Agenda item

Interview with Flo Churchill, Interim Head of Core Strategy

The Committee considered the Council’s draft response to the Government’s consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework.  Flo Churchill, Interim Head of Core Strategy, presented the response to the Committee for consideration and for further comments to feedback to the Leader of the Council when making his formal decision on the response.

The Officer highlighted the key points in the response and read out the specific responses to the consultation questions (Appendix 1 to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment).  One of the main issues raised was the proposed 20% contingency for housing numbers which, in effect, increased the housing target by 1,000 units over the first five years of plan making.  It was noted that counsel’s advice had been sought on the figures of 10,080 houses in the Core Strategy consultation and the advice was in agreement with officers and the use of that number.  In addition to the response the officer highlighted that only 30% of the country was currently covered by a core strategy and that the proposed policy framework would have a significant impact nationally on plan making.

The Committee considered the response and were concerned about the direction of the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly with regard to the impact of the additional housing numbers compared to the current core strategy figures and proposals.  However, there was acceptance that it was better to have a plan than no plan at all. 

Clarification was requested, through a future update, on the Council’s situation with the extra 1,000 houses as a result of growth point status compared to the potential 1,000 houses as a result of the framework.  It was highlighted that there would be difficulty in accommodating the additional houses and that 1,000 to 2,000 additional houses would be insufficient to provide a Strategic Development Area.  The officer stated that planning policy officers would expect to evaluate all options for any additional housing required and it would be premature to consider one option over another at this early stage.

The evidence base proposed in the National Planning Policy Framework was also discussed and concerns were raised that there should not be an over reliance on evidence in the Strategic Housing Land Availability and Strategic Housing Market Assessments as this could over represent the numbers of houses required.

During the discussion the Committee requested that the following changes be made:

a)  stronger comments on protecting countryside and noting that there was no specific ability for local authorities to protect large swathes of land; and

b)  Change neither agree/disagree to disagree for statement 10a amending the reason to include ‘that the 20% contingency suggested in the framework removes control from local authorities‘

The Committee also asked for a future update on 40% affordable housing provision and whether it was made up of the right type of units with the numbers of flats being turned over to housing associations and requested confirmation on the mandatory code for sustainable homes level required of developments and required by housing associations.

It was noted that whilst the Council was not responding to statement 9a - Minerals directly it had responded to Kent County Council’s (KCC) consultation on Minerals and Waste as KCC was the relevant authority.

Given the importance of the National Planning Policy Framework the Committee felt it was important to send a strong message back to Government that the concerns raised by local authorities needed to be listened to.

Resolved: That

(a)  The Leader of the Council be recommended to submit the report and the attached completed Questionnaire as the formal response on behalf of Maidstone Borough Council to the current consultation on the draft National Planning Policy Framework, subject to the following amendments:

  i.  stronger comments on protecting countryside and noting that there was no specific ability for local authorities to protect large swathes of land; and

  ii.  Change neither agree/disagree to disagree for statement 10a amending the reason to include ‘that the 20% contingency suggested in the framework removes control from local authorities‘; and

(b) Updates be provided to the Committee on:

  i.  the Council’s situation with the extra 1,000 houses as a result of growth point status compared to the potential 1,000 houses as a result of the framework;

  ii.  40% affordable housing provision and whether it was made up of   the right type of units with the numbers of flats being turned over to housing associations; and

  iii.  the mandatory code for sustainable homes level required of developments and required by housing associations.