Agenda item

Questions and answer session for members of the public

Minutes:

There were three questions from Members of the Public.

 

Question from Ms Kate Hammond to the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee

‘Tonight's update report for the Council-led garden community project states that "Officers are attempting to engage with the objecting landowners to understand their individual concerns and the extent to which these can be addressed." The eighteen objecting landowners have repeatedly sought to have their property removed from your masterplan. The landowners do not need a discussion; they simply just need the Council to respect their wishes. Do you believe it is acceptable for a local authority to be pressurising landowners to sell their land and engage in negotiations when they have stated their wishes very clearly?’.

 

The Chairman responded to the question.

 

Ms Hammond asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘Is it possible for you to give some sort of guarantees around that right now or is this something you are not willing to do at this particular time?’.

 

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

 

Question from Ms Gail Duff to the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee

 

‘Is the Policy & Resources Committee 'in too deep' with the Heathlands Council-led garden community to be able to make a rational decision on this plan; and would they agree that this is not the right housing solution for Maidstone?’.

 

The Chairman responded to the question.

 

Ms Duff asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘It seems that no matter what Save Our Heathlands say that this committee doesn’t want to listen to the serious constraints and concerns being raised locally by the residents. You now seem willing to pass this over to Homes England who will in time come to realise that the proposed development doesn’t stack up. Is this committee afraid of admitting that it’s got it wrong in this case and to draw a line under this sorry saga?’.

 

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

 

Question from Mr Steve Heeley to the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee

 

‘The Initial Infrastructure Feedback to the Local Plan Review confirmed that Network Rail had 'little support' for a new rail station on either line at Lenham Heath. The promised motorway junction and high-speed rail station have both fallen away. It now seems that a new mainline rail station to serve the proposed new town also looks undeliverable. What enabling infrastructure, if any, is this project going to deliver to get 12,000 new residents to and from Lenham sustainably without using a car?’.

 

The Chairman responded to the question.

 

Mr Heeley asked the following supplementary question:

 

‘The problem with the assumption on internal trips is that the masterplan provides for 800 jobs for 12,000 residents and there’s no secondary school, so you can assume for internal trips that if there’s no trips to make to employment or education or leisure, then everybody has to travel off of the site. The A20 does not have the capacity to accommodate the considerable increase in traffic, Maidstone town centre is over 12 miles away which rules out genuine walking and cycling trips in any considerable volumes, so what can the sustainable transport strategy actually include that’s meaningful to make this development look sustainable?’.

 

The Chairman responded to the supplementary question.

 

The full responses was recorded on the webcast and were made available to view on the Maidstone Borough Council Website.

 

To access the webcast recording, please use the below link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tLvANonyWU