Contact your Parish Council
Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Town Hall, High Street, Maidstone. View directions
Contact: Janet Barnes 01622 602242
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: There were no apologies for absence.
|
|
Notification of Visiting Members Minutes: Councillors Burton, Gooch, McKay and Newton indicated that they wished to speak on all of the items.
Councillor Mrs Stockell indicated her wish to speak on all of the items relating to the Core Strategy.
Councillor Chittenden indicated that he wished to speak on Agenda items 12 and 13.
Councillor Mrs Wilson indicated that she wished to speak on Agenda items 8, 9, 10 and 12.
|
|
Disclosures by Members and Officers Minutes: There were no disclosures by members and officers.
|
|
Disclosures of lobbying Minutes: All members of the Cabinet stated that they had been lobbied on the Core Strategy.
|
|
Exempt Items Minutes: RESOLVED: That the item on Part II of the agenda be taken in private as proposed.
|
|
Budget Strategy 2013 14 Onwards PDF 122 KB Additional documents:
Decision: 1. That, for planning purposes, the expected strategic revenue projection be selected as giving the appropriate outcome.
2. That a 2.5% increase in the level of Council Tax increase be agreed for planning purposes.
Minutes: DECISION MADE:
1. That, for planning purposes, the expected strategic revenue projection be selected as giving the appropriate outcome.
2. That a 2.5% increase in the level of Council Tax increase be agreed for planning purposes.
|
|
Capital Programme 2012 to 2016 PDF 125 KB Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the proposed amendments to the capital strategy including the principle of prudential borrowing where this achieves commercial development, as outlined in section 1.5 of the report of Corporate Leadership Team be agreed. 2. That officers develop and present proposals that achieve the councils objectives through commercial development, as set out in section 1.5 of the report of the Corporate Leadership Team. 3. That the evaluation of resources available and scheme proposals as set out in paragraph 1.6.5 of the report of the Corporate Leadership Team identifying the appropriate uses of the resources available be approved.
Minutes: DECISION MADE: 1. That the proposed amendments to the capital strategy including the principle of prudential borrowing where this achieves commercial development, as outlined in section 1.5 of the report of Corporate Leadership Team be agreed. 2. That officers develop and present proposals that achieve the councils objectives through commercial development, as set out in section 1.5 of the report of the Corporate Leadership Team. 3. That the evaluation of resources available and scheme proposals as set out in paragraph 1.6.5 of the report of the Corporate Leadership Team identifying the appropriate uses of the resources available be approved.
|
|
Localisation of Council Tax Support PDF 81 KB Additional documents:
Decision: That the Council undertakes a formal consultation, as outlined under point 5 of the report of the Director for Regeneration and Communities, identifying option 6 (set out in Appendix A to the report of the Director for Regeneration and Communities) as the preferred scheme for implementation. Minutes: DECISION MADE:
That the Council undertakes a formal consultation, as outlined under point 5 of the report of the Director for Regeneration and Communities, identifying option 6 (set out in Appendix A to the report of the Director for Regeneration and Communities) as the preferred scheme for implementation.
|
|
Phase 2 High Street Improvement Project PDF 100 KB Additional documents:
Decision: 1. That Phase 2 is progressed and the project funded from the Council’s Capital Programme with a budget total of £1.7 million.
2. That delegated authority be given to the Director of Regeneration and Communities, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic and Commercial Development, to agree design changes to Phase 2 before and during the construction period to keep the project within budget.
3. That delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to enter into a contract (on terms to be agreed by the Director of Regeneration and Communities) with a contractor to undertake the construction of Phase 2.
4. That delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to enter into a contract (on terms to be agreed by the Director of Regeneration and Communities) for a Designer, a Project Manager, a Quantity Surveyor and Construction Design Management Coordination Services (CDMC).
5. That delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to enter into a Section 278 agreement with Kent County Council to undertake works to the public highway.
Minutes: DECISION MADE:
1. That Phase 2 is progressed and the project funded from the Council’s Capital Programme with a budget total of £1.7 million.
2. That delegated authority be given to the Director of Regeneration and Communities, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic and Commercial Development, to agree design changes to Phase 2 before and during the construction period to keep the project within budget.
3. That delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to enter into a contract (on terms to be agreed by the Director of Regeneration and Communities) with a contractor to undertake the construction of Phase 2.
4. That delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to enter into a contract (on terms to be agreed by the Director of Regeneration and Communities) for a Designer, a Project Manager, a Quantity Surveyor and Construction Design Management Coordination Services (CDMC).
5. That delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to enter into a Section 278 agreement with Kent County Council to undertake works to the public highway.
|
|
Core Strategy Public Participation: Key Issues and Responses PDF 213 KB Decision: 1. That, without prejudice to consideration of all representations prior to the approval of the Core Strategy for the next round of public consultation planned for December 2012 (regulation 19[1]), and the key issues arising from the 2011 public participation consultation on the draft Core Strategy, the officers’ responses be noted, and the following be agreed:
i)
Replace the 10,000 jobs target set out in policy CS1
with a specific employment floorspace
requirement expressed in square metres; ii)
Retain junction 8 of the M20 motorway as a strategic
location for economic development to address qualitative and
quantitative employment needs and the aspirations of the
Council; iii)
Retain junction 7 of the M20 motorway as a medical
campus, and allocate land for development in the Core Strategy in
conjunction with the adjacent redevelopment of Newnham Court Shopping Village, to be guided by an
approved development brief; iv)
Retain the housing target of 10,080 dwellings in a
dispersed pattern of development; v)
Retain the two strategic housing development
locations to the north west and south east of the urban area, and
allocate land for development in the Core Strategy to be guided by
development briefs; vi)
Update Maidstone’s 5-year housing land supply
and housing trajectory to a base date of 1 April 2012, and engage
with the development industry to achieve consensus over the methods
of calculating elements of land supply, including a 5% contingency
allowance; vii)
Include housing targets in policy CS1 for each of
the rural service centres in accordance with those set out in the
Cabinet report of 9 February 2011, reproduced at paragraph 1.5.22
of the report of the Director of Change, Planning, and the
Environment; viii)
Include reference to the early release of a
proportion of suitable greenfield sites
at the rural service centres in the Core Strategy in advance of the
adoption of the Development Delivery Local Plan where supported by
evidence of need; ix)
Note that work is being undertaken on the viability
of Core Strategy policies, including affordable housing, and that a
subsequent report on this issue will be presented to
Cabinet; x)
Retain the five rural service centres of
Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham, Marden and Staplehurst; xi)
Note that the draft Integrated Transport Strategy,
which is the subject of a separate report attached to the agenda,
addresses the issues relating to improvements to highways and
public transport raised by respondents; xii)
Rename green wedges as green and blue corridors,
transfer references to corridors in policy CS3 to policy CS1, and
amend the green wedges notations on the key diagram; xiii) Reword the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation policy (CS12) to provide clarity and to include a landscaping criterion; and
xiv) That the work that is ongoing to provide for a suitable public site(s) for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation be noted
.
Minutes: DECISION MADE:
1. That, without prejudice to consideration of all representations prior to the approval of the Core Strategy for the next round of public consultation planned for December 2012 (regulation 19[1]), and the key issues arising from the 2011 public participation consultation on the draft Core Strategy, the officers’ responses be noted, and the following be agreed:
i)
Replace the 10,000 jobs target set out in policy CS1
with a specific employment floorspace
requirement expressed in square metres; ii)
Retain junction 8 of the M20 motorway as a strategic
location for economic development to address qualitative and
quantitative employment needs and the aspirations of the
Council; iii)
Retain junction 7 of the M20 motorway as a medical
campus, and allocate land for development in the Core Strategy in
conjunction with the adjacent redevelopment of Newnham Court Shopping Village, to be guided by an
approved development brief; iv)
Retain the housing target of 10,080 dwellings in a
dispersed pattern of development; v)
Retain the two strategic housing development
locations to the north west and south east of the urban area, and
allocate land for development in the Core Strategy to be guided by
development briefs; vi)
Update Maidstone’s 5-year housing land supply
and housing trajectory to a base date of 1 April 2012, and engage
with the development industry to achieve consensus over the methods
of calculating elements of land supply, including a 5% contingency
allowance; vii)
Include housing targets in policy CS1 for each of
the rural service centres in accordance with those set out in the
Cabinet report of 9 February 2011, reproduced at paragraph 1.5.22
of the report of the Director of Change, Planning, and the
Environment; viii)
Include reference to the early release of a
proportion of suitable greenfield sites
at the rural service centres in the Core Strategy in advance of the
adoption of the Development Delivery Local Plan where supported by
evidence of need; ix)
Note that work is being undertaken on the viability
of Core Strategy policies, including affordable housing, and that a
subsequent report on this issue will be presented to
Cabinet; x)
Retain the five rural service centres of
Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham, Marden and Staplehurst; xi)
Note that the draft Integrated Transport Strategy,
which is the subject of a separate report attached to the agenda,
addresses the issues relating to improvements to highways and
public transport raised by respondents; xii)
Rename green wedges as green and blue corridors,
transfer references to corridors in policy CS3 to policy CS1, and
amend the green wedges notations on the key diagram; xiii) Reword the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation policy (CS12) to provide clarity and to include a landscaping criterion; and
xiv) That the work that is ongoing to provide for a suitable public site(s) for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation be noted
|
|
Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations PDF 162 KB Additional documents:
Decision: 1. That the site allocation policies set out in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public Consultation 2012 document (as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) with the exclusion of SS3 be approved for public consultation subject to the following amendments:-
East of Hermitage
Lane
1.
After paragraph 3.16 add new paragraph: “East of Hermitage
Lane lies, in part, within an identified biodiversity opportunity
area (BOA). The Greensand Heaths and
Commons BOA, in which the north eastern portion of the site is
located, is characterised by a concentration of woodlands on the
Greensand Ridge where areas of heathy
vegetation and acid grassland are a feature. The larger field,
which is proposed for development, has been ploughed on a number of
occasions, although opportunities exist for targeted habitat
restoration and creation as part of the
development.”
2.
Delete paragraph 3.17 and replace with: “At the south western
end of the site is a smaller field with an area of protected trees
to the north east. The field and trees, which are to be retained as
informal/natural open space, offer the chance to create an enhanced
biodiversity corridor through and around the proposed
development. Retention of the smaller
field also allows a section of archaeological remains to be left in
situ, as advised by the County Archaeologist. The retention and enhancement of this part of the
site will also screen the proposed development from Hermitage Lane
and maintain the setting of Maidstone Hospital.”
3.
Paragraph 4.10 following “and enclosure to development”
add: “The County Ecologist has identified the eastern part of
the site as having ecological potential so more detailed
consideration should be given to this area through the submission
of an ecology survey, incorporating mitigation measures, to be
approved by the Borough Council.
Existing landscape features within the site should be retained
where possible. Bicknor Wood to the north of the site and the trees
running along the eastern boundary are subject to tree preservation
orders (TPO No.37 of 1981 and TPO No.36 of 1981).”
4.
Policy SS2c add new criterion: “Submission of a full
landscape assessment and ecology survey, to be approved by the
Borough Council”.
5.
Paragraph 6.10 after “views from the AONB” add:
“Of particular prominence is the hill to the north east of
the field located to the east of the stream, so development will
not be permitted on this part of the site.”
6.
Paragraph 6.15 amend to read “The medical campus will provide
for up to
7.
Policy SS4(1) amend to read “Provision of a maximum
200,000m2 of specialist medical facilities set within an
enhanced landscape structure” and replace with
“Provision of a maximum
8.
Policy SS4(2) before the word
“vicinity” add the word “immeadiate”. 9. Policy SS4(5) after “…use of the ... view the full decision text for item 54. Minutes: DECISION MADE:
1. That the site allocation policies set out in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public Consultation 2012 document (as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) with the exclusion of SS3 be approved for public consultation subject to the following amendments:-
East
of Hermitage Lane
1.
After paragraph 3.16 add new paragraph: “East of Hermitage
Lane lies, in part, within an identified biodiversity opportunity
area (BOA). The Greensand Heaths and
Commons BOA, in which the north eastern portion of the site is
located, is characterised by a concentration of woodlands on the
Greensand Ridge where areas of heathy
vegetation and acid grassland are a feature. The larger field,
which is proposed for development, has been ploughed on a number of occasions, although
opportunities exist for targeted habitat restoration and creation
as part of the development.”
2.
Delete paragraph 3.17 and replace with: “At the south western
end of the site is a smaller field with an area of protected trees
to the north east. The field and trees, which are to be retained as
informal/natural open space, offer the chance to create an enhanced
biodiversity corridor through and around the proposed
development. Retention of the smaller
field also allows a section of archaeological remains to be left in
situ, as advised by the County Archaeologist. The retention and enhancement of this part of the
site will also screen the proposed development from Hermitage Lane
and maintain the setting of Maidstone Hospital.”
3.
Paragraph 4.10 following “and enclosure to development”
add: “The County Ecologist has identified the eastern part of
the site as having ecological potential so more detailed
consideration should be given to this area through the submission
of an ecology survey, incorporating mitigation measures, to be
approved by the Borough Council.
Existing landscape features within the site should be retained
where possible. Bicknor Wood to the
north of the site and the trees running along the eastern boundary
are subject to tree preservation orders (TPO No.37 of 1981 and TPO
No.36 of 1981).” 4. Policy SS2c add new criterion: “Submission of a full landscape assessment and ecology survey, to be approved by the Borough Council”.
5.
Paragraph 6.10 after “views from the AONB” add:
“Of particular prominence is the hill to the north east of
the field located to the east of the stream, so development will
not be permitted on this part of the site.”
6.
Paragraph 6.15 amend to read “The medical campus will provide
for up to
7.
Policy SS4(1) amend to read “Provision of a maximum
200,000m2 of specialist medical facilities set within an
enhanced landscape structure” and replace with
“Provision of a maximum
8.
Policy SS4(2) before the word
“vicinity” add the word “immeadiate”. 9. Policy SS4(5) after ... view the full minutes text for item 54. |
|
Draft Integrated Transport Strategy PDF 109 KB Additional documents:
Decision: That the Draft Integrated Transport Strategy as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment and its preferred option, using a ‘do minimum plus’ basis for further improvements, be approved for public consultation subject to the following amendments:-
1. Paragraph E3.1; at the end of the paragraph an additional sentence should be added: “Overall, these transport infrastructure improvements and initiatives are expected to cost £39.5m”
2.
Paragraph 5.0.3 amend to read: “Unfortunately
however,
3.
Paragraph 5.4.1, first sentence,
amend to read: “The only remaining
4. Paragraph 5.4.1; after “within the vicinity of Junction 8” add “and M20 Junction 7”
5.
Paragraph 5.4.1; amend to read “at a total
capital expenditure of some
6. Paragraph 5.4.1; last sentence, after “transport infrastructure necessary to support the development proposed by the Core Strategy” add “and help manage existing traffic congestion issues”
7.
Paragraph 6.2.2 (b)
should be amended to read: “A249 / Bearsted
Road
8. Paragraph 6.2.2 an additional point should be inserted between points (b) and (c) to read: “(c) Bearsted Road / New Cut Road Roundabout. This includes capacity improvements and an enlargement of the roundabout”
9. Paragraph 6.2.3; “Projects (a) – (r)” should be amended to read “Projects (a) – (s)”; and “Locations (s) to (w)” should be amended to read “Locations (t) to (x)”
10. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, an additional row between the “M20 Junction 7 Bearsted / Roundabout” row and the “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” row should be inserted labelled “A249 / Bearsted Rd Roundabout” and should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £386,000 and £530,000 respectively
11. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Roundabout / New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £423,000 and £559,000 respectively
12. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £2,765,000 and £3,304,000 respectively
13. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “New Cut Rd / A20 Ashford Rd junction improvements” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £470,000 and £604,000 respectively
14.
Paragraph 6.31.3; should be amended to read:
“ Minutes: DECISION MADE:
That the Draft Integrated Transport Strategy as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment and its preferred option, using a ‘do minimum plus’ basis for further improvements, be approved for public consultation subject to the following amendments:-
1. Paragraph E3.1; at the end of the paragraph an additional sentence should be added: “Overall, these transport infrastructure improvements and initiatives are expected to cost £39.5m”
2.
Paragraph 5.0.3 amend to read: “Unfortunately
however,
3.
Paragraph 5.4.1, first sentence,
amend to read: “The only remaining
4. Paragraph 5.4.1; after “within the vicinity of Junction 8” add “and M20 Junction 7”
5.
Paragraph 5.4.1; amend to read “at a total
capital expenditure of some
6. Paragraph 5.4.1; last sentence, after “transport infrastructure necessary to support the development proposed by the Core Strategy” add “and help manage existing traffic congestion issues”
7.
Paragraph 6.2.2 (b)
should be amended to read: “A249 / Bearsted
Road
8. Paragraph 6.2.2 an additional point should be inserted between points (b) and (c) to read: “(c) Bearsted Road / New Cut Road Roundabout. This includes capacity improvements and an enlargement of the roundabout”
9. Paragraph 6.2.3; “Projects (a) – (r)” should be amended to read “Projects (a) – (s)”; and “Locations (s) to (w)” should be amended to read “Locations (t) to (x)”
10. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, an additional row between the “M20 Junction 7 Bearsted / Roundabout” row and the “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” row should be inserted labelled “A249 / Bearsted Rd Roundabout” and should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £386,000 and £530,000 respectively
11. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Roundabout / New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £423,000 and £559,000 respectively
12. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £2,765,000 and £3,304,000 respectively
13. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “New Cut Rd / A20 Ashford Rd junction improvements” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £470,000 and £604,000 respectively
14.
Paragraph 6.31.3; should be amended to read:
“ |
|
Infrastructure Delivery Plan Update PDF 81 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Cabinet considered the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment on the progress of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan in order to inform the Core Strategy strategic site allocations and the Integrated Transport Strategy.
RESOLVED: That the progress of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the indicative cost estimates.
|
|
Duration of Meeting Minutes: 3.00pm to 7.38pm.
|