Councillors Mrs Grigg and McKay reserved their right to record the proceedings.

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Garten and Springett.

The following Substitute Members were noted:

Councillor McKenna for Councillor Garten

Councillor S Webb for Councillor Springett

The Chairman said that he had agreed to take an urgent update to item 14 – Local Plan Review Requirements Leading to submission.  The update had been published on Friday 18 March 2022 and contained further information relevant to consideration of the item.

Councillors Brindle, English, Hinder and J Sams indicated their wish to speak on item 14 – Local Plan Review Requirements Leading to Submission.  Councillor T Sams was present as an observer for this item.

Councillors J and T Sams had also given notice of questions to the Chairman (item 11).

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

The Chairman said that he understood that there had been significant lobbying in relation to item 14 – Local Plan Review Requirements Leading to Submission and the Lidsing and Heathlands Garden Community proposals in particular.

Councillors Mrs Grigg and Russell stated that they had been lobbied regarding the Coxheath sites and Councillors McKay and S Webb stated that they had been lobbied on the Lidsing Garden Community proposal.

RESOLVED:  That the public be excluded from the meeting if Members wish to discuss the information contained in the exempt Appendix to item 14 (Draft Statements of Common Ground) because of the likely disclosure of exempt information.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2022 be approved as a correct record and signed.

RESOLVED:  That the order of business be changed to enable the petition relating to the Lidsing Garden Community proposal to be taken with item 14 – Local Plan Review Requirements Leading to Submission.

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

Main Modifications – page 68 in the Agenda Pack has a Trajectory.  Assuming the Trajectory actually happens and that the orange line is the mandated requirement, after Year 1 Five Years’ Housing Supply looks problematic and, in Year 4, it looks as if we will have failed the Housing Delivery Test.  Are we then, respectively, at risk from NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development and the requirement to produce a remedial plan?

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Coulling asked the following supplementary question:

The trajectory for the adopted Local Plan was a bit of a tragedy and I did get the gist of that in the email correspondence, but I would challenge that that is a correct interpretation of Planning Practice Guidance so I should be grateful if you would stand alert for a clarificatory email from me to pass to the Planning Officers for them to absolutely give a personal assurance that the trajectory is robust to the forward looking Five Years’ Housing Supply and the rearwards looking Housing Delivery Test.  Will you give that assurance please?

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

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

Main Modification to LPRSP5(A) - development in the Leeds-Langley Corridor.

The policy now includes: “Land within the corridor …. will be safeguarded for the delivery of apotential relief road ………. Although development in this safeguarded area will be considered, where such development is assessed to be acceptable, the development will contribute to the delivery of the highway infrastructure needsrequired to deliver the relief road …..”

This clearly opens the possibility of much development as the route for any relief road crystallises and part of the corridor is not needed for the road itself and this is within the context that it has been stated that development will be necessary to part-fund any road.

If any large proposal is then forthcoming beyond the scope of windfalls, that would mean, as Reg19 is drafted, that MBC would substantially exceed the Government’s mandated housing requirement.

Why is that not recognised by a contingency for development to support any relief road, with corresponding removal of some currently identified sites to avoid any such excess?

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Titchener asked the following supplementary question:

Are you saying that if a new road goes ahead in the Leeds-Langley Corridor, and say 1,000 houses need to be built for funding it, then Maidstone will be exceeding its planned housing targets, and are you happy with this?

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

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

The Reg 19 Plan evidence base does not seem to include an integrated transport strategy.  Is it the intention to produce one, and, if so, when?”

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Hughes asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.

Question from Councillor J Sams to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

Given the growing opposition to garden communities and concern amongst residents, Parish Councillors and Borough Councillors, as to their viability and sustainability, how do you feel about concerns that their very inclusion either singly or jointly throws the success of the Local Plan under inspection into doubt? 

The Chairman responded to the question.

Councillor J Sams asked the following supplementary question:

Does any aspect of the CPRE response within the urgent update regarding Heathlands Garden Community give you grounds for questioning it being put forward?

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

Question from Councillor T Sams to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

Are you confident that sufficient detailed discussions around co-operation between other planning authorities and public bodies have taken place, and do you feel this Council has indeed done what is needed under duty to co-operate with others for the Local Plan?

The Chairman responded to the question.

Councillor T Sams asked the following supplementary question:

Can you offer to the public reassurance that the Statements of Common Ground specifically with Ashford Borough Council and Medway Council have been positive, and give examples in relation to the Garden Communities of Heathlands and Lidsing?

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

To listen to the answers to these questions, please follow this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsxnfEHqAdQ&t=1810s

RESOLVED: That the Committee Work Programme be noted.

There were no reports of Outside Bodies on this occasion.

Prior to the introduction of the report by the Strategic Planning Manager:

Mrs Sue Harwood presented a petition objecting to the Lidsing Garden Community proposal.

Ms Kate Hammond addressed the meeting on behalf of the Save Our Heathlands Action Group.

Mr Chris Hawkins of DHA Planning addressed the meeting.

The Strategic Planning Manager then introduced his report setting out the three primary areas of work to be considered as the Local Planning Authority moved towards submission of the Local Plan Review documents at the end of March 2022; these being the updated evidence base; the draft Statements of Common Ground; and the proposed Main Modifications to the Local Plan Review.

The Strategic Planning Manager explained that:

·  With the agreement of the Committee, the proposed Main Modifications would be forwarded to the Secretary of State as part of the submission documents.  There was an urgent update to the report regarding the updated evidence base and the proposed Main Modifications.

·  The report also provided background to the current position including the results of the Regulation 19 consultation that finished in December 2021 and a summary of the main issues raised.  The individual representations had been published and were available to view.

·  The evidence base for the Local Plan Review was constantly under review and had been updated at various key stages of production.  Updates to certain components of the evidence base had also taken place following the Regulation 19 consultation and were set out as background documents to the report.  They included evidence updates from strategic site promoters, further information on transport modelling, additional work on the Habitats Regulations Assessment and an AONB Mitigation Paper.  The updated evidence would help the Local Planning Authority as it sought to meet the tests of soundness at the forthcoming Independent Examination.

·  Regarding the draft Statements of Common Ground, the Inspector was required to examine whether in preparation of the Local Plan Review, the Council had complied with the Duty to Co-operate.  The Local Planning Authority had engaged, as it was required to do, with neighbouring authorities and other relevant prescribed bodies.  It was the intention to finalise and sign off the Statements of Common Ground following the meeting in order that they may form part of the submission documents.

·  The proposed Main Modifications were not minor changes such as typographical or graphical adjustments.  They would be proposed by the Local Planning Authority on the basis that they would help the Local Plan Review documents to be found sound and legally compliant at Independent Examination.  Most of the Main Modifications were relatively straightforward and represented opportunities to clarify the Local Planning Authority’s position regarding specific matters. 

·  There were Main Modifications proposed to the Policies for Heathlands, Lidsing and Invicta Barracks so that there is greater clarity regarding the expectations of the Local Planning Authority in terms of the delivery of housing and other forms of development as well as the timings of infrastructure.  This was to address various representations that sought greater clarity and certainty regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 216.

6.30 p.m. to 8.01 p.m.