| Item | Description | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| PART 1 - PUBLIC | ||
| PPP 11/033 |
Minutes |
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
| PPP 11/034 |
Chairman's Announcement |
The Chairman opened the meeting by congratulating former councillors Dobson and Thornewell on the Council's recent decision to admit them as Honorary Freeman in recognition of their service and contribution to the Borough and its residents. |
| PPP 11/035 |
Update on any action identified in the last Minutes. |
The following item was identified: - - Minute Number: PPP 11/027 - Digital Switchover The parish councils confirmed that the information pack containing details of the switchover, the Help Scheme and a DVD film covering all aspects of the change had been received. Wrotham Parish Council asked if there was further information available on the introduction of the Universal Credit. The Chairman responded that it was his belief that nothing further had been received from the Department for Work and Pensions and that definitive guidance was still awaited. However, it was confirmed that once more detail was available the Parish Partnership Panel would be advised. |
| PPP 11/036 |
Electoral Review of Tonbridge and Malling |
The presentation from the Local Government Boundary Commission for England Review Manager (Joan D'Souza) set out the reasons for conducting an electoral review of Tonbridge and Malling. The intention was to provide 'fair representation for all' by ensuring that each borough councillor represented approximately the same number of electors. The criteria for starting an electoral review was where 30% of wards had an electoral variance of more than 10% from the average and/or one ward had an electoral variance more than 30% from the average. It was noted that in Tonbridge and Malling one ward (Kings Hill) had an electoral variance of more than 30% from the average and 38% of wards had an electoral variance of more than 10% from the average. The scope of the review, the statutory criteria, what could not be considered and the review process were outlined in the presentation. Members were advised that a six week consultation process on council size would take place if the preliminary stage proposed significant change. The review process also included further information gathering and parish councils and local communities were encouraged to contribute evidence regarding their local community if the process went to open consultation. The Chairman thanked Ms D'Souza for her presentation and questions were invited from the Panel. In response to a question raised by East Malling and Larkfield Parish Council, it was confirmed that coterminosity of borough wards with county divisions could not be guaranteed. Warding arrangements would be based on the evidence received and the Commission were keen to provide boundaries that reflected natural communities. It was explained that community identity was a significant part of the review which was why communities were encouraged to provide evidence to avoid separation. Copies of the presentation would be circulated with the Minutes and available for viewing on the website in due course. |
| PPP 11/037 |
Kent County Council Services Update |
The Kent County Council Community Engagement Officer (James Harman) referred to the content of a written report tabled prior to the meeting. It was reported that a two day unannounced inspection of Kent's children's social services in November had raised no areas of concern and significant improvements had been made. Particular reference was made to the extension of the Mineral and Waste Development Consultation in order to invite views on supplementary site options for mineral workings and waste facilities. One of the supplementary sites proposed was within the Tonbridge and Malling area at Platt Industrial Estate near Borough Green. The consultation closed on 19 December 2011. In addition, the Household Waste Recycling Centre service was being reviewed and public consultation was open from 1 December 2011 until 9 February 2012. Proposals put forward included prohibiting the types of deposits, limiting construction waste and the introduction of a permit scheme. Members expressed concern regarding some of the proposals put forward and referred to tensions regarding Medway City Council and the Cuxton site. The Chairman advised that the Borough Council Cabinet Member for Environmental Services (Councillor Howard Rogers) would be involved in submitting a response to Kent County Council and parish councils were encouraged to express their views so that a joint submission could be made. East Malling and Larkfield Parish Council referred to library services for the future and questioned the process of public consultation, timescales and engagement with local communities. In response, it was explained that the County Council were keen to engage with local communities to develop an appropriate model to provide library services. Members asked that further information on the library services review and consultation be provided at the next meeting of the Parish Partnership Panel. The Chairman recommended that the Borough Council Cabinet Member for Communities (Councillor Owen Baldock) lead the consultation response and parish councils were encouraged to express views so that a joint submission could be made. In addition, Mr Harman advised that it was part of his role to ensure that Tonbridge and Malling was fully informed and this would be his priority for the next few months. The Chairman asked that the methodology to be adopted by the County Council be shared with the Borough and Parish Councils. The consultation regarding the proposed changes to Kent County Council Youth Services closed at the end of October and Members queried how the initial decision could be discussed with Tonbridge and Malling given there was no Locality Board in the Borough. The Chairman referred to a recent meeting with the County Council Cabinet Member for Communities (Mike Hill) and Borough Council Members and Officers in which it had been agreed that both authorities would review the data as the Borough Council had raised some doubt over the accuracy of the information. At this meeting the Borough Council and other key stakeholders had also raised significant concerns over the timescales and proposals and had been advised by the County Council Cabinet Member for Communities that these were not definitive and there would be further opportunity for discussion before a final decision on youth service provision was reached. The Chairman also believed that the new model would not be in operation until September 2012. Snodland Town Council raised concern and expressed insecurity regarding the initial decision timetable set out in the written report as this suggested this would be made in the New Year. If this was the case, it was different to what had been discussed with the County Cabinet Member for Communities. The Panel requested the Director of Planning, Transport and Leisure to write to Kent County Council emphasising the divergence of views between the authorities and querying the timetable. Finally, Members expressed serious concern and disappointment at the way Kent County Council undertook public consultation and the lack of notice given, especially on issues that impacted significantly on communities. Mr Harman advised that better integration between County Council teams, following the recent restructures, should improve communication and invited parishes to provide examples of past problems. It was noted that the Parish Partnership Panel provided an opportunity for all three tiers of local government (parish, borough and county council) to discuss issues and it was observed with some disappointment that there was no Member representative from the County Council in attendance at this meeting. The Chairman thanked Mr Harman for his contribution to the meeting. Responses to the questions posed were provided subsequent to the meeting and were circulated with the Minutes and made available for viewing on the website. |
| PPP 11/038 |
Police liaison. |
Chief Inspector Kirby, Borough Commander for Tonbridge and Malling, provided an overview of the achievements made in performance and in the neighbourhood policing agenda. Members were advised of a 2.4% reduction in all crime for the borough up to the end of October. The latest update to the end of November showed a reduction of 3% in all crime. Particular reference was made to the recent restructure within Kent Police and the new management structure was set out in the presentation. It was noted that the Tonbridge and Malling Neighbour Team now had four inspectors with Inspector Nick Sparkes having responsibility for parishes in the north of the borough. In addition, there was an increase in the number of officers and this would be publicised in parish newsletters. Chief Inspector Kirby also assured Members that he was keen to retain the existing number of PCSOs and committed to ensuring continuity for communities. Chief Inspector Kirby was also confident that communication with residents would improve. Hadlow Parish Council referred to a new police initiative tackling drink drivers, where offenders were sentenced on the same day, and asked whether this would be rolled out in Tonbridge. Chief Inspector Kirby advised that the pilot was likely to be undertaken in Maidstone due to its proximity to the court. [Update: Subsequent to the meeting Chief Inspector Kirby advised that 'virtual courts' were helping to speed up the judicial process in Kent. They had been a success in North Division, where they had been trialled since 2009 using Medway Magistrates' Court. The system saved time by not having to physically transfer a defendant, allowing them to appear for their first hearing by video link from the police station to the court, and electronic case file sharing. More than 1,400 people had already appeared using 'virtual courts' in Kent. The system had been extended to Folkestone, with Canterbury, Maidstone and Margate due to be up and running by April 2012. Live links where police officers, and potentially other witness, could also give statements electronically would also be introduced around the county. Particular reference was made to the introduction of the 101 non-emergency phone number available to residents to call Kent Police for non-urgent issues. The number was available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Chairman thanked Chief Inspector Kirby for his contribution to the meeting. |
| PPP 11/039 |
Licensing Act 2003 |
The Chief Solicitor summarised the proposals to deregulate Schedule 1 of the Licensing Act 2003, contained within the consultation paper published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. A draft response had been considered and approved by the Licensing and Appeals Committee on 30 November 2011. It was explained that the Government considered that the regulation of entertainment within the Licensing Act 2003 was overly bureaucratic and placed an unnecessary and heavy administrative burden and cost on the voluntary and community sector. Therefore, one of the key aims of the proposal was to remove licensing regulation that restricted creativity or participation in cultural events. Members of the Licensing and Appeals Committee had expressed concern regarding public safety and quality of life for affected neighbours. There were also concerns regarding the capacity figure of 5000 and it was agreed that 500 was a more appropriate threshold. The Chairman encouraged parish councils to make representations to reinforce the message and if they were in broad agreement with the Borough Council's position to write and stress their support. A Member shared his experience of being a licence holder and outlined the problems and expense associated with educational/training activities. Members believed that low level community style events should see a minimisation of the bureaucracy and costs to local and voluntary organisations. The Parish Partnership Panel noted the key points of the consultation response and supported the draft submission, subject to the comments raised by the Licensing and Appeals Committee on 30 November 2011 and the reference to low level community style events as set out above. |
| PPP 11/040 |
National Planning Policy Framework - Consultation |
The Director of Planning, Transport and Leisure reported that the Government were consulting on a draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This consolidated 1000 pages of existing policy and guidance into a document only 52 pages long. It was explained that the NPPF was going to be an extremely important document once it was finalised as it would determine the way the future Local Plan was prepared and would have a strong bearing on decisions on planning applications. The key theme of the document was delivering sustainable development. Concern was expressed regarding the unqualified presumption in favour of development and the effect of that on potential future pressures for development. This did not balance well with other ambitions of the NPPF in protecting the countryside. The potential difficulties associated with the proposed duty to cooperate in addressing wider housing demand was expressed, in the case of underachievement of neighbouring authorities. Particular reference was made to Neighbourhood Plans and it was noted that the Localism Act envisaged the commencement of this provision by late 2012. In addition, it was noted that the primary purpose of Neighbourhood Plans was to promote development in local communities. The Chairman remarked that it was up to individual parishes to decide whether they wanted to develop Neighbourhood Plans and it would be appropriate to arrange a focus meeting to offer advice and guidance once the NPPF was published. Members welcomed and supported this suggestion. |