1.       CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

2.      INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.      

2.1     Pursuant to s.33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) when preparing development plan documents local planning authorities and county councils (in two-tier areas) are subject to a legal duty to cooperate with each other, and with other prescribed bodies (as set out in regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended), on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries. In order to demonstrate effective and on-going joint working, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires strategic policy making authorities to prepare and maintain one or more statements of common ground (SoCG), documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and to describe progress in cooperating to address these.

2.2     SoCG are written records of the progress made by strategic policy-making authorities during the process of planning for strategic cross-boundary matters. It documents where effective cooperation is and is not happening throughout the plan-making process and is a way of demonstrating at examination that plans are deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working across local authority boundaries even if there are still matters to be resolved. In the case of local planning authorities, it also forms a key part of the evidence required to demonstrate that they have complied with the duty to cooperate.

2.3     A SoCG may also be used as an effective tool for demonstrating cooperation between the Local Planning Authority and those who play a part in helping deliver their Plan. This is pertinent to the Maidstone Local Plan Review, which was submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public on 31 March 2022. The examination hearings are currently in process. SoCG are being used by the Council to demonstrate legal compliance in terms of the plan-making process, as well as to demonstrate progress in resolving issues of plan soundness that the Planning Inspector is considering following representations made during the Regulation 19 consultation and the examination.

2.4     This report brings to the Cabinet Member a Statement of Common Ground. The SoCG in Exempt Appendix 1 has been produced by Maidstone Borough Council and Kent County Council. It provides an update to the current SoCG following further transport work and ongoing liaison with Kent County Council. It does not include Minerals and waste, which is the subject of a SoCG which is already completed, or education, which is subject to a separate SoCG which is not yet complete.

2.5     The SoCG is presented to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development.  The SoCG has previously been made available in draft form to the Planning and Infrastructure Policy Advisory Committee (now decommissioned), in November 2022, for its views.

2.6     Principal updates to the SoCG relate to the additional evidence that has been produced, particularly with regard to junction modelling and associated potential mitigations, as required by the Local Plan Review Inspector, following requests for additional information from Kent County Council.

2.7     It should be noted that this SoCG has not yet been signed by Kent County Council.  MBC has provided several iterations of the document and has undertaken a range of amendments in response to requests from KCC.  However, to date no signed document has been received from KCC.  Notwithstanding this, it is felt important that with the examination hearings into the Local Plan Review due to close imminently,  the Inspector should be provided with a copy of this document for his information and for inclusion in  the evidence base.  It will be made clear to the Inspector that the version being lodged only contains Maidstone Borough Council as signatory.

2.8     Due to urgency, this updated version of the SoCG will be signed off by the Cabinet Member without going back to PAC.

3.   AVAILABLE OPTIONS

3.1     Option 1: That the Statement of Common Ground (Exempt Appendix 1) is approved and signed by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development, in order that it may be published as part of the Council’s evidence base for the Local Plan Review examination.

3.2     Option 2: That the draft Statement of Common Ground (Exempt Appendix 1) is not approved by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development. However, this would mean the document could not be approved and signed, thus potentially prejudicing national requirements associated with the production of the Local Plan Review and discharge of the Council’s duty to cooperate with other authorities.

4.        PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1     Option 1. That the draft Statement of Common Ground (Exempt Appendix 1) is approved and signed by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development. This would allow the document to be agreed and signed, in accordance with the agreed protocol, in order that it may be published as part of the Council’s evidence base for the Local Plan Review examination.

5.       RISK

5.1    The risk associated with the recommendation, including the risks should the Council not act as recommended, have been considered in line with the Council’s Risk management Framework.

6.       NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION

6.1     If approved by the Cabinet Member, the Statement of Common Ground will be submitted to the Inspector undertaking examination of the Local Plan Review as part of the Council’s evidence base.

7.        REPORT APPENDICES

The following documents are to be published with this report and form part of the report: