Agenda item

Petition - Housebuilding Targets and Infrastructure

Notice has been given pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 13 of the intention to present a petition in the following terms:

We the undersigned request our Elected Representatives in Maidstone Borough to:

Challenge and campaign against National Government's Housebuilding targets.
Rethink the building of Garden Communities. They are not an appropriate planning policy for the Borough of Maidstone, especially in places like Lenham Heath, Marden and Langley as perfect examples.
Not accept new housebuilding levels that are unsustainable for the Borough of Maidstone.
Complete a full infrastructure assessment before the Local Plan Review and ensure all historical infrastructure issues are rectified across the Borough before projects commence.
Be transparent and engage Parish Councils and local communities before any final decisions are made with regards to planning and new developments in the area.

Minutes:

Mr Steve Heeley presented a petition in the following terms on behalf of the Save Our Heathlands Action Group (SOHAG):

We the undersigned request our elected representatives in Maidstone Borough to:

· Challenge and campaign against national Government's housebuilding targets.

· Rethink the building of Garden Communities. They are not an appropriate planning policy for the Borough of Maidstone, especially in places like Lenham Heath, Marden and Langley as perfect examples.

· Not accept new housebuilding levels that are unsustainable for the Borough of Maidstone.

· Complete a full infrastructure assessment before the Local Plan Review and ensure all historical infrastructure issues are rectified across the Borough before projects commence.

· Be transparent and engage Parish Councils and local communities before any final decisions are made with regards to planning and new developments in the area.

In presenting the petition, Mr Heeley said that:

· The petition had been signed by thousands of Maidstone residents calling upon the Council to rethink its plans on housebuilding.

· The SOHAG was opposed to the Council’s proposed Garden Community at Lenham. However, through its work, the Group was finding that there was a lot of opposition to the overall planning approach in the Borough.

· Many of the people the Group had spoken to appeared resigned to the fact that the Council would carry on with its growth strategy without properly seeking the views of residents. The petitioners were calling upon Members to hear and listen to the voices of Maidstone residents who were saying “Enough is Enough”.

· The petition was specifically asking Members to challenge and campaign against national Government’s housebuilding targets and to rethink the building of Garden Communities as this was not considered to be a suitable planning policy approach for the Borough. The petitioners did not expect the Council to accept new housebuilding levels that are unsustainable for Maidstone and were asking the Council to be transparent and engage with Parish Councils and local communities before any final decisions are made regarding where new development goes.

· In terms of housebuilding targets, the petitioners were well aware that the Council had made attempts to challenge the targets imposed already but were underwhelmed by the action taken to date which had constituted a few letters to the Secretary of State and a meeting with Civil Servants. Instead they wanted loud and clear voices against national targets and were calling upon the Council to join forces with MPs across Kent and further afield and the Kent Association of Local Councils to amplify the opposition to these targets.

· In terms of Garden Communities, the petitioners were calling upon the Council to listen to the many residents who are opposed to this form of growth. Maidstone residents did not want new towns built in the countryside at the expense of hundreds of acres of greenfield land miles away from the main conurbations. Garden Communities were the right solution in the right place but were not the right solution for Maidstone. Existing Garden Communities such as Ebbsfleet in north Kent and Kingshill, West Malling were sites which had former uses and were being regenerated. Unfortunately, Maidstone did not have these types of sites. Instead, the Council seemed intent on building over the countryside and green space around existing rural villages such as Marden and Lenham. This was not what residents wanted.

· In recent weeks, the petitioners had seen and heard Members protecting their own backyards as part of the Local Plan review. It was not good enough to have such a blinkered approach.

· The Council had made decades of poor decisions regarding the provision of the necessary infrastructure to deal with the growth of Maidstone town centre in a sustainable way. The solution was not to flood rural villages with houses just to get the numbers required. Rural centres like Lenham were already taking their fair share of new homes; over 1,000 in the next ten years almost doubling the size of the village. Urban and suburban parts of the Borough had got to do their fair share too and the Council needed to be serious about its infrastructure strategy to properly unlock growth.

· The opposition to so many new homes across the Borough was because roads cannot cope with existing traffic. The town centre was congested, and this was exacerbated by the lack of a serious and credible transport strategy and ambition.

· Finally, the petition was calling on the Council to be more transparent and properly engaged with Parish Councils and local communities. The petitioners understood the difficult decisions faced by the Council in agreeing a spatial strategy but considered that the current proposed solutions were not the answer. The petitioners were calling upon the Council to think again, particularly about the building of Garden Communities. Maidstone residents were saying “Enough is Enough” and it was hoped that Members would listen to and act upon these concerns.

A factual briefing note prepared by the Officers was circulated to assist Members in the discussion on the petition.

During the discussion, Members made several points, including:

Residents were angry and that was understandable, but the Council was not the Highway Authority. Attacking the Borough Council for decisions taken on transport and road infrastructure was perhaps not hitting the right target.

The Council did not have a strategy for growth. The housing numbers had been imposed on this and all other Councils across the country by the Government. The issue should not really be who was to blame for this but what Members as politicians across the board in Maidstone and in other local authority areas did about it. The Council had been working with MPs and most MPs in Kent had made strong representations against the proposed changes in the Government’s planning policy. The Council had been trying to work with them.

Turning to the details of the Local Plan, contrary to what had been asserted, the Council had not made decisions on Garden Communities or any other site allocations yet. The Council as a land promoter/developer had a view on a particular proposal but that was not a proposal that had been adopted by the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee at this time.

The debate had not closed, decisions had not been made. The Council had not closed off discussions with Parish Councils or with the public and was still engaged in them. The decisions would be made in the public arena; fully, clearly and transparently.

Fully support the petition on behalf of the people of Maidstone.

Fully support the petition which had arisen out of the frustration felt by residents all over the Borough about housing development without the supporting infrastructure. There was concern that the houses being built were unaffordable and did not reflect the needs/changing requirements of real family situations. For example, in Harrietsham, Lenham and other areas almost all of the houses being built at the moment were larger properties, but starter homes and properties suitable for downsizing were required and they needed to be built near to the services that would support the people who would be living there. The petition reflected residents’ view that these larger properties and Garden Communities were not the answer. The Council was being over-reliant on Garden Communities in its strategic planning.

Residents’ groups and Parish Councils were combining and united in their opposition. The petition was not about “nimbyism” – it represented collective disquiet about the whole process. There was a need for community engagement and transparency, to share information and to listen to Parish Councils and local residents.

Under recent changes to the planning laws sent out for consultation, the Government was proposing changes to the standard methodology used to calculate housing need resulting in a new national total of 337,000 homes a year. Under the current methodology the Council was required to build 1,214 houses per year. Under the new methodology proposed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which was presently subject to consultation and might change, this number increased to 1,569 houses per year. Together with others, the Council was challenging the existing and proposed new Government imposed housebuilding requirements, but the Government was being very firm.

The Council was also in the process of amending the timeline for its current Local Plan Review in an attempt to avoid increased housing requirements for the maximum time.

As part of the Council’s Call for Sites exercise, there was a prospectus dedicated to the submission of proposals from landowners/developers for a Garden Community and various proposals were put forward which were considered.

It was now necessary for everyone to work together towards the various stages of the Local Plan Review process and to ensure the delivery of houses supported by the necessary infrastructure.

The Local Plan was more than just housing, it was also about the infrastructure required to support it including medical facilities, open space, libraries and employment. A holistic approach was required.

Whilst Parish Councils were very welcome to contact Members, a lot of Members represented Wards in the urban area of the Borough which did not have the benefit of Parish Councils and, possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, did not have such active residents’ groups. There was a need to ensure that urban views did not go unheard.

There was also a need to consider the other changes the Government was considering to the current planning system.

No decisions had been made yet. Garden Communities were currently being assessed. It was necessary to go through the process to provide the evidence to demonstrate a sound Plan whilst at the same time lobbying the Government for a reduction in the housebuilding targets.

Members were all defending their areas and certainly looking at the evidence in relation to the sites coming forward. Ebbsfleet was a development where the whole planning process was taken away from Dartford Borough Council.

There would be an opportunity to engage with residents through Regulation 18b of the current Local Plan Review. If the Council moved straight to Regulation 19, it would be for the Inspector to go through evidence that he/she might not necessarily be familiar with as a potentially non-resident.

Always thought the Council was probably not competent to deliver the supposed benefits of a Garden Community without all the obvious adverse impacts. Always objected to the way the Council approached these matters but must object to the statement that the urban and sub-urban areas need to take their fair share.

That was not what the petition said, and it was not what people had signed up to. It ignored the fact that urban and suburban Maidstone had taken the lion’s share of development for years. No wish to see the countryside needlessly churned up and the Council did need to be pushing back on the Government’s targets, but, to be clear, the town was literally choking and should not be used as an easy solution. The town had done its bit. Most of the brownfield sites had been used because the town had borne the brunt for twenty years; so no more please.

Every sympathy with the petitioners, but there was no more space left in the urban/suburban areas to build. Infrastructure was needed to support new development and people to support that infrastructure. People thought that signing the petition would make a difference, but if the Council did not comply with the requirements, there would be an Inspector who did it for the Council.

As far as aware all national parties acknowledged the same level of housebuilding. The alternative which it was thought the petition was asking the Council to consider was that the Council would not accept the new housebuilding levels because it did not think it was right for the Borough. However, it was necessary to weigh up the consequences and the consequences were that it would not stop development. It would come; it would be developer-led, market-led, approved by an Inspector piecemeal. The Council had to decide whether it would be appropriate to respond to what the residents were saying across the Borough, but what a price would be paid. Would welcome another petition asking residents whether they wanted the Council to let the market take over or try and keep some sort of control of the process locally.

At the conclusion of the debate Mr Heeley was given the opportunity to respond to the issues raised.

Before losing connectivity, Mr Heeley said that he thought the debate had been useful and that he would like to see the Council discussing these issues more openly.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the petition, having been debated by the Council, was referred, together with the views expressed in the debate, to the Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Committee as the appropriate decision-making body.