News | Draft housing report
Hiding away awkward truth
IN politics, it seems that openness and trans- parency are only worth pursuing when they suit your agenda.
KCC leader Paul Carter’s mission
to reduce Maidstone Council’s housing target of 19,600 was laud- able.With some roads already close to gridlock, a sewerage system al- ready unable to cope and little money available for infrastructure improvements, the prospect of in- creasing the population of the bor- ough by a quarter was (and still is) frightening. But this does not mean that when
a report costing more than £15,000 of taxpayers’ money fails to pro- duce the verdict that KCC (and in- deed many of us) hoped for, it should be hidden from public view. Even if it was not to be made public, why couldn’t KCC just admit that the report reiterated the 19,600 figure but state that it re- mained confidential? At least it would have shown honesty, if not transparency. Instead, KCC officer Caroline
By Stephen Eighteen Downs Mail Editor
Dodge and Cllr Carter refused to admit the truth, preferring am- biguous statements that were in- evitably going to end up with the adverse publicity you are reading. Cllr Carter is fortunate that what
he has lacked in transparency he has made up for in populism. Had his quest been to drive the housing target up, rather than down, he would have faced very serious political questions from his opponents, and probably even some of his allies, about the Peter Brett report. The reason he has not is best summed up by looking again at the top paragraph of this comment. Politicians from all sides are cul-
pable in this cover-up, not just the main protagonists.
Timeline
January 2014: Maidstone Council announces a housing target of 19,600 homes between 2011 and 2031, based on a strategic housing market assessment by consultant GL Hearn. February 2014: KCC leader Paul Carter says the target should be closer to the figure of 11,080 by 2026 that was published five years earlier in the abolished South East Plan and vows to prove it by com- missioning a study. April 2014: KCC’s official response to Maidstone’s draft local plan consultation recommends “a more sensible” figure of 14,500 homes. One of the sites it wants removed is for 930 homes south of Sutton Road – next to Cllr Carter’s home near Langley. When asked about the study commissioned by KCC back in February, Cllr Carter says: “We were told it would be three to four weeks but is still only a third finished in draft. I am disappointed the consultants have not delivered and I have asked officers to read them the riot act.” May 2014: The Downs Mail makes a Freedom of Information Act request for a draft copy of the consultant's report. June 2014: Caroline Dodge, team leader for KCC’s information resilience and transparency team, issues a FoI response claiming: “The information you request is not
held by the county council…there is, and never has been, a report completed by external consultants that can be shared with you.” Cllr Chris Garland, former leader of Maidstone Council, states other- wise: “I have seen the report. I have read it,” he says. “Paul Carter had it on him when I was with him. The final paragraph says, ‘we would have done it a different way but we would have come to the same number as 19,600’.” Ms Dodge did reveal, however, that KCC had paid Peter Brett Associ- ates £15,000 for the report. July 2014: Angered by Cllr Garland’s statement, Cllr Carter says: “There was an interim study as part of the process of making a full report.We needed this turned around in three to four weeks but after about six weeks we received a half-baked report that had not even dealt with crucial issues such as infrastructure needs, which was themost significant part of the re- port. The fact it was latemeant we couldn’t input their response to the local plan.” October 2014: The Downs Mail in- dependently receives the draft re- port, which concludes “that 980 net new dwellings per annum [the same rate as 19,600 between 2011 and 2031] is a reasonable objective assessment of housing need for Maidstone borough in 2011-31.”
The report – in conclusion
“WEagree with theSMHA[strate- gic market housing assessment] that 980 net new dwellings per annum is a reasonable objective assessment of housing need for Maidstone borough in 2011-31. “The modelling that underpins
theSMHAis not always clear and has at least one serious flaw, but by chance arrives at the correct an- swer.
KCC leader Paul Carter, Cllr Ian Chittenden and former Maidstone Council leader Chris Garland ‘Non-existent’ report turns up
Continued from page one “Itwas such an important point
at the time that it really should have been made available. It re- confirmed one aspect that we are seriously concerned about.” Cllr Chittenden, a Lib Dem, de- fended Cllr Carter’s decision to spend £15,000 on the report. “There was so much suspicion about the Hearn report that itwas justified.” Cllr Carter said: “Brett’s interim
draft report did not fully satisfy the briefwe set them and they also exceeded the timelines that were set by a considerable margin. As a
14
result, officers made the decision to bring to an end their work in progress. “Timing was of the essence as
we needed to publish KCC’s re- sponse to the local plan consulta- tion. Theywere asked to check GL Hearn’s assumptions and calcula- tions but, more importantly, re- port on whether Maidstone’s creaking infrastructure – trans- port,water supply, sewerage etc – could support growth of this mag- nitude. “It may be of interest to you to
see an extract from a legal opinion that was obtained by KCC from a
Maidstone Town December 2014
leading planning QC, Mr Lock- hart-Mummery of Landmark Chambers, which I quote from: ‘There is no requirement that the SHMAfigure be enshrined as the nu- merical provision which the plan pre- scribes as the local policy target. The figure can be arrived at following the application of proper planning con- straints (eg environmental, capacity, infrastructure etc). So, a local plan- ning authority can elect to adopt a lower housing target within the plan.’ “Thiswas the whole purpose of getting the Brett report to check Hearn’s figures and work on the infrastructure figures.”
“This figure is much higher
than earlier housing targets for Maidstone because, following the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] and the abolition of regional strategies, the rules that planning authorities are required to follow have changed.” The report added that this as- sessed housing need was not the only consideration in setting a housing target. Regard must also be given to Maidstone’s sustainable and de- liverable capacity for housing de- velopment as well as the demand-supply balance in the wider housing market.
What do you think? Write to the Downs Mail at
stephen@downsmail.co.uk
downsmail.co.uk
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