There were five questions from Members of the Public.

Question from Mr John Horne to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

‘After the recent Reg19 consultation, when will at least an initial analysis be published of proposed Main Modifications, including a statement of the number of consultation responses showing the number focussed on each proposed Garden Community and the remaining number of submissions?’

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Horne asked the following supplementary question:

‘I note that the modifications will come to the march meeting. Will a result of that be that there will be a need to delay submission so that residents have prior sight of the main mod or does the council intend to submit the published draft  document without any significant changes?’

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

Question from Mr Peter Titchener to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

‘When will the consultants preparing the Gypsy, Traveller & Showpeople Development Planning Document consult the settled community?’

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Titchener asked the following supplementary question:

‘Caravans in Kent have increased by 87% since 2019, of which nearly 30% are in Maidstone. However as the need for pitches needs to be determined before drafting that DPD, including by consultation with the settled community as per PPTS paragraph 7A (2015), isn’t it premature now to utilise resources in a ‘Call for Sites’ as you may not need any?’

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

Question from Mr John Hughes to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

‘MBC has declared a climate emergency and an objective for the Borough, with its traffic congestion, poor air quality and high housing growth, is to be carbon neutral by 2030. But Reg19 does not play its part to achieve this critical objective; it is not even mentioned in Reg19’s Spatial Vision nor in its strategic policies, which are too weak and focus on new growth, not the whole community. Nor is there an updated Integrated Transport Strategy. This may all lead to Reg19 being declared un-sound.

So when and how will these weaknesses be rectified before Reg19 is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination?’

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Hughes asked the following supplementary question:

‘In the policies you use the weasel words Climate Change, you never refer to your objective which I understand is your objective, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. Isn’t the problem that the policies are focused on new growth and not the whole community which produces most of the emissions. Wouldn’t it be good to incorp a 15 minute community concepts on existing communities, such as bearsted, loose, shepway, parkwood and rural service centres, which are all 1.5km or a 15 minute walk from a local centre to provide justification for improving cycling and walking and protection of local shops that research has shown by the Committee for CC, by the charted institute of highways and transport and by the royal town planning ins, will be required to achieve the 20% reduction in transport reductions and transport is the biggest contribution to Climate Change. Are you prepared to consider this for inclusion in LPR reg 19 submission?’

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

Question from Mr Peter Coulling to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

‘An important Modification to Reg19 is required. It should declare that every site over, say, 50 dwellings must have a phasing plan to facilitate a degree of MBC management of annual housing delivery so that it is consistent with a flexible Reg19 housing trajectory that accommodates any beneficial changes to the housing needs algorithm, as expected in 2022. That should then avoid accelerated development leading to a subsequent lack of 5-years housing supply and the planning threats that would open up. If a reduction is then required in development in any year to downwards-adjust to that flexible trajectory, sites which conflict with Spatial Objectives would then be the first to be deleted.

What such Modification will be proposed?’

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Coulling asked the following supplementary question:

‘Does that mean the borough is not going to try and prepare suitable modifications so that another accelerated development, right at the start of the Local Plan Review when it’s accepted; is it not going to go in for voidance policies or is it just going to throw the plan over the wall and let the developers do as they wish?’

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

Question from Mr Duncan Edwards to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

The Democratic Services Officer read out Mr Edwards’ question on his behalf due to connectivity issues.

‘The Maidstone Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) tabled at the SPI meeting in December indicated in para 2.39:

“Transport – In total 16% of the actions within the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) have not been actioned.”

What actions are being referred to here and is there an outline of the implications of this lack of action or an indication of how the actions are going to be brought back on track?’

The Chairman responded to the question.

The full responses were recorded on the webcast and made available to view on the Maidstone Borough Council website. The question-and-answer session took place between minutes 11:10 to 29:49 of the recording.

To access the webcast, please use the link below:

Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - 11 January 2022 - YouTube