Leigh Parish Council s3

LEIGH PARISH COUNCIL

NOTES OF THE GSK WORKING PARTY MEETING HELD IN THE SMALL HALL, HIGH STREET, LEIGH ON MONDAY 20TH AUGUST 2012 AT 7.30PM TO DISCUSS THE GLAXO SMITH KLINE SITE IN POWDERMILLS

PRESENT: Leigh Parish Council: Colin Stratton-Brown (Chairman) Beverley Doherty (Chairman of Planning)

District Councillor: Alison Cook Local Residents: Sarah-Jane Hardy Richard Bateman Alex Watson Karen Muchmore Marilyn Starkey Nick Goode

Kelvin Hinton (Chairman of Planning, Hildenborough Parish Council)

APOLOGIES: Hannah Gooden (Planning Policy Team Leader, Sevenoaks District Council) Helen French (Planning Officer, Sevenoaks District Council) Louise Kleinschmidt (Leigh Parish Council Clerk) Sue Smith(Leigh Parish Council) Rob Swallow (Leigh Parish Council) Lynne Hickson William Merrick Jill Johnson Mike Johnson Donna Watson ACTION 1. Declaration of Personal and Prejudicial Interest All members of the working party have an interest in the proposals, in addition Kelvin advised that he is a professional town planner and previously worked for Sevenoaks District Council (SDC).

2. Review of the previous minutes and update on action items 1. It was agreed that the working party members would forward contact details of the Completed relevant landowners to Louise in order to make contact and notify them of the proposals. This action was completed and we have had a response from Ron Huggins and the Bayliss family. 2. Community Stewardship: Sarah-Jane said that the landowner has to apply for this, which would be either GSK or the developer unless the land is gifted/sold to another organisation. Sue suggested that the West Kent Countryside Partnership be approached as they could possibly take it on, and apply for heritage lottery funding. It was agreed that Sue and Sarah-Jane should consider this further and draw up a paper for County Cllr Peter Lake to take to the County Council for consideration. Colin advised that he and Alison had met with Mark Pritchard of Kent Wildlife Trust at the GSK site on 20 August. Mark will write a report for the Working Party to Mark review. This report should be available by 24 August. Sarah –Jane advised that she Pritchard had evidence of dormice activity and can mark on a GSK site plan the location of the /SJH/SS dormice. Beverley mentioned the report form Sandy Toy (Mrs Julian’s daughter) which describes in detail the species recorded on the site. Alison advised that GSK security staff had said they have deer, badgers, bats, woodpeckers and crested woodpeckers on the site. 3. Confirmation of GSK site visit and attendees. Louise advised that the site visit has beenCompleted confirmed for Tuesday 31st July at 9.30am at the main entrance to the site, and the following have confirmed attendance: Colin, Beverley, Sue, Rob, Kelvin, Sarah-Jane, Karen, Jill, Louise and Alison. Completed 4. Review the proposed survey questions and format and agree distribution

3. Review of survey responses The survey responses were reviewed in detail. Question: 1- The WP agreed with the over 80% of respondents whose first preference would be for another pharmaceutical or research and development company to purchase the whole site. 2- With one exception, the WP agreed with the 87% of respondents who stated that in the absence of with another pharmaceutical or research and development company to purchase the whole site, they would support the retention of one of the buildings with an employment use. Karen was not in favour of this option. 3- With one exception, the WP agreed with the 61% of respondents who stated they would support a housing development for the remainder of the site (excluding one building retained for employment). Marilyn was not in favour of this option. 4- The respondents indicated a maximum of 38 houses would be supported on the site. The WP supported low density housing development on this site. They emphasised low density. Mike Johnson Pro map is attached. The WP is of the firm opinion that this area is a hamlet and the rural housing density allocation therefore applies of 15 dwellings per hectare which would mean a housing development of less than 50 houses in total for the site. It was also noted that West Kent Housing Association is not keen to have affordable housing on the site because of its isolated location and poor infrastructure. 5- Whilst over 75% of respondents stated that they would support a development of one building with employment use, a small housing development and a nursing/care home; the WP with one exception (Alison) did not support this option. The opinion was that the isolated location, impact on highways and poor infrastructure meant a nursing/care home was not a suitable option. 6- As the above option was not supported, the WP did not support this option either. 7- The WP noted that over 65% of survey respondents would support a development of one building with employment use, a small housing development and some retirement homes. The WP was in favour of this option with one exception (Marilyn) however the WP felt that due to isolated location and poor infrastructure the retirement home option was unlikely. 8- The WP noted that the survey respondents were almost exactly split as to whether the woodland area should be community owned or KCC owned. The WP decided to opin on this once they had received the report from Kent Wildlife Trust. 9- The WP noted that over 60% of survey respondents did not support widening the road and directing traffic through the GSK site, nor opening up the western works access. The WP acknowledged that with hindsight this question should have been split into sections however the WP emphatically does not support either the road being widened nor opening up the western works access. 10- The WP noted that 92% of survey respondents considered a large number of houses would have a direct impact on school places in the area and that this should be an issued to be addressed. The WP very much agreed with this. 11- The WP noted that over 60% of survey respondents would like sporting facilities to be provided – however WP felt at this stage until the overall plans for the site had been agreed that it would be difficult to opin as to what sporting facilities might be suitable and who might own/maintain them. Approximately 65% of survey respondents wished to have a village green as part of the development. If a housing development were located on the site then the WP supported this and agreed it would provide recreational space for the residents. It was noted that 61% of the survey respondents supported other open space on the site but the WP agreed to wait until they have the report form West Kent Wildlife Trust before discussing what open space provision would be most suitable. The WP noted that approximately 75% of survey respondents were would support allotments however there was concern over soil contamination such as that experienced at Hunter Seal so it was felt that allotments might not be suitable. Over 40% of survey respondents were in favour of a playground however the WP would not support an ‘urban’ style playground but again the report from West Kent Wildlife Trust would be reviewed to see if other recreational provision might be suitable on the site.

4. Proposed Consultation Response to SDC Beverley advised that Leigh Parish Council had approved the expenditure of up to CSB/BD £1000.00 for the appointment of a planning consultant to review and provide advice and guidance on the WP’s consultation response. The WP was in support of appointing Robinson Escott. Colin and Beverley agreed to draft the report and consult with Robinson Escott. The draft report will be circulated to the WP before submission to Leigh Parish Council for approval on 3 September. It was agreed that a further meeting before 3 September would be arranged if the WP wished to discuss the draft report.

5. It was agreed that no items are to be labelled as confidential.

The meeting closed at 9.30pm * * * * *