have parking on the roads there which when we had gas main replacements,
six months ago, Max last sentence, please, yeah, there was tailbacks right way up to the industrial estate and back down to the Asda garage, so I'd like that to be looked at again.
thank you, Mr Monday, thank you.
and our next speaker is Councillor Pattison, please.
thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking obviously as Borough Council for Cable, but also as a chair of Caple Parish Council.
and I would speak largely in support of the recommendation on your paper to adopt option 3, which is to delete Chudley from the plan.
if this is adopted by the Council, obviously this is a major success for the Community campaign that's been running for four and a half years, led by Safe Cable and the CA and the Parish Council.
and I just like to refer you to the to the three reasons that are given in the papers, why that chudley is seen as not tenable.
firstly, the opposition of of our neighbours in Tonbridge and Malling, and, obviously about the council boundaries, are very close to where the intended site of Tulay was, the the report says the impact on Tunbridge will be slight, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that, especially as somebody who tries to drive up and down.
Tunbridge High Street from time to time and finds it it'd be a almost permanent traffic jam and if anything goes wrong with the traffic in in Tonbridge and Malling the whole, fingers grind still hold even now, so even a slight impact from them development next door. I'm not surprised that Tonbridge and Malling Council didn't look very kindly on this plan. The second reason that's the major reason that's given us is the 5 0 Green bypass, which was quite a late addition to the plan it just came in just before. Regulation 19
I think that the Inspector has spotted it wasn't particularly well worked out at plan and clearly there's a lot of work left to do on it and the the the the serious weaknesses that the papers point out was the impact in the area of outstanding natural beauty where, where exceptional circumstances will need to be proved for this to go ahead and are clear that is a risky strategy to take and I'm glad the council decided not to but clearly also it was linked with the third reason which was the clearly perceived inability of the developer to deliver 2,800 houses, 2,100 of them within the plan period, and clearly, if that was the reason why the bypass was built, they can't deliver them, then those exceptional circumstances fall away so.
I would commend those arguments to to to Councillors and I think I'm speaking on behalf of the Cable community, I think we are happy to proceed to further hearings and to to to examine the rest of the plan clearly we still have concerns about East cable, there is the issue of groundwater flooding, particularly in the north-west of the site, I think the the papers address fluvial flooding but we're not still convinced the groundwater flooding isn't an issue.
there is the issue also that head-on at the rest of the proposals will lead to a 150% black residents, please sorry, one more sentence will lead to an increase in population of cable which is not provided for an issue which I have discussed with the already chairman but hopefully we'll be able to revisit it, thank you very much, thank you very much.
well, and thank you all very much.
both are sticking to time and for the quantity of issues, and I'm sure the officers will will take up or not one more, I'm sorry, hi, that Rodney I'm not doing very well with my colleagues and I don't like come on then Councillor Atkinson,
may revoke my comments or praise you never know.
Lord Mayor, please for 3 minutes any members and officers.
as Ward Member for Peterhead East, I will speak on the impacts to Penwood East and solely that of sports.
this will come as no surprise to the members of paperwork throughout the policy planning working group meetings, I have expressed disappointment that the new outdoor sports hub, while the submission Local Plan and the Packwood Neighbourhood Plan have at different locations, is now not to occur at all by the end of this Local Plan Paddock Wood will have doubled in the number of dwellings and yet his sports and green facilities will be second rated.
but I hear you say he gains a swimming pool, but those being built on the current Puntland car park and the new car park is to be built on the adjoining property pitch with that rugby pitch relocated to a scrappy piece of land out in the east, which is actually in the capable ward.
but it gains the gains by tennis, because again they are built on the same rugby pitch which is to be relocated, is the Council aware that the Town Council is this Council, whether the Town Council has just used section 1 0 6 money to replace the tennis courts on the Memorial Field tennis courts that will probably become unused as a result of this plan?
at Green Lane, where there is already one football pitch, this plan will make it to, but it destroys the wealth, wealth, wild flower, meadow and a mature oak tree which is there not to mention the flooding, issues that will have to be mitigated from the earthworks that are required, so the second football pitches level currently begun will be 6 feet above the halfway line.
is this scrappy piece of land, the shape of which is a triangle?
it will all contain and be scorched in at crazy angles to each other. The relocated puppy fuelled from patterns a car park, three junior football pitches, four tennis courts and a cricket, the outfield outfield of which will overlap, be overlapped by the football and rugby pitches, and there are no plans to improve the football pitches at the Elm Tree. I welcome that this will go out to consultation, I will encourage the local sports clubs and uses the fields to respond, and I hope that the results of the consultation are taken into account. Paddock Wood deserve the best. It deserves a first class sports facility, one that is proud to have, and this does not deliver that. Thank you
thank you very much.
and my apologies for not seeing your name here,
I reiterate the points, thank you very much for your for all of your contributions, I am now going to turn to officers and invite Carlos Hone who's head of Planning, Ellen Gilbert, Planning Policy Manager and Kevin Hope, acting Strategic sites and delivery Team Leader to present the report please.
thank you, Chair and good evening, members and members of public.
the report before
members today sets out the officers' recommendation for a proposed response to the local plan inspector's initial findings letter. A copy of the initial findings letter from the inspector is attached at Appendix A of the report. The report sets out the previous stages in the production of the new Local Plan and its planning policy context. The Local Plan has been in preparation since 2016 and has been through three rounds of public consultation to date prior to the submission to the secretary of State for the examination in November 2021
Section 4 of the report which can be found on pages 10 to 22 of the cover report explains the initial findings of the Inspector and the work undertaken by officers in order to consider and respond to these findings in summary, the initial findings cover five broad areas, firstly, the Development Strategy relating to Green Belt, including assessment of reasonable alternative Green Belt sites, secondly, the strategy for Chorley village relating in particular to matters including location and accessibility 5, agreeing bypassing the rate and scale of housing delivery,
and thirdly, that the strategy for Paddock Wood at East Caple including developments in higher risk flood zones and the need to ensure the development comes forward in a comprehensive manner forth strategy for other settlements in the Borough relating to autumn rituals Southborough Cranbrook, insisting Hirst Hawkhurst Benenden, Pembury and Santos and finally, the provision of housing for older people and people with disabilities, Section 4 of the report goes through the proposed response to the initial findings and further work undertaken to consider the matters raised by the Inspector, however, a more detailed and comprehensive assessment to the findings is included in the Development Strategy topic paper addendum which is Appendix B the papers
this sets out a response and makes reference to additional evidence that has been prepared, which supplements the core document list. The report in front of Members today sets out conclusions, and next steps of note are the following observations and wider options explored by officers. Firstly, at paragraph 4.8 4 in regards to Green Belt assessments, it is considered that the further assessment done doesn't provide a basis for concluding the other previously rejected. Omission sites should come forward in into the local plan at this stage. Some sites at 5.00 8 Green, may be considered as deliverable, but these would need to be reviewed as part of a local plan review
in regards to the Trudy Village allocation at paragraph 4.5, following on from the assessment of the numerous matters raised by the Inspector, whilst some matters officers are confident can be resolved, there is still some uncertainty regarding the impacts of the 5 m green bypass required for Chelsea village and also the housing delivery right. Consequently, there was some doubt as to whether these matters could be addressed to the satisfaction of the Inspector and to meet the threshold required for exceptional circumstances to justify its release from the Green Belt. At paragraph 4.9 6 of the report, it's explained how officers have considered consequential impacts on Paddock. Wood and land is capable of the removal of Cheveley Village from the plan. Whilst the location can still accommodate major expansion and still support significant improvement in local community and transport infrastructure without building homes within higher flood risk areas, it will require a reduction of approximately 1,000 homes from the allocation
there is still a strong case for employment growth to be accommodated on land adjoining transferees a road within Flood Zone 2, but outside of higher flood zone 3 risk areas other matters set out in the initial findings can be addressed through main modifications as part of this examination progress going forward.
the fundamental issues relating to the development strategy are considered from paragraphs 4.8 onwards, and seven different development strategy options have been identified and discussed these different development strategy options differ in how they consider the spatial distribution of housing, employment and infrastructure provision and the impact of the spatial distribution on housing supply over the plan period, including whether a 10 or 15 year housing land supply can be achieved as required by the National Policy.
it is also noted that strategy includes an amended policy for land, north of Birchfield Grove Policy, A all HA 5 at Hawkhurst, to provide residential use and land safeguarded for primary school expansion, in addition to a new medical centre, this draft policy reflects a resolution at Planning Committee.
full planning permission to be granted at the last Planning Committee last week, the revised Development Strategy, as recommended, provides a 10 year rather than the 15 year housing land supply, which would mean that upon adoption, the Council would need to start the process of undertake an immediate review of the plan.
just to reflect in terms of the Inspector's letter in his conclusion, he does note that paragraph 94 Appendix A of this report that a significant amount of work has clearly been done in the preparation of the Local Plan, which is positively prepared in seeking to meet housing needs, despite significantly large areas of Green Belt and High Weald A and B, he feels the majority of the changes to the Local Plan.
are relatively straightforward and can be dealt with through the main modifications process at Paddock woodland, land, at East Caple the Inspector is relatively confident that the strategic changes can be achieved without fundamental changes to the plan. Strategy and officers have set out how a general reduction in growth as part of the allocation can accommodate the necessary changes and co consequential infrastructure impacts. From removing Shirley from the plan in respect of to the village, the Inspector has suggested three ways forward for the Council which are set out in section 5 of the report
finally, following on from substantial new evidence being gathered from Council's consultants, the Cabinet report presents officer recommendations on the way forward, which essentially proposes an amended development strategy, as set out in the officer recommendations at section 6 of the report.
how the Chair as an update this evening for members, we've provided a revised recommendation, 1, which is in draft format and paper in front of you.
and to add clarity to the recommendation in the report being made by officers and to a discussion, so if I just read that out for four members and members of the public revised recommendation 1 reads.
cabinet recommends to Council that the examination of the Local Plan be progressed in accordance with Section 6 of this report and the Inspector's option 3 at paragraph 5.1 6 and 5.1 7 of the report, and that Chudley village allocation s t r s 3 be removed from the plan that housing in Paddock Wood and East Caple SDSS 1 be reduced with all housing being in Flood Zone 1 employment land on Flood Zone 2 along with changes to the development strategy at Hawkhurst.
to revise site all HA 5, in accordance with the Planning Committee resolution on application reference 22 0 2 6 6 for hybrid, and to remove SCI all Ha 8 limes grave, and to progress a 10 year housing land supply position, including the requirement for an immediate review of the plan at least and that these changes be subject to public consultation.
recommendations 2 3 and 4 remain as set out in the agenda papers.
thank you, Chair
thank you very much, before I go to questions from Members, could I ask whether you're able to respond to any of the issues that were raised by our speakers, thank you for your, I've made notes, and I think colleagues Engelbert and Kevin home maintenance as well, so if I get through my once mighty fast and then I can pick up on this might be that I've missed one although the dress if that's OK,
in terms of the first speaker Mr. Gledhill.
I think there is an issue with regards, and this has been raised through Pan policy working group about whether or not having received the Inspector's initial findings letter, whether or not we could have gone straight to members with a recommendation to amend the development strategy in response to that those initial findings but significant amount of effort time and money has been spent on a local plan which Council found to be appropriate and sound and that was put to public consultation and then through to examination and it would have been pretty difficult for officers to just put something back to members without having sufficient evidence to support that recommendation.
that is why we've had to go through the lengths that we have and why there is a significant amount of supporting information to support our recommendation today.
so that's one of the reasons why we couldn't go through that process immediately.
in terms of the the timeframe for consultation, the the expectation is that that consultation will start quickly, we want to get through this process.
as quickly as possible now the recommendation is in the public domain.
and the aim is to start the consultation before Christmas, with one week before Christmas. The statutory minimum requirement is a six week consultation to account for Christmas. We will be recommending the 7 week consultation exercises undertaken that will run through to the beginning of February
going through to Mr Wiese's comments in terms of the the amount of money that's been spent on the local plan, obviously like plans, the costs are a significant amount of money, government doesn't fund this process, it doesn't come from planning fees.
the the the figure that was quoted is is fairly accurate, in terms of the amount has been spent so far on the Local Plan. Obviously there was a significant amount of additional evidence that has been prepared to support the recommendation. The figure quoted of 850,000 is essentially the the amount in the reserve budget for local plan preparation. That was the point. The changes Nice municipal year in April this year over the preparation, timeframe of the Local Plan is approximately he
a cost of about 200,000 pounds per year on consultants fees to date, and we're still obviously waiting for certain invoices to come in, but approximately 150,000 pounds has been spent on the additional evidence over the past 12 months, but that is likely to go up to.
a similar figure to what has been spent over the previous year so that the reserve fund is absolutely adequate to cover those costs.
obviously, plan-making is a a rolling process under the government's new changes to the planning system in the levelling up regeneration acts now the expectation is that plans will be expected to be reviewed every five years so that that rolling process of preparing evidence and having plans updated will be ongoing whether or not we have a requirement for an immediate review or not.
going through to sequential test.
officers have undertaken that, as part of this process, the Inspector obviously highlighted that the sequential test is an absolute test in his comments and and given the pressure for the Council to have a plan in place and inadequate supply of housing officers has taken a very much a risk based approach to how we've come forward with that it has included.
the most up-to-date fluvial rainfall modelling, which is an increase due to climate change of 37% in rainfall data, so we've used that in our assessment of how hasn't come can come forward a pilot wooden east cable and that is a result of the as a result of that modelling the reduction in housing at Pinewood and eschew is down by 1,000 homes so we feel that we have done that appropriate modelling and applied sequential tests appropriately for housing and for employment land as well.
I think that, obviously, one of the issues with regards to
the recommendations and the approach to how we have responded to the Inspector is that there would be a proportionate reduction in the amount of growth in the amount of housing in the Local Plan if today is to remove be removed and if palette ward is to be reduced and or as a result of that, infrastructure needs would be less. Therefore, the development associated with the plan will need to provide a proportionate reduction in the amount of infrastructure, and that is what is proposed as part of the master planning exercise and as part of the work we've undertaken. We do feel that we've been consulting with
both Members and one where we felt it appropriate, the Town Council and and Kate Parish as well, but certainly through planning policy working group, a lot of discussions have been ongoing for the for the past 12 months, to update Members on the process and with statutory consultees as well.
in particular the NHS, with regards to the approach to the need at Paddock Wood and East cable, which is reduced as a result of the reduction in housing and, as a result, the master planning exercise has identified that further facilities could be provided through one of the local centres that would come forward as part of one of the developments.
then trying to think of is there anything else I've missed.
I think with regards to the sports provision,
clearly the the Sports Hub that was in the original submission, Local Plan allocation was on flood zone 1 land, so as a result of that.
and the need to make even a 10 year housing land supply that Sports Hub has had to be taken out of the plan and the the sports provision essentially being provided in the aggregate across three different sites rather than a one hub area, but we do still feel that the the the provision will be of,
high quality and appropriate to the amount of housing coming forward.
thank those of all other points I had Chair, but if I hand over to my colleagues.
thank you.
I thank you good evening, Chair good evening everyone.
to come back on a few additional points, the that had been made by the speakers, so firstly, Mr Gledhill regarding you mentioned in your presentation about fact that you feel that officers have ignored reasonable alternative sites to to to to Tulay.
I just wanted to clarify that save Cable submitted a list of alternative sites.
Back at the time of the sort of reggae teen sort of Reg 19 stage of the Local Plan which officers did look at at the time, and we specifically addressed the matter of alternative sites submitted by Save Cape Hill in the brownfield and urban land topic paper which was one of the evidence base documents submitted to the
submitted for the examination in November 2021 and essentially the the Inspector's not felt it necessary to make any specific comments about this at this time, so you know, in summary on that we we have looked at that extensive list of sites put forward by Save Cape Hill and that has been addressed in our existing evidence base. The second point I wanted to
respond to was Jeremy Thompson's comment about the fact the Paddock Wood Town Council need some time to think about the revised development strategy and an opportunity to speak to their planning consultant about that. Before reaching a view on it, there will be that opportunity, and the Town Council will be able to make any representation it wishes to through the public consultation that that will take place. As Carlos has said, that will be a seven week. Consultation
and then finally I just wanted to touch on, and I know Kevin will no doubt talk about this as well, but
Councillor Monday's comment about the the building of houses at Paddock Wood and specifically the point about building communities. Not just housing were very clear that that is our expectation we set out and it always has been that you know it's not just about providing houses, it is about creating a new community. We're very clear about the the need for these PA development parcels to be masterplanned, and you know that that is reflected in the the development strategy topic paper addendum, which includes the revised draft policy for the strategic site at Paddock Wood. It's very clear we expect the different development parcels to work together. There is a master planning framework which which links all the sites together to ensure that the communities created not just the housing and obviously the very important
matter of infrastructure is provided alongside that, as well as proposal policy, one of the things the policy T or the strategic sites team will be working on is that there will be an overarching supplementary plan for Paddock Wood, which will ensure that all the provisions are pulled together and the expectations but certainly you know the the developers were aware when on board with that.
you know, ethos, that we are building a community here, not just providing the housing, thank you.
thank you, Alan Kevin, to information.
thank you for giving everyone and, as my colleagues have largely made the points I was going to make just a few interesting that was going to raise.
firstly, one of the speakers thing is the note that was read out made some comments about wastewater.
flooding on the applications at East Paddock Wood, which we currently have.
all I would say on that is those who are current planning applications.
so they are subject to a detailed review and investigation, at least at this time that is ongoing, together with detailed discussions with the waste water providers, the a
so on really so that he studies something which is ongoing, given their current planning applications, so our awareness will go into any more one thing I would just like to add on sports.
the the Sports Hub provision proposal, previously put forward as part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan was detailed, but essentially given that it was flood zone 1 land and the need to revise the strategy, together with the loss of a significant number of houses.
that wasn't workable, what we've then sought to do is to try and retain the aims and objectives of that sports hub, but provide it in a different way.
and essentially through the three sites for Paddock Wood.
the the list of facilities for those three sources is quite whereas this is similar provision related to the overall sports hub in the Pre-submission version.
I I agree with Councillor Atkinson his comments he's made about the quality and the overall scope of provision at Paddock Wood deserves.
and I suppose to add, some two dwellings come in that that really is part of our aim and objective for the for the plan I've row in terms of the uplift the Packwood could could achieve through this level of growth, so that sort of comes back to sort the bedrock re auspices as part of our plan for delivering growth at Paddock Wood and the Diddy's growth overall for the Borough and any enhancement rather than just yet a series of additional housing sites added to pedant with nice cable.
so I'll I'll leave it there, thank you.
I thank you very much, thank you all three, I've just, if I may, just pick up on one or two elements from the speakers that I don't think have quite yet been addressed, in fact there's only one really, I think almost everything else has now been covered.
would someone like to comment upon some of the commentary around the new road junctions the traffic changes, the one way over the bridge, the five out green bypass, and how that is managed in that relationship, with both KCC and with Highways England is, is managed going forward, thank you.
thank you Chair.
so the the work that's undertaken in terms of the the Highways methodology essentially remains the same as the initial submission like plan process, but we've undertaken three-stage process, which is set out in Chapter 5 of the development strategy topic, paper, addendum so and undertaking a review of
the baseline 2019 models has been undertaken by the consultants are looking at great factors, including population expectations.
and it's looked at the junctions associated with growth in and around the Paddock Wood area, and it's looked at the reference ace, essentially what commitments have been made to junction improvement as a result of existing development so that the stage 1 stage 2 has looked at those hotspots so where junctions are near to or likely to exceed capacity as a result of both the 10 year housing land position and then forecasting forward as well on the basis of the 15 years of housing will be necessary as part of a review.
stage 3 of the work has looked at the implications of sustainable transport as well as modal shift, so that has reduced the amount of traffic movements through a lot of those junctions and made that some of those junctions are now within capacity rather than being exceeding, so the final stage is to look at those junctions that remain hotspots after the application of modal shift reductions.
and that work will look at how those functions can be improved and the structure and delivery plan will include that as required, certainly there is already some section 1 and 6 agreement money that has come from development of palette would already that will feed into that process as well, particularly the Battle Road junction as part of the review of the the housing numbers and part of the review that we've undertaken with the consultants on on highways work, it's necessary that a council bypass will still be necessary but the five-year Creme bypass won't be necessary.
thank you.
thank you very much right, well, thank you for those responses so far before I go to Members' questions, which is where we are going to next, I'd like to propose that we use a structure that Carlos alluded to earlier, which is essentially within the report we have five principal areas and what I would ask is that we ask questions.
in so they are categorised within one of those five sections, otherwise we'll be bouncing around all over the place asking different questions about different elements of the plan so that the five elements I'll go through them in turn in a minute but they are first of all questions if you have them around the green belt and the stage 3 assessments that have been undertaken number 2 is Tudeley 3 as paddock wooden nice capable and in particular the flood zones for is other settlements.
and 5 is older people and people with disabilities, those last two probably mostly being addressed through main modifications, but there may be issues or questions that you want to ask officers of, so can I ask members, do you have any questions in relation to the greenbelt study stage 3 assessments that were undertaken,
because if not, we can move on to another stage, Steve Place, I'm just just for desperate for Claire to state for the general public, more so colonoscopies, please find who did the who is it who is actually involved in doing that assessment?
OK, so our green belt assessment work was actually one of the consultants that we've had supporting the plan, so them you see, Sir Andrew's consultants, and then you see, did the the original Greenbelt studies stage 1 2 and 3 that was submitted.
as part of the evidence base in November and 2021.
and for robustness, and because you know the the methodology behind it all, it seemed prudent to use them again to do this additional third stage, Green Belt study.
thanks for that multi just I think she'd been raised before, but what did you not feel that that's like someone marking their own homework because they've done that, they've done the process themselves to start with and then having them come back and say, OK, we'll look at it again, it's just just just you know for justice. I just want to get that out the outlet thanks that's OK. I would say no to that. The work that we asked the consultant to do in response to the initial findings was looking at the new new, reasonable alternative sites, so it wasn't a case that
they will lead us to take the assessment said already done, what they were doing was assessing reasonable to a new set of reasonable alternative sites or omission sites, which is what the Inspector and the initial findings had requested the Council to do, but simply using the same methodology that they had done the previous assessment work for and the Inspector if I can just find it.
had actually
sorry, I'm just got to going there in the
so he had specifically commented on the greenbelt studies that had been done sub-paragraph 5 for example, he talks about the the review of the Green Belt boundary and the three stage assessment process, and specifically commented that the the greenbelt study 3, which was the original greenbelt study 3 which was done for the Green Belt allocations in the Plan so he had,
commented that it was a more refined consideration and actually commented that this was a logical and sound way of considering where grow should be, so the Inspector's findings were more about why, had we not assessed emission SCI some reasonable alternative emission sites to that same refined?
final stage of assessment, and that's the work that's now been done, thank you, thank you, thank you very much, thank you Alan, or any other questions about the development strategy, the the Green Belt assessments I've seen on this move on the strategy for 2 D village, does anybody have any questions for officers about where we are in relation to the Tudeley garden village and any other developments within it?
swimmingly, not okay.
and if we move on then to Paddock Wood and East Cable and in particular the flood zones and the impact upon both housing and business, any questions in relation to that, yes, please Rob.
thank you, Chair and I first first-time speaking this evening, so I'd just like to thank all of the speakers, I thought really added a huge amount of the
to to the dialogue and and thanks to the officers as well. As you know, we we, I think we say this are many meetings and it's always true that you know the work that is put in by officers is hugely appreciated, but I think in this instance it is quite clear what a phenomenal amount of work has been done and you know it is, it is really helpful at you know, it's really helpful to coming to a decision or violence. You know really appreciated by all of us. I'm sure I had a couple of questions actually. Firstly, it was really around
the development on floodplain 1
and proceed the the clue is sort of in the name, it is a floodplain and it would be helpful to get a bit of an understanding on on how likely flooding is in that area, I know that it's the area that is least likely to flood but how likely at least likely,
and then my second question was really around infrastructure, I think, particularly in the course of this evening, you know lots of concerns have been raised about.
sport and leisure facilities are, and really my question is,
what opportunities is the council going to have to add, potentially revisit what it's or what its current thinking is to see if maybe there's a a solution that works for everybody and what is best for everybody, further down the line before final adoption, thank you.
thank you.
thousand for whereabouts.
why?
that's our last time.
exactly what it says.
less than 0 comma 1% of receiving funding from the
some clients are essentially just a cyclist and there isn't a different category, the same as I said this, so that's why we've got the passion and the submission of pantheon positon to 9, which is a real possibility.
that is all to use in exceptional circumstances, for delivery of the 15,000 pounds in order to.
there will be no tax settlement because of lots of different options and having my husband's consent.
and the safest way to do that, with hoping for the best route to go through the inspector to adopt is to provide a safer forward, but that does require as having I don't find any attendance for adoption and maintenance undertaken.
as I have.
let me just turn up at Asda.
in terms of the sporting provision of health and safety.
as them.
set out at the end because we still have an ambitious master plan for the expansion of the panel and the landlord is careful to create a community and by that restarted of the provisional schemes there is and was an initial decision basket, because something
was that for the whole of the Flood Risk, and I apologise, hopefully you heard me.
I'll go back to this, there's the sports issue so yeah, the aim is to provide a master plan approach for delivery of a community, as the expansion would have have, and the aim was to still have a high level of sport and leisure provision which, like I said, is split across three different sides we have undertaken.
discussions with the Town Council with regards to that there is, in an April plan, some ambition for both the sport, but also for improvements to existing facilities, and we do feel that the existing facilities will be approved as a result of this. The master planning exercises a very high level so it shows essentially building blocks and areas of land as they may well be some modifications to that as applications come forward and as sites become more detailed through the planning process, but this aims to to resolve the matters of still having a master plan and cohesive approach to the expansion whilst still dealing with the flood risk matters at the other allocation site.
just just to clarify that the debt is there is, I appreciate it with another round of consultation, is there a possibility that, following the consultation the most upon my change, perhaps I think from from correct me if I'm wrong and if I'm
sort of a miss misrepresented what's been said before, but I think some of the concerns were was around matters parcel. Could it be possible, for example, after the consultation that the master plan might be amended, for example to maybe consolidate some of those sites back or somewhere else
yeah, perhaps it'll be alpha, I explained that the way forward, what might happen following on from the last meeting, so Full Council approve recommendation put forward by officers today.
we will go into a public consultation, so we will consult with statutory consultees and members of the community
with regards to these changes and all the evidence that has been proposed and will receive no doubt, a lot of comments with regards to that, we will put forward a formal response to the Inspector following the closure of the consultation, and that will include all of our evidence and our reports plus all of the information from the consultation exercise and the Inspector will then determine the route forward, so the aim probably would be to have further hearings.
where certain matters can be discussed, I certainly the masterplanning of Hollywood and east capable now that will be a subject for further discussion, so if the Inspector feels that it's necessary to amend what officers have put forward today, then he will make that recommendation
Last very clear, thank you very good, thank you.
I don't see any other mu other questions I'm sorry it's in relation to palette wooden is capable, just following on from Water Councillor Wilmington, saying you mentioned the probability of flooding on a low risk approach Avenue, so I don't know if the might be missed something what timescale is that on because it's obviously significant whether the probability is low over a short timescale versus a timescale of a longer period of time.
so.
the flood risk analysis is obviously on a point in time, so we we, we run rerun that modelling by some of the most up-to-date predictions that we have, which indicates a 37% increase in rainfall, but it's essentially that the sites will be safe during the plan period.
further modelling will happen at later stages.
but sites will need to come forward to make sure that they are safe for the lifetime of the development, so through the planning application process that is reconsidered.
so saying that there's a poem in but quickly the number for the probability was 0.1% chance, was that a number that was, let me say, that, number so in the the period of the the the plans in place, that's the likelihood of plan of flooding so for 15 year period wow that is remarkable, thank you.
OK, yes, Steve back to you.
I, I think, being one of them, one of the one of the comments from the public areas there was talk about the sewage plant 50,000 litres.
there was it, I think, was the one that was read out by the clock, but in terms of the in terms of the plant, that would be built there to look after the extra houses, who would be responsible for operating that building and operating them.
yeah, so that this refers to the current applications we have.
so the their hybrid applications, sorry, they are outline so for seeks outline consent with Phase 1 detailed sets for both developers, Redrow and Persimmon Newbury, half the so each, so the proposal currently includes a wastewater treatment works within the site.
as I said earlier, really we were currently reviewing that proposal, we are discussing it in detail, with Southern Water, with the developers with Y and so on, including the Casey's Lead Flood Authority.
this is not topsy, it's not part of the framework plan.
that you've seen in the master planning for Paddock Wood that doesn't incorporate wastewater works on each of these sites, but that is what the developers have chosen to submit to us, so obviously we are duty bound to consider that and review the detail, the impacts and so on.
so I can't really say too much more than that, other than we are currently reviewing it, you know it is those applications.
remain under consideration, and they are essentially being to interact with the work we are doing on the Local Plan they were submitted in January.
we've done what a lot of consultation through that period until now.
another consideration they have very complex applications, so a lot of work to do on those still including further engagement with Southern Water and the other parties involved, I must say also we are liaising with Southern Water and other parties separately regarding the framework and the local plan strategy that we are discussing today.
obviously there is a significant level of overlap between those two issues and we are combining those in our discussions with them and we have further further meetings with them to come.
OK so so effectively where, in terms of what we're talking about here in terms of the blue planet, we're proposing here and your officers are recommending, we don't have the actual answered in terms of what how the that sort of sewage plant would operate or other we don't have the full answer, it's just in the process still being discussed that correct and I've got it right so as it's proposed that would be run separately from the Southern Water run
waste Water Works north of the railway line Paddock Wood, it would be a separate works, it would operate separately by Southern Water, but could be by somebody different,
through agreement that the developers would reach with that party.
as I say, it is a proposal the developers have put forward to us, which we are considering, so those details are subject to change, given that his application is still under consideration.
but Y teaser, it would be a separate entity and operated separately from the current works in in in Paddock Wood.
thanks very much an initial original I raised that issue because we've had the experience in Paddock Wood, any Metfield for Southern Water, Southern sorry we've had experienced because of Southern Water's failures of raw sewage in the streets in Matfield and in Paddock Wood, and my concerns are that obviously for their jobs they can't even deal with the plants that God, so if we get a new plant in their bit but I'll see you know it's not under our control it is something that I think needs to be raised and should be be be clearly taken into account.
Minister yeah, thank you, don't argue, I'm quite y saying they, I think.
we've we had a stagnant common ground previously with the Pre-Submission Local Plan we are, with discussions with Southern Water, run that again in terms of the forward plan for incorporating this level of growth.
into essentially they're upgrade to the infrastructure how that would be delivered, the timescale for the delivery of that, including discussions with them on the likely delivery rates of these developments.
we are keen to avoid any issues like that with the growth that could come forward with the local plan, and so they are questions that we are also posing to to Southern Water, thank you.
yes, do please the the policy that we've proposed as part of 12 strategy to be paperwork in one of the appendices of that we've rewritten the policy, and that does include acknowledgement that there needs to be appropriate Westwood connections as Kevin sets out Southern Water have recently put forward a management plan of what for 2025 to 2030 as a wastewater treatment.
plan for the for the Medway basin as well, so as part of the proposals in the masterplanning and through discussions that we've had from them, they anticipate that they could deal with the additional capacity within existing sites subject to new treatment tanks etc being provided, but we've also adjacent to the existing site safeguarded some land should it be extended further.
so there's a there's the two approaches, obviously we were in discussions with them a statutory constancy they have a statutory duty to provide the the treatment facilities as Kevin set out the applications actually look to do it a different way so those are being considered as well.
thank you very much any other questions in relation to that it would always capable.
moving on questions in relation to other settlements, which include a Royal Tunbridge Wells, Southborough Hawkhurst, Cranbrook and sluicing house to Benenden, Pembury and Sandhurst.
any questions in relation to those.
now okay and finally.
accommodation for older people and people with disabilities, are there any questions in relation to that?
no, yes, sorry, yes, Steve sorry, I just got a quick question, she's probably because of were you Chair when you spoke earlier, he said other settings in all the papers will probably be dealt with more undermine modifications. I was asked by admire my ma by my parish council. Could you explain how the main modifications process works, because I could not ask that question
yeah, of course, so I think.
the process we are going through at the moment are quite significant changes that we're proposing to resolve the matters raised by the Local Plan Inspector through his initial findings subject to
that process being overcome, so we will go through a public consultation exercise, we would present everything to the Inspector and the Inspector would consider all of that information, and that may well require some further hearings to clarify certain matters. If he's then feels that the plan can progress to being adopted, he will propose that main modifications happen, so those main modifications will potentially include some of the information that we put forward today. So the changes to the development strategy removal of Tudeley, the changes to palette would and hawkers changes, but also a number of other MOT. Well, they're not minor changes, but main modifications, so some of that is wording in policies to make sure that they are still robust and that they deliver. Some of it is quite minor staff, changing certain words around, but there is a schedule that has already been worked on. So through the hearings which happened in 2022 at each hearing session, those discussions about whether or not a matter could be resolved by modification and officers kept a all along schedule of those say what would happen is that we would go back to the public with a long schedule of changes that will be sent to track changes to the plan, subject to those being agreed by the Inspector. Then the plan can be found sound, hopefully that
that's probably quite completed, but hopefully explains it
and but unfortunately, we are being asked here too, whereas being asked here to enact a number 4 in the recommendation for to allow the main modifications to be negotiated by the Head of Planning, in consultation with Chief Executive Leader of the Council and the portfolio holder.
for housing planning.
does that mean that the main gets a negotiation between the four of you and the Inspector was her, where does the pub, where does the council, members, or the council or members of the public have an input into that process?
so the recommendation there is essentially there, because the the process of green main modifications for soundness, all led by the Inspector, so the Inspector will say, following this next stage, that we're going through, hopefully we'll come back to us and say I think I can we can find the plant's sound subject to modifications, no move into dialogue with him and then we'll go through a public consultation exercise on all of those main modifications. All of the information that we get at that stage will go back to the Inspector when he may make a final report. Thank you. That's very clear. Thank you
yeah, thank you very much, are there any other questions in relation to the report Rob please?
thank you, and I thank you to to Councillor McMillan for asking a a process question already, so I don't have to solve my appeal about saying, sorry, I'm not going to stick to the lovely 5 point thing and go into a process question which is part of that is actually two questions sorry,
at first one is is is is is a sort of very quick question, sparked consultancy, we've obviously had that the consultants have been used extensively in this process and I totally understand that local authorities and government, large and small across the country brings in consultants to deal with specialist matters that it wouldn't be economical to deal with in house.
and I understand that under a longer.
planning process of 15 year planning process with fewer review periods than what we're currently talking about, that makes a lot of sense, but going forward, apart from the 10 year plan and indeed, as he said, with five-year review periods, has any thought being given to potentially bringing some of that function that we're currently using for consultants.
in house, but that potentially could be a saving, I, I would have thought it would be really interesting to get your views on that and secondly, I appreciate this may be a question that you can't answer and if that's the case feel free to say so, but it seems like the presumption and the the the normal way of doing things is to present a 15 year plan but obviously talking about presenting a 10 year plan.
do we have any sense on the likelihood of the inspectorate accepting that shorter time period, or is that something that we're gonna have to you know kind of approached them with one and see what they say
year in terms of consensus of set out that there is a lot of costs involved with that we do have specialists in the Department already, so we have a post for sustainability officer, we have a landscape and biodiversity officer and we have conservation and urban design officers within the team, but certainly there are other consultants who look at green belt, we've had consultancy on highways, which is very technical externally part of the aim of the government to move to a
a more frequent review of plans is to make them shorter to adopt so 30 months rather than half long this might take for this plan and let's be less evidence, necessary still the right amount of evidence and still robust but maybe less evidence so that's part of that process, the regulations associated with that so secondary legislation still has not been written so we are not quite clear but we can review that at the time.
did you want to come in on?
yes, thank you, I'm just going to respond to your question about the housing land supply, so the the relevant guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework is for is paragraph 68, and we address that in the report and the the topic paper attached at Appendix B.
but essentially you, you are able to have a plan that has a 10 year housing land supply,
subject to a review, so the the wording of the the paragraph talks about you need to have deliverable sites for years 1 to 5,
and then a specific development sites or broad locations for growth for years six to 10 and, where possible, for years 11 to 15, the inspectors also.
reference it really in paragraph 99 of the findings, where his his talked about paragraph 68 of the NPP F but says it may be, for example, that needs could be catered for over a short timeframe without the need for any specific or additional sites identified at this time.
so he's already, in a roundabout way, referenced it in his initial findings.
right. Thank you before I come to a summary of where we seem to have got to, yes, please, thank you Chair, I have a question, but it didn't fit into your five categories, it's about the timing of the consultation Mr. Gledhill and Mr. Thompson of boast raise concerns about
having sufficient time to make good responses, I do appreciate the desire to progress this rapidly, but I believe Full Council is not meeting until the 13th of December, so assuming it is approved, the consultation would be launched very close to Christmas and I appreciate your adding one week but I would be very concerned that it will get lost in all the Christmas activities and groups town parish councils in particular won't get an opportunity to discuss it for quite some time.
thank you.
I take on board your your point, absolutely, where the aim is to progress through this consultation and get information back to the Inspector, so that we can progress with the plans for adoption as quickly as we can really the Council, the longer it is without an adopted plan and that meets the needs, as specified in the evidence, the more risk that the Council is from speculative developments to high that, so we have had informal dialogue with the Inspector about the approach, so usually his expectation would be just for a six week consultation. That's why we're adding an extra week for for Christmas, so it'll be six weeks, including the Christmas period, so, following on from Full Council, we would the following week going through the consultation process, but the papers are now published, so all of that information is in the public domain as of
last week, so between now, when full Council meets all of that, information is available for review.
thank you, I mean, is there any scope for adding one more week?
and should members are allowed to die when we go through the next sort of meetings require that or want that, then that would be up for them to decide, but my recommendation is the Inspector would want six weeks, we are adding a further week for Christmas nothing that would be adequate.
does anybody else have any questions or comments?
I had a discussion afterwards.
there's no discussion, his comments because when we're not committed.
go ahead, if you wish.
his comments. Yes, she's gone, I tend to agree with you about that that they can't in terms of the the plot in terms of the timing and I get the officers' desire to get the get the go away. Officers M and A as a supporter of the Local Plan. I am also keen to get this addressed, but I also think we need to have the fact that we have the officers have taken an awful lot of time and effort to get this report out there ready and I think that
to allow the Parish Councils time to also respond. It would be a good good thing to do a positive thing or reaction, because I think historically, that what's happening with the local plan is being kind of focused along in the past, and I don't think we're in that situation. Now is a far more open process and I'll be keen for us to continue that ongoing process by having a a consultation ystod just looking at my daughter who started on the in the first week of Jack the first week of January, you'd only put yourself six weeks behind one week behind, but you'd also be in a situation where I think that people can actually focus on
and the their first parish council meetings and give them time to respond, because if the first parish council meetings on into the 8th of January 8 through to the 5th, 14th, probably then you've already given that you only given the paper three weeks three weeks to get their thoughts on and are in the process worked together, and I don't think that's long enough. I think there's also other issues that haven't been finalised yet, as I think the officers has recognised that there are still some issues to come to be clarified in terms of transport and one or two other issues, and I think that those issues come as those Con clarifications come forward. Then, hopefully, will also give the Parish Council more time to review and also in people, our residents as well. So I tend to think that we should start consultation in January
thank you anybody else who have any further comments known as debate in other committees, but comments in the cab.
no, I will just jump in on that, I've also done the maths on the timings and will have to discuss that outside this meeting, but I have complete sympathy that I think actually they're starting in January would lose only one week on a six week, consultation from a 7 week consultation in the week before Christmas and therefore it gives people more access to make responses in the new year. But we'll talk about that and I'll take a recommendation to Cabinet next week. Thank you for that.
that being the case, can I just say the speakers who have joined us this evening and the members have we've covered a lot of discussion around yeah, the cost of the plan and the consultant's costs in relation to that the Environment Agency quite a lot of stuff on infrastructure, roads and bridges the conference of green spaces and sports facilities particularly in in Paddock Wood, and there have been questions around the Green Belt assessments and particularly around the Flood Zone 1 and the likelihood of flooding there.
the building and operating of sewage works, the recommendations on the on recommendation for, and the test of soundness by the Inspector that Carlos explained.
bringing wasn't quite wholly answered, but the idea of bringing in some of the consultants as as in the House, which I think because of the own only occasional, hopefully only occasional use of a local plan consultant and probably is not terribly viable always the tenure plan being acceptable to the Inspector and the timing of the consultation which we've now now picked up on so there's been a fairly robust debate this evening now the role and the responsibility of a cab if you go to page 2 of your agenda.
it says options that a Cabinet Advisory Board can consider that the Cabinet Advisory Board is asked to consider each report and in each case come to a consensus and advise the Cabinet which of the three options identified below it supports a is that the Cabinet Advisory Board supports the recommendations within the report, be that the Cabinet Advisory Board supports the recommendations subject to the issues it has identified being taken into account by the Cabinet, with any issues identified being stated and recorded or see. The Cabinet Advisory Board does not support the recommendations on at least one of the following grounds, either one inadequate consultation with stakeholders and or to inadequate evidence on which to base the decision and or 3 insufficient consideration of legal and financial information and or for another reason, as decided by the meeting of the Cabinet Advisory Board, in each case, the final Cabinet report will be amended to outline the options selected by the Cabinet Advisory Board and explain why this option has been selected, and my sense is that, although we have picked up a lot of issues that needs still to be resolved and discussed, at Cabinet, I haven't heard anyone suggesting an amendment to the recommendations which I will read out in a minute.
if you wish to make an amendment, please, let's discuss it now, Steve I would like to make an amendment that we do push back on a six-month and a subsequent care consultation starting in January, that would be my one additional to the requisite recommendations as provided so rather than pushed back we would say we would like the consultation to start in January 2023 comma 6 week basis well with this does anybody speak against that is anyone unhappy if we added that as an amendment?
I sense, not, Will we will have to discuss that, and that's fine to start in January 2024.
brief, OK, thank you for that, is there anything else that people would like to amend in relation to the recommendations to Cabinet, no right, let me read out the recommendation to Cabinet.
the recommendation that has been made to Cabinet, and we are therefore seeking your support for that recommendation, is recommendation 1 Cabinet recommends to Council that the examination of the Local Plan be progressed, in accordance with Section 6 of this report, and the Inspector's option 3, which is a paragraph 5.1 6 and 5.1 7
that the Tudeley Village allocation SDSS 3 be removed from the plan that housing in Paddock Wood and East Caple, which is SDA SSS, 1, be reduced, with all housing being in Flood Zone 1 and employment, land and Flood Zone 2 along with changes to the development strategy at Hawkhurst and revised site a all stroke h A 5 in accordance with the Planning Committee resolution on application reference 22 stroke 0 2 6 6 for stroke, hybrid,
and to remove sight all stroke H A 8 lines Grove
and to progress a 10 year housing land supply position, including the requirement for an immediate review of the plan, and that these changes be subject to public consultation.
recommendation 2 is that the responses to the public consultation be collated and put forward with the additional evidence to the Inspector for further consideration in order to progress the examination of the submission Local Plan.
recommendation 3 that, up until the date of the start of the consultation on the strategic changes to the Local Plan, the Head of Planning be authorised to make minor modifications to the consultation information should it be deemed necessary to correct minor errors for the subject to the conclusion of the consideration of the additional evidence and hearings, should they be necessary by the Inspector and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council receiving a recommendation from him that the local plan can move forward? The main modifications that the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chief Executive, the Leader of the Council and portfolio holder for housing and planning, be granted the authority to undertake the main modification process in accordance with the detailed strategic changes made in this report and a schedule of other modifications, as deemed necessary by the Local Plan Inspector, in order to make the Plan sound and an additional recommendation, 5 that the public consultation, subject to the approval of these recommendations to Full Council in December 2023, should commence in January 2024
okay, so if those are now the recommendations that go forward to Cabinet without a show of hands, can I ask, does everybody or support all those recommendations we do?
you have a query.
sir sorry, Councillor LB, I was just going to ask with the suggested recommendation 5 Did you also want to include the length of the Council 0 sorry, you're right, we should then be six weeks.
OK.
right thank you right, thank you all very much.

7 Urgent Business

8 Date of the Next Meeting

therefore, the recommendations are supported by the Cabinet Advisory Board, thank you moving on to agenda item 7 is to consider any urgent business, I confirm that the IB we have been notified of no such business.
agenda item 8 is the date of the next meeting which will take place on Monday, the 22 of January 2024 soon after the consultation has started.
Webcast Finished - 1:32:35
OK, thank you all very much, very deeply yeah hopefully that is the end of the meeting, thank you.