Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning and Development - Maidstone Borough Local Plan: main outcomes of the Regulation 19 consultation and Proposed Changes

Decision:

Issue for Decision

To consider the most important representations to the Local Plan made in response to the publication of Regulation 19 submission draft of the Plan and to consider the recommended proposed changes to the Plan, which, if agreed, will be submitted to the Secretary of State with the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2016 agreed by Council on 25 January 2016.

Decision Made

That the Schedule of Proposed Changes to the Maidstone Borough Local Plan set out in Appendix A of the report to the Committee dated 18 April 2016 be agreed for submission to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with the Maidstone Local Plan 2016 which was agreed by Council on 25 January 2016 with the:

· Exclusion from the Schedule the boundary modification reference PC/5, Policy SP1 Maidstone Urban Area, shown on page 46 of the agenda;

· Exclusion from the Schedule of the Proposed Change PC/57, Policy ID1 Infrastructure Delivery; and,

· The inclusion in the Schedule of the additional and amended Proposed Changes shown on the Urgent Update dated 18 April 2016 regarding polices:

o H1(5) – Langley Park, Sutton Road

o H2(2) – Invicta Park

o H2(3) – Lenham

o EMP(1) – Mote Road, Maidstone

Minutes:

The Head of Planning and Development introduced the report and explained the suggested changes resulting from the Regulation 19 consultation were attached as Appendix A to the report. These changes, once agreed, would be submitted with the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

The Committee were informed that Highways England had objected to the Local Plan. A meeting was held on 12 April 2016 between Maidstone Borough Council, Kent County Council (KCC) and Highways England. Highways England had significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the VISUM modelling on the motorway network. However, it had been agreed that micro assimilation work on the four main junctions of the M20 in the Maidstone borough would be carried out as a way forward.

Councillors Chittenden, Clark, Sams and Brice addressed the Committee as visiting members.

In response to concerns raised by visiting Members the Head of Planning and Development explained that detailed master planning was being undertaken regarding Lenham, with Lenham Parish Council and other stakeholders in the area being involved. He explained there was still an opportunity to shape the housing layouts and accesses etc.

He went on to state he was unaware of the Marley site in Lenham coming forward as land available for housing. In the adopted Local Plan this site was allocated as protected employment land, however, this could change.

Regarding land south of the railway line in Lenham, the Head of Planning and Development went on to say, this was possible, but other settlements, such as Marden and Staplehurst for example, would have to be taken into account. He stated the line, in terms of where growth should stop, had to be drawn somewhere. The site mentioned by the visiting Member was a brownfield site which was considered the exception to the rule.

With reference to the Housing and Planning Bill, the Head of Planning and Development explained it would become an important and material consideration in the Local Plan. Depending on the time it became an Act, it was likely to be before the Inspector at the examination stage of the Local Plan. Until that time the detail was unavailable.

The Principal Planning Officer (Spatial Planning) confirmed that legal advice had been taken throughout the Local Plan preparation process.

She went on to explain that the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) was an assessment of the need for sites in the Borough. Changes in the guidance for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites, strictly limiting sites to the countryside, related to how that need was met and the GTAA and planning guidance were two distinct and separate things.

Concern was raised regarding the redrawing of urban boundaries and the possible conflict between Policy DM12 and the individual site policies and which policy would take precedence when making planning decisions on the density of developments. It was explained that the site policies would take precedence. It was agreed to keep the urban boundary as it was and withdraw the proposed modifications set out in Appendix A of the report.

The Committee were informed, regarding the broad location policies, if a neighbourhood plan was adopted after the adoption of the Local Plan, the neighbourhood plan policies would take precedence over the Local Plan policies provided the neighbourhood plan was in general conformity with the Local Plan.

A question was raised regarding the removal of Policy ID1(4) Infrastructure Delivery rankings, where there were competing demands for contributions towards the delivery of infrastructure through section 106 agreements due to a lack of evidence to justify the policy. It was agreed this policy should remain in the Local Plan and the necessary evidence gathered to support it should go before the Inspector.

It was confirmed, regarding site H1(29), land at Boughton lane, that should a planning application come forward that did not provide adequate mitigation to protect the ancient woodland on the site and provide for changes to the junction at the Wheatsheaf, it would be unlikely to be granted planning permission. It was also confirmed that the site criteria for site EMP1(5), Woodcut Farm, was very stringent and if a planning application came forward showing larger buildings than in the policy, it would be refused. The Council was not required to support the Regulation 19 consultation feedback received regarding increasing the height of the buildings on this site.

The Head of Planning and Development confirmed the evidence base to show the Council had fulfilled its duty to co-operate with KCC was robust.

The Committee noted the guidance given in relation to Lenham and broad locations.

RESOLVED: