POLITICIANS AND RESIDENTS GIVE THEIR VIEWS Core Strategy housing sites proposed
PRIVATE landowners in Maidstone have come forward with 160 sites they are will- ing to sell for housing and business devel- opment. But only five offers have come forward for
gypsy and traveller sites, leaving the coun- cil with a shortfall of land for the 183 pitches it is obliged to provide. The borough’s growing population means
the council has to find land for around 4,500 new homes between 2011 and 2031 to meet its target of 14,800 additional dwellings. An initial appeal for sites has brought a
flurry of interest from the rural areas, rang- ing from Lidsing and Bredhurst in the north to Staplehurst andMarden in the south and Lenham in the east. The biggest concentration remains to the
south east of the town centre, where a new 5,000-home “garden suburb development” is threatening to absorb Otham. Maidstone Council leader Chris Garland stressed that the call for sites was only the first stage in a lengthy process which would check the suitability, availability and achievability of each site, taking into ac- count policy and physical constraints, such as the environment, landscape and heritage, highways and accessibility, flood risk, tree preservation orders and wildlife. He said: “The council must give equal consideration to every site or risk judicial review and financial penalties. He assured: “Everyonewill have a chance
to get involved. “The council wants residents and others
to get involved in the debate about where new growth should take place and the fu- ture shape of the borough.” Cllr Stephen Paine, cabinet member for planning, transport and development, re- vealed that between 80 and 90% of the sug- gested sites were greenfield, as a result of the council doing a good job of developing
Council leader Chris Garland, right, with Cllr Stephen Paine (left) and head of planning Rob
Jarman
Key sites for consideration Langley Park Land at RochesterMeadow, Sandling Hockers Farm, Detling
Mayfield Nursery, Millfield Reclamation Yard, Tongs Meadow, Land at Church Road, Bell Farm andWest Street, all in Harrietsham
its brownfield sites in the past. Although the council says it is impossible
to assess net migration, as this would de- pend on the nation’s prosperity in the com- ing 10 years, research had shown the council needed to provide a further 14,800 homes by 2031. Coventry is the latest city to have its core strategy thrown out by the Government be- cause of failure to make sufficient housing provision.
Delay ‘could mean free-for-all’
MAIDSTONE can expect a whole flurry of applications coming forward – such as the one for Otham and Langley – until it gets its Core Strategy in place, according to the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Delays in finalising the strategy mean Maidstone – along with half the other councils around the country – could be exposed to a planning free-for-all, the CPRE has warned. While other local districts such as Ash-
ford, Tonbridge & Malling and Tunbridge Wells have an adopted local plan, these too could be open to challenge if they do not comply with the Government’s Na- tional Planning Policy Framework, im- plemented in March last year. The CPRE and its local arm, Protect
Kent, fear that the lack of local planning guidelines could have damaging conse- quences for the countryside and they are calling on the Government to extend the period to allow local plans to be put in place. Without it, there could be a rash of widespread, poorly-planned develop- ment, they warn. The deadline for local plans is March
27 this year and the CPRE has been call- ing for a one-year extension to allow
30 East
councils enough time to ensure their plans conform. Jamie Weir, from Protect Kent (pic- tured), said: “It can hardly be a coinci- dence that in recent weeks we have seen a rash of speculative proposals for large- scale housing come forward, on sites which have never been part of a prop- erly tested, demo- cratic
planning
process, such as the one in Otham. “Unless a local plan is in place which specifically precludes development in a particular location, it seems that this may be the start of a planning free-for-all that leaves local planning authorities power- less to direct the development that they need to the locations where it will do least harm.” The situation in Kent and Medway closely reflects the national position; just over half of Kent’s districts do not have an up-do date local plan and are therefore vulnerable to challenge. These include Maidstone, Canterbury, Gravesham, Swale and Medway.
Given an option of a “garden suburb” or dispersed plots of development, Cllr Gar- land said: “The council policy is still for dispersed distribution. However, that was based on the statistics from three to four years ago. Now we know we have to find 14,800 new homes, we need to test the via- bility of all the sites before reaching a deci- sion.” Cllr Paine revealed the council was plan-
ning to reduce the amount of housing which needed to be affordable in new town centre development from the recommended 40% to just 15%. He said: “We have had very few offers of
sites in the town centre and one of the rea- sons is the requirement to provide 40% at an affordable rent. “We would like to see this dropped to
15%, although it will remain at 40% in the rural areas, for rental or shared ownership.
Better transport strategy ‘vital’
AN integrated transport strategy was crucial to the future of Maidstone, council leader Chris Garland revealed. Refusing to be drawn on whether or not a
new “garden suburb” could subsidise a Leeds- Langley bypass, Cllr Garland said: “We need to re-educate our residents and get them to use public transport in preference to their private cars.
“That might mean closing our present park
and ride sites and opening up others; it might mean encouraging more cycle use.” Cllr Garland said if all the developer con- tributions from the additional homes were to be ploughed into funding a new bypass, it would still fall £30m short of the estimated £70m + which is needed to build it. He said the council would have to decide whether to go for an urban extension or dis- persal strategy – putting more homes into vil- lages which had railway stations, for example, where the residents could help keep a rail service alive and support the infrastructure, rather than vice-versa. With the current park and ride service cost-
ing the council £500,000 a year and its con- tract due to expire in 2014, the council will be looking to find a more profitable solution to moving residents around the town.
Have you got news for us? Phone our News Desk on 01622 734735
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64