Contact your Parish Council
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
SPATIAL PLANNING STRATEGY ADVISORY GROUP
5 MARCH 2013
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF CHANGE, PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Report prepared by Rob Jarman and Sue Whiteside
1. MAIDSTONE BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN 2011-2031
1.1 Issue for Decision
1.1.1
To
consider the initial draft results of updated consultants’ reports that identify
the borough’s housing and employment needs, and to set a working housing target.
1.1.2
To
consider the results of the public consultations for the policies that are the
subject of this report (Appendix A), and to approve amended local plan policies
attached at Appendix B. To adopt strategic site allocations for development
management decisions, and retain junction 8 of the M20 motorway as a strategic
development location until the work on employment demand and supply is
completed.
1.1.3
To
consider proposed changes to the affordable housing requirement for new
development, and the updated targets for Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling
Showpeople accommodation.
1.1.4 To consider the infrastructure priorities for development, secured through planning conditions and legal agreements.
1.2 Recommendation of Director of Change, Planning and the Environment
1.2.1 That the Spatial Planning Strategy Advisory Group recommends that Cabinet:
i. Approves a working
target of 14,800 dwellings for the Maidstone Borough Local Plan period 2011 to
2031 until such time as the work identifying the borough’s housing land supply
and the identification of environmental constraints is completed;
ii. Recommends to
Council that the moratorium on the release of greenfield housing sites
allocated in the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 be revoked because the
reasons for the moratorium no longer apply;
iii. Notes the key
public consultation issues relating to the policies that are the subject of
this report and agrees the recommended changes to policies set out in the
schedule attached as Appendix A.
iv. Approves amended policies
CS5 to CS13 and SS1, SS1a, SS1b, SS1c, SS2, SS2a, SS2b, SS2c and SS4 (attached
at Appendix B) for public consultation at the Publication stage of the local
plan process (regulation 19);
v. Adopts the
strategic site allocation policies SS1, SS1a, SS1b, SS1c, SS2, SS2a, SS2b, SS2c
and SS4 (attached at Appendix B) for development management decisions;
vi. Retains land at
junction 8 of the M20 motorway as a strategic development location for
employment (policy SS3) until such time as the work identifying employment land
demand and supply is completed;
vii. Approves amended
targets for affordable housing in policy CS10, seeking 15% provision on
previously developed land in the urban area, 30% on greenfield sites in the
urban area and at the urban periphery, and 40% at rural settlements and the
rural area; together with a policy threshold of one unit: developments between
1 and 9 dwellings can contribute financially, on site, or with a mixture of
both, or make commensurate provision off site; and developments of 10 dwellings
and over will contribute on site; and the deletion of the reference to Gypsy
and Traveller accommodation contribution within this policy;
viii. Approves amended
targets in policy CS12 for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation of 187 pitches and
for Travelling Showpeople accommodation of 11 plots, to reflect the extension
of the new local plan period to 2031; and
ix. Agrees the infrastructure priorities for development set out in paragraph 1.12.5 of this report, and approves amended policy CS14 for re-consultation with the public at the preparation stage of the local plan process (regulation 18).
|
CIL |
Community Infrastructure Levy |
|
DCLG |
Department for Communities and Local Government |
|
IDP |
Infrastructure Delivery Plan |
|
LDS |
Local Development Scheme |
|
MBLP |
Maidstone Borough Local Plan (emerging) |
|
MBWLP |
Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000) |
|
NPPF |
National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 |
|
ONS |
Office for National Statistics |
|
SEDLAA |
Strategic Economic Development Land Availability Assessment |
|
SEP |
South East Plan |
|
SHLAA |
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment |
|
SHMA |
Strategic Housing Market Assessment |
|
SPD |
Supplementary Planning Document |
1.4 Introduction
1.4.1
On
21 November 2012 Cabinet resolved to delay the Core Strategy programme so that
officers could undertake further work on the evidence base to ensure the Core
Strategy would be found sound at examination. A number of core strategy
examinations had been suspended because the presiding Inspectors had rejected
the local authorities’ demographic data. The Inspectors’ concerns focused on
housing and employment data that was based on the evidence behind regional
strategies, which was considered to be out-of-date and did not take account of
updated Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) household
projections; an imbalance between dwellings and jobs targets; and a lack of
sufficient evidence demonstrating constraints to development.
1.4.2
Cabinet
agreed to update demographic and economic demand data, to commission a new
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), and to produce new Strategic
Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA and
SEDLAA). This additional work will delay the Core Strategy programme by 19
months, moving its adoption date from December 2013 to July 2015.
1.4.3
A
review of the Local Development Scheme (LDS), which sets out the timetable for
plan production, is the subject of a second report attached to this agenda. The
recommendations of the LDS report include the amalgamation of Maidstone’s two
local plans (the Core Strategy with Development Delivery) into a single
Maidstone Borough Local Plan; the rolling forward of the plan period from
2006/26 to 2011/31 to ensure the Council has a 15-year plan from the date of
its adoption in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF; and the adoption
of an amended LDS. The updated evidence base will reflect the new plan period.
A single local plan approach is supported by the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and new plan making regulations[1] published in 2012.
There will still be a need for a suite of supplementary planning documents
(SPD) to support local plan policies and to set out more detail for development
management decisions.
1.4.4
The
work that has been undertaken on the Core Strategy to date has not been lost. The
spatial policies, core policies and strategic site allocations were subject to
public consultations (regulation 18 or equivalent) in 2011 and 2012 and these
policies, appropriately amended, will be carried forward to the Publication
stage consultation on the local plan (regulation 19).
1.4.5
Further
public consultation (regulation 18) will need to be undertaken on the balance
of land allocations, designated areas of protection, and new development
management policies that will be included in the Maidstone Borough Local Plan
(MBLP). An additional round of public consultation (regulation 18) will also
need to be carried out for the Core Strategy spatial policies that will be
subject to significant change as a result of new housing and employment
targets. Additional consultation on the Core Strategy development delivery
policy will also be needed as a result of changes recommended through this
report.
1.4.6
However,
a number of spatial and core policies that are unaffected by the housing and
employment targets, together with strategic site allocations, can be “banked” until
Publication stage consultation (regulation 19). Publication is a formal stage
of public consultation on the local plan before it is submitted to the
Secretary of State for independent examination. Between Publication and
Submission, the Council can only make minor amendments to the local plan; any
major change would result in the need for further public consultation in
accordance with regulation 18. The policies that are the subject of this
report have been subject to full assessment, including viability and
sustainability appraisal, and have been through public consultation. As such,
these policies (as amended through consultation) can be given some weight as a
material consideration in the determination of planning applications. At each
stage of the plan making process, policies will gain increasingly more weight.
1.4.7
This
report informs Members of the initial results arising from updated demographic
and employment demand and recommends a working target for housing. It sets out
the key issues arising from the public consultations and includes amended
policies that are recommended for approval or adoption for development
management decisions (Appendices A and B). It discusses the position regarding
the strategic development location at Junction 8 of the M20 motorway, and covers
proposed changes to the affordable housing policy as a result of viability
work. It proposes updated targets for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling
Showpeople pitches/plots as a result of rolling forward the local plan period,
and sets out priorities for infrastructure provision.
1.4.8
This
report does not cover the adoption of the Integrated Transport Strategy, which
will be the subject of a further Cabinet report in the summer once finalised.
The Transport Strategy has been developed alongside strategic site allocations
and will align with the policies.
1.5
Moratorium
on the release of greenfield housing sites allocated in the Maidstone Borough
Wide Local Plan 2000
1.5.1 In 2008 the moratorium on the release of greenfield sites in the adopted Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 (MBWLP) was reaffirmed by Council (the original resolution was made in 2002). This decision was taken in the context of:
· National guidance (PPG3: Housing) that directed local authorities to develop brownfield sites for housing before releasing greenfield sites for development;
· A government target for residential development of 60% brownfield sites, and a focus on higher density development;
· The Maidstone Borough Council Urban Capacity Study (2002 and 2006), which demonstrated that Maidstone could deliver its housing target through the potential development sites listed in the document; and
·
A
healthy 5-year housing land supply supported by the availability of town centre
sites for high density flatted development.
1.5.2
The
position has changed since 2008. The NPPF was published in March 2012, and the
transition period for local plan compliance with the NPPF ends in March 2013
when there will be a presumption in favour of development in sustainable
locations unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits of the development when assessed against the NPPF as a
whole. Although the NPPF still encourages local authorities to make best use
of brownfield land, the 60% target has been removed, and local authorities can
set out their own approaches towards housing densities. The NPPF moves away
from the urban capacity study approach and local authorities must identify
deliverable sites for 5-year housing land calculations and specify developable
sites or locations for years 6 to 10 and (where possible) years 11 to 15.
1.5.3
The
importance of demonstrating a 5-year housing land supply was highlighted in a
recent appeal decision where the Inspector referred to the NPPF and concluded:
“The
Framework says that where the relevant policies in a Local Plan are out-of-date
permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly
outweigh the benefits when taken against the policies in the Framework as a
whole, or the policies in the Framework indicate it should be restricted. It
also confirms that, in accordance with the Government’s aim to promote
house-building, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be
considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a
5-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” (Ref: Valley Drive APP/U2235/A/12/2174289).
1.5.4
The
November 2012 Cabinet report highlighted the fact that, although the Council
continues to experience high levels of dwelling completion rates on sites with
planning permission, the windfall sites on previously developed land (brownfield
land) that formerly contributed towards the borough’s 5-year housing land
supply at a steady pace are no longer materialising at the same rate. The ability
to abolish regional strategies is embedded in the Localism Act (2011) but the
South East Plan (SEP) has not yet been revoked. Given that Maidstone’s Core
Strategy target is under review, 5-year calculations should now be based on the
SEP target of 11,080 dwellings (as opposed to the draft Core Strategy target of
10,080).
1.5.5
The
Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2011/12 reveals Maidstone has a 4.5 year
land supply against a 10,080 dwelling target and 3.9 years against an 11,080
target. Until such times as a 5-year supply can be demonstrated, planning
applications on greenfield sites cannot be refused on the grounds of
prematurity and must be assessed on individual merit (including
sustainability). The Council has already received a number of residential
planning applications on greenfield sites and further applications,
particularly for the strategic site allocations, are expected to be submitted after
March.
1.5.6
It
is important to note that four out of the six housing land allocations to the
north west and south east of the urban area identified in the Core Strategy
Strategic Site Allocations 2012 are residential allocations in the adopted MBWLP
2000: Bridge Nursery (SS1a), East of Hermitage Lane (SS1b), Langley Park (SS2a)
and North of Sutton Road (SS2b). These four sites have already been through public
examination so not only has the principle of residential development been
established, but the sites are also development plan allocations (section 38(6)
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says that planning decisions
must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise). The balance of MBWLP allocations include
Hook Lane, Harrietsham and Oliver Road, Staplehurst which are the subject of
approved and submitted planning applications, respectively; and a small site
for 7 units at Detling village.
1.5.7 The reasons for reaffirming the moratorium in 2008 no longer apply so there is no justification in maintaining it. In order to properly manage development, as opposed to determining ad hoc planning applications, a recommendation to Council is sought, to revoke the current moratorium on the release of the balance of greenfield housing sites allocated in the MBWLP 2000.
1.6 Demographic Forecasts and the Housing Target
1.6.1 Demographic forecasts have been updated by Kent County Council (KCC), taking account of the latest DCLG household projections released in November 2010.
Demographic Forecasts October 2012
|
Scenario |
Additional Dwellings 2011 – 2031 (20 years) |
Additional Resident Labour Supply 2011 – 2031 (20 years) |
|
Zero net migration |
7,700 |
-2,000 |
|
5-year trend |
16,300 |
9,700 |
|
10-year trend |
14,800 |
7,600 |
1.6.2
An
independent consultant was commissioned to test the assumptions behind the
figures. Whilst KCC maintains the industry standard is the 5-year historic trend,
the consultant concluded that Maidstone is well placed to defend a
strategy largely influenced by the 10-year trend in order to cover a whole
economic cycle. The
10-year historic trend for Maidstone demonstrates a need for 14,800 dwellings
between 2011 and 2031, which will increase the resident labour supply by 7,600
workers.
1.6.3
However,
it is important to understand that the Council can offset dwellings that have
been completed since April 2011 together with permitted sites that have not
been built yet. The strategic allocations at the urban periphery and the
targets for rural service centres will count towards this borough wide target,
and national guidance allows the inclusion of a windfall site allowance for the
latter years of the plan period. The Council is also aware of a number of
other sites throughout the borough that could potentially deliver up to about
3,000 homes, although these sites have not been fully appraised at this point.
However, if all known potential did materialise, the Council would need to find
additional land for about 4,500 homes to meet a target of 14,800 dwellings.
1.6.4
The
other important factor is that, while the demographic data and a new SHMA will inform
the Council of its housing needs, the borough’s capacity to deliver this target
must also be thoroughly examined through the new SHLAA. When this work is
completed, the Council will be able to demonstrate whether it can deliver
14,800 dwellings, or if environmental constraints will lead to the setting of a
lower target for Maidstone borough. Officers will keep a watching brief for
further data releases from the Office for National Statistics and will advise
Members of any significant impacts on the housing target.
1.6.5
So
although the forecasts currently point to a need for 14,800 dwellings for
Maidstone borough, further work will need to be completed over the summer
before a final target can be approved for public consultation. It is therefore
recommended that Cabinet approves a working target of 14,800 dwellings for the Maidstone
Borough Local Plan period 2011 to 2031 until such time as the work confirming
the borough’s housing land supply and the identification of environmental
constraints is completed.
1.7
Employment
Demand
1.7.1
On
25 July 2012, Cabinet agreed it was more appropriate to replace the 10,000 jobs
target set out in the Core Strategy with a specific employment floorspace
requirement expressed in square metres that could be monitored.
1.7.2 An update of the borough’s employment land demand, based on delivering a 14,800 dwelling target up to 2031, has been commissioned. The data demonstrates a minimum and maximum requirement for all B-class uses (offices, industry and warehousing). The consultant is recommending that future policy decisions are focused toward the mid to lower end of the employment range forecast. Clearly, if the dwelling target for the borough changes, the employment forecasts will need to be reviewed.
Employment
Demand Forecasts B use classes 2012/31 (January 2013)
|
|
Office |
Industrial |
Warehousing |
|||
|
|
min |
max |
min |
max |
min |
max |
|
Floorspace (m2) |
26,618 |
53,9362 |
-8,679 |
7,993 |
33,639 |
51,683 |
|
Land (hectares) |
1.8 |
3.6 |
-2.2 |
2.0 |
6.7 |
10.3 |
1.7.3
Compared
with the last employment land review update in 2011, the office requirement has
significantly increased and the demand for warehousing and distribution space
has reduced. Apart from a new housing target and an extended plan period, the
main reasons for the changes over the past two years are:
· the effects of the longer, deeper recession which serves to suppress overall demand;
· An additional two years of low performance affecting projections of historical trends; and
·
A
conclusion that Maidstone’s logistics/distribution demand is likely to be of a
local/sub-regional nature rather then a national-scale distribution, which
controls the scale of future demand and is more likely to be for smaller
premises.
1.7.4
Consultants
have been appointed to undertake an up-to-date retail needs assessment, which
will confirm future floorspace requirements to the end of the plan period.
This work is expected to be completed in April and will also support the work
over the summer that will determine the Council’s employment land targets.
1.7.5
There
will also be jobs growth in other employment sectors such as education and
health, but growth in these sectors does not automatically lead to the need to
allocate additional land.
1.7.6
As
the new SHLAA will demonstrate the Council’s housing land capacity, the new
SEDLAA will similarly inform the Council of its employment land capacity.
1.8
Public
Consultations 2011 and 2012
1.8.1
Appendix
A lists the policies that are the subject of this report, and identifies the
key issues that arose during the public consultations in 2011 on the Core
Strategy and in 2012 on strategic site allocations. The schedule responds to
those key issues and identifies any changes to the policies as a result. Appendix
B includes the list of amended policies unaffected by the housing and
employment targets. Cabinet is recommended to approve policies CS5 to CS13 and
policies SS1 to SS2c and SS4) for Publication consultation (regulation 19) and to
adopt the strategic site allocations (policies SS1 to SS2c and SS4) for
development management decisions. Infrastructure delivery policy CS14 is
discussed in section 1.12 of this report, and this policy is recommended for
re-consultation under regulation 18 because of significant amendments. Where
appropriate, the policies have been amended as a result of public consultation.
1.8.2
The
balance of policies will be amended following the completion of additional work
over the summer, and will form part of the public consultation on new policies
and allocations later this year. In the meantime, the public will be informed
of the amended policies that Cabinet approves for Publication consultation
(regulation 19) together with the policies adopted for development management
decisions. The list of policies will also be available on the Council’s website.
For clarity, the policies and proposed consultation arrangements are set out
below.
|
Policy |
Consultation Arrangements |
|
|
NPPF1 |
Presumption in favour of sustainable development |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
CS1 |
Borough wide strategy |
To be updated for future Reg 18 consultation |
|
CS2 |
Maidstone town centre |
To be updated for future Reg 18 consultation |
|
CS3 |
Maidstone urban area |
To be updated for future Reg 18 consultation |
|
CS4 |
Rural service centres |
To be updated for future Reg 18 consultation |
|
CS5 |
Countryside |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
SS1 |
Strategic housing location to the NW |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
|
SS1a |
Bridge Nursery |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
|
SS1b |
East of Hermitage Lane |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
|
SS1c |
West of Hermitage Lane |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
|
SS2 |
Strategic housing location to the SE |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
|
SS2a |
Langley Park |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
|
SS2b |
North of Sutton Road |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
|
SS2c |
North of Bicknor Wood |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
|
SS3 |
Strategic employment location - J8 M20 |
Retain as a strategic employment location until further work completed |
|
SS4 |
Newnham Park |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
|
CS6 |
Sustainable design |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
CS7 |
Sustainable transport |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
CS8 |
Economic development |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
CS9 |
Housing mix |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
CS10 |
Affordable housing |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
CS11 |
Local needs housing |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
CS12 |
Gypsy & Traveller accommodation |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
CS13 |
Historic & natural environment |
Approve for Reg 19 consultation |
|
CS14 |
Infrastructure delivery |
Approve changes for Reg 18 consultation |
1.8.3
The
2012 public consultation also included a proposed amendment to policy CS1 setting
out individual dwelling targets for the five rural service centres. It is of
note that, with a move towards a single local plan, these targets will be
determined through the allocation of specific sites for public consultation
(regulation 18), within and adjacent to the villages.
1.8.4
There
are four policies in particular that require further explanation: Strategic employment
location at Junction 8 of the M20 (SS3), Affordable Housing (CS10), Gypsy &
Traveller accommodation (CS12) and Development Delivery (CS14).
1.9
Strategic
employment location at M20 Junction 8 (policy SS3)
1.9.1
The
Core Strategy (2011) and the Strategic Site Allocations document (2012)
identify Junction 8 of the M20 as a strategic development location for
employment. In 2012, unlike for the other strategic locations at the north
west and south east of the Maidstone urban area and at Junction7, the strategic
site allocations consultation document did not identify a specific site which
the Council was proposing to allocate at Junction 8. Instead the three
candidate sites were consulted upon with the intention of garnering the
public’s views on all three. The three candidate sites were: Land east of Junction
8 M20, Land south of Junction 8 M20 and Land at Woodcut Farm. The promoters of
the three sites were also invited to submit additional information to support
the allocation of their site.
Consultation issues
1.9.2
The
issues raised in the strategic site allocations consultation on Junction 8 were
wide ranging and, to a large extent, focused on public opposition to the
principle of development in this location. This included an objection from
Kent County Council to the principle of a strategic location at Junction 8. The
consultation did not reveal a discernable public preference for one site over
the others. The main issues raised in the consultation are set out below.
·
Need: Kent County
Council argued that there is no clear justification for a new strategic
employment location for offices and light industry given the opportunities in
the town centre and urban area. A new site for offices would compete with the
town centre and there is a lack of market need for a new site in the light of
other M20 sites which have been slow to develop (Kings Hill, Eureka Park). The
AONB Unit argued that this slow uptake is an indicator of a low rate of
demand. There is no imperative to match the 10,000 job target given that the
resident workforce is forecast to increase by only 5,200. It is not realistic
to rely on reduced out commuting to London and increased in commuting from
neighbouring areas which are also seeking to retain/increase employment
levels. Conversely it is argued that the proposals would attract workers from
outside the borough as the location is well connected to Medway and Ashford.
·
Duty
to cooperate:
It is considered by KCC amongst others that the Council has not looked at the
economic markets of the wider area and how needs could be met, in particular in
Tonbridge & Malling borough. There is provision elsewhere e.g. Ashford.
·
AONB
impact:
There is concern from Natural England and the Kent Downs AONB Unit about the
impact of development on the setting of the AONB, particularly of large
warehousing buildings. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to the
AONB Management Plan which Maidstone Borough Council has approved.
·
Impact
on Roads:
It is stated that there is existing congestion and lack of road capacity.
There will be an impact on rural roads, including roads through villages
(Bearsted, Hollingbourne and Leeds) and Willington Street, and when Operation
Stack is in place. Some respondents advocate that the Leeds-Langley bypass is
needed in connection with this development.
·
Loss
of countryside:
It is stated that development will encroach into the countryside and result in
the loss of accessible green space which is used for recreation, walking etc,
as well as the loss of rural character and a loss of productive agricultural
land.
·
Sustainability
of the location:
Concern is raised that Junction 8 is poorly served by public transport for a
new workplace destination and unrelated to key services and centre of
population. KCC and the AONB Unit are amongst those who make this point.
·
Precedent: It is stated that
the proposal will lead to further development in the area.
·
Impact
on Leeds Castle:
There is the concern that the proposals will affect the wider setting of this
Grade I listed building and registered historic park & garden and will
impact on the operation of events at Leeds Castle.
·
Existing
sites:
Vacant space and brownfield sites such as Detling Airfield, Park Wood and Reeds
paper mill at Aylesford should be used first which will help regeneration. It
is stated that the proposals will encourage existing firms to move, leaving
existing premises empty/derelict.
·
Uses: It is argued that
offices should be directed to the town centre under the sequential approach and
that this development will adversely affect the town centre and compromise the
delivery of existing commitments at Springfield and Eclipse Park and other
sites in need of regeneration. Development is more likely to be warehousing
than offices/manufacturing and these are not the types of high quality jobs
which Maidstone needs.
·
Alternative
uses:
Suggestions include tourism (centre parcs); agriculture; culture; reservoir;
sports; residential care facility; DIY superstore; a culture park; and
underground heat source.
Response to consultation issues
1.9.3
In
response to the issues raised, it is recognised that there is a stock of
industrial and warehousing land in nearby authorities in particular in Swale,
Medway and Ashford which is currently available to meet market needs. KCC
Highways’ view is that the highways impact of the development can be
appropriately ameliorated with improvements to Junction 8 itself and other
identified junctions on A20. It is acknowledged that the site is not currently
well served by public transport and that improvements would be required if
development were to proceed. With respect to Leeds Castle, it is of note that
the KIG Inspector did not place weight on the impact of that specific proposal
on visitors to the area. Inter-visibility to/from the Castle grounds will be
contingent on which site, if any, is allocated and will be addressed as a site
specific matter.
1.9.4
Development
at Junction 8 of the scale and nature that has been proposed will significantly
impact on the established rural character of the area, introducing a
substantial tract of development where the current development pattern is small
scale and disparate. The location is at the foot of the scarp slope of the
Kent Downs AONB and development would impact on the setting of the Downs. The
degree of landscape impact will be dependent on site selection and the detailed
design and mitigation measures put in place. With regard to the concern about
the precedent that development in this location would create, legal or other
controls would be employed as necessary to mitigate against expansion beyond
the land allocated.
1.9.5
When
the decision was taken to identify Junction 8 as a strategic employment
location, it was recognised that this was not a sustainable location for
development[2], but a key piece
of evidence informing the decision was the employment land forecast in the
Council’s Employment Land Review Partial Update (July 2011). This revealed a
significant quantitative need for employment floorspace. The warehousing
requirement for the period 2010 to 2026 was for between 40,450sqm and 75,810sqm
and the industrial requirement was for between -2,971 and 2,341sqm for the same
period. At that time the identified need for industrial/warehousing
development was of a scale that could not be met through a dispersed pattern of
development. If quantitative needs were to be met, or substantially met,
employment development at Junction 8 was needed as part of the Council’s
strategy[3]. Junction 8 was
identified as a location where the range of B use class needs could be
accommodated on a single site, planned in a comprehensive way to achieve a high
quality mixed use development well connected to the strategic road network. At
the time, this requirement was of such a scale that the need for employment
land was judged to outweigh the landscape and countryside impacts that the
development would have.
1.9.6
Since
the last Employment Land Review Partial Update (July 2011), the recession has
continued. An updated employment land forecast has been undertaken which takes
account of the longer, deeper recession, the proposed change to the plan period
and the proposed working housing target of 14,800 dwellings. This latest
forecast reveals a significant requirement for office floorspace and a reduced
demand for warehousing compared with the previous forecast (see paragraph 1.7.2).
The updated evidence points to a more modest requirement for employment land
overall, with a particular emphasis on office uses which, based on the town
centre first principle, should be directed to the centre of Maidstone in the
first instance. Based on this evidence, the justification to release employment
land at Junction 8 is less clear cut than previously.
1.9.7
The
Strategic Economic Development Land Availability Assessment (SEDLAA) will
reveal what other potential new sites for employment use there are in the
borough in addition to Junction 8 to accommodate these updated requirements. A
review of the existing designated employment areas will be undertaken as part
of this work. This piece of evidence needs to be completed before a decision
on the future approach to the allocation of land at Junction 8 is made. This
information will be part of the report to Cabinet later this year and a
decision will be sought prior to the next round of public consultation (regulation
18) on new policies and land allocations.
1.10
Viability
and Affordable Housing (policy CS10)
1.10.1 During the 2011
public consultation, one of the main comments relating to the affordable
housing policy (CS10) was that the development industry required an up to date
viability assessment to be undertaken in support of maintaining a uniform 40%
on-site requirement across the borough, dependent on a threshold being met. Some
comments suggested that a graduated affordable housing contribution would be
more appropriate, depending on the size of the proposal, or a variation of this
theme. Some comments further suggested that the Council should not intervene
with a commercial housing market matter.
1.10.2 The NPPF and
evidence from a number of residential developments in Maidstone has emphasised
the need for up to date viability work. The Council has since commissioned
consultants to undertake this work and, using proposed and generic development
sites for testing taken from the Strategic Site Allocations 2012 consultation
and the 2009 SHLAA, respectively, new affordable housing targets have emerged.
1.10.3 Another key concern
arising from the 2011 public consultation was the inclusion of a financial
contribution towards Gypsy and Traveller accommodation as part of the wider affordable
housing contribution. Since the consultation, further evidence work (Gypsy and
Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Assessment: Maidstone 2012) has proven
inconclusive as to the need for affordable contributions of this type because,
in particular, of the reluctance of interviewees to answer questions on
personal finance.
1.10.4 Based on the viability testing undertaken by consultants, proposals to amend policy CS10 include:
· A 15% affordable housing provision on previously developed land within the urban area – this provides a fiscal incentive to develop sites that have stagnated;
· A 30% provision on greenfield sites in the urban area and on the urban periphery – the intention being to balance the affordable housing contribution and the availability of financial contributions towards other infrastructure;
· In the rural area and in rural settlements, testing has indicated that a 40% provision is easily achievable;
· The threshold at which affordable housing is required is proposed to be lowered to one unit – developments between 1 and 9 dwellings will contribute financially, or provide on site, or with a mixture of both, or make commensurate provision off site; developments of 10 dwellings and over will contribute on site; and
·
The
deletion of the Gypsy and Traveller contribution within this policy
1.10.5 The affordable
housing targets can be delivered using a zero site threshold to trigger the
need for this type of accommodation. Clearly a site of one dwelling cannot
provide for on site affordable housing, so a threshold to distinguish between
on site delivery and off site contributions needs to be set. This bar is
proposed at 10 units, in line with the threshold for development contributions
towards education (Kent County Council), health (Primary Care Trust) and parks
& open spaces (Maidstone Borough Council).
1.11
Gypsy
& Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Pitch/Plot Targets (policy CS12)
1.11.1 Targets for Gypsy
and Traveller pitches and Travelling Showpeople plots for the period October
2011 to March 2026 were agreed by Cabinet in March 2012. These targets were
157 pitches and 9 plots. Since 2011, 37 permanent pitches have been granted
planning permission to date, and a further 15 pitches will be provided on the
Council’s new public site if planning permission is granted.
1.11.2 It is now proposed
that the plan period should be extended to 2031 which means that the pitch and
plot requirements have needed to be rolled forward a further 5 years. This work
has been completed by Salford University, the authors of the Gypsy and Traveller
and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (2012), and results in a
Gypsy and Traveller pitch target for the additional 5 years (2026/2031) of 30
pitches and an extra 2 Travelling Showpeople plots for the same period.
1.11.3 The total
requirements for the whole plan period (2011-31) are 187 pitches and 11 plots,
and these updated targets are included in policy CS12 attached at Appendix B. Work
to identify sites to accommodate the balance of need will be undertaken over
the spring/summer this year, and these sites will also count towards the
targets.
1.12
Infrastructure
Delivery (policy CS14) and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan
1.12.1 Since the Core
Strategy public consultation in 2011, and the subsequent decision to include
strategic site allocations, the Council has re-consulted the infrastructure
providers and amended the draft infrastructure delivery plan (IDP). The IDP lists
the infrastructure schemes considered necessary to support planned growth,
including the strategic site allocations, but it is currently based on the
provision of 10,080 homes for the period 2006/26. The IDP will support the
local plan public consultation (regulation 18) so it will be updated further
over the summer as additional land allocations are proposed. A full report on
the IDP will be presented to Cabinet later this year.
1.12.2 The Core Strategy public
consultation in 2011(regulation 18 equivalent) has resulted in two significant
proposed amendments to the infrastructure delivery policy CS14:
·
Deletion
of paragraphs 8.8-8.9 of the supporting text and paragraph 4 of the policy,
where it was stated that the Council would consider reductions in the amount of
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that would be charged to a developer if it
was proved that the levy would threaten the viability of a development. The
inclusion of new text in the policy states that once the levy is set, it will
be applied to all development that meets the qualifying criteria; and
·
The
strengthening of paragraph 8.5 of the supporting text, which lacked detail on
how infrastructure would be funded, in particular the detail about key
infrastructure priorities for the borough and the intended role of CIL.
1.12.3 It is important to
note that some forms of infrastructure provision have historically not kept
pace with development in Maidstone. This has been a contributory factor to a
congested road network, a shortage of affordable housing and deficiencies in
certain types of open space. There is concern that future growth will intensify
this problem unless a coordinated effort is made to address identified
deficiencies and to ensure that essential infrastructure accompanies new
development at all times. This is particularly important for the strategic
development sites at Maidstone’s urban edge, which will create a need for
significant improvements to transport infrastructure.
1.12.4 Recent viability
testing has highlighted that it is unlikely that all of the infrastructure
schemes can be delivered on certain sites while still ensuring the sites’
viability. This has created a need to prioritise infrastructure schemes, which
will give clear guidance to the development industry, Members, officers and the
public should a development scheme not be able to provide for all of the
planning obligations it generates. The prioritised list has been derived from
existing infrastructure deficiencies and the schemes listed in the draft IDP.
With the recommended adoption of strategic site allocations for development
management decisions, the establishment of infrastructure priorities for the
Council is vital.
1.12.5 The recommended infrastructure priorities for Maidstone are:
|
|
Residential Development |
|
Business and Retail Development |
|
1 |
Affordable Housing |
1 |
Transport |
|
2 |
Transport |
2 |
Public Realm |
|
3 |
Open Space |
3 |
Open Space |
|
4 |
Health |
4 |
Education |
|
5 |
Education |
5 |
Utilities |
|
6 |
Social Services |
|
|
|
7 |
Public Realm |
|
|
|
8 |
Utilities |
|
|
|
9 |
Libraries |
|
|
|
10 |
Emergency Services |
|
|
1.12.6 The above list of priorities
for the negotiation of Section 106 planning obligations[4] represents a departure from the list
previously agreed by Cabinet in 2006[5], which ranked transport
infrastructure lower than education for residential development and which
listed affordable housing and open space as joint top. Transport
infrastructure is considered of vital importance to ensure the deliverability
of local plan strategic site allocations and smaller site allocations, together
with the Council’s aims for growth and prosperity and for the borough to be a
decent place to live. There will be a focus for business and retail
development at the town centre, so the key change for these uses relates to the
introduction of public realm as an infrastructure priority.
1.12.7 Given the
significance of this change, the Council must give the public an opportunity to
comment on the proposed policy CS14 amendments before they are incorporated
into the local plan for Publication consultation (regulation 19). It is
recommended that the infrastructure priority list set out in paragraph 1.12.5
is agreed and that policy CS14, as amended at Appendix B, is approved for
public consultation (regulation 18) in October 2013.
1.12.8 In addition to
development contributions, the funding for infrastructure depends on the
community infrastructure levy and new homes bonus (for as long as this is in
place). The Council has been successful in achieving additional income from
new housing development over recent years, but the six year programme for new
homes bonus reaches its maximum level in 2015. Meanwhile, the Council is
seeking external funding for transport schemes.
1.13
The
Work Programme
1.13.1 The Local
Development Scheme report attached to this agenda sets out a revised work
programme for the Maidstone Borough Local Plan.
|
Stage |
Date |
|
Strategic Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessments, including Member/stakeholder engagement |
February to June 2013 |
|
Strategic Housing Market Assessment |
March - June 2013 |
|
Independent Sustainability Appraisal of sites |
June 2013 |
|
Formulation of new policies, including Member/stakeholder engagement |
March – August 2013 |
|
Cabinet approval of new land allocations and new policies for public consultation (Regulation 18) |
September 2013 |
|
“Preparation” public consultation on new land allocations and new policies (Regulation 18) |
October/ November 2013 |
|
“Publication” consultation on the Maidstone Borough Local Plan(Regulation 19) |
July/August 2014 |
|
Cabinet and Council approval of “Submission” of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (Regulation 22) |
November 2014 |
|
Independent Examination (estimate) (Regulation 24)
|
February/March 2015 |
|
Adoption (estimate) (Regulation 26)
|
July 2015 |
1.13.2 The initial
findings of the housing and employment forecasts form part of the discussion in
this report. Further work is likely to be required once the SHMA, SHLAA and
SEDLAA have been updated, and a report will be brought to Cabinet in September.
1.13.3 Discussions with
neighbouring authorities over the joint commissioning of a new SHMA are ongoing
and this work is expected to be completed over the summer. The SHMA, together
with demographic forecasts, will objectively assess Maidstone’s housing needs,
in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF.
1.13.4 A “call for sites”
exercise was undertaken recently, which invited the public and the development
industry to submit sites with development potential to the Council. These
sites will be subject to a rigorous assessment, including sustainability
appraisal, to test their suitability for development. The call for sites
formally ended on 25 January, and the list of sites has been distributed to the
external bodies who contribute expert advice to the assessment. The sites will
be subject to key stakeholder consultations (local ward Members, rural service
centre parish councils and the development industry) and approved for
consultation by Cabinet; and the sites will ultimately be listed in the draft SHLAA
and SEDLAA, which will categorise each site proposed for allocation and
rejection. These documents and the background material will be published on
the Council’s website as part of the regulation 18 public consultation later
this year.
1.13.5 In addition to the
work on new housing and employment targets, together with new land allocations,
officers will also be focusing on the preparation of new policies this year.
These will include the amended Core Strategy spatial policies, but also
policies for
the regeneration of the town centre, designated protection areas and development
management, in preparation for public consultation. The role of the Spatial
Planning Strategy Advisory Group will be vital in the development of these
policies.
1.14 Alternative Action and why not Recommended
1.14.1 Cabinet has the
option to not approve local plan policies for Publication consultation (regulation
19) or to not adopt strategic site allocations for development management
decisions at this stage, and to wait until the next round of public
consultation (regulation 18) has been completed for new policies and sites.
This approach is not recommended. In the context of the end of the transition
period for local plan compliance with the NPPF, a shortfall in the Council’s
5-year housing land supply, and pressure from the development industry through
the submissions of planning applications on greenfield sites (including for
sites allocated in the adopted MBWLP 2000), the approval of policies and the
adoption of strategic sites will carry weight as material planning
considerations. This is particularly important for infrastructure provision
associated with strategic site allocations.
1.14.2 Cabinet could opt for higher or lower affordable housing targets within the three identified locations set out in section 1.10 of this report. The recommended rates and distribution of affordable housing result in development that is viable and deliverable, they offer an incentive for the regeneration of sites in the urban area, and the policy requirements are supported by the Council’s experience in delivering residential sites with affordable housing in these locations.
1.15 Impact on Corporate Objectives
1.15.1 The Maidstone Borough Local Plan will assist in delivering the spatial objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Strategic Plan. It will also have regard to objectives set out in other Council documents, such as the Economic Development Strategy and the Housing Strategy.
1.16
Risk
Management
1.16.1 As an interim
measure, the approval of local plan policies that are the subject of this
report, together with the adoption of strategic site allocations for
development management decisions, will reduce the risk of inappropriate
development, and will provide clarity for the development industry, Members, officers
and the public.
1.16.2 The end of the NPPF
transition period for local plan compliance does present some risk in the light
of the delay to the local plan programme. However, the Council will still have
a local planning policy framework that comprises adopted development plan
documents and supplementary planning documents, endorsed guidance, and saved
policies from the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000. These policies are
still relevant and carry weight in the decision making processes provided there
is no conflict with the NPPF.
1.16.3 The retention of
legal and professional services to guide the local plan through its preparation
stages, and the preparation of up-to-date robust technical evidence will ensure
the Maidstone Borough Local Plan is found sound at examination.
1.17 Other Implications
1.17.1
|
1. Financial
|
X |
|
2. Staffing
|
X |
|
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
|
|
1.17.2 Financial: A dedicated budget of £770,000 over 4 years from 2012/13 to deliver the local planning policy framework (formerly known as the Local Development Framework) has been identified through the Council’s medium term financial strategy. The budget will need to be re-profiled to take account of the additional work required to update the evidence base and the preparation of a single local plan. At this stage additional funding is not being sought.
1.17.3 Staffing: The work outlined
in this report can be delivered within existing Spatial Policy and Development
Management staff resources.
1.17.4 Legal: Legal services have
been retained to offer advice on document content and processes to ensure the
Maidstone Borough Local Plan is found sound at examination. A number of
meetings have been held with Counsel and regular meetings have been set up with
the Head of Legal Services. These services can be managed within the existing
budget for local plan production.
1.17.5 Environmental/Sustainable Development: A sustainability appraisal, incorporating a strategic environmental assessment, will be required for all 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.
1.17.6 Procurement: Although
additional evidence base work is being prepared in-house where possible, the
employment of consultants on short term contracts to undertake specialist
pieces of work will be necessary. The consultants will be appointed in
accordance with the Council’s procurement procedures and the costs can be managed
within the existing budget for local plan production.
1.18
Relevant
Documents
1) Maidstone Core Strategy Public Participation Consultation 2011
2) Maidstone Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations Public Consultation 2012
1.18.1 Appendices
Appendix A: Core Strategy and Strategic Site Allocations Consultation Statement
13 March 2013
Appendix B: Interim approval of Maidstone Borough Local Plan Policies 13 March
2013
1.18.2 Background
Documents
None
|
IS THIS A KEY DECISION REPORT?
Yes No
If yes, when did it first appear in the Forward Plan?
21 January 2013
This is a Key Decision because: It affects all wards and parishes.
Wards/Parishes affected: All wards and parishes
|
