Agenda item

To receive a report that sets out the role of the Commission and introduces the initial views expressed by Kent County Council.

1.            The Economic Strategy and Policy Manager, Mr Gill, introduced a report that sets out the role of the Commission and introduced the initial views expressed by Kent County Council.  He highlighted the following:

Ø  The Commission was at an early stage and the Terms of Reference had not been settled.

Ø  The aim of the Commission was to have a 30 year view of planning and economic development.

Ø  The Commission’s membership would include the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Minster for the Thames Gateway, a number of prominent experts in planning and development.  A full list would be forwarded to Members when available.

Ø  The Leader asked for the County Council’s views to be sent in early.  The County Council response focus included (i) solutions to the infrastructure funding gap identified in the Growth and Infrastructure Framework; and (ii) emphasised the wider infrastructure investment required for projects such as the Lower Thames Crossing and the impact on the A2, Dover.

2.            Mr Gill responded to questions by Members as follows:

a)    Mr Truelove made the following points:

·      This was a significant report that required Kent wide political input.

·      KCC Members views were not sort before the response was produced and submitted.

·      The bullet points made in the report and considered that the infrastructure deficit was crucial.

·      Economic polarization was critical.

·      This was an excellent response and KCC needed to continue to influence what happened in the future.

Mr Dance thanked Mr Truelove for his comments and advised that this was the opening stage and Members were being asked for their ideas.

b)    Mr Baldock raised the following points regarding the accuracy of the report:

·      Referring to paragraph 1.1 - Need to ensure that there is no confusion between Thames Gateway and Thames Estuary in the text.

·      Referring to paragraph 1.3 – The areas covered were wider than previously consider

·      Referring to paragraph 2.2 – This bullet point was welcomed.  Referring to page 37 – He considered that the Science Park was not as prominent as it was six months ago due to the change of ownership.  The potential for housing at Rushenden should read “1200”.  He accepted that the figures were continually adjusted.

·      Referring to page 41 – The A2 was indicated to be outside the boundary He considered that for consistency this should read “that it should be inside the boundary of focus”.  With regard to the second bullet point he had concerns that KCC was perpetuating that journey times were greatly improved for much of North Kent.  He considered that this was not true for those living outside the main station. Those that were off the High Speed 1 North coast were having extended journey times.  This needed to be reflected.

·      Referring to page 47, paragraph 2.2.3 – This was hugely important as Lower Thames Crossing is indicated to go to the A2/M2 with no guaranteed progress of the traffic from the A2/M2 corridor onto the M20/A20 corridor.

·      Referring to page 51, paragraph 2.3.15 – He considered that if the full potential of the new project, KCC needed to look at the whole of North Kent.  He suggested that Swale Borough Council’s Local Plan reflected the next 20 years incorporating the opportunities for investment in Brenley Corner on the A2.

c)    Mr Sweetland made the following points:

·      Referring to page 46, paragraph 2.2.1, he questioned and sought clarification on the wording “the Government’s strongly supports for a Lower Thames Crossing to the east of Gravesend”, saying that he understood that the government had not made a decision.

·      Mr Gill advised that the way the wording was phrase in the report was short hand for the fact that that was the only option the government consulted on rather than any formal decision on the consultation being made yet by the government.

·      Mr Sweetland stressed that he considered that the author of the report was wrong to word the report in this manner.

·      Mr Gill reiterated that this was not his decision but rested with the Leader of the County Council and others.  He considered that the report aimed to set out information on housing numbers etc, but agreed that there was information within the report that was inaccurate as highlighted by Mr Baldock.  The aim was to set out a broad pitch for KCC’s requirements of the Growth Commission as it starts work.

·      Mr Sweetland formally asked that the Minutes reflected that information in the report was factually incorrect.

·      Mr Clark commented on his surprise that the links to Maidstone were not a core part of the report, especially regarding Bluebell hill, A229 and Sittingbourne Road, A249.  He considered that there would be a migration of people to and from Maidstone. With economic growth going west to east he found it astounding that Maidstone was not mentioned Mr Gill advised that there was no boundary. 

·      Mr Gill explained that Mr Clark’s comments reflected the big challenges in the Strategic Planning Zones.  KCC had set out what this meant for the area set out by the Commission for Kent, but it was difficult to where you draw the boundary when focusing on the area that the Commission is focusing on. Mr Clark made a request that this be considered in future discussions.

·      Mr Brazier spoke for the small local communities that were concerned that there would be pressures on their rural areas for leisure etc and housing.  He was concerned that there was no acknowledgement of the concept of the Thames Gateway.  This needed to be planned for.   

3.            RESOLVED that:-

(a)  the comment and responses to questions by Members are noted; and

(b)  subject to the corrections highlighted by Members being made the initial response to the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission be noted.