Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ejaz Aslam

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 19 November 2024 were signed by the Chair.

There were no declarations of interest received.

The Head of Planning advised that due to the significant level of workload relating to the Northfleet Harbourside Inquiry, it had not been possible to finalise work relating to item 8 on the agenda, Gravesham Borough Council S106 Developer Contributions Strategy and Guide.  As such this item had been withdrawn from the agenda with agreement from the Chair.

The Chair acknowledged the pressures of the workload relating to the Northfleet Harbourside Inquiry and noted that the item would be presented at the next meeting of Strategic Environment Cabinet Committee in June 2025.

The Committee were provided with a presentation that was also available in the agenda pack.  The presentation outlined Gravesham’s provision of a building control function and was for consideration in the creation of the Building Control Strategy.  The Head of Planning explained that as a local authority GBC had a statutory function to provide a building control service.  The presentation was the first step in in the production of the Building Control Strategy, taking into consideration the views and comments of the Committee.

Members were informed that Building Control was a minimum set of standards for design, construction and alterations to buildings.  The Committee were updated that Building Control served a different function to the Council’s statutory planning function.

The Council’s building control function was fulfilled by South Thames Gateway Building control (STG BC) Partnership.  This service was in partnership the local authorities of Canterbury, Gravesham, Medway and Swale.  The STG BC Business Plan was approved by Cabinet annually and the Leader of Gravesham Borough Council sat on the STG Joint Committee.

Members were updated that STG BC partnership had a duty to enforce building regulations throughout the borough to protect the public, with STG BC inspecting potentially dangerous buildings and structures and determining action needed.

Following the Grenfell disaster changes had been imposed upon building control to ensure safer building construction with greater regulation and accountability for non-compliance.

Members were updated that all building inspectors were regulated by the Building Safety Regulator and were required to follow a code of conduct.  A link for more information regarding the code of conduct could be found within the presentation, published in the agenda pack, along with other useful links.

The chair invited Member comments:

• Members noted the good service provided by STG BC and felt the presentation provided a useful explanation to demystify the services provided of building control to residents, with the suggestion that the contents be used on the website, as initial information to assist in establishing the service required.  The Head of Planning advised he would take the suggestion into consideration.
• Members felt there was a misunderstanding of building control’s powers, the Council held, in regard to enforcement and noted it would be useful to present information regarding enforcement powers with examples for better understanding. The Head of Planning advised he would take this comment on board.
• Members queried the process for residents to report a building control issues and alert enforcement teams.  In regard to STG BC, the initial complaint would go the STG but would follow GBC’s complaint procedure.

The Chair noted the comments and suggestions and agreed that clarity and understanding regarding STG BC services in contrast to the Council’s planning services was key.

The Committee were informed that the draft Building Control Strategy would be presented to the Committee at the next meeting in June 2025.

The Committee noted the report.

The Committee were presented with the Conservation and Heritage Strategy.  The purpose was to share a revised draft of the Conservation and Heritage Strategy in appendix 1 of the report, for discussion and further comment by the Committee.

The Head of Planning reminded Members that a draft was initially presented to the Strategic Environment Committee in November 2024.  The Chair addressed the strategy presented, page by page for discussion.  It was noted that previous comments had been taken on board and incorporated into the draft strategy.  Members were informed this was the last opportunity to provide comments and to discuss the strategy, prior to finalisation and ratification.  During Member discussion, pages highlighted were as follows:

• Page 12 (Local List) – The Chair noted that there was the option to locally list a property, however this would not have the legal same powers as a heritage listed building.  Members queried if locally listing would remove opportunity for premises to become registered as an Asset of Community Value. The Head of Planning assured Members that the two were separate, and even though a property was locally listed, an application could be made for it to become an Asset of Community Value (CVA).  The Chair asked for clarity, that a note was added to make this point clear.

• Page 13 (Conservation Areas) – Members noted reference was made to publications and guidance and asked if there could be clearer list of such information included, to advise what these documents were.  The Head of Planning advised the documents could be included within the strategy and as updates to the documents occurred, these would be updated accordingly.

• Page 19 (Outcomes) – Members queried if there were baseline statistics to enable comparison when the strategy was reviewed in the future.  The Head of Planning advised there would be baseline data for some areas, including visitor numbers and heritage assets at risk.  These could be set out within the strategy as requested. The Chair agreed a baseline should be included in the final published version and to assist with updates at each review.

Following discussion, the Head of Planning updated that statement could be added to note that listed buildings were predominantly in private ownership to set out who was responsible for the property upkeep etc.  The Chair agreed with this approach and suggested providing relevant signposting.  This was important to ensure people understood where responsibility lay. 

• Page 20 (Outcomes continued) – As per Member request it was noted that the strategy had been updated, to ensure guidance and information regarding the historic environment would be easily and fully accessible to all, worded in plain English on the Council website.

The Committee noted the report and agreed the amendments to the strategy.

Withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee were presented with the Corporate Plan, 2024-25, Quarter 3 Report, which was for information only.  The Head of Planning informed Members the report was set out in appendix 1 and the Chair addressed the performance indicators in turn.

The chair noted that PI 20 (percentage of minor planning applications completed on time) stood at 100% in quarter 3, which was a very good outcome.

In relation to PI 22 (total formal planning enforcement actions taken), Members queried why there has been a spike in quarter 2.  The Head of Planning explained that during quarter 2, a number of formal enforcements cases had reached the stage were the enforcement notices could be raised. Another spike was expected in quarter 4, as a number of cases were again reaching this stage.  He added that where figures seemed low, it should be noted that the figures only took into consideration the formal enforcement notices issued.  Enforcement was still carried out, and officers undertook enforcement under the guidance of the Council’s enforcement strategy, to resolve enforcement issues. During Q3 52 cases had been closed. Not all cases required formal notices as were resolved prior to this measure.

Members noted that there was not an indicator on the number of planning enforcement appeals and queried the percentage of cases won at appeal.  The Head of Planning did not have the statistics at hand but explained that the Council won the vast majority of appeals and would not issue an enforcement notice if it was felt the Council could not substantiate the notice.

The Committee noted the report.