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 the following supplementary question:

Do you agree that a long-term integrated transport strategy that works to reduce congestion and air pollution will improve the economic, environmental and health attractiveness of the Borough and help achieve net zero, and that the strategy needs to significantly increase walking, cycling and the use of public transport?

The Chairman responded to the question.

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

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