Contact your Parish Council
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
REGENERATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
23 JULY 2012
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF CHANGE, PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Report prepared by Rob Jarman and Sue Whiteside
1. CORE STRATEGY STRATEGIC SITE ALLOCATIONS
1.1 Issue for Decision
1.1.1 To consider the draft
Core Strategy strategic site allocations for housing and employment, together
with the policy for the presumption in favour of sustainable development and
the distribution of housing targets for rural service centres, and to approve
the document attached at Appendix A to this report for public consultation in
accordance with regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)
(England) Regulations 2012.
1.1.2 On 16 May 2012
Cabinet approved the inclusion of strategic site allocations for housing and
employment in the Core Strategy, to be allocated within the strategic
development locations identified on the key diagram of the draft Core Strategy
2011. This report assesses alternative sites and makes recommendations on site
selection.
1.1.3 Following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012, the Planning Inspectorate published a model policy for local plans, which is considered to be an appropriate way of meeting the expectations of the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. While this report focuses on strategic site allocations, it also offers an opportunity to consult the public on the model policy.
1.2 Recommendation of Director of Change, Planning and the Environment
1.2.1 That Cabinet approves the site allocation policies set out in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public Consultation 2012 document (attached at Appendix A) for public consultation;
1.2.2 That Cabinet
approves policy NPPF1: Presumption in favour of sustainable development set out
in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public Consultation 2012
document (attached at Appendix A) for public consultation;
1.2.3 That Cabinet
approves the inclusion of dwelling targets for rural service centres in the
Core Strategy, and that the targets set out in the Core Strategy Strategic Site
Allocations: Public Consultation 2012 document (attached at Appendix A) be
approved for public consultation:
· Harrietsham |
315 dwellings |
· Headcorn |
190 dwellings |
· Lenham |
110 dwellings |
· Marden |
320 dwellings |
· Staplehurst |
195
dwellings; |
1.2.4 That Cabinet notes
the Maidstone Strategic Site Allocations Sustainability Appraisal Draft Interim
Report June 2012 attached at Appendix C; and
1.2.5 That, subject to the viability testing of strategic site allocations and Core Strategy policies, the prioritisation of planning obligations agreed in 2006 be reviewed and final decisions reflected in the Core Strategy policy on infrastructure delivery.
1.3
Reasons
for Recommendation
1.3.1 The main purpose of
this report is to seek Cabinet approval to undertake public consultation on
proposed strategic site allocations for housing and employment for inclusion in
the Core Strategy. A primary consideration running through the list of
recommended sites is the provision of supporting infrastructure for highways
improvements and public transport. Whilst the requirements for appropriate
transport infrastructure is set out in the allocated policies (Appendix A),
this report should be read in conjunction with the draft Integrated Transport
Strategy report attached to the agenda. Equally important are reports updating
progress on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and responses to key issues
arising from representations made on the draft Core Strategy last autumn (also
attached to the agenda).
1.3.2 This report gives
some background to the allocation of strategic sites for housing and
employment, and sets out the process for allocating sites, including the
sustainability appraisal of alternative sites. This is an important exercise so
that the Core Strategy is found sound at examination. The reasons for
rejecting and recommending site allocations have been summarised. Site
capacities have been examined in detail using recognised planning principles to
arrive at the number of dwellings or square metres of development, although these
will be refined when the Council gives consideration to detailed planning
applications. The report also includes recommendations to include the Planning
Inspectorate’s model policy on the presumption in favour of sustainable
development, and addresses the issue of including dwelling targets for the
rural services in the Core Strategy.
Background
1.3.3 The Council
published its Core Strategy Local Plan for “public participation” consultation
on 2 September 2011, which ran for 6 weeks to 14 October. This public
engagement event was known as regulation 25 consultation which, under new plan
making regulations that came into effect in April 2012, is regulation 18
consultation. The next round of public consultation on the Core Strategy would
normally be regulation 19, called “publication”. Publication is the final
consultation before the Core Strategy is submitted to the Secretary of State
for independent examination into the local plan.
1.3.4 A total of 585
individuals and organisations responded to the 2011 consultation, submitting
nearly 2,800 comments. Since then the Council has spent a considerable amount
of time investigating and reviewing the issues that arose from the
representations, including the production of new evidence and re-engagement
with some of the stakeholders, in order to fully respond to the comments made.
A call for the allocation of strategic development sites in the Core Strategy (as
opposed to identifying strategic locations on the key diagram) was a major
issue. Cabinet gave consideration to this specific issue at its meeting on 16
May 2012, and resolved to include strategic site allocations for housing and
employment in the Core Strategy as good planning practice, and to give
certainty to the public and the development industry about the quantity and
location of development. The balance of smaller land allocations will be made
in the Development Delivery Local Plan that will follow the Core Strategy.
1.3.5 Given the
significance of this change, the Council must give the public an opportunity to
comment on proposed strategic site allocations before they are incorporated
into the Core Strategy for “publication” consultation (regulation 19). This
report therefore seeks approval to undertake what is known as a partial public
consultation on the Core Strategy strategic site allocations, to commence on 17
August 2012 for 6 weeks, which is the same stage of the plan making process (regulation
18) as that completed in the autumn of 2011.
1.3.6 Following
consultation on strategic sites, a report will be presented to Cabinet at a
special meeting in November 2012, which will seek approval to undertake
“publication” consultation (regulation 19) on an amended draft Core Strategy. The
report will include the consideration of all representations submitted during
public consultation on the Core Strategy in 2011, as well as those received on
the strategic sites consultation. At that stage, the draft Core Strategy will
include strategic site allocations, and will incorporate all of the recommended
changes arising from the consideration of both consultations. Meanwhile, the
most significant issues that arose during the 2011 consultation, together with officers’
responses, are the subject of a separate report attached to this agenda.
1.3.7 The proposed timetable is set out below.
Date |
Stage |
Reg |
Description |
August 2012 |
Preparation |
18 |
6-week partial public consultation on proposed strategic housing and employment site allocations, housing targets for rural service centres and the model NPPF1 policy |
December 2012 |
Publication |
19 |
7-week (to allow for public holidays) public consultation on the complete draft Core Strategy |
March 2013
|
Submission |
22 |
Submission of the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State |
July 2013 |
Independent Examination |
24 |
Examination into the Core Strategy by an appointed Planning Inspector |
Process for allocating strategic sites
1.3.8 The process for making
strategic housing and employment site allocations began with a “call for sites”
exercise between 11 May and 15 June 2012 inviting landowners, developers and
their agents to use a pro forma to submit information about available sites
within the strategic locations identified on the key diagram of the draft Core
Strategy 2011. The call for sites focused on strategic housing locations to
the north west and the south east of the urban area, and the strategic
employment location at junction 8 of the M20 motorway. The strategic location
at junction 7 of the M20 for a medical hub did not form part of this initial
exercise because proposed development is associated with the medical hospital
currently under construction, so there were no alternative sites. For the same
reasons that sites in other strategic locations are examined, land at junction
7 forms part of this assessment.
1.3.9 Even if no further information came forward as part of the recent call for sites, all sites known to the Council that are located within the strategic development locations have been assessed on equal terms in respect of their impact on the environment. To assist in the assessment of the suitability of sites for development, the categories on which information was sought included, but were not limited, to:
· Current site use
· Adjacent site uses
· Landscape
· Ecology
· Site access/transport issues
· Air quality
· Noise pollution
· Flood zone
·
Access
to services.
1.3.10
By
their nature, strategic sites must be large sites that are critical to the
delivery of the Core Strategy. Counsel’s advice was sought on the criteria to
use to determine which sites can be classed as strategic. For the purpose of
making strategic housing site allocations in the Maidstone Core Strategy, a
strategic site is defined as “a site which individually, or collectively with
other sites in very close proximity to one another, is capable of providing at
least one year’s supply of the housing requirement for the plan period, i.e.
504 dwellings”. Consequently, the call for sites focused on the larger urban
periphery strategic housing locations and not the rural service centres where
smaller residential allocations will be made in the Development Delivery Local
Plan.
1.3.11
The
first step in the assessment process discounted sites that were located outside
of the strategic locations identified on the key diagram of the draft Core Strategy
2011 because they were not critical to the delivery of the strategy. Housing
sites that were not located adjacent to the urban area were also discounted. Some
of the discounted sites will be given consideration during the preparation of
the Development Delivery Local Plan when land providing the balance of
Maidstone’s housing needs will be allocated.
1.3.12
A
map showing the potential alternative development sites that lie within the
strategic locations is attached as Appendix B. All alternative sites in the
strategic development locations have been assessed on an equal basis, using sound
evidence. Reasons for the proposed allocation or rejection of sites are set
out below, under the strategic location headings.
1.3.13
All
policies and proposals in local plans are subject to sustainability appraisal,
which informs various stages of plan preparation. A Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
of strategic site allocations (attached at Appendix C) has been undertaken by appointed
consultants. The conclusions in the SA have helped to inform the selection of
sites, as well as highlighting where mitigation measures will be required to
minimise the impact of development on the environment. A full SA will
accompany the Core Strategy at publication and submission stages of the plan
making process.
1.3.14
The
NPPF makes clear that all policies in local plans should be deliverable and
viable. New advice on Viability Testing Local Plans, jointly prepared by the
Local Government Association and the Home Builders Federation, was published in
June 2012. In partnership with Swale Borough Council, Maidstone Borough
Council has recently appointed consultants (Peter Brett Associates) to
undertake a joint viability assessment of both councils’ local plans/ core
strategies, with the intention of this work feeding into the Community
Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule. The studies will consider different
aspects of viability, including affordable housing contributions, site specific
considerations, and wider infrastructure impacts. The viability assessment
will include an assessment of strategic site allocations.
1.3.15
Mitigation
measures to reduce the impact of development on the landscape are required for
all development proposals, making the best use of existing landscape features
together with additional structural and internal landscaping.
Improvements to highways and public transport are essential. So too is
the permeability of individual sites, through the provision of pedestrian and
cycle links giving access to existing and new housing and employment areas,
open space, shops and community facilities. Mitigation measures
appropriate for each site are set out in the proposed site allocation policies.
1.3.16
A
summary of the results of the assessment is set out below. Strategic sites that
are recommended for allocation, together with supporting infrastructure
requirements, are set out in the specific allocation policies for each site included
in the consultation document attached at Appendix A.
North west strategic housing location
1.3.17
Following
the call for sites exercise, only one previously unknown site was submitted for
consideration – South of Allington Way (HO-08-NW).
Rejected sites in the north west strategic location
1.3.18
South
of Allington Way (HO-08-NW) is a small site capable of accommodating up to 15
dwellings. The site is situated adjacent to East of Hermitage Lane to the west
of the main Allington settlement. The site in itself is not difficult to
develop and the primary question would concern access. The characteristics of
the site are such that it is more suited to an infill style of development
rather than as a strategic allocation. If the site were allocated as part of
the wider East of Hermitage Lane allocation it would unduly affect the layout
of that development for relatively little gain.
1.3.19
Bell
Farm (HO-16-NW) is a large site, capable of accommodating up to 260 dwellings
west of North Street in Barming. The site is open and slopes to the south. The
primary reasons for not allocating Bell Farm for development concern character
and landscape. While Bell Farm is not highly visible from the A26 Tonbridge
Road, which runs south of the site, it is visible from the opposite side of the
Medway valley, an important local landscape. The development of Bell Farm would
also require a change in the semi-rural character to North Street that is
inappropriate at this location. Heath Road would come under pressure as a
primary access to the site, although the restricted width of the road with cars
parked either side as far as the junction with Fountain Lane means that this
would likely be an unsafe option to pursue.
1.3.20
Bunyards
Farm (HO-20-NW) is a small triangle of land located on the northern side of
Beaver Road, adjacent to the A20 London Road in Allington and the Maidstone
Borough Council boundary with Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council. This site
would provide a minimal amount of dwellings and would not contribute
significantly to the wider objectives for the north west strategic location.
1.3.21
Land
at Gatland Lane/Farleigh Lane (HO-21-NW), overlooks the Medway valley to the
west of Fant and south of the A26 Tonbridge Road. There are two primary reasons
for rejection; these being that this area is a locally important landscape
which provides part of a green and blue corridor into the centre of Maidstone;
and that development of this site would result in the loss of grade 1
agricultural land, of which the borough has a limited supply.
Allocated sites in the north west strategic location
1.3.22
The
West of Hermitage Lane site is allocated for 300 dwellings and is comprised of
two portions of land. The largest portion, West of Hermitage Lane (HO-11-NW) is
situated opposite Maidstone Hospital on Hermitage Land and is shaped like an
arrow pointing west and is situated adjacent to the Tonbridge and Malling
boundary. The smaller portion, Oakapple Lane (HO-07-NW), runs from the tip of
the arrow on a north east-south west axis. The site as a whole is suitably
screened from longer distance views, with a dip in the centre of the larger
portion, and has close access to local facilities and services. Vehicular
access will be taken from Hermitage Lane only, with Oakapple Lane providing
pedestrian and cycling access via a complimentary upgrade of its unmade north
western section. Along the north western boundary of the larger portion of the
site a 30 metres wide buffer will be required to protect the setting of the
existing ancient woodland.
1.3.23
East
of Hermitage Lane (HO-10-NW and HO-13-NW) is allocated for 415 dwellings. It
was submitted as two separate sites, the larger HO-13-NW which crosses the
Tonbridge and Malling boundary, and the smaller HO-10-NW site, which
incorporates a redundant reservoir. This land south east of the Hermitage Lane
to Allington footpath/restricted byway is an existing housing allocation and it
is this land which is re-allocated for housing. The site will be split roughly
1/3 to 2/3, with the north eastern 2/3 of the site (a large open field
incorporating the reservoir site) developed as housing and the south western
1/3 of the site designated as informal open space. Primary access is from an
upgrade of part of the footpath/restricted byway, with emergency, bus,
pedestrian and cycling access provided from Howard Drive. The site is visible
from the North Downs, although the inspector for the Maidstone Borough Wide
Local Plan 2000 considered that the site encroaches on the urban area, rather
than vice versa.
1.3.24
Bridge
Nursery (HO-19-NW) is allocated for 165 dwellings. It is an existing housing
allocation in the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000. It is located at the
far north western end of the A20 London Road and is adjacent to the Tonbridge
and Malling boundary. Primary access to the site will be taken from the A20.
The location of this site means that it is able to take advantage of the existing
community, retail, health, education and open space facilities in Allington.
The site is well screened and the Maidstone East railway line provides a
boundary to the north eastern edge of the site.
South east strategic housing location
1.3.25
The
overall approach to assessing housing sites to the south east of the urban area
was influenced by a need to protect the rural character of the area, the
setting of listed buildings, and to create a softer development edge to the
urban area in this location. The accessibility of the sites, proximity to the
town centre, and permeability through the sites to existing residential areas
and services was also extremely important. Nine sites came forward in the south east
in response to the call for sites, and three were discounted due to location
and/or size.
Rejected sites in the south east strategic location
1.3.26
A
number of sites have been rejected based on landscape character, setting of
listed buildings and grounds of accessibility. These sites include Land at
Gore Court (HO-05-SE), Bicknor Farm (HO-01-SE), Land South of Sutton Road
(HO-04-SE) and the northern section of land North of Sutton Road (HO-14-SE).
Allocated sites in the south east strategic location
1.3.27
Two
of the sites adjacent to the urban edge at Langley Park (HO-15-SE) and Land
North of Sutton Road (HO-14-SE south section and HO-09-SE) are allocated for
residential development in the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000, and are
still considered the most sustainable sites to develop in this area. Both sites
allow direct access to Sutton Road and would make best use of proposed
improvements to public transport linkages to the town centre, as well as
pedestrian and cycle access to local services and community facilities. For
the most part, the sites have strong boundaries and are not considered to be of as
high a landscape quality as other sites in this area. The site boundaries can
be improved to strengthen the containment of development and help to mitigate
against pressure for expansion in the future.
1.3.28
Of
the remaining sites assessed, a further section of land North of Bicknor Wood
(HO-14-SE) was considered most appropriate to accommodate development of the
size and scale necessary in this location. This site has well defined
boundaries with Gore Court Road to the west, Bicknor Wood to the south and
White Horse Lane to the north, and can be screened from the high quality open
countryside to the east by extending a section of Bicknor Wood to meet East
Wood, which lies just to the north of White Horse Lane.
1.3.29
North
of Bicknor Wood is a large open field of approximately 9.5 hectares in
relatively close proximity to Sutton Road. Bicknor Wood screens this site from
the existing local plan allocation at North of Sutton Road. Accessibility to
the site can be improved by connecting the site to Sutton Road via a new access
road through the proposed North of Sutton Road allocation, which will meet Gore
Court Road at the western edge of Bicknor Wood. Existing public footpaths
allow easy access to local shops and community facilities in the adjacent
residential area of Senacre, and to planned improvements to public transport
linkages to the town centre.
1.3.30
The
allocation of North of Bicknor Wood ensures that the developed edge of
Maidstone does not creep further east than Langley Park or further north than
White Horse Lane. This also ensures that development is consolidated in this
area to make best use of planned transport improvements on Sutton Road and
accessibility to existing local services and facilities. Although the North of
Bicknor Wood site is in an attractive rural setting, it can be screened from
its surrounding open countryside, and development of the site will not impact
on Bicknor Farm and Rumwood Court, which are both Grade II listed buildings.
Junction 8 strategic employment location
1.3.31
Three
sites came forward at J8 in response to the call for sites.
Rejected sites at the junction 8 strategic location
1.3.32
The
site to the east of M20 J8 (EMP-01-J8) is too small to make a significant
contribution to the identified requirements. Further developable area would be
likely to be lost to retain an adequate landscaped buffer around the edges of
the site (for ecology and to protect residential amenities of Old England
Cottage) and also to accommodate the necessary changes to the site’s form to
enable a development platform to be created. Highway access to the site would
require extensive improvements to the A20 to provide a suitable and safe means
of access directly from the A20. The use of the access, the construction of
the access road, and the likely extensive works to create the development
platform are all likely to adversely affect the setting of the adjacent listed
building. The Conservation Officer has raised concerns on these grounds. Use
of the site access road is likely to affect the residential amenity of the
occupiers of Old England Cottage. It is recommended that this site is not
suitable for allocation.
Comparison of Woodcut Farm and Land to the south of the A20
1.3.33
The
other two sites submitted are land at Woodcut Farm (EMP-03-J8) and land to the
south of M20 J8 (EMP-02-J8). Both sites are in countryside locations, removed
from the main built up area of Maidstone and comprise open agricultural
fields. Development of either site would clearly substantially alter their
existing character. The existing urban influence in the vicinity of the
Woodcut Farm site is slightly greater, provided by the residential and small
commercial development along the A20 and the road interchange itself. The vicinity
of the site to the south of the A20 is more rural in character. The site
appears as a component of the rolling countryside to the south, particularly in
views from the south and from the public right of way which crosses it.
1.3.34
The
site to the south of A20 has defined boundaries created by the watercourses to
the south and east and by the roadside banks to the north west and north east.
These features would contain development and help to mitigate against pressure
for expansion of the site in the future. The Woodcut Farm site has strong
boundaries in the form of the A20 and M20. If the site were developed, it is
likely there would be pressure in the future to bring forward the triangle of
land between Musket Lane and the A20. The western boundary of the site is
defined by Crismill Lane and the tree belt along it but the pressure could come
to expand in this direction in the longer term. If the site were to be
developed it would be important to strengthen this boundary with substantial
structural landscaping to provide a buffer to the wider countryside to the west
to help to mitigate this risk.
1.3.35
The
Woodcut Farm site forms part of the setting of the Kent Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and represents a continuation of the landform
of the North Downs. It is also visible, at a distance, from points in the
AONB. Views from the AONB of the site to the south of A20 are limited. In
views from the south it is seen as part of the foreground to the AONB.
1.3.36
It
is considered that the size and characteristics of the Woodcut Farm site do
offer an opportunity for the landscape impacts of development to be mitigated.
This could be achieved by ensuring the existing topography of the site is
respected through minimal site levelling, through significant additional
structural landscaping and through careful design in terms of the buildings’
scale, siting, orientation and materials. To develop the site to the south of
A20 requires extensive excavation which would be a substantial and unavoidable
alteration to the prevailing form of the landscape. There is significantly
less opportunity on this site to soften the impacts of development through
enhanced landscaping.
1.3.37
Archaeology
is a factor on both sites and the actual potential requires confirmation including
through additional survey if necessary. In addition, development on the
Woodcut Farm site would need to take account of the setting of the listed
farmhouse.
1.3.38
For
the Woodcut Farm site, the impacts on protected species and sites are judged,
at this stage, likely to be minimal, recognising that further surveys will be
required as part of a planning application. For land to south A20, measures
are required to mitigate impacts on the River Len millpond and Carr Local
Wildlife Site. There are concerns about the further landscape change
resulting from these measures and the impact of both these measures and the
overall excavation required on the hydrology of the site.
1.3.39
The
view of County Highways is that access to the Woodcut Farm site would be taken
from the A20 Ashford Road with some improvements to the A20 roundabout, which
is expected to be required to increase its capacity. Development on the site
to the south of the A20 would necessitate more substantive changes to the
roundabout, including the creation of a fourth “arm” to access the site, which it
is judged would be more complex and costly. Development of either site would
contribute to highway improvements elsewhere on the network, subject to more
detailed transport assessment in conjunction with a planning application.
1.3.40
The
promoters of the site to the south of the A20 contend that the site could
deliver, within its boundaries, the initial part of a South East Maidstone
Strategic Link. The link road does not form part of the emerging development
or transport strategies for the borough, so this proposal for the site has been
given no weight in the assessment.
1.3.41
In
conclusion, land to the south of the A20 would require substantial landscape
change to accommodate development, and has potential to impact on the adjacent
Local Wildlife Site. Given the size of the Woodcut Farm site and its capacity
to provide for extensive structural and internal landscaping, as well as its
capability to accommodate development within a parkland setting, it is recommended
that this site be allocated for employment development.
Junction 7 strategic location for a medical hub
1.3.42
Newnham
Park (EMP-04-J7) at junction 7 of the M20 motorway is identified as a
strategic location for a medical hub. It is a 28.5ha site located to the north
of the urban area approximately 2.5km from the town centre. The site is
bounded by Horish Wood to the north and Pope's Wood to the west. To the
south is Bearsted Road, beyond which are Vinters Park Crematorium, Vinters Park
Local Nature Reserve, and the Grove Green housing estate. The eastern
boundary is formed by the A249 Sittingbourne Road, beyond which are Eclipse
Business Park and the Hilton Hotel. The Kent Institute of Medicine and
Surgery (KIMS) hospital is under construction on the northern perimeter of the
site together with a new access road. The hospital is due to open in 2014.
1.3.43
The
medical campus provides an opportunity for Maidstone to become a centre for
medical excellence. It supports the Council’s objectives for economic
prosperity and the allocation will deliver a well designed and sustainably
constructed development that will attract a skilled workforce and assist in
balancing the jobs market. There are no alternative sites suitable for this
type of development in the borough because of the nature of demand for these
facilities, and the proximity of campus facilities to the KIMS clinic and
motorway junction.
1.3.44
Development
will have an impact on the landscape because the site is located in the
countryside and lies within the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB), so mitigation measures will be critical to the site’s
development. Newnham Park will be developed in a woodland/parkland setting
with appropriate provision of open space. Necessary structural and internal
landscaping will incorporate existing landscape features and watercourses
running through the site, and will contain development as well as protect
adjacent ancient woodland from the impacts of development. New woodland will
be planted on the rectangular field to the south east of the site to provide
net gains in biodiversity and ecological connectivity between Pope’s Wood and
Horish Wood, and to serve as additional screening to new development.
1.3.45
Buildings
at Newnham Park will be built to a high standard of design and construction,
and will include a range of measures to control building heights, mass and
construction materials (including green roofs). Permeability is an important
aspect of the site's development, and enhanced pedestrian and cycle links to
the residential areas of Grove Green, Vinters Park and Penenden Heath, and to
Eclipse Business Park, will be provided. Developer contributions for highway
and public transport improvements will be sought and delivered through legal
agreements. Development will be guided by a development brief approved by the
Borough Council.
1.3.46
Newnham
Court Shopping Village is located adjacent to the medical campus, and the
owners of the Village are currently seeking to make improvements to existing
retail facilities. The redevelopment of the shopping village together with the
medical campus will attract the investment funding required to facilitate
highway improvements and other infrastructure necessary to serve the
development. Extending the development brief for the medical campus to
incorporate the shopping village will provide an opportunity to secure a well
planned, well designed and comprehensive development at an important gateway
into Maidstone. The quantum and type of retail facilities will be restricted,
and the impact of replacement retail facilities on the town centre will be
addressed through the requirement for retail impact assessments and policy
restrictions.
1.3.47
It
is recommended that Newnham Park is allocated for a medical campus, retail park
and nature reserve, together with extensive structural and internal landscaping
and supporting infrastructure.
Priorities for delivering infrastructure
1.3.48
In
July 2006, Cabinet[1] agreed its
priorities for the negotiation of Section 106 planning obligations[2] as follows:
Housing Development
1. Affordable housing/provision of open space and recreational facilities
2. Education contributions
3. Transportation infrastructure
4. Medical provision
5. Community safety
Business and Retail Development
1. Transportation infrastructure
2. Open space/landscaping
3. Education/training contributions
4. Community safety
5. Clean and tidy borough
6. Other
Leisure Development
1. Transport infrastructure
2. Community safety
3. Open space/landscaping
4. Education/training contributions
5. Clean and tidy borough
6. Other.
1.3.49
The
context in which priorities were considered included two emerging development
plan documents on affordable housing and open space, and consultation with
Planning Committee and the Environment and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny
Committee. Cabinet resolved “that the schedule of completed Planning
Obligations be available online”, and “that following the adoption of these
priorities, a Supplementary Planning Document on Developer Contributions be
prepared in accordance with the timetable set down in the adopted Local
Development Scheme”.
1.3.50
A
supplementary planning document was not produced, and the list of priorities
for planning obligations was never uploaded to the Council’s website or used extensively
in the development management process. However, affordable housing and open
space contributions have been given priority when determining planning
applications in accordance with the two adopted development plan documents for
these policies. The reasons for not pursuing a supplementary planning document
are not clear. It may have been due to the lack of consultation, viability
assessment, explicit scoring criteria, etc., and that the business and retail
contributions priorities did not follow the development plan policies at that
time. Consequently, no formal public consultation or examination/ inquiry into
the methodology or the selection of planning obligation priorities have been
undertaken.
1.3.51
A
key issue for the Council in 2012 is the delivery of transport infrastructure
to support new development, particularly strategic housing and employment sites
that are proposed to be allocated in the Core Strategy. The allocations will
be subject to viability testing, but sites cannot be delivered without the
necessary improvements to highways and public transport set out in the policies
(attached at Appendix A), the draft Integrated Transport Strategy and the draft
Infrastructure Delivery Plan (both of which are the subject of separate reports
attached to this agenda). The Core Strategy will be found unsound if transport
infrastructure is not given sufficient priority in the delivery of the
strategy.
1.3.52
It
is therefore recommended that, subject to viability testing of strategic site
allocations and Core Strategy policies as a whole, the prioritisation of
planning obligations is reviewed in the context of the proposed housing and
employment allocations, and that the policy on infrastructure delivery (policy
CS14) reflects those decisions.
NPPF model policy
1.3.53
The
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012, and the
key theme running through the framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development. The Planning Inspectorate
has published a model policy for local plans, which is considered to be an
appropriate way of meeting the expectations of the presumption in favour. The
model policy addresses the need to proactively engage with applicants to find
solutions to problems and, where there are no up-to-date policies, to grant
planning permission without delay unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. The model policy has been inserted into a number of core strategies
by the presiding inspector at recent core strategy examinations.
1.3.54
Although
the requirements of the policy are set out in the NPPF, and the Borough Council
implements best practice by working proactively with applicants, a decision to
exclude the policy from the Core Strategy at this stage of the plan making
process could lead to the Core Strategy being found unsound at examination. The
consultation on strategic housing and employment site allocations offers a
vehicle to also consult the public on the model policy, despite there being
limited opportunity to amend the wording. It is recommended that policy NPPF1:
Presumption in favour of development is included in the Core Strategy and that
the policy is published for public consultation (Appendix A).
Rural Service Centres
1.3.55
Sites
for housing development at the rural service centres (RSC) will be allocated in
the Development Delivery Local Plan. Three of the key issues that respondents
raised during the 2011 public participation consultation on the Core Strategy
relate to the designation of villages as RSCs, the need for flexibility through
the early release of sites at RSCs where a local need has been demonstrated,
and the inclusion of specific residential targets for the five RSCs.
1.3.56
These
three issues are discussed in detail in the report on the public participation
consultation attached to this agenda. It is proposed to retain the five designated
RSCs, and to carry forward to the Core Strategy the paragraph allowing
flexibility at RSCs as well as the individual village dwelling targets set out
in the Cabinet report of 9 February 2011. The Core Strategy will be amended to
reflect these changes prior to Cabinet’s approval to undertake publication
consultation in December.
1.3.57
However,
any major changes to the strategy contained in the publication version of the
Core Strategy following consultation in December would result in the need for a
further round of public consultation on those changes. To mitigate the risk to
the Core Strategy programme, it is recommended that the dwelling targets set
out for the RSCs in the 9 February 2011 Cabinet report be included in the
consultation document attached at Appendix A. These are:
· Harrietsham |
315 dwellings |
· Headcorn |
190 dwellings |
· Lenham |
110 dwellings |
· Marden |
320 dwellings |
· Staplehurst |
195 dwellings |
1.4 Alternative Action and why not Recommended
1.4.1 The Council could publish its Core Strategy for regulation 19 consultation without the allocation of strategic sites for housing and employment, and retain the strategic development locations on the key diagram only. However, the inclusion of allocated strategic sites for housing and employment not only gives clarity on the amount and location of proposed development, but also results in a more robust Core Strategy. The assessment of alternative sites is integral to the site selection process.
1.5 Impact on Corporate Objectives
1.5.1 Corporate objectives of achieving economic prosperity and providing decent housing are inherent in strategic site allocation policies.
1.6
Risk
Management
1.6.1 The main risk to
the Core Strategy is the local plan being found unsound at independent
examination. This risk is mitigated by the inclusion of strategic site
allocations in the Core Strategy, the retention of Counsel for legal advice on
the Core Strategy process, and the publication of a sustainability appraisal
for alternative development sites.
1.6.2 The transitional period for local plan conformity with the NPPF expires in March 2013. It is important for the Council to submit its Core Strategy to the Secretary of State by then, in accordance with the current programme, to avoid a further policy vacuum. Submitted core strategies carry considerable weight as material considerations in the determination of planning applications. Continued communication and support between officers, Members and the public is vital to maintaining the programme.
1.7 Other Implications
1.7.1
1. Financial
|
X
|
2. Staffing
|
|
3. Legal
|
X
|
4. Equality Impact Needs Assessment
|
|
5. Environmental/Sustainable Development
|
X |
6. Community Safety
|
|
7. Human Rights Act
|
|
8. Procurement
|
X |
9. Asset Management
|
|
1.7.2 Financial: A dedicated
budget of £770,000 over 4 years from 2012/13 to deliver the local planning
policy framework has been identified through the Council’s medium term
financial strategy. Developer contributions will be secured through legal
agreements to deliver the necessary infrastructure for strategic site
allocations.
1.7.3 Legal: Legal advice is
being sought at each stage of the plan making process to minimise the risk of the
Core Strategy being found sound at examination. This is particularly important
for site allocations because a number of core strategies have recently been
found unsound due to the inequitable way in which alternative sites have been
appraised. These services can be managed within the existing budget for local
plan production and internal and external legal advice has been sought at all
stages of the Core Strategy development. Legal agreements will be required for
both on-site and off-site infrastructure.
1.7.4 Environmental/Sustainable
Development:
The Sustainability Appraisal attached at Appendix C examines the social,
environmental and economic impacts of potential development sites, to ensure
the decisions made about site allocations contribute towards achieving
sustainability.
1.7.5 Procurement: Consultants have
been procured to undertake work on the sustainability and viability of
strategic sites, and were appointed in accordance with the Council’s
procurement procedures. Costs can be managed within the existing budget for
local plan production.
1.8
Relevant
Documents
Cabinet
report 25 July 2012 - Draft Integrated Transport Strategy
Cabinet report 25 July 2012 - Infrastructure Delivery Plan Update
Cabinet report 25 July 2012 - Core Strategy Public Participation
Consultation: Key Issues and Responses
1.8.1 Appendices
Appendix A Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public Consultation 2012
Appendix B Map of Alternative Strategic Sites for Housing and Employment
Appendix C Maidstone Strategic Site Allocations Sustainability Appraisal
Interim Report 2012
1.8.2 Background
Documents
None
IS THIS A KEY DECISION REPORT?
Yes No
If yes, when did it first appear in the Forward Plan?
June 2012
This is a Key Decision because: Affects all wards and parishes
Wards/Parishes affected: All wards and parishes
|