Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Town Hall, High Street, Maidstone. View directions

Contact: Tessa Mallett  01622 602524

No. Item


The Committee to consider whether all items on the agenda should be webcast


RESOLVED:That all items on the agenda be webcast.





Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors:


·  De Wiggondene, arrived at 6:45pm; and,

·  Willis, arrived at 6:20pm.



Notification of Substitute Members


·  Councillor Cuming was substituting for Councillor de Wiggondene; and.

·  Councillor Brian Mortimer substituting for Councillor Willis.



Notification of Visiting Members


Councillors Ash, Hogg, D Mortimer, Newton, Perry, Sams, Mrs Stockell, Thick, P Watson and J.A. Wilson were in attendance for agenda item 7.


Councillors Mrs Blackmore, Burton, Greer, McKay and Mrs Ring were in attendance as observers reserving their right to speak on agenda item 7.



Disclosures by Members and Officers


Councillor Springett declared an ‘Other Significant Interest’ by virtue of the fact that her property borders the boundary of site H1 (17) – Barty Farm, Bearsted.


Councillor Burton declared a Disclosable Pecuniary interest in site H1 (10) – Land South of Sutton Road, Langley.


Both councillors were to leave the room during discussion of these sites.


There were no disclosures by Officers.




To consider whether any items should be taken in private because of the possible disclosure of exempt information


RESOLVED: That the items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.



Urgent Items


RESOLVED: that the following items be taken as urgent updates to item 7:


·  An amended plan for site allocation H1 (40) – Grigg Lane and Lenham Road, Headcorn, which correctly indicates the revised site area for development, and;


·  A letter received from Barbara Cooper, Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport at Kent County Council (KCC) and Maidstone Borough Council’s response.


The Chairman explained there was no intention to discuss the contents of the letter from KCC unless it related to any of the sites discussed at this meeting.




Maidstone Borough Local Plan - new and amended site allocations (Item 8 of agenda for 20 January 2015)

To continue consideration of proposed new site allocation policies in Appendix D (Item 8 of agenda for 20 January 2015);


H1 (67) to H1 (69);

H1 (72) to H1 (74); and,

H1 (48) for proposed omission


And 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 (Appendix A and B Item 8 of agenda for 20 January 2015).



The Chairman confirmed all Councillors had been lobbied on Agenda item 7 – Maidstone Borough Local Plan – new and amended site allocations.


The Chairman explained she was accepting representations from all Borough Councillors for sites they have an interest in and Parish Councillors and Neighbourhood Plan Groups for sites in their Parish.  Representations from the public were not being accepted  as they had been consulted and there was a substantial volume of work to get through. Representations from developers were not being accepted to ensure fairness of the process.


The Chairman welcomed 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.


The Chairman invited Mr Jarman to update the Committee before progressing with the scrutiny of the sites in Appendix A and D of the agenda.


Mr Jarman explained to the Committee there had been a number of detailed objections to particular sites.  The general theme was that the infrastructure, in particular highways and foul water, were at capacity and could not take any more development.


Mr Jarman went on to point out that many questions had been raised as to how sites can be recommended if there was not complete information on the infrastructure.


Mr Jarman stated it was the planning officers’ role to provide objective planning advice and that plan making was a continuous, iterative process of engagement.  The final point being when there were policies in place to provide land and infrastructure to support the current and projected housing need allocations.  Input from infrastructure providers was part of the process and decisions needed to be made on sites before the infrastructure providers could give a firm response on the implications.  This could not be done until it was known how many and what type of housing was needed.  Mr Jarman said we were not at this stage, which was the planning application stage.


Mr Jarman went on to state identifying draft housing allocation sites was not premature and was a stage in a continuous process towards the adopted policies.  Maidstone Borough Council was at Regulation 18 stage, which was the first stage of the process.


Mr Jarman informed the Committee that a high volume of planning applications had been received out of the 50 sites in the draft local plan and were at various stages of the planning process.  There had also been other applications outside of this process.  With all planning applications there had to be a transport assessment submitted, part of which was detailed highway modelling for the surrounding area, not just for the site.  This was why planning officers were confident the sites taken forward in the draft local plan had enough information to be recommended.


The Committee went on to continue discussions on the new site allocations in Appendix D of the Agenda dated 20 January 2015 from page 192 (206);


H1 (66) – Land south of The Parsonage, Goudhurst Road, Marden


Councillor English raised concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.


Long Meeting


Prior to 10:30pm, during consideration of Maidstone Borough Local Plan – new and amended site allocations, the Committee considered whether to adjourn the meeting at 10:30pm or continue until 11:00pm if necessary.


RESOLVED: That the meeting continue until 11:00pm, if necessary.





Prior to 23:00pm, the committee considered whether to adjourn at 23:00pm and reconvened at a time to be confirmed.


RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned at 23:00pm and reconvened at a time to be confirmed.