News


downsmail.co.uk £60k bill for homes brochure


A SLICK brochure to promote the development of five plots of private land into 1,000 town centre homes cost the taxpayer almost £60,000,DownsMail has learned. Maidstone Borough Council


(MBC) paid property agents Savills toproduce adocumentdetailingde- velopment of five privately-owned sites in the heart of the county town. The plan has already suffered a


cross-party backlash since it emerged in August. Len House in Mill Street; theGranada cinema and Gala Bingo sites, Maidstone west; the Broadway; Baltic Wharf (Med- way riverside) andMote Road have all been earmarked for housing. Independent Maidstone council-


lor Eddie Powell, a former planning committee member, said: “They’ve forked out 60 grand and none of the councillors on the ground,who rep- resent all themainparties andknow the area aswell as anyone, think the idea isworth tuppence. “Surely, this money could have


been spent better and those mem- bers should have been consulted.” Aspokesman forMBC said: “The


cost of Savills to produce the report for the five opportunity sites is £59,440.50. This has been funded from the (government’s) ‘business retention pilot’ scheme that the council was successful in securing money through. “The commission to Savills is ex-


tensive, to include background re- search, property market analysis, scenario testing, extensive stake- holder engagement, as well as the production of detailed planning briefs for eachsite, andanover-arch- ing brochure to promote the oppor- tunities to developers and investors in themediumto long term.” DownsMail asked howmuch the


landlords were asked to pay to- wards the cost of producing the plans, butMBC failed to respond.


Councillors representing the


wards affected by the proposals are unhappy about the strain the extra homes will have on local services, traffic levels and parking. Chairman of the planning com-


mittee, LibDemClive English, said: “I think it’s fair to saywe are not in agreement with the thrust of many of the proposals andwill be prepar- ing our own intervention.” The cross-party group haswritten


toMBC seniormanagement outlin- ing its concerns. The riverside area could see 922 apartments in three and five-storey tower blocks (with about 700 parking spaces), while Maidstone west might see 325 flats


BOROUGH councillors have at- tended aworkshopwhere theywere briefed on the consequences of 40%more housing being imposed on the borough by central govern- ment in the Local Plan Review, scheduled for 2022. This couldmeanMaidstone bear-


ing the brunt of about 24,000 new homes, rather than 17,600 con-


on up to seven floors. Bridge ward councillor, Conservative Jonathan Purle, said: “This isn’t master plan- ning. It’s just cramming inmore and more flats.” Pressure is growing on the council


to showthat the roads can copewith the increased traffic associatedwith the Local Plan's 17,600 newhouses. The Lib Dem leadership claims it


canbemitigatedbymodal shift – the concept of persuading people to walk, take buses or cycle, in addition to some junction improvements.But MBC leaderMartin Cox has admit- ted to Downs Mail he cannot be “100% sure” that modal shift can work.


‘24,000 homes’ on Local Plan


tained in the Local Plan adopted last year – increasing the number of homeswhichmust be built annually from800 to 1,200 per year over the life of the Local Plan. Conservative group leader John


Perry said: “We will need to work with Kent County Council – after all, it is the body to provide the schools and build the roads.”


Legal costs for judicial review


£14k and rising TOP brass atMaidstone Borough Council have held high-level talks on the progress of its challenge to the authority’s failed judicial re- view. Downs Mail understands the


senior management team met with its legal experts onAugust 23 to discuss the current position be- fore proceeding with a taxpayer- funded “oral hearing” over road levies at the High Court in Lon- don this autumn. LiberalDemocrat-ledMBCtook


Kent County Council to the High Court over the allocation of fund- ing for the studies into a Leeds- Langley relief road. But the process fell at the first hurdle when Mrs Justice Lang threw it out asMBC had not presented an “arguable” case to proceed. So far, the case has cost the tax-


payer £14,500, with legal bills set to climb even higher when the oral hearing takes place. The oral hearing is designed for MBC to again set out its position over the “implications for the discharge of the council's statutory planning functions”. MBC chief executive Alison


Broom claims she needs to chal- lenge KCC in the High Court for “clarity” on how section 106 money (developer contributions) is spent by the county council on roads.


Infrastructure levy ‘amissed opportunity’


ACHANCE to boost funding from developers for Maidstone’s flag- ging infrastructure needs has been missed, it is claimed. As the government’sCommunity


Infrastructure Levy (CIL) kicks in, MaidstoneBoroughCouncil (MBC) admits its demand on developers will leave the borough £18.2mshort ofwhat is needed to keep commu- nity resources and roads in line with newdevelopment. The shortfall fromthe levy,which


comes in onOctober 1, is “still to be identified”, sayMBCplanners. County councillor Shellina Pren-


dergast (pictured) welcomes CIL because it allowsparishes a share of


8 Maidstone Weald October 2018


developers’ cash to copewith infra- structure pressures in their com- munities, but the low rate secured byMBCis a “missedopportunity”. The charge set for new housing


in Maidstone per square metre is £93 for urban development, £99 for rural, £77 for the Springfield site and £45 for care homes. It is £150 for retail development and £75 for outside the town centre. Cllr Prendergast said: “As one of


the fastest-growing regions inKent, our rate should not be among the lowest.To suggest thatKCCor oth- ers will make up the difference when budgets are stretched is ludi- crous.”


She saysmorework is needed to


calculate a realistic and consistent rate that reflects the upgrading of facilities in urban and rural areas. KCC argues: “The county coun-


cil considers it essential…the bor- ough council clearly identifies both how the overall loss of funds per new dwelling when compared to the existing S106 (developer contri- butions) regime will be recovered, and how the CIL receipts that are raised will be directed to where they are needed.” Aspokesman forMBCsaid: “The


amount of CIL which will be se- cured fromdevelopment forMaid- stone is about 20%. It has never


been anticipated that CIL would fund the whole cost of the infra- structure requiredandS106money will continue to be available.”


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