Agenda item

The following questions and supplementary questions were asked of the Chairman of the Committee:

Question 1 – Claudine Russell

What evaluation of the remaining capacity in each previously designated Rural Service Centre has been made, and is intended to be made, in this current ongoing Local Plan Review and what is the timescale for any new/updated evaluation given that the councils preferred options will be discussed in the near future?

Supplementary question - How will this process be made public?

Question 2 – Cllr English asked the question on James Willis behalf

Plans and discussions recently published for town centre sites have caused lots of interest.  It seems accepted that one of Maidstone’s biggest problems is creaking infrastructure.  The expression “failing to plan, is planning to fail” may be appropriate, and I welcome getting the best for our county town. 

With this in mind, looking more holistically in relation to the Maidstone Local Plan Review, what plans are there for a master plan of the Town Centre area?

There was no supplementary.

Question 3 – Lesley Robinson

Would the Committee consider adopting this revised recommendation:

The Maidstone West (Broadway Shopping Centre) planning guidelines be altered to reflect that:

·  The maximum number of units on this site will be limited to 240 units.

·  The maximum height of any building on this site cannot not exceed 25m (the standard height of a 8.5 storey building).

·  All buildings on site are to have high architectural value, and the tall buildings over 6 storeys must be slender in form.

·  The war memorial will not be moved.

·  All buildings will be moved further back into the site, away from the Maidstone gyratory, to allow more space for landscaping along the frontage, and to widen the centre entrance by angling the apartments either side in order to creater a wider entrance and vista of the river Medway.

·  The part of the site directly adjoining the Maidstone Gyratory system and London Road/Broadway will be set aside to allow the Council to explore the opportunity to incorporate improved pedestrian, cyclists and bus lanes.

The planning guidelines will be altered/updated by Maidstone Borough Council Officers and Savills in accordance with this recommendation. These altered planning guidelines will then be brought back to this committee for a final vote, given 4,500 residents have expressed interest in the design of this site through the 38 degrees petition.

There was no supplementary

Question 4 – Dale Nurden

I ask the Committee to debate and then take a vote (by show of hands) on each of the five town centre opportunity sites separately please - rather than considering them as one item. I ask this as some of the site proposals appear less controversial (e.g. Len House and the Gala Bingo site), whereas others, like the Maidstone West proposal are very contentious. 4,500 have signed a petition that they strongly dislike the plans for the Broadway Shopping Centre. This shows this item should be discussed and voted on separately. Personally, I feel the height of buildings on the Maidstone West site ought to be limited to match its surrounding areas (i.e. a max height of 7 storeys). I also feel the number of units must be reduced to reflect the lower height.

There was no supplementary

Question 5 – John Hughes

MBC is very unlikely to achieve a reduction of carbon footprint, improvement in air quality and protection of quality of life if, as the Local Plan Review proposes, the current high annual growth which is leading to traffic gridlock is increased by another 40% from 2023 onwards.

Given Maidstone’s longstanding traffic problems of increasing congestion, delay and air pollution, rather than a 40% increase in housing target in 2023 and then continuing flat profile after that, would it not be sensible to plan for a series of steps in annual housing target to reflect the roll-out of discrete major sites, thereby giving some breathing space to allow a sustainable transport system to be put in place to support future growth?

Supplementary question – we think that in NPPG, paragraph 34, does allow LPAs pursuing Garden Community Centres to in effect step the profile of the development.  And there are other ways which we have suggested that will allow you to do that.  So why not take advantage of those provisions?

Question 6 – Peter Coulling

Will MBC give full consideration to the dozen legitimate proposals made to them by the Co-ordinating Team, via Mr William Cornall, that, if seriously deployed by MBC, could flexibly trim and shape annual housing growth from 2023 onwards to allow transport and other infrastructure a breathing space to catch up with the very unwelcome impact of past developments on current residents?

Supplementary question – must disagree that one cannot do anything about Government dictats.  William Cornall letter he states he does not have a mandate to revisit the twelve proposals.  Would you give William Cornall the mandate to review the twelve sites?

Question 7 – Cheryl Taylor-Maggio

Given that population growth, in-migration and housing demand are now significantly less than the assumptions on which the Government’s housing growth requirements are based, would it not be sensible to build in flexibility to take advantage of likely reductions in Government housing requirements in the next few years?

Supplementary questions – does that imply that MBC is happy to deliver the maximum number of houses using government dictats as cover?

Question 8 – John Horne

Do you accept that air quality exceedances give a valid reason to constrain development until they are remedied, whether by technological improvements or otherwise?

Supplementary question – I take it that means you are looking at it seriously and the Kent and Medway partnership and looking at the Pond Farm decision you are not just looking to buy your way out of it.  This is something that you would subscribe to?

The Chairman responded to all questions and supplementary questions.  The full response was recorded on the webcast and was made available on the Maidstone Borough Council website.