Contact your Parish Council

Representations

One neighbour representation has been received raising the following (summarised) points:

·      Proposal fails the sequential test;

·      Insufficient parking proposed; traffic congestion;

·      Harm to Listed Building setting;

·      Loss of TPO trees;

·      Harm to AONB setting;

·      Pollution, loss of green space, harm to biodiversity/lack of ecological survey;

·      Blight on town centre, negative retail impact, £600,00 inadequate for public realm works.

One representation has been received from a Jewellers shop in Gabriels Hill, they state:

• The town is riddled with empty units and already has to compete with the internet;
• The development will devastate trade in the town;
• The benefits set out by the applicant are off set by job losses that would occur in the town;
• Contradicts ‘town centre first’ ;
• Parking will occur in local streets.

One representation has been received regarding landscape concerns, ecological concerns and pollution. In summary:

• Loss of naturalistic verges and trees;
• Reflective fenestration and the impact on birdlife;
• Impact on protected species;
• Unsustainability of the site and related traffic pollution.

The following information has been received from the applicants/on behalf of the applicants and I am aware has been sent directly to Members of the planning committee.

1. A letter from Savills stating that the submission of a planning application at Maidstone East by Solum Regeneration indicates that they cannot be overly concerned that the Newnham Court proposal would undermine their

proposals.

2. A letter from the Head of Retail Development at Land Securities summarising the benefits as they see it of the proposal:

·         New jobs; safeguarding jobs at MMC; fixing existing road problems; helping Maidstone compete with other shopping destinations.

·         An accompanying Fact vs Myth sheet as perceived by the applicant is submitted.

3. Letters from Waitrose stating their existing Allington Store will remain open and that there are no alternative sites which are viable.

4. A letter from Debenhams stating that they wish to serve the Maidstone catchment but no other site meets their trading model.

A letter has been received by the President of KIMS.  It is stated that if the application for the redevelopment of Newnham Court Shopping Village is refused then this will have a ‘serious and detrimental’ impact on the deliverability of Maidstone Medical Campus in relation to on-site and off-site infrastructure.

Officer Comment

These issues (except for the comments made by the President of KIMS) have been raised through representations on the planning application and are considered in the main report and in some instances addressed by the statutory consultees (EHO and KCC Ecology).      

With regard to the letter from KIMS, I would state that the planning application for Maidstone Medical Campus was submitted as a stand alone application considered on its own merits i.e it was not submitted as a combined medical and retail development with this proposal by Land Securities.     The application was found to be acceptable subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure the relevant highway improvements.  The scheme was not presented as being inter-connected to the current proposal and was not considered as such.

RECOMMENDATION

My recommendation remains unchanged:

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION