Contact your Parish Council
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
CABINET
25 JULY 2012
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF CHANGE, PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Report prepared by Sue Whiteside
1. CORE STRATEGY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CONSULTATION: KEY ISSUES AND RESPONSES
1.1 Issue for Decision
1.1.1 To consider the key
issues arising from the representations made during the public participation
consultation on the draft Core Strategy (2011) and to note the officers’
responses.
1.1.2 This is an interim report outlining some of the significant issues raised by respondents but it does not include a summary of all comments submitted. Following public consultation on proposed strategic housing and employment site allocations, which are the subject of a separate report attached to the agenda, Cabinet will consider all representations from both consultation events prior to approving the Core Strategy for “publication” consultation which is programmed for December 2012. It is important to outline some of the main issues at this point because of the time that has lapsed since the consultation closed.
1.2 Recommendation of Director of Change, Planning and the Environment
1.2.1 That, without prejudice to consideration of all representations prior to the approval of the Core Strategy for the next round of public consultation planned for December 2012 (regulation 19[1]), Cabinet consider the key issues arising from the 2011 public participation consultation on the draft Core Strategy, notes the officers’ responses, and agrees the following:
i)
Replace
the 10,000 jobs target set out in policy CS1 with a specific employment
floorspace requirement expressed in square metres;
ii)
Retain
junction 8 of the M20 motorway as a strategic development location for
industrial and warehouse development, together with premium office development,
to address qualitative and quantitative needs and the aspirations of the
Council, and allocate land for development in the Core Strategy to be guided by
an approved development brief;
iii) Retain junction 7
of the M20 motorway as a medical campus, and allocate land for development in
the Core Strategy in conjunction with the adjacent redevelopment of Newnham
Court Shopping Village, to be guided by an approved development brief;
iv) Retain the housing
target of 10,080 dwellings in a dispersed pattern of development;
v)
Retain
the two strategic housing development locations to the north west and south
east of the urban area, and allocate land for development in the Core Strategy
to be guided by development briefs;
vi) Update Maidstone’s
5-year housing land supply and housing trajectory to a base date of 1 April
2012, and engage with the development industry to achieve consensus over the
methods of calculating elements of land supply, including a 5% contingency
allowance;
vii) Include housing
targets in policy CS1 for each of the rural service centres in accordance with
those set out in the Cabinet report of 9 February 2011, reproduced at paragraph
1.5.22 of this report;
viii) Include reference
to the early release of a proportion of suitable greenfield sites at the rural
service centres in the Core Strategy in advance of the adoption of the
Development Delivery Local Plan where supported by evidence of need;
ix) Note that work is
being undertaken on the viability of Core Strategy policies, including
affordable housing, and that a subsequent report on this issue will be
presented to Cabinet;
x)
Retain
the five rural service centres of Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham, Marden and
Staplehurst;
xi) Note that the draft
Integrated Transport Strategy, which is the subject of a separate report
attached to the agenda, addresses the issues relating to improvements to
highways and public transport raised by respondents;
xii) Rename green wedges
as green and blue corridors, transfer references to corridors in policy CS3 to
policy CS1, and amend the green wedges notations on the key diagram;
xiii) Reword the Gypsy
and Traveller accommodation policy (CS12) to provide clarity and to include a
landscaping criterion; and
xiv) Note the work that
is ongoing to provide for a suitable public site(s) for Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation.
1.3 Reasons for Recommendation
1.3.1 The Core Strategy Local
Plan is the key document of the local planning policy framework. It sets out
the Council’s spatial vision and objectives over a 20 year period from 2006 to
2026, and it contains a number of spatial policies that explain how much
development will be provided over the plan period, where this will be located
and (equally important) where it will be resisted. The Core Strategy also
contains a number of core policies that focus on delivering the strategy and
setting criteria against which development applications can be determined.
1.3.2 The public
participation consultation on the draft Core Strategy commenced on 2 September
2011 and ran for 6 weeks. This stage in the plan making process was formerly
known as regulation 25 consultation, but it equates to regulation 18 under new
legislation[2]. The consultation
was widely publicised through advertisement, the website, leaflet drops to
householders and a newsletter to all those listed on the Council’s local plans
database. A number of events were organised, including roadshows at key
locations across the borough and a permanently staffed exhibition at the Town
Hall throughout the consultation period. Presentations were made to all
parish councils, the business community, and hard-to-reach resident groups.
1.3.3 A total of 585 individuals
and organisations responded to the consultation, submitting nearly 2,800
comments, which is a reflection of the success of the consultation. A
breakdown of the 585 respondents is set out below.
· 436 members of the public (74%)
· 75 from the development industry (13%)
· 27 from parish councils (5%)
· 27 other organisations (such as Kent Wildlife Trust, Arriva, Southern Water) (5%)
· 17 Maidstone Borough Councillors (3%)
· Kent County Council
· Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council
·
Medway
Council.
1.3.4 Since the initial
consultation 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 and
infrastructure providers, in order to fully respond to the comments made and to
provide a robust evidence base. Legislative changes have also taken place
including the government publishing the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF) and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites in March 2012. This caused
further delay to the programme while the impacts of new national policies on
the Core Strategy were assessed.
1.3.5 The key issues
raised by these representations are the subject of this report. In moving
forward, it is vital that any significant changes to the strategy are agreed by
Cabinet. A further report will be presented to Cabinet later this year, which
will include a summary schedule of all of the representations made during the public
participation consultation on the Core Strategy last autumn (including minor
proposals) as well as representations submitted during the public consultation
on strategic housing and employment sites to be undertaken this summer. The
schedule will summarise the individual comments received, together with
officers’ responses and recommendations for each.
1.3.6 The full schedule
of representations and recommended responses has not been completed at this
point due to the Cabinet decision on 16 May 2012 to undertake public
consultation on strategic housing and employment site allocations, which
resulted in amendments to the Core Strategy work programme. Cabinet is
requested to give preliminary consideration to the key issues together with
officers’ responses set out below, but without prejudice to Cabinet’s final
decisions on the Core Strategy that will be made in November 2012. Cabinet
will then be able to review all of the representations and officer
recommendations in advance of preparing for public consultation on the Core
Strategy in December 2012 (new regulation 19).
1.4
Employment
Targets and the Distribution of Development (CS1)
Representations
1.4.1 Twelve respondents (2%
of the total comments on this policy) have challenged the jobs target. Some
say the target is too high and others too low. Objectors are concerned that
there is not enough evidence to explain where 10,000 new jobs will come from,
and also raise concerns that commuting to out-of-town employment locations is
not acceptable. Respondents would prefer the Core Strategy to focus on
providing high quality employment only, objecting to the prioritisation of
warehousing because it is considered that such jobs are low skilled.
1.4.2 Some respondents
seek a more flexible approach to changes of use where an existing employment
site does not meet modern business requirements, and are looking for
flexibility in policies to allow for additional office development outside of
the town centre. There
is also a call for a wider distribution or a dispersal pattern of employment
sites, in line with the distribution of housing sites.
1.4.3 There is support
from the public and the development industry for the identification of junction
8 of the M20 motorway as an employment location (22 respondents or 5%). There
are also suggestions that this location could accommodate housing or mixed use
development for housing and employment. There is a high level of opposition to
development at junction 8 from local residents (254 respondents or 52%), who
object on the grounds of the KIG appeal decision, the impact on the landscape,
the loss of Special Landscape Area protection, increased traffic congestion,
and the provision of low skilled jobs in this location. Alternative employment
sites are proposed at Detling Airfield Estate, Park Wood and Hermitage Lane. Apart
from a subsidiary part of Detling Airfield, none of these sites are being
promoted by the landowners. Undeveloped land to the west of Detling Estate has
been put forward by the landowner.
1.4.4 There is support
for medical research facilities at junction 7, provided development has
adequate links to the motorway. There is also a minority view that reference
to medical research in the policy is unnecessarily specific, and those
developers are seeking general employment or mixed use development (including
housing and retail) in this location. Objections to development at junction 7
are based on concerns about the impact of development on the landscape, in
particular the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and traffic
congestion. There is a suggestion that any proposals for research and
development should be located at Maidstone Hospital or at Detling Showground,
but not by the landowners of those sites.
Officers’ response
1.4.5 The workforce for
the 10,000 additional jobs will come, in part, from the increase in
resident labour supply resulting from the completion of 10,080 new dwellings. This
target provides for an additional resident labour supply of 5,000 workers[3]. The balance
of jobs will be provided by reducing out-commuting and increasing in-commuting,
with a particular focus on the delivery of a proportion of employment
development that attracts well paid jobs. This objective underpins the Economic
Development Strategy 2008 (EDS) and the land requirements set out in the Employment
Land Review Partial Update 2011 (ELR). Development, such as the medical campus
proposed at junction 7 of the M20 motorway and premium offices at junction 8,
is likely to attract residents currently commuting out of the borough,
including to London. Further objectives of the EDS include an overall
increase in economic activity rates in the borough as well the promotion of higher
and further education, thereby expanding the pool of local skilled
labour available to match the jobs supply. While it is important to reduce
out-commuting, the borough should be providing for a balance of jobs. The
Council cannot of course control the number of jobs created, only the hectarage
or square metres of floorspace of employment allocations to encourage employers
to locate in the borough.
1.4.6 While the Core
Strategy will allocate land for employment development, wider promotional
initiatives will play a key role in achieving economic prosperity and attracting
employers to assist in achieving the right balance of jobs and reduce
out-commuting. Thus it is more appropriate for the Core Strategy to reflect the
demand for employment floorspace and the Council’s aspirations in terms of land
use and, consequently, it is recommended that the 10,000 jobs target set out in
policy CS1 of the draft Core Strategy 2011 be replaced with a specific
employment floorspace requirement expressed in square metres, which is easier
to monitor.
1.4.7 The ELR sets out
the m2 and hectarage demand for each of the B use classes based on
2009/10 data. Although this data will be updated (with the amount of
employment floorspace granted planning permission in the intervening period) prior
to the next round of public consultation on the Core Strategy (regulation 19[4]) in December 2012,
the need to provide for a range of employment uses persists. The Council’s
targets will be redefined in policy CS1 to support the employment needs for the
borough, including identified demand and the Council’s aspirations to provide for
advanced manufacturing and industrial uses.
1.4.8 Office development
must be directed towards the town centre in accordance with the National
Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) and the application of the sequential
test. The borough’s quantitative office needs can be provided for in its town
centre. To meet qualitative demand, further office development is provided at
Eclipse Park to deliver some flexibility and choice for the market, and demand will
also be met through a quantum of research and development facilities proposed at
the medical campus and premium office development at junction 8. It has been
demonstrated[5] that the borough’s
industrial/warehousing employment needs cannot be met through a dispersed
pattern of development.
1.4.9 With regard to the
strategic employment location at junction 8 of the M20 motorway, officers have
undertaken an assessment of the alternative sites proposed by respondents to
the 2011 public consultation event, despite not having any current evidence of
their availability for redevelopment.
1.4.10
The
suitability of the Parkwood Industrial Estate for significant intensification
and expansion is limited by highway constraints. Existing vacant floorspace at
the industrial estate has already been accounted for in demand calculations.
The loss of existing floorspace as a result of redevelopment would need to be
taken into account, so any net gain would not be enough to meet requirements
for additional industrial/ warehouse development.
1.4.11
Detling
Airfield Estate is located within the nationally designated Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB). The site has limited capacity and the existing
employment floorspace on the estate lost through redevelopment would have to be
offset against gains. Traffic would be directed via junction 7 of the M20
motorway which does not have the capacity of junction 8, and development would
require transport infrastructure (such as a large roundabout on the A249) which
it could not fund. The undeveloped land between the estate and the County
Showground has been promoted by the landowner for development. The same
transport concerns raised for the redevelopment of the estate would apply, and
the landscape concerns of development on a greenfield site within a nationally
designated AONB would be even more acute.
1.4.12
Key
constraints to industrial and warehouse development in the broad location of
Hermitage Lane at Allington is the lack of capacity at junction 5 of the M20
motorway and the A20/Hermitage Lane junction to cope with additional HGV
movements, as well as the proximity of such uses to residential properties and
the Maidstone Hospital. A critical mass of employment uses could not be
delivered in this location.
1.4.13 Maidstone’s employment needs cannot be met through a dispersed pattern of development. Junction 8 is the best location for a critical mass of employment uses, including premier office development, industry and warehouse uses, which will provide for a qualitative scheme in a parkland setting to help mitigate the impact of development on the landscape. Junction 8 has transport capacity, and studies demonstrate that the impacts on local roads, including HGV movements, are within reasonable limits. Development will be guided by a development brief approved by the Borough Council and undertaken in consultation with local stakeholders. The preferred site in this location will be subject to public consultation, and is discussed in a separate report on strategic site allocations attached to this agenda.
1.4.14 Junction 7 of the M20 motorway is identified as a strategic location on the draft Core Strategy 2011 key diagram for a medical hub. Following progress on the construction of the Kent Institute of Medicine and Surgery (KIMS) clinic in this location and the identification of further opportunities for medical facilities in association with the clinic, the site is considered as part of the strategic site allocations report attached to this agenda.
1.4.15
A
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 the campus to the KIMS clinic and motorway
junction. Development will have an impact on the landscape so mitigation
measures will be critical to the site’s development. Development will be
guided by a development brief approved by the Borough Council, which will
include a range of mitigation measures, including highway and public transport
improvements.
1.4.16
General
employment or mixed use development including housing is not an appropriate use
for this site, and such uses have been provided for elsewhere. The site has
been identified as a unique opportunity for a medical campus to provide specialist
medical facilities, research and development and medical teaching.
1.4.17
The
medical campus is adjacent to Newnham Court Shopping Village, 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 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 impact of replacement
retail facilities on the town centre will be addressed through the requirement
for retail impact assessments and policy restrictions.
1.5
Housing
Targets and the Distribution of Development (CS1)
Representations
1.5.1 There are mixed
responses to the Council’s 10,080 dwelling target whereby some respondents
support the target (22 respondents or 5%) while others believe it is too high
or too low (42 respondents or 9%). A proportion of the development industry is
proposing a higher target, while residents are seeking a reduction. There are also
objections to the housing target on grounds that it is not in conformity with
the South East Plan target of 11,080 dwellings. A few developers feel there is a lack of
testing of alternative options for delivering housing development.
1.5.2 There are a number
of challenges from the development industry to the Council’s housing land
supply (19 respondents or 4%), and some objectors are seeking a 20% contingency
allowance for the non implementation of planning permissions when undertaking
5-year housing land supply calculations.
1.5.3 There is a
consensus of support from both the development industry and residents for a
dispersed pattern of development that delivers housing at the urban fringe and
at rural service centres, although a minority of respondents do object in part
or as a whole.
1.5.4 There is support
for the principle of identifying a strategic housing development location to
the north west of the urban area in the vicinity of Allington, although some
objections focus on reducing the amount of housing proposed. A number of residents
and the adjoining local authority unconditionally object to development in this
location (47 respondents or 10%) on the grounds of increased traffic
congestion, the impact on the landscape, and maintenance of the strategic gap
between conurbations.
1.5.5 There is general
support for the south east strategic housing development location around Park
Wood and Otham (6 respondents or 1%). In the main, objections are from a minority
section of the development industry which is objecting to a move away from a
strategic development area that would accommodate 3,000 or 5,000 dwellings supported
by a strategic link road.
1.5.6 One objector from
the development industry has suggested that a north Maidstone corridor should
be identified more firmly as a suitable mixed use business location that would
have housing potential to support the employment uses.
1.5.7 With regard to the
distribution of development at rural service centres, there is a call for the
inclusion of specific targets for the villages in the Core Strategy, as opposed
to a single target to be distributed amongst the 5 villages (27 respondents or
6%). Additionally, developers have referred to the importance of the 9
February 2011 Cabinet report, which discussed the potential to release a
limited amount of appropriate development sites at rural service centres in
advance of land allocation documents, provided there is firm evidence of local
need. The development industry would like to see this reference included in
the Core Strategy.
1.5.8 Some landowners, developers
and/or agents have focused their comments on the strategy and the proposed distribution
of development, and have not used the consultation as a vehicle to promote
their sites. Others have promoted individual sites and used their availability
as part of the argument in support of the Core Strategy or as a tool for
seeking an amendment. There is a call from part of the development industry
for the Core Strategy to include detailed strategic development site
allocations, as opposed to the strategic development locations identified on
the key diagram of the draft Core Strategy.
Officers’ response
1.5.9 On 16 May 2012
Cabinet approved the inclusion of strategic site allocations within the
strategic development locations identified on the key diagram of the draft Core
Strategy 2011. This decision was made in the context of a review of the Local
Development Scheme and in response to representations made during public participation
consultation (2 September to 14 October 2011). There were a number of benefits
to this approach set out in the May report, not least good planning practice
and the certainty it gives to the public and the development industry about the
quantity and location of development. The recommended strategic housing and
employment site allocations, which will be the focus of a partial public
consultation on the Core Strategy (regulation 18), are the subject of a
separate report attached to this agenda. Following consultation on strategic
housing and employment site allocations, the draft Core Strategy as a whole (as
amended by both regulation 18 consultations) will be approved for Publication
consultation (regulation 19) in December 2012.
1.5.10
The
Council has been through an extensive exercise to determine how much
development (with supporting infrastructure) the borough can accommodate, and
has also tested distribution patterns of growth against a number of different
factors. During the preparation of its Core Strategy, the Council approved
a methodology to test 5 development options using 3 potential housing targets
and 2 distribution patterns of development (concentrated and dispersed)[6]. The 3 dwelling
targets were based on:
· 8,200 representing natural growth and the draft South East Plan 2006 target
· 10,080 representing Growth Point submissions and the South East Plan EiP Panel[7] recommendations
· 11,000 in line (approximately) with the adopted South East Plan 2009 target of 11,080 imposed by the Secretary of State (contrary to the EiP Panel’s recommendations)
1.5.11
The
option testing focused on the Council’s priorities for Maidstone to have a
growing economy and to be a decent place to live, but also took into
consideration infrastructure capacity, environmental and ecological capacity,
place shaping and deliverability. The Council's evidence base was
expanded to include demographic and labour supply forecasts; transport modelling;
a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment; a Strategic Housing Market
Assessment; a Water Cycle Strategy; and studies on employment, retail and the
town centre. Furthermore, the infrastructure and service providers were
consulted on the options for developing the housing strategy. All of
these elements contributed to the decision making process.
1.5.12
The
methodology was objectively assessed by the Council’s Business Transformation
team and, following a report on the results of the exercise[8], Cabinet approved
a target of 10,080 dwellings for public consultation. A full assessment of the
options is also included in the Sustainability Appraisal that will support the
strategic site allocations during public consultation and the Core Strategy
through its various stages of production.
1.5.13
In
brief, the option of 8,200 could only be tested in a dispersed pattern of
development and was rejected because the cost of infrastructure required to
support this option was considerably in excess of the funds that could be
secured through development. The remaining four options of 10,080 and 11,000
dwellings in dispersed or concentrated development distribution patterns had
contrasting strengths due to the broad differences in distribution. Some
options better met the housing need and prosperity aspirations of the Council
while others minimised the impact of development on environmental and
ecological capacity. Certain options were better at delivering
infrastructure and place making, while others built more flexibility and choice
into the strategy or better balanced urban and rural development.
Development could fund the infrastructure required to deliver the remaining
four options, including transportation measures, but could not finance a
strategic link road to required standards. However, unlike the higher
housing target tested, 10,080 dwellings could be delivered without relying on
SHLAA[9] sites that proved
difficult to develop[10].
1.5.14
A
local housing target of 10,080 dwellings for the plan period, to be provided in
a dispersed pattern of development, was the best option to ensure the Core
Strategy is affordable and deliverable, offering choice and flexibility.
This option took account of the demand for new and affordable housing, the
availability of suitable development sites, and the need for new infrastructure
required to support new development. The range of policies contained in
the former South East Plan and the emerging draft Core Strategy were taken into
account when developing the housing target and development distribution, a
number of which aim to protect the environment and manage traffic congestion.
1.5.15
It
is accepted that Maidstone borough has performed well in the housing market
over the past 5 years and has delivered its targets[11]. However, past
high building rates are a reflection of the completion of high density flatted
development on a number of brownfield sites that became available in the town.
The strong relationships internally between planning and housing and externally
with the registered providers of affordable housing, together with external
funding from the Homes and Communities Agency, have also contributed to a
strong market performance. Given the current economic climate, changes in
government funding for housing and borrowing rates, these development rates
will not continue, particularly when new site allocations are adopted and lower
density greenfield sites are released. Not all SHLAA sites will be suitable
for development once further appraisals are undertaken. Past development rates
alone cannot be relied on to extrapolate future housing targets. Local housing
targets should be based on evidence and engagement with the community.
1.5.16
A
target of 10,080 dwellings delivered in a dispersed pattern of development
remains the most sustainable for Maidstone borough. This approach strikes
a good balance between growth and environmental capacity; and a balance between
securing economic prosperity and decent affordable housing with protecting the
environment and minimising the impact of development on traffic
congestion. The strategy delivers the Council's spatial vision and there
does not appear to be any compelling evidence to suggest a move away from a
target of 10,080 dwellings.
1.5.17
The
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. It
makes clear that regional strategies form part of the development plan until
such time as they are abolished by Order using the powers of the Localism Act
(2011). The NPPF also confirms that local planning authorities can continue to
draw on evidence that informed the preparation of regional strategies to
support local plan policies (paragraph 218). The Core Strategy must be in
general conformity with all policies of the NPPF and the South East Plan,
including those that seek to protect the environment and relieve traffic
congestion. It is considered that the strategy meets these requirements and
the dwelling target of 10,080 units is therefore in general conformity with
both documents, and is based on evidence submitted to the South East Plan EiP.
1.5.18
Several
respondents challenge Maidstone’s 5-year housing land supply. Annual housing
land surveys are undertaken, and supply is calculated using tried and tested
methods. There can be disagreement over the phasing of sites that have outstanding
planning permissions, which is a more subjective part of the assessment, but
each year officers contact all applicants with sites of 10 units or more to
check the delivery of their sites. Nevertheless, this is an important year
because the data as at 1 April 2012 will form part of the evidence base to
support the Core Strategy at examination, and it would be prudent to try to
identify and resolve areas of disagreement with the development industry.
Consequently, officers will hold round table sessions with representatives of
the development industry with a view to gaining a consensus on the methodology
for calculating 5-year housing land supply and other elements of supply that
contribute to the 20-year housing trajectory. These sessions will be held over
the summer, in advance of updating the 5-year supply data for Maidstone’s
Annual Monitoring Report and the 20-year housing trajectory that will support
the Core Strategy at Publication, Submission and Examination stages.
1.5.19
The
adopted NPPF requires local authorities to build in an additional 5% buffer
when calculating their 5-year housing land supply (rolling forward on an annual
basis). The buffer is only increased to 20% for those authorities who have
poor past delivery rates of their housing targets. This is certainly not the
case in Maidstone.
1.5.20
In
developing its strategy, the Council has moved away from an urban extension
(Option 7C) for good reasons set out in this report. The strategic site
allocations report attached to this agenda examines the capacity of sites in the
strategic locations identified on the draft Core Strategy 2011 key diagram, and
looks at the impact of development on the landscape, the environment and the
transport network among other issues. Development will be guided by a
development brief for each site, and policies will set out the mitigation
measures necessary for development to proceed. The public will have an
opportunity to comment on specific site allocations in August/September before
the Core Strategy is amended for public consultation in December.
1.5.21
The
Council is proposing to meet specific development needs by releasing prime
location sites at junction 7 for a medical campus and junction 8 for premium
offices, industrial and warehouse development. Both sites will be contained by
structural and internal landscaping and there are no proposals for future
expansion. These are not appropriate locations for housing or general business
use, and to reduce employment capacity at junctions 7 and/or 8 to accommodate
residential development would affect the Council’s ability to meet its
employment needs. Housing development in addition to the employment proposed
at junction 8 would compromise the setting of the AONB. There is no firm
evidence to support the identification of a north Maidstone corridor for
employment and/or housing development, and there is no justification for moving
away from a sustainable housing strategy locating new housing in and at the
edges of the urban periphery and at the rural service centres.
1.5.22
Policy
CS1 of the draft Core Strategy 2011 sets an overall target of 1,130 dwellings
to be accommodated on new greenfield sites at the five rural service centres of
Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham, Marden and Staplehurst. The Strategic Housing
Land Availability Assessment 2009 and the Strategic Sites Assessment 2009
demonstrated an adequate choice of sites to meet this target. The distribution
of this target (used for testing purposes) was illustrated in the Cabinet
report of 9 February 2011. Given the need for neighbourhood plans to be in
conformity with development plan policies, and to provide clarity for the
public and the development industry, it is appropriate to include the targets
for each village:
· Harrietsham |
315 dwellings |
· Headcorn |
190 dwellings |
· Lenham |
110 dwellings |
· Marden |
320 dwellings |
· Staplehurst |
195 dwellings |
1.5.23
With
regard to the early release of suitable greenfield sites at the rural service
centres, paragraph 1.2.7 of the 9 February 2011 report stated:
“However, the Core Strategy will need to be
flexible and deliverable. The majority of development in recent years has been
located on brownfield sites within the urban area, so it is important to focus
a proportion of development at Rural Service Centres to support the continuing
viability aspirations of these settlements. Therefore, where there is firm
evidence to demonstrate a local need at a Rural Service Centre that cannot be
met through a local needs housing site, a proportion of suitable greenfield
housing development may be permitted before 2014, in advance of allocating
specific sites in site allocations documents that will follow the Core
Strategy. Any such proposals will need to cater for the physical and social
infrastructure needed in the Rural Service Centre area.”
1.5.24
Although
this paragraph did not form part of the formal recommendation, it was part of
the justification in setting a local housing target of 10,080 dwellings and
seeking Cabinet approval for the target. Statistical analysis of 2009/10
housing land data demonstrated that 15% of all dwellings completed between 2006
and 2010 and in the pipeline at 2010 were on rural sites. The Core Strategy
seeks to direct 20% of all development over the plan period (2006 to 2026) to
the rural area through land allocation documents.
1.5.25
It
is acknowledged that the majority of residential development in recent years (and
therefore the provision of affordable housing) has been located on brownfield
sites within the urban area. Potential development sites located at the rural
service centres are too small to meet the criteria for strategic site
allocations in the Core Strategy, so land at these locations will not be
allocated until the Development Delivery Local Plan is adopted in 2015. Thus
it is important to focus a proportion of appropriate development at rural
service centres where there is firm evidence of need that cannot be met through
an exceptions site (ref MA/11/0592 Hook Lane Harrietsham). This approach will
also assist the parish councils with the preparation of their neighbourhood
plans. It is recommended that the Core Strategy is amended to acknowledge this
need.
1.6
Affordable
Housing (CS10)
Representations
1.6.1 A number of
respondents unconditionally support the Core Strategy affordable housing and
local needs housing policies (38 respondents or 24%), but opinions on the
flexibility of the affordable housing policy are split. The main concerns
relate to the part of the policy which states that affordable housing provision
could be reduced where viability is affected as the level of reduction is not
defined. Residents feel the policy is too flexible while the development
industry has an opposing view. Developers believe the tenure split is too
prescriptive and should be left to market forces. With one or two exceptions,
respondents feel there should be no specifically identified affordable housing
contribution towards Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the affordable
housing policy (11 respondents or 7%). A number of respondents, including
developers and parish councils, have suggested the 40% target should be
adjusted according to location. There is a cross section of developer comments
proposing variable targets for affordable housing and calling for appropriate
viability testing of such options.
Officers’ response
1.6.2 The NPPF confirms
that local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure
objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing are met. Policies
should seek to provide for affordable housing on-site, unless there is robust
evidence for off-site provision or contributions, and policies should be
sufficiently flexible to respond to changing market conditions over time. The
NPPF also makes clear that all policies, including those for affordable
housing, should be deliverable and viable. The Core Strategy provides for a
mix of market and affordable housing, but also for a mix of tenures to reflect
the prospect that future generations may only be able to afford part ownership
in a property.
1.6.3 Affordable housing
is a policy burden for developers, and their ability to provide this
accommodation is influenced by the availability of grant funding. Advice
contained in the newly published Viability Testing Local Plans (June 2012),
jointly prepared by the Local Government Association and Home Builders
Federation, will assist in ensuring Core Strategy policies are sound. The
prioritisation of the infrastructure needed to deliver the Core Strategy is
discussed in the strategic site allocations report attached to the agenda.
1.6.4 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 work will address options for varying the percentage of affordable housing
by area. It is acknowledged by officers that a blanket 40% affordable housing
target cannot be applied without a viability study because it would not provide
certainty about delivery to the development industry and the public.
1.6.5 Clarity is needed
to reassure respondents that the affordable housing contribution towards Gypsy
and Traveller accommodation will be part of the total affordable housing
requirement set in the policy, and it is not in addition to the target (as the
wording of the policy currently implies). So whatever overall affordable
housing percentage is ultimately set in the policy, a proportion of that target
will provide for public Gypsy and Traveller pitches.
1.6.6 The affordable
housing percentage requirement and tenure breakdown will be tested through
public consultation on strategic site allocations in August/September 2012. A
review of the affordable housing policy will be undertaken once viability
evidence has been completed, in time for the December public consultation
(regulation 19) on the Core Strategy. A further report will be presented to
Cabinet in November.
1.7
Rural
Service Centres (CS4)
Representations
1.7.1 A number of
respondents are unconvinced that Harrietsham should be designated a rural
service centre (8 respondents or 7%). Concerns surround the lack of village
facilities without a clear village centre, and its proximity to facilities in
Lenham. Conversely, respondents argue that Coxheath offers a wide range of
services, including a district centre, consistent with the role of a rural
centre (2 respondents or 2%).
Officers’ response
1.7.2 The criteria and
justification for designating rural service centres was set out in detail in
Policy Evolution (Appendix 3 to the draft Core Strategy 2011). Following engagement
with a number of parish councils through a workshop in 2009, the designation of
Harrietsham was influenced by its infrastructure capacity to accommodate
development, including employment, school facilities and sewage capacity, together
with its good public transport connections to Maidstone town centre and local
retail and employment facilities.
1.7.3 Coxheath was not
designated a rural service centre because of its proximity to Maidstone’s urban
edge with good bus links to the town centre. Coxheath had also absorbed a
significant amount of housing development in recent years, particularly with
the redevelopment of Linton Hospital, and was adjusting to the increase in
population. Local aspirations pointed to a need for local needs housing and
small employment sites to support population growth, rather than the need for
targeted growth.
1.7.4 No objections to
the designation of Harrietsham as a rural service centre, or to the exclusion
of Coxheath, were received from the parish councils during the public participation
consultation on the Core Strategy in 2011.
1.8
Transport
Infrastructure (CS7)
Representations
1.8.1 Respondents are
highlighting the need to improve the bus services and/or the park & ride
services throughout the borough, and improve rail links and services,
particularly to London (32 respondents or 23%). There is a call for the Core Strategy to
give a higher priority to walking and cycling, to achieve this objective by
redesigning the borough’s roads (19 respondents or 12%).
1.8.2 Respondents have
raised concerns over inadequate access routes for HGVs, which will be made
worse by employment development proposals at junction 8 (14 respondents or 10%).
HGVs need to be diverted away from the town centre and rural service centres. Objectors
are particularly worried about the highway capacity to the north west of the
borough, and have expressed concerns over increased congestion (which forms
part of the overall objections to the strategic development location in the
vicinity of Allington). Some respondents are seeking the construction of a
ring road or bypass to the south of the urban area in order to improve access
from the south by relieving congestion (17 respondents or 12%). There are
mixed views on town centre parking provision: there is a perceived lack of
parking for the public and businesses, or views that parking should be
constrained in order to encourage more sustainable forms of transport.
Officers’ response
1.8.3 The Integrated
Transport Strategy (ITS) is the subject of a separate report attached to this
agenda which addresses these concerns. Public consultation on the draft ITS
will be undertaken in tandem with the partial public consultation (regulation
18) on draft Core Strategy strategic site allocations in August/September 2012.
1.9
Green
Wedges/Green and Blue Corridors (CS3)
Representations
1.9.1 It is clear from
the comments received about green wedges, which are shown on the draft Core
Strategy 2011 key diagram and referred to in policy CS3 for the urban area,
that there is some confusion over their role and function (30 respondents or
20%). Additionally respondents have pointed out that, while policy CS3 refers
to the urban area, green wedges are also identified in the countryside, so
there should be policy cross referencing. As a result of this confusion, some
respondents are interpreting the green wedges as a landscape layer which is
seen as a restriction to development. Hence there are calls for extensions or
reductions to the green wedges shown on the key diagram.
Officers’ response
1.9.2 To avoid confusion,
green wedges should be referred to as green and blue corridors. The corridors
form part of the strategy for the spatial distribution of development, so
references to the corridors should be transferred from policy CS3 to policy
CS1.
1.9.3 The green and blue corridors are not intended as a protection of the countryside for its own sake, and nor are they an additional layer of landscape protection. A characteristic of Maidstone is the way in which tracts of rural and semi-rural land penetrate into the urban area, giving the urban area its unique stellar shape and its population access to the countryside. Green and blue corridors have two prime purposes:
· As a specific local anti-coalescence function by maintaining open land between areas of development spreading out from the town; and
·
To
focus attention on opportunities for public access from the town to the
countryside.
1.9.4 The corridors have
helped to develop the Core Strategy strategic development locations, and
strategic site allocations for housing and employment[12] have had regard to
the corridors. It is recognised that some of the green and blue corridors do
contain local landscape features and areas of ecological interest, which should
not be compromised where development is proposed to be allocated. These
features will be explored in more depth through the preparation of a Green and
Blue Infrastructure Strategy.
1.9.5 The green wedge
notations on the Core Strategy key diagram need to be amended to better reflect
their purpose in supporting the Council’s spatial strategy.
1.10 Gypsy, Traveller
and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation
Representations
1.10.1
There
is general support for this policy (29 respondents or 28%) but respondents are
seeking further clarity. The main issue is around the robustness of the 2005/06
Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and a call for the pitch target to
cover the whole Core Strategy period to 2026. Respondents are seeking the
early identification of Gypsy and Traveller sites to aid the integration of the
Traveller community and to allow for appropriate enforcement (8 respondents or
8%). There are concerns that some parts of the borough have high
concentrations of Gypsy and Traveller sites, and a feeling that the spread
across the borough should be more even.
Officers’ response
1.10.2
The
Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment was updated in 2012[13] in order to set an
up-to-date pitch target in the Core Strategy from 2010 to 2026. Cabinet
approved a revised target of 157 pitches on 14 March 2012 and this target will
be included in the December consultation draft of the Core Strategy. The
policy will be reviewed in the context of new national guidance published in
2012[14] and, prior to the
December consultation, will be reworded to provide the clarification sought by
respondents and the addition of a landscaping criterion.
1.10.3
Private
pitches will be allocated in the Development Delivery Local Plan but, in the
interim, the Council has secured funding for a public site[15] and work to
provide a suitable site(s) is ongoing.
1.10.4
The
Council cannot restrict the concentration of Gypsy and Traveller sites or control
the spread of sites through Core Strategy policies, but it can refuse planning
applications that cumulatively have an adverse impact on the landscape.
1.11 Alternative Action and why not Recommended
1.11.1 Alternative courses of action are discussed throughout the report.
1.12 Impact on Corporate Objectives
1.12.1
The
Core Strategy delivers the spatial objectives of the Sustainable Community
Strategy and the Strategic Plan, and has regard to objectives set out in other
Council documents, such as the Economic Development Strategy, the Housing
Strategy and the Regeneration Statement. Core Strategy policies assist in the
delivery of a growing economy and providing decent places to live.
1.13 Risk Management
1.13.1
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.
1.13.2 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.
1.14 Other Implications
1.14.1
1. Financial
|
X |
2. Staffing
|
X |
3. Legal
|
X |
4. Equality Impact Needs Assessment
|
X |
5. Environmental/Sustainable Development
|
X |
6. Community Safety
|
|
7. Human Rights Act
|
|
8. Procurement
|
X |
9. Asset Management
|
|
1.14.2
Financial: There are no
financial implications arising directly from this report. 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. The Core Strategy can be delivered within this budget.
1.14.3
Staffing: The Core Strategy
can be delivered within the existing staff structure, and the Spatial Policy
team is currently fully staffed.
1.14.4
Legal: Legal services
will be retained to offer advice on document content and processes to ensure
the Core Strategy is found sound at Independent Examination. 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.
1.14.5
Equality
Impact Needs Assessment: An EqIA accompanied the draft Core Strategy at public
participation consultation and will be updated as required for the public
consultation event in December 2012.
1.14.6
Environmental/Sustainable
Development:
A sustainability appraisal, incorporating a strategic environmental assessment,
will be required for strategic site allocations and local plan policies.
Consultants have been appointed to undertake this technical exercise, and costs
can be managed within the existing budget for local plan production. The
Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Core Strategy will be updated as part of
this work.
1.14.7 Procurement: The employment of consultants on short term contracts to undertake specialist work is necessary. Consultants are appointed in accordance with the Council’s procurement procedures, and the costs can be managed within the existing budget for local plan production.
1.15 Relevant Documents
Draft Core Strategy (2011) Public Participation consultation representations
can be viewed in full and downloaded at http://maidstone-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal
1.15.1
Appendices
None
1.15.2 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: it affects all wards and parishes
Wards/Parishes affected: All
|
[1] Town and Country Planning (Local Planning ) (England) Regulations 2012
[2] Town and Country Planning Act (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
[3] Demographic and labour supply forecasts 2010
[4] Town and Country Planning (local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
[5] Cabinet 9 February 2011
[6] Cabinet 29 September 2010
[7] South East Plan Examination in Public Panel Report (2007)
[8] Cabinet 9 February 2011
[9] Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2009
[10] Strategic Sites Assessment 2009
[11] Annual Monitoring Report 2010/11
[12] Cabinet report on Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations 25 July 2012
[13] Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment 2012
[14] Planning Policy for Traveller Sites March 2012
[15] Cabinet decision 8 June 2011