CHESTFIELD PARISH COUNCIL MINUTES of the VIRTUAL PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD at 2.30PM on 25 October 2020

CHESTFIELD PARISH COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE VIRTUAL PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD AT 2.30PM ON 25 October 2020

Background to this “virtual” meeting: Regulations enabling town and parish councils to lawfully conduct virtual meetings by video and telephone conferencing until May 2021 have been published. The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 came into force on 4 April. The legislation allows for virtual meetings if required up to May 2021. This meeting was held using Zoom as a virtual hosting platform. Agendas were posted on the village noticeboards as usual and also to the parish council’s website. This clearly explained that members of the public are still able “attend” a parish council meeting either online or by telephone and included details of the meeting link or phone number and the PIN code for access to enter.

Present: Parish Cllr Steve Bailey (Chairman) Parish Cllr Chris Brealy (Vice Chairman) Parish Cllr Chris Ellis Parish Cllr David Fitzpatrick Parish Cllr Bob Todd Parish Cllr Anne Loder Parish Cllr Pat Gibson Parish Cllr Lorraine East Parish Cllr Tricia Chapman CCC Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding KCC Cllr Robert Thomas Amanda Sparkes, Clerk to the Council Three residents

49. Chairman’s Welcome Cllr Bailey welcomed everyone to the meeting. He thanked everyone for their personal messages to him which have made him feel better. He said he was back up to full steam again. There were no apologies for absence.

50. Members’ Interests Cllr Gibson declared an interest if there was to be any discussion on noise reduction measures to the surface of the A299 Thanet Way due to the proximity of her home. Cllr Fitzpatrick declared an interest in the cricket club agenda item as he has been helping the Club with planning matters. He also declared an interest in the Vattenfall Solar Farm application as one of the residents with concerns is known to him. Cllr Brealy declared an interest in the Vattenfall application also as part of the proposal covers Hollamby Estates land.

51. Minutes of the meeting held on 23 August 2020 Cllr Bailey proposed, Cllr Gibson seconded and all Cllrs were happy that the Minutes be accepted as a true record of the meeting and the Chairman will sign them by post after the meeting.

52. Adjournment of the meeting There were three members of the public present for the entire meeting. A resident gave a big thank you for the installation of the sleeper bridge now installed at the back of Radfall Recreation ground. The Clerk explained that this had been carried out and funded by the KCC Public Rights of Way team, and confirmed that the parish council had first requested this improvement about two years ago. A resident gave a big thank you to the parish council for the grant given to the Cricket Club earlier in the year and explained she was gathering invoices to send in as evidence of spend soon. A resident advised of fly tipping at the top end of Radfall Ride, where this included many boxes of marketing materials, with an identifiable company on them. He explained he has reported this with photographs to CCC. Cllr Fitter-Harding offered to chase this. 35

The meeting continued.

53. CCC Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding report Canterbury City Council Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding advised that Kitewood has been digging archaeological excavations, with a series of long trenches, at Grasmere Pasture. They found some Roman Pottery. Cllr Bailey advised that he has the contact details of the Archaeologist and that the History Society may be interested. Cllr Ellis explained that there had been a Pottery Installation on the east side of the village historically. Cllr Fitter-Harding explained that CCC is budget setting. The current council tax income is £11m, but the cap next year is £9m, so the budget is challenging. He explained that the Committee of Council decided this week that the district’s Forums have been abolished. Alternative methods of consultation will be undertaken in the future. There has already been a very successful closed CCC meeting with parish representatives about the future of concurrent function funding (although this does not affect Chestfield). There has also been a change to the call-in arrangements for planning applications where call-ins must come through a ward councillor in future (both of these items are reported more under Planning below in these Minutes). Cllr Bailey questioned whether Chestfield’s two ward councillors – Cllr Fitter-Harding as Leader of CCC and Cllr Todd as the current Lord Mayor would have to declare an interest – and Cllr Fitter-Harding confirmed that this would not be the case.

54. KCC Cllr Robert Thomas report KCC Cllr Robert Thomas gave apologies for missing the August Chestfield Parish Council meeting. He explained that he had received recent correspondence regarding speeding traffic on Molehill Road, which the Clerk had also been copied into, and to which she had replied. Cllr Thomas explained that he would speak to the Highways Stewards regarding a possible speed limit reduction for Molehill Road. This is ongoing.

Cllr Thomas advised that the government has awarded £4.4m Department for Transport funding for improvements to the Thanet Way. The DfT money is specifically to provide longer term solutions to the worst areas of undulations rather than general surfacing maintenance. Kent Highways is in the process of arranging detailed site investigations so have not fully determined which areas will be addressed, but apart from a couple of short stretches on the coastbound carriageway to the east of the Chestfield, the majority of the areas of concern are elsewhere on the Thanet Way. KCC’s position is that KCC does not carry out road surface improvement works for noise reasons alone, nor does KCC use or apply surfacing materials purely for their noise-reducing properties. This is because it would take vital resource away from renewing roads that have reached the end of their serviceable life, and it would also shorten the lifespan of such roads, with less efficient outcomes from investment. Surfacing materials are selected based on ground conditions and their engineering properties. Notwithstanding this, KCC has in the last 3 or 4 years resurfaced considerable sections of the Thanet Way in the Chestfield area, partly to deal with undulations and partly to make the route more resilient given Manston’s airport planned use to manage lorry movements in the event of a disorderly exit from the European Union. These works will have reduced road noise by virtue of it being a newer surface compared to an older, worn surface.

Cllr Thomas advised that he attended this year’s Rail Summit. Planned improvements include a third platform for the Canterbury West station and DDA improvements. He will share the presentation slides by email.

Cllr Thomas explained that KCC is currently consulting on their budget for 2021-2022. He also advised that KCC has reconfirmed its commitment to free school for children or people in hunger need.

Cllr Thomas explained that a KCC employee won an initiative called “Summer Slide” for children which should have started this year but has been delayed until next year. Cllr Thomas is supporting this.

Cllr Thomas advised that he has awarded the Far Academy (an educational academy and registered charity with skateboard project) at Chestfield a Member Grant to purchase a new minibus.

Cllr Brealy asked to record thanks to KCC Highways officers who helped when a tree fell on a power line by the junction of The Drive with Chestfield Road.

55. Planning Current planning matters and planning applications are contained in Appendix 2 of Cllrs meeting paperwork - that had been previously circulated to all cllrs. Decisions reached and latest information is now attached as an appendix to these minutes. The Clerk asked to record thanks to Cllr Fitzpatrick for all his assistance with planning recently, as there has been a lot to consider.

CPRE short guide to the Planning White Paper RECEIVED the Clerk narrative of the CPRE short guide to the Planning White Paper and the eight major changes within it. This is included as a separate appendix to these Minutes.

CCC “Our future district to 2040: Local Plan Transport virtual Conference” RECEIVED the Clerk’s writeup of the CCC “Our future district to 2040: Local Plan Transport virtual Conference” held on 21 October 2020. This is included as a separate appendix to these Minutes.

Future of the CCC Forums A link to the agenda is at https://democracy.canterbury.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=666&MId=12549 This meeting can be viewed on UTube at the following link: https://youtu.be/y8m2UkKmETQ

The Clerk watched the CCC Governance meeting on UTube on 07 October 2020 when this item was discussed. There were 3 options: Option A – Continue as now Option B – Replace forums with consultation workshops Option C – Abolish the forums

The meeting started with the election of a Chair for this committee – and Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding was elected. Matthew Archer, Head of CCC Corporate Governance explained that this item had been tabled at the request of Cllr Fitter-Harding. This section of the meeting lasted for 1 hour 50 minutes. There were 13 pre-recorded public speakers – all but one of them asking for Option A - that the Forums be retained and continue as now (one speaker urged Option B). They argued that they were well attended; were valuable; that the informal environment encouraged public speaking, and enabled open informal discussion with residents and parish councils.

Members discussed this item. The Community Governance Review undertaken in 2018 saw the previous Area Member Panels replaced with the Forums in late 2018. A Community Governance Review is undertaken every 10-15 years. An amendment was suggested by Cllr Cornell (Labour) that as the Forums are not currently meeting and there was no suggestion prior to COVID-19 that they weren’t working, that the decision should be postponed until March 2021. Some members felt that the Forums were well attended (the second best attendance after planning meetings), although the Herne Bay forum has been less successful. The push for this item is to make financial savings. Although there was no detail of costs/cost savings in the report and some members urged for this information prior to a decision that would remove democracy from people, and argued that as forums were not currently taking place there was no cost currently, and that as they had only run for 18 months they had not been effectively tested.

The forums are non-decision making meetings. Some members felt that the public should be urged to speak at decision-making CCC meetings only. And that public engagement can include use of social media and email and walkabouts by ward councillors. However when the amendment to postpone the decision was put to the vote the motion fell by 4 Cllrs for, and 6 against. (Voting and comments through the meeting was strictly on party political lines; 6 Conservative and 4 Labour or Lib Dem). The proposal therefore to abolish the Forums was put to the vote and was carried 6/4 – so forums will not resume. Matthew Archer advised that consultation with parish councils will still take place, but in a different way.

This decision was to be ratified at the CCC Committee of Council at their meeting on Thursday 15 October 2020 at 4pm. However, this meeting had to be abandoned after 30 minutes due to technical difficulties where it did not livestream, and was rescheduled to 22 October 2020. The Committee of Council voted 10/7 to abolish the Forums.

Change to the call-in arrangements for planning applications, considered by the CCC Governance Committee on 7 October. An email was received on 30 September about a report going to the CCC Governance Committee on 7 October. A link to the agenda is at https://democracy.canterbury.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=666&MId=12549 This meeting can be viewed on UTube at the following link: https://youtu.be/y8m2UkKmETQ

In summary: • the proposals seek to cement the role of ward councillors at the heart of the call-in process and encourage them to work with the planning officers to develop solutions that address the concerns of local groups and residents. • The call-in rights of Parish Councils and the amenity groups of the Whitstable Society, Herne Bay Residents Association and the Canterbury Heritage and Design Forum would be removed. • Parish Councils and the amenity groups would instead liaise with their local ward councillor(s) about concerns. • The Ward councillor may still request that an application is brought before the planning committee, provided material planning grounds are given for doing so – and only for applications for which wider public interest necessitates consideration by the committee. • Currently if four or more objections are received from four or more people the application must be reported to committee – this provision is to be removed in future. • Applications that do not accord with the Development Plan must be reported to committee for decision. • Applications made by officers and Members of the Council must also be reported to committee for decision. • None of the proposed changes affect the statutory consultation process or the speaking arrangements at committee. • Further details of the rationale behind the proposals can be found in the report. • Key points include that the majority (93%) of applications in the district are determined under delegated powers without going to committee, and that the revised proposals are consistent with the current arrangements in the majority of other districts in Kent, whereby a parish council/amenity group does not have the ability to directly request that a planning application be reported to the committee, and neither are applications reported to the planning committee because of the number of public representations received.

Chestfield Parish Council’s Response sent on 03 October 2020: To: Colin Carmichael, CCC CEX Head of Planning Simon Thomas Head of Corporate Governance, Matthew Archer Ward Councillors, Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding and Cllr Pat Todd

Re: Proposed changes to the call-in arrangements for planning applications, to be considered by the CCC Governance Committee on 7 October.

This is an appalling idea. Justifying it because 93% of apps are delegated is illogical. That is the case because those apps are not controversial. It's a bit like saying that 93% of people are law abiding so it's unnecessary to have a police force.

With less than a week invited for parishes’ comments, especially where the majority of parish clerks are part-time is very poor.

Nowhere in the report does it explain why the decision has suddenly come out of the blue when CCC officers have surely been working on this for some time and Members aware of it.

The proposal and process offered for comment shows outrageous contempt for the position of parish councils as statutory consultees.

Relying on Ward Cllrs is not good enough because many vote along party lines. And of course, the ward councillor’s view would need to align with that of the parish council.

Additionally, what about those parishes whose ward councillors sit on the planning committee? This brings up the question of whether, if one of them calls in an application, can they vote on the decision? And does a call in constitute pre-determination?

The power to call in an application is rarely used by the parish council and always carefully considered. We do not abuse it. The proposed change will concentrate the decision making into the hands of paid planning officers and politically aligned city councillors.

Parish Councillors and Clerks have spent hundreds of hours going through planning applications and applied our knowledge both of planning and local issues - as a voluntary service to help our communities and the planning department. The report talks about making this change to improve its efficiency - there is no recognition of the resources we deploy to assist the District. Parish Councils should be seen less as a nuisance but rather a valuable resource.

The report states that many other Districts in the County do not empower parishes / amenity groups to have a planning matter called in, thus leaving the decision to an officer rather than a committee debate and decision. This is not a good reason for Canterbury to follow suit. Canterbury’s current arrangement should be held up as good practice. Indeed, the parish council believes the current Canterbury model should be applied across the County instead.

The current arrangements have been in place for many, many years and worked well. The number of objectors required to force an application to committee did rise some years back from 3 valid objectors to four being required. This was accepted amicably.

Furthermore, is the Development Plan so clear that it is easy to tell if an application departs from it?

Chestfield Parish Council strongly urges CCC to rethink introducing this new arrangement and retain the status-quo for democracy.

A response was received the same day from Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding who said, “I've seen a few communications already, some along similar lines. For me, this is very much about making Planning more transparent and efficient, and ensuring that Ward Councillors, who represent the Planning Authority, are involved as early as possible in problematic applications. Oftentimes Ward Councillors can be instrumental in mediating, conditions and S106 agreements, resulting in better outcomes than if applications circumvent them and go straight to Committee.”

And TO NOTE the reply from the CCC Head of Planning on 04 October 2020:

“As you know the planning team currently works very closely with Parish Councils when planning applications are submitted and many parish councils also currently work very closely with their ward councillors. It is important that these working relationships continue and the proposed changes to the procedure will not impact on these; in fact they are intended to enhance these working relationships.

Development that is not in line with the Local Plan will continue to be reported to the planning committee, so these arrangements will not result in delegated decisions being made for development that are outside of the local plan, for example for new dwellings in the countryside.

When a ward councillor decides to call-in a planning application, this does not necessarily preclude them from sitting on the planning committee for that application, as long as they have not predetermined the application. The decision to call-in an application is a procedural one, so the ward councillor is not required to say whether they support or oppose the application in order to exercise their call-in powers and as such they will still be able to vote on the application at committee.”

TO NOTE Cllr Bailey, as Chairman of Chestfield Parish Council emailed Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding as the Chestfield Ward councillor and new Leader of the Council at CCC with further thoughts:

“As you may well have gathered it is evident that parish councils (not just your own ward), are somewhat disappointed with CCC's proposals to change the current planning process.

In referring to Simon Thomas' earlier email, he has given due acknowledgement to the fact that his department have in the past worked closely with Chestfield Parish Council on many planning issues. This collaborative way of working has proved extremely beneficial at times, and has also served to demonstrate to our parishioners how the Parish Council is openly and transparently representing them as a body.

Whilst I am fully supportive of finding ways to streamline the current planning process, I would respectfully suggest that this proposal put forward by CCC is perhaps one step too far, too quickly, without consultation or consideration towards the individual wards.

Many Parish Councils within the area (and perhaps throughout the County) hold planning surgeries specifically to discuss with residents and applicants alike, in an effort to gain a better understanding of each differing application. We have at times mediated between different parties - something we see as a worthwhile service, and one that guarantees certain elements of the transparency that we feel our parishioners deserve.

Whilst I would agree that all planning applications come with their own emotive issues, particularly in more rural areas such as Chestfield, I feel that the proposal to move into a more digitalised system - whilst agreeing that it is overall 'the way forward' - should be discussed in more detail with all Parish Councils prior to any decisions being made by a Governance Committee who may well not have correctly gauged the general outpouring of discontent surrounding this issue.”

TO NOTE an email from Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding on 06 October 2020 as follows:

Here is a brief summary of my thoughts.

Parish Councils play a vital role in planning at the local level, that is not in dispute and there are no changes proposed to their role as a statutory consultee. Their representations will still be given the same weight and they will still be able to speak at Committee where appropriate.

The change to call-ins is universal, not specific to Parish Councils. As the planning authority, its elected representatives need to operate effectively to work with residents, groups and Councils within their wards on planning matters.

Ward councillors have full access to the planning authority’s resources and are able to mediate, work to secure S106 agreements and work to secure conditions to ensure responsible development and minimise the impact on other residents. Involvement of ward councillors at an early stage yields far 40 better outcomes than an application being referred directly to committee, whether the source of that referral is automatic due to objections, a group/society/association, or a Parish Council.

It is my strong belief that, whilst many Parish Councils are thorough and responsible when it comes to planning applications and referrals, the entire system benefits by building in the need to work with ward councillors. The proposed changes have sufficient fail-safes to ensure this is not problematic due to personal or political reasons and many Parish Councils are already working well with their District counterparts. As such, this procedural change will not have any impact on the day to day workings of most Parish Councils, but simply standardises call-in arrangements so that they are applied fairly and equally across the district and are transparent and simple for the public to understand.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on matters relating to planning and know that the Parish Council under your leadership will continue to be an excellent partner and consultee in this regard.

I hope that helps explain my position and that you and others will be able to see the merit in the approach. Close working with Parish Councils is fundamental and this change, along with a dedicated and regular meeting between the District and Parishes (in place of Rural Forum), will help to ensure that is increasingly cemented.

CCC Governance meeting on 07 October 2020 to make a recommendation on proposals: The Clerk watched the CCC Governance meeting on 07 October 2020 when this item was discussed. The proposal was to - remove the right of parish councils and the 3 urban amenity groups representing Canterbury, Herne Bay and Whitstable unparished areas to call-in a planning application to the planning committee, and - remove the trigger of 4 or more objections forcing an application to planning committee.

This section of the meeting lasted for 1 hour 20 minutes. There were 7 pre-recorded public speakers – all but one of them asking for the proposal to be rejected. They argued that the right of call-in is not abused, that local knowledge, given voluntarily was a valuable resource, and that this was non-democratic. There were 17 pages of detailed written representations. Parish councils take their responsibility carefully, there are only a tiny number of call- ins, but very significant parish council time devoted. Members of the planning committee can go against the officer recommendation.

Simon Thomas, Head of CCC Planning explained that the proposal is about strengthening the role of Ward Cllrs, not about taking input away from parish councils and amenity groups. 50% of applications that are taken to committee are by the 4 or more trigger and objectors have often not been in contact with the ward councillor. The proposal would strengthen the role of the councillor and they could act as a broker. Government advice is to determine applications under officer delegated authority unless the application: - is in the wider public interest - does not accord with the Canterbury District Local Plan - is made by either an officer or councillor.

Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding proposed and Cllr Flack seconded the proposal for removal. Members discussed this item. An amendment was suggested by Cllr Cornell (Labour) that the proposal should go out to consultation. He felt the rule of 4 benefited those in high density areas and not all areas are represented by parish councils. He felt consultation to seek alternative options should be undertaken, such as looking at the rule of 4 only applying to those from different households. Some members felt that it right that elected ward members should be the one to call in. They also argued that whipping of councillors does not take place and any evidence of it should be reported to either the CCC Monitoring Officer or the Police, or both. Other comments included that ward councillors and parish council’s views do not always align; that ward councillors should not have to act as arbitrators; that the removal would lead to both more applications going to committee and more work for ward councillors and officers; parish councils and 41 amenity groups provide free, skilled, information and local knowledge to CCC; officers are not always right; the proposals are unnecessary and undemocratic, and that the system works pretty well now and decisions are usually right.

However, when the amendment to go to further consultation was put to the vote the motion fell by 4 Cllrs for, and 6 against. (Voting and comments through the meeting was strictly on party political lines; 6 Conservative and 4 Labour or Lib Dem).

The proposal therefore to remove the right of call-in and remove the trigger of 4 objections was put to the vote and was carried 6/4 – so the right and trigger will no longer exist. Parish Councils will still be statutory consultees on all applications in their parish (this is a legal requirement) and be able to speak at the planning committees but only on any application that is called-in to a meeting. Ward Councillors can also speak to the planning meeting on a parish council’s behalf. Parish Councils and members of the public should still continue to make representations on applications. Cllr Barbara Flack (Chair of the newly abolished Rural Forum) explained that all applications are considered on their merits, policy and the NPPF; working with ward councillors will give greater strength; parish councils can contact the Planning Officer and Head of Planning going forward; parish councils can suggest items for S106 agreements; that they can suggest modifications and amendments to any scheme; and that the future approach would not take anything away but enhance and strengthen the role of everyone.

The above decision was to be ratified at the CCC Committee of Council at their meeting on Thursday 15 October 2020 at 4pm. However, this meeting had to be abandoned after 30 minutes due to technical difficulties where it did not livestream, and was rescheduled to 22 October 2020. This meeting can be viewed at https://youtu.be/ru4H5sqhSJA The Committee of Council voted 10/7 and the motion was carried, with the right of parish councils/amenity groups removed and the trigger of 4 also removed.

A further representation was sent ahead of the 15/22 October meeting, as follows:

13 October 2020 To: Colin Carmichael, CCC CEX; Simon Thomas, CCC Head of Planning; Matthew Archer, CCC Head of Corporate Governance Robin Treacher, Chair, Canterbury area of the Kent Association of Local Councils Membership of the Committee of Council: Councillor Baldock; Councillor Carnac; Councillor Clark; Councillor Cook; Councillor Cornell; Councillor Dawkins; Councillor Dixey; Councillor Eden-Green; Councillor Fitter-Harding; Councillor Flack; Councillor Glover; Councillor Harvey-Quirke; Councillor Howes; Councillor Sole; Councillor I Stockley; Councillor J Stockley; Councillor Wilson

Change to the call-in arrangements for planning applications, considered by the CCC Governance Committee on 7 October 2020 and to be considered again at the Committee of Council on Thursday 15 October 2020. We understand that the vast majority of the parish councils in the Canterbury district made written or verbal representations objecting to the proposal to withdraw the right of call-in by parish councils (and the relevant urban equivalent amenity groups), together with removing the trigger of 4 or more objections sending an application to the planning committee. The district’s parish councils therefore are dismayed and disappointed at the Governance Committee resolving to withdraw both elements in the planning process. Parish Councils are statutory elected bodies, and are a safeguard for democracy, accusations of party politics, and they protect and empower people who find it hard to engage in the planning process. These measures if ratified will disincentivise many parish councillors to be involved in planning, who are currently actively involved in planning, to the detriment of quality and standards of build. CCC has admitted in its own report that there is no financial implication for doing so.

Cllr Flack (the Chair of the newly abolished Rural Forum) commented during the meeting that CCC were not taking anything away, but were rather enhancing and strengthening the process. However, removing something rarely enhances or strengthens. To only allow call-ins via ward councillors is considered short sighted and problematic. Examples were given by speakers at the Governance meeting of where the ward councillor view does not concur with that of the parish council. This could be worsened in parish councils represented by just a single ward councillor. Parish Council involvement in planning applications and on occasion speaking directly to the case officer, and often directly to concerned residents, saves time for ward councillors. Some city councillors at the Governance committee stated that they would not be happy to act as arbitrators, and with any request made to them for a call-in, would do just that. We support the view of some of them too, who expressed that the changes would increase the workload of both ward councillors, and that of officers too. The Governance committee report states that these changes are to help with the concerns about officers’ capacity. The appendix in the report gives detailed numbers of call-ins for the years 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020: 2018-2019 2019-2020 Total: Total no. of call-ins 125 74 For the trigger of 4 or 71 36 53% of the total over more the two-year period Parish 5 8 Less than 8% of the Council/amenity body total over the call-in two-year period

We would urge that the councillors on the Committee of Council are able to vote on each withdrawal proposal as a separate item. It is clear that the number of call-ins by parish councils is very small indeed, but there is a significant contribution in parish councils’ voluntary time and input. A separation of the voting for the two withdrawals may enable the right of call-in for parish council and amenity groups to be retained. It seems sensible for the trigger of 4 to either be removed or adjusted – a suggestion could be for the trigger number to rise to 8 – and for objectors to be from separate households / not related. Furthermore, perhaps mandatory contact with the relevant ward councillor should be introduced if the trigger level mechanism was retained but with a higher trigger, so that the ward councillor may act as a broker for improvements/amendments if appropriate, to make an application more acceptable. We do hope that the Committee of Council members will see the strength of feeling that this item has caused throughout our sector, unifying those concerned. However, we would conclude this representation, that, if the proposal is ratified on 15 October 2020, that we would urge and welcome a review of the arrangements in 6-12 months’ time, to see if they are working, or whether consideration to reverting to the system we had would in fact work better for all.

Important information for planning applications in and around Canterbury and Herne Bay Natural England has issued water quality advice that will have an immediate impact on planning applications for new homes in and around Canterbury and Herne Bay areas. New water quality advice from Natural England Natural England has said that an appropriate assessment must be carried out before CCC can agree any new housing development which discharges waste water to the Stour Valley river catchment area. This assessment must include any necessary mitigation measures. This is to ensure that new development does not cause any further deterioration of water quality at Stodmarsh. The Stodmarsh Nature Reserve is protected under European Law and is managed by Natural England. Natural England has identified that the water quality in the lakes has deteriorated. The water quality targets have also recently been tightened. This means that before CCC approves any new housing development within the River Stour catchment area, or that would discharge waste water into it, applicants need to satisfy Natural

England that they have made sure there are enough mitigation measures in place to stop this happening. When Natural England made CCC aware they may not be supporting applications for planning permission on their strategic housing sites, such as South Canterbury, CCC started working with them on the types of mitigation measures they might find acceptable and reached broad agreement, CCC has been working on the details ever since and has come to the conclusion the new environmental information that has been uncovered means CCC has a moral and legal obligation to consult with the public. The South Canterbury site that was due to be heard for a decision at the planning meeting on 01 October 2020 has therefore been deferred. Details on the consultation and how people can have their say will be released shortly.

You can download the full advice note from Natural England. Areas where the new water quality advice applies The advice applies to the Stour Valley river catchment area (see Appendix 1 of the Natural England advice), which covers the southern and central areas of Canterbury District. It also applies to developments outside of the Stour Valley, but which would connect to a Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) which discharges into the Stour Valley. This includes: Canterbury (Sturry) WWTW Herne Bay (Great Stour) WWTW Westbere WWTW Chartham WWTW Newnham Valley WWTW

Cllr Fitter-Harding confirmed that CCC is looking at this very closely.

CA/20/02204 - Land To The South Of Thanet Way (A299) And West Of Thornden Wood Road, Herne Bay, Kent, CT6 7NU Installation of a ground mounted photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generation system, associated infrastructure, security measures (including CCTV) and landscaping. As reported at the August 2020 virtual meeting, the Chairman was contacted on 06 August by the Business Development Manager, BU Solar and Batteries, who works for Vattenfall, a renewable energy project developer and owner. Vattenfall own the Wind farm offshore at Herne Bay and also the wind farm over at Thanet. They have developed some of Europe’s flagship energy projects across wind, solar and other technologies. At that time Vattenfall were in the pre planning phase of a possible solar project and as the project borders the Chestfield area the Business Development Manager was keen to have a conversation with the parish council. The parish council considered that as a solar farm will prevent development/the land being built on for 25 plus years and as infrastructure is lacking, for example drainage and sewage capacity and adequate highways, a solar farm could, therefore, be broadly welcomed.

UPDATE: There was an Environmental Screening Opinion request undertaken with CCC which concluded in March 2020 (Reference Number CA/20/00458). CCC concluded that as the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the environment, that an EIA is not required to be undertaken. The full planning application was submitted in early October and is now validated. The Vattenfall Manager has emailed: - The most recent layout/landscape plan - Construction Traffic Management plan - Letter sent to local residents – this was sent to the residents in closest proximity to the site, along Thornden Wood Road and also the Chestfield group of properties to the West of the proposed site. Alongside this, Vattenfall publicised the project in the local press and online.

Proposed hours of operation during the 24 weeks of construction phase are 7am-7pm Monday to Friday and 7am-1pm on Saturdays, with 40-50 staff on site at any one time depending on the level of construction activity (equating as, using a robust estimate of up to 12 cars and 3 minibuses per day to transfer staff to site, on this basis a total of 30 movements per day.)

Post construction there will be no permanent staff on site, only periodic monthly maintenance activities so minimal disturbance on the highway network.

The busiest development period is weeks 5-20, with the highest number of construction vehicles anticipated in weeks 9-16 with up to 59 deliveries for the period – 25 being container trucks and 28 being 40-tonne trucks. At the peak of construction Vattenfall anticipate one HGV movement per hour. The total number of construction vehicles during the work programme overall (excluding transfer of staff vehicles) is expected to be 199. (Construction Traffic Management Plan Point 3.2.1.) This will mean 396 two-way HGV movements (198 arrivals and 198 departures) over the 24 weeks.

Maximum articulated vehicle length would be 16.5m long. (Construction Traffic Management Plan Point 3.1.4.) The Construction Traffic Management Plan states (Point 3.1.1.) that the principle route for all traffic generated by the site during the construction phase, including solar panel component parts arriving in the UK from Dover, will likely be to/from the west via the A2 – A299 – A2990 Thanet Way – Millstrood Road – South Street – Chestfield Road – Molehill Road – to the T-Junction opposite Birkdale Close. It states, “however there are other feasible route options.”

All traffic is proposed to arrive and depart via the Molehill Road priority T junction. Minor junction widening works will be required and is proposed, to accommodate maximum legal articulated vehicles, and to make swinging in by lorries easier.

There is a secondary access off Thornden Wood proposed for operational maintenance purposes.

There is some concern from local residents particularly with regard to traffic and the access position. Residents have queried the suitability of using Molehill Road as it is in poor condition, has very uneven camber particularly on the stretch from Chestfield Road to the Molehill Road T-Junction opposite Birkdale Close. There are also two areas of sink holes/subsidence on top of the tunnel – the Clerk has visited the site and there is a pronounced dip in the road above the tunnel – in particular for traffic heading back from the proposed site back toward Molehill Road.

The Clerk had a telephone conversation with the Vattenfall manager on 20 October 2020 about the concerns with their preferred route using South Street, Chestfield Road, Molehill Road. He explained that this is their preferred route as it is the shortest distance off the dual-carriageway. He explained that there will be traffic management, with people to radio vehicles in when deliveries are due on site – and there will also be a banksman station at the T-Junction on Molehill Road. The application paperwork does not give this information, so the parish council will ensure their response to the application will ask that this traffic management is made a condition if CCC are minded to grant the application. The Vattenfall manager also advised that vehicles will travel at 15-20mph maximum speeds. He confirmed that he has met with two residents and walked the route with them. Plus, Vattenfall’s travel consultants have reviewed the possible routes in light of the parish council’s and residents’ comments but they still prefer the South Street routing. They have looked at using Thornden Wood Road – but it is a busy stretch or road and leaves their lorries with more use on the wider network.

The Clerk explained that she had also had a 40-minute phone call with the owner of a property near the proposed site. In summary, he objects to the preferred route. He feels Thornden Wood Road should be used – it would also mean a saving of not requiring the widening of the T-Junction. The resident also raised additional issues around loss of value of his property, and loss of view (although he can mention them in his own representation to CCC, they are not valid planning grounds.) He will also mention impingement on his privacy and loss of amenity. The resident has contacted Cllr Fitter-Harding and asked for a site meeting with him, residents, Vattenfall and the parish council. The Clerk and Cllr Fitzpatrick will attend this meeting if it is arranged.

Molehill Road has a weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes. The Vattenfall manager confirmed this but said that loading/unloading gives an exemption. Cllr Bailey asked Cllr Fitter-Harding and Cllr Thomas to find out if they are able to be exempt.

The parish councillors had concerns about possible damage to the services that run under Molehill Road by heavy vehicles. Cllr Bailey commented that there may need to be a weighbridge. There is a storm drain under pressure already. Cllr Gibson commented that residents are not aware of any current problems with the underground services, such as electricity, gas and sewage. Can Kent Highways undertake a condition survey of the road prior to the works starting? He asked the Clerk to contact the Vattenfall manager and ask about the 40 tonne trucks, and query what weight they are actually proposing to transfer, and to ensure that the weight loading would include the weight of the vehicle. It might be preferrable to double the number of vehicle movements with lesser loads in each vehicle.

One other query is to determine what noise the invertors/transformers operate at. Cllr Bailey explained he had done some research. (Continuous 95db at work in an enclosed environment requires mitigation.) The Clerk will ask Vattenfall for details of the decibel operating level, and comparable examples of the noise level, and also ask if Vattenfall are providing any mitigation for noise. Overall, the parish council felt that their demands are not excessive, and if not alleviated, Chestfield Parish Council would be opposed to the application as it stands.

Grasmere Pasture CA/17/00469/OUT - Grasmere Gardens, Land South of The Ridgeway, Chestfield - Outline application for a mixed-use development of up to 300 residential dwellings and 3,500 sqm of employment floorspace:

i) Archaeological work – As reported in Minute No. 53 above some current archaeological trenches have been dug and Roman pottery remains found. ii) Double yellow lines proposal along Reeves Way - The double yellow lines / waiting restriction along Reeves Way was enacted by KCC with effect from 20 July 2020. The yellow lines have not yet been implemented (12 October 2020).

56. Financial matters

Use of section 101 since the last meeting: There has been an item ratified under S101 since the agenda was published:

Website Accessibility Regulations There is a need to migrate to a new website provider to satisfy the website accessibility regulations WCAG 2.1 Level AA Standards. KCC as the existing website host are not compliant. The parish council resolved early in 2020 to appoint Cantium Business Solutions as the new website host with a three-year contract. Cantium had said that their offering was subject to 100 plus Kent parishes signing up, and they confirmed on 28 January 2020 that the majority of them had. However, an email received on 01 October 2020 advises that unfortunately they have not secured the required numbers, so the parish council must now source an alternative provider. KCC has agreed that due to COVID-19 their hosting service can be extended to 1 January 2021. To be let down this late-in-the-day by Cantium is most unsatisfactory as the date for website compliance was 23 September 2020 and their email came after that date, resulting in the parish council currently being non-compliant and having to source an alternative urgently before the end of the year.

The Clerk has sourced an alternative provider, Eyelid Productions, to host a new website and who has confirmed that they can meet the 31 December deadline required, provided the parish council instruct them by 31 October 2020. The Eyelid Productions quotation is infact significantly cheaper in Years 2 and 3 than the Cantium package. Ideally the parish council would seek a second tender, however, in view of this now being an emergency item, under the Section 101 delegation now in place which would allow acceptance of the quotation outside of a meeting anyway, the Clerk sought Councillors’ authority to appoint Eyelid Productions as the new website host.

The Clerk has updated the pages on the parish council website ahead of the migration of information to a new website.

The parish council must also publish an Accessibility Statement. The Clerk has devised one and uploaded this to the website in September 2020.

57. Authorisation of Accounts The Clerk presented finance sheets detailing the cheque payments for September payments totalling £5,292.74, and October payments totalling £4,509.16. The finance sheets will be signed by the Chairman and returned to the Clerk by post.

£10,000 Small Business Grant NOTED that the Clerk has established that the parish council is eligible for a £10k Small Business Grant from the government’s coronavirus funding as occupier of a rateable non-domestic property (the office) and this has been paid.

58. Financial matters (a) NOTED that since the last meeting Cllr Fitzpatrick has received the bank statement and bank reconciliation for March, April, May, June and July 2020 and signed these. (b) When meetings are able to be resumed in person - TO RECEIVE the bank statement and bank reconciliation for August and September 2020 and TO RESOLVE the signature of a councillor other than the Chairman thereon; (c) NOTED a national pay agreement for parish clerks with effect from 01 April 2020 of 2.75%. The increase and the back pay have been incorporated into the September Clerk salary. (d) NOTED a payment of £116.88 taken by BT by direct debit on 06 October 2020 for the BT quarterly bill. (e) NOTED that the parish council’s external auditor PKF Littlejohn LLP approved the year end accounts to 31/03/2020 on 10 October 2020. The Clerk has posted the Notice of Conclusion of Audit on the parish council’s noticeboards and website. (f) RECEIVED an End of Quarter Two to 30 September 2020 expenditure against budget headings report, for information. (g) The Clerk advised that there is a new (12th edition) of the Charles Arnold Baker book. The 11th edition was only purchased 12-18 months ago and at a cost in the region of £120. It was decided to wait for the 13th edition as the legal advisor at KALC is always on hand as a free legal source. (h) NOTED that St John’s Church still intends to mark Remembrance Sunday on 8 November, with numbers restricted to 28 in the Church, and with the usual wreath laying. The Chairman has purchased (using his Chairman’s allowance) and will lay a wreath on behalf of the parish council. (i) NOTED that the Clerk is progressing the order for vinyl panels for the Chestfield Road bus shelter as ratified by Cllrs earlier in the year. Unfortunately the seat has been graffitied this week – the Clerk will report this.

ANNUAL ADVERTISERS’ RENEWAL EXERCISE The Clerk has undertaken the annual renewal of advertisers in the magazine. Invoices were sent on 10 September 2020. So far, 20 advertisers have paid with confirmed payments, totalling £1,700. One more has promised payment of £50. One advertiser has had to temporarily suspend advertising due to coronavirus, but intends to renew when government restrictions on the rule of 6 are eased. There is one new advertiser with payment pending of £70. Reminders were sent on 13 October to the 13 advertisers not yet paid/renewed or contacted the Clerk.

Cllr Bailey offered to write an article for the December magazine to make people more aware about scams and the need to check that firms are reputable etc.

More trees opposite The Barn and Wildflower verges Both residents and the parish council are keen to explore possibilities for more trees and greater diversity in the parish. Since the last meeting Cllr Brealy and the Clerk met a Kent Highways officer for a site meeting on 23 September 2020 with a KCC officer to look at the possibility of more trees in the highways verge opposite The Barn, Chestfield Road. The officer felt that subject to a utilities check that five trees could be planted in the verge here. The Clerk writeup of that meeting was 47 circulated to Councillors after that site meeting. This was then followed up with consultation with the two households that would be affected by planting trees in front of their house frontage. One resident was very opposed and one was very supportive. In light of this, and subject to there being no underground utilities, Cllr Brealy proposed and Cllr Ellis seconded and all Councillors indicated that they were happy to proceed with three new trees in the Highways verge in front of the supportive resident’s property. The KCC officer has suggested Field Maple – it is good for pollution absorption and noise reduction. It also prunes well and keeps its shape and can be trimmed from below too for visibility. The future maintenance of the trees will be met by Kent County Council. the parish council will progress this.

Wildflower sites Kent County Council has an officer who helps facilitate the provision of wildflower sites. Sites would be seeded as a specific scheme with wildflowers and bee pollinator mix. All councillors were happy that the Clerk should continue dialogue with the KCC officer to explore this further. The Clerk will also do a magazine article to encourage residents to dedicate part of their gardens too with advice on what to plant etc.

A ‘seed swap box’ for residents to use Cllrs discussed a possible box in the village to be a ‘seed swap box’ for residents to use. Cllr East explained she had seen the idea on a gardening programme. Residents used a box to swap seeds in envelopes or small pots with each other. Possibly a watertight box by or under the community herb planters at the WI hall would be a suitable place – the Clerk will ask the WI for their views on this.

To explore a new bin for the Primrose Way footpath The footpath that runs from the top of Sainsbury’s steps into the Primrose Way development is a well-used footpath. There are problems of littering here. There is no rubbish bin although there is a dog bin on a post at the edge of and just off the Rugby pitch. The dog bin is also well used and is often overflowing so there is a capacity issue. Bagged dog waste can be put into a normal rubbish bin. There is space alongside the dog bin for a bin – and the dog bin is already on the Serco emptying schedule so it suggests adding a rubbish bin at the same location could be well-received by CCC. Cllr Ellis proposed and Cllr Todd seconded and all councillors agreed that the Clerk should contact the CCC officer and ask if the parish council purchase and install a bin, whether CCC would be prepared to add it to the emptying schedule.

Concerns re drainage problems of the trampoline in the CCC play park, Chestfield Road Background: Residents and the parish council have long-held concerns about stagnant water collecting under the trampoline in the play park in Chestfield Road. The problem is caused by the clay soil and the water not being able to drain away in the current drainage specification. The Clerk met the CCC outdoor leisure officer and a drainage engineer on 28 September 2020. There were three options: 1. Remove the trampoline 2. Remove the trampoline and replace it with another piece of play equipment 3. Improve the drainage capability – by moling from the trampoline to a newly created soakaway at a 2m depth below ground near the outside perimeter of the play park. Option 3 has been costed by CCC and it’s a much bigger and more complex job than anticipated and costly. The initial quote is £7,345.23. This amount includes the trenching works, installation of a maintainable soakaway with inspection cover, and pipe to the gully beneath the trampoline. The officer believes it also includes reinstatement of the safety surface at the same time that Serco renew other areas in the district. There may be additional costs if the trampoline requires full removal once the works have begun. The chief engineer has doubts a soakaway will provide a permanent solution. Because of the depth and nature of the clay soil, even a large deep soakaway will eventually fill up with water and then it will back up towards the trampoline, resulting in the same issue, just taking longer to reach that stage. CCC feel that it may not be the best solution to spend thousands on a soakaway that may only delay the issue occurring again once a substantial amount of water has collected, and based on

that CCC are not in a financial position to fund this work and it’s hard to justify anyone spending that much on something that may only buy time. CCC feel that it would be better to remove the trampoline and replace with a small piece of play equipment. This has not been finalised or costed yet. The officer will contact the Clerk after her holiday and after the parish council had had an opportunity to discuss the options.

Cllr Bailey reminded Cllrs that the parish council has received a Small Business Grant from the government’s coronavirus funding and made an approach to CCC with a possible offer of help to rectify the issues with the trampoline. However, the quote with no guarantee should not be accepted. There is possible contractor error but that would be down to CCC to pursue. Cllr Bailey proposed a contribution from the parish council to something to replace the trampoline but not to pay for the costs of its removal which should be down to CCC. Cllr Todd agreed with this. Cllr Ellis offered to ask his grandchildren for suggestions on a replacement piece of equipment.

TO CONSIDER a grant to Chestfield Cricket Club for the creation of a Petanque Court for us a community facility for all residents Chestfield Cricket Club wish to provide activities for people of all age groups, for families, children and older people, and encourage people to be more active in an enjoyable and inclusive way. They are considering creating a Petanque Court at their ground. This would be free to use daytime and evening, and there would be the social aspect offered as well, such as use of the Clubhouse and bar. This could be seen as a community facility for use by all residents, and although it would be on cricket club land, no annual paid membership of the Club would be required. This initiative is backed by the Sport England funding criteria which aims to tackle lack of activity by people and social isolation. The Petanque Court would essentially be a raised ‘flower bed’ style of sleeps, with a type one base and finer top silt above. It would also include a disabled access ramp.

Cllr Loder felt this was an excellent idea, to try and encourage people to get out more and it can meet the current rule of gatherings of under 6 people. Cllr Bailey commented that the Small Business Grant received is not taxpayers’ money, not raised through the precept. He also reminded councillors that the Cricket Club have been incredibly helpful to the parish council delivering magazines during the coronavirus pandemic and this support is likely to continue. Cllr Todd said he was supportive but questioned if the parish council should pay for it in full, as this goes against the precedent for grants set in the past, where an own contribution is usually expected, and especially as it would be a facility within the Club’s confines. Cllr Ellis reminded Cllrs that a grant for the Rugby Club ball court that was meant to be open for community use had backfired shortly after improvements were made to it. Cllr Bailey commented that it is a good initiative. He felt that as it would be within the Cricket Club confines there would be a need to ensure the public know that it is a parish council supported initiative – this could be done by a plaque. All Cllrs agreed they were happy with the principle, but that there needs to be a written agreement drawn up with the Club. There are concerns about the possible need for a booking system, and who would get priority for using it – eg if there were non-club members – how would this be managed? The Clerk will speak to the cricket club and an agreement may be discussed, and this item can come again to the next meeting to be revisited.

59. Government Digital Service and the parish council “gov.uk” domain name. It was reported at the August 2020 parish council meeting that there has been correspondence from the Government Digital Service and the parish council “gov.uk” domain name, and steps to take to improve domain names security. The Clerk explained that she is struggling to now fix the next issue, due to a lack of technological know how but the change of website host will affect this. As authorised at the August meeting, she will contact an external computer support company for help if necessary.

60. Coronavirus risk assessments NOTED that the Clerk has completed and updated monthly Risk Assessments around Coronavirus risks from April to October 2020. These will continue to be produced. NOTED that speedwatch

sessions for those over 70 years old were allowed to resume with PPE and social distancing, etc from 10 September 2020 and the Clerk organised a volunteer rota to 31 December.

61. Christmas and Social events affected by coronavirus Several of the social and Christmas events have been affected by the coronavirus pandemic and government restrictions on gatherings: i. NOTED the Quiz originally scheduled for 10 October 2020 has been cancelled. ii. NOTED that the Art Outreach Christmas Decorations workshop scheduled for 21 November 2020 has also had to be cancelled. The Clerk has let those that pre-booked know. iii. RESOLVED to postpone the annual volunteers thank you buffet events (with a view to the potential for something later in 2021). iv. NOTED the 'Carols Around the Tree' will not be able to go ahead this year. The Clerk will advise all parties concerned. v. Cllrs discussed the erection of the Christmas Tree (but not the side lights) and felt this could be done safely as normal following social distancing guidelines. However, the Clerk will seek permission from St Joseph’s Church and St John’s Church that they would be happy for the parish council to do this without a Carols evening first. If they have no objection then Cllrs Bailey, Brealy and Todd will erect the tree. vi. Cllrs discussed the Christmas lights annual competition: Cllr Chapman explained that she felt Residents’ Lights competition could be judged in a different way this year - Residents could send in photos of their Christmas lights then Cllrs could choose a winner. The winner’s photo can then feature in the magazine together with the runners up (if there is enough space). And the winner could be sent a High Street voucher as a prize. Cllrs also felt that there could be a children’s Christmas light/decorations competition too. The Clerk will progress this with a magazine article in the first instance.

62. Clerk’s Report This was circulated prior to the meeting; items are incorporated elsewhere in these Minutes.

63. Police Parish Forum

Cllr Todd’s notes from the virtual Police Parish Forum held on 14 October 2020:

I attended the subject meeting last night. I didn't count but I think there was about 7 in attendance. It was run by Inspector Guy Thompson, Kent Community Safety Unit and supported by Sgt Colette Todd. He ran through a presentation, hopefully copy to follow. Some of the points:

He set the scene with the last 10 years seeing reducing money (approx 1/3rd = £110million) and reducing staff though there is current recruitment for additional 450 officers but this will take time to get them into service. This is set against an increasing population, Covid and other pressures.

Approx 16,000 crimes are reported a year; there has been a 30% decrease in burglaries and a 19% decrease in thefts. How much of this is due to Covid is unclear.

He made the point that resources are allocated against demand so if you don't report a crime it won’t go into the statistics to influence resource allocation.

He opened the meeting up for questions specifically what would we, the Parish, like to see from the police. I didn't ask anything but there was quite a lot of focus on lack of visibility from PCSOs. Sgt Colette mentioned a monthly newsletter (do we get?) and that turnover of PCSOs can be a challenge. Speed cameras were also mentioned.

Inspector Guy went on to talk about try to engage with the community and just before Covid "Coffee with a Cop" had started and been successful. They will restart when the situation allows. I suggest we could look to host one at the WI either during the day or in conjunction with the planning open house prior to one of our meetings?

He went on to list some challenges: New development, County Lines, Evolution of town centres (perhaps accelerating because of Covid), universities and further education expanding, changing demands e.g. mental health (I thought he said 1/3rd of their effort), vulnerable people and the aging population.

He encouraged the use of the Kent police website https://www.kent.police.uk/ both to see what is happening in our area and report. Next meeting March 2021 (virtual or face to face TBC)

Cllr Todd offered to send the link to the Presentation given at this Police Parish Forum and circulate it to the councillors.

64. Highways

20mph zones for Chestfield KCC Cllr Thomas suggested that the parish council might like to explore the possibility of 20mph zones/roads in Chestfield. An article ran in the September edition of the magazine. The following residents’ feedback has been received:

i) Molehill Road – speeding traffic on Molehill Road is, and has been, a long-held concern for several residents. There are no footpaths for pedestrians, the camber is uneven, golfers cross from one tee to the other, there have been reports of pets being killed on this road, and the absence of a pavement means that Kent Police has not approved any locations for speedwatch sessions. ii) Grasmere Road - The traffic speeds towards the small bridge along the adopted highway; the unadopted Road has the Cricket Club and private residencies. iii) Plantation Road – a fairly straight road which attract lots of traffic at speeds from 30 to 40 mph regularly iv) Share and Coulter Road – a fairly straight road which attract lots of traffic at speeds from 30 to 40 mph regularly v) NB. Maydowns Road was also suggested – but this is already a 20mph and of course an unadopted road.

Incidentally, the Speedwatch volunteers have been supported by police officer presence from 14 October 2020. Two local officers have agreed to join a session if they are on duty and available to do so in future. If caught speeding the officers are able to issue tickets to the offending driver.

The Clerk will speak to KCC Cllr Robert Thomas on the next steps to try and enact these speed limit reductions. Cllr Thomas explained that on 22 October 2020 there was a KCC motion for KCC to introduce a further 20 schemes when government funding becomes available and if safety grounds can be shown. For example, the A290 through Blean to the Westgate Towers scheme is now being implemented with 20mph zones going into the St Dunstan’s area.

65. A Traffic Regulation Order to try and reduce the speed limit along the old Thanet Way In light of the permission to build 300 homes at Grasmere Pasture and the resulting accumulative traffic increase in the area, the parish council resolved at the November 2019 parish council meeting that the parish council uses its “highways ear marked reserve” of £3,467 to try to progress with Kent Highways a Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the speed limit along the stretch of the old Thanet Way by the Oyster Bed from 60mph to 40mph. This speed reduction is important once the Grasmere Pasture development begins as all the fast food outlets, The Oyster Bed, the garage and car wash and business units will all be affected by an increase in traffic. The Clerk advised at the January 2020 meeting that the Highways Manager confirmed that she has passed the request to colleagues in Scheme Planning and Delivery and also the KCC Development Planning Team to respond.

The Clerk has chased for a reply. She has also studied the previous Transport Assessment for the Grasmere Pasture development as the Highways Manager suggested that the TRO is already included as part of that. The Clerk could not find confirmation of this however.

Cycle link/project proposal C/fwd: As reported at the March 2020 parish council meeting – and still to action: The Highways officers explained that the Parish Council may put together a cycle link/project proposal and forward this to the Kent Highways stewards to be explored further (This links to the ongoing watching brief re a resident’s request that the parish council explore improvements for cycling/cycle path provision in and around the parish.) The Clerk will download the CCC Canterbury District Transport Strategy which may help inform this. Cllr Todd commented that this is not for protected routes necessarily but possible improvements and new/better routes and links could be explored again. The link between Chestfield Road and the Crab and Winkle Way has been worked on before. Cllrs Fitzpatrick and Todd and the Clerk will try and identify current routes as cycle paths.

Cycling in Whitstable gets a boost with work on an extension to the Crab and Winkle cycle route in the town The city council-led project will see the route extended along the embankment of the former railway from near to All Saints Road, along to Old Bridge Road. Work started on 14 September and was expected to take around eight weeks. Preparatory work to clear vegetation from the section of the path took place in February before the bird nesting season. This section of cycle route is part of a wider project to link the Crab and Winkle to the harbour. This would require two bridges to span Old Bridge Road, the railway line and Teynham Road. That ambitious scheme is not yet funded, but it is hoped the work that is just about to start will provide a much-needed catalyst for fundraising and crowdfunding, in order to find the money to pay for the bridges and complete the link to the harbour. Chairman of the council's Regeneration and Property Committee, Cllr Rachel Carnac, said: "This project is an important element of the overall scheme to provide a dedicated cycling route to the harbour, which has been a long-held ambition. "We have been working closely with the Crab and Winkle Trust on the project and there has been consultation previously with residents living nearby. "It has, of course, been very difficult to get work like this up and running this year, but we're pleased to now be cracking on with it and look forward to seeing its completion in a few weeks' time." The cost of the work is £169,000, funded entirely by contributions from developers following granted planning permissions.

66. Highways Improvement Template NOTED that a further updated “Highways Improvement Template” has been emailed to Cllrs. NOTED that a residents’ request for a Horse Warning sign between Maydowns Road and The Ridgeway bridleway will be paid for by Kent Highways subject to a suitable location being found.

And NOTED that Kent Highways will fund and have now placed the order for three new dropped kerbs in the vicinity of 33 Primrose Way to improve accessibility in Primrose Way and also to CW40 on The Ridgeway.

67. Environment

Memorial bench for Len Claisse NOTED that the family of the late Len Claisse offered a memorial bench to the village and this will be installed in Maydowns Road (with the wholehearted agreement of the Maydowns Road Association committee). The positioning of it has now been agreed and the family have confirmed they will install and fix it.

New sleeper bridge at Radfall Recreation fround NOTED that the KCC PROW team has installed a sleeper bridge on a steep dip on the footpath at the back of the Radfall Recreation ground to improve accessibility. The Clerk has sent an email of

thanks for this. It has been done well and is a massive improvement. It is especially welcomed by the parish council as it is on the circular walk route.

Request to CCC for a new litter bin between The Drove and Birkdale Close The Clerk has chased again with a CCC officer about whether, if the parish council pay for a bin, if Serco would add it to their emptying schedule. There is still no update.

KALC Net Zero/Environment event NOTE that the Clerk will attend the KALC free of charge Net Zero/Environment event on 03 November in partnership with Kent County Council and the Kent & Medway Environment Board. Speakers from Kent County Council, National Association of Local Councils, Kent & Medway Environment Board and KALC will look at raising awareness of the work that is taking place at national, county and local level on climate change and what we can all do to encourage increased participation and action to deliver Net Zero for Kent.

68. Date and time of the next meeting A date and time of Sunday 06 December 2020 at 2.30pm using Zoom for a virtual meeting was agreed. The Clerk explained that this should include the precept for 2021-2022 as this needs to be ratified at a full council meeting and in December to meet the CCC deadline. A delegated authority was agreed to the Chairman and Clerk to draft a precept budget and circulate it to all councillors for comment.

The meeting closed at 16.30pm.

Signed: ……………………………………………… Date: ………………………………………… Chairman Please note these Minutes remain as draft Minutes until they are approved by the parish council at their next parish council meeting

Dates of future meetings: The parish council usually holds bi-monthly formal meetings and informal residents’ surgeries for those same dates and for the months in between. However due to coronavirus meetings are being convened virtually and as and when required and the residents’ surgeries are suspended until further notice.

Separate planning appendix:

CPRE short guide to the Planning White Paper September 2020 Planning White Paper - a short video guide for communities There are eight major changes: 1. How much housing to plan for: - Central government will dictate numbers without consultation, based on a formula – it will be legally binding - Drive for 300,000 homes every year – substantially more than now.

2. Currently there is a discretionary planning system – every proposal is judged on its own merits – with two chances for people to comment: i) Consultation on policies and site allocation in the Local Plan ii) Consultation on the actual planning application. The new system will divide all land in a new style Local Plan into three zones: a) Growth – large scale mainly greenfield sites for urban extensions. The principle of development will be automatically granted.

b) Renewal – the re-using of brownfield and under-used sites. The principle of development will be automatically granted.

c) Protection – green belt/national parks/conservation areas. The normal planning application process will be retained. But protected does NOT mean no development.

3. The new style Local Plans won’t contain the development management policies that applications are judged against – these will all be centralised within the National Planning Policy Framework. There will be no opportunity to comment on which applications are assessed (for all 3 new zones including the protected zone.)

4. Design standards and design code - Design codes must be about places not just buildings. Where no local code exists, the default will be to the centralised one.

5. The government wants to halve the time it takes to develop a Local Plan In future there will be just one or two six-week consultation slots – then that’s it for five years.

6. Permitted development – a wide-open loophole enabling poor development. Previously ‘permitted development’ allowed conservatories/extensions to a home or an outbuilding without needing planning permission.

The White Paper extends permitted development – for example, conversion of an office building, restaurant or shop into flats, without minimum space standards and without consultation either.

7. The White Paper proposed to do away with the two existing systems for securing contributions from developers for affordable housing and community infrastructure, i.e. S106 agreements and the Infrastructure Levy. In future the government will bring in a new centrally operated Community Infrastructure Levy. This has two risks:

- It will raise more money in areas where land values are high, thereby limiting what is available in areas needing regeneration, eg former mining towns. - The Government will prioritise First Homes To Buy, over shared ownership/social rent options.

8. Neighbourhood Plans could be affected - The new style Local Plans with mandatory top down housing requirements and no longer having any development management policies may make existing neighbourhood plans out of date. The government consultation on the White Paper ran until 29 October 2020.

NOTED the following response from Rosie Duffield MP to contact from Cllr Bailey, as Chairman of Chestfield Parish Council:

Rosie Duffield Sent: Monday, 5 October 2020, 16:50

Thank you for contacting me about the Government’s proposals to reform the planning system. I share your concerns that the measures outlined will remove important safeguards in the planning system and allow large developers to ignore quality, affordability and sustainability.

The Government’s White Paper, Planning for the Future, was published on 6 August alongside a consultation on its proposals to streamline and modernise the planning process. The aim of the reforms is to simplify and accelerate the planning process, yet critics have warned that a move to lighter regulation could lead to the development of the next generation of slum housing.

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) has criticised the proposals and said the measures will do 54

“almost nothing to guarantee the delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes”.

While I agree that the planning system needs to be reformed, I am concerned that the Government’s White Paper will remove the power of local communities to say no to big developers who take the easy option of building on the green belt. A further proposal to exempt developers from paying fees as a condition for receiving planning permission, known as section 106 payments, could also lead to councils being denied vital funding for building schools, clinics and community infrastructure.

Ministers have said that the current planning system is outdated and acts as a barrier to building the homes the country needs. However, analysis from the Local Government Association finds that over one million homes granted planning permission in the last decade have not been built.

Instead of side-lining local councils and communities – that are best placed to make decisions about planning in their areas – I believe the Government should instead focus on building the high-quality, genuinely affordable and environmentally sustainable housing that is needed.

An online consultation on the Government’s White Paper is accepting responses until 29 October 2020. I will follow its outcome closely, press Ministers to reconsider their proposals and ensure that communities are at the heart of the planning process.

Thank you once again for contacting me about this important issue. Yours sincerely, Rosie Duffield MP

Canterbury City Council’s Local Plan Transport Conference: Our future district t0 2040 Work is now underway on the preparation of a new Canterbury District Local Plan, which will include a Transport and Movement Strategy, looking forward to 2040. New housing and employment will place demand on transport networks and CCC needs to identify the right strategy and specific measures to address these impacts. CCC held a virtual conference to discuss the transport and movement challenges and opportunities facing the district over the next 20 years on 21 October 2020.

The Clerk attended and gives the following written report: There were 53 attendees.

Welcome by Councillor Rachel Carnac, Deputy Leader of Canterbury City Council Introduction by Simon Thomas, Head of Planning, Canterbury City Council Key features are the ring road around Canterbury and climate change objectives.

Presentation by Colin Finch, Principal Transport & Development Planner, Kent County Council Key points: o Peak congestion times are 8am-9am and 3pm to 6pm. o New homes to be delivered in greater numbers over the next few years. o There has been a big surge in van use since 2012. o Air quality is a concern especially for Canterbury and the village of Herne. o Transport causes 1/3 of all emissions. o Targets to increase sustainable travel, eg the possible introduction of a congestion charge.

Breakout Workshops: to discuss: De-congest / De-pollute / De-carbonise KCC commissioned a report on the Canterbury ring road which found most traffic is traffic going from one side of the City to the other. There could be signal-controls on roundabouts? The Eastern bypass to take traffic from the A28 to the A2. Highways England’s focus is not to build lots of new roads. They just fill up! They do have a HE Roads Improvement Plan to 2025 – this includes improvements to Brenley Corner and access to Dover, although there is no guarantee these will be delivered. The COVID impact – will there be genuine long-term changes? For example, more working from home. There has been a 75% drop in applications for children’s school bus passes, so presumably there are more car movements. 55

The older person’s bus pass giving free travel encourages bus use – should there be free bus travel for all?

Make the use of buses more focussed and more attractive.

Buses on the Triangle route often get delayed due to congestion, especially at Whitstable High Street/Tankerton and the coast. There could be signage on how to use the back routes as alternatives for drivers?

Park and Ride: - There could be a new Park and Ride site created - Have longer operating hours for Park and Ride - Need for more electric Park and Ride buses - Eliminate free parking on roads around town centres to force people to use Park and Ride - Create more spaces at the Park and Ride sites

Car share schemes tend to be business based. Park and share schemes/areas have been successful in other areas – cars park up for a small fee then only one driver drives right into the city centre.

Divert people on to the train: - Train travel from Canterbury to Faversham to Whitstable and vice-versa – could CCC negotiate a fair fare based on direct mileage from Canterbury to Whitstable rather than the diverted mileage. - Create more parking at Chartham and Sturry to enable train usage into Canterbury?

Where are the new schools going – these need to be planned in the Canterbury District Local Plan – we don’t want people to cross the whole district to get to school – and new schools need cycle path provision linked to them. (There is a new school being built at the old Chaucer school site in Spring Lane.)

More cycle lanes? Create cycle lanes rather than new roads? Only 5% of people cycle to work. There is a need for secure cycle storage, which needs to be vandal-proof. Bad weather is a barrier for cycling. Crab and Winkle Line improvements are ongoing.

More pedestrianisation areas, eg Harbour Street at Whitstable. More car-free areas. Difficulty with dialogue between CCC and KCC could be overcome by creating a Unitary authority.

Motivate local people. Parish Councils and Community groups have a role to play to lobby local ward councillors and MPs.

There could be a pod-path shuttle (such as that at Heathrow) into the city centre – if a new settlement of 6,000 to 8,000 homes was allocated in the CDLP this could give a critical mass for an idea like this?

There could be smaller delivery vehicles – perhaps from out of town unloading to them from larger vehicles.

More electric cars is the way forward. Ditto hybrid cars. Technology is improving – for example the automatic start/stop function.

Engine idling leads to pollution.

Could bring in fines if a driver leaves their engine running while stationary for longer than a minute (Sweden do this. CCC is looking at anti-idling powers and the ability to apply for this power.)

At Sturry station there is train overhang across the level crossing at Sturry with the barriers in the down position for 17 minutes in every hour, leading to engine idling and traffic congestion. This is only going to get worse with the 2,000 or so new homes planned for Sturry, Broad Oak and Hersden. Westbere Parish Council has had a long desire for Network Rail to lengthen the platforms at Sturry station as a solution to avoid train overhang across the level crossing, thereby enabling the barrier down time to be reduced and keep the traffic flowing. It’s not quite as simple as just lengthening the platforms; it would require signal moving and that does involve significant costs – in the region of £1m for each platform. Network Rail has the East Kent Resignalling Scheme – phase 3, which includes the route between Canterbury West and Ramsgate via Sturry and Minster. At present this scheme is not scheduled for short-term delivery, but if this scheme were to be brought forward, there might be an opportunity to include the required re-positioning of signals in the vicinity of Sturry station. Westbere Parish Council has spoken to both Network Rail and Southeastern, and the KCC Cabinet Member for Highways. The KCC Cabinet Member suggested that we ask our MP to get the project included in a wider signalling project. Westbere Parish Council’s MP, Sir Roger Gale has this month raised this with Chris Heaton-Harris MP, Minister of State Department for Transport.

Climate change aspirations: - HGVs, freight, taxis and buses affect air pollution greater than private cars. - Need to cut down emissions - There are EV charging constraints and nationwide network capacity issues to having more EV vehicles - Freight – companies are investigating EV vehicles – for longer journeys the preference is for compressed natural gas. Highways England is seeing applications for service stations to have natural compressed gas. - More air quality monitors.

Where is all the money going to come from?

Next steps Development of a draft Vision for the district. Wider consultation early next year on the options.

CHESTFIELD PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING REPORT, 25 October 2020 APPENDIX 2

New Applications

18 CA/20/01696 South Winds, 1 Share And Coulter Road, The parish council has no Chestfield, CT5 3LE comments Single-storey side extension. 19 CA/20/01728 - Bluebell Cottage, Broomfield Gate, The parish council has no Chestfield, CT5 3ES comments Two-storey rear extension. 20 CA/20/01836 - 8 Longacre, Chestfield, CT5 3PQ The parish council has no Single-storey front extension. comments 21 CA/20/01829 – Mill Farm, Radfall Road, Chestfield CT5 The parish council has no 3ER comments Erection of 2 no. holiday lets following demolition of agricultural stable/store. 22 CA/20/01799 - Sparrer Court, Molehill Road, Chestfield The parish council has no CT5 3PD comments

Listed building consent for external alterations including installation of two conservation rooflights in the rear (North) roofslope and replacement side door in West elevation 23 CA/20/01948 - Iwade, Radfall Road, Chestfield CT5 3EP The parish council has no Erection of a garage/carport with living accommodation objections to this application over providing the proposed detached outbuilding/garages are to be used only as a private annexe subservient to the main property Iwade, and not for rental or purchase by others. 24 CA/20/01912 - 73 Chestfield Road, Chestfield, CT5 3JS The parish council has no Single and two storey rear extension, changes to external comments fenestration and use of garage as living accommodation

25 CA/20/01849 - Bluebell Cottage, Broomfield Gate, Chestfield, CT5 3ES Detached two-storey ancillary outbuilding The following comments were uploaded on 23 October 2020: The paperwork explains that the development is for the erection of a detached outbuilding to be used as a private annexe, subservient to Bluebell Cottage and not for rental or purchase by others. As a separate detached building it is not an attached annexe and would operate as a separate dwelling house. Should CCC be minded to grant the application it should be conditioned that the new dwelling should remain ancillary to the main house and the land not divided into two separately owned plots. Two trees would be removed: a Sycamore (T9) and Oak (T10) - CCC may or may-not wish to take issue with this. The proposal is out of keeping with the pattern of development in this unadopted road, and could be considered as garden grabbing, which could set a precedent for others to adopt. There are also overlooking and loss of privacy issues to the immediate neighbours.

26 CA/20/01985 – Land adjacent to 1 Willow Way Detached single-storey dwelling following demolition of existing garage The following comments were uploaded on 23 October 2020:

PLANNING HISTORY CA/12/00504/FUL - Erection of a detached two-storey dwelling – Refused. CA/12/01197/FUL - Erection of a detached two-storey dwelling – Refused. CA/13/01074/FUL - Two storey dwelling to the land at the side of the existing dwelling – Refused. And a subsequent appeal (APP/J2210/A/13/2205016) was dismissed on the basis that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and in the absence of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure development contributions would conflict with existing planning policy. CA/15/01142/FUL - Proposed two-storey extension – Granted. CA/15/02471/FUL - Proposed two-storey attached dwelling with alterations and rear extension to existing dwelling and alterations to existing vehicular access - for the erection of a smaller attached dwelling to the side of no. 62 that largely mirrored the design of the previously approved extension 15/01142 -Granted. CA//16/02247/FUL - Proposed two-storey attached dwelling with alterations and rear extension to existing dwelling and alterations to existing vehicular access – Refused due to the harmful impact of the proposal on the open character of the Conservation Area. CA/19/00117 - Proposed two-storey terrace dwelling, alterations to existing vehicular access and rear extension to existing dwelling - Granted

Although this has a description of land adjacent to No 1 Willow Way it is the same plot of land next to, and in the current curtilage of, No 62 Chestfield Road that has been subject to a number of failed applications for a detached dwelling in recent years.

This could be seen as an attempt to divert attention away from the relevant planning history. The description must be changed to either 62 Chestfield Road or land adjacent to No 62 Chestfield Road. This proposal is to demolish the existing garage and build a two-bedroom bungalow with one car parking space.

Whilst the principle of the erection of a dwelling on the site has now been established by the 2015 planning permissions referred to above for an attached build, this new attempt for a detached and separate dwelling must be resisted for several reasons: - The proposed siting sees the footprint of a built form protruding beyond the front elevation of the neighbouring dwelling (No. 1 Willow Way) and this would not respect the established building line along Willow Way. This is considered to lead to further urbanisation and decline of an open character of the corner plot. - The proposed dwelling is positioned on the site to address Willow Way rather than Chestfield Road. The bungalow would need to be orientated so that its front entrance faces Chestfield Road and not Willow Way. KCC Highways have confirmed no comments, however with the entrance in the front the footpath will need to be upgraded. The parking could still remain at the rear, with provision made for off street parking. - The proposal results in a loss of, and fails to provide adequate outdoor amenity space to the existing house at No 62 Chestfield Road, that should be reasonably expected to be provided with a family dwelling house. - The proposal also fails to provide adequate outdoor amenity space to the new plot. - The proposed dwelling is mean and ungenerous in its living accommodation offered and the indoor layout too is problematic – a bathroom leading into an open-plan combined living, dining, kitchen room is not liked. - There is only one car parking space provided within the proposal plot, but with two bedrooms it is likely to be or become a two-car household, and there is insufficient off- street parking available in Willow Way which already suffers in this regard. - This proposal significantly reduces the open space to the side of the property No 62 Chestfield Road, a key concern in the previously refused schemes, thus resulting in detrimental harm to the openness of the conservation area. The openness contributes to the character of the area. - This proposal is out of keeping with the traditional nature of existing development within this part of Chestfield and would appear conspicuous as a result. - The single-storey design in this design is out of keeping also. - The Southern Water letter on the portal for this application refers to 1 Willow Way - this needs to be corrected to land adjacent to 62 Chestfield Road. Furthermore, Southern Water state that an application needs to be made to them, to confirm foul and surface water proposals for the site prior to any planning approval. - Whilst the proposal would result in one additional house, this would be very modest contribution to the housing stock. The limited public benefits arising from the proposed scheme are not considered to outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area identified above, contrary to paragraph 134 of the NPPF. - To conclude, the proposal is considered over-development, extends beyond the established building line, the proposal and building design is considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding area and would result in harmful impact on the open character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore fail to preserve the open character of the conservation area, in conflict with policies in the adopted Local Plan, and Section 12 of the NPPF. Chestfield Parish Council is of the opinion that the land should remain as the garden of number 62 and not be built on. Should CCC be minded to grant it, Chestfield Parish Council asks that the Ward Councillors for Chestfield, Cllr Pat Todd and Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding call this application in to the planning committee for determination, please.

27 CA/20/01971 – 6 Plantation Road The parish council has no comments. Erection of 1,8m wall and 2 no. gates together with formation of access

28 CA/20/00733 - Chestfield Filling Station, Thanet Way, Amended plans/additional information CT5 3JB have/has been received: Proposed coffee shop, including drive-thru facility - The building has been repositioned with associated car parking, cycle parking, - Additional landscaping proposed landscaping, removal of car wash and installation of - Parking spaces reduced and two jet washes and associated work. rearranged thus increasing the green gap between Maydowns Road but reducing the green gap between no 7 Maydowns Road. This will affect the noise issue with no 7 Maydowns Road, which our comments on the 20 /04 /2020 cover and still hold good.

29 CA/20/01696 - South Winds, 1 Share And Coulter The parish council has no comments. Road, Chestfield CT5 3LE Single-storey side extension

Notifications CA/20/01471 – Four Buoys, Radfall Ride CT5 3EW GRANTED by CCC Single-storey detached outbuilding or use as ancillary accommodation CA/20/01444 - 109 Chestfield Road, Chestfield, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 3LT GRANTED by CCC Two-storey front and side extension, single-storey rear extension together with detached single-storey double garage with room in roof and associated parking following part demolition of single-storey side extension and conservatory. CA/20/01430 - The First Green, The Drove, Chestfield, Kent, CT5 3NY GRANTED by CCC Single-storey rear extension with replacement balustrade on existing external stairs, together with new balcony on the front elevation. CA/20/01349 - Cartref, Molehill Road, Chestfield, Whitstable, Kent, CT5 3PD GRANTED by CCC Single-storey side and rear extension and alterations to roof, together with new fenestration and external cladding. CA/20/01373 - 54 Chestfield Road, Chestfield, Whitstable, CT5 3LD GRANTED by CCC Single- storey rear extension. CA/20/01152 - Land West Of, Ellison Close, Chestfield, Kent GRANTED by CCC Single-storey detached dwelling with dual-pitched roof together with associated parking and landscaping. CA/20/01728 - Bluebell Cottage, Broomfield Gate, Chestfield, CT5 3ES GRANTED by CCC Two-storey rear extension. Sparrer Court, Molehill Road, Chestfield GRANTED by CCC Listed building consent for external alterations including installation of two conservation rooflights in the rear (North) roofslope and replacement side door in West elevation CA/20/01426 - Woodside, Molehill Road, Chestfield, CT5 3PD WITHDRAWN T.P.O. no 16, 1975: - I1) Fell two Oak trees located in the front, adjacent to the driveway. - I2) Fell two Oak trees located on the rear boundary of the rear garden. CA/20/01836 - 8 Longacre, Chestfield, CT5 3PQ GRANTED by CCC Single-storey front extension.