There were eight questions from Members of the Public.

Question from Kate Hammond to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

‘At the 9 November 2020 SPI meeting, in response to our question about whether sites included in your Local Plan Review Preferred Approaches had permission from landowners affected, you said:

"on the forms that were required to be submitted with site proposals, promoters were asked to confirm that the submission included confirmation from the landowner or the person in legal control of the site that the site will be available for development being proposed. I am not aware of any that do not meet these criteria." 

Site 289 Heathlands Garden Community does not meet the criteria as a large majority of the landowners were not aware of the submission nor did they give their permission for their land to be developed on as set out in the promoter's masterplan. Do you wish to place on record that the officer advice you received to our question in November was factually incorrect?’.

The Chairman responded to the question.

Ms Hammond asked the following supplementary question:

‘Are you content for a site without landowner’s permission being submitted to the planning inspector later this year as part of your proposed new local plan?’.

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

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

‘Many small sites will not have come forward as part of the Call for Sites. Why are no small-site windfalls allowed for during the first three years of the Local Plan Review Period, which, at historic rates, would amount to just under 350 dwellings?’.

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Hughes asked the following supplementary question:

‘Is it not that case that the windfalls in the future including the first three years of the local plan review period are likely to be even greater than in the past, particularly after recent major changes in 2020 to permitted development rights to allow upward residential extensions by two stories and to allow changes of use from commercial business and service uses to residential uses to be brought in by the Government later this year, specifically to increase housing delivery after the pandemic which will result in a significant number of small site windfalls over the first three years of the local plan review and beyond that?’.

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

Question from Geraldine Brown to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

‘According to the Committee paper, in total there were in the region of 3,000 submissions to Reg 18b consultation. Of those, how many related to the proposed Lenham Heath and Lidsing Garden Communities and are they being collated together, rather than being dealt with individually?’.

The Chairman responded to the question.

Ms Brown asked the following supplementary question:

‘Why do we have to wait for the SPI meeting of the 9 March before your views on at least the non-garden community’s submissions, which presumably contain a lot of repetition?’.

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

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

‘Leeds Langley Relief Road. A piece of work is being commissioned to explore the related corridor, therefore indicating the possibility of this road being established. In the Local Plan Review, should  an allowance be made for perhaps 1,500 new houses along that corridor to assist the road’s funding, otherwise, if it does go ahead within the plan period, our Borough will have a plan with up to 1,500 homes in excess of the Government formula’s requirement?’.

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Coulling asked the following supplementary question:

‘If Members think that the inspector would just dismiss any allowance linked to this possible road, why doesn’t MBC just declare the corridor as a broad area with a figure against it, and then either flesh it out with detailed sites or remove it and replace it with other sites at the next review in a few years’ time when the fate of the road may become clearer? Aren’t we in the worst of all possible worlds by ignoring Leeds Langley relief road?’.

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

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

‘As a matter of urgency, could we see copies of agenda, briefing papers and minutes for all Duty to Cooperate activities since 1st July 2020 that have taken place with Tonbridge & Malling to coordinate strategic matters, including planning of homes and employment around our common border?’

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Horne asked the following supplementary question:

‘The last Minutes said that future updates from such meetings would be provided through the local plan review update agenda item. In the absence of any such update, can we therefore assume there have been no duty to cooperate meetings since your last meeting?’

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

Question from Ms Gail Duff to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

‘The Council's Strategic Plan commits to aiming to "deliver an eco and biodiversity net gain exemplar new community at Heathlands". Tonight's officer report on Heathlands also states that the new development aims "to support the council’s wider air quality improvement aims and its declared climate change emergency," The Heathlands proposal is a car-dependent air-polluting dormitory town that is questionable on how it will integrate biodiversity net gains and air quality improvements in to the development other than by tagging a country park on the side of it. Air quality levels are already poor due to the proximity to the motorway and will be exacerbated by considerable further traffic generated by the 5,000 new homes in an unsustainable location. Why is the Local Plan Review accepting a proposal which clearly contradicts the Council's climate change declaration?’.

The Chairman responded to the question.

Ms Duff asked the following supplementary question:

‘Do you agree that the Council-led garden community at Lenham Heath contradicts the Council’s own climate change policies and should be shelved as a preferred site in the local plan review?’.

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

Question from Mr Darren Hammond to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

‘The Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan has recently hit the buffers with the Planning Inspector accusing the authority of 'unjustified bias' in the selection of its housing development sites, favouring less sustainable locations over other locations with better access to public transport for example. The same could be suggested of the Maidstone Local Plan Review that chooses unsustainable car-dependent locations like Heathlands over other locations which have better existing access to a rail station. If the Council still believes Garden Settlements is the right spatial approach, do you think you need to review the original nine proposed settlements again and look for sites that are genuinely the most sustainable?’.

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Hammond asked the following supplementary question:

‘SOHL, Lenham Parish Council and Borough Councillors have all asked for the Council to publish its study that looked for the right location for a new council-led garden community before it settled on Heathlands. This was repeatedly refused by officers. How are you going to prove that there is no bias in your garden community selection?’.

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

Question from Mr Steve Heeley to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee

‘The Council's independent Sustainability Appraisal states that "Heathlands performed least well across the range of sustainability objectives". Other proposals for garden settlements such as the one in Marden, scores considerably more favourably than others yet appeared suspiciously silent in your Preferred Approaches recently consulted on. Is this therefore a politically motivated Local Plan Review rather than one based on sound sustainable development planning?’.

The Chairman responded to the question.

Mr Heeley asked the following supplementary question:

‘Can you tell us how the findings of your sustainability appraisal informed the selection of your preferred garden settlements in your preferred approaches?’.

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

The full responses were recorded on the webcast and made available to view on the Maidstone Borough Council website.

To access the webcast recording, please use the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCxxIjP-KZI