Policy No.
|
Policy title
|
No. in support
|
No. of objections
|
No. of observations
|
Key issues arising
|
Officer response
|
Officer recommendation
|
SS1
|
Spatial Strategy
|
14
|
239
|
23
|
1. The objectively assessed need figure
of 19,600 dwellings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The figure is too high. Objectors suggest
various figures generally ranging from 11,000 to 15,500.
|
The housing requirement of 18,560 dwellings is derived from the
Strategic Housing Market Assessment which has been undertaken in line with
the guidance in the NPPG and using the latest ONS/CLG population and housing
projections as its starting point. This work has been tested, including
through the council’s joint working with Ashford and Tonbridge & Malling
Boroughs, and has been found to be a robust and credible assessment of future
housing needs. The population and household projections take account of the
need arising from London’s growth. In June 2015 the Strategic Planning,
Sustainability and Transport Committee specifically considered whether
additional account should be taken for migration from London in the borough’s
objectively assessed need figure and concluded that such an approach was not
merited.
The housing trajectory in the Local Plan will illustrate how this
number of homes will be delivered over the 20 year plan period.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
The methodology behind the figure is flawed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The figure results from atypical recent
trends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Population growth cannot be projected
accurately
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This number of homes is not needed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This number of homes is not deliverable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The figure should take account of the unmet
requirement resulting from the Plan for London.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Scale of housing proposed in the
draft Local Plan:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is too high. It will adversely impact on
the character of the borough, on the quality of life of existing residents,
on air pollution and on wildlife habitats. It will result in the loss of
greenfield land and agricultural land. Traffic impacts have not been fully
assessed.
|
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan
will provide for the full objectively assessed (OAN) need for 18,560 new
homes. The NPPF is clear that authorities should plan positively to meet OAN.
A comprehensive search for suitable sites has been undertaken through the
SHLAA and this has identified a number of brownfield sites for allocation but
the scale of the housing need is such that some greenfield land is also
needed. Sites have been assessed comprehensively and consistently through
the SHLAA to ensure that those which are the most sustainable have been
allocated in the Local Plan. Where necessary, the site allocation policies
include appropriate measures to help mitigate the impacts of development, for
example in terms of highway impacts, landscape impacts or impacts on heritage
assets.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan
will be accompanied by the Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out
the strategy and the specific highway and transportation measures which will
support the growth identified in the Local Plan.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is too low. It does not meet the
objectively assessed need. Overriding infrastructure and/or environmental
constraints have not been sufficiently demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windfall developments have not been given
sufficient allowance in the housing figures
|
The 20 year housing trajectory includes an allowance for windfall
sites coming forward in the latter years of the Plan period. The proposed
allowance of 114 dwellings/annum is based on analysis of past rates and takes
account of there being fewer unidentified sites in the future as an outcome
of the comprehensive site search process that has been undertaken as the Plan
has been prepared.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has been based on the availability of land
rather than following a ‘place-led’ assessment of capacity.
|
The spatial distribution of development is
in line with the NPPF which requires the Local Plan to identify key sites
which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan
period, and to identify a supply of specific developable sites or broad
locations for growth. In order for sites to be developable they must be
available. The NPPF requires local authorities to aim positively to meet
development needs. The capacity of infrastructure to serve additional
development has been tested as the Plan has progressed and the accompanying
Infrastructure Delivery Plan will set out in detail the infrastructure needed
to support development. The Landscape Sensitivity work has also helped to
identify the sites with higher or lower capacity for development.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gypsy and Traveller pitch requirement is
too high
|
The revised definition of Gypsies and Travellers issued on 31st
August 2015 is likely to have the effect of reducing the overall number of
households that are ‘gypsies and travellers’ for the purposes of planning
but, as the 2012 Assessment did account for travelling habits, the reduction
is likely to be relatively modest. The 2012 Assessment identified a need for
187 pitches (2011-31) and this is the best evidence of needs available at
this point in time, recognising that actual needs may be a degree lower. Any
individual applicant’s compliance with the definition will be tested at
planning application stage.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Spatial distribution of housing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dispersed strategy will result in urban
sprawl.
|
Support for the dispersed spatial strategy is welcomed.
The Green Corridor is part of the overall strategy for how growth has
occurred and developed across Maidstone borough, as set out in para 4.14 of
the 2014 Reg 18 Consultation Draft Local Plan. Scope for further enhancement
of these areas will be set out in the emerging Green and Blue Infrastructure
Strategy. The overall provisions of the Local Plan help to avoid unplanned urban
sprawl.
The Sustainability Appraisal has assessed a
number of options for the dispersal of development and takes account of
various environmental, economic, and social factors. The Local Plan’s
dispersed strategy provides for the majority of future growth at the borough’s
main settlement of Maidstone but also recognises that the other identified
settlements have the potential to accommodate some,
more limited growth over the 20 year plan period. This strategy has the key
benefit of being inherently deliverable as it make best use of existing
infrastructure and also provides some choice to the market. This is in
contrast with a strategy which relies on a major urban extension or new town
which requires significant new infrastructure and will therefore take longer to
be delivered. The settlements suitable for new development have been
identified through an assessment of facilities and services.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan
will be supported by an Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the
transport measures needed to support the growth identified in the Local
Plan.
An extensive search for brownfield sites
has taken place (through the SHLAA) and all the sites found to be suitable
and deliverable/developable have been identified in the Local Plan. The OAN
is such that some greenfield land also needs to be developed.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too much growth has been allocated to the
rural areas. There should be more growth in Maidstone where the jobs are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Development should be more evenly spread to
include a wider range of smaller rural settlements
|
|
|
|
|
|
Development to the NW and SE of Maidstone
will adversely impact on transport and local character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
More brownfield sites should be found in
the town centre and in Maidstone urban area. Brownfield sites should be used
before greenfield sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new town should be proposed along A20
corridor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support for the dispersed pattern of
development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A systematic evaluation of alternative
options is lacking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better protection for villages adjacent to
the AONB and to areas of Local Landscape Value
|
Policy SP5 (Reg 19 Policy SP17) is
considered to afford sufficient protection and enhancement to national
landscape designations, as well as the borough’s own identified landscapes of
local value. Development is not precluded from the countryside, but this
policy ensures due consideration is given to the impacts development may have
upon the character, setting, and natural assets contained within the
Borough’s areas of countryside.
The Plan as a whole limits what development
is considered appropriate for the countryside, and therefore should be read
as a whole. In particular Policy DM10 (Reg 19 DM3) Historic and Natural
Environment and DM30 (Reg 19 DM34) Design Principles in the Countryside
afford protection and enhancement of the countryside and should be given due
consideration during the development management process.
|
No further change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Infrastructure:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure provision is insufficient to
match the scale of development. There will be adverse impacts on schools,
health facilities, water supply and sewerage. Infrastructure should be
provided before the new homes. There is a lack of clarity about
infrastructure requirements.
|
The Infrastructure Delivery Plan will set out the infrastructure
requirements resulting from the development proposed in the Plan and the
funding mechanisms to secure them which will include section 106 legal
agreements for individual developments and CIL.
The Integrated Transport Strategy sets out the specific transport measures
which will support the growth planned for in the Local Plan.
The Integrated Transport Strategy and the Infrastructure Delivery
Plan will be available together with the Reg. 19 version of the Local Plan.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no Integrated Transport Strategy
in support of the Local Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Employment/Retail
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is insufficient employment land
identified to match the scale of proposed housing
|
Following the completion of the
Qualitative Employment Sites assessment (2014),
the updated employment land position was set out in a report to Planning,
Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 21st
October 2014. The sites now identified in Policies EMP1 and RMX1 of the
Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan address the need for additional B
class floorspace (offices, industry, warehousing) in terms of both quantity
and quality over the Plan period. The sites provide opportunities at
Maidstone, including at Junctions 7 and 8 of M20, and at the Rural Service
Centres.
Retail needs will be met through the specific
site allocations in the Local Plan and, in the longer term, the retail-led
redevelopment of The Mall.
|
No further change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
More employment land is needed in the Rural
Service Centres
|
|
|
|
|
|
More employment land is needed at motorway
junctions
|
|
|
|
|
|
The characteristics of the identified
employment sites do not meet the full range of needs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Convenience and comparison retail needs
should be met in full
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junction 7 is not an appropriate location
for any development and/or for retail
|
The spatial strategy (Policy SS1) sets out
the settlement hierarchy for the distribution of development across the Borough.
The principal focus for development is Maidstone urban area, which includes
the strategic location identified at Junction 7 for additional business
provision in association with a new medical campus. The medical campus
development has outline planning consent. Newnham Court is an existing
retail destination and the Local Plan allocation policy provides for the
redevelopment and modest expansion of this shopping village.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
The economic forecasting approach is flawed
and results in a higher employment land requirement than is needed.
|
The Qualitative Employment Sites assessment (2014) has been
undertaken by independent consultants, and forms part of the robust evidence
base underpinning the Local Plan. The assessment considered a number of
alternative economic scenarios in order to help identify the scale of
economic growth which the Plan could appropriately provide for.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Countryside
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The countryside should be protected for its
own sake
|
The Plan as a whole limits what development
is considered appropriate for the countryside, and therefore should be read
as a whole. In particular Policies SP5 (Reg 19 SP17) Countryside, DM10 (Reg
19 DM3) Historic and Natural Environment and DM30 (Reg 19 DM34) Design
Principles in the Countryside afford protection and enhancement of the
countryside and will be applied during the development management process.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Joint working:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KCC and MBC need to have meaningful
agreement on housing numbers and infrastructure requirements
|
KCC and MCB have had continuous dialogue
through the Joint Transportation Board on matters relating to transport, and
other infrastructure requirements through input sought from the County
Council on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).
The Council has undertaken a series of Duty
to Cooperate meetings with neighbouring authorities to discuss cross boundary
issues. The Duty to Cooperate Statement, which will be a record of these
discussions and their outcomes, and the IDP will form part of the submission
of the Local Plan for examination.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
There should be better co-operation with
adjoining authorities to achieve a joined up approach to planning
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better account should be taken of
neighbourhood plans
|
Neighbourhood Plans are required to be
prepared in accordance with national and adopted local planning policy. The
Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan has been amended to set out more
clearly the relationship between neighbourhood plans and the Local Plan.
|
Amend the Regulation 19 version of the
Local Plan (key influences chapter) to strengthen reference to neighbourhood
planning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SP1
(Reg 19 SP4)
|
Maidstone Town Centre
|
11
|
8
|
7
|
Retail offer needs strengthening to compete
with out of town developments.
|
Policy SS1 sets out the amount of retail
floor space to be provided over the plan period, to provide for the need set
out in the evidence base (Town Centre Study, Town centre Assessment, and
Retail Capacity Study). Specific allocations for town centre retail
development are included for the Maidstone East/Sorting Office site and the
former King Street car park. For the longer term, The Mall is identified for
major retail redevelopment.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generalised support for the proposed
redevelopment of The Mall and for leisure and cultural development in the
town centre
|
Support welcomed.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offices: conversion of offices to
residential use should be streamlined; provision of additional good quality
office stock should be encouraged, not just the retention of existing good
quality stock;
|
Permitted development rights currently
enable a change of use from office to residential. The specific site
allocation at Mote Road provides for new office floorspace in the town centre
and this can complement that which will be provided through the
implementation of extant consents at Eclipse Park and at the Woodcut Farm
site at Junction 8 of M20.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Objection to the exclusion of Springfield
from the town centre boundary to facilitate high rise housing on the site.
This cannot support the east station development concept due to access from
Sandling Road / Stacey Street / Fairmeadow is not viable because of the
levels and road pattern
Exclude the Maidstone east from the town
centre boundary and accept that it is unlikely to be developed for a town
centre use – better to encourage development in its entirety for residential
including affordable housing.
|
The town centre boundary identifies the area
covered by the Policy SP4 (Reg 19)
and has resulted from a combined assessment of:
-
the extent of the area which contains, and is suitable for, the main
focus of town centre uses;
-
the existing character and form of development;
-
the visual, physical and functional relationship between areas; and
-
the potential for appropriate development opportunities.
-
In the 2012 draft Core Strategy the town
centre boundary extended to include Springfield as the site was seen as
having potential for a business campus form of development to potentially
include university uses. The demand for these uses at this scale in this
location has not transpired and, in response, it is considered that there is
the opportunity to deliver significant additional housing. With this proposed
pattern of development, the town centre boundary is more appropriately drawn
to focus on the areas of main town centre uses to the south of this site.
Maidstone East/Sorting Office: this site
is a key opportunity for additional, modern retail space, for which there is
evidence of demand, in a location with very good, direct connections to the
core of the town centre and sustainable transport links. In the absence of
alternative suitable retail sites with these beneficial characteristics the
allocation of this site for a mix of retail and residential and its inclusion
within the town centre boundary continues to be appropriate.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional housing in and at the edge of
the town centre should be identified
|
Throughout the preparation of the Local
Plan there has been a thorough search for brownfield sites suitable for
redevelopment, including in and at the edge of the town centre. Since the
Regulation 18 version of the Local Plan was published in March 2014, two
further town centre sites have been included in the Plan (Wrens Cross and
Dunning Hall) plus sites at Union Street, Foster Street and Tonbridge Road.
The Plan also provides for additional housing to come forward within the town
centre broad location.
|
No further change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sufficient, affordable car parking needed.
|
Town centre parking arrangements are
addressed in the Integrated Transport Strategy.
|
No change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy should be more explicit about how
many additional houses and how much additional office and retail floorspace
the town centre will deliver
|
Policy SS1 sets out the total amount of
floorspace to be delivered during the plan period across the Borough. The
policy also sets out the settlement hierarchy for the distribution of
development.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Street/Gabriels Hill should be part
of the primary shopping area
|
The High Street / Gabriels Hill is not considered
to fall within the primary shopping area, but does fall within the secondary
area. The areas have been defined based on an analysis of unit sizes,
occupants, rent levels and indicative footfall. In the secondary frontage
areas, retail units are generally smaller than in the primary shopping area
(under 500m2) and occupied by a mix of both national and local independent
retailers. The latter have an important role in adding to the diversity and
distinctiveness of the shopping ‘offer’ in Maidstone town centre. The
approach of policy DM32 (Reg 19) is to enable a broader range of uses to
include professional services (A2), cafés and restaurants (A3) and pubs and wine
bars (A4) which contribute to the wider appeal of the town centre.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specific allocations at Baltic Wharf for
mixed use development and Lockmeadow as a priority leisure quarter are
sought.
|
An amendment to the Plan has previously been
agreed to make reference to the Baltic Wharf Site and the alternative uses
which could be appropriate if the extant retail/mixed use consent is not
implemented.
Lockmeadow falls within the town centre boundary.
Policy DM29 (Reg 19 policy DM33) - leisure and community uses in the town
centre would support additional leisure uses at this site but, also, does
not limit new leisure uses to this site alone. Additional leisure uses
throughout the town centre would contribute to its on-going vitality.
|
No further change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concerns that congestion and pollution will
be worsened by development proposals. Pedestrian access is constrained.
|
DM16 (Reg 19 DM5) Air Quality sets out the
requirements on proposals for development that have an impact on air quality.
DM4 (Reg 19 DM1) Principles of Good Design
sets out in the first criterion the requirements of accessibility.
In addition, the ITS sets out proposals for
increasing levels of walking and cycling.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better utilisation of the rivers, including
their protection for wildlife.
|
Policy DM10 (Reg 19 DM3) sets out that
development proposals will not be permitted where they lead to adverse
impacts on natural assets. It also sets out that the Green and Blue
Infrastructure should be taken into account. Policy SP1 (Reg 19 SP4) sets out
the specific considerations for development by the riverside.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SP2
|
Maidstone urban area
|
7
|
12
|
4
|
Some unconditional support.
|
Support welcomed
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Object to developments in NW/Barming area
on infrastructure grounds i.e. transport grounds and water supply/sewerage; cumulative
impacts in NW area – also TMBC developments.
|
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan
will be supported by an Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the
transport measures needed to support the growth identified in the Local
Plan. The Plan will also be accompanied by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan
which will set out the infrastructure requirements generated by the new
development.
The development proposals in the Plan
provide for clear separation between the settlements of Leeds, Langley and Langley
Heath.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of development on North ward –
traffic concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coalescence of developments with Leeds,
Langley and Langley Heath – environmental damage not considered here –
pollution. Bus lane no improvement – Wheatsheaf is a bottle neck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggests implementation of a green belt
style defendable edge to the urban area.
|
The Local Plan will redefine the boundary of the urban area to
include the sites allocated at the urban edge. Beyond this boundary,
development will be more strictly limited to that set out in Policy SP5 (Reg
19 SP17) Countryside.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support for preference of sites at edge of
urban area.
|
Support welcomed
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land at Orchard Spot should be included as
a suitable urban extension site.
|
The
SHLAA assessment of this site states that “development of this site in
isolation would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of this
area of countryside particularly in views from the north. Loss of woodland”.
This site is therefore deemed unsuitable for development and is not proposed
to be allocated in the Local Plan.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Object to loss of parking spaces in town
centre.
|
The Integrated Transport Strategy sets out
the strategic management approach to car parking in the town centre.
|
No change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question if enough is being done to
regenerate urban area – there are more areas of deprivation that are not addressed
in this policy.
|
Sustainable
development is at the forefront of plan-making and decision-taking. The Plan
includes policies to encourage regeneration, provide affordable housing,
promote community facilities, and encourage employment opportunities within
the Borough. More widely in the Council, the work of the Communities and
Economic Development teams, amongst others, helps to support regeneration in
different neighbourhoods in the town.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SP3
|
Rural service centres
|
12
|
447
|
9
|
1. General Comments:
|
|
|
|
Plus petition (Harrietsham)
|
|
20
|
|
Unsustainable expansion of villages causing
coalescence
|
By identifying specific sites for
development, the Local Plan sets the limits to village expansion and so
actually helps to secure against the coalescence of settlements.
The majority of development is being
focused in and at the edge of Maidstone with more limited development at the
identified villages. The selection of villages is based on an assessment of
services and facilities; not all villages are judged to have sufficient local
services to render significant new development sustainable.
For other villages, the principal impact
cited is from increased traffic. In response, the Integrated Transport
Strategy is a strategy for the whole borough and includes specific measures
for the rural areas.
|
No change
|
|
Plus petition (Coxheath)
|
|
869
|
|
Dwellings numbers are not balanced between
the rural service centres, in fact ALL villages should take a proportion of
housing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on other village as a result of
growth should be given greater consideration
|
|
|
|
|
|
Community concerns have not been
considered; more engagement should have taken place with parish councils
|
The Council has undertaken its statutory
duties of consultation, and also done so in accordance with the Statement of Community
Involvement and Parish Charter. Details of all consultation and engagement
will be set out in the Consultation Statement which forms part of the
submission of the Local Plan for examination. Since the Regulation 18 version
of the Plan (March 2014) a series of specific meetings have been held with
parish councils to discuss local issues.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of an agreed transport strategy;
increased journey times as a result of additional traffic generated
|
The integrated Transport Strategy has been
developed alongside the Local Plan and will be submitted as part of the
examination.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
40% affordable housing is unsustainable
because of travel requirements to employment locations
|
Viability assessments have been undertaken
as part of the evidence base underpinning the Local Plan. These demonstrate
that affordable housing located in rural areas is more viable than in urban
locations. This requirement will help to boost the overall supply of much
needed affordable units.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Harrietsham:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harrietsham has less services/employment
than the other villages therefore should be re-classified as a larger village
|
An assessment of population and the services and
facilities available in each settlement in the borough forms part of the
basis for determining the villages that can be designated as a rural service
centre.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan will
be supported by an Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the
specific transport measures to support the growth in the Local plan and also
an Infrastructure Delivery plan which will specify the wider infrastructure
requirements (including for transport) and funding sources. It is not usually
possible for infrastructure to be provided in advance of development as it is
the development which helps generate the funding for the infrastructure,
although the provision of the infrastructure in tandem with development will
be sought where possible.
With respect to the A20 scheme, this reference
has been included in all the site allocation policies in Harrietsham.
|
No further change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highway safety and capacity concerns; poor
public transport links
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scale of proposed development is too large
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of infrastructure; Infrastructure
should be improved prior to development commencing
|
|
|
|
|
|
A criterion for “appropriate contributions
towards a highway improvement scheme for the section of the A20 Ashford Road
that passes through Harrietsham” should apply to all site allocations in
Harrietsham
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.Headcorn:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headcorn should not be classified as a
rural service centre
|
An assessment of population and the services and
facilities available in each settlement in the borough forms part of the
basis for determining the villages that can be designated as a rural service
centre.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan will
be supported by an Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the
specific transport measures to support the growth in the Local plan and also
an Infrastructure Delivery plan which will specify the wider infrastructure
requirements (including for transport) and funding sources. On-going work
with the infrastructure providers, including Southern Water and the
Environment Agency, has not identified a fundamental constraint to the
development proposed at Headcorn.
The sites at Headcorn have been identified
following a comprehensive assessment of potential housing sites. The
assessment has considered landscape and ecological impacts and potential
agricultural land loss. Smaller sites would not demonstrably deliver
sufficient new homes for the OAN for housing to be achieved.
Viability assessments have been undertaken as part of the evidence
base underpinning the Local Plan. These demonstrate that affordable housing
located in rural areas is more viable than in urban locations. This requirement
will help to boost the overall supply of much needed affordable units.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of infrastructure esp. sewerage;
school places; Priorities conflict with those of PC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sites are too large - development driven,
not place driven; At odds with emerging Neighbourhood Plan;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flooding issues; a strategic approach is
required; no reference made to Water Cycle Study;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss of village character; impact on local
landscapes and ecology; loss of agricultural land;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increased traffic; poor public transport
provision;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of local employment opportunities to
support growth;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed percentage of affordable housing
unsustainable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed dwelling numbers are too
high
|
The housing requirement is derived from the Strategic Housing Market
Assessment which is a robust assessment of future housing requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.Lenham:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support for Lenham as RSC
|
Support welcomed
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Objection to Lenham taking any additional
development;
|
An assessment of population and the services and
facilities available in each settlement in the borough forms part of the
basis for determining the villages that can be designated as a rural service
centre.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan will
be supported by an Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the
specific transport measures to support the growth in the Local plan and also
an Infrastructure Delivery plan which will specify the wider infrastructure
requirements (including for transport) and funding sources. On-going work
with the infrastructure providers has not identified a fundamental constraint
to the development proposed at Lenham.
In addition to the criteria in the site
allocation policies, the development management policies in the Plan help to
secure the protection of heritage and ecological assets. The master planning
for the proposed Lenham Broad Location will help to clarify how best
development can be delivered without undue impact on the character of the
area, including on the landscape and on the built form.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on highway capacity and safety;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of infrastructure and services;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss of character of village; loss of green
space, open space; lack of protection for built heritage;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.Marden:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed dwelling numbers are too high;
phasing required- too much development too quickly; should not be classed as
an RSC
|
An assessment of population and the services and
facilities available in each settlement in the borough forms part of the
basis for determining the villages that can be designated as a rural service
centre.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan will
be supported by an Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the
specific transport measures to support the growth in the Local Plan and also
an Infrastructure Delivery plan which will specify the wider infrastructure
requirements (including for transport) and funding sources. On-going work
with the infrastructure providers, including the Environment Agency has not
identified a fundamental constraint to the development proposed at Marden.
The sites at Marden have been identified
following a comprehensive assessment of potential housing sites against a
range of planning criteria. This included identifying brownfield sites but
these alone are not sufficient to meet the future need for housing;
greenfield sites are also needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of infrastructure and facilities; need
to manage increasing demand for parking at station and local shops /
businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of traffic on neighbouring villages;
increased pollution;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss of village character; loss of green
fields; impact on countryside;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flooding concerns - a strategic approach
required
|
|
|
|
|
|
More consideration to be given to emerging
Neighbourhood Plan
|
Neighbourhood Plans are required to be
prepared in accordance with national and local planning policy. The
Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan has been amended to set out more
clearly the relationship between neighbourhood plans and the Local Plan
|
Amend the Regulation 19 version of the
Local Plan (key influences chapter) to strengthen reference to neighbourhood
planning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.Staplehurst:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed dwelling numbers are too high and disproportionate
with other villages; should not be classed as an RSC
|
An assessment of population and the services and
facilities available in each settlement in the borough forms part of the
basis for determining the villages that can be designated as a rural service
centre.
The sites at Staplehurst have been identified
following a comprehensive assessment of potential housing sites against a
range of planning criteria including landscape impacts. This included
identifying brownfield sites within the existing built up areas but these
alone are not sufficient to meet the future need for housing; greenfield
sites at the edge of the most sustainable settlements are also needed.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan will
be supported by an Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the
specific transport measures to support the growth in the Local Plan and also
an Infrastructure Delivery plan which will specify the wider infrastructure
requirements (including for transport) and funding sources. On-going work
with the infrastructure providers, including the Environment Agency has not
identified a fundamental constraint to the development proposed at Staplehurst.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Development is allocated outside the
village boundary;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of infrastructure; increased traffic;
highway capacity and safety concerns; poor public transport; increased
pollution;
|
|
|
|
|
|
loss of character of village;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on Low Weald landscape character
area and countryside generally;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flooding issues; no reference to Water
Cycle Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SP4
|
Larger Villages
|
12
|
381
|
8
|
1. Boughton Monchelsea
|
|
|
|
Plus petition (Boughton Monchelsea)
|
|
197
|
|
Delete Boughton Monchelsea as a larger
village or housing numbers are too high
|
An assessment of population and the services and facilities available
in each settlement in the borough forms part of the basis for determining the
villages that can be designated as a Larger Village. Whilst a Larger Village
has fewer services and facilities than a Rural Services Centre, these are
considered to be at a sufficient level to support limited, planned
sustainable development.
The sites at Boughton Monchelsea have been identified following a
comprehensive assessment of potential housing sites against a range of
planning criteria including landscape impacts and the prospect of coalescence.
This included identifying brownfield sites within the existing built up areas
but these alone are not sufficient to meet the future need for housing;
greenfield sites at the edge of the most sustainable settlements are also
needed.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan will be supported by an
Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the specific transport
measures to support the growth in the Local Plan and also an Infrastructure
Delivery plan which will specify the wider infrastructure requirements
(including for transport) and funding sources. On-going work with the
infrastructure providers has not identified a fundamental constraint to the
development proposed at Boughton Monchelsea.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on local roads, increased traffic
congestion, and impact on highway and pedestrian safety
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inadequate bus service and poor transport
links to the town centre
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of infrastructure and facilities ,
including parking, dentist, doctors, shops, school and post office
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss of landscape, impact on the
countryside, and coalescence with surrounding villages
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some support for Boughton Monchelsea as a
larger village
|
Support welcomed
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Coxheath
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delete Coxheath as a larger village or
housing numbers are too high
|
Based on the assessment of services and
facilities, it is considered that Coxheath fulfils the role of a Rural
Service Centre and the Regulation 19 version of the Local plan is proposed to
be amended to classify the village as a Rural Service Centre.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan will
be supported by an Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the
specific transport measures to support the growth in the Local plan and also
an Infrastructure Delivery plan which will specify the wider infrastructure
requirements (including for transport) and funding sources. On-going work
with the infrastructure providers, including Southern Water and the
Environment Agency has not identified a fundamental constraint to the
development proposed at Coxheath. By identifying specific sites for
development, the Local Plan sets the limits to village expansion and so
actually helps to secure against the coalescence of settlements.
The sites at Coxheath have been identified
following a comprehensive assessment of potential housing sites. The
assessment has considered landscape and ecological impacts and potential
agricultural land loss. Whilst every effort has been made to identify
brownfield sites, some greenfield sites are also required for the future need
for housing to be met.
|
Designate Coxheath in the Reg 19 draft Plan
as a Rural Service Centre
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed development does not constitute
"limited" development - needs to be quantified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on quality of life, village
character and coalescence with surrounding villages
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on the highway network, increased
traffic congestion, impact on air quality, and impact on highway and
pedestrian safety
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of infrastructure, including sewerage
and water supply, and drainage/flooding problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of village facilities, including
medical facilities, and impact on school
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss of greenfield land and Grade 2
agricultural land, impact on wildlife and habitats
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclassify Coxheath as a rural service
centre
|
Based on the assessment of services and
facilities, it is considered that Coxheath fulfils the role of a Rural
Service Centre and the Regulation 19 version of the Local plan is proposed to
be amended to classify the village as a Rural Service Centre.
|
Designate Coxheath in the Reg 19 draft Plan
as a Rural Service Centre
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some support for some growth in Coxheath
with supporting infrastructure
|
Support welcomed
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Eyhorne Street
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support for Eyhorne Street as a larger
village
|
Support welcomed
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Sutton Valence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delete Sutton Valence as a larger village
|
An assessment of population and the services and
facilities available in each settlement in the borough forms part of the
basis for determining the villages that can be designated as a Larger
Village. Whilst a Larger Village has fewer services and facilities than a
Rural Services Centre, these are considered to be at a sufficient level to
support limited, planned sustainable development.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan will be supported by an
Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the specific transport
measures to support the growth in the Local Plan and also an Infrastructure
Delivery plan which will specify the wider infrastructure requirements
(including for transport) and funding sources. On-going work with the
infrastructure providers has not identified a fundamental constraint to the
development proposed at Sutton Valence.
|
No change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of infrastructure and impact on
highways
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of shops and the imminent relocation
of the post office, impact on school
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on pedestrian safety
|
|
|
|
|
|
Village adjacent to Greensand Ridge where
protective policies apply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some support for Sutton Valence as a larger
village
|
Support welcomed
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Yalding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delete Yalding as a larger village
|
An assessment of population and the services and
facilities available in each settlement in the borough forms part of the
basis for determining the villages that can be designated as a Larger
Village. Whilst a Larger Village has fewer services and facilities than a
Rural Services Centre, these are considered to be at a sufficient level to
support limited, planned sustainable development.
The sites at Yalding have been identified
following a comprehensive assessment of potential housing sites against a range
of planning criteria including landscape impacts. This included identifying
brownfield sites (such as Syngenta) but these alone are not sufficient to
meet the future need for housing; greenfield sites at the edge of the most
sustainable settlements are also needed.
The Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan will
be supported by an Integrated Transport Strategy which will set out the
specific transport measures to support the growth in the Local Plan and also
an Infrastructure Delivery plan which will specify the wider infrastructure
requirements (including for transport) and funding sources. On-going work
with the infrastructure providers including the Environment Agency has not
identified a fundamental constraint to the development proposed at Yalding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of facilities and impact on local
school which has no room for expansion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increased traffic congestion and
insufficient road structure, impact on highway safety, increased noise and
air pollution, rail service is rural and remote, and bridges inadequate for
growth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on heritage, loss of countryside,
and impact on village character
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increased flood risk
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new cycle route would benefit commuting
to Maidstone and Tonbridge
|
A Cycling Strategy will be incorporated
into the Integrated Transport Strategy produced to support the Local Plan.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some support for Yalding as a larger
village
|
Support welcomed
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. General
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some support for this tier in the
settlement hierarchy
|
Support welcomed
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major housing expansion at the villages is
out of scale and character with existing villages and represents
unsympathetic excursion into the countryside
|
An assessment of population and the services and facilities available
in each settlement in the borough forms part of the basis for determining the
villages that can be designated as a Larger Village. Based on this
assessment, the settlements listed are not considered to have sufficient
services to support their designation as a Larger Village.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Include Hunton and other villages, or
create a new tier of smaller settlements to address underprovision of housing
land and rural decline, and to support local facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
East Farleigh should be identified as a
larger village
|
|
|
|
|
|
Langley should be identified as a larger
village
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chart Sutton should be identified as a larger
village
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laddingford should be identified as a
larger village or smaller settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-direct development to villages closer to
the motorway
|
Policy SS1 sets out the Council’s spatial
strategy and settlement hierarchy for the distribution of development. Proximity
to the motorway is not considered to be a pre-determinant of the suitability
of a settlement for additional development. An assessment of population and
the services and facilities available in each settlement in the borough forms
part of the basis for determining which settlements are the most
sustainable. This assessment takes account of accessibility by public
transport.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reduction of allocations by around 20%
should be made in each of the larger villages.
|
The evidence does not support the arbitrary
reduction suggested. The identification of the Larger Villages is based on a
comprehensive assessment of services and facilities which provides the
evidence to support the selection of settlements included in the Plan’s
settlement hierarchy.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
The larger villages concept is ill
considered and based on out-of-date information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of discussion and consent with
villages involved prior to publication of draft plan
|
All planning related consultation must be
undertaken with regard to and in compliance with the Council’s adopted
Statement of Community Involvement, a legal requirement, which this
Regulation 18 consultation was. Since the Regulation 18 consultation was
completed, there has been a specific series of meetings with parish councils to
discuss local issues.
|
No change
|
NPPF1
|
Presumption in favour of sustainable
development
|
8
|
5
|
3
|
Support for the policy
|
Support is welcomed. The Local Plan must
comply with the policies of the NPPF, although Examination Inspectors no
longer require a model policy for the presumption in favour of sustainable
development. Policy NPPF1 is proposed to be deleted in the Reg 19 version of
the Local Plan, although text references are retained.
|
Delete Policy NPPF1 as superfluous but
retain text references to the NPPF as one of the key influences in the
preparation of the Local Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Local Plan should demonstrably comply with
this policy (and Council should apply this policy consistently to housing
allocations.)
|
The Local Plan is fundamentally concerned with
delivering sustainable development objectives and the policy has been applied
consistently to housing allocations. All sites (allocated and rejected) were
subject to site visits, and the views of infrastructure providers and other
bodies (for landscape, ecology, etc.) were sought. Pro forma were used to
standardise the assessment of the merits and constraints of potential
development sites. The pro forma were published with the Local Plan at
consultation. Each site has been subject to independent sustainability
appraisal.
The Local Plan must comply with the
policies of the NPPF, although Examination Inspectors no longer require a
model policy for the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy
NPPF1 is proposed to be deleted in the Reg 19 version of the Local Plan,
although text references are retained.
|
Delete Policy NPPF1 as superfluous but
retain text references to the NPPF as one of the key influences in the
preparation of the Local Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Policy should include a local perspective.
|
A robust evidence base supports the Local
Plan and the public has had the opportunity to shape the Plan at the local
level through consultations. The Local Plan must comply with the policies of
the NPPF, although Examination Inspectors no longer require a model policy
for the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy NPPF1 is
proposed to be deleted in the Reg 19 version of the Local Plan, although text
references are retained.
|
Delete Policy NPPF1 as superfluous but
retain text references to the NPPF as one of the key influences in the
preparation of the Local Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The inclusion of this policy is neither
appropriate nor necessary.
|
The Local Plan must comply with the
policies of the NPPF, although Examination Inspectors no longer require a
model policy for the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Policy NPPF1 is proposed to be deleted in the Reg 19 version of the Local
Plan, although text references are retained.
|
Delete Policy NPPF1 as superfluous but
retain text references to the NPPF as one of the key influences in the
preparation of the Local Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H2 (Reg 19 DM12)
|
Density of Housing Development
|
1
|
14
|
9
|
A less prescriptive approach should be
adopted to enable development to respond to site specific criteria and local
aspiration.
|
The policy sets densities for residential
development for a range of geographical areas, provided the
achievement of good design and the distinctive character of the area are not
compromised. The policy therefore provides flexibility. Further, the
densities of allocated sites often vary where more detailed site information
is available.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed densities are too high.
|
The policy provides for flexibility
depending on site conditions and/or constraints.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Housing density should be higher.
|
The policy provides for flexibility
depending on site conditions and/or constraints.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Development density in the rural areas
should not exceed 30 dwellings per hectare.
|
The policy provides for flexibility
depending on site conditions and/or constraints.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Policy H2 is in need of
amendment/clarification.
|
The policy sets densities for residential
development for a range of geographical areas, provided the
achievement of good design and the distinctive character of the area are not
compromised. The densities of allocated sites often vary where more detailed
site information is available. The same will be true for planning
applications. There is no conflict because the policy provides flexibility.
|
No change
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adequate play areas, community facilities
and parking spaces need to be provided.
|
The policies of the Local Plan set the requirements
for publicly accessible open space and parking (Reg 19 Policies DM22, DM23
and DM27).
|
No change
|