Issue - meetings

Maidstone Borough Local Plan - new and amended site allocations

Meeting: 02/03/2015 - Planning, Transport and Development Overview & Scrutiny Committee (Item 160)

160 Call-in: MAIDSTONE BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN - NEW AND AMENDED SITE ALLOCATIONS. pdf icon PDF 69 KB

Interviews with:

 

·  The Leader of the Council, Councillor Annabelle Blackmore;

·  The Cabinet Member for Planning, Transport and Development, Councillor David Burton;

·  Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development; and

·  Steve Clarke, Principal Planning Officer (Policy)

 

(Please bring papers, report and decision, previously circulated or request copies from Democratic Services)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed the visiting public and Members to the meeting and explained the meeting had been called as a result of a Call-in of the Cabinet Decisions dated 4 February 2015.

 

The Chairman introduced Councillor Fran Wilson, Councillor Gordon Newton and Councillor Eddie Powell to the meeting as the three signatories of the Call-in.

 

Councillor Wilson presented her reasons for calling in the Cabinet Decision and explained it was not her intention to re-open the entire debate on the new and amended sites for the draft Local Plan.

 

Councillor Wilson went on to say her concern was a lack of consistency by Cabinet in the weight and reasons given for their decisions.  She felt the Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee (PTD OSC) had taken a consistent approach with their recommendations which included explanations for their recommendations.

 

Councillor Wilson was concerned the lack of consistency in the reasons for the Cabinet’s decisions could have made the Local Plan unsound and open to challenge.  Of particular concern was the decision on site H1(10) South of Sutton Road, where Councillor Wilson suggested the PTD OSC recommend Cabinet removed point (e) of this decision as a reason to reject this site:

 

that development here would not command the consent of local people as reflected in the consultation response’

 

Councillor Wilson went on to point out that Cabinet had rejected the recommendation from PTD OSC on site H1(20) Postley Road, Tovil and did not give a reason for their decision.  Councillor Wilson felt, for consistency, if Cabinet rejected a recommendation from the Committee they should provide a reason for doing so, as they had with other sites.

 

Councillor Wilson continued to explain that points (a), (b) and (c) of the decision to reject site H1(10) which state:

 

a)  ‘in the opinion of the Cabinet the eastern boundary of site H1(5) forms a natural boundary to the edge of the urban area of Maidstone;

b)  ‘there should be no further encroachment of residential development into the countryside which would result in the loss of green space and a leisure facility;

c)  there would be an unacceptable cumulative impact on traffic generations in the Sutton Road corridor’.

 

Should apply to sites H1(7) North of Bicknor Wood, Gore Court Road, Otham, H1(8) West of Church Road Otham and H1(9) Bicknor Farm, Sutton Road, Otham.  She went on to state that reasons for refusal should apply to sites on the north and the south sides of the Sutton Road or the points be removed from the decision for H1(10) or a strong explanation for rejecting one site and not others provided.

 

Councillor Wilson then continued to explain that sites such as H1(25) Tongs Meadow, which have receptor sites, should be protected from development.  She considered that an independent organisation, such as Kent Wildlife, should be involved from the design stage of any development of the site.

 

Councillor Newton explained his reasons for Calling-in the Cabinet decision from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160


Meeting: 28/01/2015 - Cabinet. (Item 7.)

7. Report of the Head of Planning and Development - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - New and Amended Site Allocations pdf icon PDF 184 KB

Additional documents:


Meeting: 20/01/2015 - Planning, Transport and Development Overview & Scrutiny Committee (Item 130)

130 Maidstone Borough Local Plan - new and amended site allocations pdf icon PDF 41 KB

A report presented by Sarah Anderson, Principal Planning Officer, Spatial Planning for the committee to consider the:

 

·  Proposed amendments to the sites identified for housing (Policy H1) in the Regulation 18 Maidstone Borough Local Plan following the public consultation on the draft Plan held between March and May 2014;

 

·  The site allocation policies for proposed new additional housing sites and the proposed deletion of a housing site at Boughton Monchelsea to be the subject of public consultation (Regulation 18) in Spring 2015;

 

·  An update on the recent and planned Local Plan work streams.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman confirmed all councillors had been lobbied on Agenda item 8, Maidstone Borough Local Plan – new and amended site allocations.

 

The Chairman stated the Committee would start by considering Appendix D of the report, Proposed new site allocation policies and proposed omission of H1 (48) Heath Road, Boughton Monchelsea, for approval for Regulation 18, followed by Appendix A, Schedule of responses to the representations to the sites in Policy H1.

 

The Chairman introduced Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development, Sarah Anderton, Principal Planning Officer, Spatial Planning and Steve Clarke, Principal Planning Officer, Spatial Planning to the meeting.

 

Mr Jarman introduced two urgent updates for the Committee, an Infrastructure Update Note and a Schedule of Changes to Site Capacities.

 

Mr Jarman explained the sites in the report for this agenda item, in Appendix A and B, were the proposed amendments to existing allocations and the majority were recommended for consultation at Regulation 19 stage, with three exceptions:

 

·  Land South of Sutton Road, Langley (H1 (10)) and Land South of Grigg Lane, Headcorn (H1 (41)) – housing numbers for both sites had been decreased, with the development area to the east being increased.  These sites were recommended to go to Regulation 18 consultation again as these changes were regarded as significant, and;

 

·  Springfields, Royal Engineers Road and Mill Lane, Maidstone, although there were no proposed changes by Officers, the yield for this site had been reduced from 950 to 500, and was recommended to go to Regulation 18 consultation again due to the significant change for this site.

 

Mr Jarman went on to update the Committee on the Land East of Hermitage Lane, Maidstone.  This policy was not included in the papers.  The site was an allocation in the adopted and draft local plans.  The site was approved by Cabinet in February 2014 to go to Regulation 18 consultation from March to May 2014.  Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council did not object to a country park associated with this policy allocation.

 

A planning application was refused for this site in Summer 2014 and was subject to an enquiry later in 2015.  In terms of the public enquiry Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council had objected to a country park by a Rule 6 Statement.  Maidstone Borough Council had continued on-going dialogue with Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and hoped to resolve any issues with them.  Mr Jarman pointed out this highlighted officers’ commitment to the delivery of strategic open space.

 

Mr Jarman told the Committee the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would be quoted by the inspector at the Public Examination into the Local Plan.  In particular Section 7 – to Deliver a Wide Choice of Housing, paragraph 47;

 

“To boost significantly the supply of housing Local Plan Authorities should use their evidence base to ensure their Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing.”

 

Mr Jarman accepted Maidstone’s objectively assessed need of 18,600 was unpopular, but pointed out the inspector, at the public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130