MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting held on
Wednesday 25 July 2012
|
Present: |
Councillor Garland (Chairman), and Councillors Greer, Hotson, Paine, Mrs Ring and J.A. Wilson |
|
Also Present: |
Councillors Burton, Chittenden, Mrs Gooch, McKay, D Mortimer, Newton, Mrs Stockell and Mrs Wilson |
|
44. Apologies for Absence
There were no apologies for absence.
45. Notification of Visiting Members
Councillors Burton, Gooch, McKay and Newton indicated that they wished to speak on all of the items.
Councillor Mrs Stockell indicated her wish to speak on all of the items relating to the Core Strategy.
Councillor Chittenden indicated that he wished to speak on Agenda items 12 and 13.
Councillor Mrs Wilson indicated that she wished to speak on Agenda items 8, 9, 10 and 12.
46. Disclosures by Members and Officers
There were no disclosures by members and officers.
47. Disclosures of lobbying
All members of the Cabinet stated that they had been lobbied on the Core Strategy.
48. Exempt Items
RESOLVED: That the item on Part II of the agenda be taken in private as proposed.
49. Budget Strategy 2013 14 Onwards
DECISION MADE:
1. That, for planning purposes, the expected strategic revenue projection be selected as giving the appropriate outcome.
2. That a 2.5% increase in the level of Council Tax increase be agreed for planning purposes.
To view the full details of this decision, please click here:-
http://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=593
50. Capital Programme 2012 to 2016
DECISION MADE:
1. That the proposed amendments to the capital strategy including the principle of prudential borrowing where this achieves commercial development, as outlined in section 1.5 of the report of Corporate Leadership Team be agreed.
2. That officers develop and present proposals that achieve the councils objectives through commercial development, as set out in section 1.5 of the report of the Corporate Leadership Team.
3. That the evaluation of resources available and scheme proposals as set out in paragraph 1.6.5 of the report of the Corporate Leadership Team identifying the appropriate uses of the resources available be approved.
To view the full details of this decision, please click here:-
http://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=595
51. Localisation of Council Tax Support
DECISION MADE:
That the Council undertakes a formal consultation, as outlined under point 5 of the report of the Director for Regeneration and Communities, identifying option 6 (set out in Appendix A to the report of the Director for Regeneration and Communities) as the preferred scheme for implementation.
To view the full details of this decision, please click here:-
http://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=596
52. Phase 2 High Street Improvement Project
DECISION MADE:
1. That Phase 2 is progressed and the project funded from the Council’s Capital Programme with a budget total of £1.7 million.
2. That delegated authority be given to the Director of Regeneration and Communities, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic and Commercial Development, to agree design changes to Phase 2 before and during the construction period to keep the project within budget.
3. That delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to enter into a contract (on terms to be agreed by the Director of Regeneration and Communities) with a contractor to undertake the construction of Phase 2.
4. That delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to enter into a contract (on terms to be agreed by the Director of Regeneration and Communities) for a Designer, a Project Manager, a Quantity Surveyor and Construction Design Management Coordination Services (CDMC).
5. That delegated authority be given to the Head of Legal Services to enter into a Section 278 agreement with Kent County Council to undertake works to the public highway.
To view the full details of this decision, please click here:-
http://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=597
53. Core Strategy Public Participation: Key Issues and Responses
DECISION MADE:
1. That, without prejudice to consideration of all representations prior to the approval of the Core Strategy for the next round of public consultation planned for December 2012 (regulation 19[1]), and the key issues arising from the 2011 public participation consultation on the draft Core Strategy, the officers’ responses be noted, and the following be agreed:
i)
Replace the 10,000 jobs target set out in policy CS1 with a specific
employment floorspace requirement expressed in square metres;
ii)
Retain junction 8 of the M20 motorway as a strategic location for
economic development to address qualitative and quantitative employment needs
and the aspirations of the Council;
iii) Retain
junction 7 of the M20 motorway as a medical campus, and allocate land for
development in the Core Strategy in conjunction with the adjacent redevelopment
of Newnham Court Shopping Village, to be guided by an approved development
brief;
iv) Retain
the housing target of 10,080 dwellings in a dispersed pattern of development;
v)
Retain the two strategic housing development locations to the north west
and south east of the urban area, and allocate land for development in the Core
Strategy to be guided by development briefs;
vi) Update
Maidstone’s 5-year housing land supply and housing trajectory to a base date of
1 April 2012, and engage with the development industry to achieve consensus
over the methods of calculating elements of land supply, including a 5%
contingency allowance;
vii) Include
housing targets in policy CS1 for each of the rural service centres in
accordance with those set out in the Cabinet report of 9 February 2011,
reproduced at paragraph 1.5.22 of the report of the Director of Change,
Planning, and the Environment;
viii) Include
reference to the early release of a proportion of suitable greenfield sites at
the rural service centres in the Core Strategy in advance of the adoption of
the Development Delivery Local Plan where supported by evidence of need;
ix) Note
that work is being undertaken on the viability of Core Strategy policies,
including affordable housing, and that a subsequent report on this issue will
be presented to Cabinet;
x)
Retain the five rural service centres of Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham,
Marden and Staplehurst;
xi) Note
that the draft Integrated Transport Strategy, which is the subject of a
separate report attached to the agenda, addresses the issues relating to
improvements to highways and public transport raised by respondents;
xii) Rename
green wedges as green and blue corridors, transfer references to corridors in
policy CS3 to policy CS1, and amend the green wedges notations on the key diagram;
xiii) Reword the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation policy (CS12) to provide clarity and to include a landscaping criterion; and
xiv) That the work that is ongoing to provide for a suitable public site(s) for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation be noted
To view the full details of this decision, please click here:-
http://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=598
54. Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations
DECISION MADE:
1. That the site allocation policies set out in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public Consultation 2012 document (as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) with the exclusion of SS3 be approved for public consultation subject to the following amendments:-
East of Hermitage Lane
1.
After paragraph 3.16 add new paragraph: “East of Hermitage Lane lies, in
part, within an identified biodiversity opportunity area (BOA). The Greensand
Heaths and Commons BOA, in which the north eastern portion of the site is
located, is characterised by a concentration of woodlands on the Greensand
Ridge where areas of heathy vegetation and acid grassland are a feature. The
larger field, which is proposed for development, has been ploughed on a number
of occasions, although opportunities exist for targeted habitat restoration and
creation as part of the development.”
2.
Delete paragraph 3.17 and replace with: “At the south western end of the
site is a smaller field with an area of protected trees to the north east. The
field and trees, which are to be retained as informal/natural open space, offer
the chance to create an enhanced biodiversity corridor through and around the
proposed development. Retention of the smaller field also allows a section of
archaeological remains to be left in situ, as advised by the County
Archaeologist. The retention and enhancement of this part of the site will
also screen the proposed development from Hermitage Lane and maintain the
setting of Maidstone Hospital.”
North of Sutton Road
3.
Paragraph 4.10 following “and enclosure to development” add: “The County
Ecologist has identified the eastern part of the site as having ecological
potential so more detailed consideration should be given to this area through
the submission of an ecology survey, incorporating mitigation measures, to be
approved by the Borough Council. Existing landscape features within the site
should be retained where possible. Bicknor Wood to the north of the site and
the trees running along the eastern boundary are subject to tree preservation
orders (TPO No.37 of 1981 and TPO No.36 of 1981).”
4. Policy SS2c add new criterion: “Submission of a full landscape assessment and ecology survey, to be approved by the Borough Council”.
Newnham Park
5.
Paragraph 6.10 after “views from the AONB” add: “Of particular
prominence is the hill to the north east of the field located to the east of
the stream, so development will not be permitted on this part of the site.”
6.
Paragraph 6.15 amend to read “The medical campus will provide for up to 200,000m2
150,000m2 of specialist medical facilities”.
7.
Policy SS4(1) amend to read “Provision of a maximum 200,000m2
of specialist medical facilities set within an enhanced landscape structure”
and replace with “Provision of a maximum 200,000m2 150,000m2
of specialist medical facilities set within an enhanced landscape
structure”.
8.
Policy SS4(2) before the word “vicinity” add the word “immeadiate”.
9. Policy SS4(5) after “…use of the topography in site layout plans …” add: “to exclude development on more prominent parts of the site.”
10.
Policy SS4(7) amend to read “The cumulative quantum of retail floorspace
will be restricted to the provision of up to 500sqm above that which already
exists and any additional retail floorspace above this limit must be
complementary to town centre uses and the need for, by means of a
sequential sites assessment, demonstrably require an out of town location justified.
11. Paragraph 6.16 after the first sentence insert the following: ”As confirmed in Core Strategy policies CS1 And CS2, the regeneration and revitalisation of Maidstone’s town centre is a priority and the town centre will continue to be the primary retail and office location in the borough.”
2. That the strategic employment location identified around J8 of the M20 motorway is further considered by being included in the public consultation referred to in 1 above, to enable a more informed decision to be made on the allocation of strategic site(s) at this location and that the consultation should make clear the Council’s requirement that any strategic sites already identified to the Council at this location, in response to the advertisement of 11 May 2012, and included in the Sustainability Appraisal, or further promoted as a result of this consultation, should be accompanied by development proposals that respond to the relevant planning considerations, particularly landscape, ecology and highways and include evidence of dialogue with the public and their response.
3. That policy NPPF1: Presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public Consultation 2012 document (as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) be approved for public consultation.
4
That the inclusion of dwelling targets for rural service centres in the
Core Strategy, and that the targets set out in the Core Strategy Strategic Site
Allocations: Public Consultation 2012 document (as attached at Appendix A to
the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) be approved
for public consultation:
|
· Harrietsham |
315 dwellings |
|
· Headcorn |
190 dwellings |
|
· Lenham |
110 dwellings |
|
· Marden |
320 dwellings |
|
· Staplehurst |
195 dwellings |
5. That it be noted that the Maidstone Strategic Site Allocations Sustainability Appraisal July 2012 (Appendix C to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) forms part of the evidence base; and requests that the consultants (URS) be asked to provide a summary of the significant environmental effects of the options chosen and the reasonable alternatives rejected, as set out in the Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, Schedule 2.
5 That, subject to the viability testing of strategic site allocations and Core Strategy policies, the prioritisation of planning obligations agreed in 2006 be reviewed and final decisions reflected in the Core Strategy policy on infrastructure delivery.
To view the full details of this decision, please click here:-
http://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=599
55. Draft Integrated Transport Strategy
DECISION MADE:
That the Draft Integrated Transport Strategy as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment and its preferred option, using a ‘do minimum plus’ basis for further improvements, be approved for public consultation subject to the following amendments:-
12. Paragraph E3.1; at the end of the paragraph an additional sentence should be added: “Overall, these transport infrastructure improvements and initiatives are expected to cost £39.5m”
13. Paragraph
5.0.3 amend to read: “Unfortunately however, it is not forecast to
significantly reduce town centre congestion, which was one of its key
objectives overcapacity is still flagged on some key routes; therefore
it is unlikely to reduce traffic congestion on the scale that was initially
hoped to be achieved”
14. Paragraph
5.4.1, first sentence, amend to read: “The only remaining deliverable
alternative left available to MBC was to proceed with an option
that included only those components of the options modelled.....”
15. Paragraph 5.4.1; after “within the vicinity of Junction 8” add “and M20 Junction 7”
16. Paragraph
5.4.1; amend to read “at a total capital expenditure of some £38 £39.5
million”
17. Paragraph 5.4.1; last sentence, after “transport infrastructure necessary to support the development proposed by the Core Strategy” add “and help manage existing traffic congestion issues”
18. Paragraph
6.2.2 (b) should be amended to read: “A249 / Bearsted Road / New Cut
Roundabout. This includes capacity improvements
and provision of a pedestrian crossing at Bearsted Roundabout and at New Cut
Roundabout.”
19. Paragraph 6.2.2 an additional point should be inserted between points (b) and (c) to read: “(c) Bearsted Road / New Cut Road Roundabout. This includes capacity improvements and an enlargement of the roundabout”
20. Paragraph 6.2.3; “Projects (a) – (r)” should be amended to read “Projects (a) – (s)”; and “Locations (s) to (w)” should be amended to read “Locations (t) to (x)”
21. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, an additional row between the “M20 Junction 7 Bearsted / Roundabout” row and the “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” row should be inserted labelled “A249 / Bearsted Rd Roundabout” and should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £386,000 and £530,000 respectively
22. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Roundabout / New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £423,000 and £559,000 respectively
23. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “Bearsted Rd, between Bearsted Roundabout and New Cut Roundabout” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £2,765,000 and £3,304,000 respectively
24. Paragraph 6.2.3; within the table, the row “New Cut Rd / A20 Ashford Rd junction improvements” should have an associated minimum and maximum cost of £470,000 and £604,000 respectively
25. Paragraph
6.31.3; should be amended to read: “This scheme will be funded only by KCC
through its Integrated Transport Block Funding Allocation but will not be
required to be contributed towards by new development coming forward The
delivery of this scheme will be managed by KCC which will primarily seek to
secure funding through its Integrated Transport Block funding allocation.”
26. Page
79 of the ITS; the “ITS Action Plan” table; last row should be amended to read:
“TOTAL £38m £39.5m”
To view the full details of this decision, please click here:-
http://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=600
56. Infrastructure Delivery Plan Update
The Cabinet considered the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment on the progress of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan in order to inform the Core Strategy strategic site allocations and the Integrated Transport Strategy.
RESOLVED: That the progress of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the indicative cost estimates.
57. Duration of Meeting
3.00pm to 7.38pm.