Contact your Parish Council
![](https://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/SiteSpecific/mbc_files/mobbutton.jpg)
Agenda item
Question and Answer Session for Members of the Public
Minutes:
There were three questions from Members of the Public.
Question from Councillor Peter Coulling to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee
‘It is possible that the Government will amend its formula for calculating Assessed Housing Need. One possibility is that, instead of using 2014-based Housing Projections, 2018-based would be mandated and that would reduce our figure by some 2.500 homes. How would you ensure that Reg 19 could be amended to remove sufficient sites to compensate for any reduction in Assessed Housing Need as a result of Government re-think?’
The Chairman responded to the question.
Councillor Peter Coulling asked the following supplementary question:
‘Do you not think that given the uncertainty, officers should be contingency thinking for the various possibilities that might arise from those re-thinks rather than the borough just ploughing ahead without any modification to Regulation 19 to enable any subsequent amendments?’
The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.
Question from Mr Duncan Edwards to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee
‘In the last 10 years Maidstone’s transport challenges have changed dramatically with the need to support 17,600 new dwellings and deliver sustainable transport solutions, and yet in the Reg 19 Local Plan Review, Maidstone has re-published its 10-year-old integrated transport strategy and called it the Integrated Transport Strategy (September 2021). With transport and sustainability being an increasingly hot issue, is there a plan to fully update this document and the support documents including the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan as a matter of urgency?’
The Chairman responded to the question.
Mr Duncan Edwards asked the following supplementary question:
‘The addendum is not really fulsome in its coverage as it focuses primarily on the Garden Villages and it doesn’t seem to do justice to the amount of update that is required over that period of time. Is it therefore not necessary to put some work in to at least provide an update for 2021 to cover those urgent points?’
The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.
Question from Councillor Peter Titchener to the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee
‘Maidstone has a very disproportionate share of traveller caravans in Kent. As the need for traveller pitches in the Maidstone Local Plan 2017 appears to have been based on a historical link with agriculture, which is no longer true (DM15), have the consultants preparing their report to underpin the Gypsy, Traveller & Showpeople Development Planning Document been told to revise their assumptions of need accordingly, with consultation input from the settled community?’
The Chairman responded to the question.
Councillor Peter Titchener asked the following supplementary question:
‘As Maidstone has over 30 per cent of all traveller caravans in Kent, will Maidstone Borough Council be more rigorous in future in defining need as per its final appeals statement for the traveller application 16/503403 paragraph 4.2 which says that “personal circumstances do not outweigh the harm and conflict with policy”. In the past we have always been told that personal circumstances do appear to outweigh policy. I would like to know if this is going to be looked at more rigorously’.
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 6:24 to 16:59 of the recording.
To access the webcast, please use the link below:
Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee - 7 December 2021 - YouTube