Agenda item

Mr Nick Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste; Mr Mike Austerberry, Executive Director, Environment, Highways and Waste Directorate and Mr Bob White, Transport and Development Business Manager, will attend the meeting between 11.00am – 11.45am to answer Members questions’.

Mr N Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste, Mr M Austerberry, Executive Director for Environment, Highways and Waste,  Mrs B Cooper, Director of Economic Development, Mr B White, Transport and Development Business Manager, Mr T Hillier, Hillreed Homes and Mr A Tull, CDP Architects were present for this item. 

The Chairman explained that this call in was as a result of her being approached as Chairman of the Committee and that it was a decision made by two Cabinet Members in May 2009.  The meeting was not to discuss the decision in terms of guidance, but to consider whether the consultation process in this instance was satisfactory.

Mr White explained the consultation process; a 6 week consultation was undertaken using the Kent Design Initiative’s select list of 87 consultees.  Questionnaires were circulated to all consultees in respect of the three guidance notes, 9 responses were received to two documents and 8 responses to one (the parking document).  Various issues were raised but no specific objections to the documents.    The Chairman queried the 87 consultees set out in appendix 4 of the agenda papers, since Borough Councils accounted for a large number of these consultees eg. six of the consultees were officers of Maidstone Borough Council so it was perhaps unfair to class these as separate consultees, as they were all the same organisation. 

In response to a question from Mr Christie, Mr White explained that Hillreed Homes were on the consultees list and he was satisfied that the letter was sent to Hillreed Homes. 

Mr Tony Hilllier explained that he first became aware of the new standards in August 2009, he had no recollection of the consultation.  The standards had a major impact on housing development, provision, standards and design.  A group of key Kent developers and architect organisations met, none of whom had any recollection of the consultation document.  The group approached Kent County Council’s Cabinet with five concerns:

1. significant design implications;
2. confusion as to appropriate levels of parking;
3. standards would result in increased land take for parking;
4. increased development cost;
5. negative impact on housing delivery across Kent. 

Mr Hiller then approached the Chairman of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee to try to resolve the group’s concerns.  In the view of key developers across Kent there had been no consultation or awareness of the Kent Design Guidance document.  Of the 9 responses there were no specific replies from developers, architects or practitioners; in addition Kent Developers Group was not consulted.  The report document stated that the consultation responses ‘largely lent support’ to the guidance whereas in fact in Mr Hillier’s view none of the responses were supportive, they raised questions and suggested further discussion.  In relation to the 17 housebuilders on the consultee list; Mr Hillier had contacted 13 within the last 5 days, 11 had no recollection of the consultation document, 1 did recall but made no response and 1 was unsure.  Mr Hillier stated that there had not been a serious response from the house building industry on this matter. 

Mr Tull asked why designers were not consulted on the design guide document.  Of 668 architects in Kent only one was consulted as Chairman of Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), how could 8 responses support the guidance document?  Mr Hillier said that the RIBA consultee had confirmed that he had responded in a private capacity not as a representative of RIBA.

Mr Chard explained that he took over the role of Cabinet Member in June 2009, he was aware of correspondence between the Council and Mr Hillier, but there had been no satisfactory resolution.  Mr Chard met with Mr Hillier in November; there were two issues, the consultation and the impact on the developers businesses.  Mr Chard was satisfied that the process was adhered to and he was satisfied that the right quality of people were consulted for the purposes of this consultation. 

In response to a question from the Chairman Mr White explained that the homebuilders’ federation regional group was consulted as was RIBA so it was felt that there was sufficient coverage.     Mr White explained that parking would be design led in accordance with the guidance, there would be similar levels of parking but developments would accommodate properly designed parking.  The consultation was sent out by paper to named individuals on the consultee list.

Mr Christie asked who drew up the Kent Design Initiative network, whether Mr Hillier and Mr Tull were aware of the network and were they part of it.  Mr White explained that it would be beneficial to consider updating the consultation list for future consultations.  Mr Hillier explained that he was aware of the database of the Kent Design Network, however he had no recollection of the consultation.

Mr Manning asked whether the consultees on the list was a representative trawl of affected parties, and did officers feel that 9 responses was a thorough consultation which largely led support.  Mrs Tweed asked whether any effort was made to chase up those consultees who did not respond.  Mr White explained that if there had been major concerns about the documentation they would have become apparent and chasing individuals was not in the nature of the consultation process. 

In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Hillier explained that he was dissatisfied with the explanation that there would be further opportunity for consultation on the guidance notes.

Mr Hillier asked that a list of the developers he contacted regarding the consultation be circulated to Members of the Committee and this was done. 

In response to a question from Members about the outcome he would like to see from the meeting and for future consultations Mr Hillier explained that he would like to see a quick, focussed consultation with the industry on the guidance.  Mr White offered a meeting in the New Year between officers and consultees.  Mr White confirmed that there was a commitment from the Kent Design Initiative to work with the development industry to fully understand the design guide and there would be an opportunity for Member involvement at that meeting.  Mr Austerberry stated that he accepted that consulting 87 individuals was not the same as the Council having consulted 87 separate organisations. However in his opinion officers did consult a representative spread of relevant organisations.  There was a possibility that, in different circumstances, officers could be criticised for a situation in which they had set aside a consultation where the result was not as the Council would have wished.  The decision to recommend changes to parking standards to the districts following the consultation was taken by the two Cabinet Members, and Mr Austerberry did not see any basis for setting aside the consultation and that decision. He made the point that increased parking could be achieved by good design and without necessitating increased land take. KCC was always willing to work with developers in this.

The Chairman stated that it was apparent that many Members did not understand the implications of the changes and there should be an opportunity for Members to be better informed.  Mr White confirmed that there was a commitment from the Kent Design Initiative to work with the development industry to fully understand the design guide and there would be an opportunity for Member involvement.  Mr White confirmed to Mr Hillier that the consultation was not just about implementing the existing standards and that consultation would be about the standards and possible changes if appropriate, and that he would welcome Member involvement at the meeting.

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

1.      Thank Mr Chard, Mr Austerberry, Mrs Cooper, Mr White, Mr Hillier and Mr Tull for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions

2.      Welcome the assurance from the Cabinet Member that a meeting with Developers and Architects would be held as a matter of urgency in the New Year to discuss the details of the standards being proposed, not just to talk about their implementation.

3.      Members should be invited to attend this meeting and the Chairman and Vice Chairmen of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee should be advised at the earliest opportunity regarding the invitees to the meeting to ensure all relevant parties are present.  Practical examples should be demonstrated of how the new standards would be applied so that Members would have a clear idea of the effect of the proposed standards on landtake and street scene, and the deliverability of housing targets.

4.      Ask that the KCC consultation protocol be circulated to all Members, as the Committee was concerned that the protocol might not have been properly applied in this instance and that the Scrutiny Board and/or Corporate POSC be asked to examine whether the Consultation Protocol needed to be amended, in the light of the concerns expressed about this particular consultation, i.e. whether the list of consultees is full and appropriate; whether the method of consultation was appropriate; and whether steps should have been taken to chase up non-respondents.