This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda and minutes
  • Agenda and minutes

    Venue: Darent Room, Sessions House, County Hall, Maidstone. View directions

    Contact: Joel Cook/Anna Taylor  03000 416892/416478

    Media

    Items
    No. Item

    107.

    Minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2016 pdf icon PDF 114 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2016 were an accurate record and that they be signed by the Chairman. 

    Suspension of Procedure Rules

    The Chairman read a statement as follows:

     

    “The constitution states that Members of a Cabinet Committee may serve as ordinary or substitute members of the Scrutiny Committee, UNLESS the Scrutiny Committee is dealing with an item that has been considered by the Cabinet Committee on which they serve.  In these circumstances, they should take no part in the debate or vote on the item.  (Appendix 4 Part 4: Additional Rules applying to the Scrutiny Committee and Select Committees, para 4.1(2))   

     

    Both Mrs Dean and Mr Latchford are members of the Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee which has previously considered the consultation protocol. 

     

    Similarly Mr Brazier (who is substituting for Mr King) and Mr Truelove are members of the Growth Economic Development and Communities Cabinet Committee which has previously received reports on the Regional Growth Fund schemes

     

    The Scrutiny Committee has the power to suspend procedure rules, as set out in Appendix 4, Part 2, para 2.13: Suspension of Procedure Rules

     

    And thus the Scrutiny Committee is asked to agree to suspend the procedure rule as set out in Appendix 4, Part 4, para 4.1(2)  for items C1 & C2 to enable Mr Brazier, Mrs Dean, Mr Latchford and Mr Truelove to take part in the debate and, if necessary, vote on the items.” 

     

    This was agreed.

     

    RESOLVED that the Committee agree to suspend the procedure rule as set out in Appendix 4, Part 4, para 4.1(2)  for items C1 & C2 to enable Mr Brazier, Mrs Dean, Mr Latchford and Mr Truelove to take part in the debate and, if necessary, vote on the items. 

    Additional documents:

    Thanks to Peter Sass

    The Chairman announced that it would be the last formal meeting at Kent County Council (KCC) for Peter Sass, Head of Democratic Services.  He had been an excellent and very helpful officer.  The Committee wished to formally record its strong thanks to Mr Sass for all the positive things he had done for Scrutiny and during his time at KCC, the Committee wished Mr Sass every success in his new role at Wandsworth Council. 

    Additional documents:

    108.

    KCC's Consultation Protocol (response to consultations received), clarification of the requirement to inform Local Members, following KCC's response to planning application OL/TH/16/0550 (Stone Hill Park - Manston) pdf icon PDF 53 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    1.    Mr Latchford introduced this item explaining that in July 2015 KCC unanimously supported the Manston site remaining as an airfield and a motion was agreed to keep an open mind on the future of Manston.  However on 30 August 2016 a letter was written from Kent County Council to Thanet District Council (TDC) ‘strongly supporting’ the Stone Hill Planning application.  Mr Latchford asked on who’s authority was the letter sent.  It was Mr Latchford’s understanding that elected Members decided on policy and officers supported that policy. Mr Latchford also confirmed that he had not been consulted, advised or informed before the letter was sent and this was in breach of the constitution. 

     

    2.     A Member confirmed that the Consultation Protocol had previously been considered by the Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee and that the Cabinet Committee had accepted generally that the local member should have been involved and that the protocol should include such a reference to local member involvement.

     

    3.    There was support for Mr Latchford that the letter sent was ill-advised and that it should have been constructed advising that KCC would strongly support any application which would bring about regeneration in Thanet and that Members all wanted the best for the site, however the letter had been badly worded.

     

    4.    Mr Balfour confirmed that there had been discussions around the use of the site and there had been a resolution at County Council to support a viable use for the land at Manston.  The Cabinet Member apologised for not keeping the local members informed of progress, it was not general practice to ask the opinion of local members on the response to planning applications.  KCC was a consultee on planning applications and this differed from being consulted on planning matters – where members were consulted.   The Cabinet Member did not consider it appropriate for members to tell officers how to respond to planning applications, however in the past discussions had been held between members to ensure certain points were taken into consideration in responses. 

     

    5.    Mrs Cooper explained that the Council dealt with many planning applications, this was a delegation to officers within the council.  On planning application responses officers had not previously consulted members, largely members had approached officers if there were issues to raise.  Mrs Cooper apologised as this was not in line with the consultation protocol, however she had been consistent with how this had been dealt with.  Mrs Cooper did not accept that this was a policy decision, but it was written in accordance with the motion agreed at County Council in July 2015.  At a previous meeting with the Scrutiny Chairman and Spokespeople they had requested that Mrs Cooper send a follow up letter to TDC outlining that the 30 August letter did not indicate a preference for the development outlined in the planning application.  This letter was sent to TDC on 21 September and a letter would be circulated to Scrutiny Committee Members.  

     

    6.    Mr Latchford confirmed that not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

    Motion to Exclude the Press and Public

    RESOLVED that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following business on grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

     

    Additional documents:

    109.

    Regional Growth Fund Schemes - to follow

    Minutes:

    1.    The Chairman welcomed Mr Mark Dance, Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Mrs Barbara Cooper, Corporate Director and Mr David Smith, Director, Economic Development.

     

    2.    Mr Dance briefly outlined the Regional Growth Schemes and, along with his officers answered questions from the Scrutiny Committee Members.

     

    RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee:

     

    3.    Thank Mr Dance, Mrs Cooper and Mr Smith for attending the meeting and answering Members questions on this item. 

     

    4.    Request a report back at their meeting in November 2016 on one of the “Phoenix” companies, and Officers to produce a list of three ‘red’ companies for members to review one more company.