Contact your Parish Council
Decision details
Maidstone Borough Local Plan
Decision Maker: Cabinet.
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: Yes
Purpose:
Update on the progress of the Core Strategy
and related documents, including strategic site allocations and
core policies.
Decision:
1.
That a working target of 14,800 dwellings for the
Maidstone Borough Local Plan period 2011 to 2031 be approved until
such time as the work identifying the borough’s housing land
supply and the identification of environmental constraints is
completed;
2.
That Council be recommended 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;
3. That, subject to the following amendment, the key public consultation issues relating to the policies that are the subject of the report of the Director of Change, Planning and Environment be noted and the recommended changes to policies set out in the schedule attached as Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and Environment be agreed:-
“Policy CS7,
paragraph 6.25 final sentence delete “from 12% to 22.5% of
all trips made”.”
4. That, subject to the following amendments, amended policies CS5 to CS13 and SS1, SS1a, SS1b, SS1c, SS2, SS2a, SS2b, SS2c and SS4 (attached at Appendix B to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and Environment) be approved for public consultation at the preparation stage of the local plan process (regulation 18) to enable a full sustainability appraisal to be undertaken for all policies and site allocations ahead of the Publication stage of the local plan process (regulation 19):-
a) Policy SS1, paragraph 3.11 second sentence: after “nearby” add “open”.
b) Policy SS1, paragraph 3.11 Add new final sentence: “In particular this will apply to the necessary provision of formal play space for children, which the council will expect to be provided in appropriate locations, the details of which will be agreed in the development briefs.”
c) Policy SS1a, paragraph 3.12 add to end of paragraph: “The Bridge Nursery site as used historically goes beyond the borough boundary into Tonbridge and Malling, occupying all of the land bounded by the Maidstone East railway line, the A20 London Road, the edge of the existing Allington residential area (at Lamberhurst Way, Blackmanstone Way and Fordwich Close) and the wooded area immediately north of Halstead Walk.”
d) Policy SS1a, paragraph 3.13 first sentence: after “2000” add “for housing and open space”. Second sentence: after “will” add “now be developed primarily for housing and”.
e) Policy SS1a, paragraph 3.14 first sentence: replace “allocated” with “identified”.
f)
Policy SS1a, paragraph 3.16 first sentence: after
“expects the” add “land beyond the borough
boundary in”. Delete “portion of this
site”. After “maintaining” add
“the”. After “railway line” add
“within Maidstone Borough”.
g) Policy SS1a, paragraph 3.18 final sentence: replace “language” with “approach”.
h) Policy SS1a(5)(i) replace “section of the site within” with “land beyond the borough boundary (as described in 3.12) in”.
i) Policy SS1b, paragraph 3.29 add as second and third sentence: “This land is comprised of 5.8 hectares designated in the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 as public open space (policy ENV24 (xiii)) and 15.4 hectares north west of the borough boundary. The land north west of the borough boundary is comprised of three fields – the northern half of the orchard field which straddles the boundary and the two fields immediately east of Hermitage Lane and south of the Maidstone East railway line.”
j) Policy SS1b, paragraph 3.29 split paragraph before “Working with Tonbridge and Malling”.
k)
Policy SS1b, new paragraph 3.30 after “Working
with Tonbridge and Malling Borough
Council,” add “appropriate and necessary ecological
mitigation and community open space will be provided on the 21.2
hectares of land described between the footpath/ restricted byway
and the Maidstone East railway line. The land within the Maidstone
boundary”. Delete “this
land (from the footpath/byway, as far as the railway) will be used
to mitigate the ecological impacts of development as well as
providing open space for community purposes. Within the Maidstone
boundary, the land”.
l) Policy SS1b, new paragraph 3.30 before “designated as strategic gap” add “also”.
m)Policy SS1b, old paragraph 3.30 renumber as “3.31”.
n) Policy SS1b(12) replace “section of the site within Tonbridge and Malling” with “15.4 hectares of land north west of the borough boundary, described in 3.29”.
o) Policy SS2, paragraph 4.7 final sentence: After “new provision” replace comma with full stop. Delete remainder of sentence. Add new final sentence: “In particular this will apply to the necessary provision of formal play space for children, which the council will expect to be provided in appropriate locations, the details of which will be agreed in the development briefs.”
p) SS2b allocation, Land North of Sutton Road, proposed amendment to site boundary amend the site boundary for Land North of Sutton Road to align with the site boundary for the local plan allocation (2000) as shown on the site plan attached at Appendix B to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment.
q)
Policy SS2c, paragraph 4.22 fiirst sentence: Before “Bicknor Wood” add “The ancient woodland
at”. Second sentence: After
“to meet” add “the ancient woodland
at”. After “which is”
add “immediately north of” and delete
“adjacent to”.
r) Policy SS2c, paragraph 4.23 final sentence: At start of sentence, add “It is important to ensure that appropriate open space is provided on site and that”. Amend “dwellings will be” to “dwellings are”.
s)
Policy SS2c(ii) after “woodland belt”
delete “of at least” and add “ranging from
a minimum of 40 metres to”
t)
Policy SS2c(5) after
“woodland belt” add “ranging from” and
delete “of”. After “metres” add
“to 80 metres”.
u)
Policy SS4, paragraph 5.16 delete
“300m2 greater than that which is existing on
site (14,300m2)” and replace with
“300m2 greater than the total existing retail
floorspace on site of
14,300m2”.
v) Policy SS4, paragraph 5.16 move sentence “In order to assess the impact of the proposals on the town centre, a retail impact assessment will be required for both comparison and convenience goods” to new paragraph 5.16a and add: “In determining the overall impact of the retail proposals, a measured adverse impact of more than 3% on town centre turnover is unlikely to be acceptable.”
w) Policy SS4, paragraph 5.16 replace “criterion” with “threshold”.
x) Policy SS4(7) amend to read: “The cumulative quantum of retail floorspace will be restricted to the provision of up to 300m2 above that which already exists. Any additional retail floorspace above this limit must be of an out of town format that is complementary to town centre uses and, by means of a sequential sites assessment, demonstrably require an out of town location”.
(y) Policy SS4(8) amend to read:
“Submission of a retail impact assessment for both
comparison and convenience goods, to be approved by the
Borough Council, in order to assess the impact of retail area
proposals which clearly demonstrates that the
retail development has no significant adverse impact on the
town centre”.
5.
That, subject to the amendments listed in decision
(4) above, the strategic site allocation policies SS1, SS1a, SS1b,
SS1c, SS2, SS2a, SS2b, SS2c and SS4 (attached at Appendix B to the
report of the Director of Change, Planning and Environment) be
adopted for development management decisions;
6.
That land at junction 8 of the M20 motorway be
retained as a strategic development location for employment (policy
SS3) until such time as the work identifying employment land demand
and supply is completed;
7. That, subject to the following amendments, the 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 ten units and such 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 be approved:-
a)
Policy CS10, paragraph 6.42 amend to read:
“Viability testing indicates that affordable housing is
achievable with a one dwelling threshold. For practical purposes,
the threshold will be set at 10 dwellings. Affordable housing will
be provided on site. Alternative provision will not be accepted
unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify it. Any
proposals for off site or financial
provision must be made at the time of the
application.”
b) Delete paragraph 6.43.
c) Policy CS10, paragraph 6.44 before “Around the urban periphery” add “On greenfield and private residential garden sites in the urban area and”.
d) Policy CS10, Policy text first sentence:
Amend “one residential unit” to “10 residential units”.
e) Policy CS10(1)(ii) after “Greenfield” add “and private residential gardens”.
f)
Policy CS10(2) delete
criterion.
g)
Policy CS10(3) Delete
“Where the development is 10 dwellings or
more:” After “proven
necessary” add “in exceptional
circumstances”.
8.
That the 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 be
approved; and
9. That, subject to the following amendments, the infrastructure priorities for development set out in paragraph 1.12.5 of the report of the Director of Change, Planning and Environment, be agreed and the amended policy CS14 be approved for re-consultation with the public at the preparation stage of the local plan process (regulation 18):-
a)
Policy CS14, paragraph 7.7 under
“Infrastructure Priorities for Residential Development”
move “Public Realm” to position 4 and move the balance
of priorities further down the list.
b) Policy CS14(3) under “Infrastructure Priorities for Residential Development” move “Public Realm” to position (iv) and move the balance of priorities further down the list.
10. That there should be consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition in advance of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal about the precise arrangements for the ecological assessment of the Bridge Nursery site in terms of when, what and who conducts the work.
11. That the policy for Bridge Nursery site should be amended to make reference to the landowners responsibility for the conduct of ecological surveys as part of the preparation for bringing forward development proposals at the planning application stage.
12. That clear information be provided to parish councils concerning the Neighbourhood Planning process viz a viz the core strategy timetable especially with respect to the housing need total and its spatial distribution.
13. That the importance of the cumulative impact of development envisaged in the Maidstone Borough Local Plan be noted and taken into account in both the Integrated Transport Strategy and the Infrastructure Development Plan and that the proposals for transport provision for walking and cycling be evaluated before it is completed.
14. That the following response be submitted to the Regeneration and Economic Development Committee SCRAIP relating to the points raised in respect of the bus lane
a) The Cabinet have retained the bus lane in their current proposals
b) Agreed to the proposed investigations
c) Agreed.
Reasons for the decision:
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.
Cabinet
also agreed at that time 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 has
delayed the Core Strategy programme by 19 months, moving its
adoption date from December 2013 to July 2015.
A
review of the Local Development Scheme (LDS), which sets out the
timetable for plan production, is the subject of a second
report. 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.
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 Preparation stage consultation on the local plan (regulation
18).
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 the report of the Director of
Change, Planning and the Environment.
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
Preparation stage consultation (regulation 18). The local plan must be published in its entirety
for public consultation in October 2013 (regulation 18) to enable a
full sustainability appraisal to be undertaken for all policies and
site allocations ahead of formal public consultation on the local
plan (regulation 19) in 2014.
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 the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the
Environment 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.
The
report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment
informs Members of the initial results arising from updated
demographic and employment demand data and recommends a working
target for housing. It sets out the key
issues arising from the public consultations and includes amended
policies that were recommended for approval or adoption for
development management decisions (Appendices A and B of the report
of the Director of Change, Planning and the
Environment). It discussed 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 proposed updated targets for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling
Showpeople pitches/plots as a result of
rolling forward the local plan period, and set out the priorities
for infrastructure provision.
The
report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment did
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.
Moratorium on the release of greenfield housing sites allocated in the Maidstone
Borough Wide Local Plan 2000
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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 will be made to revoke the current moratorium on the release of the balance of greenfield housing sites allocated in the MBWLP 2000.
Demographic Forecasts and the Housing Target
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 |
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.
However, it was 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.
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.
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 was therefore
recommended that Cabinet approved 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.
Employment Demand
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.
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Public
Consultations 2011 and 2012
Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and
the Environment lists the policies 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 to the report of the Director of Change,
Planning and the Environment includes the list of amended policies
unaffected by the housing and employment targets. Cabinet was recommended to approve policies CS5 to
CS13 and policies SS1 to SS2c and SS4 for Preparation consultation
(regulation 18) 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 the report of
the Director for Change, Planning and the Environment and this
policy was recommended for re-consultation under regulation 18
because of significant amendments.
Where appropriate, the policies have been amended as a result of
public consultation.
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 all policies and allocations later this year to
enable a full sustainability appraisal on the local plan to be
undertaken. In the meantime, the public will be informed of the
amended policies that Cabinet approved for Preparation consultation
(regulation 18) 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 18 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 18 consultation |
SS1 |
Strategic housing location to the NW |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
SS1a |
Bridge Nursery |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
SS1b |
East of Hermitage Lane |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
SS1c |
West of Hermitage Lane |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
SS2 |
Strategic housing location to the SE |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
SS2a |
Langley Park |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
SS2b |
North of Sutton Road |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
SS2c |
North of Bicknor Wood |
Approve for Reg 18 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 18 consultation & adopt for DM decisions |
CS6 |
Sustainable design |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation |
CS7 |
Sustainable transport |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation |
CS8 |
Economic development |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation |
CS9 |
Housing mix |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation |
CS10 |
Affordable housing |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation |
CS11 |
Local needs housing |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation |
CS12 |
Gypsy & Traveller accommodation |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation |
CS13 |
Historic & natural environment |
Approve for Reg 18 consultation |
CS14 |
Infrastructure delivery |
Approve changes for Reg 18 consultation |
The
2012 public consultation also included a proposed amendment to
policy CS1 setting out individual dwelling targets for the five
rural service centres. It was noted
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.
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).
Strategic employment location at M20 Junction 8 (policy
SS3)
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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 all policies and land allocations.
Viability and Affordable Housing (policy CS10)
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.
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.
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.
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
The
affordable housing targets can be delivered using a zero site
threshold to trigger the need for this type of accommodation but
there was concern that this would place an administrative burden on
developers and on the council. It was
agreed that a 10 dwelling threshold represents a standardisation of
contribution thresholds for housing developments, in line with the
threshold for development contributions towards education (Kent
County Council), health (Primary Care Trust) and parks & open
spaces (Maidstone Borough Council).
Gypsy
& Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Pitch/Plot Targets (policy
CS12)
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.
It was
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.
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 to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment. 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.
Infrastructure Delivery (policy CS14) and the Infrastructure
Delivery Plan
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.
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.
It was
noted that some forms of infrastructure provision had 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.
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, as
amended as a result of the decision of Cabinet, 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.
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 |
Public Realm |
4 |
Education |
5 |
Health |
5 |
Utilities |
6 |
Education |
|
|
7 |
Social Services |
|
|
8 |
Utilities |
|
|
9 |
Libraries |
|
|
10 |
Emergency Services |
|
|
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.
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 was
recommended that the infrastructure priority list be agreed and
that policy CS14, as amended at Appendix B to the report of the
Director of Change, Planning and the Environment and as a result of
the decision of Cabinet, be approved for public consultation
(regulation 18) in October 2013.
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.
The
Work Programme
The
Local Development Scheme report set 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 land allocations and policies for public consultation (Regulation 18) |
September 2013 |
“Preparation” public consultation on land allocations and 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 |
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.
Discussions with neighbouring authorities over the joint
commissioning of a new SHMA are on-going 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.
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.
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.
The
Cabinet also received a reference from the Spatial Planning
Strategy Advisory Group setting out their recommendations in
respect of the issues before the Cabinet. Additionally they also
received an urgent update report from the Head of Planning setting
out his recommendations in respect of the issues raised by the
Spatial Planning Strategy Advisory Group and a number of issues
they sought to be amended in the plan. The Regeneration and
Economic Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee also submitted
a SCRAIP to the Cabinet regarding the bus lane.
Alternative options considered:
The
Cabinet had the option to not approve local plan policies for
Preparation consultation (regulation 18) 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 all policies and
sites. This approach was not thought
appropriate. 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.
The Cabinet could opt for higher or lower affordable housing targets within the three identified locations set out in section 1.10 of the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment. 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.
Reason Key: Significant Impact on two or more wards;
Wards Affected: (All Wards);
Details of the Committee: None
Representations should be made by: 31 January 2013
Contact: Rob Jarman, Head of Development Management Email: suewhiteside@maidstone.gov.uk Email: Robjarman@maidstone.gov.uk.
Report author: Sue Whiteside
Publication date: 19/03/2013
Date of decision: 13/03/2013
Decided: 13/03/2013 - Cabinet.
Effective from: 27/03/2013
Accompanying Documents: