1.       CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

2.      INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.      

2.1     Strategic plan-making authorities are required to cooperate with each other, and other bodies, when preparing, or supporting the preparation of policies which address strategic matters.

2.2     Furthermore, Planning Practice Guidance states that where there is a Statement of Common Ground associated with a Minerals and Waste Plan in two-tier areas, that “district councils within the county are expected to be treated as additional signatories on the statement of common ground for county council minerals and waste plans.”

2.3     Whilst the draft Statement of Common Ground which is the subject of this report is not directly associated with the Kent Minerals and Waste plan, it nevertheless has implications for land within Kent and Maidstone Borough.  It is for this reason that Kent County and Maidstone Borough Councils are co-signatories of the statement.

2.4     As is required by the NPPF, minerals authorities are required to make provision for a steady and adequate supply of minerals.  Duly, East Sussex County Council (ESCC), Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC) and South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review [the plan review] considers need across a range of aggregate types.

2.5     Soft sand is primarily used for construction purposes and is an important aggregate which cannot be substituted.  However, as indicated in the SoCG, the area which is subject to the plan review has limited reserves that will not meet the identified need of the three authorities.  In addition, the reserves which are viable are located within the South Downs National Park where stringent landscape impact controls limit their scope for extraction.

2.6     Because of these limited reserves, it is understood that development in the plan review area has made reliance on soft sand reserves from outside ESCC, BHCC & SDNPA, mainly from Kent and West Sussex.  Whilst it is not possible to ascertain the extent of cross boundary movement between West Sussex/Kent extraction sites and the plan review area, strong transport links would suggest that historical sales in Kent and West Sussex have incorporated material being transported across county boundaries into the plan review area.

2.7     Maidstone’s involvement arises from the fact that the main viable soft-sand sites in Kent are located within its borough. Consequently, any decision made on soft sand extraction which seeks to make reliance on sources from outside the plan review area would consider land within the borough of Maidstone.

2.8     The draft Statement of Common ground seeks to formalise this position; to allow the plan review to use an assumption that reliance is being made on soft-sand supplies from outside the area. 

2.9     In terms of implications for Kent, the Kent Minerals and Waste Plan (Adopted 2020) makes provision for a robust supply of soft sand as outlined in table 1 of the draft SoCG and therefore no additional extraction in Kent is proposed.

2.10  Section 4 of the draft SoCG sets out the key points of agreement between parties and relating to Maidstone are points 4 and 5.  Point 4 states that KCC will plan to maintain the current reserve base of soft sand.  Point 5 acknowledges the role that supplies in Kent have in meeting the winder need of the South East.

2.11  Given it is likely that historical extraction has been higher owing to wider South East demand for soft-sand, existing forecasts for Kent have already accounted for this and this additional demand has been factored into the Kent Minerals and Waste Plan 2020.  The draft SoCG reflects this position and therefore the implications of this agreement for Maidstone are limited as it merely reaffirms the need maintain current mineral site allocations and extraction rates.

2.12  The SoCG is in draft form and may be subject to minor amendments and updates.  These will be dealt with in line with the protocol agreed at the March 2021 SPI committee.

3.   AVAILABLE OPTIONS

3.1     The SPI Committee are asked to agree the draft Statement of Common Ground between Maidstone Borough Council, Kent County Council, East Sussex County Council, Brighton and Hove City Council, West Sussex County Council, and the South Downs National Park Authority, as appended to this report.

3.2     Alternatively, Members may choose to amend the draft statement of common ground, however any such changes are likely to need to be ratified by the other co-signatories.

3.3     Alternatively, members could not agree to the draft statement of common ground, however this could undermine MBC’s ability to demonstrate effective and ongoing duty to cooperate with prescribed bodies at examination of its own plan.

4.        PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1     That members agree the Statement of Common Ground as appended to this report. 

5.       RISK

5.1        The risk associated with these proposals, including the risks should the Council not act as recommended, have been considered in line with the Council’s Risk management Framework.

5.2        Whilst this SoCG is not directly associated with the Local Plan Review, The Planning Inspector appointed to examine the Maidstone Local Plan Review will nevertheless consider whether a council has complied with the duty to co-operate as a whole, as set out in the NPPF and relevant legislation.  Failure to meet the Council’s duty will potentially impact on the examination and adoption of the Local Plan Review.

6.        REPORT APPENDICES

The following documents are to be published with this report and form part of the report:

·         Exempt Appendix 1: Draft Statement of Common Ground between Maidstone Borough Council, Kent County Council, East Sussex County Council, Brighton and Hove City Council, West Sussex County Council, and the South Downs National Park Authority.