Interview with Michael Thornton, Head of Spatial Planning.

The Chairman welcomed David Edwards, Director of Change, Planning and the Environment and Sue Whiteside, Team Leader Planning Policy to the meeting. Mr Edwards stated that they welcomed comments regarding the methodology used and in particular on any aspect that the Committee felt was missing or required more information.

The Committee considered the methodology diagram set out at Appendix A. They noted that the methodology had previously been very prescriptive but that new regulations for plan making were not yet in place. The Committee discussed the contents of the methodology, and suggested that Environmental Capacity and Land Availability aspect should be separated within the document to ensure that a complete evaluation could be made. They also commented that the broader geographical context should be included for example travel to work areas which were not the same as borough council boundaries.

Members commented that the preservation of some open spaces reduced the number of dwellings allowed within that space and queried the reliance on the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). Ms Whiteside advised the Committee that sites were not static and constraints may be lifted or imposed but that these would be assessed prior to making land allocations.  The Committee was pleased to hear that the Local Development Document Advisory Group (LDDAG) would be undertaking a spatial planning exercise and requested that this be considered as part of the methodology and included in the diagram.

Members debated the format of the methodology diagram. They concluded that the current format implied that equal weighting would be given to all aspects however; the Committee noted that not all aspects should be equal and thought it would be useful to illustrate the prioritisation of each aspect in the methodology through an alternative diagram such as a pyramid. It was noted that work was already underway on designing a matrix which would help the prioritisation of the methodology aspects further.

The Committee queried the emphasis that was being placed on historical figures and asked how much evidence had already been gathered. It was noted that no one aspect was yet complete but that the majority of the evidence was expected by the end of September. With this in mind the Committee suggested that the figures of 8,200 and 10,080 should be the starting point for testing as they had previously been tested and there should be a greater emphasis on infrastructure, place shaping and regeneration.

A Member queried the average density figure of 45 dwellings per hectare and questioned if it would be prudent to look at slightly higher and lower density figures for testing purposes. Ms Whiteside confirmed that this was the average figure tested and that some sites would be developed at higher or lower densities. The Committee agreed that both higher and lower densities should therefore be tested.

Members agreed that the Council should to be clear about the vision for the borough and that any option considered should have emphasis on incentives for regeneration and renewal. There was a concern that rural communities could be swamped if a Strategic Development Area (SDA) was introduced in rural parts of the borough. Members felt it was important to make clear that an SDA would not be ruled out but should only be considered if there were no other options.

Visiting member Cllr Mortimer queried if pollution and congestion had been considered within the methodology, in light of the 5 major hotspots for pollution in the town. Ms Whiteside confirmed that these were already being considered within the methodology. 

It was noted that the use of the term targets could be misleading and that it would be more appropriate to refer to them as ‘what if scenarios’ to mitigate any concerns or preconceptions that the Council was limited to just three options.

The Committee commented that the report itself required more evidence and could be considered leading in parts. The Committee sought assurance that that the recommendations from LDDAG were accurate. They requested that a further report be made to the 25 October meeting of the Advisory Group to set out further evidence and recommend a housing target and distribution for agreement by Cabinet as the basis of the draft Core Strategy for public consultation. A Member expressed their frustration with the lack of empirical evidence provided. Mr Edwards articulated the importance of using robust data and that he was happy to distribute historic submissions and more recent data to Members but stressed that some of the data concerned would not have been tested and that there was a need for assurance that nothing had fundamentally changed since the previous targets were set. Members requested that the data and empirical evidence be circulated as it emerged to Councillors.

Resolved: That

(a)  the methodology and approach to target setting outlined in diagram Appendix A and section 1.3 of Cabinet’s report be endorsed, together with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s amendments and additions as set out below:

That:

1.  The diagram of methodology and approach, attached at Appendix A to Cabinet’s report be amended as follows:

1.1  The diagram of methodology and approach be reformatted to depict priorities, such as by using a pyramid shape;

1.2  The environmental capacity and land availability be listed separately in the diagram to ensure that environmental capacity was not overlooked; and

1.3  The Local Development Document Advisory Group’s spatial planning exercise be included in the diagram.

2.  A broader geographical context be considered to include Maidstone’s  relationship with travel to work areas;

3.  Less emphasis be placed on historical evidence, more emphasis given to infrastructure and place shaping, including an emphasis on regeneration; and

4.  Higher and Lower density dispersal patterns be applied to all three options.

b)  all three options be tested without preconceptions, but as an initial hypothesis the 8,200 and 10,080 be used as a starting point.  This being due to the fact that both these figures have been tested in the recent past;

c)  any option considered should have emphasis on incentivising regeneration and renewal and be dispersed to avoid any swamping of communities arising from strategic development areas: in order to advance the place shaping objectives set out in the vision statement;

d)  the testing options be referred to as ‘What if Scenarios’ rather than targets to avoid confusion and preconception that the Council are limited to the three options being tested.

e)  a further report be made to the 25 October meeting of the Advisory Group that sets further evidence and recommends a housing target and distribution for agreement by Cabinet as the basis of the draft Core Strategy for public consultation;and

f)  Cabinet notes the Committee’s regret that the content of the methodology report contains strong presumptions of untested outcomes and the Committee’s frustration born through the lack of empirical evidence available to Members and welcomes the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment’s assurance that existing and new empirical data will be distributed to Councillors as it emerges to inform policy direction with immediate effect.