Your Councillors

Report for MA 13 1549

APPLICATION: �� MA/13/1549�� Date: 6 September 2013�� Received: 24 September 2013

APPLICANT:	Gallagher Properties Ltd, Automotive, Distributors Ltd & Scarab Sweepers Ltd.

LOCATION:	WATERSIDE PARK M20 J8, ASHFORD ROAD, HOLLINGBOURNE, KENT ��
PARISH:	Hollingbourne

PROPOSAL:	Hybrid planning application (part outline-part detailed) for re-grading of site to form development platforms including the creation of new bunds and batters; the development of a new industrial estate comprising up to 56,000m� of B1 office/light industrial, B2 general industrial and B8 storage and distribution uses; ancillary cafe and cr�che facilities; creation of a new access to the A20; new internal access roads; parking, internal drainage, structural landscaping and the diversion of the existing public footpath, with access to be determined and appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for subsequent approval. Detailed permission sought for the erection of a new warehouse building (23,533m�) and associated offices (4,145m�) with access, service yard, parking and landscaping as shown on drawing nos. 13026/TP/001revA, 002revB, 005revC, 008revB, 009revC, 010revA, 011revB, 014revA, JEC/346/01, Design and Access Statement,� Planning Statement, Environmental Statement and Technical Appendices, Economic Impact Statement, Draft Framework Travel Plan, Tree Report, received 24/09/2013, agricultural land classification report received 14/10/2013 and amended� Table at Page 62 of ES Technical Appendices 02-08 pt2/TA2 received 15/10/2013, letter and� applicant's response to KCC and Kent Downs AONB Unit comments received 21/11/2013, letter dated 28/11/2013 applicant's response to Leeds Castle Foundation representations on heritage issues received 28/11/2013, applicant's response to KCC Highways comments received 04/12/2013, Letter and additional information and drawing nos. 13026/TP/003revD, 004revH, 006revE, 007revC, 012revE, 013revD, 015revB, 117, 118,119revA and 13026/SK/032 received 23/12/2013, applicant's response to Natural England further comments received 17/01/2014 and letter dated 11/02/2014 and Arboricultural Implications Assessment Report received 11/02/2014.
AGENDA DATE: CASE OFFICER:	27th February 2014 Steve Clarke

The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:

● �� The Head of Planning and Development has referred this application to Committee as consideration of the application is controversial in nature. �

��

1. �� POLICIES

� Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV28, ENV33, ENV34, ENV42, ENV49, ED9, T13, T23.

� Government Policy:� NPPF 2012�

2.�� HISTORY

MA/13/0050: Scoping opinion sought in respect of an Environmental Statement to be submitted in relation to a proposed development being:

1: The creation of a new site access road off the existing A20/M20 link roundabout with associated works to the roundabout as required;

2: The re-grading of the site to create a level development platform (with the creation of new bunds and batters as required);

3: The creation of up to 60,000sqm of employment floorspace in use classes B1 (light industrial/research and development/offices), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and warehousing) and;

4: Internal drainage, road layouts, structural landscaping and diversion of the existing public right of way: Scoping Opinion Issued 15/02/2013

3.�� CONSULTATIONS

Parish Councils

3.1�� Hollingbourne Parish Council: Object and wish to see the application refused.

�The planning application for Waterside Park is not dissimilar to the proposals for the land at the KIG/AXA appeal [Appeal by Kent International Gateway Ltd Application REF: 07/2092. Decision issued by Julian Pitt Department for Communities and Local Government 5 August 2010]. The cost of that enquiry was almost �4million of tax payers money, which is a fact lodged in the memory of the electorate. The Planning application for Eclipse Park (B1/B2 designation for commercial growth in the Borough, part of the planning statement said that it was unlikely that there would be any need for this type of activity in the future. The planning application for Waterside Park is based on a need for speculative development.

Hollingbourne Parish Council rejects all the current site specific proposals adjacent to Junction 8 of the M20.

We have concerns for the protection of the area adjacent to the Thurnham Aquifer and for the protection of the River Len and the Mill stream.� This application for development around Junction 8 can be resisted by using the arguments of inspector Andrew Phillipson in rejecting the KIG proposal. After a public enquiry lasting some 3 months Mr. Phillipson had no hesitation in finding the area to be important in the setting of the AONB.

The former Deputy Chief Executive of Maidstone Borough Council, Trevor Gasson, rejected an earlier application [when opposing a football stadium and supposed �high tech� development on land in that area in July 1995] stating that development would lead to piecemeal and totally uncontrolled development south of the M20�� He then recommended �Rejection of Woodcut Farm as a potential employment allocation�.

Traffic

The proposed development when fully operational will generate increased vehicle movements on to a section of road that has a history of road accidents.� It will have an adverse impact on the local road network, in particular the A20/M20 Link Roundabout Junction.� There is evidence of growing congestion for traffic exiting Maidstone via Junction 8 where traffic backs up at the A20 roundabout near to the Ramada Jarvis Hotel.�� This is likely to increase significantly as a result of additional traffic exiting the M20 at Junction 8 and heading for the application site.�

Maidstone and its surrounding area already suffer extensively from traffic congestion.� In the event of a motorway accident/closure, the area becomes grid locked in a very short time.� This is likely to be exacerbated by traffic generated by the application proposals both during the construction stage and when it becomes operational.� The M20 is already subject to frequent traffic congestion, particularly during periods when �Operation Stack� is in place. Any congestion at Junction 8 will invariably result in local traffic exiting or entering the motorway at other Junctions such as 6 and 7 and thereby adding to local traffic congestion and its associated problems, such as noise and air pollution.� The area around Grove Green, including New Cut is particularly affected during such times, which often results in a grid lock situation.� Similarly, congestion on the M20 often results in traffic diverting to the M2 using various routes including country lanes as well as Blue Bell Hill in order to traverse the North Downs and gain access to the M2.�

The application offers nothing of benefit to the people living in the surrounding parishes or indeed Maidstone as a whole.� It will only result in increased noise, pollution, traffic congestion and the desecration of the rural environment.� The proposed location of this development is entirely inappropriate and to allow it to proceed, would be a disservice to the local communities that surround the site and the wider County of Kent as a whole.

Landscape

The proposed development is of an alien nature and form that will change completely the character of the site and surrounding area.� It will involve the loss of natural landscape features such as hedgerows, trees and areas of woodland. These all make a valuable contribution to the rural setting of the area.��

Given the rural nature of the site and surrounding area, together with the scale and volume of the development, the proposed landscape mitigation works will do little to offset the harm caused to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.�� Indeed, if the application were to be approved, we believe that it would lead to piecemeal development along this rural corridor, further eroding its character and landscape setting, whilst also exacerbating matters such as traffic generation, air pollution and noise.

Cultural Heritage

It is considered that the application proposals will have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage of the site and surrounding area. This area is likely to suffer from increased traffic congestion.� These factors will combine to change the character of the area and have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area.

Leeds Castle an important national and international historic monument is likely to be affected by the application proposals. Its present setting, whilst far from perfect, benefits from a rural approach.� The destruction of the landscape around Junction 8, together with the increased traffic congestion will seriously detract from the setting of this monument and as a visitor attraction in its own right.

Air Quality

Increases in dust transmission and air pollution will result from the proposed development.� Dust pollution is likely to be particularly acute during the construction stage arising from the remodeling of the ground to create the building platforms and during the removal of surplus soil from the site.� Air Pollution from construction traffic is also likely to be an issue during this stage. Once operational, additional pollution will be caused by the increased HGV movements, together with cars of employees and service vehicles/visitors.�

Conclusion

The application proposals by virtue of their size and scale together with the nature of their operations will introduce an alien form of development to a rural setting, amidst a corridor of significant tourism (Leeds Castle, The Great Danes Mercure Hotel and Bearsted Caravan Club site, completely destroying its character and social function.

The proposals will have a devastating impact on the local landscape including the setting of the North Downs ANOB.� Other adverse impacts will be in terms of air quality, noise, wildlife and ecology together with traffic generation, both locally and within the wider area.

Hollingbourne Parish Council is concerned that MBC will allow such an application for a green field site to be submitted and considered ahead of the completion of the Local Development Framework. We feel that if this application is allowed, this will set precedence and will result in an influx of similar applications for this and other areas within rural Maidstone.� Having regard to the forgoing, Hollingbourne Parish Council objects to these proposals and respectfully requests Members refuse this application.�

3.1.1� Subsequently additional comments were made

�� We have formally objected to the above application relating to an area known to the developer as Waterside Park.

At the time of our objection we were not aware of the extent of the excavations and that sand would be extracted as a potential building product. This changes the nature of the application to one of Mineral Extraction which Maidstone is not competent to decide.

The matter is now one where the decision has to be made by Kent County Council and adds to our objection that the application is premature. We suggest that the application should not be verified and referred back for the relevant application to Kent County Council.�

3.2�� Leeds Parish Council: Object

�Leeds Parish Council strongly objects to the above planning application submitted for Waterside Park and we wish the following objections to be taken into consideration when determining this application:

1. This application is contrary to the arguments of inspector Andrew Phillipson in rejecting the KIG proposal.

2. The proposed development will generate increased vehicle movements on to a section of road that has a history of road accidents and it will have an adverse impact on the local road network, in particular we feel that there will be increase traffic and HGV movements through the historic village of Leeds.

Maidstone and its surrounding area already suffer extensively from traffic congestion. This is likely to be exacerbated by traffic generated by the application proposals both during the construction stage and when it becomes operational. The M20 is already subject to frequent traffic congestion, particularly during periods when �Operation Stack� is in place. This has an adverse impact on the B2163.

The application will result in increased noise, pollution, traffic congestion and the desecration of the rural environment. We feel that the proposed location of this development is inappropriate.

3. The proposed development will change the character of the site and surrounding area. It will involve the loss of natural landscape features such as hedgerows, trees and areas of woodland. These all make a valuable contribution to the rural setting of the area.

If the application were to be approved, we feel that it would lead to piecemeal development along this rural corridor, further eroding its character and landscape setting, whilst also exacerbating matters such as traffic generation, air pollution and noise.

4. An Increase in air pollution will result from the proposed development. Dust pollution is likely to be particularly severe during the construction stage. Air Pollution from construction traffic is also likely to be an issue and once operational, additional pollution will be caused by the increased HGV and vehicular movements.

5. The proposals will have a devastating impact on the local landscape including the setting of the North Downs ANOB.

Leeds Parish Council support the concerns of the Joint Parish Group that Maidstone Borough Council should not be allowing such an application for a green field site to be submitted and considered ahead of the completion of the Local Development Framework.

We too feel that if this application is allowed, this will set precedence and will result in an influx of similar applications for this and other areas within rural Maidstone.

Leeds Parish Council therefore reiterates that it is strongly opposed to this application and supports the objections submitted by the Joint Parish Group of which it is a member.�

3.2.1 Leeds Parish Council reiterated its earlier comments following their consideration of the additional information that was submitted by the applicants on 23 December 2013:�

��

3.3�� Thurnham Parish Council: Object

Thurnham Parish Council strongly objects to the above planning application submitted for Waterside Park and requests that the following objections be taken into consideration when determining this application:

1. This application is contrary to the arguments of Inspector Andrew Phillipson in rejecting the KIG proposal.

2. The proposed development will generate increased vehicle movements on to a section of road that has a history of road traffic accidents and it will have an adverse impact on the local road network, in particular the A20/M20 Link Roundabout Junction.

Maidstone and its surrounding area already suffers extensively from traffic congestion. This is likely to be exacerbated by traffic generated by the application proposals both during the construction stage and when it becomes operational. The M20 is already subject to frequent traffic congestion, particularly during periods when �Operation Stack� is in place. The area around Grove Green, including New Cut is particularly affected during such times, which often results in a gridlock situation.

The application will result in increased noise pollution, traffic congestion and the desecration of the rural environment. The proposed location of this development is entirely inappropriate and to allow it to proceed, would be a disservice to the local communities that surround the site and the wider County of Kent as a whole.

Given the rural nature of the site and surrounding farming area, together with the scale and volume of the development, the proposed landscape mitigation works will do little to offset the harm caused to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. If the application were to be approved, we believe that it would lead to piecemeal development along this rural corridor, further eroding its character and landscape setting, whilst also exacerbating matters such as traffic generation, air pollution and noise pollution.

4. An increase in dust and air pollution will result from the proposed development. Dust pollution is likely to be particularly severe during the construction stage arising from the remodelling of the ground and the removal of surplus soil from the site. Air Pollution from construction traffic is also likely to be an issue during this stage. Once operational, additional pollution will be caused by the increased HGV and vehicular movements.

5. The proposals will have a devastating impact on the local landscape including the setting of the North Downs ANOB. Other adverse impacts will be in terms of air quality, noise, wildlife and ecology together with traffic generation, both locally and within the wider area.

6. The development of this site will compromise the on-going work by MBC in preparing its Local Plan.

7. Development of the site will seriously compromise the surrounding areas to further commercial development in what is a sensitive rural area as was identified in the Secretary of State�s decision in the KIG enquiry

8. The development of this site is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework in the following respects:- Para 7-9 it is not a Sustainable Development; Para 17 in that there should be a re-use of Brown Field Sites in preference to Greenfield sites and is against the requirement to Conserve Natural Environment; Para 28 in that it is not Supporting a prosperous Rural Economy; Para 120 in that it does not prevent unacceptable risks from Pollution and it is not an appropriate use for its location; and Para 123 in that it does not avoid adverse impacts on Health and Quality of Life.

Thurnham Parish Council share the concerns of the Joint Parish Group that Maidstone Borough Council should not allow such an application for a green field site to be submitted and considered ahead of the completion of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy. We too feel that if this application is allowed, this will set a precedent and will result in an influx of similar applications for this and other areas within rural Maidstone.

Thurnham Parish Council therefore reiterates that it is strongly opposed to this application and supports the objections submitted by the Joint Parish Group, of which it is a member.�

3.3.1 Thurnham Parish Council reiterated its earlier comments following their consideration of the additional information that was submitted by the applicants on 23 December 2013:�

3.4�� Bearsted Parish Council: Object

�� I can now inform you that Bearsted Parish Council objects in the strongest possible terms to this application because:

1) it is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, saved policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 and to interim Local Plan Policy CS5 policy because it is on a green field site in a totally unsustainable and isolated rural location at considerable distance from the built up area of Maidstone and far from all local services, etc;

2) the scale and nature of the proposal will seriously erode the unspoilt character of the attractive, open and unspoilt countryside to the east of Bearsted. The need to protect the unspoilt character of this land was a major consideration in the Secretary of State�s emphatic dismissal - just over three years ago - of the KIG planning appeal for the very sound reasons that it would harm the setting of the Kent Downs AONB, the rural setting of Bearsted and the attractive and unspoilt countryside stretching to the east of Bearsted;

3)� if permitted, the nature, scale and location of the proposal will:

i) seriously and comprehensively prejudice and compromise the on-going work by Maidstone Borough Council in preparing its Local Plan; and

ii) severely compromise much greater areas of adjoining open and unspoilt countryside for yet further commercial development in a sensitive rural area which will fly in the face of the Secretary of State�s decision on KIG and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework which presumes in favour of sustainable development and emphasises the need to move towards a low carbon economy by reducing carbon emissions;

4) the isolated and rural location of the application site means that existing and potential public transport links are very limited and the main means of transport will be the unsustainable use of the private car. The application clearly shows this by including over one thousand parking spaces. The potential for sustainable transport such as walking, cycling, rail, and buses is very low or nonexistent. This will lead to a significant increase in noise and air pollution in the surrounding area and in particular along the A20 and M20; and

5) if permitted, the proposal will draw both employees and investment away from the Maidstone urban area, from places like Park Wood where many industrial premises are vacant or derelict, thereby further reducing the commercial demand for, and viability of, such areas which are in very sustainable locations.�

In addition, the Parish Council:

1.� requests the Borough Council to make urgent progress with its new Local Plan as its existing Local Plan is rapidly becoming overtaken by events resulting in:

i)� the submission of speculative planning applications, like the one at Waterside Park which is in a totally unacceptable location;

ii) the diversion of its planning staff away from local plan work to dealing with such applications and appeals (as happened with KIG);

iii) the future development pattern of Maidstone being determined by planning appeals rather than by a locally determined planning policies; and

2. reminds the Borough Council of its comments about the land to the east of Bearsted which were set out in section 10 of its letter to the Borough Council dated 30 September 2012 concerning the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations and which stated:�

�In view of the highly valued landscape character of this area, as emphasised in the Secretary of State�s decision on the KIG appeal, and its value to the setting of Leeds Castle, the Parish Council also considers that the Borough Council should take advantage of the advice contained in sections 9 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework to provide long term protection to this area as a valued local landscape and/or as a Green Belt in order to check the unrestricted sprawl of Maidstone to the east; to safeguard this valued area of open countryside from development; to protect the setting and character of Leeds Castle; and to assist with the regeneration of employment land within the Maidstone urban area.��

��

Bearsted Parish Council will wish to send a representative to address the Borough Council�s Planning Committee when this planning application is considered.��

3.5�� Detling Parish Council: Object

�Detling Parish Council OBJECTS strongly to this proposal as a industrial development in open countryside will profoundly affect local residents over a wide area. It will have a gravely deleterious effect on the visual attractiveness of the area.

We believe that the effect on congestion on our road transport will be serious and that the traffic implications for the village of Detling, both for the A249 and for The Street / Hockers Lane will be severe.

EFFECT ON ROAD LINKS

Detling Parish Council is very concerned about the increased lorry traffic that this development will generate. We do not believe that the M20, both east-bound and west-bound from junction 8 and, in particular junction 8 itself, will be able to cope with this HGV traffic without periods of severe congestion.

The roundabout linking junction 8 to the A20 near the Ramada Hotel will be under stress, as will the A20 both east and west-bound, affecting Harrietsham, Leeds village, Bearsted and the eastern parts of Maidstone.

Increase of HGV traffic will escalate congestion over a wider area of the highway network, M20, M26, M25, A20, A249, A229 and M2/A2.

As well as the HGV traffic, there be additional vehicular movements. This will impact on all routes connecting the site with the Maidstone and Medway Towns. Particularly affected will be the Willington St New Cut junctions, junction 7 and the A229 and A249. The lesser �rat-run� lanes leading to and from the Medway Towns will have added traffic. In particular, The Street and Hockers Lane, Detling leading to Ware Street will have greatly increased traffic.

EFFECT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Detling Parish Council is very concerned about the effects on water usage in an area where there is already extreme pressure on available water supplies.

EFFECTS ON LOCAL RESIDENTS

Detling Parish Council is very concerned about the effects that will be felt by local residents.

�

The deleterious effect on their environment will be profound. The whole ambience of this part of Kent will be severely damaged.

Detling residents will be severely affected by increased traffic through the village. In the surrounding road network they will suffer from increase in traffic congestion with more dangers and delays.

Detling Parish Council support the concerns of the Joint Parish Group that Maidstone Borough Council should not be allowing such an application for a green field site to be submitted and considered ahead of the completion of the Local Development Framework.

We feel that if this application is allowed, this will set precedence and will result in an influx of similar applications for this and other areas within rural Maidstone.

Detling Parish Council is strongly opposed to this application and supports the objections submitted by the Joint Parish Group of which it is a member.�

3.5.1 Detling Parish Council reiterated its earlier comments following their consideration of the additional information that was submitted by the applicants on 23 December 2013:�

��

3.6�� Joint Parishes Group

�The Joint Parish Group (JPG) is a consortium of local parish councils south and east of the Maidstone urban area. The JPG comprise of 14 member parishes that collectively represents approximately 23,000 electorate. The JPG has authority to act as directed by its member representatives and with the agreement of their respective parish councils.

The planning application for Waterside Park is not dissimilar to the proposals for the land at the KIG/AXA appeal [Appeal by Kent International Gateway Ltd Application REF: 07/2092. Decision issued by Julian Pitt Department for Communities and Local Government 5 August 2010].

The JPG objects to all the current site specific proposals adjacent to Junction 8 of the M.20.

We have previously stated our concerns for the protection of the area adjacent to the Thurnham Aquifer and for the protection of the River Len and the Mill stream. We have made extensive and reasoned argument to the Water Inquiry for the protection of the Aquifer with adjacent water re-use and storage to provide Aquifer re-charge.

This application for development around Junction 8 can be resisted by using the arguments of inspector Andrew Phillipson in rejecting the KIG proposal. After a public enquiry lasting some 3 months Mr. Phillipson had no hesitation in finding the area to be important in the setting of the AONB.

�� The former Deputy Chief Executive of Maidstone Borough Council, Trevor Gasson, rejected an earlier application [when opposing a football stadium and supposed �high tech� development on land in that area in July 1995] stating that development would lead to piecemeal and totally uncontrolled development south of the M20 He then recommended �Rejection of Woodcut Farm as a potential employment allocation�.

Traffic

The proposed development when fully operational will generate increased vehicle movements on to a section of road that has a history of road accidents. It will have an adverse impact on the local road network, in particular the A20/M20 Link Roundabout Junction. There is evidence of growing congestion for traffic exiting Maidstone via Junction 8 where traffic backs up at the A20 roundabout near to the Mercure, Great Danes Hotel. This is likely to increase significantly as a result of additional traffic exiting the M20 at Junction 8 and heading for the application site.

Maidstone and its surrounding area already suffer extensively from traffic congestion. In the event of a motorway accident/closure, the area becomes grid locked in a very short time. This is likely to be exacerbated by traffic generated by the application proposals both during the construction stage and when it becomes operational. The M20 is already subject to frequent traffic congestion, particularly during periods when �Operation Stack� is in place. Any congestion at Junction 8 will invariably result in local traffic exiting or entering the motorway at other Junctions such as 6 and 7 and thereby adding to local traffic congestion and its associated problems, such as noise and air pollution. The area around Grove Green, including New Cut is particularly affected during such times, which often results in a grid lock situation. Similarly, congestion on the M20 often results in traffic diverting to the M2 using various routes including country lanes as well as Blue Bell Hill in order to traverse the North Downs and gain access to the M2.

The application offers nothing of benefit to the people living in the surrounding parishes or indeed Maidstone as a whole. It will only result in increased noise, pollution, traffic congestion on roads that are reaching saturation point and the desecration of the rural environment. The proposed location of this development is entirely inappropriate and to allow it to proceed, would be a disservice to the local communities that surround the site and the wider County of Kent as a whole.

Landscape

The proposed development is of an alien nature and form that will change completely the character of the site and surrounding area. It will involve the loss of natural landscape features such as hedgerows, trees and areas of woodland. These all make a valuable contribution to the rural setting of the area.

Given the rural nature of the site and surrounding area, together with the scale and volume of the development, the proposed landscape mitigation works will do little to offset the harm caused to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. Indeed, if the application were to be approved, we believe that it would lead to piecemeal development along this rural corridor, further eroding its character and landscape setting, whilst also exacerbating matters such as traffic generation, air pollution and noise.

Cultural Heritage

It is considered that the application proposals will have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage of the site and surrounding area. This area is likely to suffer from increased traffic congestion. These factors will combine to change the character of the area and have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area.

Leeds Castle an important national and international historic monument is likely to be affected by the application proposals. Its present setting, whilst far from perfect, benefits from a rural approach. The destruction of the landscape around Junction 8, together with the increased traffic congestion will seriously detract from the setting of this monument and as a visitor attraction in its own right.

Air Quality

�

Increases in dust transmission and air pollution will result from the proposed development. Dust pollution is likely to be particularly acute during the construction stage arising from the remodeling of the ground to create the building platforms and during the removal of surplus soil from the site. Air Pollution from construction traffic is also likely to be an issue during this stage. Once operational, additional pollution will be caused by the increased HGV movements, together with cars of employees and service vehicles/visitors.

Conclusion

The application proposals by virtue of their size and scale together with the nature of their operations will introduce an alien form of development to a rural setting completely destroying its character and social function.

The proposals will have a devastating impact on the local landscape including the setting of the North Downs ANOB. Other adverse impacts will be in terms of air quality, noise, wildlife and ecology together with traffic generation, both locally and within the wider area.

The Joint Parish Group is concerned that MBC will allow such an application for a green field site to be submitted and considered ahead of the completion of the Local Development Framework. We feel that if this application is allowed, this will set precedence and will result in an influx of similar applications for this and other areas within rural Maidstone. Having regard to the forgoing, the Joint Parishes Group objects to these proposals and respectfully requests Members refuse this application.�

Other Statutory Consultees

3.7�� Kent County Council: KCC has submitted a lengthy and detailed response to the application. The conclusions state as follows:

�

�Before discussing the detail of the planning application, we must register our serious and significant objections to this application. In October 2011 KCC expressed strong objections to the concept of a strategic employment site at Junction 8 of M20 when the Borough Council consulted on its revised �preferred option� for the Local Plan. We objected again in September 2012 in response to the Borough�s consultation on Strategic Allocations, in which this site was put forward as one of three options to be considered. KCC has not received any further information that would indicate a change in view and we remain resolutely opposed to this planning application. KCC�s areas of concern are given below.� Further detailed comments on each of these along with our requirements in relation to transport, heritage, ecology and minerals are set out in Appendix A.

Kent International Gateway (KIG) Inquiry

The development of a significant new site, primarily for B2 and B8 uses near Junction 8, would be contrary to the conclusion of the KIG Inquiry which found in favour of protecting the setting of the AONB, the countryside and local communities.

KCC strongly disagrees with the applicant�s view that the KIG decision has no bearing on the consideration of this planning application. The landscape and countryside objections that KCC raised to the KIG application still apply and are of great importance to this application. KCC supported the Borough Council and the local community in opposing the KIG proposal at Junction 8, and gave evidence at the Planning Inquiry in 2009. In dismissing the applicant�s appeal the Secretary of State concluded:

�Given the importance and value of the open countryside which currently forms the appeal site and of the AONB which adjoins it, and given the harm the proposal would cause to them, the Secretary of State agrees (with the Inspector) that substantial weight should be given to these matters in the determination of the appeal� (para 20).

Development on the proposed site at Waterside Park would be contrary to the conclusions of the KIG inquiry on the importance of protecting the setting of the AONB. This proposed site is in the foreground of the AONB, and development would be visible from the AONB. Furthermore the development would lead to pressure for larger scale development and associated land uses on nearby sites, including the KIG land which would be completely out of character with this rural area.

Landscape Impact

The scale and type of development proposed is contrary to national and local policy and the drastic changes proposed would cause significant harm to the landscape and setting of the AONB.� Such radical changes to landform suggest the site is simply not appropriate for this scale of development.� Further to local site issues the location at the foot of the Kent Downs AONB makes the site very sensitive in visual terms. The applicant has attempted to justify the development in the supporting Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), but none are based on evidence, and occasionally misinterpret the landscape.

�

The application does not respect the settlement character and introduces a large industrial site into the countryside. The Kent countryside is primarily made up of small-scale scattered settlements (farms, hamlets and small villages).� The developed site will be considerably bigger than local villages in terms of area and this difference in scale will have a considerable detrimental impact upon the character of the area.

The proposed development�s design appears to have happened separately from any understanding of the landscape on and around the site.� This leads to an incongruous and disjointed scheme which jars and indeed often runs contrary to local landscape character and the perception of open countryside.� KCC�s view is that a lack of vision is demonstrated in the scheme.� These significant impacts upon landscape character coupled with the visual impact of the development particularly from the scarp of the Kent Downs AONB makes the overall impact of this development completely unacceptable.� The submitted LVIA is of poor quality and does not adequately complete elements of the Guidelines which were emphasised during scoping, nor does it follow the iterative process required for an EIA.� KCC�s concerns with the quality of the LVIA are highlighted in appendix A. �

Socio - Economic

There appears to be no justification for the development of a new employment site at this location given that there are alternative sites within the Borough that would be appropriate for the proposed B1, B2 and B8 uses. Development around Junction 8 is also unrelated to key services and facilities, lacks a range of transport choices, and is distant from the Borough�s workforce and the main urban areas.

This proposal is simply a relocation of existing employers within the Borough of Maidstone and will not generate any new significant employment opportunities.

It is KCC�s view that the harm caused by the development is not justified given that there are alternative locations for the proposed uses. There is a stock of unimplemented permissions for office development (B1 uses) within the Borough at Junction 7 and vacant sites within the urban area. In terms of B2 & B8 uses, there is vacant industrial and warehousing land within both the Borough of Maidstone and surrounding Districts that would be more suitable and more sustainable sites than Junction 8. This was recognised by the MBC March (2013) Cabinet report that states that based on recent employment land review the justification to release employment land at Junction 8 is less clear cut than previously. MBC March (2013) Cabinet Report also acknowledged that there is a stock of industrial and warehousing land both within Maidstone and nearby authorities that would be suitable for B2 and B8 uses.

Recommendations

KCC strongly recommends that MBC refuse planning permission for this application for the following reasons:

1. The significant and irreversible harm that this proposed development would cause on the setting of the AONB

2.�� The planning application is contrary to National and Local Planning Policy which requires MBC to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, �which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty�.

3.�� There is no economic justification for an employment site at Junction 8 to be granted planning permission, given that there is a variety of available sites for B1, B2 & B8 uses within Maidstone Borough and surrounding Districts that are more sustainable.

4.�� The economic benefits of this proposal are minimal and they do not outweigh the significant harm that will be caused to the environment should planning permission be granted.��

3.8�� Environment Agency: Have confirmed that having reviewed the application and the supporting documentation (including the ES) they have no objections to the development subject to the imposition of the following conditions on any permission that may be granted.

�Condition: Prior to start of site works, the applicant shall provide details to demonstrate the finished site levels across the entire site shall be no lower than 300mm above the estimated flood level under the 100yr (+20% to account for climate change) flood return period.

Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding to the site

Condition: Development shall not begin until a sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100yr critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event, and so not increase the risk of flooding both on- or off-site. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.

Condition: If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To protect vulnerable groundwater resources and source protection zones, and ensure compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition: No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reason: To protect vulnerable groundwater resources and source protection zones, and ensure compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework

Condition: The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure protection of controlled waters including groundwater and the River Len, and the Medway river basin management plan requires the restoration and enhancement of water bodies to prevent deterioration and promote recovery of water bodies.

Without this condition, the impact could cause deterioration of a quality element to a lower status class and/or prevent the recovery of and/or cause deterioration of a protected area because it would:

� Result in the potential release of priority hazardous substances

� Add additional loading of nitrates to the catchment.�

Informatives

Contamination

The preliminary site report or phase 1 investigation has been carried out in line with relevant guidance. The recommendations for further investigations/actions at the site to address any identified contaminated made ground or groundwater should be carried out and relevant detailed proposals agreed with the LPA before any site clean-up works are commenced.

The adjacent landfill has been identified and relevant monitoring carried out to assess potential risks, the conclusions are accepted in principle with respect to impacts on the development. It is recommended that groundwater monitoring is continued around the landfill site during any excavation works on the development site to monitor for any effects of disturbance.

The relevant planning conditions will not be discharged until such time as all relevant works are complete and a closure report submitted and approved by the LPA. Any construction on site should not commence until this approval has been granted.

Drainage

Only clean uncontaminated water should drain to the surface water system. Roof drainage shall drain directly to the surface water system (entering after the pollution prevention measures). Appropriate pollution control methods (such as trapped gullies and interceptors) should be used for drainage from access roads and car parking areas to prevent hydrocarbons from entering the surface water system. Drainage from service yards may require additional measures such as in-line storage and pollution control valves.

It is unclear what is proposed for foul drainage but for this type and scale of development there would be a presumption that foul drainage would go to mains sewer, to ensure protection of the groundwater and surface waters at or adjacent to the site.

Waste

Waste from the development must be re-used, re-cycled or otherwise disposed of in accordance with section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and in particular the Duty of Care Regulations 199.

The CLAIRE Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during remediation and/or land development works are waste or have ceased to be waste. Under the Code of Practice:

� excavated materials that are recovered via a treatment operation can be re-used on-site providing they are treated to a standard such that they are fit for purpose and unlikely to cause pollution

� treated materials can be transferred between sites as part of a hub and cluster project

� some naturally occurring clean material can be transferred directly between sites.

Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the permitting status of any proposed on site operations are clear. If in doubt, we should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays. We recommend that developers should refer to our position statement on the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice which can be found on our website. Please note, If any waste is to be used on site, the applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate waste exemption or permit from us. The applicant is advised to contact our Environment Management South London Waste Team for further information or to refer to guidance on our website at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste.

Fuel, Oil and Chemical Storage

Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure that all fuels, oils and any other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for example in bunded areas secured from public access) so as to prevent accidental/unauthorised discharge to ground. The area�s for storage should not drain to any surface water system.

Where it is proposed to store more than 200 litres (45 gallon drum = 205litres) of any type of oil on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25% of the total capacity of all oil stored.

NPPF

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).�

3.9�� Natural England: Have provided comments (revised from their initial submission) on the application: They have confirmed that the development is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected nature conservation sites. They also advise that the impact on any local wildlife sites should be assessed prior to determination of the application and biodiversity enhancements sought and that the application may also provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment.��

��

Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty � further information required

�The application site lies within the setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Natural England is concerned that the visual impacts that may result from this proposal have not been fully considered. Whilst we note that a Landscape Character and Visual Impact assessment has been provided, it does not appear to follow good practice guidelines. In particular, Natural England would expect photomontages to be provided at the appropriate focal length, both with and without superimposed plans of the proposed buildings from an appropriate selection of publically accessible view points within the AONB and its setting. These should be selected at various distances and elevations around the development site to provide a robust assessment of the impacts that will result from this proposal. The photographic representations supporting the application do not appear to provide this level of detail.

The assessment should be based on good practice guidelines such as those produced jointly by the Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Assessment1. Landscape character assessment (LCA) provides a sound basis for guiding, informing and understanding the ability of any location to accommodate change, and to make positive proposals for conserving, enhancing or regenerating character, as detailed proposals are developed.

Natural England recommends that this further information should be provided before determination of the application. Once this additional information is available, we will be pleased to comment further on the potential impacts of this proposal upon the Kent Downs AONB.�

3.9.1 Following the submission of the further information referred to above, by the applicants on 17 January 2014, Natural England has provided additional comments and these are as follows:

�Thank you for your letter dated 6 January 2014 consulting Natural England on the additional information submitted in support of the above application. In addition, Natural England has also been provided with copies of Figures 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 from the landscape assessment by the applicant following the comments made in our letter dated 13 November 2013 (our reference 103978).

As mentioned in our letter of the 13 November, Natural England is concerned that the visual impacts that may result from this proposal have not been fully considered. Whilst we note that a Landscape Character and Visual Impact assessment has been provided, it does not appear to follow good practice guidelines. The photomontages we have been forwarded are from limited viewpoints within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), do not provide details of the focal length at which they were taken and do not provide comparative photographs showing the current and post-construction views from the scarp slope. In the absence of this information, we are unable to advise on the potential implications for the Kent Downs AONB that will result from this proposal.

Consequently, Natural England would expect photomontages to be provided at the appropriate focal length, both with and without superimposed plans of the proposed buildings from an appropriate selection of publically accessible view points within the AONB and its setting. These should be selected at various distances and elevations around the development site to provide a robust assessment of the impacts that will result from this proposal. It would also be appropriate for further consideration of possible mitigation measures such as living roofs, building coloration and so on to be assessed to allow a robust assessment of the landscape impacts that may result from this proposal in respect of the protected landscape. We recommend that this information should be provided before determination of the application. The revised assessment should be based on good practice guidelines such as those produced jointly by the Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Assessment.�

3.9.2 Natural England�s final comments were received on 10 February 2014 and state as follows:

�� Protected landscape objection: Natural England has assessed this application and has identified a likely significant impact on the purposes of designation of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) since the proposed development lies within the setting of the AONB.

Having considered the application and the accompanying landscape and visual impact assessment, Natural England considers that the development proposal will be clearly visible from public rights of way, including the North Downs Way National Trail within the AONB. Views from the scarp slope are part of the special qualities of the AONB the landscape impacts and impacts to the special qualities of the AONB should be fully considered when determining this application.

The landscape and visual impact assessment makes reference to the impacts not being significant as there are existing discordant features such as the polytunnels visible from the Kent Downs AONB. However, these features are, in the main, significantly further away from the AONB than this current proposal which will introduce a large solid block of commercial/light industrial building into the open countryside within the setting of the AONB which will result in significant impacts upon the purposes for designation of the Kent Downs. Natural England therefore objects to this proposal.

The proposal would also appear to be contrary to Policy SDT5 of the 2009 Kent Downs AONB Management Plan (that has been endorsed by the Council as supplementary guidance) which states that �Proposals that have a negative impact upon the setting and views to and from the AONB will be resisted unless they can be satisfactorily mitigated�. In addition, the proposal would appear to be contrary to Policy SD8 of the 2014 final draft Kent Downs AONB Management Plan (also endorsed by the Council as supplementary guidance) which states that �Proposals which negatively impact on the distinctive landform, landscape character, special characteristics and qualities, the setting and views to and from the AONB will be opposed unless they can be satisfactorily mitigated�.

Development proposals will need to have regard to the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan.

Development proposals will not be permitted where they lead to adverse impacts on local landscape character for which mitigation measures appropriate to the scale and nature of the impacts cannot be achieved.

Other matters: In addition to our comments above in relation to impacts to the Kent Downs AONB, we also recommend that the comments made in our letter of the 9 October 2013 (our reference 99686) in respect of protected species are fully considered by the Council when determining this application.�

3.10� Highways Agency:� Do not object to the development subject to appropriate conditions being imposed.

�We have assessed this application and find that whilst it does have some impact upon the strategic road network some of this impact may already exist if the proposed occupants are the ones who ultimately take up occupation at this site. Additionally some of this impact on the adjacent junction and others further afield could be offset by an effective travel plan.

One issue is that junction 8 does not meet current standards. We would normally have to issue a holding direction preventing your council from issuing permission for the application until we had resolved this issue with the applicants. However, having reviewed the nature of the issue and some history surrounding it we are content to make a rare exception in this case and simply direct a condition that requires the road to be brought to standard or a departure issued before commencement of construction.

�� Conditions

1. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a scheme of improvements to M20 Junction 8 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (who shall consult with the Highways Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport).

Reason: to ensure that the M20 continues to be an effective part of the national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 and to satisfy the reasonable requirements of road safety. The scheme shall either comply with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges or have a departure from those standards agreed in writing by the local planning authority (who shall consult with the Highways Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport).

2. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the completion of the improvements to M20 Junction 8 required under Condition 1 (or such other scheme of works substantially to the same effect, as may be approved in writing by the local planning authority (who shall consult with the Highways Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport).

3. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a Construction Management Plan been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (who shall consult with the Highways Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport).

4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (who shall consult with the Highways Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport). The Travel Plan shall include arrangements for monitoring and effective enforcement. Upon first and any subsequent occupation of the development the Travel Plan shall be implemented.

Reason: to minimize traffic generated by the development and to ensure that the M20 continues to be an effective part of the national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with section 10 of the Highways Act 1980.

�� Informative

This development may require work to the public highway that can only be undertaken within the scope of a legal Agreement between the applicant and the Secretary of State for Transport. Planning permission in itself does not permit these works. It is the applicant�s responsibility to ensure that before commencement of any works to the public highway, any necessary Agreements under the Highways Act 1980 are also obtained. Advice on this matter can be obtained from the Asset Development Manager (Kent), Highways Agency, Federated House, London Road, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1SZ. Email ha_info@highways.gsi.gov.uk Tel 0300 123 5000.�

3.11� Kent Highway Services: Their initial comments submitted as part of the detailed KCC response as follows.��

�The hybrid application comprises two main elements; the first being the re-grading of the site to provide a level development platform, and the second being the creation of a mixed-use commercial development. A two-part Transport Assessment has been submitted which considers each of these elements in detail.

Extensive pre-application discussions have been undertaken between the applicant, DHA Transport, the Highways Agency and Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation and the scope of the Transport Assessment has previously been agreed.

Part 1 � Site Re-Grading

Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data has been sourced from KCC for the local highway network surrounding the site, including M20 Junction 8, for the three year period up to 30^th September 2012. A total of 25 PIAs were recorded during this period; 88% of which were classed as �slight�, two (or 8%) as �serious� and one (or 4%) as �fatal�. Some 52% of the recorded PIAs, including the fatal accident, occurred on the M20 and its intersection with Junction 8. The majority of these involved either vehicles changing lanes and coming into contact with each other or rear-end shunts on the coast bound off-slip. The fatal PIA resulted from an HGV striking a pedestrian who was walking in the mainline carriageway late at night. It is concluded that there are no discernible patterns of PIAs that indicate a problem with the layout, lighting or surface of the local highway network. KCC Highways and Transportation is in agreement with this assessment.��

The site re-grading phase of the development is proposed to take place over a period of approximately two to three years. Around four or five employees would be based at the site on a typical day and would be responsible for operating the on-site excavator machinery. The haulage vehicle drivers would be employed by a company based off-site. The working day is likely to be between the hours of 0700 and 1800. It is currently proposed that the excavated material would be transported to a strategic site situated off the M20 westbound and/or in East Kent. It is therefore anticipated that all haulage vehicles would access the site via M20 Junction 8.

It is proposed that the existing access to the north east of the site from the A20 westbound would be used during the initial site re-grading phase. This would take the form of a left-in-left-out access designed in accordance with the standards prescribed in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. This temporary form of access is acceptable in principle, subject to the submission of a satisfactory Stage 1 Road Safety Audit to KCC Highways and Transportation.

During the site re-grading phase, it is anticipated that the construction of the permanent site access would take place. It is proposed that access would be gained from the M20 Link Road/A20 Ashford Road Roundabout, which would be remodelled to provide a fourth arm into the site. This means of access was agreed in principle by KCC Highways and Transportation at pre-application stage, again subject to the submission of a satisfactory Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. The programme of works and construction methodology would be subject to further discussion and agreement with KCC Highways and Transportation.

It is requested that Maidstone Borough Council should include a condition on any grant of planning permission requiring the preparation and submission of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) by the applicant. This should include details of the proposed operational hours, vehicle movements and routings, and staff facilities. A further condition is sought requiring that a Road Condition Survey is undertaken, based on a programme and methodology to be agreed with KCC Highways and Transportation.�

The vehicle trips that could be associated with the site re-grading phase have been calculated using a �first principles� approach. Based on the volume of material to be removed and the types of vehicles that would be used, it has been projected that approximately 60 HGV loads per day would be required (i.e. 120 vehicle trips per day). This would equate to approximately 12 vehicle trips per hour.

In view of the proposed number and routing of vehicle trips associated with the site re-grading phase of the development, it is not considered that this activity would result in any significant impacts on the local highway network requiring additional mitigation measures. This position would however be reviewed by KCC Highways and Transportation following the submission of a Construction Management Plan by the applicant.

Part 2 � Commercial Development

Manual Classified Counts and queue measurements were undertaken during May 2013 between 7am and 10am and 4pm to 7pm at the M20 Junction 8; the M20 Link Road/A20 Ashford Road Roundabout; the A20 eastbound flyover bridge; the A20 Ashford Road/Eyhorne Street/Great Danes Hotel Roundabout; and the A20 Ashford Road/B2163 Penfold Hill Roundabout. Automatic Traffic Counts covering the links in and around the local highway network were also undertaken over a one week period during June 2013.

The Transport Assessment states that gates would be installed on the access road, which would be secured overnight and at weekends to prevent indiscriminate access and use of the site (for example, by HGV drivers). In the event that delivery vehicles arrive out of hours, it is proposed that a procedure would be put in place to allow them to park within the site and for their drivers to utilise the on-site wash room and toilet facilities, to dissuade them from using nearby lay-bys as informal waiting areas. Given the scale of the proposed development and the nature of the on-site uses, confirmation should be provided as to whether security personnel would be stationed on the premises during the overnight period to manage these procedures. Furthermore, it is KCC Highways and Transportation�s view that additional measures should be implemented on the stretch of road between the M20 Link Road/A20 Ashford Road Roundabout and the site access gates, such as the provision of bollards along the verge, to deter HGV parking in this area.

A foot/cycleway would be provided along one side of the site access road and a conventional 1.8 metre wide footway on the other, which would link to the existing footway on the south side of the A20, to the west of Old Mill Road. It is stated that this would provide a walking connection to Bearsted and Maidstone; however it is apparent that the footway crosses the A20 at an uncontrolled location to the west of Old Mill Road and that the onward route to Bearsted village is not continuous. Given that the missing sections of footway are limited in length, it is requested that the applicant should investigate the feasibility of addressing these deficiencies as part of the wider package of Section 278 highway works proposed.

As part of the site wide Framework Travel Plan to be implemented by the applicant on first occupation, an on-site �employee hub� is proposed, which would provide ancillary services such as a shared staff canteen to reduce the need to travel off site during the working day. It is also proposed that a staff shuttle bus would be operated at peak times to the destinations and home origins that cater for the greatest numbers of employees. These measures were agreed in principle by KCC Highways and Transportation at pre-application stage.�

It is proposed that vehicle and cycle parking for the development would be provided broadly in accordance with the maximum standards prescribed in the Kent and Medway Structure Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance 4, which is acceptable.��

The likely trip attraction and distribution associated with the site has been partially based on information provided by the companies intending to occupy the largest commercial units (ADL and Scarab). Details of the potential occupiers of the three remaining buildings on the site, which would accommodate B2 uses, have not been supplied. Therefore an assessment of the likely trip attraction of these units has been carried out using data derived from the TRICS database. Based on this first principles assessment, the cumulative development trip attraction is projected to be as follows:-

�� Vehicles�� OGVs

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

08:00-09:00

323

346

17:00-18:00

181

191

07:00-19:00

1047

1050

2096

109

112

221

The end users of the site cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity and therefore at the request of KCC Highways and Transportation and the Highways Agency, a further assessment has been carried out using data derived wholly from the TRICS database to present an outcome based on typical trip rates and distributions for comparison purposes. Based on this assessment, the cumulative development trip attraction is projected to be as follows:-

�� Vehicles�� OGVs

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

08:00-09:00

177

216

17:00-18:00

152

192

07:00-19:00

953

950

1903

190

172

362

The net difference between the first principles assessment and the TRICS derived trip data is as follows:-

�� Vehicles�� OGVs

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

08:00-09:00

+146

-16

+130

-6

-4

-10

17:00-18:00

-29

+29

-6

-4

-9

07:00-19:00

+93

+100

+193

-81

-60

-141

Based on the above figures, the Transport Assessment concludes that use of the first principles assessment presents a robust case to carry forward to the traffic impact assessment. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is an appreciable difference in the goods vehicle trips between the two approaches, this is justified on the basis that such trips are known to vary significantly between different users. However, having reviewed the TRICS output provided in the Transport Assessment, it is apparent that this draws heavily on sites within the �Edge of Town� category, which is not considered comparable to the Waterside Park site. It is therefore requested that this exercise is repeated to provide a comparison between the average trip rates arising from �Edge of Town� sites and those associated with �Free Standing� sites. KCC Highways and Transportation�s comments on the remainder of the Transport Assessment are subject to the outcome of this further analysis.��

Three approaches have been taken to derive the development trip distribution and assignment. Option 1 has utilised the existing staff home postcode data for ADL and Scarab and applied this to the entire development trip forecast. This indicates that a total of 56.1% of staff would route via M20 Junction 8 and the motorway network. Option 2 has derived the home origins of employees at the larger Maidstone area industrial/warehousing employment wards of Park Wood, Aylesford and Ditton and applied the resulting distribution pattern to Waterside Park. This indicates that some 71.1% of staff would route via M20 Junction 8 and the motorway network. Option 3 has examined the employment patterns in Maidstone as a whole and developed a combined gravity / Census origin model. This indicates that 68.9% of lower salaried staff and 73.3% of higher salaried staff would route via M20 Junction 8 and the motorway network. The Transport Assessment concludes that the Option 3 assignment pattern should be carried forward to the traffic impact assessment. Whilst the reasons for this are understood, it is KCC Highways and Transportation�s view that the Option 1 assessment presents a more realistic representation of likely distribution and assignment patterns in the short-to-medium term. Therefore it is requested that an average of the Option 1 and 3 distribution patterns is carried forward to the traffic impact assessment as a sensitivity test.

The trip generation, distribution and assignment data has been adjusted to the proposed opening year (2018) and 10-year horizon (2023) using growth factors derived from the TEMPRO and NTM datasets. Capacity assessments have then been undertaken at the M20 Junction 8; the M20 Link Road / A20 Ashford Road Roundabout; the A20 Ashford Road/Eyhorne Street/Great Danes Hotel Roundabout; and the A20 Ashford Road/B2163 Penfold Hill Roundabout for the Do Nothing, Do Minimum (development without mitigation) and, where appropriate, Do Something (development with mitigation) scenarios.

The assessment of M20 Junction 8 indicates that the junction currently operates within its design capacity and that it would operate slightly over its design capacity on some arms during the 2018 and 2023 AM peak hours in both the Do Nothing and Do Minimum scenarios. The Transport Assessment concludes that the development would not lead to significant additional delay to the operation of the junction, nor any safety concerns, and that mitigation would not therefore be required. KCC Highways and Transportation is in agreement with this assessment.

The assessment of the M20 Link Road/A20 Ashford Road Roundabout indicates that the junction currently operates over its design capacity during the AM peak hour on the A20 (east) arm and that the situation would worsen considerably in the 2018 and 2023 AM peak hours in the Do Nothing scenario. A Do Something scenario has therefore been modelled, assuming the reconfiguration of the junction to create an enlarged roundabout to current design standards with a fourth arm providing access to the development site. The modelling indicates that the revised junction layout would fully mitigate the impact of the development and provide an element of planning gain over the baseline situation. KCC Highways and Transportation is in agreement with this assessment.

The A20 Ashford Road/Eyhorne Street/Great Danes Hotel Roundabout and the A20 Ashford Road / B2163 Penfold Hill Roundabout have been assessed collectively because of their close proximity to each other. This exercise indicates that the Penfold Hill Roundabout currently operates over its design capacity during the AM peak hour on the A20 (east) arm and that this situation would worsen slightly in the 2018 and 2023 Do Nothing and Do Minimum scenarios. However, the Transport Assessment concludes that the level of additional delay that is attributable to the proposed development is negligible and that neither the existing or the post-development operation of the junction can be judged as �severe�. KCC Highways and Transportation is in agreement with this assessment.��

The Transport Assessment states that the development proposals are predicted to add a total of 26 car trips during the AM peak hour and 15 car trips during the PM peak hour to the B2163 through Leeds. This equates to a percentage uplift of less than 2% in the AM peak and just over 1% in the PM peak in the 2023 horizon year.

To summarise, the following information remains outstanding and should be provided by the applicant at the earliest opportunity:-

� Confirmation as to whether security personnel would be stationed on the premises during the overnight period to manage the access and egress of delivery vehicles;

� Details of the additional measures to be implemented on the site access road to prevent informal HGV parking in the area between the M20 Link Road / A20 Ashford Road Roundabout and the site access gates;

� Details of the off-site works to be implemented on the north side of the A20 to provide a continuous footway link between Old Mill Road and Bearsted village;

� A revised TRICS analysis providing a comparison between the average trip rates arising from �Edge of Town� commercial sites and those associated with �Free Standing� sites;

� A traffic impact sensitivity test, based on an average of the Option 1 and 3 distribution patterns.

3.11.1�� Further information was received from the applicants in response to the above requirements and additional comments from Kent Highway Services have been received. These raise no objections to the development.

�The applicant has confirmed that site security personnel would be stationed at the site entrance outside of normal working hours and that access would be given only to vehicles with the required delivery documentation, which is acceptable. The applicant has also confirmed that a range of physical measures would be implemented to prevent informal HGV parking on the site access road, including the installation of 'trief' kerbing, signing in multiple languages and parking/waiting restrictions, which should be discussed with Maidstone Borough Council Parking Services. These measures are also considered to be acceptable.

A further review of the footway link on the northern side of the A20 between Old Mill Lane and Bearsted village has been undertaken at the request of KCC Highways and Transportation. It has been established that a continuous asphalt footway is in place in the general area of the Bearsted Hand Car Wash but that it is in a poor condition, due to the encroachment of vegetation on to the footway. The applicant has agreed to undertake minor clearing works to reinstate this section of footway to its original width, which is acceptable.

The applicant has assessed the implication of alternative TRICS trip rates for the speculative B1 and B2 units assuming 'Free Standing' survey sites only, at the request of KCC Highways and Transportation. It is reported that there is over 30% variation between the trip rates used in the Transport Assessment (which draw heavily on 'Edge of Town' sites) and those arising from this alternative assessment in respect of the B1 office units. However, the higher trip rates yield a maximum of 12 additional vehicle movements in the evening peak hour, which is not considered to be significant. KCC Highways and Transportation is in agreement with this assessment. In respect of the B2 industrial units, the trip rates arising from 'Free Standing' survey sites are shown to yield a lower trip attraction than those used in the Transport Assessment.

A sensitivity test has been undertaken to examine the implications of the alternative traffic distribution scenario requested by KCC Highways and Transportation. This indicates that an additional 25 vehicles would access the site via Penfold Hill (increasing the total to 50 vehicles) in the morning peak hour. The change in the evening peak hour would be less marked, with an increase of 11 vehicles forecast on Penfold Hill (increasing the total to 27 vehicles). All other links on the local highway network would experience a reduction in vehicle numbers or no net change in the alternative distribution scenario.�

3.12� Southern Water: Have advised that there is no public foul water sewer in the vicinity the development and that alternatives means of foul water disposal should be examined. Any proposals for the use of a cess pit should be investigated in conjunction with the Environment Agency. They also comment that if a SuDS method is used for the disposal of surface water, mechanisms should be put in place for long term maintenance and management as such features are not currently adopted.�

3.13� UK Power Networks: Have no objections to the development. However, they have advised that they do have some overhead equipment in the area and have provided contact details to enable an accurate plan of this apparatus to be provided.

�� Other Consultees

3.14� KCC Ecology:

�� The site is a large arable field with field margins and there is a LWS along the south and eastern boundary and a RNR along the northern boundary. The submitted ecological information has detailed that the greatest ecological interest is around the boundary of the site.

The submitted landscape plan shows that the completed development will have a buffer area around the boundary of the site. However this will be impacted by the proposed earth moving works and as such there is a need for detailed mitigation strategy to be submitted, if planning permission is granted, to ensure no protected or notable species are impacted.

There is landscaping proposed for the development � this should be designed to benefit biodiversity and enhance the LWS and mitigate for the impact for the loss of the Roadside Nature Reserve. As the site is currently an arable field it will be high in nutrients and as such we are concerned that a wildflower meadow will be difficult to establish. As such we require a more detailed plan of the proposed landscaping area to be submitted for comment and provide details on how it will be established and managed.

We are concerned that insufficient consideration has been given to the impact the lighting of the proposed development will have on the LWS and species within the site designated site. The submitted information has detailed that best practice guidelines would be adhered to erecting any lighting but this does not assess the impact. We expect a map to be submitted for comments detailing the expected light spill from the proposed development and assessing the impact it will have on the LWS.�

(Officer comment: I am satisfied that this matter could be dealt with by means of an appropriate condition and reference to the Institute of Lighting Engineers Guidance as well as the Bat Conservation Trust Guidance.)

�

3.15� KCC Heritage Conservation:

�The site lies within an area of general archaeological potential associated with activity from the Prehistoric Period onwards. Current information suggests there is a remnant patch of River Terrace Gravels within the site and these have potential for rare and important Palaeolithic remains. To the east runs a stream feeding into the River Len which runs along the southern boundary with ground rising to the west end where it forms a plateau. Such river valleys were favourable to early settlement and although at present there is no evidence of prehistoric remains on the site itself, there is some potential for early prehistoric or Iron Age remains.� In view of the discovery of a Roman coin hoard of over 5,400 coins and suggestions of Roman pottery and masonry observed to the south of Mill Farm, there is potential for Roman remains on the site.

On the basis of early OS maps, post medieval remains may be encountered on the site.� There is considered to have been a post medieval or earlier mill along the River Len to the south, which was later succeeded by Mill Farm.� Within the north east corner were some cottages and remains of some of the outbuildings may survive on site.� Just beyond the north west corner is a post medieval quarry, known as �Hollingbourne Sand Mines�.� Remains associated with this quarrying activity may survive within the site.

This application is supported by an Environmental Statement and heritage is covered, including sections within the Planning Statement and in the Non-Technical Summary. Assessment of heritage issues is covered in Chapter 14 which is also supported by an Archaeological Deskbased Assessment, an Archaeological Historic Landscape Assessment, a Geoarchaeological Deskbased Assessment and a Built Historic Environment Assessment.� Although the first three assessments are brief, they provide reasonable information on the potential for significant archaeological remains.�

The Historic Landscape Assessment is especially brief and it would have been helpful to have had more consideration of the impact of the scheme on the wider historic landscape, including Leeds Castle and the setting of the listed buildings nearby.� Assessment of the landscape is covered in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment but the historic landscape issues are not covered well.

In summary, the assessment of archaeological issues is reasonable and this has highlighted some potential for Palaeolithic and Roman remains especially.� However, on the basis of present, readily available evidence, there is nothing to demonstrate that there are archaeological remains of significance requiring their preservation be taken account of in reaching a decision on the present application. The site has not been formally evaluated and it is possible that important remains may be found which would warrant appropriate mitigation through excavation or recording. I am satisfied that this potential can be addressed through appropriate assessment and mitigation post determination and can be secured through the following condition:

AR5�� No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of

i�� archaeological field evaluation works in accordance with a specification and written timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; and

ii� following on from the evaluation, any safeguarding measures to ensure preservation in situ of important archaeological remains and/or further archaeological investigation and recording in accordance with a specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority

Reason: To ensure appropriate assessment of the archaeological implications of any development proposals and the subsequent mitigation of adverse impacts through preservation in situ or by record.�

3.16� Kent Downs AONB Unit: Object to the development

�� Comments: Our opinion on this application does not change from that set out in our scoping opinion and pre application response. Our comments set out below should be read in the context of our previous advice, which still stands.

�

Physical context

The development site is substantially separate from the urban area of Maidstone. This is an inappropriate location for new industrial development. The SA for this site undertaken to evaluate possible Local Plan allocations in 2012 did not support the allocation of this site. Development here would be contrary to the sequential approach for the identification of sites set out in paragraphs 23, 24, 26 and 27 of the NPPF for office, commercial and other purposes.

Development at the proposed location would increase the likelihood of pressure for development in the area between the site and Maidstone. This too would be inappropriate, not only because much of it is similarly beyond the current urban edge of Maidstone, but also because much of the land is in the immediate setting of the AONB where development has been roundly rejected on appeal following the Kent International Gateway Inquiry.

The proposal would be contrary to Policy CS5 item 5 in the draft Maidstone Local Plan. This states that �Development in the countryside will retain the setting of and separation of individual settlements in accordance with policy CS1�. The effect of development at the proposed site would be to give the impression, at least from the Kent Downs AONB, that Eyhorne Street, the Great Danes Hotel and the application site were merging into a single group, as the photograph below shows, from the midslope above Hollingbourne. The whole group would of course risk merging with Maidstone eventually, as noted above.

Impact on the Kent Downs AONB

The Environmental Statement in chapter 13 makes a series of misjudgements about the impact of the proposed development on the Kent Downs AONB. These call into question the merit of the landscape and visual appraisal.

First, there are various statements that the views towards the site from the AONB are already compromised by the presence of the transport corridors between the site and the Downs: the M20, the A20, the CTRL and the Ashford-Maidstone railway line (e.g. paragraph 13.6.3). The applicant�s own photographs demonstrate that this is untrue. The transport infrastructure is virtually invisible in photographs 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 (i.e. without the aid of a telephoto lens), yet the application site is clearly visible in them. The need to mitigate the impact of views from the AONB is acknowledged in the ES (paragraph 13.5.5 indent 10), but this simply cannot be achieved. This seems to be accepted in paragraph 3.6.11 indent 6 on �Public Rights of Way�.

Second, the application site is very clearly visible from the AONB, particularly from the North Downs Way and open access land (and also from other rights of way and locations). It is misleading by the applicant to describe the visual impact of the proposed development from this direction as �insignificant� (paragraph 13.6.11, end of 6th indent) and to say of views that �it forms a small and distant component only of them� (paragraphs 13.4.27 and 13.6.3). The application site is prominent in views from the AONB, positively sticking out from its surroundings, not least because the land on the application site is elevated on its south and west sides and falls away to the north-east.

Third, the setting of the AONB from the North Downs scarp has enormous value. It was a principle reason why the AONB was designated in this area. The Downs around Hollingbourne provide oneof the most impressive sections of both scarp and views. This should be prized. The applicant has given insufficient attention to the value represented by the setting in this location, which includes the application site less than 3km distant from the North Downs Way.

Fourth, the very substantial earthworks on the application site to create platforms for development will be prominent, discordant and damaging when seen from the AONB. The effort to reduce the visual impact of major structures by depressing them in an artificially created hole underneath the western end of the site would create its own damaging visual impact. The proposal is for the excavations to be to a depth of 14 metres at the west end of the site (paragraph 13.5.1), which is a very considerable depth and will necessitate sharp slopes � nearly retaining walls � surrounding the buildings on the platform below. The high buildings accommodated will be prominent at their eastern end, as will those on the platform at the eastern end of the site. Decked parking (paragraph 13.5.3) will be a further intrusion.

Fifth, the assessment of the impact of the development on views towards the AONB is little better. The view towards the AONB from the footpath across the site is illustrated below. Paragraph 13.5.4 of the ES explains that the footpath would be diverted to the edge of the site and then contained within a (doubtless narrow) �green corridor� bounded on the site of the proposed development by a 1.8m high hedge and with reinforced planting on the edge of the Biffa site. In short views in any direction, including to the AONB, would be minimal. We also consider that views to the AONB from other positions would be more impaired than the ES suggests, including from parts of Leeds to the south.

Further comments below set out our response to the applicant�s Chapter 13 �Landscape and Visual Impact� submission.

Chapter 13 Policy

Para 13.7.9

The issue is a strategic one. If this development is permitted on policy grounds any greenfield site whether allocated or not would be eligible for development. Large developments such as this should only be permitted on an allocated site that has been properly assessed and screened through a SA process and where all alternative sites have been assessed. The site is not allocated and the application is premature in advance of the emerging Local Plan. Its release could prejudice the strategic allocation of sites in the MBC area. The proposal does not conform with the provisions of the NPPF which is the framework for the emerging Local Plan. (NPPF Paras 24,26,27).

Para 13.2.2

The NPPF

NPPF Para 109: This paragraph of the NPPF emphasises the importance of protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Although this site is not within the AONB, by virtue of its location in the setting it will challenge one of the major purposes of designation of the AONB, i.e. the quality of the views from the scarp. The AONB is neither protected nor enhanced by this application.

The applicant fails to mention paras 23,24,26,27,110 and 111 of the NPPF either here or in Chapter 5.

� NPPF paras 13 and 14 are clear that where any adverse impacts granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or where specific policies the NPPF indicate development should be restricted, then planning permission should not be granted. In this context we draw your attention to Paras 23 to 27, 110 and 111 of the NPPF:

� NPPF para 23 indicates the importance of the vitality of town centres and the importance of �appropriate edge of centre sites�. This application is not an edge of centre site and challenges the intentions of para 23

� NPPF paras 24,26,27,110 and 111 require LPAs to apply a sequential test to ensure previously developed land and town centre sites, then edge of town sites to be used first. This application challenges the intentions of these paragraphs of the NPPF.

Para 13.2.3-13.2.5,

The applicant sets out MBC policies in these paras and in Chapter 5 of their ES. However the KDAONB Unit fails to see how the application complies with these polices. The Appendix 2 attached discusses this further.

Para 13.6.16 fails to address the importance of strategic allocations of land and the requirements of the NPPF. The policies mentioned in their Section 13.2 indicate the criteria needed to be applied once the development meets the locational tests.

Para 13.6.24

The scale of this development is out of character with the area and the changes in levels conflict with field boundaries and existing hedge lines which thereby destroys all existing landscape character. The drastic changes in levels required in order to hide the site from views and make the site deliverable and accessible are an indication of the sensitivity of the site. Remodeling these levels should not be seen as mitigation. The loss of character is an integral element of the views into and across the site and will impact on the purposes of designation of the AONB. The application conflicts with Draft LP policy CS5

Para 13.6.28

The PRoW across the site. On the AONB site visit there was evidence of use. The applicant has brought no further evidence in figures of useage. The amenity in the long term for future users of this path will be damaged by this application.

Para 13.6.29

� The total effect on the landscape character due to changes in levels will be drastic and unavoidable as mentioned above.

� The new PRoW is likely to have restricted views and more difficult access from the roundabout. There is no doubt that the amenity for users of this route is likely to be so affected as to ensure its future disuse. Currently the users of the path have views both north to the AONB scarp, and south across the Low Weald.

Chapter 13 Landscape Character

Para 13.4.20

We do not agree with the applicant�s conclusions in para 13.4.20. The emphasis on �restoring and improving� the rural setting of the Kent Downs north of the M20 is because this area has already been developed for a service area. It cannot be implied that the area to the south of the M20 is less sensitive. Neglecting to mention the area south of the motorway in the necessity to �restore and improve� merely emphsises that there is no need to do so since the area has not been developed.

Chapter13 Predicted effects

Para 13.6.14

This conclusion is not supported by the KDAONB. Waterside Park�s location is indicated in marked photos attached in Appendix 1 which show how the introduction of an urban element into the otherwise rural vista will impact on the views out from the KDAONB. Polytunnels are both agricultural and of a temporary nature and as a �detractor� should not be compared to the introduction of an urban and permanent activity, and developed urban form.

Conclusion

Introduction of urban form and activities to this part of the setting of the AONB will impact on the purposes of designation of the Kent Downs. The Kent Downs AONB Executive therefore has maintained their opposition to the release of this area for development, objects to this application, requests that the points raised in this letter and the appendices are reported fully to your committee and that this application is refused.�

3.16.1�� The Kent Downs AONB unit have reiterated their strong objections to the development having considered the updated information submitted by the applicants.

�� Nothing raised by the applicant changes our original response. I attach responses to each of the rejoinders made on our consultation of 6th November by Jon Etchells (the applicants landscape consultant) and a table which shows our original comment, Jon Etchells� rejoinder and our response (Appendix 1) which we hope will aid you in your consideration. I also enclose a copy of the index of photographs and the KIG report. The enclosed report setting out our response to Jon Etchells� rejoinders indicates that it is comprehensively the case that the Kent Downs AONB Executive�s arguments stand. Introduction of urban form and activities to this part of the setting of the AONB will impact on the purposes of designation of the Kent Downs. The Kent Downs AONB Executive therefore maintain their opposition to the release of this area for development and strongly objects to this application. The KDAONB Unit requests that the points raised in this letter of response along with our original response of 6th November and its supporting appendices are reported fully to your committee and that this application is refused.�

3.16.2�� Physical context

�

1. It is obviously correct that the application site is south of the A20. Although the site is not adjacent to (sharing a boundary with) the AONB, the site is within one kilometre of the AONB boundary and clearly in the immediate setting. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

2. The Kent Downs AONB Unit submission clearly state that �The effect of development at the proposed site would be to give the impression, at least from the Kent Downs AONB, that Eyhorne Street, the Great Danes Hotel and the application sites were merging into a single group.� The photograph used in our November response provides a close-up of the land in question to illustrate this: there was no purpose in including in the photograph land at some distance from the application site. The second paragraph of the rejoinder does not challenge the point made: it merely states that �on the ground� (i.e. when standing at that point) Eyhorne Street is separated from the site by transport routes. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

Impact on the Kent Downs AONB

3. The AONB Unit consultation response argued that it was �untrue� that views towards the site from the AONB are already compromised by the presence of transport corridors between the site and the Downs. The transport routes are hard to find in the photographs of the site from the AONB taken by both the applicant and by ourselves. The first photograph in the AONB Unit submission, highlighting the site in red, was taken from the North Downs Way in the AONB. It illustrates the point: the M20, A20 and CTRL are simply not visible. The same is true of the other photograph of Waterside Park taken from the North Downs Way further west above Allington Farm [photograph 16 appendix 2 attached �Index to photographs�]. That latter photograph includes more context, yet still the appearance of the setting of the scarp is not marred, in this area, by the transport corridors. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

4. There are, of course, places where the transport corridors do intrude into views to or from the AONB, particularly when considering views to the AONB where these corridors form a foreground. It is accepted that there is a noise impact from the transport corridors specifically on those parts of the AONB close to the roads and railways, which photographs cannot capture. That impact should not be overstated, and the thrust of the applicants� case now being made that the transport corridors somehow separate the application site from the immediate setting of the AONB is not accepted. The Inspector who heard the public inquiry into the non-determination appeal into the Kent International Gateway development, close to the application site, concluded that in this part of the AONB �I do not agree with the Appellants� assertion that the motorway/railway line forms a boundary of distinct change in character between the AONB and the appeal site� (paragraph 18.38).

5. The rejoinder challenges the inevitability of the development having an impact on views from the AONB. The AONB Unit had argued that the mitigation could not be achieved and that this seemed to be accepted in the ES paragraph 13.6.11 indent 6 regarding the impact on Public Rights Of Way. The rejoinder quotes the final sentence of that indent, to challenge the point, but the previous sentence reinforces the AONB Unit case. That states: �Finally, the new buildings would also be present in views from parts of the North Downs Way as it passes along the crest of the escarpment (and within the AONB) between Broad Street Hill and Hollingbourne, around 2.5 to 3km from the Site, and also from the area of access land which lies to the north and south of the North Downs Way at this point.� We assert that is an acceptance that mitigation will not happen. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

6. The applicant challenges the AONB point that �the site is prominent in views from the AONB, positively sticking out from its surroundings�. It is a fact that the land of the application site is elevated on its south and west sides, rising above its surroundings. Its prominence can be appreciated by a site visit to the North Downs Way. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

7. The rejoinder claims that the AONB�s �setting is far from unspoilt at the moment � in my view one of the key points about the setting is that it is in fact quite different from the higher ground of the AONB, which is tranquil and unspoilt, in contrast to the flat land below, which is a busy transport corridor�. We are surprised that a landscape adviser should reach this conclusion, not least because the Inspector at the Kent International Gateway inquiry reached very difference conclusions. He said: �I find these views, beyond the AONB itself, are an integral part of its character and attractiveness. They are, without doubt, extremely important to many visitors� enjoyment of this nationally designated landscape. Whilst the M20 and HS1 are visible from many locations along the scarp, they appear to run through otherwise seamless countryside� (paragraph 18.38). He did not consider polytunnels in the area as a visual detractor, and argued �Moreover, the presence of existing features which detract from the landscape does not justify a proposal which itself causes such harm� (paragraph 18.42). There is plenty more in his report to indicate his concern for development in the AONB setting, including that �the overall scale and straight lines of the warehouses on their level development platforms would be very apparent and would appear alien to the countryside and the surrounding built development� (paragraph 18.39), (albeit that the KIG warehouses would have been even closer to the AONB). The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

8. The rejoinder invokes the MBC landscape character assessment for emphasising the impact of the transport corridors on landscape character. The KDAONB Unit however agrees with the KIG Inspector who reviewed both Kent CC�s �Landscape Assessment in Kent� and Maidstone BC�s �Maidstone Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Guidelines� and concluded that �whilst both documents recommend ways in which the condition of the landscape could be improved, there is nothing in either document to suggest that built development is desirable or appropriate or would, in any way, improve the condition of the landscape� (paragraph 18.30). Overall, the Kent Downs AONB Unit argument that the ES had �given insufficient attention to the value represented by the setting� stands. The suggestion that �the effects of the development on the setting would not be significant� should be rejected.

9. The rejoinder challenges the AONB Unit�s point that the earthworks would be �prominent, discordant and damaging when seen from the AONB�, and goes on to suggest that they would �simply be vegetated slopes�. This is an unnecessary misreading of the point made by the AONB Unit. That was not a criticism of the vegetation on the new slopes, but a serious concern that �the substantial earthworks on the application site to create the platforms for development will be prominent, discordant and damaging. Please refer to point 4 of the consultation response under the heading �Impact on the Kent Downs AONB�. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

10. The rejoinder confirms that there will be significant effects for users of the footpath across the site (the AONB Unit�s interest being primarily the views towards the AONB). It then argues that no evidence has been provided in support of the Unit�s consultation response that �We also consider that views to the AONB from other positions would be more impaired than the ES suggests, including from parts of Leeds to the south.� It is true that photographic or photomontage evidence was not provided. Nonetheless, the AONB Unit argument stands for two reasons. First, the discussion of �Public Rights of Way� in paragraph 13.6.11 fails to mention any impact of the development on views to the AONB from PRoWs off the site, (though it does mention views to the site from the AONB). Second, a site visit will demonstrate clearly that from the footpaths on the rising ground to the south, towards Leeds, and from highways such as Forge Lane, the backdrop to all views northwards is the AONB, which will be impaired by the development in the foreground or middle distance if it were to proceed. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

11. The AONB Unit argued that �The drastic changes in levels required in order to hide the site from views and make the site deliverable and accessible are an indication of the sensitivity of the site�. The rejoinder suggests this means the Unit accepts that the development will be hidden. It would have been better if the words �attempt to� hide the site had been used, but the Unit�s position on this matter is clearly expressed a few paragraphs earlier: the fourth point on �Impact on the Kent Downs AONB� explains why �The effort to reduce the visual impact of major structures by depressing them in an artificially created hole underneath the western end of the site would create its own damaging visual impact�. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

12. The ground evidence is that PRoW across the site is used, though not heavily. This may�

�� be a point of agreement. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

13. The diverted public footpath would indeed have �more difficult access from the roundabout�, as the AONB Unit argued. At present there is a baulk of grassed land adjacent to the roundabout on the A20. The public footpath strikes south-west from the rear of this: it is perfectly normal in the countryside for footpaths to pass through vegetation, up steps and over a stile, and not something to worry about. Under the planned development, the footpath would emerge from its circuit of the industrial units to meet the main access road to the site amongst the cars using the roundabout. The access is onto/off the southern access splay immediately adjacent to the roundabout. Vehicles will be far more threatening to walkers at this point than they are at present. There is a much greater likelihood of difficulty as walkers will have to dodge vehicles. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

14. The rejoinder regarding the AONB Unit�s view on paragraph 13.4.20 of the ES is illogical. It is properly addressed in the AONB Unit consultation response at the first point under �Chapter 13 Landscape Character�. The overall sensitivity of the character area is assessed as �moderate�, though the KIG Inspector�s point that �there is nothing� to suggest that built development is desirable or appropriate or would, in any way improve the condition of the landscape�, noted in paragraph 10 above, in our view remains applicable. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.

15. The rejoinder claims once again that the setting of the AONB north of the M20 is of greater importance than that to the south, as the area to the north is closer to the AONB. That matter was dealt with in principle by the KIG Inspector: see paragraph 6 above. The KIG Inspector also concluded that �the M20 Junction 8 and the service area (which are lit) cannot be seen from the AONB� (paragraph 12.9). The setting in this area extends south of the M20, where the development proposal is sited. West of Junction 8 the AONB boundary follows the M20. From the junction and to the east, the AONB boundary is set back from it, with the service station (on the junction) and Eyhorne Street excluded from the designation. The service station is invisible from views out from the AONB due to its location hidden by Snarkhurst Wood. The �setting� of the AONB extends to all areas where development would impact on the AONB. In this particular case the area south of the M20 is just as sensitive as the area nearer to the AONB boundary for reasons of its visibility. The Kent Downs AONB Unit argument stands.�

3.17� Kent Wildlife Trust: Objects to the development as contrary to the provisions of the Local Plan. Detailed comments are as follows:-

�I understand that the Council has identified land in the vicinity of junction 8, M20 as a strategic employment development location and that the application site is one of three sites being considered for allocation in the Local Plan. In response to the site options, the Trust expressed a strong preference for the development of land to the west of the junction (EMP03, Woodcut Farm). The Waterside Park site was not favoured because of its sensitive location in very close proximity to the River Len Millpond & Carr Local Wildlife Site (LWS,MA14). The two other employment sites are situated at a greater distance from the LWS and, as a result, they were considered unlikely to exhibit adverse hydrological, pollution and contamination impacts to the degree feared at Waterside Park.

Important wildlife habitats bound the Waterside Park site on two sides. To the east is remnant Ancient Woodland and, to the south, is the wooded Len valley with its large pond. Ancient Woodland supports some of the most bio-diverse habitat in the UK. It is also irreplaceable and, in consequence, earns some of the strongest planning policy protection in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The Len valley is an undisturbed, species-rich alder carr with thickets of willow carr. The whole area is little disturbed and accordingly supports good populations of wetland birds, including kingfisher, heron, reed warblers, and a varied range of duck species. Many of these birds are of Conservation Concern and Priority Species in both national and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Kingfishers are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act.

Together, the ancient woodland and the river valley and pond have been adopted, using scientifically determined criteria, by the Kent & Medway Biodiversity Partnership as a Local Wildlife Site of county ecological value. Maidstone Borough Council is member of this Partnership.

In these circumstances, I object to permission being granted unless and until the applicant can demonstrate that it is consistent with the adopted Local Plan. Determination of the application would be premature in advance of an Inspector�s report following the Examination of the submitted Local Plan.

Notwithstanding (and without prejudice to) this view, I have studied the evidence submitted in support of the application and have come to the following conclusions on the principal areas of concern for the Trust.

I acknowledge the applicant�s careful analysis and evaluation of the impact of development on the North Downs SAC and have no reason to question the scale of the impacts predicted. The Council must understand, however, the Trust�s continuing frustration at not seeing any evidence of requirements being imposed on major developments that could help put into effect a meaningful mitigation strategy to address the continuing deterioration of conditions alongside A249 at Detling Hill arising from the cumulative impact of development and traffic growth.

I am satisfied that ground conditions appear to mitigate the risk of harmful water level fluctuations in the River Len and that, subject to the installation and effective operation of appropriate pollution control mechanisms, the contamination of watercourses can also be avoided.

A �green� buffer is to be planted between the site boundaries and all buildings and hard surfacing to mitigate the loss of existing field margins and support the valuable semi-natural habitats in the wider area. Whilst the width of the buffer appears to be adequate for this purpose, proposals to adjust ground levels in the buffer zone suggest that the considerable amounts of fill will be deposited here before planting is commenced. I am not persuaded that the impact of this fill on vegetation, in particular trees in the Ancient Woodland and the northern side of the River Len valley, has been examined. It may be necessary to realign the proposed fill in order to avoid disturbance to ground conditions above the roots of these trees.

The application site and, especially, the Len valley are widely acknowledged to offer a tranquil escape from the noise of the nearby A20 and M20. Whilst noise disturbance in the adjacent residential properties has been evaluated, no equivalent work appears to have been carried out to enable the Council to judge the impact on wildlife (especially birds) of disturbance from vehicular movement in the open car parks and service areas. The position of service yards close to the eastern and southern boundaries poses a serious risk of light pollution along the woodland edges. Not only can this disturb animals and birds occupying the woodland but can disrupt the movement of bats using these edges for navigation and foraging. This issue does not appear to have been addressed in the Environmental Statement or in the layout of spaces and design of lighting.

I am satisfied that a reasonable assessment has been made of the risk of harm from dust and other contaminants. Subject to implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, I am satisfied that significant harm to wildlife should be avoided.

Finally, I am disappointed not to see a commitment to the use of green and/or brown roofs for the proposed buildings, nor to the use of a wide range of other building and landscape design features to maximise wildlife interest in the site. A much more ambitious strategy for ecological enhancement could be adopted. This might also include, for example:

�� An appropriate management regime for the A20 verge to encourage a more varied range of native plants to become established.

�� Long grass and/or wildflower habitat corridors throughout the site.

�� Species-specific bird boxes for swallow house sparrow, swift and house martin.

�� The management of the Local Wildlife Site to increase its overall biodiversity and help to negate residual impacts.

�� Measures to prevent direct access from the development site into the LWS.

� Signage to provide information on the ecological value of the Waterside Park�s green infrastructure and of the adjacent LWS and advice on ways to cause least impact.�

(Officer comment: These are issues that can be addressed through an appropriate condition requiring the submission of an ecological mitigation and enhancement plan. I would state however, that the LWS is not within the applicant�s control or ownership.)�

3.18� Rural Planning Ltd: Have provided the following comments in relation to the quality of the agricultural land within the site.

�� Policy Background

At the local level, it is understood that the Council currently has no saved local plan policy relating to loss of specific grades of agricultural land to development, other than in respect of changes of use to domestic garden, which does not apply in this case.

At the National Level, Para. 112 of the NPPF states:

112. Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.

The NPPF does not define (or indeed particularly emphasise) exactly what it means by "significant" development of agricultural land in this context, but there is nothing to suggest anything beyond its ordinary English meaning i.e. sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention, or noteworthy.

The Government has also reaffirmed the importance of protecting our soils and the services they provide in the Natural Environment White Paper The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature (June 2011), including the protection of "best and most versatile" agricultural land (paragraph 2.35). "Best and most versatile" (BMV) agricultural land is defined as Grades 1, 2, and 3a.

Natural England also observes that land protection policy �is relevant to all planning applications, including those on smaller areas but it is for the planning authority to decide how significant are agricultural land issues and the need for field information� (Technical Information Note - TIN 49 19 December 2012).

Waterside Park

The proposals relate to a single field described in the earlier submissions as used intensively for agriculture and horticulture. The site area is said to be 17 ha: I calculate (from the DEFRA Magic website) the actual cultivated area (excluding woodland boundary strips) to be some 16.2 ha. The submissions on behalf of the applicants now include a detailed land classification study by Soil Environment Services which confirms the eastern part of the cultivated area, some 9.6 ha by my calculation (sandy loam) to be Grade 2 quality, whilst the remainder to the west, 6.6 ha by my calculation, (loamy sands and sand) is graded 3b due to the limiting effect of droughtiness in conjunction with the local climate. I note that the Planning Statement mentions that the development site represents a relatively small part of the farming tenant's total farmed area, but that is likely to be the case for most development proposals involving arable land, and in my view should not be seen as diminishing, per se, the impact of the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land here.� The Planning Statement also refers to an established economic need for the development, and the lack of any alternative sites. Those are matters for you, but whilst the Planning Statement suggests that in the area "all potential sites comprise agricultural land", that is not to say that all such land is Grade 2 quality (or better). The broad ALC mapping for the local area suggests other land in the area to be Grade 3 quality, and the detailed Soil Environment Services study of this site confirms that the local land quality can vary, so there may well be other areas of poorer agricultural land in the area, as well as the 6.6 ha or so of Grade 3b land at the western end of this site, the loss of which would not be significant in terms of its ALC grading.�

3.19�� Kent Police Architectural Liaison Officer: Does not object

I� refer to the above planning application and have no objections to make on the principle of the proposal in regard to crime prevention and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) matters, in accordance with the ODPM (CLG) / Home Office guide � Safer Places, The Planning System and Crime Prevention and the Kent Design Initiative (KDI), Design For Crime Prevention document dated April 2013, however I would like the following comments and recommendations to be taken into consideration.

If planning consent is given for this application

We would suggest that� a condition worded something similar to the below is used:

The development hereby permitted shall incorporate measures to minimise the risk of crime. No development shall take place until details of such measures, according to the principles and physical security requirements of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented before the development is occupied and thereafter retained.

Reason; In the interest of security and crime prevention and to accord with Policies of Maidstone Borough Council Draft Core Strategy Plan.�

�� Internal Consultees

3.20� MBC Economic Development: Are in support of the application and state as follows:-

��

�ADL and Scarab Sweepers, both Marden based businesses, have announced their intention to relocate to enable their growth and to become more competitive. From small beginnings around 25 year ago they have expanded to become two of the most significant employers in Maidstone, and importantly both export around the world.

ADL

ADL has recently become part of a family owned German company called Febi Bilstein enabling it to access the required finance to grow the business in the UK.

ADL is a supplier of automotive vehicle parts for Japanese, Korean and American vehicle brands. Key stats:

� Projected turnover �84m for 2014 (rising to �125m by 2016)

� Current business rates payable �300,000 (expected to rise to �500k if move to junction 8)

� 20% of profit reinvested into product development

� Local employments costs �9m

� 50% of turnover is for export to 100 countries (expected to rise to 65% of turnover by 2016).

� Established apprenticeship scheme

� 230 local employees (expected to employ an additional 100 over next three years)

� Other spend in the local economy of �3m though 10 main local suppliers including �2m through the Maidstone TNT depot and �400k on temporary employees.

ADL�s need to secure a new site is pressing. They frequently operate at 90% capacity and are growing rapidly. They already operate from 5 different buildings which is inefficient. Even if they could identify a suitable additional building to add capacity it would exacerbate operational inefficiencies, and add costs. Their parent company�s business model requires them to own property freehold. A short term extension to their current leases has been rejected by one of their landlords, Firmin (see attachment)

Scarab

Scarab has recently become part of the Fayat Group, one of France�s largest construction companies.

Scarab is the world�s largest manufacturer of single engine street sweepers and currently employs 220 staff in the UK. Scarab is going through a period of significant growth in its export markets and plans to add 50 more over the next three years.

Scarab recorded turnover of �27m and expects growth of 25% this year.

Currently Scarab�s site restrictions mean that they sub contract work to outside suppliers (not necessary local) rather than expand.

Together, ADL�s and Scarab�s combined 450 staff earn salaries of �15m per year. Most of these employees are Maidstone residents and buy goods and services which benefit the local economy further.

�A significant proportion of employees earn well over the median annual pay for those working in Maidstone (Source Volterra report)

Nature of jobs safeguarded and created

A range of job opportunities are needed at different skill and wage levels if the borough is to increase its employment rates and meet the needs of local residents.� The applicant states that 60% of ADLs jobs will be office based or in Quality Control. Greater investment in technology will require IT skills and up skilling employees in technological changes in the automotive industry. A 3000 sq ft training facility is planned on site. Distribution centre roles require a general skill level and therefore are accessible to a wide range of people, including those with limited experience.

Scarab has a wide variety of both manufacturing and office-based roles. Positions require varying skill levels and employees receive excellent training. Manufacturing roles include welders, assembly fitters, painters and inspectors. Office roles are in the areas of sales, administration, IT as well as the in-house design team, which includes highly-skilled mechanical design engineers.

ADL has recently announced an apprenticeship scheme with vacancies in logistics, supply chain, product development and quality control. Scarab has plans to establish an apprenticeship scheme over the next two years that will give opportunities in the fields of mechanical engineering, welding and product maintenance.

Need to relocate

Expansion is only possible if both companies relocate. Currently both occupy a number of buildings in Marden which are poorly related to each other operationally and result in inefficiencies such as double handling incurring avoidable costs.

Expansion in Marden is no-longer desirable due to the constraints of the industrial estate but also because it is some distance from the motorway network (around 20 minutes or more depending on traffic) which results in lorries using rural roads and additional costs in time and fuel. The impact of lorry movements on local communities has resulted in the introduction of Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders around Marden and Yalding with the aim of directing lorries in excess of 7.5 tonnes away this area and on to the main road network. This has reduced the attractiveness of Marden for ADL and Scarabs too as it increases journey times and cost for some deliveries and exports.

Maidstone�s key competitive advantage.

Proximity to the M20 motorway, which provides access to London, Greater South East, UK and European markets, is one of Maidstone�s key competitive advantages. The borough benefits from four junctions on the M20 as well as quick access to the M2 to the East and the A21 to the west, and also the M25.

Sites along the motorway represent some of the best opportunities for expanding Maidstone�s tradable base and export capacity.

In the absence of any other existing industrial estates in Maidstone capable of accommodating the needs of these local businesses, Waterside Park offers significant business benefits. As stated in the applicant�s submission, the 42 acre site offers the following advantages:

�

�� A larger facility to allow future growth;

�� A reduction in occupation costs;

�� Economies of scale from operating in a larger facility;

�� Improvements in operational efficiency;

�� Retention of key staff members;

�� A prestigious location for their headquarters;

�� Fewer truck movements; and,

�� Better access for trucks to major sea ports.

National context

The government places significant emphasis on encouraging exporting and greater global competitiveness.� It sets four ambitions in the �Plan for Growth�, published at Budget 2011 one of which is to �to encourage investment and exports as a route to a more balanced economy.�

In November 2011 the Prime Minister and Lord Green launched the National Challenge - a major initiative to boost the number of Small to Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) that export - setting the target of getting up to 100,000 SMEs to either start exporting for the first time or spread to new markets over the next 5 years.

The National Plan for Growth identifies 8 key sectors where growth should be encouraged, one of which is Advanced Manufacturing. Scarab displays many of the characteristics of an advanced manufacturer. The proportion of national output and employment in manufacturing has continued to decline but there is now a greater recognition of the importance of the sector to growth because of its high levels of research and development, its supply chain and propensity to export.

National Planning Policy Guidance states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system and local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century. Planning authorities should support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting. These policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances. Developments should be located and designed where practical to accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies.

A report commissioned by Maidstone Borough Council and produced by GVA in December 2013 called Economic Sensitivity Testing sets out the economic potential of the Borough and the implications this has on future growth requirements to 2031. The report identifes key sectors which already have a strong concentration, and are expanding.� Land Transport, Storage (ADL) and the Manufacture of Transport Equipment (Scarab) are included in this list.

The report goes on to say that businesses servicing regional, national, and international markets from Maidstone tend to seek locations with high quality environments and workspaces and good communication and infrastructure.

Waterside Park would create such desired locations.

Regional context

At the regional level the South East Local Enterprise Partnership policy documents identifies 4 key sectors with high growth potential, and which fit closely with the National Industrial Strategy. These are advanced manufacturing, logistics, low carbon and environmental technologies, and life sciences/med tech. Recent planning decisions to support the Maidstone Medical Campus with its life sciences focus and now this opportunity to support manufacturing and logistics demonstrates that Maidstone is very much aligned to national and regional growth strategies and therefore well placed to benefit from sectors where jobs growth is expected in the future.

Kent context

The importance of growing Kent�s export base is reflected in Kent County Council investment in the recently established Kent International Business Service. Kent International Business (KIB) is a Kent-wide initiative which aims to encourage Kent businesses to access overseas markets and to provide information, advice and support to help them do so. KIB is led by Kent County Council in partnership with various business support organisations in the county.

The Kent Freight Action Plan 2012-2016 (KFAP) recognises the significant contribution freight and logistics make to the Kent economy but also the impact lorries can have on local communities. Of the 6 objectives in the KFAP the following are particularly relevant:

Objective 3: To effectively manage the routing of HGV traffic to ensure that such

movements remain on the Strategic Road Network for as much of their

journey as possible.

Objective 4: To take steps to address problems caused by freight traffic to communities.

The relocation of both these businesses closer to the motoway supports both these objectives.

Borough Context

Maidstone Borough Council�s Economic Development Strategy states that it should ensure a supply of readily available sites and encourage the retention of existing businesses and their investment in the Borough. There have been no new employment allocations since the adoption of the Local Plan in 2000.

The Borough needs quality sites in the right places to retain and attract businesses in these growth sectors if Maidstone�s economic potential is to be realised.�

The 2013 Economic Sensitivity Testing report by GVA states that Logistics and Distribution sector has seen unprecedented growth over the last decade. Future prospects indicate that growth will continue.� This sector is forecast to grow by 17% between 2011 and 2031.

The manufacture of transport equipment is forecast to grow as a result of a number of factors including new technologies, changing vehicle requirements ad sustainable fuels� and increasing costs. Commercial vehicles are increasingly specialised generating a demand for greater ancillary products and adaptation businesses. As technology evolves this is likely to continue to be a niche growth industry. This sector is forecast to grow locally by 16% between 2011 and 2031.

Threats to the local economy

Whilst the Borough�s economy remains the largest in Kent (outside of Medway) in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA), number of employees and businesses, the short to medium term trend is one of contraction. Between 2003 and 2008 the number of private sector jobs available in the Borough fell by 5% (source: Location metrics for Regional Growth Fund 4) with employment growth largely coming from the public sector. Between 2008 and 2010 the number of all employees in the Borough fell by a further 3000 jobs (source: Kent County Council, Research & Evaluation, Business Strategy & Support,�� Business Register and Employment Survey ).

GVA has fallen slightly over the last few years.� Job Seeker Allowance claimants stand at 2.0% (Sept 2013) but the underlying number of unemployed residents is in the region of 5400 people (Source Nomis 2013).

Employment opportunities in the Borough are also under pressure due to the Government�s proposed reductions in public sector spending and this will inevitably mean job losses. The Borough is highly dependent on public sector employment which provides approximately 30% of all jobs, one of the highest percentages in the South East.� It is estimated that between 2011 and 2015 around 2000 direct and indirect jobs will be lost in Maidstone, which supports the case to encourage more private sector jobs in the short to medium term (source: Kent County Council Public sector dependency and an assessment of the effects of public sector job cuts in Kent).

Should Waterside Park not get permission existing jobs will be lost and the opportunity of significant future job creation will be missed locally. The scale of the jobs lost will in part be dependent upon where ADL and Scarab choose to relocate. Clearly if this is some distance from Maidstone the job losses will be greater.

Conclusion

ADL and Scarab must relocate to grow and become more competitive. To avoid the possibility of an interruption to business operations ADL must make a decision on a new site within the next few months.

No other site in the Borough is available to meet their needs.� Both business provide significant local employment and planned jobs growth in a wide range of skilled and non skilled occupations.

Both business support the national government agenda to help rebalance the economy through exporting and to compete globally.

Within the context of falling numbers of private sector jobs in the Borough and threats to public sectors employment, the expansion of these businesses is important to the welling being of local economy.

Waterside Park represents a �50m investment in the local economy, and will create hundreds of construction jobs and further jobs indirectly raising the profile of Maidstone as a business location.�

3.21� MBC Landscape Officer: Objects to the application. Originally provided comments were as follows:

�Comments:

Land and waterbodies immediately to the east and south of the site are designated as part of the River Len Mill Pond and Carr Local Wildlife Site.� The woodland to the east is designated as ancient and semi natural woodland Ancient Woodland and there is another area of ancient and semi natural southwest of the site. In addition, the SLA lies to the north of the site and there is a Protected roadside verge on the northern boundary.

In terms of landscape character, the site is located within detailed area 49-3, Ashbank Fields, of the Maidstone LCA 2012 (amended 2013).� This falls within the broader Valleys landscape type.� The relevant guidelines and summary of actions are set out below:

Valleys: generic guidelines

- Encourage good water quality and flow through the promotion of sensitive management and avoiding further intensive arable farming

- Enhance rivers and associated tributaries, ditch and pond networks by promoting a 30m natural corridor along the length of a watercourse and large water bodies (extending 15m away from either side of the watercourse). For smaller streams, ditches and ponds the natural corridor should be 20m (extending 10m landward from each water margin)

- Conserve the unfenced interface between the land and river

- Increase habitat connectivity by promoting vegetation links between key wildlife sites, including alongside sections of railway line

- Conserve the rural skyline in views out of valleys

Leeds Castle Parklands (49): Summary of actions

- Conserve the remote qualities of the Len Valley and its setting, and strengthen

vegetation along the River Len and adjoining ditches to improve habitat� connectivity

- Conserve and restore tree cover, which helps to screen views of major infrastructure routes

Ashbank Fields (49-3):

Key Characteristics

- Open views across arable fields and pasture

- Streams and ditches

- Lines of riparian woodland along streams

- Field boundaries marked by contours and watercourses

Summary of actions

- Restore and improve the rural setting to the Kent Downs AONB north of the M20 by avoiding expansion of development

- Improve the integration of infrastructure through native planting where practicable

The landscape and visual impact of the development is a key consideration, particularly with regards to the extent of excavation required to create a level development platform, views of the site from the AONB and the role of the site in providing a setting to the AONB.

The views from the AONB will be considered in more detail by the Kent Downs AONB Unit and to the south there are views from PROWs and Old Mill Road.� The adjacent hotel is the sole urbanising feature with some lighting visible at A20/M20 roundabout.� The slope of the land is prominent from short views heading east along the A20.

Chapter 13 of the applicant�s environmental statement, landscape and visual impact, produced by DHA is generally acceptable in principle but it cannot be considered as a detailed LVIA in accordance with GLVIA3 in that the application does not consider the appearance and layout and scale of buildings at this stage.� I would add, though, that the inference at paragraph 13.4.20 is unable to be justified and also suggest that the degree of landscape change has been downplayed.� In addition, it should be noted that many of the cross references to section 12 are incorrect.

The Report on Tree Inspections produced by Broad Oak Tree Consultants Limited is considered acceptable in principle subject to clarification on paragraph 6.9.4. There is no evidence to support the view that Ash trees should be downgraded because of Ash Dieback.� It is expected that some trees will be more resistant to the disease and could therefore have a safe useful life expectancy in excess of 40 years.� Therefore the categorisation given to Ash trees within the report is not necessarily acceptable.� Likewise, the comment in bullet point 9, paragraph 13.5.5 of DHA�s report relating to landscape and visual impact is not acceptable in the context of replacing Ash trees within the adjoining woodland as a management operation.

There are clearly significant level changes proposed in close proximity to the edge of the Ancient Woodland.� Whilst bullet point 1, paragraph 13.5.5 of DHA�s report states that most of the existing vegetation around the site would be unaffected by the proposed development (including all the woodland around the southern and eastern boundaries of the site) and bullet point 3 suggests a buffer zone of at least 15m would be adhered to, the site sections suggest otherwise.� In order to ascertain the extent of any adverse impact on individual trees more detail is required on the root protection areas (RPAs) of trees closest to the ground level changes.� I would, therefore, want to see a site layout plan with the RPAs clearly marked and a proper arboricultural impact assessment (AIA) in accordance with BS5837:2012.� Particular reference should be made to BS5837 in terms of section 7, demolition and construction in proximity to existing trees, and section 8.2, drainage.

In terms of proposed landscaping I would need to see evidence to demonstrate that the soil structure and angle of slope is appropriate to support the establishment, maintenance and long term management of new landscaping and that the slope stability is such that it avoids the silting up of the adjacent watercourses.��

In conclusion, there is a lack of information to demonstrate that individual trees/woodland will not be harmed in the long term and that the proposal accords with the Council�s approved� LCA and emerging Local Plan policies DM9 and SP5.� I therefore raise an objection accordingly.��

3.21.1�� Further comments were made on 20 January 2014 following consideration of the additional information that has been supplied by the applicants.

�� Comments:

I have assessed the revised details in relation to RPAs and site sections.� Whilst the RPAs appear to be appropriate at a generic level I am very disappointed that , considering the size of the site and the value of the adjacent designated Ancient Woodland, the extent the area identified as requiring root protection is limited to the minimum British Standard recommendation.� The actual rooting zones haven�t been considered, which will extend considerably further than the RPAs, and neither have the potential hydrological impacts of waterlogging or seasonal drying out. Bunding and level changes within the 15m buffer zone for the Ancient Woodland are still shown on the Site Banking Change drawing (13026/TP/004), contrary to Natural England Standing Advice; appendix 4 of which details the adverse impacts of the effects of development on adjacent land.� The fact that this area of land to the east of the site shows no indication of having been disturbed since the 1870 maps is also likely to add weight to its value as a buffer zone.

The proposed bunds are marked as either a 1 in 2 or a 1in 3 slope.� Chapter 11 of the applicant�s Environmental Statement (Ground Conditions), paragraphs 11.4.16 to 11.4.19 confirm that Folkestone Beds sand can generally be expected to remain stable when cut at profiles no steeper than 1 in 3 during construction without the need for support but some very localised groundwater control measures may be required.� However, the bund slopes on the east side, at a 1 in 2 slope, may require local groundwater control measures and possibly some local slope support measures in the area.� There are no details as to how the level changes will be phased or achieved.� This is contrary to the Council�s Landscape Character Assessment Supplement 2012, General Landscape Guidance, 8, Earthworks.� This is very clear in its assertion that screening should be achieved as far as possible without bunding and that relaxed profiles (approx. 1 in 5) are preferred, with slopes normally no steeper than 1 in 3.� The steeper the slope the more alien it appears within the landscape and the more resource intensive it is to construct and maintain.

In conclusion, an arboricultural impact assessment (AIA) in accordance with BS5837:2012, with particular reference to section 7, demolition and construction in proximity to existing trees, and section 8.2, drainage has not yet been provided.� Neither has any evidence been submitted to demonstrate that the soil structure and angle of slope is appropriate to support the establishment, maintenance and long term management of new landscaping and that the slope construction and profile is such that it is stable and sustainable.��

3.22� MBC Conservation Officer: Objects to the application.

�The site occupies a prominent ridge-top location where the land falls away steeply from the western boundary towards the east. Considerable re-shaping of the landscape is proposed in order to create large, level platforms for development with large industrial and warehousing units together with substantial areas of car parking and ancillary facilities.

The site lies directly opposite the Grade II listed Old England Cottage in Ashford Road. Immediately to the south of the site lies the historic farm group formed by Old Mill House and Old Mill Oast, which in my opinion should be considered as non-designated heritage assets. This group lies adjacent to a large millpond which formerly served a watermill which existed until the 19^th or early 20^th Century and of which some archaeological remains survive. This millpond and mill site should also be considered as non-designated heritage assets in my view.

Other heritage assets lying further afield may also potentially be affected by this development � these include Leeds Castle and its registered historic parkland; Leeds Conservation Area; the group of listed buildings around Brogden Farmhouse, Leeds; and Woodcut Farmhouse, Hollingbourne.

Old England Cottage has its setting already compromised by its position adjacent to the A20/M20 junction � the dual carriageway road lies very close to the front of the building and is constructed at a significantly higher level than the cottage. The fact that the setting of this listed building is already badly affected does not mean that further impacts can be discounted � English Heritage has produced guidance on the setting of heritage assets and in Section 2.4 of this document it states:-

�Where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development affecting its setting...consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from...the significance of the asset.�

However, I am in agreement with the assessment of the Environmental Statement that the impact on the setting will be slight, given the intervening dual carriageway road, the topography and screening.

Old Mill House and Old Mill Oast, together with the millpond, lie close to the River Len, which at this point is deeply incised into a narrow valley. This gives these heritage assets a very secluded, almost secret, location in an attractive landscape, all the more valuable and surprising given its close proximity to the A20/M20 junction. This feeling of isolation is an important component of their setting. In my view the development as proposed is likely to severely compromise this seclusion by its sheer presence and activity associated with it. The large buildings may be visible from the millpond. In medium-distance views there is also likely to be a detrimental impact � for example, from further south along Old Mill Road, there is an attractive view of the kilns associated with Old Mill Oast with the backdrop of the escarpment of the North Downs; the new development would be placed immediately behind the oast kilns, thus compromising this view and adversely affecting the setting of the non-designated heritage asset. Further south, at the junction of Old Mill Lane and Forge Lane, lies another concentration of heritage assets � the listed Brogden Farmhouse, Brogden Farm Cottages and Brogden Barn together with the converted Brogden Farm Oast which should be considered as a non-designated heritage asset. This very attractive and complete historic group is considered in the Environmental Statement which notes that the attractive views towards the North Downs, which include the proposed development site, contribute to the significance of these heritage assets and accepts that the development would have a moderate adverse impact on their setting.

The proposals would not be visible from Leeds Castle itself, but from one point in the Registered Historic Park would be seen beyond the castle. The Environmental Statement gives this fact little weight, on the basis that the view is only available to a relatively low number of golfers. In my view, notwithstanding this, it is the impact on the integrity of the historic parkland which is the relevant consideration; this view is one of the finest views of the castle in its setting and deserves to be protected.

There would be glimpses of the development from a couple of locations within Leeds Conservation Area, but it is accepted that the impact will be slight. Similarly, although the edge of the site is visible from Woodcut Farmhouse, the topography and the �cutting-in� of the development into the existing landform mean that it is unlikely to have any significant impact on the setting of this listed building.�

3.22.1 The Conservation Officer has no further comments having considered the additional information submitted by the applicants.

��

3.23� MBC Environmental Health: Raise no objections to the development subject to a number of suggested conditions and also informatives governing conduct and hours of operation during construction.�

��

�Air Quality:

The air quality assessment generally conforms to current guidelines and best practice and the comments made by this department on the scoping report under MA/13/0050 have been taken into account.

The recommended (in section 12 of the Environmental Statement) mitigation for the operational phase of the development relies on the measures proposed in the transport assessment section 8.6.4. These proposals are supported. However, as the proposals are necessarily vague and strategic we would like the transport framework and travel plans to ensure emission reduction is addressed and not just trip generation. For example, we would like to see Electric Vehicle charging points installed or the enabling cabling to be installed in the least.

We would recommend that contained within any travel plan the emissions related to buildings and transport are directly evaluated either quantitatively or qualitatively to ensure the target is not just about trip reduction as ultimately the goal is not trip reduction but emission reduction, for which reducing trips plays a significant role.

In order to achieve this we are proposing an emission reduction condition which could be fulfilled within the travel plan component of the decision notice.

In terms of the construction phase emission we recommend that the construction phase mitigation proposed in section 12.6 is fully implemented.

Contaminated Land:

There is no indication from the latest British Geological Survey maps of any significant probability of elevated radon concentrations. But the historical use of the site for agricultural purposes and the position of an historic landfill site within part of the northern corner of the site plus immediately adjacent to it; called The Caves, ref EAHLD19602, indicates that a contaminated land condition should be applied to any planning permission granted.

Our records suggest that landfill site was licensed for inert builders and demolition waste until April 1994; and so is unlikely to produce landfill gas, but should be included in the proposed site investigation (Section 11.6.13).

The ground condition report is a comprehensive desk study and from the information presented we agree with the key issues regarding groundwater and land contamination have been identified.

We therefore support the mitigation recommendations to carry out a site investigation in order to manage the potential risks going forward (Section 11.6.13, 11.6.29, 11.6.30, 11.6.32) and suggest this is brought together in one report and submitted to satisfy the proposed contaminated land condition.

Groundwater:

We note that the Environmental Statement, ref JB/9628, states in section 10.3.2:

An approach has been made to the EA regarding the groundwater conditions on the site and the Zone III Source Protection Zone. The EA have responded and have asked for the following to be taken into account in the design of the proposed drainage system.

(1) As there is not 10m between the proposed infiltration drainage we will need to demonstrate that we have put in the required protection measures in the

drainage system to protect the aquifer from contamination.

(2) There is to be no infiltration drainage within 50m of the existing landfill site.�

In addition we note that section 10.6.1 states:

�Without mitigation, there would be a potential risk of contamination from the impermeable surfaces of the proposed site due to accidental spillages of contaminants reaching the ground water and aquifer. The proposed drainage system will be designed with protection from these events which will include natural techniques such as permeable paving swales and wetlands and in areas of high risk such as service yards the use of class 1 interceptors. With these measures in place the predicted impact will be negligible. The construction of swales, ponds and wetland on the site will provide a natural habitat and will be a benefit to the environment.�

Such mitigation is particularly important to protect nearby Private Water Supplies such as that used at Leeds Castle and should definitely be referred to the Environment Agency for them to approve. We therefore support the proposed mitigation of designing an appropriate drainage system and recommend a drainage condition to cover this aspect of the development.

This overlaps with the sections on surface water flooding and the EA may have proposed a suitable condition to cover this aspect from an EH perspective.

Foul Drainage:

We note that the application form states that foul sewage will be dealt with via a cesspit. Our records show that mains drainage lies immediately adjacent to the site beneath the A20 and we can find no relevant cesspits indicated on the maps/plans supplied with this application. Therefore, further information on this matter needs to be required to ensure the appropriate drainage for this development is implemented.

Recommendations:

No objections subject to the comments above.

3.23.1 The suggested conditions relate to the submission for approval of foul and surface water drainage details, light spillage, contamination and air quality emissions reduction strategy.

�

4.�� REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Helen Grant MP has written in support of the proposals stating that everything should be done to keep the ADL and Scarab within the Borough of Maidstone. They employ 450 people and is likely to grow to 600 over the next few years, their existing location is restricting their growth. Being foreign owned they could relocate to Europe. The economic and employment benefits to the Borough are substantial with multi-work disciplines including engineering which is desperately needed.

4.2�� County Councillor Jenny Whittle objects to the proposals on the following (summarised) grounds:

� The Council and KCC in conjunction with Stop KIG and local residents and Joint Parishes Group spent considerable time and money defeating the Kent International Gateway application. This application rides roughshod over the commitments given to local residents to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and the findings of the Inspector for the KIG appeal.

� An industrial estate in the shadow of Leeds Castle one of the country�s leading visitor attractions certainly constitutes inappropriate development.

� There will be an unacceptable increase in traffic movements supply chain lorries despite assurances to the contrary given in the application are likely to use roads and country lanes that are not able to accommodate such traffic.

� The businesses that are relocating are existing in the Borough, so how would the development achieve employment growth.

� The 400 jobs would create significant traffic growth in the area and have an adverse impact on M20 junction 8.

� There are other sites in the Borough whether there are unutilised planning permissions and/or space for B1 B2 and B8 employment space, so there is little to justify development of junction 8 for these purposes��

4.3�� Mid Kent Chamber of Commerce: Support the proposals on the following (summarised) grounds:

� There is a pressing need for the two companies to relocate from their existing premises, due to inefficiencies of multi-building operations and the inability to expand further.

� As far as the Chamber is aware there are not other sites in Maidstone that can accommodate the companies� specific needs.

� There is a current lack of allocated employment land in the Borough that should not frustrate the companies� future growth potential.

� Both companies are substantial and key employers within the Borough.

� If permission is not granted it will breach two fundamental planning principles:

� Need to maintain a growing economy:

� Maidstone is a growth point in the Region and the absence of appropriate employment land iN the right location close to the national highways infrastructure will affect not only the two companies involved, but also potentially frustrate the growth aspirations of other companies in the Borough.

� Need to grow the range as well as the number of employment opportunities.

There is an on-going need to expand and diversify the employment opportunities within the Borough. Not making land available will frustrate the growth aspirations of Maidstone by damaging the potential growth in employment opportunities.

� The Chamber is satisfied that the growth needs of ADL and Scarab are now urgent and that appropriate consent on land at junction 8 is an overriding necessity.

� The application is considered to be well thought-out in environmental terms and is acceptable.

� The Chamber understands that there is no overriding objection from the Highways Agency to this proposal which would also fund enhanced road access between Junction 8 and Leeds Castle.

4.4�� UK Trade & Investment Dept: (Planning & Infrastructure Consent Specialist)�

�I write in support of the above planning application on the grounds that it conforms with the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The role of UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) as the Government department that assists overseas companies to bring their high quality investment to the UK, as well as helping UK based companies succeed in the global economy, relates directly to this pro-growth presumption, which supports national economic growth to meet global competition and provide jobs and prosperity. Through UKTI, Government places significant importance on attracting, developing and retaining, mobile overseas inward investment to create jobs and wider economic development, including exporting into overseas markets as emphasised in the �Plan for Growth�, published at Budget 2011.

My interest in this application relates to Scarab Sweepers and Automotive Distributors (ADL), two important overseas owned companies relationship managed by UKTI. Additional investment from both companies is extremely important for the national economic recovery and both businesses support the national government agenda to help rebalance the economy through exporting. Their expansion will also undoubtedly provide local economic benefits including jobs and investment and help to open-up a new strategic employment site for Maidstone.

ADL and Scarab Sweepers are both based at Marden and need to relocate to enable their growth and to become more competitive. ADL�s need to secure a new site is pressing as leases on some of their current buildings end in January 2017, with no scope for extending them. Currently both companies occupy several buildings, which are poorly related to each other operationally and result in inefficiencies such as double handling incurring avoidable costs. Expansion in Marden is non-preferred due to the constraints of the industrial estate but also because it is some distance from the motorway network (around 20 minutes or more depending on traffic) which results in lorries using rural roads and additional costs in time and fuel.

ADL is owned by German company Febi Bilstein and Scarab has recently become part of the French Fayat Group. ADL is a supplier of automotive vehicle parts for Japanese, Korean and American vehicle brands and currently employs 236 staff in the UK. ADL expects that by 2016 exports will represent 70% of its revenues. They expect to employ an additional 120 people by 2023 if their expansion plans are not constrained. Scarab is the world�s largest manufacturer of single engine street sweepers and currently employs 220 staff in the UK. Scarab has recently achieved sales growth of around 25% and further expansion could add up to 50 staff over the next 3 years.

Most of these employees are Maidstone residents and through their combined wages (�13m) buy goods and services which benefit the local economy further. Both companies are using technology and innovation to grow their businesses to safeguard and create local jobs. A range of job opportunities at different skill and wage levels will be created by the expansion of these two companies.

At ADL in addition to distribution centre jobs, 60% will be office based or in Quality Control. Distribution centre roles require a general skill level and therefore are accessible to a wide range of people, including those with limited experience. ADL has recently announced an apprenticeship scheme with vacancies in logistics, supply chain, product development and quality control. Greater investment in technology will require IT skills and up-skilling employees in technological changes in the automotive industry. A 3000 sq ft training facility is planned on site which will be used to deliver world-class training courses to both Bilstein group employees and automotive technicians alike from across the globe on such highly technical topics as emissions sensing and high speed CAN and LIN networks used on all modern vehicles.

Scarab has a wide variety of manufacturing, engineering and office-based roles. Positions require varying skill levels and employees receive excellent training. Manufacturing roles include welders, assembly fitters, painters and inspectors. Office roles are in the areas of sales, administration, IT as well as the in-house design team, which includes highly-skilled Design Engineers. Scarab finds it very difficult to source staff with these wide range of skills and has a desire to introduce a formal training scheme and are keen to work with local Education providers to influence course content in their fields.

Both companies have undertaken extensive site searches including analysis of labour costs, land and property costs, supply chain, and distance travelled to work by staff to find the optimum location. The preferred location for both is the subject of this planning application. In the absence of any other existing industrial estates in Maidstone capable of accommodating the needs of these local businesses, ADL and Scarab have stated that Waterside Park will offer the following advantages:

� A larger facility to allow future growth;

� A reduction in occupation costs;

� Economies of scale from operating in a larger facility;

� Improvements in operational efficiency;

� Retention of staff members;

� A prestigious location for their headquarters;

� Fewer truck movements; and,

� Better access for trucks to major sea ports.

The potential economic benefits of allowing both companies to grow at their preferred location is clearly set out above. However, there are also several environmental and community benefits including:

� Fewer HGV movements on local roads resulting in less congestion, pollution, noise and safety concerns.

� Opportunity to run the businesses in a more environmentally friendly manner from modern premises.

� Landscape, design and bunding to mitigate landscape and visual impact.

� Conservation of the adjacent Local Wildlife Site.

� Sustainable design and construction features to attain a BREEAM �Very Good� rating.

� No significant impacts arising with regard to noise, vibration or air quality.

� Sustainable travel initiatives delivered via a Framework Travel Plan.

� Ecological mitigation to deliver biodiversity benefits through new planting.

� Drainage to replicate greenfield run-off rates and preserve the water quality and hydrogeology.

After careful consideration, it is clear that this application has significant benefits for the economy, plus the environment and community, which all together amount to sustainable development justifying approval and I strongly encourage the granting of planning permission for the development of these important overseas investors.�

4.5�� CPRE Protect Kent: Object to the proposals on the following (summarised) grounds.

� They continue to regard this application as failing to properly describe the proposed use of the site by failing to refer to mineral extraction.

� It is clear that any potential use of the site for industrial use is several years away, and that this part of the application should be regarded as premature.� The duration of the minerals extraction period is dependent on the permitted hours of working and the availability of a market for the sand extracted. The application is for 7 day working, 24 hours a day. As the site is adjacent to a major hotel this must be completely unacceptable and sensible conditions applied, consequently extending the duration of the extraction.

� This site is a field in the open countryside and is some distance from the defined Maidstone urban area.� It is not allocated for development in the 2000 Local Plan, and although it was included as an option for development in the strategic sites consultation for the emerging new Local Plan, development at J8 was overwhelmingly rejected by those responding.� It was not subsequently included in the Interim Plan agreed by the Council�s Cabinet in March 2013.

� At the same meeting it was acknowledged in the officers report that more recent employment forecasts show a reduced need for warehouse development and for employment land overall, and that further work was being undertaken to identify potential employment sites.� It was further acknowledged that there is a stock of industrial and warehousing land in nearby authorities in particular in Swale, Medway and Ashford which is currently available to meet market needs.� The need for the development is, therefore, highly questionable, and the acceptance of this site now would be prejudicial to the Local Plan process.

� The site is and has always been in agricultural use, and it is best and most versatile land.� It also adjoins a designated Special Landscape Area (SLA) and is in close proximity to the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).� Consequently, it is a rural and environmentally sensitive site, where industrial development of this scale and nature would be incongruous and alien in the landscape.� Indeed, in including it as an option for development in the strategic sites consultation the Council did so despite recognising that it was an unsustainable location for development.

� As a Core Planning Principle, the NPPF requires development to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, which this development fails to do.� The NPPF (paragraph 112) also requires development proposals to take account of the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, which again the application fails to do.��

� One of Maidstone�s principal attractions is its countryside setting, especially the approach to the town from M20 J8, which runs mainly alongside the edge of the AONB and in the SLA. Should this application be approved it would create a precedent, initially for the other two sites already being put forward nearby, which would be difficult to resist. This would open up the whole area in towards Bearsted, a distance of about a kilometre. However much MBC wish to control this spread it would be likely to be approved on appeal.

� The application proposes the removal from site of 740,500 tonnes of minerals. This would result in some 75,000 lorry movements. The NPPF paragraph 32 states �All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment�.� Although the Environmental Statement chapter 8 appears to include this it is wholly and totally inadequate. It considers, very superficially, only the immediate roundabouts and junctions close to the site. It does not mention or consider where the traffic might be going, and the effects on the wider road network and the destination points.� It clearly is not sufficient for the determination of the planning application by MBC, and must require a comprehensive analysis and report by KCC as the highways authority. We have no knowledge of this being done.

� The NPPF has introduced economic considerations in to planning. Two companies are parties to the application, both based in Marden. They are both growing, although we suspect �optimism bias� in their projections. This growth is surely dependent on their markets, not buildings, but they state that working from multiple buildings is inefficient. This means that moving to a single site should allow them to reduce staff numbers, whatever those numbers may be at the time (several years hence), rather than add to them. Additionally a site at M20 J8 will allow recruitment from all over Kent and even beyond, further reducing any benefits to Maidstone compared to the Marden sites.

� Furthermore both companies have recently been taken over by European groups. Because the large majority of their output is exported to the continent it must be considered very likely that they will �do a Pfizer� and transfer their operations to the other side of the Channel (Scarab Sweepers are already rumoured to be in this position). Any economic benefits to Maidstone are unlikely to be achieved.

� We believe it extremely important that this application should be refused. The whole issue of development at M20 J8 should not be determined in this ad hoc way.� The future employment growth of the Borough, and where that growth should occur, are matters that must be tested through the plan making process which allows for public consultation and independent examination.

4.6�� Leeds Castle Foundation: Consultants acting on behalf of the organisation have objected to the proposals on the following (summarised) grounds:

� The current application is clearly contrary to the existing development plan, Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000, as the land is not allocated for employment purposes. Whilst the Council has given consideration for development around Junction 8, this only formed part of the early public consultation exercise in 2012. The Council is now in the process of updating the evidence base for the new Local Plan.

� Development of the scale and nature proposed as part of this planning application would have a significant and strategic impact on the nature of growth and development within the Borough.

� Development of this scale must be considered premature prior to a thorough assessment of all the potential employment sites within the Borough. This should form part of the new Local Plan process and be subject to full public scrutiny.

� The impact that would occur on Leeds Castle and its associated garden and parkland that are recognised heritage assets as a result of the development. This relates to the physical impact as well as the potential impact on the Castle as a result of increased traffic, both for visitors from around the world and other event-related customers.

� The nature of the uses proposed and the physical impact and perception on the heritage assets in the immediate area.

� The impact of additional traffic on the local road network.

� The disruption that would be caused during construction and how this would impact on people considering visiting or staying at the Castle.

� The potential loss of income directly to the charity that is charged with the Castle�s preservation, and the knock-on impact to surrounding business that also rely on tourism. The castle�s local economic impact is assessed at being over �50m a year, which is jeopardised by this construction.

� The submission of the application prior to the thorough analysis of all the potential employment sites across the Borough is prejudicial to the future allocation of employment land in the new Local Plan.

� The lack of substantive evidence to demonstrate that the development proposed is required and in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

� Is the mix of development proposed required? Is the amount required? Should it be in this is location?

� Dust, noise and disturbance that would result from construction activities.

� The application is justified by the applicant in landscape terms, on the basis of mitigation but there is no landscape argument that can support the introduction a large industrial estate in the open countryside. The applicant has attempted to support their case by stating the need for this type of employment facility within the Borough and that it is essential for two existing companies. The evidence within the response from Kent County Council, (KCC), however clearly demonstrates that there is not the need for a new employment site at this location and there are alternatives within the Borough far more suitable for this type of development. In addition, the KCC response continues that there is vacant land within Maidstone and surrounding districts that would be more suitable and in sustainable locations than the current proposal.

� Concerns have already been raised about the suitability of any additional traffic on the B2163 and if this proposal goes ahead, it is inevitable that this route will end up a local cross country feeder for the industrial estate. The B2163 was only ever intended as a rural road due to its limited width and character. With the structural problems that have now been identified with this road, it is essential that the Council seriously considers the situation regarding a relief road for the Village. The proposed development is of strategic significance and should therefore fund to a relief road for the Village if it goes ahead.

� We therefore hope the Council will not only consider that this significant proposal is premature in advance of the Local Plan, but there is existing employment land in the area and surrounding districts that could be used for employment purposes. Significant harm would be caused to the area and this is not out-weighed by the evidence forming part of the application. The Council is therefore requested to refuse the application that is clearly contrary to the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.7�� Thirty representations from individuals have also been received. All raise objections to the proposals on the following (summarised) grounds:-�

� The area in question is and has been for many, many, years fertile agricultural land, the government supported by local authorities should be resisting the concreting over of such land and positively encourage the farming of it to enable crops for home consumption rather than the incessant drive to import them, this only drives up prices up and increases air pollution.

� The development would result in the loss of good quality Grade 2 agricultural land.

� The proposal will without question increase the traffic volume in and around the surrounding area, the two companies vying for occupation are presently based at Marden so once the new proposed warehouses are occupied the traffic through Leeds village on the B2163, already well in excess for the design of a B road, will increase resulting in yet more congestion, heightening of accident risk and increase of pollution which already must be around the maximum as laid down by the European Union.

� The amount of preparation works needed just to get to base build is enormous and will involve large plant and removal lorries imposing noise, dust and congestion in and around the site location for months, not to mention the high risk of contaminates entering the lake which forms part of the River Len at the Old Mill end of the proposed site.

� Any development in or around Junction 8 will impose an eyesore on the approach to Leeds Castle one if not the best medieval buildings and surroundings in the UK let alone Kent, surely the jewel in the crown for Maidstone and the KCC when it comes to tourist attractions, we understand the Castle generates over �20M per year. It�s in the County�s best interests to keep this area looking as picturesque as it is at present and not subject it to yet more traffic and bland looking warehouses.

� This development, if approved, will again without doubt set a precedent for other proposals in the surrounding area. There is, it is understood, already an application for thousands of solar panels in the field parallel to the M20 adjacent to J8 with yet more agricultural land being threatened, not to mention the eyesore from the North Downs with these and massive warehouses appearing

� Why new industrial buildings when there is acres of unused space going begging in Parkwood. Local officers should take a walk or drive in there and see for themselves before signing away yet more valuable green space.

� The position and appearance of the proposed development is totally inappropriate for the area. Although much is made of screening the site from the A20 and surrounding area the site is clearly visible from nearby properties� front gates, back garden and bedroom window.

� It is also visible from the entrance to Leeds Castle and The Great Danes Hotel. No amount of new bunds and batters will disguise the fact that this is a large industrial factory placed in the heart of the Kent countryside, on the very edge of the North Downs.

� The area is very popular with tourists both local and countrywide and international.

� The area is popular for walkers and cyclists and it s character would be ruined by the development.

� If development is allowed, the impact will be similar to that of the industrial development around Aylesford, which has harmed its character and tourist potential.��

� The beautiful nature that we have in the area is being used as a justification to destroy it and render it inaccessible to both local residents and tourist alike.

� Building an automotive factory directly adjacent to these streams, ponds and woodlands, which will be reduced to a mere barrier to further development seems beyond parody. The screening, batters & bunds proposed will at best, leave us with a wall of ugly uniform conifers and man-made earthworks and at worst, with a thinly disguised area of industrial sheds and giant boxes.

� Unacceptable number of lorry movements to remove the sand over a two-year period.

� Being without tree cover, the site is clearly visible all year round from a wide area.

� There is no guarantee that the two named firms will in fact take-up occupancy. And if they do relocate abroad or elsewhere, a sizeable area of countryside would have been destroyed to no avail.

� The identification of sufficient land to satisfy the employment needs of the Borough, commensurate with new housing provision, is a key issue for the Borough Council�s Core Strategy/Local Plan to resolve. Furthermore, it is clear that the quantum of employment land sought for allocation for employment purposes is, in the context of this Plan, strategic in nature.

� Also, the size of the application site and the suggested quantum of development floorspace, again, is clearly of strategic value. It follows therefore that in the context of this Plan, to grant planning permission for employment development on this site would pre-empt the selection of alternative sites via the Plan making process.

� The Council�s current emerging Plan has not yet progressed to a stage where any particular weight can be given to its policies. As far as the application site is concerned, the site and its general location has been the subject of significant and, as yet, unresolved objections and therefore any (even limited) recognition given to the site (or location) by the emerging Plan is of no weight in this determining process. Consequently, to grant planning permission on the application site would be premature to the formal processes of the Plan and would pre-empt and prejudice the consideration of reasonable alternative development proposals that, in due course, would be tested for soundness at an Examination In Public. Thereby, the grant of planning permission now would be premature and prejudicial to the completion of the formal Local Plan process. It is not the role of the Local Plan Examination In Public to judge the relative merits of reasonable alternative development proposals, ie to take decisions on behalf of the Council. Site selection is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority and the Council cannot abrogate that duty to the Examination In Public. The function of the Examination In Public is to assess the soundness of the Plan, including whether reasonable alternatives have been considered. The Council must therefore allow that consideration to take place. Consequently, at present, and in current circumstances, the Council has no alternative but to follow the advice in NPPF and to refuse planning permission.

� The Council should first undertake a review of existing employment sites such as Detling Airfield which has good road connections and has been developed since WWII and develop these in preference.

5.�� CONSIDERATIONS

5.1�� Site Description

5.1.1� The application site is located to the south side of the A20 immediately to the south of the roundabout which provides the link from the A20 to M20 Junction 8. It lies within Hollingbourne Parish but is bounded to the south and east by Leeds Parish.

5.1.2� In terms of its general location, the site lies within the foreground to the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the escarpment of the North Downs. The site is situated immediately north of the valley of the River Len. It is currently a sloping hillside falling generally west to east and towards its south-eastern corner and the aforementioned Len Valley.�

5.1.3 To the east the application site is bounded by a stream, ancient woodland and a pond. Beyond this boundary is situated the Mecure Great Danes Hotel and its grounds. On the north side of the A20, opposite the site, is Old England Cottage. This is a Grade II Listed former public house now in use as a dwelling and which is enclosed by a recently erected close-boarded fence.�

5.1.4� To the south of the site, lies the River Len and a former mill pond. This pond, the River Len and the stream on the eastern boundary are designated as a Local Wildlife Site (LWS). The site�s SW corner is adjoined by two dwellings, a converted oast and a farmhouse. Old Mill Farm buildings (now in commercial use) also lie adjacent to the SW corner.�

5.1.5� The western site boundary is formed by Old Mill Road and to the NW of the site a waste transfer station run by Biffa is located. Old Mill Road is at a significantly lower level than the site.

�

5.1.6� The site amounts to just under 17ha in area. The site rises significantly by up to 20metres to the west and northwest from the south east corner.� The boundaries to the south and east are formed of mature tree cover, with a small unplanted margin around the perimeter of the field. The northern A20 frontage is formed of a planted bund, which reduces in scale as it runs eastwards towards a field gate that provides vehicular access onto the A20.

5.1.7� Public Footpath KH181 runs across the site south west to north east, exiting onto the A20 verge immediately south of the roundabout serving the M20 Junction 8 link road.

5.1.8� The site lies in the countryside outside a defined settlement and is therefore subject to saved policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan (MBWLP) 2000.� A section of the roadside verge along the A20 frontage of the site is designated as a Protected Roadside Verge under saved policy ENV42 of the Borough-wide Local Plan. The main body of the site has no specific designation or allocation in the Borough-wide Local Plan.

5.1.9� Part of the highway verge on the south side of the A20/M20 link roundabout falls within the North Downs Special Landscape Area (saved Borough-wide Local Plan policy ENV34), as does the roundabout itself and the land north of the A20 Ashford Road either side of the roundabout. The southern boundary of the AONB is the Maidstone East-Ashford railway-line and to the west of junction 8, the M20 Motorway.

��

5.2�� Proposals

5.2.1� The application is a hybrid application (part detailed and part outline) and seeks permission for the following.

�Hybrid planning application (part outline-part detailed) for re-grading of site to form development platforms including the creation of new bunds and batters; the development of a new industrial estate comprising up to 56,000m� of B1 office/light industrial, B2 general industrial and B8 storage and distribution uses; ancillary cafe and cr�che facilities; creation of a new access to the A20; new internal access roads; parking, internal drainage, structural landscaping and the diversion of the existing public footpath, with access to be determined and appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for subsequent approval.

Detailed permission is sought for the erection of a new warehouse building (23,533m�) and associated offices (4,145m�) with access, service yard, parking and landscaping.�

The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement as it is considered to be development requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment under Schedule 2 of the 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.

5.2.2� Two potential occupiers of the development are named in the application; ADL and Scarab, both are currently based on the Wheelbarrow Industrial Estate in Pattenden Lane Marden.

5.2.3� The site access would be taken from the existing roundabout on the A20 Ashford Road. A new access arm off the A20 roundabout would be created and the roundabout also improved.

5.2.4� The application proposes the two buildings for ADL and Scarab, Four further units and a central �hub� building for the site.

Unit	Use	Gross External Area (m�)	Detailed/Outline
ADL (Unit 6)	Office	4,145	Detailed
	Warehouse	23,533	Detailed
	Training	282	Outline
	Total ADL	27,960

Scarab (Unit 5)	Office	2,566	Outline
	Manufacturing	15,759	Outline
	Total Scarab	18,325

Unit 1	Office	450	Outline
	Warehouse/manufacturing	2,440	Outline
	Unit-1 Total	2,890

Unit 2	Office	200	Outline
	Warehouse/manufacturing	2,115	Outline
	Unit-2 Total	2,315

Unit 3	Office��	2,170	Outline

Unit 4	Warehouse/manufacturing	1,860	Outline

Hub	Ancillary uses	500	Outline

	TOTAL	56,020

�� The proposed floorspace breaks down as follows:

�� B8 Warehousing (ADL):�� 23,353m� ��

�� B2 Manufacturing (Scarab):�� 15,759m��

�� Speculative Warehousing manufacturing: �� 6,415m�

�� B1 Offices (ADL, Scarab and Speculative):�� 9,531m�

�� Other uses:� �� 782m�

5.2.5� The premises earmarked for ADL form the detailed element of the application. Their premises would be located on the eastern side of the site and would involve some land raising/levelling (in the order of 1.5m-5m) to provide the development platform. The first phase would comprise some 14,864m� in a building some 110m in width and 135m in length under a series of three curved roofs. The building would be 15m to eaves (14m internal clearance at eaves level) and would be a maximum of 17.23m height. Ultimately the submitted plans show the building could be extended to 210m in length, creating an additional floorspace of 8,669m� in a second phase to allow for future expansion.��

5.2.6 The majority of the offices serving the ADL unit would be located to the west side of the building over 3 floors linked to the warehouse building. Some of the offices would be located in the warehouse in a mezzanine at second floor level. In total, the offices would comprise some 4,145m�.��

5.2.7 Car parking for the ADL unit would largely be located to the north of the warehouse building and adjacent to the offices. Some 278 spaces would be provided in this area. A further 72 parking spaces are indicated to be provided towards the southern end of the site adjacent to the proposed training building and the phase two section of the warehouse. Motorcycle and covered cycle parking facilities are also shown on the plan.

5.2.8 The warehouse would be clad externally in profiled metal cladding of contrasting profiles. To quote from the design and access statement submitted with the application:

�The main warehouse is clad at the lower section in vertical profiled cladding which is sub-divided into sections by horizontally clad geometric shapes. The horizontal band leading from the office parapet is treated in a flat panel cladding to add a variety of texture to the materials. The upper section reverts to a vertical profiled cladding but set at a wider interval.�

The three curved roof sections of the warehouse would be clad in three different shades of green coloured cladding and lit by linear translucent panels.

5.2.9 The office building would be brick-clad with tall window elements to each floor, copings and brise-soleil would be coloured to blend with the warehouse elements. The horizontal band mentioned above, leads from the height of the office parapet around the warehouse. The roof of the office building would be a sedum roof.

5.2.10 In addition to the proposed glazing to office elements, there are vertical glazed sections at intervals along the warehouse cladding to aid light and also provide relief to the elevation. The mezzanine offices in the warehouse would be lit by a band of horizontal glazing on the west side of the building at just below eaves level. The east elevation of the warehouse building facing the LWS would be largely imperforate apart from the 4 sections of vertical glazing mentioned above that rise to eaves level and which also incorporate means of escape doors at ground floor level.��

5.2.11 A loading yard is proposed. The building would have 16 loading doors of which eight would be for goods in, and eight for goods out. Dock leveller facilities would be provided to 14 of the doors, and a canopy is proposed over this area. The delivery/loading area is set beyond the office building and screened from the road by landscaping. The building mass screens the yard from the surroundings.

�

5.2.12 The remainder of the site would need to be levelled by lowering levels by up to 12m to form a development platform. The applicants have stated that site investigation shows the material to be removed from the site being predominantly sand, which is a material required on other development sites, for example in South East Kent, where land levels need to be raised to take sites out of the floodplain. The applicant states that they believe that the value achieved by extracting this material will mitigate the cost of the cut and fill exercise making it a viable proposition. It is estimated that these works will generate some 573,683 m³ of material for re-grading and batters. Of this, 188,047 m³ is needed on site to create the development platforms, which leaves a surplus of 435,636 m³.

5.2.13 The proposed development will therefore entail the working of some 1.06 million tonnes of material of which 740,581 tonnes of potential building sand will be surplus to site development requirements. The re-grading to level the development platform is programmed to be undertaken over a 2-3 year period. In terms of site preparation, the priority is to profile the eastern part of the site to enable construction to begin to ensure that ADL could take occupation of the site by January 2017. This programme means that the windfall of material from the site will be spread over the full 2-3 year period. It will also be necessary to divert an existing gas-main that crosses the site. This has been taken into account in the site layout submitted.

5.2.14 The indicated premises for Scarab (Unit 5) would be located to the SW of the ADL site. The Scarab buildings would be some 92m in width and some 134m in length with potential to expand to 170m, with similar ridge and eaves heights to the ADL building. As with the ADL building, this has been designed to be provided in two phases, in order to provide on-site future expansion space. Phase 1 would provide 12,542 m2 of floorspace. The illustrative footprint, layout and scale parameters have been designed to accommodate Scarab�s requirements which include a total of 10 level access loading doors; external storage facilities; and access to the warehouse on three sides in order to allow components to be distributed at different places into the manufacturing process.

5.2.15 Unit 2 would be located to the south of the ADL building, Unit 4 immediately to the north of the Scarab building and Unit 1 located in the SW corner of the site. Between Unit 1 and the Scarab building a decked car park over 3 levels is indicated.� Unit 3 (offices) would be located on the west side of the site access road opposite the ADL site close to the entrance from the A20. The �hub� building would be located to the south of Unit 3.

5.2.16 The application sets scale parameters for the development, including maximum building heights, to provide certainty and to inform subsequent reserved matters proposals. The submitted parameters plan confirms that no building on any part of the site should exceed a height of 69.0m AOD. Taking into account the proposed development platform levels, this means that the maximum building heights would be 16.7m on the western platform and 17.7m on the eastern platform. This will allow a clear internal height of 14m for Unit 6 (the ADL building) and 13m for Unit 5 (Scarab), sufficient to allow semi-automation techniques.

5.2.17 Bunds and landscaping would be provided along the A20 frontage and alongside the eastern and southern boundaries. The western site boundary would be the re-profiled banking formed by the proposed cut in ground levels and the public footpath would be re-routed around the top of this newly created banking emerging onto the A20 at the entrance to the site. Swales are indicated to be provided on the east side of the main access road and the southern side of the spur serving Units 1 and 4 and the decked car park, together with a balancing pond.

��

5.2.18 The applicants have indicated that the ADL building has been designed to achieve a BREEAM Very Good rating and that the remaining buildings on the site would through reserved matters seek to achieve the same level.

�

5.3�� Policy

5.3.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this case comprises the saved policies of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan (MBWLP) 2000.

5.3.2 As indicated earlier the site itself is located in countryside where policy ENV28 applies.

�POLICY ENV28 THE COUNTRYSIDE IS DEFINED AS ALL THOSE PARTS OF THE PLAN AREA NOT WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP. IN THE COUNTRYSIDE PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GIVEN FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH HARMS THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA OR THE AMENITIES OF SURROUNDING OCCUPIERS, AND DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONFINED TO:

(1) THAT WHICH IS REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY; OR

(2) THE WINNING OF MINERALS; OR

(3) OPEN AIR RECREATION AND ANCILLARY BUILDINGS PROVIDING OPERATIONAL USES ONLY; OR

(4) THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC OR INSTITUTIONAL USES FOR WHICH A RURAL LOCATION IS JUSTIFIED; OR

(5) SUCH OTHER EXCEPTIONS AS INDICATED BY POLICIES ELSEWHERE IN THIS PLAN.

PROPOSALS SHOULD INCLUDE MEASURES FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AND CREATION TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO NET LOSS OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES.�

5.3.3 In this case it is clear that the proposed development does not fall into any of the permitted exceptions set out in the policy. The key theme and requirement from Policy ENV28 is that an assessment of whether proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area or the amenities of surrounding occupiers is required. Development that would result in harm should not be permitted. Relevant issues are discussed later in the report.

5.3.4 The site is not within the Kent Downs AONB (MBWLP Policy ENV33) or the North Downs Special Landscape Area (MBWLP Policy ENV34) (apart from the A20 roundabout and a section of adjoining highway verge). Policy ENV33 of the MBWLP 2000 itself is silent on the need to respect the setting of the AONB. However, the Council�s duty to have regard to the purpose of the AONB is enshrined in s85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (AONBs) does apply in considering development proposals situated outside Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty boundaries, but which might have an impact on implementing the statutory purposes of these protected areas. Policy ENV42 seeks to protect identified roadside verges from development that would harm them.�

5.3.5 Policy ENV6 requires development schemes to be appropriately landscaped and Policy ENV49 requires appropriately designed lighting schemes that reduce light spill/pollution and which do not result in harm to amenity.��

5.3.6�� In terms of saved employment policies, the only relevant policy is ED9 which states that permission for use Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) is restricted to sites designated for B2 uses (except for the site which is now known as Eclipse Park) and provided that the use proposed is in support of existing manufacturing or commercial operations and is also well related to the primary road network.��

5.3.7 Policy T13 of the Borough-wide Local Plan seeks to ensure development is provided with appropriate parking levels and policy T23 requires development to provide for necessary highway or public transport improvements if the need is justified by the development.��

��

�� Emerging policy framework: employment position

5.3.8 The area around M20 junction 8 was as far back as the draft core strategy consultation document in 2007 identified as a potential area of search for employment sites.

5.3.9 The draft Core Strategy (2012) published for public consultation in September 2011 identified Junction 8 of M20 as a strategic location for employment. At that time, based on the scale of employment land requirements (Employment Land Review Partial Update (2011)) it was considered that land at Junction 8 would be required in addition to a dispersed pattern of smaller sites to accommodate industrial and warehousing floorspace.

5.3.10 In July 2012 Cabinet considered the main issues raised in the public consultation on the Core Strategy. There was some support from the public and the development industry for the identification of junction 8 of the M20 motorway as an employment location along with suggestions that this location could accommodate housing or mixed use development for housing and employment. There was a high level of opposition to development at junction 8 from local residents, who objected on the grounds of the KIG appeal decision, the impact on the landscape, the loss of Special Landscape Area protection, increased traffic congestion, and the provision of low skilled jobs in this location. Alternative employment sites were proposed by respondents (but not the landowners) at Detling Airfield Estate, Park Wood and Hermitage Lane.

5.3.11�� In the Cabinet report Junction 8 was judged to be the best location for a critical mass of employment uses, including premier office development, industry and warehouse uses, providing for a qualitative scheme in a parkland setting to help mitigate the impact of development on the landscape. Junction 8 has transport capacity.

5.3.12 Cabinet resolved to 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 (as set out in the Economic Development Strategy 2008) pending further consultation as part of the Strategic Sites consultation, to enable a more informed decision to be made on the allocation of strategic site(s) at this location.

5.3.13� In March 2013 the outcomes of the strategic sites public consultation were reported to Cabinet. The issues raised in connection with Junction 8 were wide ranging and, to a large extent, focused on public opposition to the principle of development in this location. The main issues raised included the questioning of the need for the development, the availability of alternative sites within and outside the borough, impact on the AONB,� impact on the highway network, the loss of countryside, the sustainability (or otherwise) of the location, precedent and concerns over the quality of jobs which would be generated.�

5.3.14�� In the same report Cabinet was presented with an update of the borough�s employment land demand (based on delivering a 14,800 dwelling target up to 2031). The updated evidence pointed to a more modest requirement for employment land overall than previously, with a particular emphasis on office uses. Based on this updated evidence, the justification to release employment land at Junction 8 became less clear cut than previously.

5.3.15 Cabinet took the decision to retain junction 8 as a strategic development location for employment until such time as the work identifying employment land demand and supply was completed.

5.3.16� On 5 February 2014 the proposed consultation draft of the Maidstone Local Plan (Regulation 18) was published. This no longer seeks to allocate any land in the vicinity of Junction 8 of the M20 motorway for employment land.

5.3.17�� As reported to Cabinet on 27 January 2014, a further employment land forecast has been undertaken to cover the plan period (2011-31).

5.3.18�� The total floorspace demand figure for the whole Local Plan period is shown in the first line of the table below. Whilst the greatest amount of floorspace will be needed for distribution/warehousing uses, these are land hungry uses. Office based development will actually be far more significant in terms of the number of the new jobs generated.

2011-2031	Offices	Industrial	Warehousing	TOTAL
Total floorspace requirement (m²)	39,830	20,290	49,911	110,030
Jobs	3,053	226	453	3,733
% B class jobs	82%	6%	12%	100%

Table: Total floorspace requirements and jobs (excluding KIMS/Medical

Campus)

5.3.19�� This requirement is for the full 20 year period of the Local Plan. The net requirement to be addressed in the Local Plan results when supply factors are deducted:

5.3.20�� The net floorspace/land forecast is set out in the bottom row of the table below. This requirement is additional to the land already identified and granted permission for the KIMS/Maidstone medical Campus proposals.

2011-2031	Offices	Industrial	Warehousing
Total floorspace requirement (m²)	39,830	20,290	49,911
Supply (m²)	24,247 (Includes CIA adjustments at Eclipse Park)	16,595	39,964
Net floorspace requirement (m�) 2013-31	15,583	3,695	12,947

�� Table: Net employment land requirement 2013-2031

Strategic Economic Development Land Availability Assessment (SEDLAA)

5.3.21�� The SEDLAA has been undertaken in parallel with the SHLAA. Some 37 sites were assessed for their potential for employment, retail or mixed use. The submitted sites included two sites at Junction 8: Land at Woodcut Farm and Waterside Park the current application site.

5.3.22�� The sites were assessed following the agreed criteria in the SEDLAA assessment pro forma agreed by the Cabinet Member for Planning Transport and Development on 22 March 2013. As for the SHLAA, the expert input of key statutory consultees was sought (Kent Highways; EA; KCC ecology; KCC archaeology).

5.3.23�� Based on the SEDLAA assessment, the new industrial and warehousing floorspace required could be delivered in a dispersed pattern of new employment allocations. This would include the expansion of the existing successful industrial estates at Pattenden Lane, Marden and at Barradale Farm, near Headcorn. Mixed employment and residential allocations would be made at �Syngenta� Yalding, helping to bring forward a brownfield site previously in employment use, and at �Clockhouse Farm�, Heath Road, Coxheath. This dispersed selection of sites would meet and indeed exceed the floorspace needs for industrial and warehousing space in the borough across a number of locations, providing some flexibility and choice and enabling the local expansion of firms. Further, the sites at Marden for example could be used for manufacturing type uses or distribution and it would be appropriate to allocate such sites for either use, again to allow for flexibility. It is recommended that all these sites are appropriate for allocation in the draft Maidstone Borough Local Plan, with necessary mitigation measures set out in the site specific allocation policies.

5.3.24�� Either of the two sites submitted at the Junction 8 location could accommodate the full requirement for industrial and warehousing floorspace.

Qualitative need and market considerations

5.3.25�� The NPPF directs that local planning authorities need to assess both the qualitative as well as the quantitative need for employment land when drawing up their Local Plans (para 161). Qualitative considerations are set out below.

5.3.26�� Connections to the strategic road network: The Junction 8 location clearly has very close access to M20 and thereafter the wider strategic road network. This is an attractive factor for businesses for business efficiency reasons, and HGV movements on local roads would be more limited.

5.3.27�� The dispersed selection of sites are located at a distance from the strategic road network. Their development is likely to result in more/longer HGV movements on local roads although it is of note that KCC Highways has not objected to their potential allocation. Key routes to the M20 from Marden (A229) and Headcorn (A274) require HGVs to pass through Maidstone town centre which is a constraint. The �Syngenta� site has a more direct connection to J4 of the M20 via the A228. Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders have been made around Marden and Yalding with the aim of directing lorries in excess of 7.5 tonnes away from this area and on to the main road network. The Joint Transport Board on 22 January 2014 recommended that this order be retained. If made permanent, this risks reducing the attractiveness of the area for businesses as it increases journey times and adds fuel and driver time costs for some deliveries and exports.

5.3.28�� Price: Premises at Junction 8 will be more expensive to purchase/let because of their motorway location. In contrast with a dispersed pattern of development, sites are likely to be more affordable for a wider range of firms.

5.3.29�� �� Range of sites: A site at Junction 8 will be in a single ownership but could be delivered in phases to help stagger supply. The dispersed pattern offers a choice of sites in different locations. It offers a wider geographical spread of potential sites, in different ownerships which could come forward at different times over the plan period in response to demand.

5.3.30�� Site capacity: A site at Junction 8 will be capable of meeting larger scale needs, as well as smaller scale requirements. The dispersed sites are less likely to be able to accommodate a single, large end user.

5.3.31�� Market Interest: there is clear, current market interest to deliver and occupy new employment floorspace at Junction 8. The site is likely to be more attractive to inward investors than the dispersed sites. Market demand analysis in the Employment Land Review (2013) however suggests that demand for both industrial and warehousing is more likely to be locally generated (existing firms expanding) or of a sub-regional nature.

5.3.32�� Existing/new business locations: Development at Junction 8 would create a brand new business location and could provide a prestigious, business park form of development and a new business �offer� for the borough. The dispersed pattern provides for the localised expansion of existing successful business locations. It could better enable the expansion of firms in situ, and potentially better serve established,

local firms.

5.3.33�� Promotion of the borough as a business location: A single large site at Junction 8 (in addition to Junction 7) will bring a significant marketing opportunity to promote the borough as a business location. A diversity of smaller sites is likely to be much less marketable.

5.3.34�� Junction 8 as a location for new employment floorspace has some has significant, qualitative advantages. Key is its location immediately adjacent to the strategic road network. This helps to drive its market attractiveness and will serve to control HGV movements on local roads. It is the case that a site at Junction 8 is much more likely to be attractive to an inward investor and would be a more prestigious site for the promotion of the borough. This is a significant consideration;

One of the council�s three key objectives is for Maidstone to have a growing economy.

5.3.35�� However, it is considered that the harm caused by development in the location of Junction 8 would be substantial, in particular in terms of impacts on the AONB and the wider landscape. Local Planning Authorities have a duty to have regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of AONB landscapes. This duty equally applies to development proposals outside the boundary of an AONB but which may impact on the designated qualities of the AONB. Coupled with the relative unsustainability of Junction 8 as a new employment location, the harm caused by development here is not considered to be over-ridden by the acknowledged qualitative benefits.� There is therefore now an objection in principle to development of the sites around Junction 8 for employment related development.

5.3.36�� The employment sites proposed for allocation in the draft (Regulation 18) Local Plan are due to be considered by� Cabinet on 24^th February 2014

5.3.37�� The proposed employment sites in the draft Local Plan follows a dispersed pattern of new allocations as set out in paragraph 5.3.25 above.��

�� National Planning Policy Framework 2012

5.3.38 The NPPF sets out three dimensions to achieving sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The planning system has a role to play in each of these areas.

● an economic role � contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and� innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

●� a social role � supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community�s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

● �an environmental role � contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

5.3.39�� There is also a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which for the purposes of decision making advises as follows

�●� approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

●� where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.�

5.3.40�� The NPPF states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system and local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century.

5.3.41� Planning authorities are encouraged to support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting. Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the Development Plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances. Developments should also be located and designed where practical to accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies.

5.3.42� The NPPF also advises in section 11 that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural environment. Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Paragraph 109 is specifically relevant � in recommending the contribution the planning system can make to protecting and enhancing ��valued landscapes��

5.3.43 The NPPF sets out core planning principles, including high quality design which should take account of the different characters of different areas whilst recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of countryside and contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment (paragraph 17). This is supported by section 7 of the document, which underlines the importance of good design, and its intrinsic role in sustainable development. As well as setting out the need for development proposals to be high quality, the document requires development to add to the overall character of areas, and to respond to local character and reflect the local surroundings in respect of overall scale, massing, height and layout (paragraphs 58 and 59). Paragraph 64 states that �permission should be refused for development of poor design�, which, as set out above, can be in respect of a failure to properly relate and respond to the local area.

5.3.44�� The NPPF also seeks to protect and conserve the setting of heritage assets through encouraging development that would result in enhancement (paragraph 137). The publication of the NPPF swept away Planning Policy Statements and Guidance, although the Practice Guide relating to PPS5 Planning and the Historic Environment remains in place for the purposes of determining planning applications.

5.3.45� Paragraph 123 of the NPPF requires LPAs to, through planning decisions, avoid adverse impacts on quality of life in respect of noise and light pollution (paragraph 123), and protect areas which are prized for tranquillity and intrinsically dark environments.

5.3.46�� As stated earlier, policy ENV28 of the MBWLP is a saved policy. As such on a number of occasions Inspectors have at appeal considered whether it is in conformity with the NPPF and have determined that it is; e.g. in respect of land at Rose Cottages Lenham Heath (MA/12/1463) in a decision dated 5 February 2014, the most recent occasion, the Inspector concluded that:

�

�...I conclude that the proposed development would result in sporadic development in the countryside that would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. Consequently it conflicts with policy ENV28 of the MBWLP which seeks to restrict development in the countryside which harms the character and appearance of the area. This is consistent with the Framework and in particular paragraphs 17 and 55 which recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and the need to protect it from sporadic development.��

5.3.47�� Other appeal decisions where Inspectors have similarly concluded this is the case include; Land at The Meadows Lenham Road Headcorn (MA/12/1772 and MA/12/2113) dated 16/01/2014 following a public inquiry; Land adj. Highfield House, Maidstone Road Marden (MA/12/2100) dated 22/11/2013; Forsham Farm Stables Forsham Lane Chart Sutton (MA/12/2023) dated 20/08/2013, Land north of Le Portel/east of East Barn Heath Road Boughton Monchelsea (MA/12/1924) dated 20/08/2013 and Land r/o 166 and 168 Ashford Road Bearsted (MA/11/1237) dated 18/07/2011.��

5.3.48� I am satisfied therefore that Policy ENV28 of the MBWLP should as part of the Development Plan that is consistent with the NPPF be given appropriate weight. Policy ENV28 is clear in its purpose and intent that development that harms the character and appearance of the countryside should not be approved. Given that the site is in the countryside this must be the starting for consideration of the application.

5.3.49�� It is also necessary however, to consider whether there are any benefits in support of the application. The primary area for this application is the business case put forward which is considered in the next section the report. I then deal with the landscape and visual impact of the development.��

5.4�� The Business� case

5.4.1 The proposals include two named occupiers for part of the site. These are two existing local companies: ADL: a car part distributor and Scarab: a manufacturer of street cleaning vehicles, based in Marden an existing Rural Service Centre approximately 8 miles south of Maidstone.��

5.4.2 ADL and Scarab are both rapidly growing businesses in both turnover/sales/exports and employment numbers.

5.4.3 ADL was established in a shareholder buyout from Mazda cars in 1988. In January 2011 ADL became part of the Billstein Group, a German car parts distributor. It currently employs 221 employees in the UK and had revenues of �75m in 2012 which are forecast to grow to �160m by 2023. The company expects exports (which have increased to the point where they are the majority of sales), will represent 70% of its revenues by 2016. Exports have grown from 29% of turnover in 2008 to 47% in 2012. In terms of employment, the company has recently taken on another 50 staff and expects employment to grow to around 317 by relocation in 2017 and to 581 after three years at the new site.�

5.4.4 Scarab, which was established in 1979. Scarab is now part of the Fayat Group, a French based construction company producing road maintenance and construction equipment. It currently employs 220 staff and it is stated that it would hope to add a further 50 by the time it relocates to the application site and around 43 more (total 313) after three years at the new site. The company earned �27m in 2012 expecting this to grow to �34m in 2013. Exports represented 70% of sales in 2012. In 2012, output has grown by 30% with turnover expected to increase by 25% in 2013.

5.4.5 Being located in 6 buildings in the Pattenden Lane area, ADL as a company consider they are operating inefficiently. ADL have taken the decision not to renew their lease which expires in 2017 on the basis that they need to consolidate operations onto one site/building for increased efficiency and to allow for continued growth. They consider that the Marden site does not allow for this expansion and is also remote from the Strategic Road Network that provides access to its export markets. ADL have identified a site at Sittingbourne, that already has outline planning permission, should Waterside Park not obtain approval.

5.4.6 Scarab occupies 3 buildings on the Wheelbarrow Industrial Estate in Marden and similarly to ADL, cites inefficiency of operation and the need to have room for their continued expansion as the driving force behind the desired relocation as well as the need to have access to the Strategic Road Network providing greater links and speed of access to their markets. Unlike ADL however, Scarab have not identified an alternative site, their leases expire in 2018.

5.4.7 An economic impact report has been submitted as part of the application which seeks to demonstrate that the two companies make a significant contribution to the local economy which is scheduled to increase if the relocation to Waterside Park was to go ahead. As can be seen in the various responses set out earlier in the report, the UKTI department and the Council�s Economic Development section also consider that the two companies make a significant and positive contribution to the local economy and the national economy which is export driven and in line with the government�s economic policies.��

5.4.8 Most of the employees are Maidstone residents and through their combined wages (approximately �13m) buy goods and services which benefit the local economy further. Both companies are using technology and innovation to grow their businesses to safeguard and create local jobs. A range of job opportunities at different skill and wage levels will be created by the expansion of these two companies. The proposed development represents significant investment by the two companies amounting to a combined total of some �35million.

5.4.9 During the construction phase it is anticipated that between 61 and 73 construction jobs per year would be created and that 31-37 indirect jobs would be created per year in Kent and the South East, in addition to the expected employment growth for the two firms. The economic impact report also advises that after three years in addition to the expected growth at ADL and Scarab, a further 205 jobs would be created at the site.��

5.4.10 For Members� information, the January 2014 KCC Digest of unemployment in Kent indicates that the December 2013 claimant count unemployment rate for Maidstone, which is the most up to date information available, was 1.8%.� This is the same as the South East average figure and below the figure for Kent (2.4%) and the national average position of 2.9%. Further the number of claimants in Maidstone has fallen by some 24.7% from the same period in the preceding year.�

�� The Office for National Statistics publishes trend data on unemployment (NOMIS). In these statistics unemployment refers to people without a job who were available to work, not just those claiming unemployment benefits. On this measure, unemployment in Maidstone, Kent, the South East and Great Britain has been gradually increasing over the past 10 years. The rate for Maidstone has been consistently below the rate for Kent over this period and has generally fallen just below the South East figure rate. However� since September 2012 the Maidstone rate has marginally exceeded the South East rate. At September 2013 (the latest data available) the rate for Maidstone was 6.8% compared with 8.1% for Kent and 6.2% for the South East.�

�� Based on this data, I do not consider therefore, that there is an overriding case to be made for permitting the development on the basis of the unemployment rate in the Borough.��

5.4.11 As indicated in Appendix 4.2 of the Environmental Statement, a search and assessment of potential alternative sites has taken place. The companies� requirements that were considered and assessed are as follows.

� Proximity to the Motorway/Strategic Road Network: Both companies state that their current location adds an additional 1 hour onto journey times (30 minutes each way) through Maidstone Town Centre.

� A suitable location for a UK HQ building.

� Location appropriate for staff retention: Scarab staff currently travel an average of 17km to work and ADL 14.8km on average. Both companies have expressed a strong desire to continue to be based in Maidstone Borough.

� Sufficient space for consolidation and expansion: A single building with improved internal volumes and height for semi-automation with space for significant future expansion.

5.4.12 Eclipse Park adjacent to M20 Junction 7 was considered and was dismissed as unsuitable due to the lack of space to accommodate the required development and also the fact that the relevant MBWLP plan policy ED1 specifically excludes B8. Discounted

Officer comment: Members will of course be aware that a permission exists for a hotel and that a retail unit is currently under construction on Eclipse Park, indicating that other uses have been permitted as a departure from Policy ED1.

5.4.13� �Syngenta� site, Hampstead Lane Yalding. The landowner is unwilling to sell and the ADL requirements do not meet with their aspirations for the site. In any event the site is too remote from the Strategic Road Network. Discounted

Officer comment: The site still has an allocation but for a proposed employment element of some 8600m� in the recently published draft Local Plan.

5.4.14� Woodcut Farm: Was considered in detail by ADL but discounted as being closer to the AONB and within the designated Special Landscape Area, more visible from the M20 and A20 and closer to Bearsted. Industrial development has previously been rejected by the Local Authority and the Secretary of State.

��

5.4.15�� Land east of M20 junction 8: This site is to the north of the A20 and Old England Cottage. The site does not meet the developer�s wishes/criteria.��

5.4.16 Other sites examined in the Borough were;

� Detling Airfield Industrial Estate. Site is however entirely within the AONB and would require extensive (and costly) highway improvements to provide a safe access. Discounted.�

� Barradale Farm Headcorn: Not large enough and too far from the M20 Motorway. Discounted

� Land south of Claygate Distribution Marden: remaining area of land not large enough same access to motorway problems as existing sites Discounted.

� Lenham Quarry Sandway: Has potential for B8 but not B2 use. Access problems to motorway along narrow lanes/roads similar to Marden. Discounted

� Whatman Site Royal Engineers Road: Edge of Maidstone Town centre site, where higher value edge of centre uses are more realistic potential future uses.

� Cobtree Forstal: The applicants have discounted this site primarily in the light of the conclusions of the Local Plan Inspector for the MBWLP 2000, who was concerned that the strategic gap would be eroded and also the adverse impact on the Special Landscape Area arising from development. The applicants consider that similar arguments would apply in respect of development by ADL and Scarab and the size of the buildings required.

(Officer Comment: This site is administered by the Cobtree Trust and they and the Charity Commissioners would need to be satisfied that its release for development would be in accordance with the stated objectives of the Charity. Officers have been advised that they are unlikely to consent to the release of the land)

� Land East and north of Wheelbarrow Industrial Estate Marden: Neither area of land was put forward as part of the SEDLAA call-for-sites exercise The locational disadvantages would also remain unsolved.�

(Members may be aware that a site has been identified in the draft Local Plan with an indication that some 14,500m� of B1, B2 and B8 uses may be suitable on land to the immediate west of The Wheelbarrow Industrial Estate. Immediately adjacent to the proposed allocation and north of the adjacent warehousing is a site with an extant permission for some 1,488m� of B2/B8 use).

� Land west of Ham Lane Lenham: Site was promoted for residential development rather than employment development in the call for sites, so there is doubt as to its availability/suitability.

(The site has indeed been allocated for residential development in the draft Local Plan).

� Parkwood Industrial Estate: The site is in numerous existing and commercial uses. Even if sufficient space could be found and although the site is within 5km of a motorway junction, all traffic would still need to pass though Maidstone Town Centre.�

��

5.4.17 The alternative sites assessment has also examined sites in Swale (including ADL�s identified alternative site in Sittingbourne), Medway (Gillingham Business Park and Kingsnorth Commercial Park) and Ashford (Sevington). It is stated that these sites are all too far from Marden at 40-50km and are therefore likely to be unattractive to staff to relocate. Sites in Tunbridge Wells (such as Paddock Wood) have been discounted as being too far from a motorway junction. In Tonbridge and Malling sites at New Hythe Commercial Park, Oast Park Tonbridge and Invicta Riverside Aylesford were assessed and discounted as for a number of reasons such as having insufficient expansion space, being close to scrapyards or a tidal river.

5.4.18� The applicants state therefore that whilst they have undertaken a wide search they have not identified any site as suitable as the proposed location at Waterside Park.

5.4.19� There are in my mind a number of clear benefits to the application.

� Approval would see the retention of two growing employers in the Borough with the benefits to the local economy set out above.��

� The relocation would enable ADL and Scarab to consolidate their operations enabling a more efficient basis to run the respective businesses.

� The buildings would be purpose-designed to meet the requirements of the companies.

� The proposed site has excellent access to the Strategic Road Network and the companies� export markets via the Channel Ports.

� The companies� vehicles and other HGVs delivering goods to the site would not need to travel though Maidstone Town Centre, thus potentially assisting in easing congestion and air quality problems in the Town Centre and reducing HGV traffic on local roads.

� The companies� operations are likely to be easier given the fact that the temporary TRO Orders restricting HGV movements in the Marden and Yalding areas are proposed to be made permanent.��

� The site enables the provision of larger single user buildings to be provided adding to the mix of available units in the Borough.

� It is the case that a site at Junction 8 is much more likely to be attractive to an inward investor and would be a more prestigious site for the promotion of the borough. This is a significant consideration.

� A single large site at Junction 8 (in addition to Junction 7) will bring a significant marketing opportunity to promote the borough as a business location. Development at Junction 8 would create a brand new business location and could provide a prestigious, business park form of development and a new business �offer� for the borough

� Development of the site would accord with the Council�s ambition for Maidstone to have a growing economy.

5.6�� Landscape and Visual Impact

5.6.1 As stated earlier in the report, the area around Junction 8 of the M20 is currently a countryside location, removed from the built-up area of Maidstone. Development of either of the previously identified candidate sites at Woodcut Farm, Waterside Park or Land east of Junction 8 (on the north side of the A20), would substantially alter their established character and are both sited in the foreground of the North Downs escarpment and the AONB.

5.6.2 Land east of junction 8 (north of the A20) was considered to be too small and also have inappropriate access and have a detrimental impact on the setting of Old England Cottage which it adjoins to the rear. The vicinity of the Waterside Park site to my mind is more rural in character to that of Woodcut Farm which is bounded to the north by the M20 motorway and to the south by the existing residential and minor commercial development on the A20. The Waterside Park site appears as a component of the rolling countryside to the south, particularly in views from the south and from the public right of way which crosses it.

5.6.3 It is the case that officers have previously advised Members that the size and characteristics of the Woodcut Farm site do offer an opportunity for the landscape impacts of development to be mitigated. This could be achieved by ensuring the existing topography of the site is respected through minimal site levelling, through significant additional structural landscaping and through careful design in terms of the buildings� scale, siting, orientation and materials.

5.6.4 The context for this advice was a substantive and over-riding need for additional industrial and warehousing development which could not be met on alternative sites. That need as can be seen from earlier in the report is not now substantive or overriding. Hence the move towards a dispersed pattern of employment development allocation as recommend in the draft Local Plan.

5.6.5 To develop the Waterside Park site would require extensive excavation which would be a substantial, unavoidable and permanent alteration to the prevailing form of the landscape. The development as proposed does not constitute good design as it does not work with the landscape instead seeking to provide a new landscape form to fit the development into. There is significantly less opportunity on this site to soften the impacts of development through enhanced landscaping.

5.6.6� It is a fact that the application site is further away from the AONB boundary than the Woodcut Farm site. Nevertheless, s85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (AONBs) requires that �in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land� in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, relevant authorities �shall have regard� to their purposes. This duty is particularly important to the delivery of the statutory purposes of protected areas. The duty applies to all local planning authorities. The duty is relevant in considering development proposals that are situated outside Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty boundaries, but which might have an impact on implementing the statutory purposes of these protected areas.

5.6.7 The Council is therefore required to have regard to the functioning of the AONB and its setting in determining this application. In this regard it has consulted Natural England and the Kent Downs AONB Unit as well as considered the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application as part of the Environmental Statement.

5.6.8 To remind Members, the first phase of the ADL building would comprise some 14,864m� in a building some 110m in width and 135m in length under a series of three curved roofs. The building would be 15m to eaves (14m internal clearance at eaves level) and would be a maximum of 17.23m 5n height. Ultimately, the submitted plans show the building could be extended to 210m in length, creating an additional floorspace of 8,669m� in a second phase to allow for future expansion.

5.6.9 The Scarab building would be some 92m in width and some 134m in length with potential to expand to 170m, with similar ridge and eaves heights to the ADL building. As with the ADL building, this has been designed to be provided in two phases, in order to provide on-site future expansion space. Phase 1 would provide 12,542 m2 of floorspace.

5.6.10� As Members will be aware, land levels within the majority of the site will be lowered by some 12m or so to provide the development platform with the ADL side of the site actually being raised by between 1.5m-5m. In addition to the ADL and Scarab buildings, a number of other units are proposed to bring the development up to the 56,000m� proposed in the application. The buildings together with the infrastructure to serve the development represent a very substantial intrusion of built development in this part of the countryside. The appearance of the site from the A20 will clearly be changed from its current sloping and productive agricultural appearance to a substantial built development significantly larger in scale than anything in the area including the adjacent Mecure Hotel to the east. If permitted, the countryside context would be lost due to the size of the buildings and the development platform proposed which as stated earlier does not work with the existing landscape but provides a new land form into which the development has been set.� In my view clear harm to the character and appearance of the countryside will result.

5.6.11� The land to the south of the site lies within the Len Valley. The Conservation Officer considers the area around the former mill pond and Old Mill Farm as a group of non-designated heritage assets:

�Immediately to the south of the site lies the historic farm group formed by Old Mill House and Old Mill Oast, which in my opinion should be considered as non-designated heritage assets. This group lies adjacent to a large millpond which formerly served a watermill which existed until the 19^th or early 20^th Century and of which some archaeological remains survive. This millpond and mill site should also be considered as non-designated heritage assets in my view.�

5.6.12� I concur with the Conservation Officer�s observations regarding the heritage assets immediately to the south of the site and the quality of this area. He states:

�Old Mill House and Old Mill Oast, together with the millpond, lie close to the River Len, which at this point is deeply incised into a narrow valley. This gives these heritage assets a very secluded, almost secret, location in an attractive landscape, all the more valuable and surprising given its close proximity to the A20/M20 junction. This feeling of isolation is an important component of their setting. In my view the development as proposed is likely to severely compromise this seclusion by its sheer presence and activity associated with it. The large buildings may be visible from the millpond.�

5.6.13�� The land to the south of the Len Valley rises towards Leeds village and the isolated farmsteads and dwellings along Caring Lane/Forge Lane. The scarp slope of the Downs and the associated ridge are clear and dominant features in the landscape, viewed from south of the site and the A20/M20 corridor. The site is clearly visible in the landscape as an open undeveloped field rising up behind the dwellings and farm buildings located just beyond the SW corner of the site along the River Len. I consider that in medium-distance views there is also likely to be a detrimental impact.�

5.6.14� From further south along Old Mill Road, there is an attractive view of the kilns associated with Old Mill Oast with the backdrop of the escarpment of the North Downs. The new development would be placed immediately behind the oast kilns, thus compromising this view and adversely affecting the setting of the non-designated heritage asset as well as that of the AONB.�

5.6.15� Further south, at the junction of Old Mill Lane and Forge Lane, lies another concentration of heritage assets, the listed Brogden Farmhouse, Brogden Farm Cottages and Brogden Barn together with the converted Brogden Farm Oast which should be considered as a non-designated heritage asset. This very attractive and complete historic group is considered in the Environmental Statement which notes that the attractive views towards the North Downs, which include the proposed development site, contribute to the significance of these heritage assets and accepts that the development would have a moderate adverse impact on their setting.

5.6.16�� The development will result in a significant change to the topography and appearance of the site with the reduction in land levels as proposed to provide the development platform for the substantial buildings and supporting infrastructure. The undeveloped farmland nature of the site will be replaced with buildings and retaining embankments and the natural form of the landscape lost.�

5.6.17�� Whilst land levels within the site are to be reduced, the further west the deeper the cut, the buildings will be substantially higher than the proposed platform level at around 15m to eaves and 17m to ridge from the new ground level. Their overall height combined with their mass and scale, will, as can be seen from the comments of the Conservation Officer, Landscape Officer, the Kent Downs AONB Unit and Natural England, harm the setting of the AONB beyond due to their intrusion into the views towards the scarp slope from the south and the alien angular form of the buildings. Objections have also been raised to the impact of the development on views from within the AONB and the scarp slope of the ridge.��

5.6.18 The applicants make the point that they consider that the area is heavily intruded into by existing built development and the transport corridor. The Inspector at the Kent International Gateway inquiry reached very difference conclusions. He said:

�I find these views, beyond the AONB itself, are an integral part of its character and attractiveness. They are, without doubt, extremely important to many visitors� enjoyment of this nationally designated landscape. Whilst the M20 and HS1 are visible from many locations along the scarp, they appear to run through otherwise seamless countryside� (paragraph 18.38). He did not consider polytunnels in the area as a visual detractor, and argued �Moreover, the presence of existing features which detract from the landscape does not justify a proposal which itself causes such harm� (paragraph 18.42). There is plenty more in his report to indicate his concern for development in the AONB setting, including that �the overall scale and straight lines of the warehouses on their level development platforms would be very apparent and would appear alien to the countryside and the surrounding built development� (paragraph 18.39). It is acknowledged that the KIG site was closer to the AONB boundary than the current site, but the same principles apply in my view to the current site. �

5.6.19� Natural England in their latest comments come to a similar conclusion as the KIG Inspector, stating:

�Having considered the application and the accompanying landscape and visual impact assessment, Natural England considers that the development proposal will be clearly visible from public rights of way, including the North Downs Way National Trail within the AONB. Views from the scarp slope are part of the special qualities of the AONB the landscape impacts and impacts to the special qualities of the AONB should be fully considered when determining this application.

5.6.20�� I consider that the development, if approved, would unacceptably change the context of the site and countryside around it forever. The development would have an unacceptable visual impact on the character and appearance of the countryside hereabouts contrary to policy ENV28 of the MBWLP 2000 and that in addition it would cause harm to the setting of the Kent Downs AONB, contrary to the advice in the NPPF and Natural England guidance. ��

5.7�� Highways

5.7.1� Both the Highways Agency (HA) and Kent Highway Services (KHS) were consulted and have commented on the application. The Transport Assessment and the additional information requested by Kent Highways have both been considered.

5.7.2� The Highways Agency comment that Junction 8 is not to current standards. However, they have not issued a holding direction in this case. Having reviewed the nature of the issue and some history surrounding it, they state that they are content to make a rare exception in this case and simply direct a condition that requires the road to be brought to standard or a departure issued before commencement of construction. I would advise Members that the Highways Agency have now issued five departures relating the scheme and the junction allowing development to proceed without a scheme of improvements due to the likely traffic impact not having an adverse impact on existing highway safety or flow through the junction.��

5.7.3� Kent Highways have considered the two phases of the development, construction and post construction. In respect of the site preparation/construction phase they have no objections and conclude:

�� The vehicle trips that could be associated with the site re-grading phase have been calculated using a �first principles� approach. Based on the volume of material to be removed and the types of vehicles that would be used, it has been projected that approximately 60 HGV loads per day would be required (i.e. 120 vehicle trips per day). This would equate to approximately 12 vehicle trips per hour.

5.7.4 Post construction, the assessment of the M20 Link Road/A20 Ashford Road Roundabout indicates that the junction currently operates over its design capacity during the AM peak hour on the A20 (east) arm and that the situation would worsen considerably in the 2018 and 2023 AM peak hours in the �Do Nothing� scenario. A �Do Something� scenario has therefore been modelled, assuming the reconfiguration of the junction to create an enlarged roundabout to current design standards with a fourth arm providing access to the development site. The modelling indicates that the revised junction layout would fully mitigate the impact of the development and provide an element of planning gain over the baseline situation.

5.7.5 The A20 Ashford Road/Eyhorne Street/Great Danes Hotel Roundabout and the A20 Ashford Road/B2163 Penfold Hill Roundabout have been assessed collectively because of their close proximity to each other. This exercise indicates that the Penfold Hill Roundabout currently operates over its design capacity during the AM peak hour on the A20 (east) arm and that this situation would worsen slightly in the 2018 and 2023 �Do Nothing� and �Do Minimum� scenarios. However, the Transport Assessment concludes that the level of additional delay that is attributable to the proposed development is negligible and that neither the existing nor the post-development operation of the junction can be judged as �severe�.

�

5.7.6�� The impact on Leeds village has also been assessed. The Transport Assessment states that the development proposals are predicted to add a total of 26 car trips during the AM peak hour and 15 car trips during the PM peak hour to the B2163 through Leeds. This equates to a percentage uplift of less than 2% in the AM peak and just over 1% in the PM peak in the 2023 horizon year.� This level of traffic increase would not normally be considered as significant. There should also not be any impediment from the development at times when Leeds Castle is running large events, such as evening concerts and fireworks functions, as largely these would take place at times outside of the main business operating times.

5.7.7 No objections are raised to the development on highway safety or capacity grounds.

��

5.8�� Ecology and impact on Ancient Woodland and existing trees

5.8.1� The ES submitted with the application considers ecology and arboricultural matters and a tree survey has also been submitted as part of the application. These have been considered by the KCC ecology team and the Landscape Officer. Natural England and the Kent Wildlife Trust have also commented.

5.8.2 In terms of ecology the impact of the development on the LWS and the Ancient Woodland are key areas of concern. The submitted ecological information has detailed that the greatest ecological interest is around the boundary of the site. The submitted landscape plan shows that the completed development will have a buffer area around the boundary of the site.

5.8.3 Whilst the width of the proposed buffer to the LWS and Ancient woodland appears to be the minimum required and thus potentially adequate for this purpose, the proposals to adjust ground levels in the buffer zone suggest that the considerable amounts of fill will be deposited here before planting is commenced. This is evidenced by the existing and proposed contour plans which show some raising of levels between 1.5m and 5m. I am not persuaded in conjunction with the Landscape Officer and Kent Wildlife Trust that the impact of this fill on vegetation, in particular trees in the Ancient Woodland and the northern side of the River Len valley, has been properly examined.

5.8.4 The Landscape Officer in particular, is concerned about the banking on the eastern side of the site.

�Bunding and level changes within the 15m buffer zone for the Ancient Woodland are still shown on the Site Banking Change drawing (13026/TP/004), contrary to Natural England Standing Advice; appendix 4 of which, details the adverse impacts of the effects of development on adjacent land. �The fact that this area of land to the east of the site shows no indication of having been disturbed since the 1870 maps is also likely to add weight to its value as a buffer zone.��

5.8.5 There is a need for detailed mitigation strategy to be submitted, if planning permission is granted, to ensure no protected or notable species are impacted.

5.8.6 There is landscaping proposed for the development, this should however, be designed to benefit biodiversity and enhance the LWS and mitigate for the impact for the loss of the Roadside Nature Reserve on the A20. KCC ecology consider that as the site is currently an arable field it will be high in nutrients and as such are concerned that a wildflower meadow will be difficult to establish. A more detailed plan of the proposed landscaping area should be submitted for comment and details provided on how it will be established and managed. I consider that this can be dealt with by means of an appropriate condition.�

5.8.7 The Landscape Officer has also expressed concerns about the proposed gradients and subsequent stability of the bunding. I understand that additional information is being prepared by the applicant to address these issues. I will update Members further at the meeting.

5.8.8 The lack of detail on the impact of lighting within the site on the LWS and the edge of the woodland has also been raised. I am satisfied however, that detailed lighting proposals and mitigation strategy could be adequately secured and assessed by means of an appropriate condition.��

5.8.9 I do not consider that objections can be raised to the development on particular ecological impacts on protected species. There are concerns that the proposed land-raising within the proposed buffer zone could have an adverse and unacceptable impact on the Ancient Woodland and the LWS adjacent to the site. Natural England, the Statutory Consultee, have not however, objected on this basis. I have concluded in this instance that precise details of any work in this area could be managed through detailed conditions.��

��

5.9�� Residential Amenity

5.9.1� Old England Cottage is a Grade II listed dwelling located on the north side of the A20 opposite the application site. It is set at a lower level than the carriageway of the A20 which was built-up when the bridge to its west was constructed in the early 1960s, when the Maidstone by-pass was built. This dwelling is already clearly affected by the existing traffic on the dual carriageway, the owners having recently erected a close-boarded fence to provide some screening. In noise and disturbance terms therefore, I do not consider that the development would have such a significant additional effect as to warrant refusal. Clearly the outlook from the house will change, however, given the set-down of the house, the intervening dual-carriageway road, lighting and the proposed landscaping and bunding, I do not consider that in the medium to long-term that the development would so adversely affect the outlook from Old England Cottage as to warrant refusal.

5.9.2� I do have concerns regarding the impact on the residential dwellings located to the south of the site however. As stated earlier in the report, Old Mill House and Old Mill Oast, together with the millpond, lie close to the River Len, which at this point is deeply incised into a narrow valley. These heritage assets are secluded, in an almost secret location in an attractive landscape. This is all the more valuable and surprising given the close proximity to the A20/M20 junction. This feeling of isolation is an important component of their setting. In my view the development as proposed is likely to unacceptably and severely compromise this seclusion by its sheer presence and activity associated with it, being located immediately to the north of the two dwellings.

5.9.3� No other residential properties would be directly adversely affected by the development.

5.10� Minerals

5.10.1 As part of the formation of the development platform described earlier in the report, significant lowering and re-grading of the existing land form of the site will be required.

5.10.2 The applicants have stated that site investigation shows the material to be removed from the site being predominantly sand, which is a material required on other development sites, for example in South East Kent, where land levels need to be raised to take sites out of the floodplain. The applicant states that they believe that the value achieved by extracting this material will mitigate the cost of the cut and fill exercise making it a viable proposition. It is estimated that these works will generate some 573,683 m³ of material for re-grading and batters. Of this, 188,047 m³ is needed on site to create the development platforms, which leaves a surplus of 435,636 m³.

5.10.3�� The proposed development will therefore entail the working of some 1.06 million tonnes of material of which 740,581 tonnes of potential building sand will be surplus to site development requirements. The re-grading to level the development platform is programmed to be undertaken over a 2-3 year period.

5.10.4�� Concerns have been raised in a number of the representations that the �extraction� of this material constitutes mineral development and should be determined in a separate application by the Minerals Planning Authority Kent County Council.

5.10.5 In their response to the application KCC have commented and concluded as follows:

�Having reviewed the information contained in the Planning Statement, Environmental Statement, Appendices 11.1 and 11.2 (Minerals Assessment) and associated drawings, KCC are satisfied that the applicant has addressed the matters requested previously in respect of the potential mineral reserves at the site and that any mineral extraction can reasonably be regarded as incidental to the primary purpose of the development of a business park.� On this basis, it is considered appropriate for the Borough Council to determine the application and KCC would not recommend that the County Council seek to retrieve the minerals element for its own determination as Mineral Planning Authority.� Having regard to the same information, KCC further consider that no objection should be raised by the County Council as Mineral Planning Authority in respect of the proposed development.� However, it remains for the Borough Council to satisfy itself that the proposed development is acceptable in all respects (including the minerals elements).�

5.10.6 Given this conclusion, it is appropriate for the removal of the material from the site to be considered as incidental to the development process and not require a separate minerals application. Clearly, if permission was to be granted for the development, the operations for the removal of the material and working it around the site would need to be subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

5.11� Planning Obligations

5.11.1 The applicants, following discussion with officers, have offered the following Heads of Terms for a s106 agreement. Namely, the provision of a legal agreement to:

1. Ensure that units 5 and 6 completed as part of the development shall not be first occupied by any companies or organisations other than ADL/Scarab, unless otherwise agreed with the Council;

2. Require the developer to use its reasonable endeavours to employ local contractors and sub-contractors and local people during the construction works;

3. Require the developer to use its reasonable endeavours to procure that occupiers of the development identify employment and training opportunities that can be accessed by local people, and to provide details of employment vacancies to Maidstone Borough Council and its identified partners on a regular basis.

4. Establish a monitoring committee to be set up to review all aspects of the development.

5.11.2�� Members will be aware that all potential s106 obligations must be assessed against and meet the requirements of the three tests of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 and paragraph 204 of the NPPF 2012. All obligations must be:

� Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

� Directly related to the development; and

� Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

5.11.3�� If permission were to be granted given the circumstances of the application and the particular case put forward by the two businesses, I do consider it necessary for a �first-user� clause to be invoked. In any other circumstance in the absence of a designated land allocation and the site�s location in the countryside permission would not be granted. I consider the three tests are met.

5.11.4�� I also consider potential Heads of Terms 2 and 3 also meet the tests. Both would fit with the Council�s aim for a growing economy and seek to ensure that a proportion of the workforce and contractors would be local and following completion would seek to ensure local people are given priority for recruitment and training improving the local skills base.

5.11.5�� The inception of a monitoring committee would seek to ensure that the quality of the development is maintained during implementation. I consider that this Head of Term would also meet the three tests outlined above.��

6.�� CONCLUSION

6.1�� This is a major development submitted in part in support of two existing firms within the Borough. The two firms in question are growing rapidly in terms of turnover, export sales and also numbers of people employed. They contribute significantly to the local economy and with increasing export levels to the national economy in accordance with central government aspirations and policy.

6.2�� Approval would see the retention of two growing employers in the Borough with the benefits to the local economy set out above. The relocation of the businesses would enable ADL and Scarab to consolidate their operations enabling a more efficient basis to run the respective businesses. The main buildings on the site would be purpose-designed to meet the requirements of the companies.

6.3�� There are also a number of positive factors relating to the site being close to junction 8 of the M20 motorway. It gives good direct access to the strategic road network, the Channel Ports and the companies� expanding export markets. The companies� vehicles and other HGVs delivering goods to the site would not need to travel though Maidstone Town Centre, thus potentially assisting in easing congestion and air quality problems in the Town Centre and reducing HGV traffic on local roads. The companies� operations are likely to be easier given the fact that the temporary Traffic Regulation Orders restricting HGV movements in the Marden and Yalding areas are proposed to be made permanent.��

6.4�� The site would enable the provision of larger single user buildings to be provided in addition to those for ADL and Scarab adding to the mix of available units in the Borough.

6.5�� It is the case that a site at Junction 8 is much more likely to be attractive to an inward investor and would be a more prestigious site for the promotion of the borough. This is a significant consideration. A single large site at Junction 8 (in addition to Junction 7) will bring a significant marketing opportunity to promote the borough as a business location. Development at Junction 8 would create a brand new business location and could provide a prestigious, business park form of development and a new business �offer� for the Borough.

6.6�� Development of the site and the retention of the two companies would accord with the Council�s ambition for Maidstone to have a growing economy.

6.7�� Balanced against this is the fact that the site is in the countryside. Development Plan policy which is consistent with the NPPF 2012 seeks to restrict development which harms the character and appearance of the countryside. The proposed buildings are large by any standards and would have in my view an adverse impact on the area.

6.8�� The development would also cause significant harm to the setting of the Kent Downs AONB the purposes of which, the Council has a statutory duty to have regard to. Natural England and the Kent Downs AONB Unit to which the Council is a partner object to the development on this basis and the adverse impact it would have on its setting. In these circumstances impact on the landscape should be given priority over other planning considerations.�

6.9�� There would be a clear and unacceptable permanent change to the appearance of the site through the re-modelling and re-profiling/raising/lowering of land levels and the construction of the large buildings in the place of a sloping hillside in agricultural production.

6.10� In addition, those re-grading/re-profiling works along the boundaries with the LWS could result in an impact on the existing Ancient Woodland that borders the site or the Local Wildlife Site. Natural England the statutory consultee has not raised objections on this issue, and in addition, no objections have been raised by KCC Ecology on this issue. On balance, I am satisfied in this instance that detailed conditions could address the matter.

6.11� I also consider as set out earlier in the report that the development would unacceptably impact on the heritage assets located to the south of the site,� Old Mill Farm, Old Mill Oast, the mill pond area and also the group of heritage assets located further south at the junction of Old Mill Road and Forge Lane.

�

6.12� Furthermore, with Council�s evidence base preparation having been completed for the draft Local Plan, the work has shown that there is not a quantitative need for development in the vicinity of Junction 8 including this site.

6.13� Whilst therefore there are qualitative factors in favour of development at this site, or in the general vicinity of junction 8, the overall adverse impact of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside and the setting of the AONB, which the Council has a statutory duty to have regard to its purposes as confirmed by the views of Natural England, together with a lack of a quantitative need lead me to conclude that in terms of the balance a recommendation of refusal is justified.��

7. RECOMMENDATION

Planning Permission be REFUSED on the following ground: ��

1. The proposed development, by reason of its overall scale and the mass and design of the proposed buildings, together with the changes to the topography and landform of the site, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside hereabouts in general, the setting of nearby heritage assets to the south of the site and to the setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in particular. To permit the development in the absence of any overriding quantitative need for employment development in this location, would be contrary to policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000 and the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

1. ��������� POLICIES

2.����� HISTORY

3.����� CONSULTATIONS

4.����� REPRESENTATIONS

5.����� CONSIDERATIONS

7. RECOMMENDATION

1. �� POLICIES

2.�� HISTORY

3.�� CONSULTATIONS

4.�� REPRESENTATIONS

5.�� CONSIDERATIONS