Decision details
Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations
Decision Maker: Cabinet.
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: Yes
Purpose:
To
consider the draft Core Strategy strategic site allocations for
housing and employment, together with the policy for the
presumption in favour of sustainable development and the
distribution of housing targets for rural service centres, and to
approve the document attached at Appendix A to this report for
public consultation in accordance with regulation 18 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations
2012.
Decision:
1. That the site allocation policies set out in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public Consultation 2012 document (as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) with the exclusion of SS3 be approved for public consultation subject to the following amendments:-
East of Hermitage
Lane
1.
After paragraph 3.16 add new paragraph: “East of Hermitage
Lane lies, in part, within an identified biodiversity opportunity
area (BOA). The Greensand Heaths and
Commons BOA, in which the north eastern portion of the site is
located, is characterised by a concentration of woodlands on the
Greensand Ridge where areas of heathy
vegetation and acid grassland are a feature. The larger field,
which is proposed for development, has been ploughed on a number of
occasions, although opportunities exist for targeted habitat
restoration and creation as part of the
development.”
2.
Delete paragraph 3.17 and replace with: “At the south western
end of the site is a smaller field with an area of protected trees
to the north east. The field and trees, which are to be retained as
informal/natural open space, offer the chance to create an enhanced
biodiversity corridor through and around the proposed
development. Retention of the smaller
field also allows a section of archaeological remains to be left in
situ, as advised by the County Archaeologist. The retention and enhancement of this part of the
site will also screen the proposed development from Hermitage Lane
and maintain the setting of Maidstone Hospital.”
North of Sutton Road
3.
Paragraph 4.10 following “and enclosure to development”
add: “The County Ecologist has identified the eastern part of
the site as having ecological potential so more detailed
consideration should be given to this area through the submission
of an ecology survey, incorporating mitigation measures, to be
approved by the Borough Council.
Existing landscape features within the site should be retained
where possible. Bicknor Wood to the north of the site and the trees
running along the eastern boundary are subject to tree preservation
orders (TPO No.37 of 1981 and TPO No.36 of 1981).”
4.
Policy SS2c add new criterion: “Submission of a full
landscape assessment and ecology survey, to be approved by the
Borough Council”.
Newnham Park
5.
Paragraph 6.10 after “views from the AONB” add:
“Of particular prominence is the hill to the north east of
the field located to the east of the stream, so development will
not be permitted on this part of the site.”
6.
Paragraph 6.15 amend to read “The medical campus will provide
for up to 200,000m2 150,000m2 of
specialist medical facilities”.
7.
Policy SS4(1) amend to read “Provision of a maximum
200,000m2 of specialist medical facilities set within an
enhanced landscape structure” and replace with
“Provision of a maximum 200,000m2 150,000m2 of specialist medical facilities set
within an enhanced landscape structure”.
8.
Policy SS4(2) before the word
“vicinity” add the word “immeadiate”.
9. Policy SS4(5) after “…use of the topography in site layout plans …” add: “to exclude development on more prominent parts of the site.”
10.
Policy SS4(7) amend to read “The
cumulative quantum of retail floorspace
will be restricted to the provision of up to 500sqm above that
which already exists and any additional retail floorspace above this limit must be complementary
to town centre uses and the need for, by means
of a sequential sites assessment, demonstrably require an out
of town location justified.
11. Paragraph 6.16 after the first sentence insert the following: ”As confirmed in Core Strategy policies CS1 And CS2, the regeneration and revitalisation of Maidstone’s town centre is a priority and the town centre will continue to be the primary retail and office location in the borough.”
2. That the strategic employment location identified around J8 of the M20 motorway is further considered by being included in the public consultation referred to in 1 above, to enable a more informed decision to be made on the allocation of strategic site(s) at this location and that the consultation should make clear the Council’s requirement that any strategic sites already identified to the Council at this location, in response to the advertisement of 11 May 2012, and included in the Sustainability Appraisal, or further promoted as a result of this consultation, should be accompanied by development proposals that respond to the relevant planning considerations, particularly landscape, ecology and highways and include evidence of dialogue with the public and their response.
3. That policy NPPF1: Presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public Consultation 2012 document (as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) be approved for public consultation.
4
That the inclusion of dwelling targets for rural
service centres in the Core Strategy, and that the targets set out
in the Core Strategy Strategic Site Allocations: Public
Consultation 2012 document (as attached at Appendix A to the report
of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) be
approved for public consultation:
· Harrietsham |
315 dwellings |
· Headcorn |
190 dwellings |
· Lenham |
110 dwellings |
· Marden |
320 dwellings |
· Staplehurst |
195 dwellings |
5. That it be noted that the Maidstone Strategic Site Allocations Sustainability Appraisal July 2012 (Appendix C to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) forms part of the evidence base; and requests that the consultants (URS) be asked to provide a summary of the significant environmental effects of the options chosen and the reasonable alternatives rejected, as set out in the Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, Schedule 2.
6 That, subject to the viability testing of strategic site allocations and Core Strategy policies, the prioritisation of planning obligations agreed in 2006 be reviewed and final decisions reflected in the Core Strategy policy on infrastructure delivery.
Reasons for the decision:
The
main purpose of this decision is to undertake public consultation
on proposed strategic site allocations for housing and employment
for inclusion in the Core Strategy. A
primary consideration running through the list of recommended sites
is the provision of supporting infrastructure for highways
improvements and public transport.
Whilst the requirements for appropriate transport infrastructure is
set out in the allocated policies (as at Appendix A to the report
of the Director of Change, Planning and Environment), this decision
should be read in conjunction with the draft Integrated Transport
Strategy decision. Equally important
are decisions updating progress on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan
and responses to key issues arising from representations made on
the draft Core Strategy last autumn.
The
report of the Director of Change, Planning and Environment gave
some background to the allocation of strategic sites for housing
and employment, and set out the process for allocating sites,
including the sustainability appraisal of alternative
sites. This was an important exercise
so that the Core Strategy is found sound at
examination. The reasons for rejecting
and recommending site allocations have been summarised. Site capacities have been examined in detail using
recognised planning principles to arrive at the number of dwellings
or square metres of development, although these will be refined
when the Council gives consideration to detailed planning
applications. The report of the
Director of Change, Planning and Environment also included
recommendations to include the Planning Inspectorate’s model
policy on the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and
addresses the issue of including dwelling targets for the rural
services in the Core Strategy.
Background
The
Council published its Core Strategy Local Plan for “public
participation” consultation on 2 September 2011, which ran
for 6 weeks to 14 October. This public
engagement event was known as regulation 25 consultation which, under new plan making
regulations that came into effect in April 2012, is regulation 18
consultation. The next round of public
consultation on the Core Strategy would normally be regulation 19,
called “publication”.
Publication is the final consultation before the Core Strategy is
submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination
into the local plan.
A total
of 585 individuals and organisations responded to the 2011
consultation, submitting nearly 2,800 comments. Since then the Council has spent a considerable
amount of time investigating and reviewing the issues that arose
from the representations, including the production of new evidence
and re-engagement with some of the stakeholders, in order to fully
respond to the comments made. A call
for the allocation of strategic development sites in the Core
Strategy (as opposed to identifying strategic locations on the key
diagram) was a major issue. Cabinet
gave consideration to this specific issue at its meeting on 16 May
2012, and resolved to include strategic site allocations for
housing and employment in the Core Strategy as good planning
practice, and to give certainty to the public and the development
industry about the quantity and location of
development. The balance of smaller
land allocations will be made in the Development Delivery Local
Plan that will follow the Core Strategy.
Given
the significance of this change, the Council must give the public
an opportunity to comment on proposed strategic site allocations
before they are incorporated into the Core Strategy for
“publication” consultation (regulation 19). The report of the Director of Change, Planning and
Environment therefore sought approval to undertake what is known as
a partial public consultation on the Core Strategy strategic site
allocations, to commence on 17 August 2012 for 6 weeks, which is
the same stage of the plan making process (regulation 18) as that
completed in the autumn of 2011.
Following consultation on strategic sites, a report will be
presented to Cabinet at a special meeting in November 2012, which
will seek approval to undertake “publication”
consultation (regulation 19) on an amended draft Core
Strategy. The report will include the
consideration of all representations submitted during public
consultation on the Core Strategy in 2011, as well as those
received on the strategic sites consultation. At that stage, the draft Core Strategy will
include strategic site allocations, and will incorporate all of the
recommended changes arising from the consideration of both
consultations. Meanwhile, the most
significant issues that arose during the 2011 consultation,
together with officers’ responses, are the subject of a
separate report.
The proposed timetable is set out below.
Date |
Stage |
Reg |
Description |
August 2012 |
Preparation |
18 |
6-week partial public consultation on proposed strategic housing and employment site allocations, housing targets for rural service centres and the model NPPF1 policy |
December 2012 |
Publication |
19 |
7-week (to allow for public holidays) public consultation on the complete draft Core Strategy |
March 2013
|
Submission |
22 |
Submission of the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State |
July 2013 |
Independent Examination |
24 |
Examination into the Core Strategy by an appointed Planning Inspector |
Process for allocating strategic sites
The
process for making strategic housing and employment site
allocations began with a “call for sites” exercise
between 11 May and 15 June 2012 inviting landowners, developers and
their agents to use a pro forma to submit information about
available sites within the strategic locations identified on the
key diagram of the draft Core Strategy 2011. The call for sites focused on strategic housing
locations to the north west and the
south east of the urban area, and the strategic employment location
at junction 8 of the M20 motorway. The
strategic location at junction 7 of the M20 for a medical hub did
not form part of this initial exercise because proposed development
is associated with the medical hospital currently under
construction, so there were no alternative sites. For the same reasons that sites in other strategic
locations are examined, land at junction 7 forms part of this
assessment.
Even if no further information came forward as part of the recent call for sites, all sites known to the Council that are located within the strategic development locations have been assessed on equal terms in respect of their impact on the environment. To assist in the assessment of the suitability of sites for development, the categories on which information was sought included, but were not limited, to:
· Current site use
· Adjacent site uses
· Landscape
· Ecology
· Site access/transport issues
· Air quality
· Noise pollution
· Flood zone
·
Access to services.
By
their nature, strategic sites must be large sites that are critical
to the delivery of the Core Strategy.
Counsel’s advice was sought on the criteria to use to
determine which sites can be classed as strategic. For the purpose of making strategic housing site
allocations in the Maidstone Core Strategy, a strategic site is
defined as “a site which individually, or collectively with
other sites in very close proximity to one another, is capable of
providing at least one year’s supply of the housing
requirement for the plan period, i.e. 504
dwellings”. Consequently, the
call for sites focused on the larger urban periphery strategic
housing locations and not the rural service centres where smaller
residential allocations will be made in the Development Delivery
Local Plan.
The
first step in the assessment process discounted sites that were
located outside of the strategic locations identified on the key
diagram of the draft Core Strategy 2011 because they were not
critical to the delivery of the strategy. Housing sites that were not located adjacent to the
urban area were also discounted. Some
of the discounted sites will be given consideration during the
preparation of the Development Delivery Local Plan when land
providing the balance of Maidstone’s housing needs will be
allocated.
A map
showing the potential alternative development sites that lie within
the strategic locations was attached at Appendix B to the report of
the Director of Change, Planning and Environment. All alternative sites in the strategic development
locations have been assessed on an equal basis, using sound
evidence. Reasons for the proposed
allocation or rejection of sites are set out below, under the
strategic location headings.
All
policies and proposals in local plans are subject to sustainability
appraisal, which informs various stages of plan
preparation. A Sustainability Appraisal
(SA) of strategic site allocations (attached at Appendix C to the
report of the Director of Change, Planning and Environment) had
been undertaken by appointed consultants. The conclusions in the SA have helped to inform
the selection of sites, as well as highlighting where mitigation
measures will be required to minimise the impact of development on
the environment. A full SA will
accompany the Core Strategy at publication and submission stages of
the plan making process.
The
NPPF makes clear that all policies in local plans should be
deliverable and viable. New advice on
Viability Testing Local Plans, jointly prepared by the Local
Government Association and the Home Builders Federation, was
published in June 2012. In partnership
with Swale Borough Council, Maidstone Borough Council has recently
appointed consultants (Peter Brett Associates) to undertake a joint
viability assessment of both councils’ local plans/core
strategies, with the intention of this work feeding into the
Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule. The studies will consider different aspects of
viability, including affordable housing contributions, site
specific considerations, and wider infrastructure
impacts. The viability assessment will
include an assessment of strategic site allocations.
Mitigation measures to reduce the impact of development on the
landscape are required for all development proposals, making the
best use of existing landscape features together with additional
structural and internal landscaping. Improvements to highways
and public transport are essential. So too is the
permeability of individual sites, through the provision of
pedestrian and cycle links giving access to existing and new
housing and employment areas, open space, shops and community
facilities. Mitigation measures appropriate for each site are
set out in the proposed site allocation policies.
A
summary of the results of the assessment is set out
below. Strategic sites that are
recommended for allocation, together with supporting infrastructure
requirements, are set out in the specific allocation policies for
each site included in the consultation document attached at
Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and
Environment.
North west strategic housing
location
Following the call for sites exercise, only one previously
unknown site was submitted for consideration – South of
Allington Way (HO-08-NW).
Rejected sites in the north west
strategic location
South
of Allington Way (HO-08-NW) is a small
site capable of accommodating up to 15 dwellings. The site is
situated adjacent to East of Hermitage Lane to the west of the main
Allington settlement. The site in
itself is not difficult to develop and the primary question would
concern access. The characteristics of the site are such that it is
more suited to an infill style of development rather than as a
strategic allocation. If the site were allocated as part of the
wider East of Hermitage Lane allocation it would unduly affect the
layout of that development for relatively little gain.
Bell
Farm (HO-16-NW) is a large site, capable of accommodating up to 260
dwellings west of North Street in Barming. The site is open and
slopes to the south. The primary reasons for not allocating Bell
Farm for development concern character and landscape. While Bell
Farm is not highly visible from the A26 Tonbridge Road, which runs
south of the site, it is visible from the opposite side of the
Medway valley, an important local landscape. The development of
Bell Farm would also require a change in the semi-rural character
to North Street that is inappropriate at this location. Heath Road
would come under pressure as a primary access to the site, although
the restricted width of the road with cars parked either side as
far as the junction with Fountain Lane means that this would likely
be an unsafe option to pursue.
Bunyards Farm
(HO-20-NW) is a small triangle of land located on the northern side
of Beaver Road, adjacent to the A20 London Road in Allington and the Maidstone Borough Council
boundary with Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council. This site
would provide a minimal amount of dwellings and would not
contribute significantly to the wider objectives for the
north west strategic location.
Land at
Gatland Lane/Farleigh Lane (HO-21-NW), overlooks the Medway valley
to the west of Fant and south of the A26 Tonbridge Road. There are
two primary reasons for rejection; these being that this area is a
locally important landscape which provides part of a green and blue
corridor into the centre of Maidstone; and that development of this
site would result in the loss of grade 1 agricultural land, of
which the borough has a limited supply.
Allocated sites in the north west
strategic location
The
West of Hermitage Lane site is allocated for 300 dwellings and is
comprised of two portions of land. The largest portion, West of
Hermitage Lane (HO-11-NW) is situated opposite Maidstone Hospital
on Hermitage Land and is shaped like an arrow pointing west and is
situated adjacent to the Tonbridge and Malling boundary. The
smaller portion, Oakapple Lane
(HO-07-NW), runs from the tip of the arrow on a north east-south
west axis. The site as a whole is suitably screened from longer
distance views, with a dip in the centre of the larger portion, and
has close access to local facilities and services. Vehicular access
will be taken from Hermitage Lane only, with Oakapple Lane providing pedestrian and cycling
access via a complimentary upgrade of its unmade north western
section. Along the north western boundary of the larger portion of
the site a 30 metres wide buffer will be required to protect the
setting of the existing ancient woodland.
East of
Hermitage Lane (HO-10-NW and HO-13-NW) is allocated for 415
dwellings. It was submitted as two separate sites, the larger
HO-13-NW which crosses the Tonbridge and Malling boundary, and the
smaller HO-10-NW site, which incorporates a redundant reservoir.
This land south east of the Hermitage Lane to Allington footpath/restricted byway is an existing
housing allocation and it is this land which is re-allocated for
housing. The site will be split roughly 1/3 to 2/3, with the north
eastern 2/3 of the site (a large open field incorporating the
reservoir site) developed as housing and the south western 1/3 of
the site designated as informal open space. Primary access is from
an upgrade of part of the footpath/restricted byway, with
emergency, bus, pedestrian and cycling access provided from Howard
Drive. The site is visible from the North Downs, although the
inspector for the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 considered
that the site encroaches on the urban area, rather than vice
versa.
Bridge
Nursery (HO-19-NW) is allocated for 165 dwellings. It is an
existing housing allocation in the Maidstone Borough Wide Local
Plan 2000. It is located at the far north western end of the A20
London Road and is adjacent to the Tonbridge and Malling boundary.
Primary access to the site will be taken from the A20. The location
of this site means that it is able to take advantage of the
existing community, retail, health, education and open space
facilities in Allington. The site is
well screened and the Maidstone East railway line provides a
boundary to the north eastern edge of the site.
South east strategic housing location
The overall approach to assessing housing
sites to the south east of the urban area was influenced by a need
to protect the rural character of the area, the setting of listed
buildings, and to create a softer development edge to the urban
area in this location. The
accessibility of the sites, proximity to the town centre, and
permeability through the sites to existing residential areas and
services was also extremely important. Nine sites came forward in
the south east in response to the call for sites, and three were
discounted due to location and/or size.
Rejected sites in the south east strategic location
A
number of sites have been rejected based on landscape character,
setting of listed buildings and grounds of
accessibility. These sites include Land
at Gore Court (HO-05-SE), Bicknor Farm (HO-01-SE), Land South of
Sutton Road (HO-04-SE) and the northern section of land North of
Sutton Road (HO-14-SE).
Allocated sites in the south east strategic location
Two of
the sites adjacent to the urban edge at Langley Park (HO-15-SE) and
Land North of Sutton Road (HO-14-SE south section and HO-09-SE) are
allocated for residential development in the Maidstone Borough Wide
Local Plan 2000, and are still considered the most sustainable
sites to develop in this area. Both sites allow direct access to
Sutton Road and would make best use of proposed improvements to
public transport linkages to the town centre, as well as pedestrian
and cycle access to local services and community
facilities. For the most part, the
sites have strong boundaries and are not considered to be
of as high a landscape
quality as other sites in this area. The site boundaries can be
improved to strengthen the containment of development and help to
mitigate against pressure for expansion
in the future.
Of the remaining sites assessed, a
further section of land North of Bicknor Wood (HO-14-SE) was
considered most appropriate to accommodate development of the size
and scale necessary in this location.
This site has well defined boundaries with Gore Court Road to the
west, Bicknor Wood to the south and White Horse Lane to the north,
and can be screened from the high quality open countryside to the
east by extending a section of Bicknor Wood to meet East Wood,
which lies just to the north of White Horse Lane.
North of Bicknor Wood is a large open
field of approximately 9.5 hectares in relatively close proximity
to Sutton Road. Bicknor Wood screens
this site from the existing local plan allocation at North of
Sutton Road. Accessibility to the site can be improved by
connecting the site to Sutton Road via a new access road through
the proposed North of Sutton Road allocation, which will meet Gore
Court Road at the western edge of Bicknor Wood. Existing public footpaths allow easy access
to local shops and community facilities in the adjacent residential
area of Senacre, and to planned
improvements to public transport linkages to the town
centre.
The allocation of North of Bicknor Wood
ensures that the developed edge of Maidstone does not creep further
east than Langley Park or further north than White Horse Lane. This
also ensures that development is consolidated in this area to make
best use of planned transport improvements on Sutton Road and
accessibility to existing local services and
facilities. Although the North of
Bicknor Wood site is in an attractive rural setting, it can be
screened from its surrounding open countryside, and development of
the site will not impact on Bicknor
Farm and Rumwood Court, which are both
Grade II listed buildings.
Junction 8 strategic employment location
Three
sites came forward at J8 in response to the call for sites.
Rejected sites at the junction 8 strategic location
The
site to the east of M20 J8 (EMP-01-J8) is too small to make a
significant contribution to the identified
requirements. Further developable area
would be likely to be lost to retain an adequate landscaped buffer
around the edges of the site (for ecology and to protect
residential amenities of Old England Cottage) and also to
accommodate the necessary changes to the site’s form to
enable a development platform to be created. Highway access to the site would require extensive
improvements to the A20 to provide a suitable and safe means of
access directly from the A20. The use
of the access, the construction of the access road, and the likely
extensive works to create the development platform are all likely
to adversely affect the setting of the adjacent listed
building. The Conservation Officer has
raised concerns on these grounds. Use
of the site access road is likely to affect the residential amenity
of the occupiers of Old England Cottage. It was recommended that this site is not suitable
for allocation.
Comparison of Woodcut Farm and Land to the south of the
A20
The
other two sites submitted are land at Woodcut Farm (EMP-03-J8) and
land to the south of M20 J8 (EMP-02-J8). Both sites are in countryside locations, removed
from the main built up area of Maidstone and comprise open
agricultural fields. Development of
either site would clearly substantially alter their existing
character. The existing urban influence
in the vicinity of the Woodcut Farm site is slightly greater,
provided by the residential and small commercial development along
the A20 and the road interchange itself. The vicinity of the site to the south of the A20
is more rural in character. The 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.
The
site to the south of A20 has defined boundaries created by the
watercourses to the south and east and by the roadside banks to the
north west and north east. These features would contain development
and help to mitigate against pressure
for expansion of the site in the future. The Woodcut Farm site has strong boundaries in the
form of the A20 and M20. If the site
were developed, it is likely there would be pressure in the future
to bring forward the triangle of land between Musket Lane and the
A20. The western boundary of the site
is defined by Crismill Lane and the
tree belt along it but the pressure could come to expand in this
direction in the longer term. If the site were to be developed it
would be important to strengthen this boundary with substantial
structural landscaping to provide a buffer to the wider countryside
to the west to help to mitigate this risk.
The
Woodcut Farm site forms part of the setting of the Kent Downs Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and represents a continuation
of the landform of the North Downs. It
is also visible, at a distance, from points in the
AONB. Views from the AONB of the site
to the south of A20 are limited. In views from the south it is seen
as part of the foreground to the AONB.
It is
considered 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. To develop the site to the
south of A20 requires extensive excavation which would be a
substantial and unavoidable alteration to the prevailing form of
the landscape. There is significantly
less opportunity on this site to soften the impacts of development
through enhanced landscaping.
Archaeology is a factor on both sites and the actual potential
requires confirmation including through additional survey if
necessary. In addition, development on
the Woodcut Farm site would need to take account of the setting of
the listed farmhouse.
For the
Woodcut Farm site, the impacts on
protected species and sites are judged, at this stage, likely to be
minimal, recognising that further surveys will be required as part
of a planning application. For land to
south A20, measures are required to mitigate impacts on the River
Len millpond and Carr Local Wildlife Site. There are concerns about the further landscape
change resulting from these measures and the impact of both these
measures and the overall excavation required on the hydrology of
the site.
The
view of County Highways is that access to the Woodcut Farm site
would be taken from the A20 Ashford Road with some improvements to
the A20 roundabout, which is expected to be required to increase
its capacity. Development on the site
to the south of the A20 would necessitate more substantive changes
to the roundabout, including the creation of a fourth
“arm” to access the site, which it is judged would be
more complex and costly. Development of
either site would contribute to highway improvements elsewhere on
the network, subject to more detailed transport assessment in
conjunction with a planning application.
The
promoters of the site to the south of the A20 contend that the site
could deliver, within its boundaries, the initial part of a South
East Maidstone Strategic Link. The link
road does not form part of the emerging development or transport
strategies for the borough, so this proposal for the site has been
given no weight in the assessment.
In
conclusion, land to the south of the A20 would require substantial
landscape change to accommodate development, and has potential to
impact on the adjacent Local Wildlife Site. Given the size of the Woodcut Farm site and its
capacity to provide for extensive structural and internal
landscaping, as well as its capability to accommodate development
within a parkland setting, it was recommended that this site be
allocated for employment development.
Junction 7 strategic location for a medical hub
Newnham Park
(EMP-04-J7) at junction 7 of the M20 motorway is identified as a
strategic location for a medical hub.
It is a 28.5ha site located to the north of the urban area
approximately 2.5km from the town centre. The site is bounded
by Horish Wood to the north and Pope's
Wood to the west. To the south is Bearsted Road, beyond which
are Vinters Park Crematorium, Vinters Park Local Nature Reserve,
and the Grove Green housing estate. The eastern boundary is
formed by the A249 Sittingbourne Road, beyond which are Eclipse
Business Park and the Hilton Hotel. The Kent Institute of
Medicine and Surgery (KIMS) hospital is under construction on the
northern perimeter of the site together with a new access
road. The hospital is due to open in 2014.
The
medical campus provides an opportunity for Maidstone to become a
centre for medical excellence. It
supports the Council’s objectives for economic prosperity and
the allocation will deliver a well designed and sustainably
constructed development that will attract a skilled workforce and
assist in balancing the jobs market.
There are no alternative sites suitable for this type of
development in the borough because of the nature of demand for
these facilities, and the proximity of campus facilities to the
KIMS clinic and motorway junction.
Development will have an impact on the landscape because the
site is located in the countryside and lies within the setting of
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), so mitigation
measures will be critical to the site’s
development. Newnham Park will be developed in a
woodland/parkland setting with appropriate provision of open
space. Necessary structural and
internal landscaping will incorporate existing landscape features
and watercourses running through the site, and will contain
development as well as protect adjacent ancient woodland from the
impacts of development. New woodland
will be planted on the rectangular field to the south east of the
site to provide net gains in biodiversity and ecological
connectivity between Pope’s Wood and Horish Wood, and to serve as additional screening
to new development.
Buildings at Newnham Park will be
built to a high standard of design and construction, and will
include a range of measures to control building heights, mass and
construction materials (including green roofs). Permeability is an important aspect of the site's
development, and enhanced pedestrian and cycle links to the
residential areas of Grove Green, Vinters Park and Penenden Heath, and to Eclipse Business Park, will
be provided. Developer contributions
for highway and public transport improvements will be sought and
delivered through legal agreements.
Development will be guided by a development brief approved by the
Borough Council.
Newnham Court
Shopping Village is located adjacent to the medical campus, and the
owners of the Village are currently seeking to make improvements to
existing retail facilities. The
redevelopment of the shopping village together with the medical
campus will attract the investment funding required to facilitate
highway improvements and other infrastructure necessary to serve
the development. Extending the
development brief for the medical campus to incorporate the
shopping village will provide an opportunity to secure a well
planned, well designed and comprehensive development at an
important gateway into Maidstone. The
quantum and type of retail facilities will be restricted, and the
impact of replacement retail facilities on the town centre will be
addressed through the requirement for retail impact assessments and
policy restrictions.
It was
recommended that Newnham Park is
allocated for a medical campus, retail
park and nature reserve, together with extensive structural
and internal landscaping and supporting infrastructure.
Priorities for delivering infrastructure
In July
2006, Cabinet[1] agreed
its priorities for the negotiation of Section 106 planning
obligations[2] as
follows:
Housing Development
1. Affordable housing/provision of open space and recreational facilities
2. Education contributions
3. Transportation infrastructure
4. Medical provision
5.
Community safety
Business and Retail Development
1. Transportation infrastructure
2. Open space/landscaping
3. Education/training contributions
4. Community safety
5. Clean and tidy borough
6.
Other
Leisure Development
1. Transport infrastructure
2. Community safety
3. Open space/landscaping
4. Education/training contributions
5. Clean and tidy borough
6.
Other.
The
context in which priorities were considered included two emerging
development plan documents on affordable housing and open space,
and consultation with Planning Committee and the Environment and
Transportation Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Cabinet resolved “that the schedule of
completed Planning Obligations be available online”, and
“that following the adoption of these priorities, a
Supplementary Planning Document on Developer Contributions be
prepared in accordance with the timetable set down in the adopted
Local Development Scheme”.
A
supplementary planning document was not produced, and the list of
priorities for planning obligations was never uploaded to the
Council’s website or used extensively in the development
management process. However, affordable
housing and open space contributions have been given priority when
determining planning applications in accordance with the two
adopted development plan documents for these policies. The reasons for not pursuing a supplementary
planning document are not clear. It may
have been due to the lack of consultation, viability assessment,
explicit scoring criteria, etc., and that the business and retail
contributions priorities did not follow the development plan
policies at that time. Consequently, no
formal public consultation or examination/ inquiry into the
methodology or the selection of planning obligation priorities have
been undertaken.
A key
issue for the Council in 2012 is the delivery of transport
infrastructure to support new development, particularly strategic
housing and employment sites that are proposed to be allocated in
the Core Strategy. The allocations will
be subject to viability testing, but sites cannot be delivered
without the necessary improvements to highways and public transport
set out in the policies (attached at Appendix A to the report of
the Director of Change, Planning and Environment), the draft
Integrated Transport Strategy and the draft Infrastructure Delivery
Plan. The Core Strategy will be found
unsound if transport infrastructure is not given sufficient
priority in the delivery of the strategy.
It was
therefore recommended that, subject to viability testing of
strategic site allocations and Core Strategy policies as a whole,
the prioritisation of planning obligations is reviewed in the
context of the proposed housing and employment allocations, and
that the policy on infrastructure delivery (policy CS14) reflects
those decisions.
NPPF model policy
The
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March
2012, and the key theme running through the framework is a
presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Planning
Inspectorate has published a model policy for local plans, which is
considered to be an appropriate way of meeting the expectations of
the presumption in favour. The model
policy addresses the need to proactively engage with applicants to
find solutions to problems and, where there are no up-to-date
policies, to grant planning permission without delay unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. The model policy has been inserted into a number
of core strategies by the presiding inspector at recent core
strategy examinations.
Although the requirements of the policy are set out in the NPPF,
and the Borough Council implements best practice by working
proactively with applicants, a decision to exclude the policy from
the Core Strategy at this stage of the plan making process could
lead to the Core Strategy being found unsound at
examination. The consultation on
strategic housing and employment site allocations offers a vehicle
to also consult the public on the model policy, despite there being
limited opportunity to amend the wording. It was recommended that policy NPPF1: Presumption
in favour of development is included in the Core Strategy and that
the policy is published for public consultation (as at Appendix A
to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and
Environment).
Rural Service Centres
Sites
for housing development at the rural service centres (RSC) will be
allocated in the Development Delivery Local Plan. Three of the key issues that respondents raised
during the 2011 public participation consultation on the Core
Strategy relate to the designation of villages as RSCs, the need for flexibility through the early
release of sites at RSCs where a local
need has been demonstrated, and the inclusion of specific
residential targets for the five RSCs.
These
three issues are discussed in detail in the report on the public
participation consultation. It is
proposed to retain the five designated RSCs, and to carry forward to the Core Strategy the
paragraph allowing flexibility at RSCs
as well as the individual village dwelling targets set out in the
Cabinet report of 9 February 2011. The
Core Strategy will be amended to reflect these changes prior to
Cabinet’s approval to undertake publication consultation in
December.
However, any major changes to the strategy contained in the
publication version of the Core Strategy following consultation in
December would result in the need for a further round of public
consultation on those changes. To
mitigate the risk to the Core Strategy programme, it was
recommended that the dwelling targets set out for the RSCs in the 9 February 2011 Cabinet report be
included in the consultation document attached at Appendix A to the
report of the Director of Change, Planning and
Environment. These are:
· Harrietsham |
315 dwellings |
· Headcorn |
190 dwellings |
· Lenham |
110 dwellings |
· Marden |
320 dwellings |
· Staplehurst |
195 dwellings |
The Cabinet were informed that the Regeneration and Economic Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee were recommending the following:-
1. Consultation with neighbouring districts be undertaken as per the legislation and that Cabinet put in place a methodology for public consultation. (Site allocations and ITS)
2. Approximate figures for jobs are provided in the document alongside employment square footage. (Site Allocations)
3. The option to install a bus lane on the A274 be re-assessed (ITS)
4. That recommendation 2 of the public participation report be amended to say:
Reject Junction 8 of the M20 motorway as a Strategic Development Site location for industrial and warehouse development, together with premium office development and do not allocate land for development in the Core Strategy to be guided by an approved development brief.
The Cabinet were also informed that the Spatial Planning Strategy Advisory Group were recommending the following:-
The recommendations in the report were agreed taking into account any decisions made in respect of the previous item and the amendment sheet circulated by the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment relating to amendments to the document of:
1) East of Hermitage Lane.
2) North of Sutton Road.
3) Woodcut Farm.
4) Newnham Park.
In respect of recommendation 1.2.4, the Advisory Committee agreed the amended recommendation as submitted by the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment in the following terms:-
“The Cabinet notes that the Maidstone Strategic Site Allocations Sustainability Appraisal July 2012 (Appendix C) forms part of the evidence base; and requests that the consultants (URS) be asked to provide a summary of the significant environmental effects of the options chosen and the reasonable alternatives rejected, as set out in the Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, Schedule 2.”
Alternative options considered:
The Council could publish its Core Strategy for regulation 19 consultation without the allocation of strategic sites for housing and employment, and retain the strategic development locations on the key diagram only. However, the inclusion of allocated strategic sites for housing and employment not only gives clarity on the amount and location of proposed development, but also results in a more robust Core Strategy. The assessment of alternative sites is integral to the site selection process.
Reason Key: Policies, Plans, Strategies;
Wards Affected: (All Wards);
Details of the Committee: None
Representations should be made by: 13 June 2012
Other reasons / organisations consulted
Public consultation (TCPA regulation
18)
Consultees
Residents and businesses, development
industry, parish councils, ward members, infrastructure
providers.
Contact: Rob Jarman, Head of Development Management Email: Robjarman@maidstone.gov.uk.
Report author: Sue Whiteside
Publication date: 27/07/2012
Date of decision: 25/07/2012
Decided: 25/07/2012 - Cabinet.
Effective from: 04/08/2012
Accompanying Documents:
- Cabinet, Council or Committee Report for Core Strategy Strategic Development Site Allocations PDF 162 KB View as HTML (1) 116 KB
- Enc. 1 for Cabinet, Council or Committee Report for Core Strategy Strategic Development Site Allocations PDF 6 MB
- Enc. 2 for Cabinet, Council or Committee Report for Core Strategy Strategic Development Site Allocations PDF 3 MB
- AppC_Maidstone Strategic Sites Allocations Interim SA Report_FINAL DRAFT FOR MEMBERS PDF 8 MB