Agenda item

Questions and answer session for members of the public

Minutes:

Mr Sean Carter asked the Chairman the following question:

 

“The North Loose Residents Association note that some changes have been made to the MBC Local Plan regarding the New Line Learning site in Boughton Lane.  As Kent Highways are objecting to the Local Plan regarding traffic on the A229, and state that there are no mitigation measures available at the Boughton Lane/Cripple Street/Loose Road junction, which is already at capacity, or at the Wheatsheaf.  As the MBC Planning Committee originally rejected the original planning application and now a Planning Inspector, backed by the Secretary of State describes it as having a “severe adverse effect” and in the Inspectors words “the situation in Boughton Lane would be likely to come close to being intolerable” surely all Boughton Lane allocations should be withdrawn from the Local Plan, or do Maidstone Borough Council no longer listen to the experts or the views of the residents of South Maidstone.”

 

The Chairman’s response:

 

“As you are aware, by significant majority of full Council, the decision to submit the Local Plan to the Inspector has already been taken.  It is for the appointed Inspector to consider and recommend changes to the Local Plan if considered appropriate to do so. In any event, the recommendation of the appeal inspector/decision of the Secretary of State on the New Line Learning appeal was based on the fact that there was no currently identified scheme of mitigation. The appeal was not dismissed on the grounds that a suitable mitigation scheme could not yet be found.” 

 

Supplementary question from Mr Carter:

 

“As Maidstone Borough Council are determined to build 18,560 houses does this mean that the MBC Planning Committee will just be rubber stamping all future planning applications which are in the allocated sites or can we be assured that each planning application will be considered on its own individual merits even if a refusal reduces the overall housing numbers?”

 

The Chairman’s response:

 

“Yes, I think quite simply we could give you that assurance.  Each application is judged upon its merits.  If, for example, the case you just mentioned, a further application was submitted that was still not considered suitable, the same process would apply.  The Planning Committee determine each application on its own individual merits.”

 

Mrs Cheryl Taylor-Maggio asked the Chairman the following question:

 

“Given that the draft Local Plan is about to be submitted to the Inspector, is it worth Parishes putting any effort into new Neighbourhood Plans?”

 

The Chairman’s response:

 

“It is a decision for each individual parish council or neighbourhood forum whether it considers there is merit in preparing a neighbourhood plan for its area. A neighbourhood plan is an important tool for any community which is keen to plan positively for new development and to shape the details of that development. A neighbourhood plan is not a tool for resisting new development; those plans which object to the content of the emerging Local Plan, and who have made representations at the Regulation 19 stage, will have the opportunity to make their case for changes to the Local Plan at the Local Plan Examination.” 

 

Supplementary question from Mrs Taylor Maggio

 

“Does that mean that the Local Plan, even when adopted, would then be varied to give effect to the number and locations of housing and traveller pitches in a future neighbourhood plan provided it is compatible with the strategic, but not those detailed requirements of the local plan?”

 

The Chairman’s response:

 

“If I follow your question accurately, again, I think the answer is yes.”

 

Mr Peter Coulling asked the Chairman the following question:

 

“Is the Local Plan, as its stands at the moment, compatible with all approved or emerging Neighbourhood Plans?”

 

The Chairman’s response:

 

“Account has been taken of the ‘made’ and emerging neighbourhood plans as the Local Plan has been prepared and in considering proposed changes to the Local Plan as set out in the report which is before the Committee this evening.  This point is reaffirmed in the Urgent Update. 

 

It is not the case that the emerging Local Plan aligns with all emerging neighbourhood plans.  Indeed, it would be impossible for it to do so as the neighbourhood plans are themselves in the process of being prepared and will be subject to change. 

 

Generally, the emerging neighbourhood plans provide for less new housing than the emerging Local Plan. There is one ‘made’ neighbourhood plan which is the North Loose Neighbourhood Development Plan, which includes no housing site allocations.  In the face of the NPPF requirement to meet the full objectively assessed need for housing, the Council has made some difficult decisions about where to allocate new development. This has been done in the knowledge that having an up to date Local Plan which secures a 5 year housing land supply will put the Council in the strongest position to resist development on unsuitable sites”. 

 

Supplementary question from Mr Coulling:

 

“In that case, would each relevant parish agree that substantially the detailed number of locations of housing and traveller pitches in its neighbourhood plan have been taken as the definition of those elements of the Local Plan for their parish or is there a wide variation?”

 

The Chairman’s response:

 

“I don’t know off the top of my head the individual comparison to be able to give you an accurate answer.  I will find an answer for you and give that to you in writing.”

 

Ms Geraldine Brown asked the Chairman the following question:

 

“Would you agree with the sentiments expressed by some Members at last Wednesday’s Council meeting that, in effect, the views of our MPs on the Local Plan should carry little or no weight, because they have not got relevant planning experience and have insufficient informed focus on local issues, rather than national issues?”

 

The Chairman’s response:

 

“I would not know what relevant planning knowledge MPs have, so I cannot comment.  For the avoidance of any doubt, the Local Plan was agreed for submission by the Council on 25th January.  The Local Plan will be submitted in May, as will all the ‘duly made’ representations which were received at Regulation 19 stage. It will be for the Inspector to decide what importance to give the matters raised in the individual representations.”

 

Supplementary question from Ms Brown:

 

“Bearing in mind that our two MPs were at a public meeting recently and bearing in mind the comments that were made by some of the Council Members at the meeting, do you think that Maidstone Borough Council should respond to the MPs with the concerns that constraints should be applied, that there seems to be a gap between what the MPs are saying and what the Members are saying, and should there be more correspondence between them?”

 

The Chairman’s response:

 

“I’m certainly aware that there is, in actual fact, correspondence.  I suspect that the gap is actually between what the NPPF requires us to do, what MPs who pass the legislation think and the reality at the very sharp end as the district planning authority and your elected members locally have to bring forward.”