CPRE 1: Proof of Evidence – Otham Parish Council

Public Inquiry concerning the Appeal for Non-Determination of the Outline Planning Application for 440 Dwellings on Land West of Church Road, Otham Maidstone and the Appeal against Refusal of a Planning Application for 421 Dwellings on Land West of Church Road, Otham Maidstone.

Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) References: 19/501600/OUT & 20/500084/NONDET and 19/506182/FULL & 20/500109/REF Planning Inspectorate References: APP/U2235/W/20/3254134 and APP/U2235/W/20/3256952

Appendix 1: OPC Questionnaire Summary Appendix 2: Otham Conservation Area - Appraisal Appendix 3: Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan Appendix 4: Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement Appendix 5: Inspectors’ Final Report on Local Plan Appendix 5a: Updated schedule of Main Modifications to the Local Plan Appendix 6: Policy SP3 Housing Allocations Appendix 7: Map of Anti-Coalescence Function

Public Inquiry concerning the Appeal for Non-Determination of the Outline Planning Application for 440 Dwellings on Land West of Church Road, Otham Maidstone and the Appeal against Refusal of a Planning Application for 421 Dwellings on Land West of Church Road, Otham Maidstone.

Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) References: 19/501600/OUT & 20/500084/NONDET and 19/506182/FULL & 20/500109/REF

Planning Inspectorate References: APP/U2235/W/20/3254134 and APP/U2235/W/20/3256952

Proof of Evidence – Otham Parish Council

1.0 Introduction

1.1 My name is Rachel Gray and I represent the residents of Otham in my capacity as both Vice-chairman of Otham Parish Council, who have been full members of CPRE for at least 16 years, and Chairman of the Otham Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. I have lived in Otham for ten years.

1.2 Back in 2015, we undertook a wide-ranging questionnaire of local residents to determine their views on the village and their hopes and fears for the future, as shown in Appendix 1. At the time, there were just 193 homes in Otham Parish and residents had become increasingly fearful of the destruction of village life due to the encroachment of urban Maidstone and the increase in traffic using the village lanes as a rat-run.

1.3 We asked residents to list their three favourite things about living in Otham and their top three concerns (items 39 and 40 of Appendix 1). The results then, remain the same today; they value the countryside, the peace and quiet and the views and are worried about housing developments, traffic and the loss of rural character.

2.0 The Local Plan

2.1 At every opportunity from the first Call for Sites through to the Local Plan Inquiry we raised our concerns about the impact the proposed housing allocation sites would have on the historic integrity of Otham, but despite our many objections, the 2017 Maidstone Borough Local Plan was approved, allocating over 1,100 new homes within the boundary of Otham Parish in sites H1(6,7,8 &9) and a further 1,400 adjacent to our parish in sites H1(5 & 10). This represents more than a 500% increase in housing within the parish boundary alone!

2.2 Policy SP3, one of three key urban strategic policies in Maidstone’s Local Plan, is an expansion of south east urban Maidstone. As can be seen on the map of SP3 housing allocations (Appendix 6), sites H1(5, 6, 7, 9 and 10) all sit along the A274 and paragraph 4.41 of the Local Plan states that this

‘new development on the urban periphery in the south east will be underpinned with a co-ordinated infrastructure approach for the area, which will focus on tackling congestion and air quality issues and improving accessibility to the town centre…necessary to mitigate for the increase in population.’

2.3 These five sites are all accessed directly from the A274 and their individual site policies propose junction improvements and bus priority measures on the A274 to improve access to and from the town centre.

2.4 Paragraph 4.42 goes on to state that

‘at this location the council is keen to limit as much as possible the extension of development further into the countryside along both sides of the A274. This ensures that the more sensitive landscapes in

1

this area will remain protected and development will be consolidated around the urban edge to make best use of new and existing infrastructure.’

Paragraph 4.43 adds that

‘the south east strategic development location has been comprehensively planned in respect of supporting infrastructure and connectivity between sites.’

2.5 Site H1(8) simply does not fit within the definitions of policy SP3. Unlike the other five sites, it sits more than a mile away from the A274 at the end of a narrow country lane, certainly not easily accessible from the town centre. Contrary to the claim of planning connectivity between sites, this site is a mile away from the nearest other site H1(7), the road between them being a narrow, country lane with no footpaths. Contrary to the aim of protecting sensitive landscapes, this site is the agricultural setting of a Grade I listed Norman church and two Grade II listed medieval houses. In an attempt to satisfy the aim of limiting development further into the countryside, this arable field has been clumsily re-designated from rural to urban, but this field is designated as Grade 2 Very Good farmland by Natural England and is valued as countryside by both local residents and farmers. Contrary to the aim of making best use of new and existing infrastructure, access is to be only from a narrow country lane, Church Road, with no provision of new or upgraded local infrastructure.

2.6 Local people could not believe that this site, so different from the five others, had been included in the Local Plan and how the proposed site’s mitigation policies of widening a road 1.6km away (Gore Court Road beyond White Horse Lane) or prioritising buses and relieving congestion on the A274, almost 2km away, could make this site viable.

3.0 The historic, social and environmental importance of Otham

3.1 Otham is an ancient, historic village with a conservation area at its heart, more than 30 listed buildings and a rural character which serves as a green lung for the surrounding urban areas of Downswood, Bearsted and Maidstone. It is characterised by open farmland, ancient woodland and outstanding landscapes and views, crisscrossed by well used footpaths and bridleways.

3.2. Social importance and emotional well-being During the national COVID lockdown, Otham’s public footpaths became crowded with local residents taking the opportunity to explore the network of public rights of way for their daily exercise. With the reduction in

vehicular traffic, Church Road became a regular route for pedestrians, joggers, cyclists and horse riders. Every day, joggers could be seen running on the footpaths and family groups, some pushing pushchairs or

2 toddlers on tricycles, took long walks through the fields, listening to the skylarks singing above their heads. The fields of Otham became a lifeline for residents of neighbouring Downswood, Bearsted and Senacre during the lockdown and a new north-south footpath even appeared across the middle of the proposed development site, a new countryside walk formed by local people valuing the opportunity to walk in the fields to improve their mental well-being. Since the relaxation of restrictions, local people have continued using the fields for running and walking. The footpaths in the fields around the church in particular have remained busy during both weekdays and weekends in all weathers, demonstrating the popularity of these easily accessible rural routes with their open, arable landscape and exceptional views, at the edge of the urban area. In addition, despite the increase in traffic, Church Road has remained popular with walkers and cyclists.

3.3. Environmental and agricultural importance Otham supports arable and fruit farming, horse and sheep grazing, but Otham’s agricultural acreage is being steadily reduced by the use of farmland for housing development. Natural England’s land classification describes the proposed development site as grade 2, ‘the most flexible, productive and efficient in response to inputs, the best to deliver future crops for food use.’ (BMV) This site, recently seeded for its next crop, produced a crop of barley this year, wheat last year and with Brexit, the need to grow our own food has never been so important. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that non-BMV land should be used for housing development first, so allocating this very good, most productive farmland for housing is contrary to both the NPPF and good sense. There is no evidence that Maidstone has carried out a survey of its agricultural land within its boundaries.

3.4. Historic and geological importance 3.4.1 The Otham Conservation Area was first designated by Maidstone Borough Council in 1977 as part of a general review of conservation areas in the Borough and the area covered was extended in 1982. The 2009 Conservation Area Appraisal (Appendix 2), produced by Maidstone Borough Council, identifies the key elements which combine to produce the special historic and architectural character of the conservation area. Describing Otham today as ‘a residential community surrounded by working farmland,’ the Appraisal explains that permanent settlements in the Otham area may have evolved in the 7th or 8th centuries and that the Domesday Book notes that it was given by William the Conqueror to his half-brother, Odo. The Domesday Book, compiled in 1085, describes Otham as having approximately 300 acres (2.5 carucates) of arable land in addition to the church, so Otham’s agricultural economy has existed for at least 800 years. The economic strength of the parish resulted in a high density of late medieval, high status, timber framed dwellings in Otham village, including the oldest, the 14th Century Otham Manor and The Old Rectory, adjacent to the proposed development, built in 1413.

3.4.2 In addition to the agricultural economy, Otham is also the site of a prosperous, medieval ragstone quarry as it sits on the dip slope of a ragstone ridge where it descends to the Len Valley. The main quarry, which declined in the late 15th century, lay between Otham Street and Stoneacre and today the fields of Otham are still full of ragstones and because of that, most of the parish, including site H1(8), is designated as a Kent County Council Minerals Safeguarding area. Because of the geological nature of ragstone formation, ‘swallow’ (sink) holes may appear in the parish; hence the name Otham Hole to the area in the southernmost part of the parish.

3

3.4.3 The Conservation Area Appraisal highlights Otham’s ‘distinctive rural character’ and states that an important feature of that character is its landscape setting and how, for example, the siting of clusters of buildings allow us to read the historic farming patterns. If the arable land between the church and the Rectory is replaced with a housing development, that historic value is lost.

Conservation Area

3.4.4 The Appraisal places great weight on the importance of the surrounding green and agricultural spaces to the character and integrity of the Conservation Area. ‘With the area’s hilly topography, most views out of the Conservation Area further affirm its rural character. Most of the visible surrounding landscape is working fields and woodland with the occasional building dotted along the horizon. Only views north and northwest of some locations in Green Hill show the encroachment of Maidstone’s suburban development in the distance. Still, in these views fields and pastureland occupy the foreground.’ Retaining working arable fields such as the one proposed for development is crucial to maintaining the integrity of Otham’s Conservation area. 3.4.5 The Appraisal concludes; ‘With Otham’s high proportion of high-quality listed buildings, working farms, views over the countryside and attractive green space, the character Maidstone Borough Council aims to preserve and enhance is its distinctive rural, agricultural qualities. 3.4.6 The Appraisal further states that, ‘The siting of any new development within the historic landscape should also consider locally- established patterns. Generally speaking, this provides for large gardens and other green space between buildings or clusters of buildings. Some areas of settlement have evolved historically as denser than others but overall buildings are sporadically scattered in informal patterns. This pattern and the local topography have resulted in a number of important views from the Conservation Area. As the setting for the Conservation Area, these views are to be protected. All of these patterns are crucial to the character of Otham; therefore, increasing density significantly within the Conservation Area or in areas which provide its characteristic views is to be strongly discouraged

4

whenever possible. This is supported by the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan regarding development in the countryside, in which Otham is not identified as a settlement in which development would be encouraged.’ 3.4.7 The proposed construction of a high-density development of over 420 houses in the historic setting of this conservation area, particularly when it will be clearly visible from the western side of the conservation area, is contrary to the conclusions of this Appraisal and would permanently damage the integrity of the Conservation Area.

4.0 The Otham Neighbourhood Development Plan

4.1.1 Our journey to produce a Neighbourhood Plan for our village began in 2015, following the Borough Council’s designation of sites for development, in the hope that by highlighting the historic and environmental importance of Otham, our highly valued fields, open spaces, footpaths and landscapes could be protected. The system of Neighbourhood Planning, created by the 2011 Localism Act, was designed to allow communities like ours to shape how our village develops in a way that makes sense for us. To this end, we shared the results of the parish questionnaire (Appendix 1) with residents and created a steering group to work on the plan, made up of local residents and parish councillors. Throughout the process, described in our Consultation Statement (Appendix 4), we consulted regularly with local residents and listened to their suggestions, to create a Plan that satisfies their vision for Otham. In response to their wishes, the Otham Neighbourhood Plan (Appendix 3) aims to ensure that any further development carried out in Otham Parish is sustainable and will not result in unacceptable harm to the form and function of the village and the wider parish. Its policies seek to safeguard short- and long-range views, protect the settings of the numerous listed buildings, protect highly valued open spaces, promote walking and prevent the coalescence of Otham with the neighbouring urban areas.

4. 1.2 Our consultations, as described in pages 3 and 4 of the Consultation Statement (Appendix 4), revealed that local residents wanted to preserve the arable land designated as H1(8) and the rural setting of the church. However, the law makes clear that the plan must support the delivery of strategic policies in the Borough Council’s Local Plan, even when universally unpopular, contrary to the wishes of local people and, despite the aim of the Act, actually prevent us from choosing where we would like development.

4.1.3 If our Plan were not legally required to support H1(8), our policies would have restricted development here for a number of critical reasons:

4.2. Anti-coalescence - Chapter 6 of the Neighbourhood Plan (Appendix 3)

This field has an important role to play in preventing coalescence between Otham village, its conservation area and urban Maidstone. Policy SS1 of the Maidstone Local Plan states that,

‘protection will be given to the rural character of the borough avoiding coalescence between settlements, including Maidstone and surrounding villages.’

An assessment of the land parcels between Otham and its surrounding settlements was undertaken by the steering group to evaluate their relative performance in preventing coalescence with Maidstone. (Appendix 7) We identified three individual parcels of land that are single-handedly preventing coalescence and three pairs of land parcels that work in partnership to protect Otham village from coalescence. Site H1(8) is half of one of these pairs, preventing Senacre and Downswood from encroaching upon Otham’s Conservation Area. Site H1(8) also, crucially, prevents urban Maidstone from engulfing the ancient village church and two of Otham’s historic buildings. If the proposed development is permitted, the village church will effectively be in urban Maidstone, contrary to Policy SS1. In addition, there would only be one field left to separate urban

5

Maidstone from the conservation area. Policy AC1 of our Neighbourhood Plan would restrict development on this site to prevent coalescence between Otham and Maidstone.

4.3. Protection of heritage assets - Chapter 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan (Appendix 3)

Section 4.1 of our Neighbourhood Plan describes the locally important and distinctive heritage of Otham. The ancient Grade I village church of St Nicholas, mentioned in the Doomsday Book, is unique. The agricultural setting of this building and its historic relationship with the adjacent 16th century Church House and 15th century Rectory is crucial to preserving their historic integrity. The field that sits between them is likely to have been arable land for 800 years, as recorded in the Doomsday Book. Policy SP18 of the Maidstone Local Plan states that, ‘The characteristics, distinctiveness and quality of the borough's heritage assets will be protected and enhanced.’ Any replacement of the agricultural setting of these three ancient buildings with an urban one will inevitably damage their distinctiveness, prevent their significance from being appreciated and do irreparable harm. Damaging the historical views between listed buildings in sympathy with their environment is contrary to aim 4.3 of our Neighbourhood Plan so would not be permitted.

4.4. Protection of high-quality landscapes - Chapter 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan (Appendix 3)

A key feature of both the public footpaths KM86, KM88 and KM132 and the Otham Heritage Trails (shown in Appendix 3 of the Neighbourhood Plan) are the views of the church in its rural setting. Section 4.1 of our Neighbourhood Plan outlines the long history of some of these footpaths and the significance of preserving views as an important part of the setting of listed buildings, as advised in The Setting of Heritage Assets Good Practice Advice 3 published by English Heritage. These well-used paths and trails provide opportunities for local residents and visitors to exercise, enjoy the countryside, appreciate the unique, historic buildings and travel sustainably between the different parts of the village. The proposed housing development H1(8) will damage the rural setting of the church as seen from the public footpaths and heritage trails, contrary to policies HC1 and HC2 of our Neighbourhood Plan. If permitted to, we would have restricted development in this field to prevent damage to the much- loved, historic setting of the church in its rural landscape, including views of the church from the Conservation Area.

4.5. The views of local residents - Appendix 1 of the Consultation Statement (Appendix 4)

4.5.1 The Parish Council conducted a public consultation in February-March 2018 to secure views from local residents to help draft objectives for the Neighbourhood Plan. This included the residents of the new development H1(6) on the A274. • 81% of respondents indicated they wanted no further housing built in Otham. A further 17% would only welcome small developments of less than 10 houses.

6

• 100% of respondents said it was important to retain and protect the green spaces in our village, such as the fields surrounding the church. • 94% wanted to retain existing views, such as the views of the church in its agricultural setting as seen from three public footpath and the heritage trails. The weight of new development in and around Otham continues to prompt local residents to express concern about the ability of the local road network to cope with the anticipated additional traffic associated with these developments and the resulting pressures on other local services. If site H1(8) had not been included in the Local Plan, we would have recommended its retention as arable land

4.5.2 Our neighbourhood plan is currently at the end of its final consultation phase (Regulation 16) which ends on 27 November. Following successful examination by an inspector and public referendum, we anticipate final adoption hopefully by the end of January. It has been written by local people, for local people, without any professional help, in the hope that we can do something to stop our small, rural village being engulfed by urban Maidstone.

5.0 Policy H1(8) including modifications MM19 from the viewpoint of local residents

5.1.1 When the Borough Council’s draft Local Plan was reviewed by Inquiry Inspector Robert Mellor, he stated that the Plan had ‘a number of deficiencies in respect of soundness which mean that I recommend non-adoption of it as submitted.’ He then recommended main modifications to make it capable of adoption. In paragraph 172 of his report, regarding the sites in Policy SP3, he stated, ‘for the allocations to be justified as part of the most appropriate strategy and consistent with national policy for the provision of infrastructure and the protection of heritage assets, some modifications are needed to the site allocations. In particular these relate to some infrastructure…and open space provision and to the setting of a listed church in Church Road.’ 5.1.2 Many of the original H1(8) policies and these subsequent modifications for this site (MM19) have never been undertaken. Others appear to have been complied with in the development proposals, but in such a way that doesn’t comply with the intention of the policy. To understand these discrepancies, a local view is needed; local residents who know the site and the local road network and who can give an informed view on the policies and whether they have been complied with effectively or fairly in the applications.

5.2. Policy 2: An undeveloped section of land will be retained along the western boundary of the site, to protect the amenity and privacy of residents living in Chapman Avenue.

As this section of the most recent site plan for application 19/506182 demonstrates, this policy has not been complied with. Rather than undeveloped land, the application proposes a road at the edge of the site, overlooking the residents of Chapman Avenue below. During the design phase, in a site meeting with local parish councils in February 2018, Bellway told me that they would have to sacrifice the undeveloped land at the west of the site in order to implement the undeveloped land at the east of the site required by policy 3; they couldn’t fit the required 440 dwellings specified in policy H1(8) into the remaining space if they put undeveloped land on both sides of the site. Contrary to policy 2, the privacy and amenity of Chapman Avenue residents has not been protected. They will be overlooked from the road and its pedestrians and vehicles and by the house frontages that look down onto them.

7

5.3. Policy 5: The hedge line along the eastern boundary of the site with Church Road shall be retained and strengthened where not required for access to the site.

5.3.1 This policy was an addition made personally by the Inquiry Inspector as part of MM19. The intention of his policy is clear; the hedgerow is valuable for biodiversity, is an important part of the rural character of Otham, is an important aspect of the rural setting of the ancient church and should therefore be not only retained, but made stronger to ensure its survival and stress its importance in the landscape. The policy complies with both paragraph 170 of the NPPF regarding protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and paragraph 174, regarding protecting and enhancing biodiversity and safeguarding local wildlife-rich habitats and wildlife corridors. 5.3.2 One would assume, to comply with this policy, that a single access point to the site would be created, sadly necessitating the removal of a small portion of the hedge, but that the majority of this highly valued hedgerow would be retained. However, the planned development includes two access roads, resulting in 60% of the hedgerow being removed. Only 80m of the existing 200m hedgerow would be retained and strengthened. In addition, it would sit in the space between the two access roads, thus separating it from the rest of the hedgerow bordering and adjacent to the site, destroying the wildlife corridor. With 120m of hedgerow removed, the housing development will be more prominent in the landscape, especially when viewed from the public footpaths, road and Conservation Area.

5.4. Policy 10: Provision of approximately 2.88ha of natural/semi-natural open space consisting of 1.4ha in accordance with policy OS1(16), and 1.48ha within the site.

5.4.1 Again, this policy was an addition made personally by the Inquiry Inspector as part of MM19. In paragraph 171 of his report, he acknowledged the concerns of local people regarding the loss of greenfield agricultural land and countryside, coalescence of Otham with Maidstone and impacts on the area’s character, appearance and biodiversity. He was clearly aware that this high-density housing allocation was incongruous with its rural setting and his insistence on natural open space within the site was an attempt to blend the development with its surrounding landscape and protect biodiversity, particularly next to the ancient woodland at the south of the site. The Maidstone Local Plan Policies Map shown left, provides the location of the two open space allocations, shaded green. 5.4.2 However, in application 19/506182 shown right, the southern open space allocation contains two houses, two garages and driveways, a road, public parking bays and an artificial SUDS basin. Being so close to four homes and the end of a cul-de-sac, it is unlikely that the natural open space envisaged by the Inspector will remain natural. In addition, the open space at the north of the site also contains man made SUDs basins as well as an ‘eco area’ and nature trail, not natural open space at all.

8

5.5. Policy 12: Widening of Gore Court Road between the new road required under policy H1(6) and White Horse Lane.

5.5.1 Bellway’s construction of Imperial Park [H1(6)] saw the creation of Buffkyn Way, linking Gore Court Road directly to the A274. This is the ‘new road’ referred to in policy 12, which commands the widening of Gore Court Road between this new road and the junction with White Horse Lane. As part of their subsequent construction of the Bicknor Wood development H1(7), Bellway created a new access road, Pentecost Lane, and widened the stretch of Gore Court Road between Pentecost Lane and Buffkyn Way. As shown in this photograph, looking south, a Give Way junction was then constructed to allow Gore Court Road to continue to run north from Pentecost Lane to where it becomes Church Road at the junction with White Horse Lane. This stretch of road is a narrow lane without footpaths flanked by hedgerow to the east and residential properties to the west. It is not suitable for two vehicles to safely pass each other. Despite the clear policy, it has not been widened and there are no plans to widen it. Residents would actually prefer that traffic be prevented altogether from using this narrow, dangerous stretch between Pentecost Lane and White Horse lane, but instead Bellway plan to close the White Horse Lane junction to vehicles altogether, which will see even more traffic using this narrow stretch of Gore Court Road as it will be the northbound route of traffic from both the Bicknor Wood and Imperial Park developments, endangering pedestrians. Policy 12 has been disregarded and will not be undertaken, despite being a requirement of policy H1(8).

5.5.2 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that policies should ensure that safe and suitable access to a site can be achieved for all people. One assumes that policy 12 was designed with this in mind, an attempt to ensure that traffic from H1(8) can safely reach the A274 via Gore Court Road. However, local residents know that this is not the only dangerous section of road between H1(8) and the A274. Like Gore Court Road, Church Road is a narrow, unlit country lane without footpaths. Local residents and those that use it as a rush hour rat-run between the A20 and A274 to avoid the over congested Willington Street, know that in some parts, despite its narrow width, two vehicles can pass each other. However, there is an extremely narrow and hazardous section, less than 4m wide, shown in this image, that sits below a pair of high verges, just north of a blind bend that is exceptionally dangerous. The road cannot be widened here as the land on either side belongs to Little Squerries and the Old Rectory. This section is not only extremely hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists, but the roadside is littered with wing mirrors and hubcaps and local residents endure repeated angry discourses between disgruntled drivers, struggling to pass each other. Some try to drive up onto the muddy verges to squeeze their way through, but those who know the road’s limitations, queue by the field entrances at the

9 corner of the development site, waiting for northbound traffic to pass, which results in regular queues of traffic along the boundary of the application site. 5.5.3 Even the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector observed in paragraph 148 of his report that, ‘in South East Maidstone there is congestion in the side roads that connect the A274 to the A20 and M20 to the north of the town, avoiding the town centre,’ so local residents could not believe that the H1(8) policies failed to include any highways policies for Church Road. They know that this narrow lane is already overused and congested and is simply unsuitable for any more traffic, as is evident from the number of objections to the applications from local residents regarding highway safety. 5.5.4 Application 19/501600 proposes a traffic calming arrangement and a reduction in speed limit to solve the problem. However, local residents know that this simply cannot work. Southbound traffic queuing at the give way point, much of which we know from experience will have come down from the A20 via Spot Lane to avoid Willington Street, will extend past the access point for the new development, blocking residents inside. We also know that many of the vehicles using this route as a rat run are transit vans from the Parkwood Industrial Estate. At the give way point shown, the road will be only 4.9m wide and a 2020 Ford transit van is 2.47m wide, so two vans would require more than 4.94m to pass each other, so will effectively block the road. In addition, there is no provision made for the many pedestrians who use this road, such as those walking north towards the church in this photograph, who will have to attempt to dodge oncoming vehicles whilst walking past the queue of traffic giving way, which takes up half of the width of the road. The highway capacity and safety improvements in policy H1(8) and those proposed in the application simply don’t address the real problems of Church Road faced every day by local people.

5.6. Policies 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17: Strategic highways and transportation measures.

5.6.1 In paragraph 142 of his report, the Inquiry Inspector acknowledged that a key issue for the sites in policy SP3 is highways and transport infrastructure and that, ‘representors including Kent County Council consider inadequate transport infrastructure to be a constraint that makes this location unsuitable for that development.’ In paragraph 148 he observed that, ‘congestion on the A274 affects bus services…congestion hampers the reliability and attractiveness of that bus service to both existing and potential users.’ In paragraph 150 he reminds us that, ‘the issue of congestion in the A274 Sutton Road is not new’

10 and observed that the bus lane along Sutton Road and improved road link from the A274 to the A20, bypassing the villages of Langley and Leeds, which were both proposed in the 2000 Local Plan, were never implemented. 5.6.2 With this in mind, policies 13 to 17 in the Local Plan and Main Modification 6 try again to improve the A274, after the failure of the 2000 Plan, and to mitigate the travel impacts of the new developments including H1(8), but unfortunately, they have not been implemented, something the Inspector should have known would happen when he observed in paragraph 156 that, ‘the County Council has stated that, whilst it supports the junction capacity improvements it will not implement the bus prioritisation measures on the grounds that they would disadvantage other road users.’ In fact, the County Council has objected to the allocation of H1(8) and other sites in SP3 on the grounds that after mitigation the residual cumulative impacts of development would remain ‘severe’. To date, none of the mitigation measures in policies 14 to 16 have been undertaken to improve capacity at the A274 junctions. MM6, the installation of an extended bus lane in Sutton Road, was specifically added by the Inspector to make Policy SP3 viable, but again, this has not been implemented. 5.6.3 In paragraph 169, the Inquiry Inspector concluded that if the measures to mitigate the travel impacts are further supported by the bus access and bus priority measures, the impacts on congestion need not be severe. So, the reverse of this must be that if neither the mitigation measures nor the bus priority measures are implemented, the impact on congestion will be severe. NPPF paragraph 32 states that, ‘Development should…be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.

6. Summary

6.1 Unbelievably, the site policies regarding undeveloped land, the hedge line, natural open space, road widening, bus prioritisation and congestion measures have simply not been met and it is most unlikely that they will be met in the future. Accordingly, site H1(8) can only be considered unsound and not capable of adoption.

6.2 On behalf of the people of Otham and surrounding towns and villages who have sent in their objections, the parish councillors and Neighbourhood Plan steering group who have worked so hard to try to protect our historic integrity and rural way of life, I ask that you refuse these applications and rule that this site and any others put forward on this narrow, rural lane will always be deemed unsuitable for large scale development. Please acknowledge the vision and aims of our neighbourhood plan and the overwhelming views expressed by residents, and help us to preserve Otham’s rural and historic character and prevent its coalescence with Maidstone.

Appendix 1 Questionnaire Summary

Appendix 2 MBC Conservation Appraisal

Appendix 3 Otham Neighbourhood Plan

Appendix 4 Consultation Statement

Appendix 5 Inspector’s report to MBC 2017

Appendix 6 Map of SP3 Housing Allocations

Appendix 7 Map of Anti Coalescence function

11

12

Otham Parish Council 2015 Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Summary

1. Please indicate your age group and sex.

18-20 2% Male 48% 21-45 21% Female 51% 46-55 19% No Reply 1% 56-65 21% 66-75 13% 76+ 23% No Reply 1%

2. How long have you lived in Otham?

Minimum 1 year Maximum 84 years Average 22 years

3. What type of property do you live in?

Detached 65% Terrace 4% Flat 3% Semi 18% Bungalow 8% No Reply 2%

4. Approximate age of dwelling.

Minimum 0 years Maximum 800 years Average 155 years

5. How many cars do you have and where are they kept?

Car Storage Number of Cars Percentage of Replies Garage, Covered Area or Driveway 272 cars 78% Roadside, Outside your Property 13 cars 5% Elsewhere in Village 10 cars 1% Off Road 15 cars 5% None 0 cars 10%

Minimum 0 cars Maximum 7 cars Average 1.9 cars

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 1 6. In your view, what type of housing is needed?

Large Family Homes 8% Small Family Homes 17% Affordable Housing 19% Housing for the Elderly 12% Housing for the disabled 5% No further housing needed 68% No Opinion 4% No Reply 0%

7. What other types of development would you like to see?

“None” 36% Other Response 26% No Reply 38%

• In fill Against Any Development • Smaller development • Starter homes to get young people back in Village. • But no more housing in Otham without consideration to • Small scale only. Cottage type to blend in with the village. services infrastructure and character of village • No more large properties • There is enough housing being built or planned in Otham • Small houses or flats for young couples to start in • None. The villages are part of British life. They should remain • On brownfield sites and all alternatives to building in green as they are and new developments created on brownfield belt to be fully explored. sites • If every village in the country took 2-6 homes there would be • Roads no need for the big development being forced on people. No • Improvement to condition of current road surfaces. Addition need for new infrastructure, roads, drainage, schools, of pedestrian / cycle lane at side of current road (Green Hill / medical centres. A mix of housing including say 4 affordable Otham Street) houses for farming type folks who desperately need it but • Re-instalment of roadside verges. Upkeep of main road can’t afford it. If every village did this imagine how such an through Otham act could ease the housing problem and benefit the • Street lighting. Pavements community in every part of the country • Street lighting, Pavements • This area us beautiful - further development would ruin this. Maidstone feels overdeveloped already Other Infrastructure • None in surrounding rural areas • Mains gas, High speed Broadband • None - keep Otham as it is • Increased infrastructure to support an increase in the • None - Otham doesn’t need further development that's part residential population. E.g. Schooling, Roads, Health of the charm of a rural village • Village school • We don't need more houses taking over Otham • Schools, GP, Dentist • • Doctor or dentist • Schools, Doctors, Local shop • None - Otham should be kept as a small village which was our • Doctor, Dentist, Clinic. Parks for open spaces. NHS. main reason for moving here from the centre of Maidstone • Doctors, Chemists, Supermarket, Newsagent • None • Playground renovated and improved. Small café. • None in Otham, but believe there is a requirement for starter homes. These should be combined with shopping • Shop developments (i.e flats above supermarket etc.) • Small corner shop • Nothing specific • Schools and Shops • Small shop Limited Development • Village shop • Only in keeping with surroundings - area not capable of large • Local farm shop. scale developments • Community run shop instead of current pub • Well thought out developments, taking account of schools, • Local grocery store. Paper shop or farm shop that sells milk parking, other roads, shops and amenities and newspapers • In Fill

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 2 8. Do you run a business in Otham?

Yes 12% No 88%

9. Where is your main place of work or study?

At Home 33% Elsewhere in Village 1% Outside Village but Within 10 Miles 16% Within 11-15 Miles 8% Within 16 – 50 Miles 2% Over 50 Miles 3% London 5% Not Working 30% No Reply 1%

10. What is your main means of transport in and out of Otham?

Car 88% Van 4% Bus 9% Train 1% Motorcycle 0% Bicycle 5% On Foot 7% Other 3% Not Applicable 0%

11. How many times a month do you use the footpaths and bridleways?

More than 20 21% Between 11-20 27% Between 5-10 12% Less than 5 27% Never 14%

12. Do you or have you used the Len Valley Walk?

Yes 48% No 52%

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 3 13. Do you feel like Otham suffers from the following types of disturbance?

Traffic Noise 37% Shooting / Bird Scarers 0% Noisy Activities in the Village 14% Agricultural / Chemical Odours 13% Inconsiderate Parking 22% Agricultural Machinery on Roads 21% Oversize Vehicles in General on Roads 68% Speeding Traffic 82% Bonfires 12% No Reply 2%

Noise • Narrow lanes not suitable for speeding idiots using them instead of main roads • Continuous building noise from Sutton Road site • Speeding cars, unnecessary heavy garden equipment used too • Dogs barking at times for long periods early in morning • Noise from the pub • Too many large tractors on roads so much damage done already • Dogs barking • Simmons Lane suffers from extremely noisy agricultural vehicles in • Noise of housing development at Langley Park and Imperial Park. the early hours of the morning, 9-10 months of the year • New development at Gore Court Road and Sutton Road - Plant / • Church Road / Gore Court Road overused verses their width and machinery consistently noisy "beep beep beep." state of maintenance. Waste & Litter • Occasional loud recreational drivers e.g. motorbikes and quadbikes • Litter • Motorbikes • Littering • Noise, mud and extra traffic caused by building of new houses • Litter • I think our village is quite quiet but if all this building goes ahead it • Litter will be totally different with our narrow lanes • Flytipping, litter. Oversized lorries 40 ton! • There appears to be inconsiderate parking around the White • Flytipping (recent increases) Horse. • Burning of noxious substances on nearby land Football Field • Burning of noxious substances on nearby land • Burning of unpleasant imported waste • Lots of shouting and swearing while football match is in progress. • The noise from Bearsted FC when playing at Otham sports club Traffic takes no consideration of the impact on the residents. • Too much traffic • Football ground - very noisy and foul language especially at • Noise, Traffic, Large potholes weekends (family time) • Quite a lot of fast cars using the country lanes • Noise from football field. White Horse PH. • Dangerous and inconsiderate driving - no respect of the speed • Football limit and passing points • Football fields in Honey Lane over the weekends. • Inconsiderate drivers who frighten walkers and house owners. • Loud shouting (football) Otham has LANES rather than roads • Shouting and foul language during football matches from Honey • I'm really concerned about traffic in the village. I've witnessed cars Lane (1/4 mile away) crashing and HGVs (which shouldn’t be using the road) getting • Noise made by Bearsted FC including swearing, speeding through stuck as well as an increased volume of traffic which the roads are village and throwing litter. not suitable for • What was a quiet and peaceful village when we moved here in '86, • HGV signs not replaced. Large agricultural vehicles - early morning that peace has been shattered at weekends and 3 evenings a disturbance week by footballers playing games or training. The restrictions on • HGV trucks should be banned from using village roads playing times on Sunday afternoons are regularly ignored, with • Big problem with traffic cutting through the narrow lanes from the inept MBC promising to take action and never doing so. Sutton Road to A20 etc. which will be made a lot worse with new • Footballers swearing at football matches. Football Ground housing developments outside the village Crime • Church Road and Gore Court Road used as a rat run, and both can be very busy early morning and evening. • Thieving farm fuel and garden sheds. Dog mess. Using mobile • Traffic using the main road through village as a cut through from phones all the time. the A20 to Sutton Road • Opportunistic thefts from motor vehicles - 3 occasions • Traffic using the village as a rat run - going too fast Other OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 4 • Occasionally Bonfires • Birds

14. How important is farming to the village?

Very Important 61% Important in Ecological Terms 33% Important in Economic Terms 34% Important in Defining Rural Character 67% Not Sure or No Opinion 5% Not Important 1% No Reply 1%

• Farms in Otham are highly profitable for the owners and should remain as they are to provide the crops necessary to General national food bank • It is the essence of the place • If agriculture ceases to be profitable Otham will no longer • Important in maintaining rural character remain a separate village • • The farms are certainly better than large housing Farming is vital to the village economy and character developments on that land • If you didn't allow 'modern' farming the land will not be used • Grade 2 land should be preserved and simply built on • Our green environment that is currently preserved by our • If there was no efficient farming there would be no farming community is important and has to be maintained to countryside protect our rural character but also as a green lining to an ever encroaching concrete jungle Farm Traffic • We moved to Otham for the rural appeal, I love to see fields • Sadly modern farming requires the use of plastic tunnels of crops growing not to build new houses and ruin this lovely • Farm traffic can be messy and on occasion drive too fast place • I'm very concerned about the size of the tractors that come • Farming land should remain as such to ensure our green up and down our roads from early in the morning until late at spaces night, minibuses etc and the speed they travel. You take your • It is nice to have farms to maintain sour green open spaces. life in your hands when you walk at the corner of the junction • No farmland = no rural character of Honey and Avery Lane • The open views the fields give are really important and add to the quality of life Polytunnels • Entire history of village - evolved from fruit and hop farming • Too much plastic tunnels in fields • Farming is essential to maintaining the rural feel of the village • Too many poly-tunnels • It is an agricultural village with many of the houses built as • agricultural dwellings or ties cottages Walks spoiled by polythene tunnels everywhere

15. Do you ride, own or keep a horse in the village?

I Ride a Horse in the Village 2% I Own a Horse in the Village 0% I Keep a Horse in the Village 1% No Horse 97%

sound their horns before entering into the sharp bends in Honey Lane without giving any concern to horse riders Safety • I have ridden in the village for approx 40 years. The main • It's good to see the horses on the road, are they safe? cause for concern now is speed of dangerous drivers trying to pass too close and access roads to reach off-road riding. Cars • My concerns would be the speed of the traffic using the are also now trying to drive on bridleways when directed by lanes. Also the amount of times a vehicle drivers would satnavs OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 5 • I no longer ride but I do think the traffic needs to be more Other respectful to other road users • These riders have as much right to use the lanes as car Damage drivers and certainly pedestrians • I no longer ride following back injury • Horses occasionally on footpaths causing hazards for walkers • Have done in the past (ploughing up footpaths) but I love to see horses • I do not have or ride any horses • The use of horses in the village should be encouraged. • I live opposite stables However I note the damage by horses to the poorly repaired • My wife and two daughters all own horses have many friends roads that also own, keep and ride horses in the village

16. Do you walk or cycle through the village? Cycle Day 30% Cycle Night 1% Walk Day 80% Walk Night 14% Walk With Children Day 21% Walk With Children Night 2% No Walk or Cycle Day 13% No Walk or Cycle Night 86%

Speed • Walking and cycling with children is also dangerous due to traffic again passing too close and too fast. I'm surprised • Please keep to the speed limit there has not been an accident yet involving a cyclist, walker or horse riders • Walking is difficult as no safe place to walk with busy traffic. • Dangerous for children Walking is dangerous given the lack of consideration given by drivers • Speeding traffic is of great concern • Walking due to traffic speed becoming increasingly Other Safety dangerous. Many walkers now wear day-glow jackets • The speed of traffic makes walking or trying to cycle • The road below Greenhill is totally unsafe for pedestrians and dangerous cyclist because the verges and hedges are overgrown • With difficulty now due to speed of traffic • As per above regarding driving situation, it is sometimes not • Very dangerous for children walking, cycling even worse safe to cycle with children OR walk along roads. I would like • Large agricultural vehicles are a problem as they destroy the to see a new footpath created running parallel to Otham edges of roads. Many cars go too fast road, linking the junction of Caring Lane to the top of the • Cars go far too fast as I'm walking my dog and with my Green children. They never slow down if they are not locals • Otham has LANES rather than roads which are mainly single • Dangerous walking and cycling due to speeding / track which makes walking difficult inconsiderate drivers • Lack of street lighting makes walking in dark unsafe but not a • Walking in village is limited most of the time due to speeding big issue traffic • Walking along narrow lanes is becoming a hazard, drivers Other expect you to jump out of their path • Many drivers inconsiderate towards pedestrians • Whilst the southern stretch of footpath KM94 does not get • Very rarely walk along roads in village due to speeding traffic cut down late in the season, it does become impassable due and poor visibility through lanes to bramble and nettle growth from the beginning of June • Feeling of threat by speeding traffic near church in Church • Whilst the southern stretch of footpath KM94 does not get Road cut down late in the season, it does become impassable due • Feeling of threat by speeding traffic near church in Church to bramble and nettle growth from the beginning of June Road • Walk with dogs • Walking anywhere in the village is limited most of the year • I also cycle with my young children due to the speeding of traffic including lorries, most of which • Regularly cycle are oblivious of pedestrians and speed restrictions • A little now, when fit, was much more

17. Are you happy with the tidiness of the village? OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 6 Yes 65% No 35%

18. Would you be willing to help with a village tidy?

Yes 64% No 36%

19. How important are the village pubs (White Horse and Orchard Spot) to you?

White Horse Orchard Spot Vital 3% Vital 3% Important 8% Important 8% Nice to Have 35% Nice to Have 29% Not Important 50% Not Important 58% No Reply 1%

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 7 20. How often do you visit them a month?

White Horse Orchard Spot More than 10 1% More than 10 1% 6-10 1% 6-10 1% 1-5 5% 1-5 2% Very Infrequently 27% Very Infrequently 24% Never 66% Never 70% No Reply 1%

21. How important are the following to you?

Mobile Library St Nicholas Church Vital 4% Vital 16% Important 12% Important 32% Nice to Have 43% Nice to Have 33% Not Important 41% Not Important 19%

22. How important is the village hall to you?

Vital 17% Important 30% Nice to Have 47% Not Important 5%

Is the Village Hall adequate to meet the Village’s needs? What improvements would you like to see?

Parking • More parking • Yes. Parking • Possible arrangement with Stoneacre to use parking • I think the hall is adequate for the size of the village. field at bottom of hill, perhaps for an extra fee With better parking it may get used by other clubs etc • We've used the village hall for parties. I wonder if it will be possible to use any nearby land for parking spaces Size/Adequacy • The village hall is nice to meet in but no parking really • More parking area • Somewhat undersized • Not adequate - More parking, as when in use the cars • It's too small park where local residents usually park, which causes • Village hall needs more parking - but very important for problems. There are a lot of parents bringing and holding small village functions collecting children from the pre-school twice a day. It is • Limited, but a vital resource for a small franchise often chaos • Larger hall with parking might make it used more • Car Park • Yes. General upkeep • Too small, no parking • Too small and inflexible. Dated • No. It could be used more (for raising cash) if it had a car • Too small park e.g. the field opposite • Too small for most purposes. More parking needed. • Parking and the hall is very small New village hall in a better place would make it a focal • Car park point for the community. • Yes, apart from the parking facilities • A larger building might attract more use, but the site for • Not sure. Better or more car parking. Then I think the such a new build would not be considered due to cost hall would be used more and location. A car park, possibly on the green, would • Refurbishment and car parking enhance the existing hall, and at the same time give • Lack of parking is a drawback. More money available to space for more usage of the village green facilities refurbish / maintain • Not really. Would be good if the pub was ever for sale • Parking is always an issue again if the village could buy it and use it as a hall / community centre as it has a garden and off road • Car Parking parking • More parking OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 8 • Slightly small. Would be nice to use the pub as a friendly Events village meeting place • More social gatherings Facilities • More village social events • Would like to see more activities / clubs which I would • New floor, heating, lighting, windows, more use made of hope to support the village hall • The village needs a village hall which should be • Needs new floor, windows, heating, and lighting supported by all residents • New floor, windows, lighting, heating and toilets • Yes. In my younger days the hall was used many times • No. Could be refurbished more than it is now. No one wants weddings, band • Yes. Building maintenance to ensure the fabric and practice or youth clubs in a hall these days. (I used to integrity of the building is sound for the foreseeable take the bookings for the hall and it was very busy every future week.) • Village hall is in keeping with the area but could be • Yes … but it would be good to have local events improved occurring there e.g. plays, village events, children • The village hall needs some maintenance inside to make it up to date however leave the outside the same as it Other fits in with the village • The village hall is lovely, but if you overpopulate this Preschool village it will become unbearable as will the roads and parking • Yes. Its location may be a problem especially with the • Only use hall to vote, but think it's great that the village nursery again linked to dangerous driving retains this • The preschool is an important community facility, the • I don't use it, so cannot comment. Have attended a few hall needs updating to ensure they meet those OPC meetings and it meets this need requirements • Do not use now, but I went to meetings there for many • Could have a few more parking places for those in the years. Difficult now I am disabled village that need to drive. Could be used for more clubs. • I think so I sent my children there and was very happy • Generally yes • Improved outdoor yard for the preschool • Yes, most of the time • More play area for the pre-school • Yes, most of the time • Pre-school outside play area. Better parking • • It would be great for the pre-school to have a little more outdoor play space

23. How important are the allotments and football ground to you?

Allotments Football Ground Vital 13% Vital 5% Important 23% Important 11% Nice to Have 36% Nice to Have 21% Not Important 27% Not Important 63% No Reply 1%

24. How important are village-based clubs and societies to you?

Vital 7% Important 22% Nice to Have 44% Not Important 30% No Reply 1%

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 9 Church 7 Church Tea Party 3 Football 1 Garden Scheme 1

History Society 14 Pre-School 1 No Club or Society 142 (86%)

25. How important is the village green and play area to you?

Vital 48% Important 26% Nice to Have 22% Not Important 2% No Reply 1%

How often do you use the Village Green and Play Area? What improvements would you like to see?

Frequency Only Comments • Every day • Every day • Never • Never Seating • Never • • I have no reason to go there Once per month, more seats • • Now hardly ever. When fit enough at least weekly Once a month, and more seating required • • Rarely Monthly. More seating. • Picnic tables • Rarely • Not often Play Area • Occasionally • Occasionally • We use them several times a week. I would like to see • Occasionally additional playground facilities for older children • Occasionally • We are there several times a week. Proper rope swing to • Occasionally replace the current one • On occasion • Every week, Improve the play area • Occasionally. No improvements • Weekly, more facilities for children • 2x per year • Weekly, More facilities for children • 3 times a year if weather is good • Very often, New surface and slides • A few times a year • Very often. Playground is out of date - needs to be • A few times a year extended and refurbished • From time to time. General upkeep • I occasionally use the village green, but I like to see it • Regularly being used. The play area could be improved - but am • Regularly happy as long as it is maintained • Regularly. More facilities • Regularly use Village Green - modernising play area • Quite often would be nice • Quite often • Twice a month. Another baby swing • Often. None • Used play area once when family visited • Often. None • More play equipment • Often, but more in better weather • Once a week. More play equipment • Often • Several times a week - a few more 'balance' items would be lovely • Very regularly • Frequently, It is very well maintained Mentions of Children • Every month if weather is fine • Couple of times a month • Three times a week with my son • Once or twice a month • Regularly with grandchildren • A lot • I used to always use the green but now the children are • 5-10 times per month getting a little too large for it • 3-4 times a week. None - keep it green • We use the village green and the play area often • Use the village green 4/5 times a week although the children are getting beyond the point • Village Green daily. Play area occasionally in summer where they would use the play area • Every day • When with grandchildren. OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 10 • Quite often take groups of children there • Once a week, More strimming of the nettles • Often when grandchildren visit • 12 visits per month. It's good as it is. Steven Waring does • Used by my children an excellent job. Don't want to see it turned into a • Take grandchildren there occasionally football pitch. It's perfect as it is • With grandchildren • Not often. Provide nature planting of trees ie replant • sloe trees / bushes that were removed • Daily. Dog walkers policed to clear up after their pets Parking The General Ambience • Use all of the time, but needs more available parking • Too old for play area but position and views are great - • Not often but vital to village character car park? • I like to walk nearby on the lane and enjoy the view of • A car park would reduce parking round the green the downs • Rarely use unless great grandchildren come to stay or • Village green and views are superb - hopefully this can visiting the féte. Install an adequate car parking facility - be retained adequate space is available on the small area of the • Lovely to sit and admire views. Used play area when green owned by the National Trust - OPC should once daughter was younger again approach NT with this in view. • I love this open space and views across to North Downs • Somewhere to park • The view is spectacular and should never be spoilt • (I) don’t use the green as such, but it is the centre of the Village Events village • • As much as we can. More social events to promote the I am unable to use the village green or play area, but I community. After the tidy up, the rubbish displayed, think they are vital for the village including food and drinks with education stands. Could • Only for walking we have a bonfire…? • I walk across green • Often, more use of green for village events eg BBQ night • Removal of the ugly village sign and its base • Not often but would if exciting events were to take place Mentions of Walking & Dog Walking • With church activity • Attend village féte • I walk across it on my walks around the village, but don’t • For village féte play sports or have children. • Very seldom. It's very nice to have it. I love to see the • Most days to walk the dog and occasionally to take the féte, it's very good children to the play area • Occasional walks. Improved events on the green • Use green at least twice a week to exercise the dogs • Occasionally - Féte Day, Memorial Day, Playground • Green used most days as we walk pet dog this way • Occasionally walk dogs on green Maintenance

26. Are there any other amenities you would like to see in the village?

No • Parking for church and village hall shop

• No Shop, Farm Shop, Post Office • No • • No A village shop would be lovely! (Not sure it would be sustainable though) • No • Village shop • No • Village shop • No - bring more amenities would bring more people to • village. A small shop • • None. We have lived in the village without amenities for Small corner shop 33 years. The town is not far away for any • Local shop, a village shop not a bloody supermarket! entertainment. • Not sure • Village Shop Café/Tea Rooms • A village shop • Village tea rooms, café, shop. • A village shop would be nice • Village store Parking • Local shop • Local shop • More parking at village hall. Fitness clubs. Walking • Local shop groups. • Shop • Parking OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 11 • Shop • A pub that opened to the village green would be great! • A shopping store But I don't think the people living by the green would • Local shop. Voluntary group to help elderly on their own think so - i.e. shopping and lifts • A good pub and restaurant • A small general store to provide a service for a number • The pub turned into a little shop and tea room in the day of elderly villagers and those who rely on public and a pub at night (by different owners) transport. This is hardly likely to be considered … but Community should the White Horse be vacated again • A farm shop, somewhere to have coffee / tea and a • I would like to see meetings or gatherings in the hall, but drop-off point for parcels etc. This could be done without the car park this will be difficult through a decent village pub or perhaps the village hall • Yes, a small shop. A more active village community could have coffee / tea afternoons once a week or centre. Film nights, quiz nights etc. - not church based. similar Headcorn village or Hunton are good examples • Farm shop • Village BBQ which used to be held once a year • A farm shop • Have outdoor concerts on the village green (live music • A local shop with produce from the area and celebrities). Outside cinema screens. Animal farm / • Farmers market on the green occasionally would be horse stables to visit nice. Though it's the lack of amenities that's attractive • More social clubs, but would need somewhere to hold about Otham. If you want them, move to Maidstone them • A mobile shop or general store • If there is a new population moving into the village, the • Shop, Café possibility of the WI could be considered • I would love to see a little village shop and post office • Maybe if there is to be a huge increase in the population • A shop and a nicer pub - not run by gypsies then organisations like the WI may set up again • Community shop instead of current pub • Village shop / Post Office. There was one when we Children’s Play Area moved here! • Additional children's play stations or swapped around to • Shop and Post Office keep interest • Shop and Post Office • Shop, post office, surgery Infrastructure • Shop. Post Office • Post office • Faster broadband • Post office • Any information about home-based businesses if available - would be happy to support / buy. Would be Pub happy to be involved • A much better bus service - even two hourly both ways • Pub in village centre would be nice • A better village pub which can be used by the residents • Buses. Shop / Mobile • Village pub - not one of the pubs above • Tennis courts • The local pub appears to be for builders and not in • Sidewalks for pedestrians keeping with the village - residence • Better sidewalks for pedestrians • More traditional pub

27. Do you feel there are adequate street parking places in Otham?

Yes 28% No 42% No Opinion 29% No Reply 1%

28. Do you consider street parking a hazard in Otham?

Yes 44% No 33% No Opinion 22% No Reply 1%

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 12 Not a Problem • Only a problem when people using hall • Perhaps more parking available around the hall • Not a major hazard • The only issue is around the village hall during Nursery • Not a major hazard drop off and collection. If some more spaces could be • Most houses have their own drives. available next to the green it would help • No one usually parks on the road as there is enough • We are careful when dropping off at preschool not to driveways at our end annoy local neighbours but they have been difficult with • Most properties park on their drives other people on occasion. • It could be a hazard if there was an increase in traffic or • Can be a problem around the village hall cars • Parking around village green needs to be improved, especially around Stoneacre junction. Drop-off times for children to village hall nursery carries problems Church • Bad parking restricting access around village green to business • Parking off-road for the church • Can get busy outside the village hall • Parking off-road for the church • Parking is an issue at times next to the Village Green • When church is in use parking causes unnecessary hazards for drivers Pub & Football Ground • Cars often obstruct the road outside the church - quite dangerous • Parking can be problematic around the pub area sometimes vans and lorries • URGENTLY NEEDED - a car park by the church before • someone is killed. Too much parking round the green. Pub and football ground so cause some problems • • Church needs car park Parking not needed in main village. Adequate at White Horse end where it is more built up • Especially when Church is in use. Parking is inadequate • By the pub - badly parked commercial vehicles • Yes, especially by the church as people park without much thought for others parking • Near the White Horse it's terrible. It's a nightmare in Three Tees car park, more so at weekends and during • Otham church meetings make Church road / Gore court the summer with pub traffic road almost impossible to use • Especially by the White Horse • Some issues getting past the church at times but if you are a considerate driver it's not an issue • Area around the pub is congested with vehicles at times • No parking near Church • The pub area • Cars are ALWAYS parked opposite Honey Lane junction Village Hall/Village Green pushing cars onto the wrong side of the road

• Not enough parking around village hall or green, cars are Other often parked haphazardly by visitors and other vehicles are damaged. It also restricts views and is a hazard to • There is often nowhere for us to park outside the house pedestrians and horse-riders • There is no street parking • Often are blocking entrance to the yard • The growing number of cars in the village results in a • I think it is more of a hazard to the residents who risk shortage of car parking spaces. Stoneacre car park is not their cars being damaged by careless drivers while being clearly signed parked • How do we accommodate the parking issue? • Difficult since nursery school / hall need off-loading at • Can really impede traffic being a single lane road etc certain times • People parked on pavements • I feel I'm a confident driver but if cars are parked around • It tends to slow down traffic the green or village hall it can make passing very difficult • Street parking slows the through vehicles • Only issue with preschool drop offs - inconsiderate • Can be (a problem) if not appropriately parked parking • Any developments should include adequate parking i.e. • Just a few more by village hall at least 2 cars per household.

29. How do you view street lighting currently?

Adequate 59% More Street Lighting Required 19% No Opinion 21% No Reply 1%

• If we have street lighting we could have traffic calming • Some is required around the village hall, pub and other Pro Street Lighting hazard areas OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 13 • The amounts of traffic means that it is now time to • I would not like further street lighting consider street lighting. This might also allow traffic • Against - light pollution and bad for wildlife and calming measures environment • Could be useful in places in the village • None required • Otham is a village and does not require street lighting Street Lighting Not Required • I love the lack of light pollution in the village and the fact • We don't need lighting in country lanes you can see the night sky, no more lighting! • Part of pleasure of living in a rural community is lack of • I appreciate that walking on unlit roads at night is light pollution dangerous, but beauty of village life is that we are not • In general, too much light pollution - night sky too light floodlit • No street lighting in Otham • There should not be any street lighting in the • We do not want or need it. Darkness frightens off urban countryside dwellers • Do not walk much after dark • No need for it • No more lights please • Not needed, intrusive to wildlife and destroys rural • Not considered important and would be a detriment to atmosphere rural aspect of the village • Keep light pollution to a minimum • Not needed • Do not want more lighting • We expect it to be dark here at night • Not necessary • I was not aware there was street lighting! • Not required • Light pollution not required! • Lived in Otham 33 years with no street lights. Not • The only street lighting in the village is in front of 5-18 required White Horse Lane. • Not aware there is any in the village. • Do we need more lighting, just adds to light pollution. • None needed • Feel like street lighting is not required. • I don’t want it! We moved away from all that for • Some strategic lighting would not go amiss. darkness and quiet! • The village has no street lighting - some strategically • Beware light pollution placed lighting could be appreciated • We do live in the countryside so not much need • I do not want street lighting • Non existent • I like it dark with the sky less polluted at night. Don’t • We only have 4 lights between 18 houses. I don't think want street lights. there are any other lights in this area • Not needed • Keep street lighting out of Otham. We prefer dark night skies

30. How important is the bus service to you?

Essential 16% Important 19% Not Important 16% Do Not Use 48% No Reply 1%

General Importance • Park and ride in Willington Street is useful • But essential to those without own transport • I do not use the bus through the village as the stops in • Use it or lose it Senacre Wood are closer to my home • It would be nice not to have to rely on the car all the time School/Children • The bus service is important for the village. Not all • My son would use the bus service if they were a little residents have cars more frequent • Although not important to me - I think it's vital for those • Vital to take children to school and provide transport to without independent transport the town for those without cars • Obviously the bus service is essential to residents with • My children would use this service if times were no cars improved • As I don't use the bus I think other villagers need it still • Children may use • But important to those living at or near Three Tees • Could be more convenient times for going to and from • I'm very pleased with our bus service and couldn't do school without it. • But when my children are older they will, so it will be • Not aware there is a bus service in the village. Would be important and I'm sure it is important for users now great to have a village bus that goes into Maidstone • Hope children will use in future when older OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 14 • My children used bus service to get to and from school • More frequent service would allow for better use in Maidstone • Could do with a couple more a day • Used the bus to travel to school for 7 years • We could do with more buses • Needed for secondary school children to get to school • The few we have are usually on time. The drivers do and back again their best • Children use it for school • Could do with a few more buses both ways • More buses and more frequently Elderly/Disabled • Need more frequent services - even two hourly both • Do not use at present, but if I had to give up driving it ways would be nice would be essential in later life • Not enough into town after 11:50 AM • Would use if I could but not cannot walk very far so use • Terrible 3 buses a day each way. The last one back from taxis town is around 6pm, after that nothing • May use service when unable to drive any longer • Needs to be more reliable on the return journey from • Use it now we have bus pass, not very frequent but town usually on time

• Not to me but to elderly members of the community • Essential for schools and older people

Frequency of Service • Although never used, it does seem inadequate for local use • I have never used the bus service as it has not been adequate enough

• Adequate but would be nice if they could be more frequent • Could be up to evening service • A valuable service - though timings are difficult 31. Are you satisfied with the general state of the roads in Otham?

Yes 24% No 72% No Opinion 3% No Reply 1%

32. Do you think the maintenance of hedges and verges with regard to road safety are:

Good 21% Reasonable 55% Poor 22% No Opinion 1% No Reply 1%

33. Do you think the road warning signs in Otham adequate for safety?

Yes 38% No 48% No Opinion 13% No Reply 1%

Speeding • West bound A20 traffic needs speed restriction before reaching Otham Lane - 40 would do • Speeding cars through village and along lane • Speed generally - Also fast moving traffic on A20 should • Speed of traffic running through village mornings and be slowed down before approach to Otham Lane. I have evenings needs controlling been hit in the rear by one such speed merchant • Speeding on narrow roads OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 15 • More slow signs required • Ban HGVs • Speed of traffic along Church road and Gore Court road - • No access for large lorries drivers are driving far too fast! Should not be used as a • Not suitable for heavy lorries short-cut or bypass. • Needs to be clearer that the lanes are not suitable for • Speed of traffic, the amount of traffic trying to use the HGVs roads in the village as a short cut • Very large HGVs • Speed and Volume • Large vehicles and speeding cars • Speeding - children - agreed parking points, width • Short cutting and speeding cars. 40 ton HGVs should be restrictions banned • Speeding in village • No as we still get heavy vehicles down our roads which • Further speed reduction signs, Clean existing signs aren't suitable for them. Need more warning signs • Speeding traffic • Needs to be more obvious that roads are not suitable for • Speeding traffic medium and large lorries • Speed on very narrow lane • "Signs preventing articulated vehicles should be placed • Speed on very narrow lane at the junction of New Road/ Sutton Road. These • People who (presumably) don't know the area speed vehicles are a nuisance when they try and get around round blind bends on Otham Lane. Use of lane as cut- the sharp bend in Honey Lane through should be discouraged. Large lorries should be • Extra-large vehicles discouraged from using lane. Presuming SatNav problem • Heavy lorries - but perhaps more simple and dear, large signs at end • HGVs. Efforts should be made to make provision to have of road would help? deliveries made by HGVs to have a delivery point more • Too much traffic speed accessible • Slowing traffic up Church Road • No large vehicles. Speed restrictions in parts • Sheer speed and volume of traffic using country lanes • Not suitable for long vehicles not designed for this • Lorries 38ft + should not use lane to cut through. Traffic • Speed of drivers positioned on the wrong side of the speed needs addressing road (can't drive), Should not be used as a shortcut to • Over speeding is dangerous for walkers bypass Willington Street • Gore Court Road and Church Road. Speeding vehicles Traffic Calming & Signage and lorries using lanes as a cut through • Traffic calming required • Gore Court Road / Church Road should be 30-40mph • Traffic calming in Church Road • Cars drive too fast - too many potholes • Speeding or going too fast for the surroundings. • More to make traffic aware of narrow lanes and that Restrictions of 20mph, humps, warnings, and a no entry speeding is dangerous from Ashford road (except residents and business) are • Speeding traffic. Slow down signage needed required to address the issues. • People speeding in areas where it is single track • Speed bumps might help to slow the occasional fast • Traffic does need to slow down. People speed too often vehicle. • Speeding traffic. Rat running to avoid Willington Street • Foliage needs to be kept cut back from signs. On a at busy times occasional large lorries attempt to pass couple of bends on Lower Otham Lane should say slow through down or something as a local we know the black spots • Speeding traffic. Mixed users of road, especially for but those using it as a rat run drive too fast on pedestrians. HGVs coming through village dangerous corners. • Speeding vehicles travelling through the village • Church Road needs better signing and extended • Too fast. Too big vehicles on Otham Street Signs for restrictions children's pre-school and playground should be put up • Speeding traffic. Poor condition of signing. Speed limit • We need to reduce traffic and slow it down should be reduced to 20mph. A pedestrian will be • Speed and volume, No HGVs seriously injured or killed one day. Current 30mph • Traffic speed. Traffic volumes terminal and repeater signs are poorly positioned. • Speed limits are too high especially down Otham Lane. • Drivers not familiar with the lanes should be advised to People using it as a cut through and oversized vehicles slow down by signs cause problems. • Lower speed limit. Could do with a sign. Do not use • Increase from development on Sutton Road Mobile Phones • More prominent HGVs • OPC took 5 years in the '90s to get a 20mph limit on part • Signs saying No HGVs should be clearer. There are too of Gore Court Road, as well as various roads in the many vehicles cutting through Otham at speed village, only to get 30mph restrictions excluding Gore • HGV Restrictions Court Road. Should be readdressed in view of the • Large lorry signs inevitable increase in traffic from the additional housing • NO HGV sign is missing by Rumwood turn into New Cut. already being built. Very large lorries get stuck on Honey Lane Rat Running • HGVs should be banned from using lanes around Otham because they are impossible to get past OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 16 • The amount of traffic using the lane as a cut through. It • Excessive traffic on Gore Court Road / Church Road can get really busy at peak times. when other roads are closed e.g. Willington Street • Concerned with increase in traffic with development on • Rat Runners. HGV vehicles Langley Road • Rat runs through village. Speed limit needs policing • Too many cars using as a short cut, drivers going too fast especially at mornings and evenings. not used to narrow lanes and cannot reverse • Traffic from outside the village is often dangerously fast • Gore court road is a rat run and needs to be 30mph with for the road / lane sizes road markings. Otham Lane needs proper passing lanes • Local roads being used as 'rat runs' • Far too much non-local traffic using Otham Lane. Fearful • Excessive traffic in Gore Court Road / Church Road when this will increase with new developments in the pipeline. other roads are closed - for example Willington Street This will have a severe impact on the village and • Too much traffic uses Gore Court Road / Church Road as adversely affect it a rat run • Overuse of the Lane Horses/Animals • Speeding rat run! Place a 6ft width restriction to stop • We need beware horses the vans • Walking, riding signs needed. Sharp bends • The increase in the number of rat runners using Otham's • Horse rider signs should be placed in Honey Lane to stop lanes as a short cut people from using their horns on the two sharp bends • "Careful Cats Crossing" - very strange

34. Should Otham Lane be signposted / designated as a single lane with passing places?

Yes 78% No 12% No Opinion 10% No Reply 1%

35. Which of the following do you feel would best improve road safety in Otham?

Improved / Additional Pathways 28% Speed Humps 24% Illuminated Speed Warning Signs 35% Reduce Legal Speed Limit from 30 to 20mph 50% Extend 30mph speed limit to all roads in Otham 57% No Reply 1%

• Definitely needed! • The lane between Otham and Ashford Road is too • I would really like to see more cycle paths and space to narrow. Hedges are not maintained properly. walk along the lane in safety, away from the traffic. • Make Otham Lane / Otham Street a no through road - • Traffic travels too fast in Otham cut it short at the green. • • Church road under 30mph and calming Restrict access - this would also cut down on litter as it is only non-residents who leave rubbish. • Make it slower to get through so people stop using it as • a shortcut. Restricted access to large vehicles • Speed humps would be helpful but need street lighting. • Reduce the speed on A20 to 30 or 40 BEFORE OTHAM LANE. Restrict access to village for residents only • Definitely a 20mph speed limit. Warning signs = (obviously their visitors and people on official business / NARROW LANE WITH PASSING PLACES trades etc.) • I'm concerned the new bridge over River Len can't cope • I think speed humps would look rather unsightly in our with the demands put upon it. Also - how about painting lanes white lines on either side of the road from A20 junction • Less people cutting though through to Sutton Road. We need to use measures that discourage non-local traffic - measures that make them • Police cannot control this easily feel it's not just worth the hassle of driving through • Pedestrians are now at great risk in the village as are Otham. cyclists. We need to improve the safety for those that • No pathways! You take away the rural country feel if you use the roads who are not vehicles. build anything. • 20mph speed limit plus speed cameras • Otham Lane is used as a cut-through to the M20. This • Speed calming barriers. Need something to slow vehicles will become a very serious problem with additional round blind spots. housing. OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 17 • Nobody seems to take any notice of the speed limit • Otham's roads are in general fine for the purpose of signs we have. Honey Lane is just a rat run. village access for those who live here, visitors and • With new housing developments and more traffic occasional users to connect Ashford and Sutton Roads. speeds need to be managed more effectively Widening roads would only encourage more traffic. • Hate the people that cut through the village. Stop this • Reduced to 20 outside Village Hall and other built up with speed bumps. areas. • Either reduce traffic or make Otham Lane fit for purpose • Restrict access to reduce traffic volumes. Make the road • Otham Lane as a single lane road wouldn't work as the narrower through the village. passing places can mostly accommodate only 1 car. This • The 'pull ins' need repairing along Otham Lane and would cause backlog and no-one would be able to pass. Greenhill • Pedestrians need to be made aware of traffic. Avoid • 20mph would be preferential but would not be texting and use of earphones. enforceable. Speed humps not good idea and would • Would be nice not to be used as a cut through require lighting. There is no available space for footways • Would be nice not to be used as a cut through so providing these is not an option. 7.5 tonne weight • 20mph owing to so many bad blind bends limit to be imposed except for farm vehicles. The road • No pathways in Otham to improve! adjacent to our property is supported by a KCC Highway • Gore Court Road and Church Road should not be used as structure and heavy vehicles will have an impact. a cut through to Parkwood - this will only get worse with • Currently have about 50 metres of roadside footpath in new developments on Sutton Road. the entire village, pedestrians therefore must use the • Modern SatNav devices direct traffic through the narrow narrow country lanes throughout the village. lanes of Otham from M20. If more housing built we will • Speed limit dropped to 20mph as in villages such as see increased traffic being directed through these Leeds and Littlebourne would make things a lot safer. narrow lanes and past Grade II buildings. • Slow traffic down but keep village looking rural and • My main concerns are the amount of speeding vehicles pretty. along Honey Lane. People are now using this road as a • When hedges are trimmed the rubbish should be cut through at peak times to avoid the traffic lights at cleared away immediately. Willington Street. When they see a clear road they • When hedges are trimmed the rubbish should be accelerate along this road easily breaking the 30mph cleared away immediately. speed limit. I would be happy to see this road closed off • Speed limits need to be reduced. at one end to prevent this. • Stop it used as a rat run in morning and evening • Not aware that Road Safety is an issue beyond the occasional speeding.

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 18 36. What are your views on the standard of the following environmental services in Otham?

Water Supply

Good 61% Winter Weather Service Reasonable 30% Good 18% Poor 7% Reasonable 38% No Opinion 1% Poor 22% No Reply 1% No Opinion 21%

No Reply 1% Electricity Supply

Good 71% Broadband Reasonable 27% Good 16% Poor 0% Reasonable 30% No Opinion 1% Poor 34% No Reply 1% No Opinion 19%

No Reply 1% Refuse Collection

Good 63% Mobile Phone Reception Reasonable 29% Good 12% Poor 4% Reasonable 36% No Opinion 3% Poor 41% No Reply 1% No Opinion 10%

No Reply 1% Street Lighting

Good 17% Community Policing Reasonable 31% Good 11% Poor 15% Reasonable 28% No Opinion 36% Poor 28% No Reply 1% No Opinion 32%

No Reply 1% Street Cleaning

Good 15%

Reasonable 41% Poor 32%

No Opinion 11% No Reply 1%

37. Do you feel the quality of life has improved since you moved here?

Yes 10% No 71% No Opinion 18% No Reply 1%

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 19

38. Comment below on features you would like to see improved in the village. • There was a WI in the village now where do the retired land for car parking - unlike other landowners who meet? Church tea party. donated the land for the village green. • Less traffic, Removal of threat of more houses being • It would be nice to walk or car to go to a nice, friendly built, less foreign farm workers! pub in the village. • Assurance that development will not impact negatively • Reinstatement of roadside verges. on the village. • Stop building! Leave the village alone! • The roads, including poor road surfaces. • Traffic reduction through the village • I'd like it to stay as it is • It was more of a community when we first came to the • More community events. Less electronic gates. village. • More pathways, Spaces for passing on roads (cars) • Air Quality, Road Maintenance • Roads need improvement • To leave the countryside alone. No more houses • Roads improved needed. • Broadband service is terrible! Fibre needed. • Less traffic. Speed restriction on Avery Lane. Better • Traffic calming and reduced volume meeting place. Shop / coffee shop. • Need super-fast fibre broadband. Was told by BT this • That's how I like it! was coming to the area last year under the 'making Kent • Farmers doing something to control water runoff onto quicker' program, but no progress has been made in 9 the highway creating flood and mud. months! • Hedges being cut. • Parking, housing for the elderly, more policing • Restriction on and slowing down of through traffic • Generally it is the increase in traffic that has brought the • General tidiness - hedgerows village down. Improved parking for amenities, improving • Traffic reduction lighting for the amenities, and restricted access by car to • Traffic reduction village. • Less traffic • Café or Farm Shop • Less traffic • Village green and play area. More activities in the village • A shop would be good for general food and other hall for children and adults groceries • Pathways for pedestrians • Bus services. A small shop would be nice (we once had • Polish and Heavy traffic one) • Care of Edwardian, and missing post box. Watch upon • Fast traffic signs (such as bad bends for 1 1/2 miles) old fingerpost (Avery Lane). • Small pavement along White Horse Lane and Gore Court • Less traffic. A 20mph speed limit. A better village pub. Road • Speed of traffic • 15mph speed limit. Width limitation and weight. • More tree planting to replaces fallow or cut out. Green • Make the village safer or cyclists, walkers and horse landscaping to add value and attract visitors. riders. • Traffic and road safety for both drivers and pedestrians. • Safer for pedestrians (reduced speeding), horse riders Am sure serious accident is waiting to happen, especially and cyclists. Public bins to reduce litter. with children. • Speed limits, Repairs to lane verges due to increased • Slow traffic down (signage). A better welcome to the traffic, Street cleaning village signage possibly some features like the stone on • Speed limits, Repairs to lane verges due to increased the green perhaps… So people's firm impression is not traffic, Street cleaning an overgrown sign that needs cleaning… Possibly an arca • Car parking with more flowers on display pots etc. • Parking, Housing for the elderly, More policing • Road safety • Broadband is extremely slow. We were promised fibre • All of the above are features I would like to see broadband (to point) in April 2014 which got delayed to improved and are my greatest concerns September 2014 with a worse case end of year delivery • Hedges, Playground time and we are STILL waiting. • Vehicle speed restriction. Measures to reduce traffic • Traffic calming, Village pub, Broadband provided flow. • Concerns over new development spoiling our lifestyle • Parking for village green, Road safety, Less building • Less speeding cars using the country roads through the • Traffic volume and speed village (and less huge 4x4 people carriers taking one • Measures to restrict traffic volume size / rat running / small child on the school run). HGV deterrent • Road condition • The departure of the football club which is not • The village green is an amazing asset, which should be supported by any in the village used more often to hold other events. If there could be • Community spirit and neighbours, Footpaths, Village hall more done with the rubbish which is dumped in the and green, Signposts hedges and verges • More communication? Welcome pack to new owners? • The absence of any shops plus the poor quality of the Call anytime which gets people together? White Horse means it is just a collection of houses and • Sadly Otham has suffered from a large absentee not really a village. Also live on the fringe. landowners who over the years has refused to release OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 20 • I don’t want the quality of life to be improved - I want it • Road condition - potholes, paths. Hedges on Honey Lane to stay the same. I didn’t move to Otham because I cutback and trees. wanted it to have great amenities. I moved here to get • Only no due to huge threat of housing i.e. Golding away from town / city life. Homes and other developments encroaching to make • I am happy with the village as it is - we don’t expect Otham just part of Maidstone Sprawl. Speed of improvements - maintaining all its aspects as they are inconsiderate drivers. will be more than enough. • Slower traffic, Repairs to roads • Less traffic. Slower traffic. Different landowners in pub. • Road safety, Litter, Safety for pedestrians and cyclists • I like it as it is although a village shop would be an • Effective banning of very heavy lorries from using improvement. narrow roads. • Reduction of Maidstone spread spreading to outskirts of • Effective banning of very heavy lorries from using the village. narrow roads. • Ditches not being cleared causing flooding. Potholes are • Decent pub e.g. Pepper Pot at Ulcombe a constant problem. Litter thrown out of cars. • Protected from development • Hedges should be cut during the growing season (after • Halt the housing! nesting over) and kept to a lower level. Action on • More community ditches before flooding materialises, particularly in • Speed of traffic. Public pathways kept clear to walk. White Horse Lane, Honey Lane and Avery Lane. Potholes Local shop. Reliable bus route. should be addressed with longer stretches of road being resurfaced.

39. Please list your 3 favourite things about Otham. • Quiet country lanes, Friendly people, Helpful • Rural area, Period Housing neighbours. • Not too far from town, Santa look-a-like in the Renault • Peaceful, Beautiful, Not too far from civilisation bar far • Rural Activities, Tranquillity, Strong community feel enough! • The village green, The views of open farmland, The rural • Unspoiled traditional village character, Green space, character of the village Walking and Cycling opportunities • The Green, Stoneacre, Walks • Peace, Wildlife, Space • Otham St Picturesque • The views from the village green and parts of the street, • The rural landscape with its views, Peaceful countryside, We are fortunate in still having a quiet village and Footpaths Stoneacre is an asset. • Beauty of area / wildlife, Neighbours, Rural setting • Beautiful countryside, Good neighbours, Very quiet • Quiet, Peacefulness, Beautiful views, Nice clientele (when there is no football) • Green, Public paths, Quiet • Hall houses and others, it remains an identifiable village • Quiet, Green, Friendly surrounded by countryside, appreciated and extolled as • Rural Character, Proximity with Motorway, Peaceful such in guide books. atmosphere • Peace, Beauty, Friendliness • Near to the motorway yet rural, Walking round the • Friendliness, Village atmosphere green and sitting on the bench, Nice neighbours on our • Community spirit track • Quietness, Countryside • Rural environment, Good access to motorways, Peaceful • Ability & freedom to walk / cycle though delightful most of the time countryside, Unstated character, Natural wildlife • Views, Conservation area protection, Rural area • Rural character, Historic buildings • Village green, Local walks, Remains unchanged - good • Footpaths and cycle routes, Rural charm / scenery village feel • Countryside, Walks, Wildlife • Great village feel, Safe place to live, Pride amongst • Beautiful views, Friendly people, Rural location, Peace, people who live here Quiet • Scenery, Enduring village atmosphere, Location • My house, Village green, Footpaths • Extremely quiet place to live, Not too far from town • Pretty Village, Stoneacre, People • Green, Views, Community • Small and peaceful village to live, Safe place to raise • Beautiful countryside and views, Very little noise kids, Friendly atmosphere pollution, History and old houses and gardens • Tidiness, Village Green, Stoneacre • Peace and quiet, Setting, Footpaths • Green play area, Community, Nice nature. • Quiet and tranquil • Nice nature, Green play area, Nice neighbourhood • Fete, Service a War Memorial, Ability to walk footpaths • Quiet, Pretty, Small • The village festé, The war memorial, The Church and it's • Rural setting and our countryside, People especially my community neighbours, The quiet • Lovely village life, Quiet part of village to live, Nice • Beautiful unspoilt countryside, Civilised life and pleasant people people, Slow pace of life • Lovely village, Quiet, Nice people • It is the last unspoilt village • Fantastic views, Friendly residents, Traditional village • Rural surroundings, Period houses green OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 21 • Strong agricultural perspective, Wonderful range of • Difficult character properties, Open spaces, Walkways beautiful architecture and housing styles, Superb village • Rural location, Quiet - ideal for families, Wildlife Green in a perfect tranquil setting and war memorial • Rural setting and greenery, Quiet, Still near towns and • It's rural nature, Access to countryside, Views amenities • Peace and quiet Country feel, Rural life away from • Rural (yet close to urban), No light pollution, Nice walks housing estates and all things commercial. • Rural feel, Village identity • Peaceful, Rural, Connected • Rural aspect, Village life • Peaceful, Very pretty, Quiet • Stoneacre, Unspoilt at present, Rural nature of • Living in the countryside, The village green, Otham surroundings untouched as it is • Tranquillity, Footpaths and Fields, Birds • Living in the countryside, The village green, Peace and • The beautiful walks around the village, The views, The quiet friendly people • Rural but near town, Countryside, Attractive • The footpaths in an around, I can walk straight into the • Trees, Neighbours, Heritage countryside from my door, Orchards and fruit farms • The countryside, The village people, Unique houses • Being able to see the stars at night, The views on • Open countryside, Footpaths, Fruit farms footpaths / from the Green, The view from my bedroom • Quiet, countryside, Walking window of fields • The fact that it's so near to Maidstone yet it feels a • Quiet green leafy walks, Views from our house and fields world away, Being surrounded by farmland, Having and trees and stars at night, Village green - annual féte stayed unchanged for decades and place for play • Peace, Size, Convenience to Maidstone • Picturesque, Friendliness, Peaceful • National Trust, Otham is a beautiful village, Village green • The village green, No street lights, Low crime and views • The rural feel of the village, The beautiful old buildings • Traditional village, Generally peaceful, Lovely in summer and homes, Peace and quiet • Quiet generally, Location to town / roads, Walks • Rural setting, Quiet • Countryside, Friendly neighbours, Proximity to • View, Peace and quiet, Close proximity to Maidstone / Maidstone M20 • Countryside, Friendly neighbours, Proximity to • Semi - Rural, Quiet, Views of the fields Maidstone • The villagers, Proximity to facilities, Proximity to • Tranquillity at times, Close to amenities countryside • Peace, Quiet, Safe • The villagers, Proximity to facilities, Proximity to • Peace and quiet most of the time, Clean, Well-kept countryside gardens • Rustic character • It is quiet (bird song can be heard), In my area the • Peace and quiet, Beautiful views, Good neighbours neighbours are known to each-other and look out for • Quiet, Semi-rural, Friendly one another, It is still a village - not a Maidstone suburb • Rural, Pretty village, Good neighbours • Lovely country, Quite peaceful, Fresh air, I love it here • Rural, Spacious, Good neighbours • Church, Historic Houses, Surrounding Countryside in • Lakes near Stoneacre, Village green, Various trees General • Daytime peace and quiet on weekdays (after morning • Tranquillity, Walking and scenery, Majority of villages rat running and before evening rush) • Walks, Views, Buildings • Rural feel, Country walks, Quiet • Green surrounding, Wildlife, Walks, Good neighbours • The rural feel to the village, Community atmosphere, • Having the countryside / footpaths on my doorstep, The local walks Knowing my neighbours and feeling part of a • Unique topography of the landscape, Huge range of community, Having a large garden enjoying the birds historical buildings, Pleasant village to live in and wildlife • Bridleways and footpaths, Quiet and peaceful, Feels like • Nice neighbours, Wildlife, Rural location with lots of home, Friendly neighbours footpaths • Village green and surrounding views of countryside, • Rural environment, Easy access to important facilities, General topography, Non-urban feel of picturesque Good parish council country village • Rural environment, Easy access to important facilities, • Rural feel, Open space, Wildlife (especially birds) Good parish council • Rural limit close to town and motorways, Little traffic • Beautiful Village, Stoneacre, Unspoilt at present noise, Working farms • Country environment • Rural environment yet close to amenities, Peaceful, • Open space, Quiet walks, Church Attractive buildings and surroundings • The church, Peace and quiet • The relative lack of traffic • Countryside, Walks, Wildlife • A quiet peaceful village • Rural village feel, Green spaces and natural Wildlife, • Countryside is beautiful, Quiet and peaceful, People Attractive wooded areas seen friendly and care about the village and take great • Woods, Nature, Green open spaces pride in their properties • Rural Character, Walk / cycle through countryside, • Countryside, Darkness at night, Community Wildlife • Still rural, Quiet, Friendly OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 22 • Walks through fields, Wildlife, Farms

40. Please list your 3 greatest concerns about Otham. • Increase in population, more houses being built, • Destruction of the above favourites, The threatened Increase in traffic. development of housing to destroy our countryside, • House building on farm / woodland / land surrounding Increased traffic and pollution Otham causing traffic problems. • Traffic safety, Development / urbanisation, Loss of • Housing development, Increased traffic on road, Noise agricultural land and other social ills of too many residents • People use the village as a short cut… Housing creeping • Traffic, Over-development closer and closer to the village until eventually we are • If more building is allowed, this will mean more traffic surrounded by housing estates. The clientele that uses which would not be good, It would be nice to see more the White Horse PH does worry me sometimes… community spirit around • Traffic, Speed of cars on Lane, Development • Beautiful area being spoilt by increasing housing • All of the above are features I would like to see development, Green areas gradually being concreted improved and are my greatest concerns over, countryside lost for future generations • Increasing traffic, The feeling of being overwhelmed • Its possible absorption into suburban Maidstone with new housing, Bonfires • Being swamped with building as dormitory for London • Increased traffic, Urbanisation and no connection with Village life • Traffic, Housing - over development, Sustainability • Speeding, Possibility of overdevelopment, Overcrowding • New building developments, Traffic, Becoming part of a • Poor roads - Avery Lane and Holly Farm Road requires major town complete resurfacing • Overdevelopment, Increased noise / traffic, Loss of • "I do not like the thought of Otham being joined up to village status Maidstone, such as housing straight up to the ""White • Being swallowed by urban sprawl, Disturbance from Horse"" public house." football ground, Anti-social behaviour increasing • Over development, Busy roads, No footpaths • That it will be overrun by lots of building it will quite • Will become an extension of Maidstone, Ever increasing spoil the village traffic flow, Loss of village status • Building on green fields, Noise, Traffic • Over-development of housing and reducing rural • Erratic housing developments. Unsure of the future of character and increasing traffic the village, White horse pub and Squerries activities • Increasing fast traffic, loss of land to build on • Being joined onto Maidstone, Overdevelopment, Ruing • No parking in Mallards Way when playing fields are what we have being used, Proposed housing, Policing • Too many housing developments • Increased development, Increase traffic because of • The village has lost its community spirit, The roads are development, Increased pollution because of treated as rat runs, People are shutting themselves off development (noise, dust, etc.) behind electronic gates • Development, More traffic, Litter • The lack of car parking sites near the hall and the • Used as cut through too much - passing traffic church, Lack of any community spirit or interest shown • Lighting, Parking places by newcomers, The increase in properties installing • No lighting, No pathways, Street parking electric gates • Poor lighting, No pedestrian sideways, Street parking • Building houses next to Otham Church • Driving, Safety at night when alone, Smell • Building new houses, Encroachment in to the village of • Further housing development, Increase traffic in the Otham lanes, The safety of my children whilst using the lanes to • Speeding vehicles, Potential development, Loss of walk to school. natural feel of village with more potential housing. • NO MORE BUILDING • Increase of traffic cutting through Village, Pressure of • In filling would spoil the atmosphere - people who move new development on our doorstep, Safety for here and then try to urbanise it pedestrians in narrow lane with increased traffic. • Housing, A few unpleasant people • Development, The divide between north and south, • Development, Increased traffic Traffic and antisocial road rubbish • Need a shop, Don’t need more houses, Birds wake me • Development, Traffic, Rubbish up, Archies' Café? • Increased housing, Population, Traffic • Overuse of roads as through route, Encroachment upon • The Golding homes 5000 plan adversely influencing agricultural land, Indiscriminate wood control housing market, Amount of large Agri vehicles on roads • Traffic density, Traffic speed in the village, Building of • Additional housing, Increased traffic, Road safety issues homes in and around the village • The village will be lost forever to development • Traffic, Noise, Road Safety • Traffic, Overtaking on our car port • Increase in housing / traffic, More farming • Traffic increase, Deteriorating edges of road - tarmac is • Prospective building permission which would engulf us exposed and sharp and destroy the rural setting we moved here for. • Traffic, Dog Noise, Development • Being too built upon, Too many cars going through the village, The roads can't take the big vehicles OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 23 • Speed of traffic, Volume of traffic, Housing development • No parking in Mallards Way when Playing fields are • Development, Roads, Traffic being used, Proposed housing, Policing • Developers and greedy farmers, Loss of Village • Over development, Loss of green spaces, Overcrowded • More traffic, More noise, Destruction of village life dangerous roads - no safe way out of village on foot • Bus service, Poor roads, Too many houses being built • Overdevelop the cute Otham village, The roads cannot around it cope with extra traffic, Otham will become an extension • The grass verges have all but disappeared, Flytipping of Maidstone • Proposed housing developments particularly by the • Otham will become an extension of Maidstone, Lots church and White Horse Lane (both ridiculous!), more traffic than we already have, Loss of farm land Increase in traffic, Reduction in identity • Proposed housing developments, Excess traffic in Gore • White Horse PH, Speeding vehicles, New developments Court and Church Road, Clientele using pub • Overdevelopment of housing, Used as a cut through for • Housing - new development, Road safety - not adequate traffic, Speeding traffic to take extra traffic, Losing rural location • Overdevelopment of housing, Used as a cut through for • Developing new houses, Roads becoming busy, Losing traffic, Speeding traffic countryside • More housing development plunging upon our village, • New housing, More traffic, Light pollution Increase traffic rat run, Increase in litter deposited • Litter dropped from cars, Threatened development and around village building, Condition of road • Encroachment of housing development, Decrease in • Litter, Flytipping, Threat of new housing traffic, Less safety due to speed of traffic • Proposed housing, Holes in road, Traffic • Noise from Honey Lane Football, Noisy farm traffic from • Housing development will spoil village forever and early AM nearby industrial developments may increase traffic. • Noise from football at weekends, Heavy farm traffic • Losing the fields to Housing estates, 2 large estates early AM planned but no improvement to Church Road which is • The building on farm land, Build-up of extra traffic not fully 2 way and widening will change its rural feel, especially large lorries Additional noise traffic and pollution even without • Building such that we become a suburb of Maidstone, development in the village That no regard is given to the local feeling about housing • The proposed housing development schemes, The projects, That mobile library will cease amount of speeding traffic cutting through the village, • Not sure The continual bombardment of heavy farm vehicles • Housing estates springing up all around Otham which damaging the roads and verges. means more traffic through village • Over-development of housing without due regard to • Degradation of the White Horse Pub, Football noise and infrastructure, Losing fields to houses traffic, Rat runs • More housing spoils the character of the village • Proposed residential development, Traffic, Football • Housing overwhelming the current village, Preschool • Village community, Traffic, Housing developments forced out of village hall, Loss of pubs as place to walk / • Further housing expansion, Rat runners from the new meet developments on Sutton Road, People who have no • Traffic, Housing, Erosion of garden spaces regard for the countryside and fly tip drop litter and • More traffic, More houses, More noise from football speed • Overdevelopment - too many homes which brings too • Close housing developments spoiling village feel and much traffic. peacefulness (construction noise), Increasing traffic • Housing expansion, Roads becoming busier volumes and rat runners from new Sutton Road housing • Traffic, Road condition, Encroachment of housing developments, People with no appreciation for developments countryside - Flytipping and litter • Possible building of large number of new houses on • The threat of housing development in and around the farmland. village, Increase in the noise and traffic and pollution • Overdevelopment, The fact you are deliberately due to the above, Otham becoming a suburb of reducing visibility to try and slow down traffic, Speed of Maidstone and losing its village status traffic on Gore Court Road • The threat of housing development in and around the • Prospective residential development, Increased traffic village, Increase in the noise and traffic and pollution from schemes underway, Development proposal south due to the above, Otham becoming a suburb of of Church extends Maidstone’s urban sprawl and creates Maidstone and losing its village status new traffic and destroys high grade agricultural land • Housing development, It will be spoilt forever, Increased • Prospective residential development, Increased traffic traffic from schemes underway, Development proposal south • Building plans for Church Road, State of Church Road, of Church extends Maidstone’s urban sprawl and creates Inconsiderate parking outside Otham Church. new traffic and destroys high grade agricultural land • Housing development, Poor roads, Lack of amenities • Future housing development not needed (school / doctors) • Loss of the above, Loss of this by concreting over green • Traffic in Church Road, The state of the road surfaces, fields so future generations will never see this beauty The possibility of 600+ houses being built. • Housing, Broadband, Gas • Extra housing, Extra traffic, Might lose fields

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 24 • Extra traffic could bring problems and might result from • That it will be ruined if plans to develop housing estates extra housing in the village are carried out. • House building, Traffic, Noise from football • That it will be ruined if plans to develop housing estates • More houses being built other than those in progress ie in the village are carried out. White Horse Lane and Church Road applications must be • Any further development which would destroy Otham's refused, Rat running through our narrow lanes which rural character will be increased significantly from current house builds, • Any further development which would destroy Otham's Speeding traffic rural character • Housing on the beautiful surrounding countryside • No bus service, The need to be able to drive to get in • Otham becoming a suburb of Maidstone, The football and out of the village, That further building could take ground, Local roads being used as 'rat runs' place • Village being consumed by housing, Number of speeding • Threat of large housing estates which would smother cars who show no regard for pedestrians cyclists or the village horses, Crime rate increasing • Constant threat of development is concerning, Quantity • Increased number of traffic, Traffic speeding, Noises late and speed of traffic, Amount of litter which is worse at at night weekends when the football fields are in use - • Development, Speeding traffic, A certain type of coincidence?!! inhabitant • Constant threat of development resulting in another lost • Traffic post local developments, Development will take field and more traffic. Quantity of traffic and speeding. away the village feel, Wildlife will be damaged Litter down the lanes. • Housing developments, Loss of village identity, • Car numbers, Development around ancient church, Loss Becoming another suburb of Maidstone of rural life • Housing developments leading to increased traffic, loss • Traffic, Housing builds, Road maintenance of identity of the village

41. Does Otham Parish Council publicise its decisions and activities well?

Yes 62% No 15% No Opinion 22% No Reply 1%

42. Are you aware of the following methods of communication used by Otham Parish Council?

Ragstone Delivery 90% Website 41% Noticeboards 65% Bi-Monthly Meetings 41% Facebook 15% No Reply 6%

43. Do you think sufficient publicity is given to planning applications that affect Otham?

Yes 35% No 56% No Opinion 6% No Reply 3%

• Surely we have our quota of new housing estate. • The villagers have not engaged enough in detail about Massive traffic increase. planning applications. The conclusion is that more • This seems to be very sensitive - it's very difficult to find publicity is needed. out what's happening. • Perhaps notifications would help. Shamefully we are not • Major development not publicised enough. very pro-active. • Not enough weight is given to local opinions by MBC • Become aware through gossip. The council should send • Reminder perhaps by email of major applications, letters on top of putting up notices that people ignore as anything affecting conservation area part of the landscape. Also make aware of development within a certain radius which will impact on us.

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 25 • Have to check in KM • It is difficult to get good information for planning • Only in the KM applications. • No comments entered in KM on OPC meetings, this is • Planning applications difficult to read and understand. the only publicity on OPC meetings. KCC website confusing. • No comments entered on OPC meetings in KM (No OPC • Publicity is given but don't have confidence in the Facebook) competence of the Borough Council. • Not generally • Perhaps they could be listed on the village hall • "Needs to be more ""In-Your-Face""" noticeboard. • MBC seldom listen anyway • More publicity - say in Church Magazine or Downs mail? • Hidden by MBC in confusing dates start / stopping • applications • More publicity - say in Church Magazine or Downs mail? • They are overcrowding us with too many properties • I feel that the support for the village is poor in • Only found out when too late. comparison to other villages, maybe because those who • Found out about housing too late don't support the anti-planning feel it doesn't affect • Found out about the housing when it was too late. them. It will! Otham's downfall has already begun. • Advice sent to householders by MBC regarding planning • Updates on what we can do to help. How likely is it that apps in their vicinity requires internet information only, building will be allowed? unlike the old fashioned paper data. When will • More exact detail and updates would be helpful. What administrators get it into their heads that a vast number stage planning is at, chances of it happening etc. of people, not all elderly, do not have internet facilities? • I read about action groups from Lenham etc. about • Some people not aware of where to access the housing, but scared our village is not vocal enough. information.

44. Do you feel your elected representatives are aware of local concerns and feelings?

Parish Council County Council

Yes 79% Yes 21% No 5% No 44% No Opinion 14% No Opinion 32% No Reply 2% No Reply 3%

District Council Member of Parliament

Yes 28% Yes 15% No 37% No 46% No Opinion 32% No Opinion 36% No Reply 3% No Reply 3%

• We need more local MP support for development • No more building in or around the village. No further concerns. planning applications approved relating to the growth of • Everyone except for MBC work tirelessly to preserve our the football club. community • Our district councillor is good but the rest are not • Borough needs constant reminders!! interested in Otham. • It is difficult for the parish council to be aware of local • They can only be aware if they are introduced and that concerns and feelings when attendance at Parish Council depends on the individual making his views known to meetings is so poor. the representative at meetings. • The last politician was Hugh Robertson re. J9 protest - • They try hard to help us but apathy amongst residents is no-one else appears at high level to oppose and always incredible appears a done deal! • But do they actually so anything to stop the housing? • MBC have to take responsibility for any future expansion • Attended the original meeting at Cornwallis school, of Maidstone and consequences of losing the fantastic when developers failed to turn up. No further contact environment we currently enjoy. has been made. • Knowing and taking account of are different things

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 26 • I know they have to build somewhere. But don’t • Do we know views of that too? suffocate our little village with it. Give us room to • Do we know views of that too? breathe. • No replies to emails sent to our MP. • Aware, as we have raised it with them in the recent • MBC, particularly planners, are aware of local concerns elections but they are either unwilling unable to have and feelings, but in the vast majority of cases I have any effect. been involved in, these are ignored, giving rise to • District, County Councillors and MPs represent their apparent apathy. parties' policies not the views of residents. • Surely no contact with our new MP.

45. Please express your opinion on the present planning proposals around Otham • Opinions on Planning Proposals around Otham? • We must remain separated from Sutton Road • It's time to stop building on this side of Maidstone, the developments otherwise we will join part of urban infrastructure will not be able to cope. Maidstone. • I strongly disagree with all aspects of all of them. They • What are they??? will completely destroy the character of the village. • Unnecessary - the parish area is too small to Traffic and roads will be untenable. A disgrace. accommodate any Greenfield developments. The area • I'm really concerned that they will undermine the rural needs preserving as an eastern 'lung' - a wildlife area. character of the village, and massively increase traffic on Enough has already gone - Downswood was 'Otham'. the already overcrowded roads. Transport links useless, 'improvement' would destroy • Otham Lane and Gore Court Road are already packed to village character. capacity with through traffic and it is becoming • Langley Park, Imperial Park and The Coppice are already dangerous. The planning authorities need to wake up being built. Bickers Farm is likely to go ahead and there and stop treating Otham as a soft touch. These may be more to follow these developments. No more developers should contribute to a Leeds / Langley housing should be allowed in Otham. There is no road to bypass to relieve the pressure on the roads. cope with the new houses being built and this proposed • Altogether too much building in the area seems very housing should be stopped. unfairly targeted. Please make use of brownfield sites • Too many houses, no infrastructure, road not suitable before destroying the countryside and valuable Grade II • Against further large housing development like those on agricultural land - once gone never to be reclaimed. the Langley Road. Concerned about housing at and • There is a real danger of over-development and too around Otham Lane. Hopeful no further proposal for much strain on the infrastructure development. Golding Homes. Traffic increase will be • In need of a bypass around the south of Maidstone bad. • With all the new houses being built around Otham, the • Prospective building permission which would engulf us roads are going to come to a standstill, so there must be and destroy the rural setting we moved here for. a bypass south of this area, to alleviate this problem, • I am totally against any further development within this and also help traffic in Maidstone. part of Maidstone. Town planners ignore the local will • The current infrastructure cannot support any further and authorise commercial projects instead of housing. development, Church Road in particular is over used at The hotel and McDonalds near the one way system the moment. should have been housing! If more developments are • Don't like what I see but unlikely to be able to influence authorised, this will kill this side of Maidstone. outcome, There are better locations to build required • Very concerned that Sutton road and Langley Park will housing than the beautiful green fields, Roads cannot up traffic and down road safety especially as there are cope with the increase in and are unsuitable for this no pavements. Extremely concerned about proposed • Scandalous. Otham and Langley should accept their development on Field north to church and complete loss share of housing but imposing a 500% increase is unfair, of agricultural land / countryside. I am very frightened unnecessary and ill thought through. Must not accept for Otham. urban creep from Maidstone. If we need some, there • We must continue to fight against more housing and must be a compromise. development surrounding Otham. It is very worrying • A sell out that will potentially ruin the village for the that our housing demands are so high we need to ruin sake of the government's building quota. our countryside in order to meet greater needs. • Enough is enough. • Too many houses too little infrastructure, leading to • Overdevelopment. No consideration for road networks dangerous traffic volume (lack of them). Oher areas more suitable have not been • Will increase pollution. Will disturb the peaceful considered. Serious concerns around pedestrian safety. character of the village • To many proposals, no infrastructure • Local good schools will be oversubscribed. It will become • We moved to Otham because of the beautiful rural noisier. setting. I fear we will lose this with the planned • Development needs better access, health etc. i.e. need proposals. I worry that our lanes won't be adequate for the Leeds Bypass the extra traffic this would produce. • I see the need for more housing but am concerned that • Traffic to Maidstone is already gridlocked early morning. infrastructure changes keep pace with development. Possible 1000 new cars on the road if Sutton road Increased traffic is my primary concern. development. OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 27 • No more housing should be built - the roads are too • The two fields south of Biknor wood and the one to the busy now, schools are under too much pressure south of Sutton Road are all the local area and regarding places. The younger members of the local infrastructure can cope with. community / village cannot buy these homes - so who • Horrendous! Too many houses resulting in too much are they building them for? traffic. • MBC have created the demand for expansion by • You will ruin this village and everything we moved here accepting proposals for new development where no for! Why does proposed housing in Lenham on the A20 need existed. And now we have become target from get rejected when there is a huge amount of space with central government for continuing the same. Need to good road connections and so you build in Otham which remember they are elected to preserve the environment has none of the above?? What is going on??! not sign it away. • The Golding homes 5000 rural village plan should be • Too many plans for building lots of houses. It will be a formally withdrawn. GH should be lobbied to do so. shame to cover all the green areas and traffic would be Announced, not progressed. A shadow over the village. horrendous. Its promotor got his Wolfson award now time for him to • Not happy with housing encroaching on village i.e. Gore do the decent thing. Court Road to pub and Otham Church area, and other • This will ruin the village with all the increased traffic and ones we possibly are not aware of yet. We moved here strain all resources. I will also make travelling into as it was a rural village not an extension of Maidstone. Maidstone increasingly difficult. • Too many houses, each development is with no overall • I'm very sad at what has already been done and worried plan. No thought given to infrastructure. that we will have one big estate and will no longer have • Appals me - but the same time is happening to Otham our village. I was born here and seen many changes not which has happened to Bearsted. The structure will not for the better. I just never thought that this would be be able to cope and everyone will become bad able to be done. tempered especially car drivers. • No to further development • The size of the present proposals is beyond belief • Too many houses and no improved infrastructure - we because there is no obvious adequate accompanying are crowded out and the roads are far too busy. infrastructure. The schools are full, the roads etc. All our • Destructive, misguided and simplistic houses were built in fields at some stage but not in • Worrying that farther housing on Sutton Road will now massive numbers. increase the traffic. As for proposals for church road this • Otham is under threat of obliteration of all Greenfields, is the same. Where will the children go to school? woodlands, country lanes which have been Otham life • Too many, Otham is too small for the development. The for years. Overdevelopment means serious traffic infrastructure is not in place. Sutton Rd / Willington St congestion, GP services, schools, traffic congestion is are crowded. Is it a plan to simply merge Otham and already on Sutton Road. Also it needs to be addressed Maidstone by joining the roads? planning for Bearsted football ground work to be started • There is already enough houses being built on Sutton on floodlights, stands, turnstile. I don't know if planning Road (in this area) and don’t think more should be built has been passed. here. Developers should be forced to look elsewhere • Otham is under threat of obliteration of all Greenfields where villages are not risking losing their identity. The and woodlands, country lanes which have been Otham road system around Otham is already inadequate. What village life for years. Over the years we have lived here is the point of building on first class farmland when (33) it has been kept as the village life. Other there are other places to build? development, serious traffic, GP medical services, • I am 100% against the developers proposed, which will Schools all need to be addressed. (Serious traffic already destroy the village. on Sutton Rd) • "A total re-think. It seems "see a green space build an • I know more housing is (apparently) needed but putting estate." large housing estates on fields in and around villages is • Should not be considered as the numbers would crowd not the answer. Villages can only really reasonably take the village (which has no facilities). The road system a few extra houses - but newer small 'villages' could be (virtually single track) is only just adequate for existing built further out. Or - with retail on a downturn due to population. There are already two large developments internet - previous retail areas could be developed as adjacent which will inevitably affect Otham already. town housing for the 21st century - a modern and • Disgraceful - no infrastructure to cope different idea! • No more housing should be allowed other than house • If every village in the country took 2-6 homes there already being built would be no need for the big development being forced • Not keen on any further encroachment of housing. on people. No need for new infrastructure, roads, Moved here for peace and quiet. drainage, schools, medical centres. A mix of housing • Lack of infrastructure for too many proposed houses in including say 4 affordable houses for farming type folks Otham who desperately need it but can’t afford it. If every • Too many houses. Insufficient roads, drainage, schools, village did this imagine how such an act could ease the doctors for so many new homes. housing problem and benefit the community in every • Too big and intrusive with no thought given to narrow part of the country. winding lanes with no pavements for pedestrians • Horrified by the proposals for a housing estate in White Horse Lane OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 28 • Unbearable too many. value of homes which affects me as I may need to move • I think we are fast becoming a suburb of Maidstone with for work in the next year and the agent says the threat all the building going on around us of development will supress value of house by at least • Barking mad! No water, no sewage, no schools, no £25,000. roads, no hospitals, no jobs. • My concern is that the infrastructure required for more • No infrastructure in place to support future housing in the area is insufficient. Roads around the developments village will become very busy and routes into Maidstone • Unless Otham and surrounding villages are protected will become even more congested. Otham will be destroyed. I strongly oppose the urban • I believe there are insufficient facilities to support any sprawl threatening Otham. new housing, county roads are unstable for more traffic, • I most strongly do not want any further development. It restricted access to work sites, noise, and the would be a disaster if the field at the end of White Horse destruction of an ancient parish that the residents Lane, field next to church, field opposite church are built treasure. Langley Park should be enough for this part of on. It would be a huge disaster if the farm land opposite Maidstone. Simmonds Lane and beyond are built on (the Goldings • If the proposed housing were to go ahead then Otham home scare)! I am very concerned about any access to would be ruined as a semi-rural village. new housing in Gore Court Road. • The area will be ruined forever. The rural nature if the • In the wrong place. Maidstone can't cope with any more village will be lost, extra traffic, especially commercial traffic. vehicles, will destroy the roads and environment in and • Terrible! Otham will disappear there will be increased around the village. traffic on Sutton Road, more rat runners avoiding the • The ongoing developments along Sutton Road will have Sutton Road. More danger in the lanes for walkers, an effect on traffic volume through the village. Recent horse riders, cyclists, pets, wildlife etc. The noise, air and closures of Willington Street resulted in a great increase light pollution will also impact on the rural life. in numbers. Development in Church, Gore Court and • The proposed housing development in Otham will mean White Horse Roads will greatly affect the rural nature the end of Otham as a rural community: The increased and result in heavy traffic flow. Hard to see that this traffic will use the lanes as a means of avoiding the area of Maidstone needs more housing. bottle necks of Sutton Road and Willington Street: The • It's such a shame that we are already have vast increase in noise, air and light pollution will also impact developments on our doorstep. As a developer myself I on rural life. can understand why these sites have been chosen, but • It will ruin the beautiful area forever. Increased traffic. enough is enough. The developments on the outskirts of • Not happy, especially plans regarding Church Road as Maidstone are now encroaching on beautiful access not at all suitable. countryside and threatening entire villages together • Any development would be too much traffic on with their unique way of life. Larger protected insufficient roads which are overused at present. boundaries should be made to prevent any further • Enough is enough urban sprawl. I'm dreading what impact the additional • I don’t see how Otham can cope with proposals with vehicles will have on the small country lanes. Without already overcrowded roads unsuitable for more traffic. another major road link from the Sutton Road to the The village will become lost to overdevelopment. Ashford Road such as the Leeds bypass, then the • Otham will become overcrowded with more noise and increase in vehicles speeding along these lanes will traffic, which won't be nice to see. There are other jeopardise recreational pursuits such as horse riding, locations to build rather than stealing the lovely green cycling and walking along safe country roads. fields. Otham cannot cope with increase in traffic as • The scale is too large. Need to hold any further roads aren’t suitable. development until the real impact of the three started is • It's too late for my opinion to matter. Nothing will understood in terms of roads, sewage, water, GP change now regarding my opinion. Otham will be medical services. Many of the roads are already swamped with more noise and traffic on a permanent ridiculously congested before the new housing is basis. occupied. • • Strongly against any new development. Destroy our Whilst realising that people need to live somewhere, beautiful countryside and traditional Kentish location. development in a small, beautiful and rural village Otham is like loose - could it be a conservation area - I should not be the place. The character of the area would feel it is justified. Building does not make sense - no gas, be lost forever and the life that we chose to have when waste water system. New building would ruin Otham as we moved here would be destroyed. we know it. Famous for wooden structured buildings • Enough additional housing has taken place locally with and beautiful housing, new housing would not suit greater numbers of vehicles already transforming our traditional location. roads and scaring pedestrians / people leaving • Strongly against it. It would destroy countryside for driveways. This is a village, not a suburb. Any additional people that live here and use it. Doesn't make logical housing should be located elsewhere - brownfield sites sense to build here given current infrastructure. not ancient beautiful villages. • • Very worried. Do not think that the local infrastructure Totally inappropriate can accommodate the increase in homes. Total erosion • It's the wrong way round. The infrastructure should be of village with increased traffic, noise, lights, threatening in place before more housing is considered. wildlife and our lives. Also, devalues in the short term OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 29 • Concerned about the overdevelopment of the area - too • Do not want more housing nearby, traffic noise and many houses! speeding happens more regularly anyway. Don’t need • Concerned about development by Church any more houses people or cars. • The number of housing developments around the village • No more development! We have given up more than will have an impact on the character of the area. As our fair share of countryside. Any more and we shall usual MBC will be installing developments without simply merge with the town, lose the village's identity proper consideration of how traffic will impact the local and grind to a halt on the extremely over-busy roads roads. The local roads will become tar runs no doubt, which are set to get much worse. whether council reps insist otherwise. I see it in my work • Absolute disaster for the village as it will become every day. subsumed in in urban sprawl. Wildlife will suffer as more • From plans often mentioned in press (KM) Otham will people litter the footpaths and undoubtable there will eventually become part of Maidstone housing estates. be a serious road accident. Take a look at new Parkwood. • Proposals recently circulated for a 5000 development • Would rather less rural locations were developed before would have meant becoming a small town with no rural the village is targeted for development. aspect at all. Road access would have been almost • See accompanying report from my planning advisor, impossible. Otham has a distinct rural feel and this albeit 2 years old but still relevant. would disappear if the village was developed into • See accompanying report from my planning advisor, another eastern suburb of Maidstone. albeit 2 years old but still relevant. • Object to the scale of the proposed developments. • The village cannot cope with so many extra vehicles on Otham would be integrated into present development its roads. Otham Street is too narrow and dangerous to on Sutton Road. Congestion on Main Roads leading into take extra cars etc. So too is Gore Court Road. The Maidstone already an issue which would be exasperated Sutton Road is packed to capacity during rush hours. We by development. already have large building sites on the Sutton Road. • Disastrous. Would ruin the essential nature of a historic These should not have been given permission without village. the Leeds / Langley bypass being paid for. • Disastrous. Would ruin the essential nature of a historic • Too much housing and not enough consideration as to village. the ability of the infrastructure to cope. • Considering the heavily developed sites along Sutton • Not happy. Will spoil a rural village. Road, any further development in Otham should be • Too ambitious - they could make our village less rural restricted. • Inadequate infrastructure. Loss of identity as Otham • Considering the heavily developed sites along Sutton village. Road, any further development in Otham should be • The development of land north of Bicknor Wood must restricted. not be allowed. Otham village has already been blighted • Council blame the government and say their hands are by current development on Sutton Road, and once tied. Well, how about they say no to development and completed, will increase the problems significantly, grow a pair. IF more housing is REALLY needed in this particularly involving additional traffic movement on overdeveloped, overpopulated part of the country - why country lanes not built for such, some of which are not build up rather than out - or does that not give MBC single track roads. The green wedge between Bicknor enough cash from property developers? Wood and White Horse Lane must be retained. • Not happy about the fact that the developers don't care • Ruining the countryside. about the people who privately own their homes they • The infrastructure will not be able to support all this bought here because they like the location and housing. The same goes for the amenities. Why is so surroundings. Develop and then move on after the much housing proposed for this part of the borough? damage is done is all they do, after of course collecting • I totally disagree with the planning proposal for their handsome profit! development at the land by the Church. The church has • Otham needs no more. If it goes ahead in White Horse sat in the landscape for 100s of years and it would be Lane and the church I will be selling my business criminal to surround it with high density housing not in because I feel that Otham will become a recreational keeping with the area. I also disagree with the park and with so many footpaths and dogs my business development of the land next to White Horse Lane - this will be unable to continue safely. would join the village up to the urban sprawl of • Too many. Every open space seems to have a planning Maidstone. I also thoroughly disagree with the 'Garden build try to take place. This will no longer be a rural Suburb' proposal by Golding Homes of 5000 houses village. which would totally destroy the unique area of Otham. • Unsure

46. If further housing development does go ahead, what benefits should the village gain from it?

Improved Road Safety 53% Improved Footpaths 37% Improved Village Hall 26% Street Lighting 24%

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 30 Gas Mains 41% Fibre Broadband 45% No Reply 1%

Any other benefits from housing development?

• We are happy as we are! • We need wider roads to take the traffic and emergency • Sounds unlikely! services • I would be particularly keen to ensure that children can • More buses running into Maidstone walk and cycle safely through the village, safe from • Otham will not gain in anyway from the housing traffic. development in fact Otham as a village will disappear for • There is no benefit to Otham if housing developments good. go ahead. It will destroy Otham as a village. • The village will not gain in any way from the housing • No gain, only irreversible loss. development. • A village centre with a few shops and a decent pub. • I don't think we would gain from housing development. Improved roads and cycle paths and walks to reduce • Mains Drainage. traffic and access. • Mains drainage for Church Road • However further housing is NOT required in Otham. • I do not believe any benefits will be gained. • I think all of the above would be an absolute necessity if • We have moved here knowing about lack of gas supply - the village were to become more populated. we have no concerns and are more than happy with • Minus the houses please current situation. • Less traffic and speed restriction in the village. • Don’t really see any of the above as benefits as they only • Any benefits are likely to benefit newcomers in the come to facilitate an unwelcome increase in the local potential housing projects. Just more pressure on the population! village. • I do not think any benefit would be gained by further • How would road safety improve? development for the village. • Possible traffic calming areas. • The amount of vehicles on our roads would be one of • A pub in the centre of the village my main concerns. There needs to be ways in which • All of the above are features I would like to see vehicles are prevented from using the village as a rat run improved and are my greatest concerns to gain access between the Sutton Road and the Ashford • Further developments would only have detrimental Road. I think we should look at enhancing some of the effect regardless of any sweetness. beautiful walks/bridleways we already have around the • Further development will have no positive outcome on village. the village. • Improved road capacity • Will there be these benefits? I am not sure that it will if • We did not mover here because we wanted more these housing estates all stay self-contained leading benefits for the village - we want the village preserved. them by one road. Just made impact on roads and • None. There should not be any further development. during of local resources, schools, hospitals, doctors etc. • None of these things at the expense of extra housing. • No benefit to village at best, some protection from • Please, no street lighting. effect of overdevelopment. • If the village is against development then none of the • CAR PARKING especially by church but also by green. above should be a trade-off but the ones highlighted • Adequate car parking must be given plus maintaining and upgrading the • I can only suggest separation from the new highway condition but not to create a temptation for development through no through road access etc. use. • If this village turns into a housing estate I will move. • Mater pressure is dreadful. • See Etchingham East Sussex school / village hall project. • No benefits • Nothing significant. • The village will not benefit at all as the peace and • There will be no gains for me. tranquillity will have gone. • There will be no gains for me • Is this some sort of trade - off? • No further development would be better. • Do not want any housing, do not see how it benefits at • Perhaps a school? all. • The village is not suitable for additional housing • Happy to have more street lighting in order to get traffic schemes. calming at strategic points only. • Compensation for our quality of lives declining. For me it's about quality of life.

47. Would you like to attend a public meeting to discuss the findings of this questionnaire?

Yes 65% No 35% OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 31

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 32 48. If you would like to be kept informed via email of progress of the neighbourhood plan and any other issues please supply your email address.

See Appendix i

Please add any comments you wish to make.

• Any other comments? • Good luck - hope you can rouse the inhabitants from their • We love our village the way it is and are willing to help de- apathy. Potholes still in Gore Court Road, White Horse Lane litter and slow down the traffic. Please keep away the and still problems in Church Road (verges). developers - United we stand! • We are very grateful to you for organising this survey and • I am very happy to help in any way with garnering support to especially to the Chairman of OPC and his efforts on behalf of halt development. Petitioning, going door-to-door etc. Laura the parish - largely unappreciated. Wiles (3 Primrose Cottages) 0777 9329605 • Thanks for taking this on! • Thank you for doing this survey! • With the influx of fruit pickers in the summer I feel the • I have lived in Otham all my life although not all the time in farmers should be aware of and take responsibility for the the village. The first 40 years I lived in Avery lane. There are increase in Litter. Groups walking in lanes throw bottle, cans, bound to have been many changes over that period of time paper into the hedgerows particularly on Avery Lane. with almost every lane having a car and cars now and more • Not much has changed in Otham for 30 years and that's why I people working away from the village. Because of my old age still live here. People don’t move to village for amenities - I feel unable to commit on some issues. there have never been any. I use Otham Lane up to 8 times a • Thank you for your efforts to preserve this special place. day. If there was a right of way would be impossible to see • A new village is required between Otham and Leeds land is round bends, and arguments would break out all over the immediately available for this purpose. place. Most people are sensible. • Too much fly-tipping in Church Road - 'constant' • Otham used to be so nice (well kept) but farming changed • "Not happy with litter on Church Road. that • OPC needs to do more on the internet." • I find it hard to believe we require all these houses in this • Rubbish in woods, stuff dumped down Church Road. small area. Who are they really for? • Protection of important assets of the village with the option • Many thanks to Otham PC. Mrs Smith to run them as a village community is paramount (pub, hall, • Thank you Otham PC for all your good work. John Smith. green). • Good luck with all these comments from everyone. I hope it • Apologies this has not been completed more thoroughly but I is a success. have been mainly based in London for my adult life. • OPC works wonders! • Thank You • It would be nice if Otham could remain a village and not • Roads bad on Holly Farm Road and Avery Lane become Greater Maidstone. • We need to actively preserve our conservation area. • Parking outside Church is a real problem which extends down • We face a serious threat which could destroy the village to Downswood. Road is too narrow and people park without • We live in a lane outside the village itself so we don't always leaving spaces to pull in to allow traffic to pass. It is often know what the problems are there. We do appreciate how blind from the top of the road and impossible to see what's much effort OPC puts in, on our behalf though. coming the other way. • Taking the Anti-KIG protest as an example, we need to gather • No more housing please. Something to be done about the the support of the threatened villages as a united threat parking by church as visitors block. Potholes to be filled in. against MBC decisions and protest at planning meetings. We Some fibre broadband would be nice to have. need to promote a green environment, a green zone where • Please no more housing. Something to be done regarding further developments are not the future nor the best option. church visitors' cars blocking Gore Court Road / Church Road. • "Our village is small, so unsure if the strength of ""Otham's Potholes be filled more regularly as when you get a speeding Voice"" in opposing planning etc." driver coming your way on the other side of the road you • The horrible written signs advertising the café/pub is a can’t avoid them. Some signs of fibre broadband work for our disgrace and looks appalling at either ends of the village… fibre to be installed would be a nice touch. Thankfully the van has been removed by the Ashford Rd … it • I feel that the planners do not take into consideration that looks embarrassing. Otham starts half way down Gore Court Road and the start of • Having taken time to think about the most important issue Church Road. The planned development opposite our for me it is that Otham remains a village and does not property would ‘sandwich’ several individual character become part of the south eastern sprawl of Maidstone. That cottages between a modern housing estate and I believe we remain surrounded by open country and not by new would blight our property along with the considerable housing developments and the hundreds of cars that increase in traffic at the junction between Gore Court Road accompany them. Thank you again for giving us the chance to with White Horse and Church Road which is outside our air our views. property. • Thanks for the opportunity to have a say in protecting our • I hope the council see sense and do not destroy our beautiful village. village. • It just seems that these houses are being built without extra • Thank you for this opportunity to input! facilities added. • Proposed housing of great concern. • Thanks for opportunity of expressing our views. OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 33 • We have lived here for 7 months and moved from Bearsted. We love living here in Otham and hope this quiet rural village is not spoilt like Bearsted over the past 37 years. • I have lived in Otham Street for 44 years and it is now dangerous due to many speeding cars using it for a cut through since Willington Street closed for resurfacing. I have been hit twice including once by a Police Car who was chasing a gangster. • Appreciate the efforts of all who are in the parish council and who take the time to look after the village and its interests.

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 34 Appendix i – Email Mailing List

OPC Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results Page 35

Otham Conservation Area Appraisal

Maidstone Borough Council Approved 27th February 2009

- 1 -

Contents

I Introduction 3 II Historical Development 6 III Character Appraisal 12 IV Conclusions 32 Appendix Maps

- 2 -

OTHAM – CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL

I Introduction

The Definition, Purpose and Effect of Conservation Areas

The concept of conservation areas was first brought into being by the Civic Amenities Act of 1967, but the relevant legislation now is the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act of 1990. This act places a duty on local authorities to designate conservation areas where appropriate and defines a conservation area as “an area of architectural or historic interest the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance”.

Designation as a conservation area brings additional powers to the local authority. Briefly these include the control of demolition of unlisted buildings, more restricted permitted development rights for single dwelling houses and a notification system relating to works to trees not covered by a tree preservation order.

In addition to these enhanced powers, the local authority is also required when dealing with applications for planning permission to have special regard to the question of whether or not the proposed development would either preserver or enhance the special character of the conservation area. There is a presumption that developments which would not preserve or enhance this special character should be refused planning permission.

The Purpose of the Appraisal

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires local authorities to review their conservation areas from time to time in order to consider the possibility of revising their extent and to identify changes and pressures which may affect the original reasons for their designation. In order that informed decisions can be made on planning applications it is important to identify the special character of conservation areas which it is sought to preserve or enhance.

The most appropriate form for fulfilling these requirements is the production of a conservation area appraisal for each individual conservation area. English Heritage published an advisory booklet on the form which conservation area appraisals should take in February 2006, and this current appraisal has been prepared in accordance with these guidelines. It is intended to identify the key elements which combine to produce the special historic and architectural character of the conservation area, to analyse how they interact and impact upon one another and to explain how the area has developed into its current form. It will also seek to identify pressures and developments which threaten the special character of the conservation area and sites and features which detract from its character and appearance.

- 3 -

The clear understanding of the conservation area’s qualities which the appraisal produces will provide suggestions for future policies and improvements as well as providing a framework against which decisions on individual proposals may be assessed.

History of Designation

The Otham Conservation Area was first designated by the Maidstone Borough Council on 19 October 1977 as part of a general review of conservation areas in the Borough. This initial designation included properties in Otham Street from the drive to Amber House to Forge Cottage only. In January 1983, Otham Parish Council requested an extension to the north and east of the initial designation; in February of that year Members resolved not to designate the extension.

However, the question of extension was revisited in 1992. According to the 1992 Planning and Transportation Committee report, “The existing conservation area only covers a small part of the historic village, albeit that part which has the most concentrated character. However, there are many other buildings and open spaces within the village as a whole which are attractive or are of special architectural or historic interest and I consider that the request for the conservation area to be extended to cover the whole of the late medieval village pattern is justified.” Following a review of the area, the extension approved on 9 June 1992 greatly increased the size of the Otham Conservation Area, adding the land surrounding Stoneacre, the Playground, and Green Hill.

Maidstone suburbs encroach on Otham’s views to the northwest.

- 4 -

Location and Topography

The village of Otham is located 3.5 miles southeast of Maidstone, at the point where 20th-century suburbanisation ends and more rural settlement begins. It occupies a landscape of low rolling hills, offering views of the North Downs beyond. It is on the dip slope of the ragstone ridge where it descends to the Len Valley. The former ragstone quarry – partly wooded today – is in the hollow between Stoneacre and Otham Street. The landscape surrounding the Conservation Area is mostly working fields and pastureland.

Pastureland, woodland, and the North Downs to the northeast of Green Hill in the Conservation Area.

The Conservation Area is roughly cross-shaped. Most of the buildings included fall on the north-south axis of Otham Street/Green Hill. This axis also offers the two main approaches to the village. The smaller east-west axis includes the land of Otham Manor to the west, and the cluster of buildings at Stoneacre located to the east. A number of footpaths pass through the area. The closest major roadways are Sutton Road (A274) to the south and Ashford Road (A20) to the north. Bearsted and Maidstone offer the nearest railway stations.

Article 4 Directions

The character of conservation areas can suffer significantly from the cumulative impact of “minor alterations” which can be carried out to single dwelling houses as “permitted development” under the General Planning and Development Order without the need for planning permission. Such alterations can include replacement windows and doors and re-roofing in inappropriate non-traditional materials.

The local Authority can seek to bring such minor alterations under planning control by the use of Directions under Article 4 of the General Planning and Development Order. A full Article 4 Direction requires the

- 5 - approval of the Secretary of State, but the Council can make an Article 4(2) Direction within a conservation area without the need for such approval. An Article 4(2) Direction can only related to development fronting a highway, waterway or open space and is restricted to bringing under control specific forms of development within the curtilages of single dwelling houses.

There are no Article 4 Directions currently in force within Otham Conservation Area.

II Historical Development

Archaeology

Due to limited formal archaeological investigation in the area, little is known of Otham’s prehistory and early history. Isolated finds at Stoneacre include a second-century Roman coin and a medieval pendant. Other evidence of Roman settlement in the area comes farther afield, with Roman pottery and another coin found at Merriams Farm to the east of Otham, where Saxon pottery has also been found. More complex early settlement is known to have taken place nearby. The Iron Age Boughton Monchelsea/Loose oppidum lies southeast of Otham.

Considering the richness of the Otham Conservation Area’s historic environment, it is surprising how little historical information is known about the village’s origins. The stony and infertile Chart Hills were originally common pasture of the primary settlements in Holmesdale to the north. Permanent settlements in the Otham area may have evolved in the 7th or 8th centuries.

Development History

By the time of the Norman Conquest, the area was known as “Oteham”. According to the Domesday Book, it was given by William the Conqueror to his half-brother Odo, Bishop of Baieux: “The arable land is two carucates and an half. In demesne there is one, and nine villains, with three borderers, having one carucate. There is a church, and two servants, and one mill of five shillings, and three acres of meadow. Wood for the pannage of eight hogs.” Not long after, the Bishop’s disgrace placed the land in the hands of the crown. The family who held the land took the name of Otham until there was a division of the estate between two sons in the 13th century: Walter and Robert de Valoigns. For the following three centuries, the estate passed through a number of hands.

It is during the reign of Henry VIII that we first see a name affiliated with the estate that carries into modern history. Thomas Hendley, Esq. acquired the manor and advowson in the 16th century. Gore Court became his seat and remained so at least through the end of the 18th century. Gore Court, the Church of St Nicholas and Otham’s historic water mills lie well outside the Conservation Area although their history is connected to that of the village.

- 6 -

Gore Court is not the only early “high status” building to survive in Otham. In fact, most of the 14th- to 16th-century timber-framed buildings lie within the present-day Conservation Area. In his 1989 book Otham: People & Places, R H C Vaux describes the village as having “a wealth of timber framed houses”. This is generally attributed to the success of the Kentish ragstone quarries in the vicinity. The main quarry in the village lay between Otham Street and Stoneacre, a landscape which can still be read today in the hollow known as Pigeon Bank. Due to the rich topsoil, Otham’s fortunes remained high even after quarrying eased off in the late 15th century.

The agricultural economy referred to in the Domesday Book has continued throughout history, although the crops themselves have changed in importance. For example, hops began to increase in the first half of the 18th century while at that time fruit production remained relatively low. In 1837-38 tithe commutation papers and the resulting Article of Agreement, the Parish of Otham was said to have 900 acres, all subject to tithes. Of this land, 243 acres was arable land, 245 acres meadow or pasture land, 170 acres dedicated to the cultivation of hops, 44 acres to fruit, and 198 acres of woodland. The 1855 Kelly’s Directory of Kent listed seven “farmers” in the Parish. By 1867, eight were designated as “farmer and hop grower”; thereafter hops are included in the commercial title of many farmers. Only in the early 20th century does “fruit grower” appear as a separate listing. Interestingly, although positions became increasingly specialised in this century – with such titles as “poultry farmer”, “farm bailiff” and “overseer” being separately designated – the number of business listings for agriculture remained at roughly 7-8 up to the 1934 directory. Today, some fruit production continues but hops are no longer grown in the area; most of the working landscape is given over to grazing and grain and hay cultivation. Many of Otham’s farming buildings are still used for agricultural purposes.

While the population of the village has fluctuated somewhat, it has remained a village in size. Census records and Kelly’s Directory reports show that the population peaked in late Victorian times. From a population of 277 in 1801, it rose to 357 in 1851, 375 in 1881, 335 in 1901, 333 in 1921, and 355 in 1931. The current population is roughly that of the 1851 peak.

The economic strength of the parish resulted in a relatively high density of late medieval dwellings in Otham village. The oldest known surviving medieval house in the Otham Conservation Area is the remarkable Otham Manor. With its origins in the 14th Century, its quality of construction and association with notable people indicate the importance of this house. It is thought that the 16th-century wing of the house may be attributed to the Wyatt family; Sir Francis Wyatt became governor of Virginia in the early 17th Century. The house’s alternative name of Wardes/Wards comes from its late 17th-century resident, James Ward. 18th-century tenants were responsible for farming the largest area in the village at the time.

- 7 -

Otham Manor as viewed from the footpath to the north. A number of other timber-framed hall houses are found in the Conservation Area.

The house experienced a decline in prestige when the population rise of the mid-19th century led to the subdivision of the house into a number of workers’ cottages. This decline was short-lived, however. Otham Manor’s higher status returned when the house was acquired by Sir Louis du Pan Mallet in 1911, the former Ambassador to Constantinople. He not only restored the house, but he also was known to employ a large staff, including six gardeners. During Sir Louis Mallet’s time there, the house is known to have hosted dignitaries and other influential members of society, including Winston Churchill.

East of Otham Manor, the most important estate centred around Stoneacre. The Ellis (Elys) family were responsible for bringing it to prominence from the 15th century through to the early 18th century. The estate was held by a number of families following Edmund Ellis’s death in 1712, most notably the Baldwins, the last of whom died in the early 20th century.

Stoneacre’s name originates from its connection to Kentish ragstone quarrying. The current house was built in the hollow of the quarry in the late 15th century on the site of an earlier dwelling. A timber-framed hall house, it began as a squire’s dwelling and although it later became a farm house, it was never subdivided into smaller cottages like so many others of its age. The original house had five rooms with the hall open to the roof. Only in the mid 16th century, when domestic privacy became more valued, did the division of the hall allow for the addition of two bedrooms. Thanks to major restoration works in 1924, the magnificent hall has been exposed.

- 8 -

These 1920s works were conducted by Aymer Vallance, another important owner of Stoneacre. He is not only responsible for revealing some of the building’s hidden features, but also for adding a “new” wing. To construct this extension, Vallance essentially transported part of a building at North Bore Place in Chiddingstone, which was then being demolished. Spandrels on this northwest wing are dated 1547 and 1629, likely to be the start and end dates of that building’s construction. Given their date and Kentish origins, although these modifications are not original to Stoneacre, they are not out of keeping. Vallance’s decision to leave Stoneacre house and gardens to the National Trust in 1928 is another important part of his legacy. Although it has remained a residence since then, it also serves as a public amenity. At the same time, the working farm continues to be owned and managed separately.

Although of high quality, Otham Manor and Stoneacre are not the only prestigious hall houses in Otham. Synyards’s origins are roughly contemporary with Stoneacre’s and it, too, saw its open hall divided into two floors during Elizabethan times. Originally it belonged to the manor of Stoneacre. Its name is attributed to its late 18th-century occupant, Mr Swineard. The tenant farmers who lived here through the mid-19th century were also master blacksmiths and it is estimated that a forge was built at Synyards earlier in the century (Forge Cottage is located south of Synyards along Otham Street, though the building probably predates this period and is thought to have had its origins as an oasthouse). Synyards’s more recent history distances the house from its past connections to the working environment. Like Stoneacre it experienced a thorough early-20th century restoration, in 1905, by Philip Johnston. Today it is maintained in excellent condition as a single dwelling by its current owner.

Another house which was built as part of the Stoneacre Manor was The Limes, located north of Synyards. The timber-framed house was built in the mid 17th century. The Chittendens, principle tenants of the Ellis family, were among the biggest farmers in Otham. 18th and 19th century residents – the Edmeds – were butchers as well as farmers.

Lying between Otham Manor and Synyards is Belks farmhouse, likely to originate in the early 15th century. Less is known about the early evolution of this house, which is smaller than its other medieval neighbours. Although part of the Otham Manor, it clearly had its own identity as a farmstead, as the collection of buildings around it indicates. Its modern-day surroundings include cottages, a former oasthouse, and a maltings complex, all of varying ages dating back possibly as far as the 17th Century. The malt house is attributed to Bowyer Hendley and was used to prepare barley to brew ale. By the mid-19th Century, the house was divided into two cottages and shared by a family of carpenters and farm labourers.

The last house to have such early origins is today known as Madam Taylors Cottages. Also called the Manor House, it is believed to date from the mid-16th Century. While renovating the house significantly in the late

- 9 -

17th century, Bowyer Hendley is thought to have built the garden wall which is still a prominent feature. The name “Madam Taylor” is attributed to Bowyer Hendley’s daughter, who had married Thomas Taylor. After she died in the 18th Century, the house was divided into three cottages. Unfortunately, much of what we see today was the result of major renovations and alterations carried out in the 1970s.

Thus far, we have reviewed the early historical development of the village along Otham Street and surrounding Stoneacre, where a relatively high number of high status timber framed buildings can still be found to represent these phases of the Otham’s history. To the north end of the Conservation Area lies the agricultural community of Green Hill. Historically the area was partly linked to the Stoneacre estate and evolved to have a distinctive character. The oldest buildings – Green Hill Cottage and Ivy Cottage – both date from the 17th century. While neither may have had the status of some of the farm houses to the south, these timber-framed cottages would have had the status of residences for those who worked the farms around them. The former agricultural buildings in the area more recently converted to dwellings were parts of these farmsteads. Greenhills Farm across the way also developed at this time (although the house that we see today most likely dates from the 18th century and has been almost completely altered since).

Greenhill House – with its origins in the Georgian period – still presides over an agricultural landscape typical of this part of the Conservation Area.

Green Hill saw other phases of development. In the 18th century, Holly Cottage was built for farm labourers while Greenhill House was designed as a higher-status house. In the 19th century, the house known today as Hendleys was built, although the land surrounding it was part of a charity established in 1590, which eventually included the house and 15 allotments. 19th century documents indicate a succession of wheelwrights working here, some of whom also served as carpenters and undertakers.

- 10 -

It is likely that the wheelwrights here had a working relationship with the blacksmiths at Synyards.

The cluster of buildings we might now think of as the heart of Otham evolved around a 16th-century house now divided into two cottages located at the junction of Otham Street and Stoneacre Lane known today as Elizabethan Lodge and Tudor Cottage. The building’s initial use may have been domestic but by the 18th century it was a public house. A 1792 deed indicates that it was known as The Five Bells. It is unclear when the pub was closed, but in the 19th and 20th centuries, it housed another important institution in village life: the Post Office and grocers. This part of the building is still visible as the wing of the building closest to Otham Street. Although Cherry Orchard Cottage to the south may have been an earlier centre of civic activity as the post office and home of the parish clerk and constable in the mid 19th century, purpose-built institutions developed in the vicinity of Tudor Cottage and Elizabethan Lodge throughout the second half of the century.

The first of these institutions was the school. Now known as The Old School, this building was erected in 1851 although there is reference to a school mistress in 1847. The money needed to build the school was solicited from local families and charitable groups to serve the poorer families of the parish. Kelly Directories indicate that in 1885 it was enlarged to serve 100 children, although the average attendance between 1899 and 1911 ranged from 50 to 58 pupils. As further evidence of the establishment of this area as a centre of civic activity, the clock on the school was installed in 1897 for Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. The School House was also built as a dwelling in the late 19th century, most likely for the headmistress.

The Victorian-era Institute has been a centre of Otham’s civic activity for over a century.

- 11 -

Otham has long had a strong sense of civic pride. The Parish Council was formed in 1894. In 1895, Institute Hall was built across from the school with the generosity of the Forster family of Rumwood. It originally served as a Men’s Institute but in 1926 became the Women’s Institute. Later that decade the Forster family presented the deed to the building to the Women’s Institute.

The early part of the 20th century also saw the creation of another important civic space across from Madam Taylors Cottages. Former hop grounds and a cherry orchard were given to the community in 1919 by J R Betts of Greenhill and A Johnson of Gore Court in memory of men of the parish who fell in World War I. A memorial stone cross was paid for by public subscription. More recently, the village sign was erected alongside the war memorial, further emphasising the importance of this space as a centre of the community.

Otham continued to evolve as a largely self-sufficient community until later in the 20th century and development was kept more or less in check. A population expansion in the later 19th century led to erection of some more housing for farm workers in the village, including Primrose Cottages and Gable Cottages. The 20th century saw a moderate number of dwellings built, mostly single residences. The greatest change has come from a shift in the economy away from dependence on the immediate vicinity for the community’s livelihood. While farming continues, associated craftsmen such as wheelwrights and blacksmiths are no longer part of the local economy. As cars have become more affordable, people have found it easier to go outside the area to make their livelihoods and gather provisions. The last of the village enterprises – the post office and shop – closed in the 1970s. Today, Otham is a residential community surrounded by working farmland.

III Character Area Appraisal

General Village Character

Despite its proximity to Maidstone, Otham village maintains a rural, agricultural character that is visually connected to its past economic prosperity. Its link with quarrying is not only seen in the undulating landscape, but also indirectly in the high number of high-status timber- framed dwellings. The agricultural economy that became the mainstay of the village in modern times is still very much a part of the village character as a number of the historic farms remain. The buildings that arose from this economy are also largely intact and the relatively low amount of 20th-century intrusions results in Otham’s distinctive rural character.

An important feature of Otham’s character is its internal and external landscape setting. The siting of clusters of buildings, for example, allows us to read their interrelationship, particularly in the settlements linked to historic farming patterns. Equally important are the spaces in between

- 12 - and surrounding buildings. Some land within the Conservation Area is pastureland or otherwise undeveloped. Otham also contains a high proportion of large gardens which are not only attractive in their own right but also offer the low density necessary to provide the village with its characteristic views. These views and those over the wider landscape of fields and woodland make an important contribution to Otham’s special rural character, which is further confirmed by the sounds and smells of this quiet residential and agricultural village.

A view towards the historic quarry from Otham Street illustrates past and present economic uses of the land within the Conservation Area.

Village Analysis / Approaches and Views

“A narrow and tortuous lane seldom more than 10 feet wide, tall hedges and stretches of mellow brick and ragstone walls shut out the view till near the summit, where it opens out, with a foreground of cornfields, cherry orchards and hop gardens. Almost every house, some on the street, some half hidden by the high old walls, festooned with roses and creepers, is ancient and picturesque. Here one of half-timber with projecting gable, there of Carolean red brick; and down below, in the valley, one gets a peep of Stoneacre, a fifteenth century house with a forgotten history, steep pitched roofs half timber and half stone, rich in time, oak beams and with an open roofed hall cut up by later floors.”

With very few detail alterations, Philip Johnson’s 1905 description of a visit to Otham – quoted in R H C Vaux’s Otham: People & Places – still stands as an excellent character assessment of the northern approach to the Conservation Area as well as some of the views along the way.

- 13 -

The view north from the top of Green Hill shows the northern boundary of the Conservation Area.

The main southern approach to the Conservation Area along Otham Street passes through more recent housing development and is somewhat less dramatic in its flat topography. However, this presents an interesting contrast once one has entered the Conservation Area, which asserts its agrarian character with a field to the left and Forge Cottage to the right. In itself, this contrast makes the approach dramatic.

Fields and woodland to the west of the southern approach to the Conservation Area

- 14 -

A third approach is possible from the south via Stoneacre Lane. As this roadway is unpaved much of the way, it provides perhaps the most historically authentic entrance to the Conservation Area.

With the area’s hilly topography, most views out of the Conservation Area further affirm its rural character. Most of the visible surrounding landscape is working fields and woodland with the occasional building dotted along the horizon. Only views north and northwest of some locations in Green Hill show the encroachment of Maidstone’s suburban development in the distance. Still, in these views fields and pastureland occupy the foreground. The wide views towards the North Downs from the vicinity of Green Hill and the War Memorial are particularly important to the character of the Conservation Area and its setting.

The view eastwards from near Stoneacre illustrates the area’s recreational and farming roles.

Detailed Analysis and Description

A detailed description of the main buildings and sites within the Conservation Area follows. These descriptions are based on examination from the street and historic map analysis. Buildings have not been examined internally or from non-public viewpoints.

Buildings and structures have been assessed according to their value to the character of the Conservation Area. They have been graded as follows:

- 15 -

Essential - buildings/sites which, because of their high architectural or historic interest or townscape function, must be retained.

Positive - buildings/sites which contribute positively to the character and interest of the Conservation Area and whose retention should be encouraged wherever possible. Some buildings in this grade may have suffered from unsympathetic alteration but could be restored to their original appearance relatively easily.

Neutral - buildings/sites which do not harm the character of the area but whose retention is not necessary.

Negative - buildings/sites which harm the area’s character where redevelopment would be advantageous.

Green Hill

General Character The predominant character of Green Hill today is still that of a working landscape as it is surrounded by fields and pastureland. Houses and agricultural buildings are densely packed together, giving a strong sense of their interconnection. However, high hedges occasionally impose on a sense of unity.

Buildings/Sites

Value to Address Listed/Unlisted Description/Comments Character Early 19th-century house in the “Gothick” style. Built in evenly-coursed ragstone with a low- pitched, hipped, slate roof. House comprises 3 Green Hill Listed Grade II interconnected parallel Essential House ranges. Front elevation typifies the Georgian emphasis on symmetry in the regular placement of its sash windows with Gothick top lights.

- 16 -

Holly Cottage’s simple form and traditional materials make a positive contribution to Green Hill’s historical character.

Ragstone and brick pair of cottages with tile hung and rendered first floor. Peg- Holly Cottage Unlisted Positive tiled roof and central chimney stack. Probably dates to 18th century. Located just east of Holly Cottage, an attractive former oast complex of brick & ragstone, probably of early 19th century. A significant focal point along Green Hill Oast Unlisted the access road. It Essential appears to be disused and somewhat overgrown, which is regrettable because of its significant contribution to the character of the area.

- 17 -

A ragstone and brick complex – currently two dwellings – of various dates. The core of the building is possibly an old timber-framed house. A variety of window styles, The Oast House & mostly appropriate to the Homestead Unlisted Positive ages of erection. Clay- Complex tiled roof. The associated stables and other farm buildings of ragstone, timber and brick are especially important to the character of the Green Hill community. Dating from the 17th century as a two-storey house row with a continuous jetty. Timber framed, close-studding with plaster infilling at ground level. Plain tiled, Green Hill hipped roof. Additional Listed Grade II Essential Cottage features include projecting a gable-end chimney stack and leaded, casement windows. Now used as a single dwelling. Its rear view is prominent on the access road and has a more modern appearance. Red brick house with clay- tile roof. Probably originally 18th century but significantly altered and rebuilt. Inappropriate Greenhills Farm Unlisted Positive plastic windows. Contains a prominent, characteristic cat-slide roof which contributes positively to its rural setting. 16th-century house with 17th-century and later modifications. Gabled, timber framed, and Ivy Cottage Listed Grade II rendered with a plain tile Essential roof. Irregular fenestration. Some walls rebuilt in ragstone and red brick.

- 18 -

Modernised 19th-century red-brick house. The original range has regular fenestration of sash windows and Flemish bond brickwork. Clay tiled roof. Hendleys Unlisted Positive In the process of alteration at the time this report was being compiled. An important focal point from along the access road into Green Hill. Modern, single-storey dwellings of red brick. Its low position helps ensure The Stables & Unlisted that it does not Neutral Valley View significantly detract from the rural, historical character of the area.

Despite being unlisted, Greenhill Oast offers an essential contribution to the character and setting of this part of the Otham Conservation Area. It is not only an attractive vernacular building but also provides an authentic link to Green Hill’s long history in farming.

- 19 -

Stoneacre

General Character This part of the Conservation Area provides a glimpse of past estate landscapes with its agricultural buildings and landscape centred around the mediaeval manor house. By its isolation it maintains this character and despite the house being opened to the public seasonally one day a week as a National Trust property, it is still clearly a working landscape.

Buildings/Sites

Value to Address Listed/Unlisted Description/Comments Character Late 15th or early 16th century farmhouse with various alterations, most notably a 1920s restoration which reinstated the 2-bay centre hall. That alteration added a northwest wing moved from 16th-century North Bore Place in Chiddingstone, Kent. The Stoneacre & Path Listed Grade II* Essential house is characterised by its prominent main gable, exposed timber framing, irregular mullion and transom fenestration and multiple chimney stacks. The house and attractive gardens continue to serve as a single residence and are owned and managed by the National Trust. A large complex of working farm buildings, some dating to the 19th century. Although somewhat derelict, it maintains a Stoneacre Farm Unlisted Positive direct link between the area and its agricultural roots so contributes positively to the character of the surroundings.

- 20 -

Early 20th-century semi- detached cottages on the edge of the farm. Red brick and rough-cast Stoneacre Farm Unlisted finishes. Clay tile roof. Positive Cottages Modern replacement windows somewhat detract from the building’s character.

Stoneacre’s well maintained house and garden clearly illustrate Otham’s early affluence.

Otham Street

General Character As the spine of the Conservation Area, Otham Street is the setting for a variety of building types that chronicle its history as a self- sustaining, rural village. The working landscape is ever present, with fields beyond the dwellings and pastureland along Otham Street itself. Evidence of related industries such as the maltings and forge and more recent institutions like the school, post office and institute is present in the architectural fabric. There is no commerce today within the Conservation Area.

- 21 -

“The Barn” – one of the converted agricultural buildings that formerly made up Madam Taylors Farm.

Buildings/Sites

Value to Address Listed/Unlisted Description/Comments Character As distinct from the working farm buildings located just north of the Conservation Area boundary, this cluster of Madam Taylors Farm former agricultural Buildings: The Barn & Unlisted buildings of various ages Positive The Cart Lodge has been converted to dwellings. Materials include stained timber, ragstone, and brick with clay tile and pantile roofs. An attractive grouping. 16th-century timber- framed house significantly restored in the 1970s. Madam Taylors Mostly rendered with some Listed Grade II Essential Cottages brick features and hanging tiles. Prominent chimney stacks to both side and front elevations.

- 22 -

17th- or 18th-century garden wall in ragstone and Flemish bond red and grey brick chequer. Modern damage has Madam Taylors Listed Grade II resulted in iron bracing to Essential Cottages Garden Wall the south; more recent damage to the centre of the east face is currently being investigated to ensure its repair. Stone cross on stepped plinth erected in 1919 within the playground, both presented to the people of Otham. Offer fine views of the North Downs. The Village Sign is of modern materials and War Memorial, design, presenting the Playground & Village Unlisted Essential various tools that Sign represent the craftsmen who supported the community throughout history. This open space is a focal point of the Conservation Area, both in terms of views and public use. House built in the 1920s, abutting Tudor Cottage. Roughcast and render North View Unlisted façade. Casement Positive windows with brick quoin surrounds. Modern conservatory to side. Late 16th-century house, now a pair of cottages with a variety of features. Timber-framed and painted brick; stone plinth. Exposed timbering to Tudor Cottage & Otham Street first floor. Listed Grade II Essential Elizabethan Lodge Stoneacre Lane extension of roughly coursed rubble stone dates from 19th century. Includes a brick wing along the Otham Street frontage that was once the post office.

- 23 -

Bungalow built in the 1920s, rendered with applied timber framing. Concrete roof tiles with Applegarth Unlisted Neutral conservation roof lights. Modern plastic windows somewhat mar its appearance. Built originally as a Working Men’s Club ca. 1895 by Arthur Forster of Otham Village Hall Rumwood Court. Red brick (Women’s Institute Unlisted in Flemish and stretcher Positive Hall) bond with dentil features. Clay tiled roof. Remains an important centre of village activity. 19th-century farmworkers’ cottages in ragstone with red brick quoins and window surrounds. Regular fenestration with 1, 2 & 3 Primrose single-glazed sash Unlisted Positive Cottages windows and hipped dormers. Located below street level at right angles. Recent modifications maintain a sense of unity in the group. Picturesque former school in ragstone. Built in 1851 and enlarged in 1885, it still retains its bell and bell turret, gable-end clock, The Old School Unlisted Essential lattice-framed windows and shutters. A strong visual association with the village’s 19th- and 20th- century history. Late-19th century red brick residence, likely built for the school’s headmistress. Red brick with clay tiled roof and gables. Special School House Unlisted features include decorative Positive finials and pendants. Modern plastic windows detract somewhat from the building’s late Victorian character.

- 24 -

Large, timber-framed hall house dating from the 14th century with 16th-century alterations. Restored and extended in the early 20th century. Considered an important early example of Otham Manor Listed Grade I the “Wealden”-type house, Essential (Wardes) with 2 open-hall bays. Exposed timbers with rendered pargetting. At right angles to the road, it is mostly hidden from view at street level because of mature planting. Semi-detached red-brick cottages built prior to the 1876 Ordnance Survey map. Flemish-bond red 1 & 2 Gable Cottages Unlisted brick with clay-tile, half- Positive hipped roof and a central chimney stack. Set below road level in attractive grounds. Large, modern bungalow located set back from the Stone End Unlisted street amid mature foliage. Neutral Not visible from the roadway.

Set below street level, Gable Cottages are a picturesque pair of rural Victorian dwellings.

- 25 -

Originally part of the maltings complex. Probably late 18th-/early 19th-century cottage with ragstone ground floor. First floor of the main range is red and grey brick chequering. Ground floor window surrounds with brick quoins. Casement window replacements detract somewhat from the Chambers Cottage & character of the building. Unlisted Positive Cherry Orchard Half-hipped clay tile roof with hipped dormers. The main elevation of Cherry Orchard has been altered more recently and is of less uniform appearance. A mix of materials includes weatherboarding, render, ragstone, and brick. Inappropriate modern door and window replacements detract from the character of the complex. Early 18th century. This building has evolved from an oast house, to a maltings, a store, and now a house. Red and grey Malthouse Cottage Listed Grade II Essential brick Flemish bond with ragstone and weather- boarding. Very large circular kiln with cogged brick eaves cornice. 17th-century timber- framed house or barn with 19th-century features, including the façade: Flemish bond in mostly red Holly Tree Cottage Listed Grade II brick with grey-brick Essential (Holly Tree House) chequering to northeast. Boarded door and casement windows contribute to the cottage character.

- 26 -

Likely built as a barn in the 18th century, converted to a dwelling in the 20th century. Built in 2 sections Rose Cottage Listed Grade II Essential with a timber frame, rendered and weatherboarded. Plain tile roof. Circular oast kiln in Flemish bond brick. Steeply-pitched clay tile roof with cogged eaves detailing. Cowl has been removed. An oast complex appears on this site in the Rose Cottage Oast the 1876 Ordnance Survey Unlisted Positive House map but this circular kiln is not indicated until 1908. Was given permission to be converted to ancillary accommodation for Rose Cottage in 1989. Currently has modern flat roof extension to north end. Originally an open-hall farmhouse dating from the late 14th century with alterations through the 20th century. Exposed timber framing with render Belks (White Cottage) Listed Grade II infill. Evidence of modern Essential intervention, such as the casement windows, compromise its character somewhat, resulting in a Grade II listing despite its early date. Probably originated as a barn, now a pair of cottages. 16th-century, timber-framed with 19th- Tulip Cottage & Lilac century red brick façade in Listed Grade II Essential Cottage Flemish bond. Prominent central chimney stack. Boarded doors and casement windows, currently painted white.

- 27 -

Set in attractive grounds, a 1930s bungalow of yellow brick in stretcher bond. Low-pitched roof of asbestos shingles. A well- made building of its period which is neutral in Bramley Unlisted Neutral character on its own architectural quality. However, its low height and spacious grounds are important to the open nature of the Conservation Area at this point. Timber-framed house originally built in the 17th century with early 19th- century alterations, including the rendered façade. Front elevation of Georgian design, The Limes Listed Grade II incorporating Essential symmetrically placed, 16- pane sash windows, and a central panelled door with fanlight under a porch with engaged Doric columns. Half-hipped, plain tile roof with two dormer windows. Built in the 1960s in a traditional vernacular style with clay tiles and red brick cladding in stretcher Graynoth Place Unlisted bond. Casement windows Neutral and a clay tile roof. A good example of a modern house built to blend with its surroundings.

- 28 -

Likely dating from the late 19th century, possibly a former agricultural or service building to Synyards. Red brick in Flemish bond with prominent gable end to street with exposed timbers, render infill, finial Swallows Unlisted Positive and bargeboard details. Plain clay tile roof. Modern garage with link extension also in red brick. Replacement casement windows somewhat detract from the building’s otherwise attractive appearance. Wealden open-hall house originating in the late-15th century. Significantly restored in 1905. Close- studded timber framing with render infill. Moulded bargeboards and other timber features. Steeply- Synyards & Path Listed Grade I Essential pitched hipped roof with prominent front gable. Irregular fenestration includes latticed transom and casement windows. Set within a hedged garden, it is difficult to view from the street.

- 29 -

Built after World War II to replace a building believed to be contemporary with Synyards but lost in the late 19th century. Rendered ground floor with clay-tiled first floor. Plain clay tile roof. Leaded casement windows. Little Court Unlisted Positive Interesting tile details surround the front door. Rendered garage extension to north. Because of its siting and detailing, an especially good example of a modern house built to blend with its surroundings. Former agricultural building which likely dates from the 19th century, possibly originally an oasthouse of the square type. Rendered ground floor with some exposed timbers. Clay peg tiles to Forge Cottage Unlisted north and west elevations Positive at first floor, stained weatherboards to south and eastern extension. Hipped and half-hipped clay tile roof. Establishes the character of the Conservation Area when entering from the south.

- 30 -

Historically connected, these two buildings at the southern end of

Otham Street represent different time periods, architectural styles, historical uses, and approaches to conservation. Synyards (above) has been painstakingly restored while Forge Cottage (below) has been altered over the years yet remains sensitive to its context.

- 31 -

IV Conclusions

Otham Conservation Area is a well-preserved example of an affluent medieval village which still maintains a strong sense of identity today. The age and variety of building and settlement types reflects the village’s long history. With Otham’s high proportion of high quality listed buildings, working farms, views over the countryside and attractive green space, the character Maidstone Borough Council aims to preserve and enhance is its distinctive rural, agricultural qualities.

To provide such protection of the historic environment, development should continue to follow a carefully controlled pattern which is only permitted when modifications or additions would be in character with the area. The detailed street and building analysis carried out in Section III of this Conservation Area Appraisal provides a basis for considering future proposals for redevelopment or alterations. According to this analysis, Otham has an unusually high number of buildings categorised as offering a “positive” or “essential” contribution to the character of the Conservation Area; the preservation of their distinctive features is vital to the retention of Otham’s unique character. As there are no buildings which are categorised as having a “negative” character, proposals to demolish existing structures will rarely be considered appropriate. Only those whose character is considered “neutral” would normally be considered as possible candidates for demolition or significant alteration, and only where the new proposal offers the opportunity for the site to make a positive or essential contribution to the area.

Considering the quality and beauty of Otham Conservation Area, it is important to ensure that, where redevelopment is appropriate in principle, it is of suitable form, scale and quality. At the building level, structures should be limited to two storeys (plus attic where appropriate) and should adhere to established building lines, utilise good quality of materials which reflect those currently predominant, and be of high architectural standard. In order to achieve an appropriate form of development, it may prove necessary to consider the relaxation of normal planning standards in some instances.

The siting of any new development within the historic landscape should also consider locally-established patterns. Generally speaking, this provides for large gardens and other green space between buildings or clusters of buildings. Some areas of settlement have evolved historically as denser than others but overall buildings are sporadically scattered in informal patterns. This pattern and the local topography have resulted in a number of important views from the Conservation Area. As the setting for the Conservation Area, these views are to be protected. All of these patterns are crucial to the character of Otham; therefore, increasing density significantly within the Conservation Area or in areas which provide its characteristic views is to be strongly discouraged whenever possible. This is supported by the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan regarding development in the countryside, in which Otham is not identified as a settlement in which development would be encouraged.

- 32 -

The evaluation that resulted in this Appraisal supports the legitimacy of the boundary lines that were established in the 1992 extension of the Otham Conservation Area as a cohesive group of buildings and spaces with special architectural or historic interest. In the future, the possibility of minor adjustments may be considered to ensure that the Conservation Area follows sensible boundary lines along individual properties. There may also be a case for the consideration of the cluster of buildings located southeast of the Conservation Area – known as Otham Hole – for designation as a separate conservation area. Further study of this area will form part of the future Management Plan.

Given the Conservation Area’s rural character, it is important to note the contribution of trees. Within the Conservation Area, it is necessary for 6 weeks notice in writing to be given of any proposed works to trees with a trunk diameter greater than 75mm measured at a height of 1.5 metres above ground level. In the case of any sites coming forward for redevelopment the Council will require tree surveys, assessments and protection measures to be submitted with any planning application wherever trees are present. Where expedient it will seek to protect suitable trees by the making of Tree Preservation Orders, of which the Conservation Area already has one as well as two woodland orders. In relation to significant trees existing within the Conservation Area it will be important to seek their retention or replacement if appropriate as trees are major contributors to the character of Otham.

As mentioned previously, a cause of loss of character is often not directly due to redevelopment but instead the cumulative impact of individually relatively minor alterations. This can include replacement windows, loss of porches/door cases, the changing of roof materials, the installation of inappropriate fencing or excessively high hedges. Together such changes can result in the loss of original character which provides a conservation area with its local distinctiveness. These processes are slowed down by Conservation Area designation, but the making of an Article 4(2) Direction would give the Council greater powers to prevent such alterations where they would impact upon the character of the Conservation Area. The evaluation of Otham as a possible candidate for an Article 4(2) Direction will happen during the process of developing a management plan.

Essentially, therefore, it is important to preserve even minor features which contribute to the character of the Conservation Area and give local distinctiveness. In order to enhance Otham’s significant rural character, the management plan which follows from this Conservation Area Appraisal should additionally include: i. A programme of re-instatement of original details, especially windows, doors, and decorative features. ii. The establishment of guidance notes for appropriate boundary walls, hedges, and fences. Although Otham does not currently face any direct threats or present any major detractors to its historical character, it is all the more important to continue on the path of carefully managed development so that its historical significance is protected.

- 33 -

OTHAM PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2020–2035

Our vision is that Otham be recognised as an important, ancient historic village nestled in a unique rural setting, with a vibrant community at its heart, providing a green oasis for the visiting population of Maidstone and part of a ‘Green Corridor’ that stretches from the edges of Maidstone, through the parish eastwards towards Leeds village. It should continue to thrive, meeting the evolving needs of the community while preserving the ancient core of Otham Village, its Conservation Area, its numerous listed buildings and its rural character. CONTENTS

page 1. Introduction 3 2. About Otham Parish 4 3. Objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan 7 4. Heritage, Conservation and Landscape Protection 8 5. Enhancing Green Space and Biodiversity Value 19 6. Anti-coalescence 23 7. Promoting active and sustainable travel 25 8. Managing the built environment 28 9. Community and Leisure 32

Appendix 1 Description of and justification for local Green Spaces 34 Appendix 2 Walker Survey 39 Appendix 3 Heritage Walks 40 Appendix 4 Gore Court, Otham 48 Appendix 5 The SSSI at Spot Lane Quarry 50

Bishops, Avery Lane

2 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION 1.5 Neighbourhood Plans must be in line with European Regulations on Strategic 1.1 The Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan is Environmental Assessment and Habitat a planning document. It is part of the regulations. They must also have regard Government’s approach to planning, for national planning policy; contribute to which aims to give local people more say sustainable development principles and about what goes on in their area. conform generally to the strategic 1.2 The Neighbourhood Plan provides a policies of the Maidstone Borough vision for the future of the community, Council Local Plan. The Parish Council has and sets out clear planning policies to considered all of the strategic policies of realise this vision. It covers the period the local plan and this Neighbourhood from (2020 to 2035). Plan focuses on those of local 1.3 The Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan importance. has been shaped by the community 1.6 The Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan through extensive and direct consultation gives local people the opportunity to with the people of Otham and others with have a say in how the parish should an interest in the Parish. evolve. Following a successful 1.4 How the Neighbourhood Plan fits into referendum, this plan will become part of the Planning System the Maidstone Development Plan and will Maidstone Borough Council approved the influence planning decisions made by the designation of Otham as a local authority. Neighbourhood Area on 1st August 2017. The Neighbourhood Area follows the Otham Parish boundary (see map below).

Otham Neighbourhood Area

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 3 ABOUT OTHAM PARISH

2. ABOUT OTHAM PARISH corridor’ of which Otham parish is an integral part performs an important 2.1 Otham has significant heritage value and function which the Otham Neighbourhood this is described in Chapter 4 ‘Heritage, Plan seeks to protect and enhance. Conservation and Landscape Protection’. 2.9 Evidential Value. As well as the church 2.2 Social and Communal Value. The parish parish records preserved in the Kent is characterised by open farmland lying History and Library Centre (KHLC), there alongside and between mature wooded is other extensive material relating to the hills with some excellent views of manors of Otham and Stoneacre which, neighbouring parishes including, historically, made up the village. The Bearsted, Leeds and Langley. At the Otham Conservation Area Appraisal, centre lies the Conservation Area which was approved by Maidstone Borough Council in February 2009, highlights the history of the area and describes both key listed buildings and others of positive value as well as giving further references to documentary evidence concerning the village. 2.10 Archaeological Interest centres on the extraction of ragstone in the village and the survival of part of the medieval quarry. In addition, the medieval hall houses form an important group of

View to Langley survivals and historical resource while Kent County Council Heritage 2.3 The church serves the people of Otham, Environment Record holds details of Langley, Downswood, Willington and individual archaeolological findings. Madginford. The nursery school which is held in the village hall, has drawn children 2.11 A Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) from a similar area for many years. An is sited on the northwest boundary of the annual village fete on The Green brings village at its boundary with Downswood. back past villagers who now live in the See Appendix 5 for a description of surrounding area and revives the the site. collective memory of the village. 2.12 Designated Landscapes. ‘Stoneacre’ is a 2.4 Numerous footpaths and bridleways allow National Trust house and garden within visitors, whether on cycle, horse or foot, the Conservation Area, but an early 19th easy access to the village from the century park and garden was created surrounding parishes particularly around ‘Gore Court’ on the western side Maidstone town. of the village. 2.5 Bearsted Football Club and Rumwood Cricket Club have their playing fields here. 2.6 The White Horse Public House at the junction of White Horse Lane and Honey Lane was built in 1909. 2.7 Ancient Bicknor Wood is owned and managed by Bicknor Woods Residents Community Group as an amenity for local people. 2.8 The position of Otham parish lying to the east of Maidstone allows it to act as an important part of a wider ‘Green Corridor’ of beautiful open countryside to the east, with the Downs including the Pilgrims Way lying to the North. This ‘Green Stoneacre

4 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 ABOUT OTHAM PARISH

2.13 Aesthetic Value. The village of Otham as did the farming of pigs, chickens and connects the important green space of cattle. The resulting land mainly went into Mote Park in the centre of Maidstone to arable crops and sheep farming. the rural countryside which extends In Otham today there is a variety of eastwards to Leeds Castle. Because the farming undertaken by long established land is actively farmed, Otham is itself an local farmers. attractive green area, providing At the northern end of Otham lies outstanding views of the surrounding Greenhill Farm. Here free range Christmas countryside. Many of the houses are turkeys; chickens for the table and lambs timber framed or use a mix of brick and are farmed. In addition, there is stabling ragstone in their construction. for horses. 2.14 Landmark Status. The village green lying Stoneacre Farm has grazing for sheep within the Conservation Area, was gifted and horses and land is also used for fruit as a memorial to those who fell in the farming. Horses are also stabled at First World War. The Church of St. Stoneacre Farm to cater for the extensive Nicholas and Church House (built on the horse riding which takes place in and site of the Court House) form a significant around Otham. group on the western side of the village. Arable farming occurs in the fields to the 2.15 Group Value. The development of the west of Otham Street. Len Valley is similar to the Loose Valley both geographically and in sharing a history of ragstone quarrying and paper making. These two valleys form green spokes radiating from Maidstone emphasising its reputation as the centre of the Garden of England. 2.16 Due to the presence of a ‘Limestone Hythe Formation – (Kentish ragstone)’, most of the parish is designated as a Kent County Council Minerals Safeguarding area. Because of the geological nature of ragstone formation, ‘swallow’ (sink) holes may appear in the parish; hence the name Otham Hole to the area in the southernmost part of the parish. 2.17 Farming in Otham. Otham has a long In addition there is extensive fruit farming. history of farming first recorded in the W.B. Chambers & Son of Oakdene Farm Domesday Book. employ a large number of people In the 14th and 15th Centuries extensive including up to eighty people who work ragstone quarrying took place. This was in Otham. Ninety acres of farmland to shape the land and the results of produce 400 tonnes of raspberries, quarrying can be seen today in the valley blueberries, blackberries and currants. that borders the Village Green and The fruit is sold to supermarkets and local extends southwards to Honey Lane. stores. Hop and fruit growing is recorded in the Otham’s agricultural acreage is being 18th century. At that time fruit trees were reduced by extensive use of grade 2 larger than seen today and this allowed farmland for housing development. At the grazing of sheep in the same field as least one of the long-established farming those used for fruit production. families in the parish believes that this Alternatively nuts or currants were grown shrinkage of the available farmland under the trees. together with increased traffic and Hop production that had developed in footfall is threatening the continuation Otham declined in the 1950s and 1960s, of farming in Otham.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 5 Policy H1(6) – North of Sutton Road (286 dwellings of which 100 collectively known as The Coppice are within Otham Parish) Policy H1(7) North of Bicknor Wood (190 dwellings exclusively within Otham Parish in the original plan but now approved for 250) Policy H1(8) West of Church Road (440 dwellings exclusively within Otham Parish) Policy H1(9) Bicknor Farm (335 dwellings

Greenhill House of which approximately 225 will be within the parish boundary). 2.18 In the 1911 census there were just under 100 dwellings in Otham with the majority All of the above together with in the historic centre and the remainder consultation with local residents provided dispersed across the parish. 100 years input to the Parish Council’s development later this number had increased to 193 of its vision for Otham Parish: mainly through developments in two That Otham be recognised as an areas – in and around the triangle formed important, ancient historic village by White Horse Lane, Honey Lane and nestled in a unique rural setting, with a Simmonds Lane and on the western edge vibrant community at its heart, of the parish as part of the large Senacre providing a green oasis for the visiting Wood development. These newer homes population of Maidstone and part of a are built in styles reflecting the era in ‘Green Corridor’ that stretches from the which they were built. edges of Maidstone, through the parish Relative to the number of dwellings eastwards towards Leeds village. It existing in Otham prior to 2011, should continue to thrive, meeting the considerable building has already taken evolving needs of the community while place or is planned both within the area preserving the ancient core of Otham covered by this plan and on its Village, its Conservation Area, its boundaries. Within Maidstone Borough numerous listed buildings and its Local Plan, Adopted October 2017 the rural character. following policies are relevant:

6 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 OBJECTIVES OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

3. THE OBJECTIVES OF THE 3.3 That the local community will live healthy NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN lifestyles, making full use of their community centre, village green, local The Otham Neighbourhood Plan aims to green spaces and network of accessible ensure that any development carried out in public footpaths, bridleways and heritage Otham Parish is sustainable and will not result walks. in unacceptable harm to the form and function 3.4 That the agricultural activities and of the village and the wider parish. The Plan community be supported such that the provides local policies on issues of specific rural character of Otham can be assured importance to the community of Otham which and so that future generations of farmers have the objective of retaining, and wherever can thrive here. possible, enhancing the rural character and distinctiveness of the whole parish. It also contains background information and guidance to help developers and planners make good decisions that will benefit the community both now and in the future. As with the vision, the objectives were formulated based upon consultation with local residents and lead to policies to respond to people’s local wishes. 3.1 To meet any future residential needs, any new small-scale additional housing along with alterations and/or extensions to existing dwellings must sit sympathetically with the historic and rural character of the parish of Otham. 3.2 That the natural environment with its agricultural fields, uncultivated wild open spaces, beautiful rural views and profusion of mature woodland and hedgerows be maintained.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 7 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

4. HERITAGE, CONSERVATION revealed during restoration work early in AND LANDSCAPE the 20th century. PROTECTION The remains of a medieval ragstone quarry lie in the centre of the 4.1 Context Conservation Area. Six Wealden Hall Age, Rarity and Survival. Otham lies houses still survive which were built in the Len Valley and is described in around the edges of the quarry in the Domesday. The parish has at its heart a 15th century together with a further three beautiful historic village which contains on the western side of the village close to the majority of the dwellings that existed the church. All the Hall houses are 14th or prior to 2011, the core of which lies within 15th century and ‘Madam Taylor’s’, with its the parish’s Conservation Area. Otham fine Grade II listed brick garden wall, is a lies high up above a steep wooded valley 16th century manor house and other commanding fine views and within sight smaller listed buildings form an important of many fine houses. part of the historic heritage of Otham The Grade 1 listed church of St. Nicholas, parish as do unlisted buildings such as stands a kilometre or so away from the The Old School and The Village Hall. A heart of the village. The nave is Norman full description of these appears in the with an early font and memorials to Hendley, Fludd and Bufkin families, including a fine example by Maximilian Colt. The 13th century tower contains one of the oldest bells in Kent. Later additions enlarged the building over the next two centuries which, luckily, suffered little change during the 19th century restoration. Below the church, on the banks of the River Len and opposite the eastern entrance to Mote Park, lies the site of the mill recorded in Domesday, later becoming one of the important paper mills serving the economy of Maidstone in the 18th and 19th centuries. Only the foundations remain. Greenhill Cottage Historic Associations. Of the many fine houses in the parish Wardes is Otham Conservation Appraisal (2009). architecturally the most important dating The detailed analysis contained in the from the late 1300s. Gore Court, which is document states that all the buildings fall Grade II* listed, surrounded by a 19th within the grades Essential, Positive or century park, which is of historic Neutral; none is graded negative. Various importance and details of which are set notable people have lived in the village, out in Appendix 4, is the oldest house for example, following the rebellion of and is made up of two 15th century hall 1554 and the execution of Sir Thomas houses on the foundations of a much Wyatt, his widow, Jane, came here. Their earlier house. Two other hall houses grandson Francis, became the first ‘Synyards’ and ‘Belks’, in Otham Street, lie governor of Virginia. on the edge of the medieval quarry as The earliest recorded footpaths are does a third, ‘Stoneacre’, which is shown on the Ordnance Survey Drawings currently owned and run by the National of 1797 as a network which is very similar Trust. Stoneacre houses a precious to those of the present day. These collection of Blue Dragon china, supplement the local roads and allow kingposts in the hall, and a stained glass short cuts between the groups of houses Madonna of 15th century. The crown scattered over the parish as well as a posts and marvellous wooden window more direct route into Maidstone than sills with the original shutters, were that afforded by the roads.

8 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

Later maps, the tithe (1838) and the GPA3 also states that ‘views, however, historical series of 25 inch Ordnance can of course be valued for reasons other Survey maps (1865 to present), confirm than their contribution to heritage these paths, as well as showing others. significance. They may, for example, be The maps emphasise how important the related to the appreciation of the wider paths were, not only to allow adults to landscape where there may be little or no reach their place of work and children to association with heritage assets.’ attend school but also to allow access to The Otham Conservation Area Appraisal the shops and markets of Maidstone. As (Maidstone Borough Council, 2009) well as providing freedom of movement, confirms that ‘an important feature of these paths linked the green spaces Otham’s character is its internal and through which they travelled and this external landscape setting’. Examples of they continue to do to the present day. the different types of views are shown in The Protection of Views the following views. The Settings of Heritage Assets GPA3 No. 19 shows a view eastwards towards first published by English Heritage in 2015 the Conservation Area and Madam and updated December 2017, provides Taylor’s, the 16C manor house (Grade II advice in accordance with the National listed), across the demesne lands Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and purchased by Thomas Hendly in 1543. the related Planning Practice Guide Equally important are the reverse views (PPG). It emphasises the importance of containing the footpaths used to reach preserving listed buildings and their the Church from Greenhill and the Green settings which allow their significance to for several hundred years, nos. 9 and 10. be appreciated. As well as pointing out The Otham Appraisal comments that the that this will ‘almost always include the wide views towards the North Downs consideration of views’, the document from the vicinity of Green Hill and the goes onto to say that ‘a conservation area War Memorial are particularly important is likely to include the settings of listed to the character of the Conservation Area buildings and have its own setting’. and its setting, nos.7, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. The paper also advises that ‘contextual It further comments that these views and relationships between heritage assets those over the wider landscape of fields apply irrespective of distance’; an and woodland make an important example of this would be the view contribution to Otham’s special rural between the Green and the Church. character, nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 20.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 9 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

While not in the conservation area, GPA3 It is also entirely consistent with The advises that many historic assets have Maidstone Borough Local Plan Policy settings that have been designed to SP18 covering The Historic Environment: enhance their presence, for example the To ensure their continued contribution to early 18C park surrounding Gore Court the quality of life in Maidstone Borough, (Grade II listed), nos. 17 and 18. the characteristics, distinctiveness, The Otham Appraisal concludes by diversity and quality of heritage assets stating that ‘as the setting for the will be protected and, where possible, Conservation Area, these views are to be enhanced. This will be achieved by the protected’. council encouraging and supporting It is vital that the heritage value described measures that secure the sensitive above is maintained and this is entirely restoration, reuse, enjoyment, consistent with The National Planning conservation and/or enhancement of Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph 185 heritage assets, in particular designated which states: assets identified as being at risk, to include: Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the i. Collaboration with developers, historic environment, including heritage landowners, parish councils, groups assets most at risk through neglect, decay preparing neighbourhood plans and or other threats. This strategy should take heritage bodies on specific heritage into account: initiatives including bids for funding; a) the desirability of sustaining and ii. Through the development management enhancing the significance of heritage process, securing the sensitive assets, and putting them to viable uses management and design of development consistent with their conservation; which impacts on heritage assets and their settings; b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation iii. Through the incorporation of positive of the historic environment can bring; heritage policies in neighbourhood plans which are based on analysis of locally c) the desirability of new development important and distinctive heritage; and making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and iv. Ensuring relevant heritage considerations are a key aspect of site d) opportunities to draw on the master plans prepared in support of contribution made by the historic development allocations and broad environment to the character of a place. locations identified in the local plan. 4.2 Local Evidence 94% of residents believe existing views should be retained. (2018) 67% of residents believe that farming in Otham is important as it defines the rural character. (2015) 82% of residents support the Heritage Trails. (2018)

10 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

4.3 Aims Our aim is to provide ‘quality of place’ through: • providing walking routes that encourage residents and visitors to appreciate the historic sites within the parish thereby improving physical and mental health and knowledge and understanding. (See Appendix 3.) • preserving the historical views between listed buildings in sympathy with their environment. • preserving the extensive views of the North Downs as well as allowing appreciation of the countryside and wildlife in its historical environment thus providing both interest and relaxation.

4.4 Policies HC1: Development will be supported provided it does not detract from the recreational and educational value of the designated Otham Heritage Trails. HC2: Protection of views: Development proposals must give consideration to identified short- and long-range views across the countryside and the village and, where appropriate, should seek to safeguard these views.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 11 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

HC2: Protection of views: Map 1

12 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 13 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

HC2: Protection of views: Map 2

14 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 15 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

1. Looking west from Otham Street to East Wood (ancient woodland) 2. Rooks Lane south of Stoneacre. Looking south

3. Fish pond below Stoneacre 4. Stoneacre from the West

5. Stoneacre Lane looking east to Maiden Valley 6. Looking east to Green beside Madam Taylor’s

7. Looking eastwards across the Green from Madam Taylor’s 8. East Wood

16 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

9. Looking west along Len Valley Walk (footpath KM86) 10. West from middle of field A, footpath KM132

11. Looking north to the Downs across field A from the signpost on footpath KM132 in the centre of the field, shown in image 10

12. Looking north from Greenhill Farm to the Downs from footpath KM96

13. Looking north east from the Green to the Downs

15. Looking east from the Green 14. The Green and war memorial looking north east

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 17 HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PROTECTION

16. Wild cherry blossom on the eastern side of East Wood, looking south from footpath KM90

17. The eastern side of the park at Gore Court, looking southwest from footpath KM88

18. Looking east from footpath KM88 towards the conservation area and Madam Taylor’s. 20. Looking south along Holly Farm Road North Downs in background from northern end at junction with bridle way KH264

19. Looking north from north end of Holly Farm Road

18 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 ENHANCING GREEN SPACE AND BIODIVERSITY VALUE

5. ENHANCING GREEN SPACE urban communities rely on Otham for AND BIODIVERSITY VALUE access to natural green space and publicly accessible footpaths. 5.1 Context Otham has a network of footpaths and Maidstone Borough Council’s Analysis of bridleways which have been used Publicly Accessible Green Space in its extensively since the eighteenth century Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy to supplement the local roads and allow (2016) reveals that the 5,860 residents of short cuts between the groups of houses neighbouring Shepway South ward (2014) and public buildings scattered over the only have access to 7.7ha of natural parish. These also link the natural green space, which falls 30ha below the draft spaces through which they travel which standard. Their analysis also highlights a are used daily by residents of Otham, deficiency in the amount of accessible Downswood, Senacre, Langley, Parkwood play areas and allotments available to and Bearsted for walking, running, dog residents in the ward. Also identified is an walking and horse riding and are 11ha deficiency in the amount of natural connected by footpaths to the open space accessible to the 2,800 conservation area. These natural green residents (2014) of the Downswood and spaces and the ancient paths and Otham Ward and a 43ha deficiency in the hedgerows that link them provide a haven neighbouring ward of Bearsted which has for wildlife alongside the seven ancient 8250 residents (2014). Residents of these woodlands that lie within the parish.

GS2: Proposed Local Green Space

2

3 1

5

4

Ancient Woodland Otham Conservation Area Local Plan Housing Allocations

Propsed Local Green Space 1 Grassland between Woolley Road and Church Road and adjoining Glebe 2 Allotments 3 Village Green 4 Rumwood Cricket Club 5 Bearsted Fooball Club

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 19 ENHANCING GREEN SPACE AND BIODIVERSITY VALUE

A major theme of Maidstone Borough designation as Local Green Spaces. As Council’s 2016 Green and Blue required in the NPPF, all are in close Infrastructure Strategy is the importance proximity to residents of Otham, of maintaining and improving valued Downswood or Senacre, are proved open spaces, heritage and tree cover and through consultation to be of special creating well linked green spaces to serve significance to local people and are local new developments. Paragraph 4.81 states, in character and not extensive tracts of ‘access to nature on an everyday basis land. Table 1 opposite sets out how each helps to secure quality of life for all. protected Local green Space meets the Provision of places to access nature is criteria of the NPPF. important for giving everyone the Otham is home to Gore Court, an historic opportunity to take advantage of the parkland and also seven areas of ancient benefits that nature provides. There is woodland and veteran trees as identified substantial evidence that demonstrates in the Maidstone Local Plan. The areas of the value of green spaces and contact ancient woodland within or adjacent to with nature for improving mental well- the boundary of Otham are; Bicknor being and physical health. Natural Wood, East Wood, Pigeon Bank, Puddlets England’s recommended Accessible Wood, West of Church Road and East of Natural Green Space Standard (ANGSt) Woolley Road. which has been adopted by the Borough Bicknor Wood has come under pressure Council, recommends that people live from the developments H1(6), H1(7) and within 300m of a 2ha natural green H1(9) which surround it and the woodland space. Although the natural environment East of Woolley Road is threatened by of the countryside provides a resource for the H1(8) development. able-bodied people in rural areas, local, accessible natural green space should be Paragraph 175c of the NPPF states that, available close to where people live for ‘Development resulting in the loss or those less able.’ deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or The existing, well used, natural green veteran trees) should be refused, unless spaces in Otham, connected by there are wholly exceptional reasons and footpaths, that sit adjacent to Senacre a suitable compensation strategy exists. and to Downswood, are used as the accessible natural green spaces 5.2 Local Evidence recommended by Natural England, but 100% of residents believe it is important do not currently have a formal to maintain and protect our existing designation. green spaces. (2018) Otham also has some formal amenity 96% of residents believe the village green green spaces and sports facilities which is vital, important or nice to have. (2015) include: the village green with children’s 72% of residents believe the allotments play area, Bearsted football club’s ground are vital, important or nice to have. (2015) at Honey Lane, Rumwood cricket ground 37% of residents believe the football club and the allotments. is vital, important or nice to have. (2015) Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states that, 5.3 Aims ‘The designation of land as Local Green • To secure high quality green Space through local and neighbourhood infrastructure in Otham through the plans allows communities to identify and designation of ‘Local Green Spaces’ protect green areas of particular that are special to the community, to importance to them.’ These designated protect them for current and future Local Green Spaces are given the same generations, not only those resident protection as Green Belts. Through in Otham, but also for Downswood, consultation with local residents, six sites Bearsted, Madginford, Senacre, in the village were identified as being of Parkwood and Langley. great local importance and of these, five • Local Green Spaces will form part of have been deemed appropriate for a network of paths and open spaces

20 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 ENHANCING GREEN SPACE AND BIODIVERSITY VALUE

Table 1 – Local Green Space Assessment Reasonably close Local Green proximity to the Space community Demonstrably special Local in character The Adjoins existing Includes local, informal footpaths used The Glebe field, which forms the setting for grassland housing in extensively for recreation by both the Grade II 15th century Rectory, has been between Woolley Road, pedestrians and horse riders. Includes a meadow for at least 200 years, described Woolley in the Senacre a veteran oak tree covered by a TPO as ‘barnyard and house meadow’ in the Road and area of urban and a veteran beech tree. The southern 1838 Otham Tithe Map. With the adjoining Church Maidstone field has been used in the past for southern field, they provide a place where Road and H1(8), football training as an unofficial playing people meet while walking their dogs. Their and the a proposed field. It supports a large slow-worm informal footpaths connect the settlements adjoining development of population. Daily walkers on the of Downswood and Senacre as well as Glebe field 440 dwellings site explained in a 2018 survey that, different parts of Otham. They provide ‘without it we should be lost’ and that, open countryside at the edge of urban ‘dog walking here is my therapy’ Maidstone The In Green Hill, the The field was set up in 1590 as a Very close to the centre of the village, at allotments settlement at charitable trust, The Hendley Charity, the edge of the conservation area, with the northern end and the income raised from the views over the Len Valley of the village allotment rents is still donated today to centre a charity supporting homeless people in Maidstone. The 25 plots are used by both Otham residents and those from the surrounding area The village At the heart Owned by the Parish Council having Focal point for the village in the heart of green of the village, been gifted to the village in 1919 as a the conservation area. Provides the setting within the memorial to those killed in WW1. It is for a number of listed buildings and has conservation the site of the village war memorial important views over the Len valley and the area and the Otham village sign. It includes North Downs public seating, a children’s playground and football goal. Used by the local preschool children. It is the location of the annual village fete Rumwood Adjoins H1(9), Founded over 120 years ago by local Popular and well used village amenity. Cricket the approved landowners for their workers, the club Provides a vital green space to prevent Club Monchelsea Park is now held in trust as a community the coalescence of Otham with urban development of club, used by residents of Otham, Maidstone following the completion of the 335 dwellings surrounding villages and Maidstone. Sutton Road developments designated Also used as Loose Cricket Club’s in the Maidstone Local Plan. Adjacent to ground. Outfields are used by Bearsted Bearsted Football Club Football Club when not in use for cricket, so the land is in use all year The land Adjoins Honey Land has been leased to Bearsted Popular and well used village amenity. used by Lane and the Football Club since 1998, a club Provides a vital green space to prevent Bearsted Three Tees with 20 teams drawn from the local the coalescence of Otham with urban Football housing community. Site has 2 stands with Maidstone following the completion of Club seating, flood lights and changing H1(7) Bicknor Wood development and rooms. Approximately 60 supporters the other Sutton Road developments attend each match designated in the Maidstone Local Plan. Adjacent to Rumwood Cricket Club

enabling safe pedestrian movement the construction of an additional 1,000 within Otham, between the new dwellings in the parish (as designated in housing developments designated in Maidstone’s Local Plan), Otham remains Maidstone’s Local Plan and into Otham an attractive place to live and spend from surrounding urban areas. leisure time by maintaining green • To ensure that Otham remains a green spaces of value to the community. oasis in urban Maidstone, providing • To retain trees of significant amenity opportunities for walking and physical value. activity and generally adding to the • To preserve ancient woodland, veteran quality of life of people throughout trees, ancient wood-pasture and historic the borough. parkland from any further pressures of • To ensure that the seven areas of erosion and damage to natural habitat ancient woodland are protected from from development and any other development. activities. • To ensure that despite the massive • To seek to secure appropriate increase in Otham’s population through management for these natural assets.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 21 ENHANCING GREEN SPACE AND BIODIVERSITY VALUE

5.4 Policies GS1: Development should be sympathetic and maintain a sense of openness with protection of views. Any possible development around or within these Green Spaces should respect the aims of our NP. GS2: The following sites will be designated as Local Green Spaces: 1. The grassland between Woolley Road and Church Road and the adjoining Glebe field. 2. The allotments. 3. The Village Green. 4. Rumwood Cricket Club. 5. The land used by Bearsted Football Club. (See map GS2 on page 19 and Appendix 1.) GS3: The trees that lie within the site of Bearsted Football Club, which is a designated Local Green Space, will be maintained and preserved as a wildlife habitat and to protect the amenity of The protected veteran oak tree in the centre of The Glebe field. neighbouring residents. The veteran English Oak tree in the GS4: No physical boundary should be centre of The Glebe must continue to be erected between the two fields that protected and sapling trees in the Glebe make up the grassland between field must remain undisturbed to ensure Woolley Road and Church Road to the slow growth of new woodland as an maintain the freedom of movement and asset for local people for generations to a natural corridor across the open space come and as a haven for wildlife. for walkers, horse riders and wildlife and to protect the character of the area. GS5: Ancient woodlands, veteran trees and trees of significant amenity value will The two fields will be preserved as be protected from development. A zone informal grass meadow for the amenity of 15m surrounding each area of local people, for the preservation of of ancient woodland will be retained wildlife and to protect the character of as open space and must remain the area. undeveloped. No damaging activity will be undertaken in this zone other than farming. The historic parkland of Gore Court should receive the same consideration as other forms of ancient woodland. GS6: Proposals from land owners to set aside land for new, native woodland to generate carbon revenue will be supported.

The description of, and justification for the Green Spaces is given in Appendix 1.

Bearsted Football Club

22 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 ANTI-COALESCENCE

6. ANTI-COALESCENCE Assessment of 27 February 2009 places great weight on the importance of the 6.1 Context surrounding green and agricultural As noted in chapter 4: Heritage, spaces to the character and integrity of conservation and landscape protection, the Conservation Area. This in the context Otham is an important historical and rural of both maintaining and enhancing its asset on the edge of Maidstone, rural character and also preserving the representing the transition from an urban views from and within it: to a rural environment. However, the ‘Increasing density significantly within the housing developments allocated within Conservation Area or in areas which the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 provide its characteristic views is to be have occupied or will occupy much of the strongly discouraged whenever possible. green space around and within Otham, This is supported by the Maidstone threatening those characteristics. The Borough-Wide Local Plan regarding Maidstone Borough Local Plan recognises development in the countryside, in which the risk from development of important Otham is not identified as a settlement in assets of this nature and addresses it which development would be encouraged.’ within Policy SS1 Maidstone Borough Spatial Strategy: However, the developments to the south and west of the village have significantly ‘In other locations, protection will be reduced the green space around it and given to the rural character of the have already impacted that rural character borough avoiding coalescence between so prized within the Conservation Area settlements, including Maidstone and Assessment. This is also at the root of surrounding villages, and Maidstone and many of the comments made by local the Medway Gap/Medway Towns residents and by those surveyed whilst conurbation.’ using some of the allocated Local Green Furthermore, the Maidstone Borough Spaces about the need to control any Council Otham Conservation Area further development very carefully. 6.1 An assessment of the relative anti-coalescence function of land parcels

A

D1 B

D2

E1

E2

F1 C

F2

Otham Conservation Area Local Plan Housing Allocations A B C High anti-coalescence function. D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 Moderate anti-coalescence function.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 23 ANTI-COALESCENCE

An assessment of the land parcels opposite the lychgate. Follow the path between Otham and its surrounding across the large field. Note the lovely settlements and an evaluation of their views of the North Downs to your left and relative performance in preventing look back over your shoulder at views of coalescence identified three separate the Church. In this field you may see parcels of land in Otham that are buzzards or hear skylarks in season.) The individually preventing coalescence. Conservation area assessment notes that, These are designated as having high ‘With Otham’s high proportion of high- anti-coalescence importance. quality listed buildings, working farms, Marked on map 6.1, Parcel A, which views over the countryside and attractive separates the Otham Conservation Area green space, the character Maidstone from Downswood, is protected from Borough Council aims to preserve and development by its designation in the enhance is its distinctive rural, agricultural Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan as qualities.’ This agricultural field is vital to a Landscape of Local value. Parcel C, maintaining these agricultural views from which separates the Three Tees area of the conservation area. Otham from Maidstone (Senacre), Many residents of nearby Downswood use Boughton Monchelsea (Parkwood) and the Public Rights of Way within this field Langley is the land used by Bearsted because of the sense of rural countryside Football Club, which will be protected associated with it, exactly in keeping with from development by its designation as a the role and vision of Otham as a green Local Green Space. However Parcel B, oasis for the visiting people of Maidstone. which separates the Otham Conservation 6.2 Local Evidence Area from Downswood and Maidstone is 100% of residents believe it is important afforded no protection. to maintain and protect our existing Five further parcels of land have been green spaces. (2018) identified as forming half of a pair of land 67% of residents believe that farming in parcels that prevent coalescence. These Otham is important as it defines the rural are identified on map 6.1 as being of character. (2015) moderate anti-coalescence importance. 68% of residents believe no further These include Rumwood Cricket Club housing is needed in Otham. (2015) which will be afforded protection by designation as Local Green Space. 6.3 Aims To ensure that further developments not Crucially, the only unprotected parcel of already identified in the Maidstone Local land preventing coalescence between Plan do not result in the coalescence of urban Maidstone and Otham Conservation the village of Otham with the Maidstone Area is the agricultural field to the east of urban areas of Downswood, Bearsted, Church Road opposite site H1 (8) West of Senacre and Parkwood or the villages of Church Road, Otham – 440 dwellings Langley and Leeds. (Parcel B on map 6.1). This field, which now borders the boundary of urban Maidstone on two sides, directly connects 6.4 Policies Downswood and urban Maidstone to the AC1: • Housing development will be Otham Conservation Area and supported if it does not result in the development of this land would fuse the coalescence of the village of Otham three in contravention of Maidstone with urban Maidstone or other villages. Borough Council Policy SS1. However, it is • Within the parcels of land identified not just the issue of coalescence that as having high or moderate anti- makes this field so important. It offers vital coalescence value (shown on map 6.1), uninterrupted views from the west of the any development which results in a conservation area to the Grade I village significant adverse impact on church of St Nicholas and is a key part of maintaining its anti-coalescence Heritage Walks 1 and 2. (From Otham function will not be supported. Church, take the footpath (KM 88) directly

24 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 PROMOTING ACTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL

7. PROMOTING ACTIVE AND transport networks, to retail outlets and SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL community facilities such that access to these can be obtained without generating 7.1 Context road traffic. KM94 that runs outside the Otham Parish benefits from a network of western boundary of the football grounds Public Rights of Way (PROW) in the form (Green Space GS4) represents an of public footpaths and bridleways that increasingly important link between the serve multiple purposes. PROW that run housing developments within the village through the parish include KM 86, 87, 88, and the retail operations and school 92, 94, 95 (Bridle way), 96, 97, 132. In across the Sutton Road addition, one end of KM80 and KB37 are All of the above is entirely consistent with at the parish boundary. Heritage Walks The National Planning Policy Framework have been written that provide the (NPPF) Paragraph 91 which states: opportunity to understand and protect ‘planning policies and decisions should the historical and geographical context of aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe Otham and the importance of the parish, places which enable and support healthy whilst using the network of PROW. The lifestyles, especially where this would definitive map and statement are held at address identified local health and well- Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone. being needs – for example through the The footpaths and bridleways provide the provision of safe and accessible green opportunity for local residents and infrastructure, sports facilities, local visitors to enjoy the countryside and shops, access to healthier food, wildlife and exercise themselves, their Public Rights Of way allotmentsOtham CP and layouts that encourage dogs and their horses. They also provide walkingAuthor: and cycling.’ links between different communities, to Date: 04/06/2019 Scale: 1:16545.72183 Public Footpaths Public rights of way

© Crown copyright and database right. All rights reserved (100060426) 2019

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 25 PROMOTING ACTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL

It is also entirely consistent with Kent It is possible to get into Maidstone town County Council’s Rights of Way centre using cycle ways from the Improvement Plan adopted on northern edge of Otham parish but there 15 December 2018 and the vision of are no recognised safe cycle routes that which is: can connect the main residential areas to ‘To provide a high quality, well-maintained these cycle ways. Public Rights of Way network, that is well As at the beginning of 2019 none of the used and enjoyed. The use of the network new developments wholly or partially will support the Kent economy, within Otham Parish that have been encourage active lifestyles and completed have included areas sustainable travel choices that support specifically for bus routes and bus stops health and wellbeing, and contribute to hence most of the new residents who making Kent a great place to live, work wish to use buses need to walk significant and visit.’ distances to find a bus stop. In the survey of residents of Otham in 7.2 Local Evidence 2015 48% of residents indicated they used 80% of residents walk through the village. the paths and bridleways 11 or more times (2015) per month with 21% using them more 21% of residents walk through the village than 20 times. with children. (2015) A number of the roads around Otham 30% of residents cycle through the have become increasingly busy village. (2015) associated with the increased number of 87% of residents use public footpaths and houses in South Maidstone and their use bridleways at least once a month. (2015) by commuters avoiding the congested links between the Sutton Road and the 48% of residents use public footpaths M20. Since these roads are narrow and more than 10 times per month. (2015) do not have pavements, the footpaths 48% of residents have used the Len Valley provide a much safer option for walk. (2015) pedestrians. 78% of residents support the construction In The Maidstone Borough Local Plan, the of wheelchair-friendly footpaths. (2018) Borough Council have expressed a desire 7.3 Aims to bring about a modal shift in transport. • To ensure the availability of a high This is defined as replacing a saturated quality, appropriately maintained means of transport with another to make network of paths, bridleways and cycle the first less congested. In that context ways that is well used, provides private car use is regarded as the opportunities for exercise, leisure and saturated means and the replacement open-air recreation and serves to would be to bus, cycle or foot. reduce the amount of road traffic via links: – between housing developments and the public transport network, to encourage the wider use of sustainable transport in support of sustainable development. – between housing developments. – between housing developments and local retail operations that allow residents to walk or cycle to these rather than drive to them. – between developments and local amenities.

View across the village green

26 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 PROMOTING ACTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL

• To ensure new developments provide easy and convenient access to bus services. • To develop and maintain connections with Public Rights of Way (PROW) external to the parish to encourage residents of other parts of Maidstone Borough to enjoy the health benefits of being in the countryside, to support Otham’s vision to be a green oasis for Maidstone and to provide links between green spaces both within and outside Otham Parish. • To develop and maintain cycle routes across the parish that connect with those into Maidstone town Centre.

7.4 Policies ST1: In association with the Borough and County Councils, the Parish Council will look to develop a parish-wide cycle and footway strategy, providing safer routes and junctions and improved connectivity to local facilities. ST2: Public rights of way across the Parish and linking with the surrounding countryside will be retained. Improvements to the quality and maintenance of the routes will be sought where they provide commuting routes or access to local schools, retail and medical facilities or to bus stops. ST3: All developments should include proposals which enhance the attractiveness of walking and cycling. ST4: The public footpath KM94 will be maintained to a high standard, suitable for wheelchair and pushchair users. A new gate will be provided to replace the current stile to allow wheelchair access to and from the southerly end of KM94. ST5: Subject to other considerations within the plan, development adjacent to public footpaths should not affect their amenity as a leisure facility, harm the views of the North Downs or have an adverse impact on the Heritage Walks identified on map GS2 and in Appendix 3.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 27 MANAGING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

8. MANAGING THE BUILT important these settlements retain their ENVIRONMENT individual identities, as there can be a delicate balance between settlement 8.1 Context proximity and separation.’ The people of As noted in Chapter 2 ‘About Otham Otham overwhelmingly wish for Otham to Parish’ implementation of the Maidstone remain a small village, retaining its Borough Local Plan adopted in October identity as a rural village separate from 2017 will add approximately 1000 new the larger settlements of urban dwellings to a parish which previously Maidstone, Bearsted, Downswood and contained under 200. This represents a the villages of Langley and Leeds. massive 500% increase over Otham is a dark village, with only 4 street approximately 10 years which threatens lights in White Horse Lane. In the 2015 its significant heritage and rural nature. village survey, 81% of residents were satisfied with dark lanes and stated that further lighting is not required, commenting that, “Part of the pleasure of living in a rural community is the lack of light pollution” and, “lighting is not needed as it’s intrusive to wildlife and destroys the rural atmosphere.” Paragraph 4.85 of Maidstone Borough Council’s 2016 Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy states that, ‘Careful consideration is required through the planning process to ensure that Church Road increased light pollution from urban expansion does not impact on the This weight of new development biodiversity of local green and blue continues to prompt local residents to infrastructure. Adverse effects can express concerns about the ability of the potentially include causing migratory local road network to cope with the birds to collide with lit buildings, false anticipated additional traffic associated dawns which disrupt bird behaviour, moth with these developments and the deaths, and the disruption of tree and resulting pressures on other local plant biological mechanisms that are services. controlled by day length.’ The Parish Council conducted a public Paragraph 125 of the NPPF states that consultation in February and March 2018 ‘Design policies should be developed with to secure views from local residents local communities so they reflect local regarding the principal objectives of the aspirations, and are grounded in an Otham Neighbourhood Plan. 81% of understanding and evaluation of each respondents indicated they wanted no area’s defining characteristics.’ The further major housing development people of Otham value their dark lanes beyond that already identified. and lack of light pollution. The large Paragraph 4.1 of the 2016 MBC Green and housing developments H1(6), H1(7), H1(8) Blue Infrastructure Strategy states that and H1(9) will all include lighting schemes ‘Maidstone’s towns and villages are in line with Maidstone Local Plan Policy shaped and made distinctive by the local DM8, but against the proven wishes of landscape. The overall settlement pattern local people. across the borough’s countryside is characterised by a large number of small villages surrounding a handful of larger, more substantial settlements. It is

28 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 MANAGING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

8.2 Local Evidence In line with the central theme of the NPPF, 81% of residents believe no further any new development will be sustainable housing is needed in Otham. (2018) by retaining and supporting our 93% of residents feel that it is important agricultural industry, supporting health that building style be included in the and wellbeing and protecting and ONP. (2018) enhancing the natural environment by supporting biodiversity, minimising 59% of residents feel that the current pollution and mitigating and adapting to level of street lighting i.e. dark lanes is climate change. adequate. (2015) 8.3 Aims 8.4 Policies In order both to protect and preserve the BE1: Development Proposals ancient core of Otham village and the wider parish and to meet the parish’s Development will be supported subject aspiration of remaining a rural village to the following criteria: forming part of a ‘Green Corridor’ that • It does not displace an active use stretches eastwards from urban such as agricultural industry, the Maidstone, the Otham Neighbourhood storage of agricultural machinery, Plan encourages and defines a sensitive employment, including agricultural and selective approach to any future employment, leisure or community development. In practice this will mean facilities. small-scale infill development on what • Development is located on sites that may be described as ‘Windfall Sites’, or encourage easy access to facilities they might for example comprise through walking, cycling and public previously developed sites that have transport to promote health and become available. wellbeing. Within larger In keeping with the vision and aims of this developments, the design promotes plan which take account of the walking within the site to discourage overwhelming view expressed by parish reliance on vehicle use for short residents in the planning survey, March journeys. 2018, any proposal for further large scale • It does not result in significant harm developments in Otham parish will be to the surrounding landscape or the resisted in order to retain its rural and setting of heritage assets most historic character and to prevent especially any listed building or the coalescence of settlements. Conservation Area and its setting. • Any existing hedgerows are retained and strengthened. Damaged or removed hedgerows are replaced with plants of such a size and species and in such positions to mitigate the loss or damage. Existing roadside hedges are reinforced with appropriate species. Openings and boundary treatments reflect local landscape character.

The Coppice

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 29 MANAGING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Bicknor Wood Development

BE2: Building Design BE3: Encouraging Sustainable Development Design proposals should: Development proposals should: • Where practical, include the use of • Demonstrate, where practical, that locally sourced materials to reflect buildings are designed to minimise the area’s character. the amount of energy they need and • Provide good quality internal and the amount of waste they produce, external environments for their users, including the management of grey promoting health and wellbeing. This water and measures to reuse heat includes the building itself through and water. high construction standards, • Where practical and viable, ventilation and appropriate measures incorporate the following sustainable to prevent overheating. measures in new buildings: • Demonstrate careful planning of −− Easy recycling facilities within the aspect and orientation to allow for home and on the development solar gain for heating, natural lighting −− Smart control systems that can be and shading. controlled remotely and promote • Ensure that buildings relate positively energy efficiency to the private, shared and public −− Water efficient devices built in as spaces around them, contributing to standard social interaction and inclusion. −− Water storage in gardens • Embrace new technologies so that −− Grey water recycling new buildings have a long lifespan. This could include low carbon heating −− Space for composting and and energy efficiency measures, high allotments in communities construction standards, smart −− EV charging points technologies and modern methods of −− Solar PV construction. −− Low carbon heating systems

30 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 MANAGING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

White Horse Lane

• Provide ecosystem services. This includes: −− SUDS −− Air quality −− Carbon sequestration −− Biodiversity improvement networks and corridors. −− Green planting BE4: Lighting Lighting associated with new housing developments, recreation and leisure or road safety and traffic calming, if demonstrated to be essential, should: • Minimise light pollution • Minimise energy usage • Limit harm to local residents • Protect biodiversity • Minimise the visual impact on the rural character of the area • Minimise the visual impact on historic buildings Non-essential street lighting will not be permitted.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 31 COMMUNITY AND LEISURE

9. COMMUNITY AND LEISURE 9.1 Context Otham’s Village Hall, originally known as Institute Hall, was built in 1895 as the Men’s Institute, later becoming the Women’s Institute, serving a community of 335 residents (1901 census). Its current use by the local community of 523 residents (2011 census) is limited, due to its small interior dimensions, its location on a narrow country lane with no off road parking and the absence of any outside space. However, a small pre-school operates in the hall, Parish Council Village Hall meetings are held there and the hall is In a large scale village questionnaire used as a polling station and by the undertaken in 2015, 47% of responders community during the summer fete and said that the existing village hall is vital or on Remembrance Sunday, so it currently important and an equal number felt it serves the needs of the residents of the was nice to have. However, many 204 homes in Otham. responses mentioned a new community However, housing allocations in the centre with parking, incorporating a farm adopted Maidstone Local Plan will see the shop, a tea room or bar as being a construction of over 1000 new homes in desirable additional amenity and Otham over the next few years. This expressed a desire for somewhere in the 500% increase in the population of the village for meetings, gatherings and village means that the social and leisure fitness clubs. In a further community needs of the community cannot be met Neighbourhood Questionnaire in 2018, by the existing Village Hall. 56% of responses favoured the construction of a new community centre.

Otham Village Fete

32 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 COMMUNITY AND LEISURE

does not allow. The design and size will respect its surroundings and be future proofed with close regard for the increasing population of the village. A survey of community need for a new village hall is underway to determine the necessity of a new hall and to find a suitable location in the parish. Some financial contributions have already been allocated via Section 106 agreements. The project is supported by both the Parish Council and the Village Hall Committee.

9.4 Policies CL1: Should the survey identify the need for a new village hall, a proposal to build one will be supported where it meets the following criteria: 1. The location, size and access arrangements are supported by the majority of residents following consultation 2. It is accessible to the whole of the village by means of cycling and

Otham annual litter pick walking routes, preferably in a central location 9.2 Local Evidence 3. The village hall should be 94% of residents believe a village hall is accommodated on the site in a vital, important or nice to have. (2015) manner that enhances the village 73% of residents believe that village- character and demonstrates respect based clubs and societies are vital, for the countryside, existing views important or nice to have. (2015) and the conservation area. 56% of residents support the construction 4. The design of the village hall of a new village hall. (2018) incorporates appropriate parking 9.3 Aims as well as cycle and footpath links To create a new, larger, multi-use village to the village. hall for the local community that will cater for current and new social groups and activities. It will be flexible enough to support existing social activities and space for new ones. This may include a larger multi-use hall, kitchen, WCs, bar and associated parking. It will cater for new indoor sports activities, private hire, community events, social clubs and village meetings, creating a new social hub of the enlarged village which the present village hall, with its lack of size, outside facilities and parking constraints,

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 33 APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1 DESCRIPTION OF AND JUSTIFICATION FOR LOCAL GREEN SPACES 1 The grassland between Woolley Road and Church Road and the adjoining Glebe field (3.9 Ha) OS Grid Ref. TQ78846 53552 and TQ78852 53751 The green space that sits between Woolley Road in Senacre, Shepway and Church Road in Otham covers an area of 3.9 hectares and is made up of two adjacent fields; The Glebe, at Southern Field the northern end, owned by The Canterbury and the residents of Senacre, part of the Diocesan Board of Finance Ltd, which covers Shepway South Ward of urban Maidstone. 1.7 hectares, and a field owned by Gore Court Church Road, opposite Gore Court, a 15th (2008) Ltd, which covers 2.2 hectares at the century Grade II* listed manor house, forms southern end of the site. There is no physical the eastern boundary. A farm gate provides boundary between the two sites. The site is access onto Church Road. This field is an directly adjacent to existing and proposed occasionally mowed, informal, grassed large urban communities, namely Senacre to meadow which contains a large, veteran beech the west and the proposed 440 homes to be tree. It is covered by well worn, grassy paths built at site H1(8) to the north and west. which follow a circular route around the field It is in close proximity to the existing and also cross into the lower lying, northern community of Downswood, 300m to the north part of the site, known as The Glebe. and the new developments H1(5), H1(6), H1(7) The Glebe field, adjacent to Otham’s 15th and H1(9) which are between 600m and century, Grade II listed Rectory, is dominated 1300m to the south. by a large, veteran oak tree at its centre, which The southern field is bordered to the south and is at least 600 years old and is covered by a west by two parcels of ancient woodland, and Tree Preservation Order. Saplings scatter the can be directly accessed from Woolley Road site and a copse of trees grow on the

Sapling Oaks in the Glebe

34 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 APPENDIX 1

GF1: Existing access points into The Glebe and existing paths

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 35 APPENDIX 1

foundations of stables that once stood here. The field has always been rented as allotments This untended, wildflower meadowland also or ‘ kitchen Gardens’ as far as records go back. has worn, grassy paths which stretch from the There is a record of a Trustee meeting held in northern boundary to the southern field 1876 when two tenants were asked to leave. mentioned above. Trustee meetings continue to be held on an Site surveys revealed that the whole site has annual basis. A representative from the Parish been used on a daily basis by residents of Council attends the annual meetings. Senacre, Otham, Downswood and Maidstone Currently about twenty-five people grow for over 45 years for dog walking, walking to produce on the allotments. Thus the allotments work, riding horses and for leisure. Their are well used and maintained. statements (Appendix 2) reveal that they There is no water supply to the allotments, highly value the fields as a safe, natural, open which rely on gathered rainwater. space to walk their dogs which is close to their Bonfires are strictly controlled and only homes yet feels part of the countryside due to allowed in November. the density of trees, the sense of space, its tranquillity and the abundance of rich wildlife Residents from Otham and the surrounding and wild flowers and view it as an essential area use the allotments. Currently there are: community asset. 3 residents from Otham The site’s biodiversity value is highlighted in 14 residents from Senacre Maidstone’s 2013 Landscape Character 1 resident from Parkwood Assessment of Gore Court, which forms the 4 residents from Madginford eastern border of the site, which noted that 1 resident from Downswood ‘the grassland areas and field boundaries may have the potential to support reptile species 2 residents from Maidstone including slow worm and viviparous lizard. Broad-leaved and ancient woodland blocks may provide suitable habitat for protected mammals such as, badgers, dormice, bats and nesting birds. Woodland edge habitats may also support notable invertebrates as well as reptiles.’ 2 The Allotments (0.8 Ha) OS Grid Ref. TQ79708 53919 The allotments are situated at Greenhill in Otham. They are approached from Otham Street at Greenhill by a single track, which is about 100 feet in length. Hedgerows and fencing border the allotments. Thomas Hendley originally gave the allotment field in Otham within a charitable trust – The Allotments Hendley Charity – in 1590. Maidstone Borough Council’s analysis of The field was to be rented out and the income publicly accessible green space against open raised was to be used for the relief of poverty space standards by ward 2014 confirms that in Otham village. Parkwood Ward (population7040) and The monies raised were mainly used to buy Shepway South Ward (population 5860) have coal for poor people in the winter. no allotments. Shepway North Ward Some years back the trustees applied to (population 9030) has insufficient allotment extend the area covered to Maidstone and space (deficiency/ha-1.48). surrounding districts, as there was not the The Otham Parish Council Neighbourhood same need to give to the poor of Otham. Plan Questionnaire Summary revealed that Since then the funds have been donated 36% of residents said allotments were ‘nice to mainly to a charity called Homeless Care. have’, 23% said ‘important’ and 13% ‘vital’. (See Consultation Statement.)

36 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 APPENDIX 1

The allotments are an important and much appreciated amenity in Otham, used by residents from surrounding areas. Furthermore the charitable contribution made by the allotments to the homeless in Maidstone contributes to the importance of the allotments and the need to preserve the allotments as a Local Open Green Space. 3 The Village Green OS Grid Ref. TQ 79845 53721 The Green is situated in Otham Street at the junction with Stoneacre Lane, 1.5km south of the Ashford Road (A20). In size it is c.80m east The Village Green to west and 160m north to south, an area of 1.28 hectares. It is registered and protected In the the Otham Conservation Area Appraisal under the Commons Registration Act of 1965. approved by the Maidstone Borough Council in and lies within the Otham conservation area. 2009, the Green is referred to as an ‘important The land was given to the village in 1919 by civic area’. The Open Spaces Quality Audit Alfred Johnson of Gore Court and James commissioned by MBC, produced by Val Rayner Betts of Greenhill as a war memorial to Hyland, Irene Seijo and Sharon Bayne in April be retained in perpetuity. 2015, awarded the Green 71% (good) for accessibility and 80% (good) for quality. A The Green is bounded to the west by Otham survey by Otham Parish Council in 2015 found Street and to the south by Stoneacre Lane. The that 97% of responders thought that the Green northern boundary is a wire fence and line of and play area were considered to be an small trees, mainly blackthorn, while to the important part of village life, while a further east a similar fence to allows the important survey in 2018, concluded that 95% of those views to the east to be seen. Access to the replying thought that it was important to Green is from anywhere on the western and protect existing green spaces and 86% thought southern boundaries. it was important to maintain existing views. The Green consists of a flat grassy area which 4 Rumwood Cricket Club (1.5 Ha) is regularly maintained. There are clumps of OS Grid Ref. TQ79688 52582 deciduous trees in the southeast and northwest corners which were planted in 1973 The Rumwood Cricket Club (RCC) is situated and 1974 in order to enhance the appearance along the southerly border of the Parish with and to frame the views from the Green to the Rumwood Court and Bicknor Farm and a short North Downs. In the southwest corner is the distance from the A274 ‘Sutton Road’. The most important feature, the War Memorial ground which measures approximately 130 commemorating those who gave their lives in metres by 120 metres is framed by Belts Wood the First and Second World Wars; adjoining and Bearsted Football club to its western side this is a small children’s playground. and fields to the east and north. The Green is used regularly as a recreation The club has been in continuous existence for area, a place to walk, to exercise dogs or just approximately 120 years providing the local to kick a ball for which purpose there is a community with an important sporting and single goal post. It is important to the social amenity. The original RCC was founded playschool who lease the Village Institute Hall and run by the owners of Rumwood Court for 100m south of the Green. However, the most the benefit of its staff. Local villagers were important event which takes place is the subsequently invited to play alongside and annual village fete which draws in not only the against Rumwood staff. present villagers but also those who have Today the club is held in Trust as a ‘Community moved to the surrounding areas on the edge and Sports Club’ with four Trustees overseeing of Maidstone, allowing a grand reunion. Not the running and management of the club. The least, it is a place to sit, to admire the views Groundsman annually prepares and keeps two and to relax. wickets which are in active use from the third week in April to the middle of September.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 37 5 The Football Grounds (4 Ha) OS Grid Ref. TQ79564 52733 The Bearsted Football Club currently occupies this area which is accessed from White Horse Lane but sits to the south of Honey Lane, covering 4 hectares. A north-south track runs

Cricket pitch along its western boundary allowing for the From the middle of September to middle of parking of 150 vehicles on site and pedestrians April annually the outfields are made available are able to follow this track to reach Sutton to two football teams of 8-9 year olds from the Road. Belts Wood sits at the southern end of neighbouring Bearsted FC. the site. The two fields that directly border the west and south of the site have been allocated RCC represents an important ‘all year round’ for housing in the Maidstone Local Plan, sites social asset not only to residents of Otham but H1(7) and H1(9), totalling 585 new dwellings. to the wider communities of Maidstone, Loose The site borders Rumwood Cricket ground to and Bearsted. Loose Cricket Club has been the south east. using the ground for all 11 of its home games since it lost use of its ‘King Edward VII’ ground. The land is leased to Bearsted Football Club In addition, RCC plays its 8 home games at the who are a non-professional football club ground. established in 1895. They have played in Otham since 1998 and have recently secured a Two teams involving some some 45-50 boys new 20-year lease. The site has 2 stands with and girls aged between 8 and 9 from Bearsted seating, flood lights, hard standing and FC make use of the outfield areas for training changing rooms. and local games for some 7 months of the year with approximately 40 adults in attendance. The club has 20 teams and the players are drawn from the local community and range The ground is clearly in high social demand from under 5’s to adults who play in the Kent representing a most significant amenity of League. The average attendance at league value to local residents as well as visitors from matches is 60 supporters. Maidstone, Loose and Bearsted. It is also a most important ‘Local Open Space’ with Having Local Green Space status will allow wonderful views towards the Downs to the Bearsted Football Club to remain a part of North. Otham, supporting physical activity for the community of Otham and surrounding areas Protecting this area for recreational purposes and also providing an important habitat for is consistent with NPPF paragraph 100 and wildlife, consistent with NPPF paragraph 97 also with Policy DM19 ‘Publicly accessible open and Local Plan Policy DM19. space and recreation’ within the Maidstone Borough Local Plan.

Bearsted Football Club

38 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2 WALKER SURVEY Survey of Church Road/Woolley Road/Glebe For how long How often do have you Why do you use this space and you use this used what is its value to you? What Which other spaces do you Date space? this space? makes it special? use in Otham? Why? Postcode 1100hrs 2 times per 7 years 45 minute dog walking route None – live in Senacre so ME15 8SS 05/05/18 day, 7 days – without it we should be lost. this is the nearest per week It’s safe 0715hrs (2 people) 30+ years Convenient, adders, slow Route: Alley, Whitehorse ME15 8XD 02/06/18 Daily worms, kestrels, meeting Lane, field by horses, place concrete paths, Lens Cottage and Madam Taylor’s, Green, big field plus Glebe in the past 0730hrs Daily 6 years Wildlife, great open space n/a ME15 8QD 02/06/18 0730hrs Daily 45 years Open space, wildlife, Otham Route ME15 8QD 02/06/18 pheasants, kestrels, flora and fauna 0755hrs Daily 45 years Nice for dog walk, lovely open n/a ME15 8QA 02/06/18 (6 with dog) space 0830hrs Every two 8 years Safe pedestrian route from Otham footpaths and ME15 8RE 02/06/18 weeks Gore Court Road to green spaces Downswood/Bearsted 1715hrs Daily 8 years Dog off lead, great walks even The Glebe in winter – less ME15 8HL 02/06/18 in winter, wildlife overgrown 1720hrs Twice daily 18 months Best short cut ever, peaceful, Field opposite church ME15 8XN 02/06/18 (am and pm) safe, off-road walk to work and back. (Downswood to Parkwood) 1730hrs Twice daily 2 years Dog walking here is my The Glebe + opposite the ME15 8SS 02/06/18 (am and pm) therapy – as a carer for ill church father, couldn’t cope without it 16 June Often 9 years Walks – ME15 8UP 2018 Often – Dog walks – ME15 8LL Often 22+ years Walks – ME15 8RL Often 24+ years Walks – TN29 9HL Often 48 years Walks – ME15 8UN Often 38 years Walks Many ME15 8RX 3 days/week 25 years Dog walking All ME15 8RQ Often 25+ years Dog walking All ME15 8RQ Frequently 20+ years Walking All of them ME15 8RX Frequently 22 years Walking All of them ME17 3NE Lots 30+ years Exercise, relaxation, walking All ME15 8RR Regular 43 years Dog walking All ME15 8HD Every week 3 years Take my son to school at All ME15 8RG day Langley Park Regular 3 years Dog walking All ME15 8RR Regular 2 years Dog walking All ME15 8RR Regularly 6 months walking Walking along the River ME15 8TN Len/using footpaths to reach Leeds Village

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 39 APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 3 triangle of mid-twentieth homes, mainly bungalow, and from there to Otham Street. HERITAGE WALKS This forms the main north to south road HERITAGE TRAIL 1 through the village, linking Three Tees to the This is a circular walk from the Church east to Green. This part of the trail passes Forge the Green and then leading south past Cottage, Synyards (a wealden hall house) and Stoneacre to Honey Lane and returning via Swallows (another forge in earlier times). Otham Street and East Wood to the Church. Leading west to East Wood, the walk enters Heritage links ancient woodland with some fine sweet The walk links St Nicholas Church to Madam chestnuts and picks up a roadway leading Taylor’s (the manor house) which lies on the north to rejoin the walk back to the Church. western edge of the Green. This land was The roadway was constructed during the donated by the Mr Alfred Johnson of Gore Second World War by the army to serve a Court and Mr james Rayner Betts of Greenhill camp whose building foundations are still to commemorate those who died in the service apparent. of their country during the First World War. Views from the trail From the Green with its group of listed There are extensive views of the North Downs buildings, the village hall and the former during the first part of the walk as well as from school, the trail continues past Stoneacre, a the Green where there are views east towards National Trust property, south along Rooks Leeds. Glimpses of the valley which was Lane which forms the eastern side of the created by the medieval ragstone quarry are medieval ragstone quarry, to Honey Lane seen during the middle section of the walk where a further cluster of listed buildings is to with further views of the North Downs towards be found. These are all situated near the area the final section. known as Otham Hole, an early sink hole, and Heritage Trail No. 1 may be extended by include Buglehorn Cottages, Thatched turning eastwards at Stoneacre and following Cottage and Whitehorse Cottage, formerly an the footpath towards Leeds as far as the bridle inn. The trail continues west to Three Tees a way leading south to become Holly Farm Road Heritage Trail 1

40 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 APPENDIX 3 and eventually joining Avery Lane. Continuing 5. The village sign was erected for the westwards the walk joins Honey Lane at centenary of the parish council. The plaque Otham Hole and the main part of the trail. reads ‘Otham Parish Council 1894-1994 the The walk from Holly Farm Road to Otham Hole tools that shaped our village’. The tools passes several fine listed timber framed houses include a mallet, a mattock, a hop-dog, an which include Bishops, another Wealden hall auger, an adze and a thatcher’s knife. house. The North Downs are clearly visible between Stoneacre and Holly Farm road. A Circular Walk from St Nicholas Church, Otham – 2.7 miles 1. From Otham Church, take the footpath (KM 88) directly opposite the lychgate. 2. Follow the path across the large field. Note the lovely views of the North Downs to your left and look back over your shoulder at views of the Church. In this field you may see buzzards or hear skylarks in season.

6. Join the metalled road signposted to Stoneacre and walk down the short steep hill, looking across the valley and sheep field. 7. At the bottom, pause to look at the old fishponds on the left and right, home to much wildlife. You can take the small bridge if the stream is flowing over the road.

3. Ignore the footpath going off to the right and continue up a slight incline to the gate. Go through and walk the short distance to the road past pretty houses on the left, formerly farm buildings. 4. Cross the road on to the Green. Walk diagonally south east (right) across the Green. If you have time, walk up to the war memorial and the unusual village sign and look again at the view across the Green to the North Downs.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 41 APPENDIX 3

9. Continue up the hill past farm buildings, a path and a house on the left. Continue as the metalled road gives way to a bridleway. There are usually ponies in the fields on the right. 10. Continue on the bridleway, which bends right and left. Continue straight on and note the soft fruit growing in the fields either side, one of the main industries for Otham and surrounding parishes. 11. Just after a sharp right bend the bridleway joins the road, Honey Lane. Straight ahead is Thatch Hall, which contains elements of its origins as a Hall House. Keep right, passing White Horse Cottage, one of the original inns of the village. 8. Walk up the short steep hill and look at 12. Turn right along Simmonds Lane and walk Stoneacre on the right, a 15th Century to the T junction with White Horse Lane/ Yeoman’s Hall House. This small but Otham Street. beautiful National Trust property is open to the public from March to September on 13. Turn right, signposted Otham and Bearsted. Saturdays and Bank Holidays from 11- Pass Synyards, on the right one of Otham’s 5.30pm. Recently, a fabulous new tearoom historical hall houses, built in the 15th has been opened which is also open on Century. A little further on, on the left and other days. Check availability at easier to see is Belks, built as a farmhouse [email protected] in late 14th Century or early 15th Century. Continuing down Otham Street, you can glimpse Stoneacre once more across the valley to the right.

42 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 APPENDIX 3

14. Just before you reach the Village Hall on What is a Hall House? the right, there is a turning to the left, A Hall House is a house built from traditional which, although currently unmarked, is a materials reflecting the needs of the area and footpath (KM90). From the beginning of using local construction materials. The house this path you have a clear view of Otham centres on an open hall and is usually timber Hall (formerly Wardes), which is a Grade 1 framed, with some examples built in stone. The listed late 14th Century Hall House with 16th Wealden Hall House is traditional in the south Century alterations. It was renovated in 1912 east of England. Typically built for a yeoman, it by Sir Louis Mallet, ambassador to is most common in Kent, which has one of the Constantinople at the outbreak of the 1st highest concentrations of these surviving World War. medieval timber framed buildings in Europe. 15. Follow the path through trees along the The large public area had a fireplace in the edge of a field. Another path joins from the centre. One end bay at the ‘screens end’ or left (KM85), keep straight on. You are ‘lower end’ of the hall would contain two walking through ancient woodlands with unheated rooms commonly called the pantry, many oaks, chestnuts and other trees. used for storing food, and the buttery used for storing drink. The rooms in the ‘upper end’ bay 16. The path joins a wide path coming from the formed the private space. The rooms on the left (not a footpath, but a private track ground floor of the private space, were known belonging to Gore Court) and your path as the parlour while the upper floor room was bears right and widens out. A bend in the called the solar. path reveals the magnificent, panoramic view of the North Downs and Otham Church to the left. Continue straight down to the junction with the path you walked along at the beginning. 17. Turn left and retrace your steps back to the Church.

18. If you have time, walk around the beautiful Churchyard and look at some the historical gravestones. St Nicholas is 12th-century, Grade I listed building.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 43 APPENDIX 3

HERITAGE TRAIL 2 2. Pass 16th Century home, Madame Taylor’s, A Circular Walk from on the left, one of the oldest houses in 1 Otham Village Green – 3 /2 miles Otham, and walk as far as the Diamond This walk focuses on the countryside within Jubilee plinth. At this point, turn left to Otham and adjacent parishes. It takes in a Site cross the road and take the path directly of Special Scientific Interest, demonstrates opposite (KM132), passing the Cart Lodge both traditional and contemporary farming and Barn which are on your right. methods and provides outstanding views of the North Downs. It also allows glimpses of Caring Wood, RIBA House of the Year, 2017. The route can be muddy and there are uphill sections. 1. Starting at the war memorial and village sign, walk on the green away from the housing (North View), along the line of the road.

3. Pass around the metal gate and follow the same path across the large field towards Otham Church in the distance. Ignore the path coming in from the left and admire the views of the North Downs to the right. 4. Come out onto Church Road, opposite Otham Church and, going through the lychgate, walk around the churchyard. St Nicholas Church is a 12th Century, Grade 1

Heritage Trail 2

44 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 APPENDIX 3

listed building with many interesting noted as containing the fossils of land snails, memorials. Look through the old gate at probably of Wolstonian age, between 352,000 the rear of the church to see Grade 2 listed and 130,000 years ago. Loess elsewhere in Church House, originally built as cottages in Britain does not contain fossils and Spot Lane the 16th Century. Quarry is one of very few sites available where loess fossils can be studied. 6. Continue up until the path rejoins the field and turn left, on Footpath KM86. Follow the path which keeps Downswood on the left and then passes between trees and field then garden boundary. There are good views of Bearsted at this point. 7. Come out on the road, Greenhill, cross over, following the sign for the Len Valley Walk. Take the track opposite which then curves right, between houses and through a gate marked Footpath and pass The Oast House and Greenhill Farm. 5. Return to the road and walk left down the road towards Downswood, joining the footpath when possible. At the T junction at the end of Church Road, turn right onto Deringwood Drive and follow this down to just before the roundabout, where there is a footpath going up steps and through trees on the right. This footpath follows the line of Otham’s Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) the face of which can be seen along the path between Downswood and Otham. What is special about Otham’s SSSI? Downswood was built on the site of a Kentish 8. Continue straight ahead, ignoring the first Ragstone quarry; ragstone is a hard, grey, track on the left. Turn into the second track sandy limestone, used in the construction of on the left and look for a small gate a few many traditional and historical buildings in yards ahead on the right marked, ‘Please Kent. Ragstone occurs in a geological keep to the Footpath’ and go through it. formation known as the Hythe Beds of the Lower Greensand, a layer of limestone running from Kent into Surrey, which was laid down in the Cretaceous period, an epoch ending some 65 million years ago. In the Maidstone area it occurs as an east west belt across the borough. The ground was formed of the sandy limestone of the Hythe Beds, but during the Ice Age the land at Otham slipped over the underlying Atherfield Clay. This former face forms a cross-section through a series of tilted, cambered (sloping) blocks, with large gulls or cracks, filled with loess. Loess is sediment formed by the accumulation of wind-blown silt. 9. Head downhill, following the line of the The site provides the best cross-section fence. Go over a stile at the bottom, over a through a series of cambers and gulls currently small stream, then another stile to emerge visible in Britain. Also, the loess in the gulls is in a large field with beautiful, ancient oak and ash trees.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 45 APPENDIX 3

10. The footpath strikes diagonally left and Caring Wood uphill; it is not very obvious to start with. Caring Wood is a new, multigenerational Aim for a metal gate in the top, left hand family, country home set in 84 acres that won corner of the field, passing between large RIBA House of the Year in 2017. Inspired by the oak trees. traditional oast houses of Kent, Caring Wood uses local building crafts and traditions, including locally sourced handmade peg clay tiles, locally quarried ragstone and coppiced chestnut cladding. The house comprises four towers, with interlinking roofs, echoing other oast houses in the distance. Its brief was to embody the spirit of the English country house and estate in a design which would embrace its context and landscape, while providing a carbon neutral response to climate change. The surrounding grounds have been extensively planted with locally occurring trees and shrubs and there is a hidden solar array 11. Pass through the gate, into a field with soft near the Lodge. fruit polytunnels, and follow the path, 15. Coming out of the dip, the road joins keeping the hedge on the left to the next Caring Lane where you turn right. Walk gate on the left. Go through this gate and uphill as far as Rose Cottage, with good turn immediately right. views of the North Downs on your left. 12. Cross the gravel drive for Caring Wood and continue between tree plantations to another metal gate. Go through and follow the path left, which can be overgrown, as it meanders towards a line of poplar trees. Ignore Footpath FP258 on the left and come out on a road, Caring Road.

16. Turn right up a Restricted Byway, KH264, towards Merriams Farm and Caring Wood Lodge. Follow the path right then around to the left, leaving the gate to Caring Wood Lodge behind. Before the next gate, turn right, taking a partially paved track uphill. 17. At the top of this track, turn right along a 13. Turn right, and walk along this very quiet bridleway, clearly identified by several road passing Caring Stud and Jacksons. stone markers. The bridleway bends left After a bend, look out for magnificent then left again at which point take the Caring House on the right, which has the footpath on the right that passes through a date 1547 above the door. line of poplar trees, KH359. 14. Continue along the road, with glimpses of Caring Wood on the skyline on the right and pass a private fishing lake on the left in the dip.

46 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 APPENDIX 3

18. Follow the straight path to a gap in the 21. Enjoy overlooking the pond with its hedge. Note the small recently planted abundance of waterfowl and then take the cobnut trees on the left, a traditional little bridge over the ford to avoid wet feet. Kentish crop. On the left is land belonging to Stoneacre, a small National Trust property back up the hill behind you.

19. Turn right at the gap in the hedge and follow footpath KM97 along the line of polytunnels growing soft fruit. It can be very muddy here due to farm vehicles. 20. At the end of the line of tunnels, turn left and, a few yards on, take the path on the right over the stile. Walk down the middle of this ancient valley, usually home to 22. Walk up the steep hill until you reach the sheep, to the fishing pond at the bottom. village green on your right. Cross over the stile on the left and come out onto the road.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 47 APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 4 HER Number TQ 75 SE 86 – MKE15230 GORE COURT, OTHAM Site Name Gore Court gardens. Gardens at Gore Court, Otham. Remains of The extent of the landscape is shown in this park laid out c1830 including Ha Ha running in map and the site contains historic features front of west front of house and continuing as which are detailed below (Kent County Council west edge of belt of trees (now edge of Monument Full Report, 19.06.2019). overgrown Victorian pleasure garden). Ha Ha HER Number TQ 75 SE 31 – MKE2150 constructed of ragstone and mostly only Site Name Gore Court Otham. House, formerly visible as an earthwork. Runs from TQ school, grade II*, C15 origins. 79045332 to TQ 7897 5301 approx. Area to Summary from record TQ 75 SE 231: south of house planted as Victorian pleasure Grade II* listed building. Main construction garden incorporating existing trees and periods 1367 to 1932. featuring exotic flowering shrubs. Pond in the centre of this area (at TQ 7904 5310) was fed Description from record TQ 75 SE 231: from reservoir in SW corner of park (at The following text is from the original listed junction of Church Rd and White Horse Lane. building designation (1952): Pond issued into channel running along S side CHURCH ROAD TQ 75 SE OTHAM (East Side) of walled garden. Formerly featured rustic 3/216 bridges. Two substantial walled gardens to S of Gore Court, grade II* House, formerly school, house,with range of glasshouses (now mostly now house. Late C15 or early C16, with late C16, demolished) against S facing wall, of C19 date. (possibly C17) and late C18 alterations and Gardens altered in 1930s inc. construction of additions. Late C14 or early C15 cellar, probably private golf course in W side of park (now associated with a preceding building.

Gore Court, Otham

48 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 APPENDIX 4 removed). Very little remains of the ornamental boundary, with a footpath along it, is marked gardens that were previously so extensive. by coppiced hornbeams. There is a large However, a 300 year old cedar and the largest timber-framed house, much altered tulip tree in southern England remain as throughout the centuries. The extensive specimens in front of the Victorian wilderness, Victorian gardens were maintained by ten to the south of the house. This was once gardeners until the 1930s. There are two large extremely ornamental with flowering shrubs, walled kitchen gardens behind the house. especially azaleas, and was riddled with water Associated with these is a series of channels, pools and rustic bridges. These glasshouses along the south -facing wall. The features are today impossible to discern. There original boilers remain below these. Between has been extensive 1987 storm with little repair the house and the walled gardens are stables, at the time of the last survey. Extending laundry and cow sheds surrounding a yard. formally to the south of the house is a double HER Number TQ 75 SE 87 – MKE15231 line of large dome-shaped ancient yews. Site Name Gore Court laundry, Otham. Beyond these yews to the west, is the remains of a ha-ha separating the garden area from the Nineteenth century laundry building for Gore park. To the front of the house is a croquet Court situated SE of the main house. lawn and to the side is a small, attractive, but HER Number TQ 75 SE 88 – MKE15232 fairly plain courtyard garden. The house has Site Name Stone quarry pits near Gore Court. had a chequered history, being used as a Disused quarry pits beside Church Road, nursing home, an aeroplane factory and more Otham, both in the shaw to the W of the road recently, a school. This is the site of a medieval and in field to E. Probably ragstone quarries building. Its ancient parkland is now largely related to construction work at nearby Gore arable. A private golf course is around the Court. Probably post date the construction of periphery of the estate. Lanes marking the the road c1830. boundary are marked by a ditch lined on one TQ 75 SE 91 – MKE9234 side by old hedgerows and on the other by a HER Number line of beeches, oaks and elms. The northern Site Name Medieval seal-die at Otham.

Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 49 APPENDIX 5

APPENDIX 5 by deep fissures, known as gulls. These gulls were opened up during the ‘Ice Age’ by the THE SSSI AT SPOT LANE QUARRY slow down-slope movement of layers of hard ‘The site is located to the east of Maidstone rock (rags and hassock) over softer clay rich and is centred on the east face of an rocks. This process is known as cambering. abandoned quarry. The floor of this quarry has The gulls at Spot Lane have been infilled by been infilled and developed for housing. The yellow-brown silt, which was deposited by the site consists of a narrow 150 metre long strip wind during the ‘Ice Age’ and is known as which runs along a small 2 metre cliff loess. The loess at Spot Lane is very unusual in immediately behind a series of gardens. The that it contains the remains of snails. In face shows a series of large blocks of rock summary, this is one of the very few sites which consists of alternate layers of hard where a good section through cambered rocks limestone and soft sandstone (rag and still exists and is therefore of particular hassock). These blocks are separated laterally importance.’

The eastern edge of Downswood showing the site of special scientific interest (SSSI). (This information and map have been supplied by kind permission of English Nature.)

50 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 51 52 Otham Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2020–2035 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 1 INTRODUCTION

Introduction This Consultation Statement has been prepared in order to fulfil the legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 Section 15(2). Part 5 of the regulations sets out what a Consultation Statement should contain: a) Details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed Neighbourhood Plan; b) An explanation of how they were consulted; c) Summarises the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted; and d) Describes how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan. Aims The aims of the Otham Neighbourhood Plan consultation process were: a) To involve as many of the community as possible throughout all consultation stages of Plan development in order that the Plan was informed by the views of local people and other stakeholders from the start of the Neighbourhood Planning process; b) To ensure that consultation events took place at critical points in the process where decisions needed to be taken; c) To engage with as wide a range of people as possible, using a variety of approaches and communication and consultation techniques; and d) To ensure that results of consultation were fed back to local people.

2 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN

Background to the Plan Otham Parish Council took the decision in 2015 to embark on a Neighbourhood Plan in order to provide local people with an input into guiding the future development and conservation of Otham. A Steering Group made up of Parish Councillors and residents was established to deliver the Plan. The following events were held to inform residents about the work on the Neighbourhood Development Plan. Date Consultation Details Outcome May 2015 A wide-ranging community 165 responses collected in person. Response rate = 56%. questionnaire hand delivered to all 68% want no further housing in Otham. residents regarding topics such as further housing developments, local 80% regularly walk in the village. walking routes, transport, the village 50% use the Len valley Walk. hall, allotments and football ground. 94% value having a village hall. 72% value having allotments. 71% said that the quality of life in Otham is deteriorating. The primary concern was speeding traffic, followed by oversize vehicles and traffic noise. Top three things about Otham: peace and quiet, countryside, views. Top concerns about Otham: housing developments, traffic, loss of rural character. These responses informed the basic structure of the Neighbourhood Plan. Dec 2015 Residents meeting held in the church to 40 residents in attendance. Results of questionnaire shared. feed back the results of the Positively received. questionnaire. May 2016 Ragstone newsletter delivered to all Five residents responded with offers of help. residents proposing producing a Steering group formed, made of five village residents and five Neighbourhood Plan and asking for Parish Councillors. volunteers to join the steering group. Feb 2017 Ragstone newsletter delivered to all No responses received. residents including article from Chair promoting Neighbourhood Planning and asking again for more volunteers to join the steering group. June 2017 Ragstone newsletter delivered to all residents outlining the purpose of a Neighbourhood Plan, the intention to write one, our five key objectives and publicising the consultation on the proposed area boundary. Residents invited to meet councillors, discuss the process and express their views on the Neighbourhood Plan at a stall at the upcoming Otham Fete. June 2017 Otham Fete – Stall manned for A number of local residents visited the stall and spoke to discussions with residents and visitors councillors regarding the key objectives. All supported the regarding the Neighbourhood Plan and inclusion of all five key objectives, including the construction the proposed five key objectives. of a new community centre, but in addition would have liked Collection of ideas and opinions. the rat running traffic included in the plan’s objectives. Unfortunately, highways matters cannot be included. All were concerned about the designation of housing in the Maidstone Local Plan and the negative impact of increased housing and increased traffic in Otham. All were against any further housing in Otham.

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 3 BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN

Date Consultation Details Outcome August 2017 The 2015 community questionnaire Many of the new residents spoken to were unaware that they hand delivered to all residents of the were resident in the Parish of Otham. Most had never visited new 100 dwelling Coppice housing the village of Otham as their homes are located on the A274 development recently constructed in so many did not have an opinion on the areas covered by the Otham. Responses collected in person. questionnaire. Written responses mainly concerned Langley eg traffic lights, speed cameras and HGVs on A274. Top three things about Otham: woods and open spaces, views and walks. Top concerns about Otham: traffic, new housing developments, loss of rural character. One new Coppice resident joined both the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and the Parish Council. March 2018 Online Neighbourhood Plan survey and 175 responses received. 32% response rate. additional paper copy hand delivered to Responses provide strong mandate for direction of the all residents to consult on the five topics neighbourhood plan: to be included in the neighbourhood plan. 81% want no further housing in Otham. 56% in favour of building a new community centre. 95% in favour of protecting green spaces. 86% in favour of protecting views. 82% in favour of establishing heritage walks. 78% in favour of making accessible footpaths. May 2018 Surveys of walkers undertaken in the Woolley Road/The Glebe: Nine responses collected. field opposite the church and in the Field opposite the Church: 16 responses collected. field adjacent to Woolley Road and in The Glebe field. Walkers were asked for Revealed that walkers use the open spaces daily and have how long and how often they use the been doing so for as long as 45 years. Used by residents of open space and why it is of special Otham, Downswood and Senacre. These open spaces are value. Postcodes collected to identify highly valued and deemed essential by those surveyed. This which communities are using these justifies their allocation as Local Green Spaces in the open spaces. Neighbourhood Plan. June 2018 Otham Fete – residents and visitors Field opposite the church: 24 more responses collected. surveyed on which local spaces they Bearsted football club/Cricket club: 21 responses collected. use regularly, how often they visit them and what activities they do there, to Woolley Road/The Glebe: 16 more responses collected. support the allocation of Local Green Allotments: 10 responses collected. Spaces. Responses reveal that Otham’s open spaces are used daily by residents of Otham, Langley, Senacre, Downswood and Parkwood, some who have been walking here for 48 years. These open spaces are highly valued and deemed essential by those surveyed. This justifies their allocation as Local Green Spaces in the Neighbourhood Plan. June 2018 Ragstone newsletter delivered to all No responses received. residents reporting the results of the Neighbourhood Plan survey and also including an article from the Chair responding to comments about the Neighbourhood Plan and again asking for volunteers to join the steering group. June 2019 Otham Fete – residents shown maps 100% of responses were against any further housing and plans of the new housing development in Otham, including those allocated in the MBC development proposal H1(8). Views Local Plan. Concerns raised about housing developments in sought on new housing developments Otham included increased traffic, removal of hedgerows, lack in Otham. of school places and lack of GP surgeries. June 2019 Letters sent to all landowners of sites One reply received from Rumwood Cricket Club, welcoming proposed to be allocated as Local green the change of status and asking for protective fencing around Spaces, informing them of the the site. implications of Local Green Space status and asking for comments.

4 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement THE CONSULTATION

The Consultation An email was sent to all statutory bodies as supplied by Maidstone Borough Council. The email informed the statutory bodies of the commencement of the consultation period. This email also notified recipients of the Neighbourhood Plan’s availability on the Otham Parish Council website and requested comments on the Draft Plan. Other contacts included numerous bodies and individuals that the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group believe may be affected by the Neighbourhood Plan for Otham, such as: neighbouring parish councils, local business owners and farmers. In addition to the digital copies of documents found on the Otham Parish Council website, a summary document was delivered to every household within the Parish. Hard copies of the Draft Plan were also available to view at Madginford library, the Borough Council building and the village hall. Hand written comments could be returned by post. A list of all those that were consulted about the Plan:

Kent County Council The National Trust Langley PC WB Chambers & Son Bearsted PC Robert Boyd-Howell Downswood PC Gore Court 2008 Ltd Leeds PC Bearsted Football Club Boughton Monchelsea PC Rumwood Cricket Club Natural England The Village Hall Committee The Environment Agency The White Horse Inn Historic England The Orchard Suite Highways England Allotments Committee Openreach The National Trust UK Power Networks WB Chambers & Son Southern Water Robert Boyd-Howell The Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance Ltd Gore Court 2008 Ltd CPRE Gladman Developments Ltd Network Rail Bearsted Football Club Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust Rumwood Cricket Club Southern Gas Networks The Village Hall Committee Southern Water Residents of Otham South East Water

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 5 SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED

Summary of main issues and concerns raised The Otham Pre-Submission Plan was issued for consultation in July 2019. Only seven comments from Statutory Bodies, Developers and Local Residents were received. The tables below detail the comments received and the responses from the Neighbourhood Plan team. Consultation Statement – Statutory bodies Related Respondent Main issue/concern policy/reference Edits made/action taken. Maidstone The Otham Conservation Area Appraisal Section 4: We added further references to the Borough (CAA) should be referred to. It includes Heritage, conservation area and expanded the Council an analysis of local views and unlisted Conservation detail regarding the Conservation Area buildings which contribute positively to and Landscape in section 2 and section 4. the area. There is some overlap between Protection We have added a map of the the views identified in the CAA and the Conservation Area. neighbourhood plan. The plan highlights the area’s history and describes very We have taken detail from the specific details about key listed Conservation Area Appraisal (2009) as buildings. The plan should also refer to an independent assessment. non-designated heritage assets, We have inserted a new paragraph including those identified in the CAA. concerning the protection of views into The emphasis on heritage trails, paths section4. and views could be broadened to describe other aspects of the area’s character, identifying positive aspects as well as those with the potential for enhancement. In addition to identifying views and stating a desire to preserve them, the plan could set out a strategy for managing change within these views. Historic England Good Practice Advice in Planning 3, The Setting of Heritage Assets provides a recommended approach to assessing the impact of development in views. The plan should be clear on the status of Policy HC1 and Heritage Walk No. 2 has been added to Heritage Trail No. 1, as seen in the plan, Appendix 3 Appendix 3, alongside Heritage Walk and No. 2 which isn’t shown in the plan. No. 1 to enable official designation. The policy cannot refer to future Heritage Trails that have not been designated through the neighbourhood planning process. The definitions for ancient woodland Section 5.1 Definitions removed as not important and veteran trees are incorrect. here. Clarify if it is the intention to protect Section 5.3 The suggested aims have been added to ancient woodlands from development. section 5.3 and to policy GS5. The plan would benefit from an aim to Clarification of protection of trees from retain trees of significant amenity value, development added to 5.3. as well as ancient woodlands and veteran trees. Another aim should be to Protection of Veteran English Oak in The seek to secure appropriate management Glebe added to policy GS4. for these natural assets. Clarify whether the line of trees is within Policy GS3 Policy text amended to clarify that it the boundary of the Local Green Space. refers to trees that lie within the site of Bearsted Football Club which is a designated Local green space. A 50m buffer would require justification. Policy GS5 Policy amended to 15m to accord with Woodland Trust’s 50m buffer does not Natural England Standing Advice. accord with current Standing Advice from Natural England and the Forestry Commission.

6 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED

Related Respondent Main issue/concern policy/reference Edits made/action taken. Policy AC1 resists development that Policy AC1 Policies AC1 and AC2 combined into one would result in the coalescence of Policy AC2 anti-coalescence policy AC1. Otham village with the urban area and Positive planning now adopted by other villages, so Policy AC1 would also rewording the policy to make it more apply to the Policy AC2 area. Policy AC2 flexible. identifies a specific area for the prevention of coalescence. As written, Additional detail incorporated into the the policy would restrict ANY context section of Chapter 6 to explain development within this area – this is not why the identified field requires special positive planning. The plan should also protection: explain in greater detail why additional • It is particularly vulnerable to protection is needed beyond normal coalescence as it is the last field left countryside constraints beyond ‘highly between urban Maidstone and the prized views by residents. Otham Conservation Area. • It is under particular threat since the inclusion of strategic policy H1(8) in the Maidstone Borough Local Plan which redrew the Maidstone urban boundary to the western edge of this field. • It forms the southern boundary of the urban area of Downswood. • It sits at the southern boundary of the Landscape of Local Value associated with the Len Valley. • It is essential to the rural character of Otham and its Conservation area as it uniquely provides uninterrupted views of the church from its village. • It is the setting of the two Otham Heritage Walks. • The Conservation Area Assessment stresses the importance of it being surrounded by agricultural land. The policy criteria do not conform to Policy ST4 Policies ST4, ST5 and ST6 have been strategic policy H1(8) of the adopted Policy ST5 deleted. Their contents have already Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017. An been included in the outline planning outline planning application for the site Policy ST6 application 19/501600/OUT. has been submitted. (19/501600/OUT) The plan is not clear whether PROW Policy ST4 Policy ST4 amended; KM94 lies outside KM94 lies inside or outside of the the football field, on land now owned by boundaries of the football field. Are the developers of sites H1(7) and H1(9), there any land ownership or legal/ Bellway and Redrow. If upgrades are not planning restrictions associated with the provided by the developers during the proposed upgrades? construction of the sites, the parish council will approach them for permission to upgrade the path as it is a vital walking route for local people wishing to access the school, shops and restaurant on the south side of the A274. The text and policy are too restrictive by Section 8.3 Aims Section 8.3 amended to replace confining small-scale residential references to single dwellings with development to the infill of a single references to small scale developments. dwelling. ‘Planned’ development is not windfall. Hedgerow replacement should be Policy BE1 Policy reworded as advised. reworded to say that specimens should be native and able to achieve the same ultimate height and be of similar proportions as the species removed. The species listed are not in accordance with the Borough Council’s landscape guidelines. Reference to necessary enabling Policy CL1 Reference removed to comply with development is contrary to NPPF NPPF. paragraph 56 on planning obligations. Appendix 1 should be moved to the Draft Appendix 1 Appendix 1 moved and appendices consultation statement. Draft Appendix 6 re-numbered for the submission stage. Appendix 6 JG6 is not designated as JG6 removed from Appendix 6 as this Local Green Space. was there in error.

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 7 SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED

Related Respondent Main issue/concern policy/reference Edits made/action taken. The The owners have put forward the Glebe Section 5 Advice has been sought from Maidstone Canterbury land as a housing allocation in the Policy GS2 Borough Council on this matter who Diocesan emerging Maidstone Local Plan Review. state: ‘The Local Plan Review (LPR) is Board of This 2-hectare (5 acre) site is currently Policy GS4 due to be adopted in 2022, and the plan Finance Ltd being evaluated by the Local Planning New Appendix 1 is in its early stages of preparation. The Authority so the Draft Neighbourhood New Appendix 2 adopted MBLP includes a hierarchy for Plan cannot now be allowed to prejudice the spatial distribution of development the consideration of the proposals on – Otham is not a designated Rural their own planning merits. Service Centre or Larger Village, so policies of countryside restraint apply. MBC’s call for sites has attracted a large number of submissions, but the assessment of sites will not be completed before next year and, even then, it does not mean to say that all sites with potential will be allocated through the LPR.’ This is a small site proposed for 50 dwellings which sits in the countryside, with sole access from Church Road. Neighbouring site H1(8) has had the planning application rejected by MBC due to safety concerns on Church Road so we think it is unlikely that this site will be included for housing development in the LPR. In addition, the strong reasons for designating this site as Local Green Space are clearly stated in Appendix 1. The Glebe is a self-contained, well Whilst we agree that The Glebe is a screened, privately owned field which self-contained, privately owned fallow lies 100m from the urban edge of East field, it isnot well screened. The Maidstone. Until recently it has been the boundaries of the field are as follows: subject of a succession of farm North = the driveway leading to tenancies. It is currently a fallow field. Squerryes Oast, freely accessible by the There are no rights of public access. public from Church Road, only part of the boundary is marked by a very low piece of stock fencing. East = the hedge and stock fencing boundaries of Rectory Cottage and The Old Rectory and an area of publicly accessible woodland with some patchy fencing. South = some trees bordering another fallow field used by the public for recreation. West = trees forming the boundary of Squerryes Oast and some trees and bushes bordering an agricultural field used by walkers and riders. The Glebe can be publicly accessed and seen by the public from the North, West and South. Whilst we agree that there are no official rights of public access, residents of Downswood, Otham and Senacre have been using informal footpaths through The Glebe for in excess of 40 years to walk dogs and ride horses, as evidenced in the Walker Survey Appendix 2. We have added aerial photo GF1 to Appendix 1 in which the routes taken by walkers are clearly visible from the air.

8 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED

Related Respondent Main issue/concern policy/reference Edits made/action taken. There is an extensive network of public Whilst we agree that there are no PROW rights of way (PROW) to the East of through The Glebe, there are long Church Road which reflect long established informal pathways through established desire lines. These now The Glebe which have been used for in enjoy statutory protection. There are no excess of 40 years, linking Downswood, footpaths anywhere near Otham Glebe. Senacre, Parkwood and Otham. We have This is not surprising given its private added an aerial image-based map GF1 status and the absence of any desired to Appendix 1 to show the existing, route across or near to the property. well-worn footpaths and access points. Their visibility on aerial images proves the existence of these desire lines. Given such longevity of use, these informal pathways could be subject to a formal Rights Of way designation under the Highways Act 1980 in the future, with the agreement of the landowner. Otham Glebe cannot be seen from any The TPO veteran oak tree that sits in the publicly owned land or any PROW. The centre of The Glebe, as identified on Glebe is not visible from Church Road. photograph GF1, can be seen clearly The unbroken run of houses at the edge from both Church Road and from the of the urban area (Chapman Avenue) PROW in the fields to the east of Church blocks views eastwards and prevents Road. It can also be seen from Woolley public access onto the private farmland Road. beyond. At ground level the Glebe Although not publicly owned, the field to cannot be seen from any public vantage the south of The Glebe, which is used point. regularly by dog walkers and horse riders, provides walkers with a clear view over the lower lying Glebe field. The referred to ‘unbroken run of houses at the edge of the urban area (Chapman Avenue)’ sits at the bottom of a cliff below the level of Otham so does not affect any views. The residents of these houses can directly access the farmland from their gardens. In addition, PROW KM86 enables public access into the farmland from the west and east and the farmland can also be accessed from Woolley Road. This farmland, used regularly by walkers and horse riders, provides a clear view of The Glebe field. In 2012 the NPPF established a Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states that, presumption in favour of sustainable ‘The designation of land as Local Green development. This was subsequently Space through local and neighbourhood reinforced in the 2018 Review. The plans allows communities to identify and reference in the Draft Neighbourhood to protect green areas of particular housing development as a threat is in importance to them.’ As required by the clear conflict with this principle. NPPF, The Glebe has been proved through consultation to be of special significance to local people, is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land. It is untenable to designate a privately As stated above, The Glebe is not owned, comprehensively screened piece comprehensively screened or indeed of farmland as a Local Green Space. enclosed and has been used by the There has never been any right of public public on a daily basis for in excess of 40 access and there is no prospect of years for leisure pursuits. The achieving it. In any event, the designation of The Glebe as a Local designation of Otham Glebe in this way Green Space would ensure that the field would not serve any public good. It is given special protection so that it can might be favoured by the two or three continue to be enjoyed by future adjoining house owners but it could not generations as a peaceful, wild, open make any contribution to the proposed space and as an important habitat for Otham Heritage trails or the Protection slow-worms and other wildlife (as of Views. detailed in the Ecological Appraisal by Aspect Ecology Ltd on behalf of Bellway Homes for site H1(8) March 2019), recognising its particular importance to the local communities of Senacre and Downswood as well as Otham. We agree that The Glebe does not feature in the Heritage Walks or Protection of views.

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 9 SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED

Related Respondent Main issue/concern policy/reference Edits made/action taken. There are no sound reasons to designate The evidence in Appendix 2, the voices Otham Glebe as Local Green Space. of local people who walk through The Such a move is not justified by the Glebe on a daily basis and who refer to evidence, neither is it consistent with the The Glebe as ‘therapy’ and say they, stated aims of the Draft Neighbourhood “Couldn’t cope without it” and who say, Plan itself. The Glebe makes no “Without it we should be lost,” more contribution to the public footpath than justifies the allocation of this well network and no contribution to public loved and special place as Local Green views. Space. The veteran oak tree is a major landmark and contributes considerably to the landscape. The allocation also fits with the vision of the Neighbourhood Plan, that Otham should provide a green oasis for visitors to Otham. The majority of users of The Glebe reside in the Senacre area of urban Maidstone and the parish of Downswood. In addition, the allocation is consistent with the stated aims of the Neighbourhood Plan; paragraph 3.2, ‘That the natural environment with its agricultural fields, uncultivated wild open spaces, beautiful rural views and profusion of mature woodland and hedgerows be maintained’ and 3.3, ‘That the local community will live healthy lifestyles, making full use of their community centre, village green, local green spaces and network of accessible public footpaths, bridleways and heritage walks.’ Having the Glebe on their doorstep allows the residents of Senacre and Downswood to live healthy lifestyles, walking their dogs in an uncultivated, natural environment away from traffic and urban noise. Southern Gas SGN are most interested about the Chapter 8 Noted. Networks housing developments in the plan. After reviewing the developments on the Medium Pressure (MP) and Intermediate Pressure (IP) network analysis model, I can confirm that the area is well supported and it is very unlikely that any of the developments in the plan would lead to reinforcement on the gas network. Where the development is to connect to our Low Pressure (LP) system, reinforcement will be dependent on the nature and location of the requested load(s) and will only become clear once a developer’s request has been received. The National We support Policy HC2 which seeks to HC2 Noted. Trust safeguard views. We support Policy GS2 and the GS2 Noted. designation of The Village Green as Local Green Space as an important green space adjacent to Stoneacre. We support Policy BE1 which seeks to BE1 Noted. protect the surrounding landscape setting of listed buildings within the conservation area and their setting. We support Policy BE3 which BE3 Noted. encourages sustainable development and the efficient use of resources by incorporating appropriate energy efficiency measures and aligns with our strategy that seeks to ‘Look after special places, for ever, for everyone’.

10 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED

Related Respondent Main issue/concern policy/reference Edits made/action taken. Gladman Identified views must be supported by Policy HC2 The 2009 Otham Conservation Area Developments evidence and ensure that they Appraisal highlights the existence ‘of a Ltd demonstrate a physical attribute number of important views from the elevating a view’s importance beyond Conservation Area. As the setting for simply being a nice view of open the Conservation Area, these views are countryside. The evidence base to to be protected.’ For example, ‘The wide support the policy does little to indicate views towards the North Downs from why these views are important and why the vicinity of Green Hill and the War they should be protected, other than Memorial are particularly important to providing a view of the surrounding the character of the Conservation Area fields and woodland. It therefore lacks and its setting.’ It goes on to say that, the proportionate and robust evidence ‘Some land within the Conservation Area required by the PPG. An important view is pastureland or otherwise that should be protected must have undeveloped. Otham also contains a some form of additional quality that high proportion of large gardens which would ‘take it out of the ordinary’ rather are not only attractive in their own right than views which may not have any but also offer the low density necessary landscape significance. This policy to provide the village with its should be deleted. characteristic views. These views and those over the wider landscape of fields and woodland make an important contribution to Otham’s special rural character, which is further confirmed by the sounds and smells of this quiet, residential and agricultural village.’ We therefore feel that the preservation of views in Otham is vital and this policy is essential to comply with the Conservation Area Appraisal. Additional information and justification for inclusion regarding each of the 20 views has been added to paragraph 4.1. Supporting evidence is not sufficiently Policy GS2 As required in the NPPF, all proposed robust to justify the proposed allocation Appendix 1 allocations are in close proximity to of several of the sites as Local Green residents of Otham, Downswood or Spaces, given their lack of particularly Senacre, are proved through special features. consultation to be of special significance to local people and are local in character and not extensive tracts of land. Detailed justification for each site can be found in Appendix 1. None of the Local Green Space New Appendix 1 The 6 figure grid references have been descriptions in Appendix 6 correspond changed to 10 figure grid references so with their mapped locations on page 19. that there can be no doubt about the (Now Appendix 1) Local Green Space site locations. The numbers of each site in Appendix 1 have been changed to match the numbers on map GS2 for clarity. The description of JG6 Area bordering Appendix 1 Noted. The inclusion of JG6 in Appendix ancient woodland is not shown on the 1 was an error. It has been removed. map on page 19. The description of JG1 The Village Green Appendix 1 Noted. This was a mapping error. The does not match the map on page 19 Map GS2 map on page 19, now labelled Map GS2 which outlines an additional grazed field for clarity, has been redrawn showing to the east. the correct area of the village green. Several sites have not been designated National policy dictates that Local green in accordance with national policy and Space designation should only be used: guidance and subsequently are not in • when the space is in close proximity to accordance with basic conditions. The the community it serves. village green is an extensive tract of land, there is no evidence base to • where it is demonstrably special to a suggest all sites are demonstrably local community and holds a particular special to the community. Local Green significance. Space allocations in various • where it is local in character and not an Neighbourhood Plans have been extensive tract of land. rejected due to non-compliance with We believe all of the Local Green Spaces NPPF. proposed in the Neighbourhood Plan meet these criteria. (Noting the errors acknowledged above) Details of all sites can be found in Appendix 1. None of our designated Local green Spaces is an extensive tract of land.

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 11 SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED

Related Respondent Main issue/concern policy/reference Edits made/action taken. The policies are attempting to preclude Policy AC1 Positive planning now adopted by any development whatsoever in the rewording the policy to make it more identified gap between Otham and flexible, so as not to preclude all Maidstone. There is no supporting development: evidence, no map of the extent of land ‘Within the parcels of land… any to be protected or limits on the scale of development which results in a development. The policy is ambiguous significant adverse impact on and unclear. maintaining the anti-coalescence function of this area will not be supported.’ We believe that this policy, read in conjunction with map 6.1 and supporting information in Chapter 6, is now clear and unambiguous. The Context of Section 6 has been rewritten with additional justification. We believe that this has aided clarity. Map 6.1 has been added which shows the extent of land to be protected. There is no evidence base to assess land Agreed. Following your observation, an parcels between Otham and surrounding assessment has been undertaken to settlements or an evaluation of their assess all of the land parcels between relative performance in preventing Otham and its surrounding settlements coalescence. to evaluate their relative performance in preventing coalescence. As a result, three land parcels have been identified that are individually preventing coalescence. These are designated as having high anti coalescence importance on new map 6.1. In addition, six further parcels of land have been identified as forming half of a pair of land parcels that prevent coalescence. These are designated as having moderate anti coalescence importance on new map 6.1. Rumwood Our club ground is slowly being Policy GS2 Although we cannot address this in our Cricket Club surrounded by houses. Two months ago, Appendix 1 Neighbourhood Plan, the Parish Council our pavilion's roof was extensively have asked the developer Redrow to damaged by youths from the new provide a fence as part of our response houses. We are very vulnerable and I to their planning application for the have lost count the number of crimes we neighbouring Monchelsea Place site. have reported. We also have the problem of the public using our ground for dog walking and for what they leave behind. Ideally we would like fencing similar to the football club, all around our ground for security purposes and would ask you to consider this if you get any further planning applications. Resident 1 Farming in Otham; it’s good to have Paragraph 2.17 Noted. made the connection to the local community (supermarkets etc). Also, shrinkage of available farmland and increased threat from traffic. Good to end with the 'Vision'. Anticoalescence….an important addition Chapter 6 Noted. "The people of Otham…. and other Paragraph 8.1 Agreed. We have amended the villages". I am sure this is a valid paragraph to specify the urban areas at statement on behalf of those living in the risk of coalescing with Otham, namely village but it would resonate more if it Maidstone, Bearsted and Downswood were a geographically more tightly and the villages of Langley and Leeds. defined space. We have also amended paragraph 6.2 in the same way.

12 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED

Related Respondent Main issue/concern policy/reference Edits made/action taken. I feel this should be strengthened... Paragraph 8.2 Partly agreed. Paragraph 8.3 has been something along the lines of... "In amended to highlight the views of the keeping with the Vision and Aims of this community against further large-scale Plan which take account of the developments in Otham. overwhelming view expressed by Parish However, it was felt that an additional residents in the Planning Survey, March aim in this chapter would simply 2018, any proposal for further large duplicate policy AC1 in Chapter 6 and scale development in Otham Parish will would not be positive planning. be strongly resisted. It is an overarching Aim of this Neighbourhood Plan to protect and retain the Parish's rural and historic character and prevent coalescence of settlements." To buttress this ‘Aim’ I would suggest inclusion of an additional policy. Resident 2 I can see that the current Village Hall is Chapter 9 • We agree that an increase in traffic small with insufficient parking but the caused by a new Village Hall would be available space within Otham to build a undesirable. We have amended the new one with parking is limited. The idea aims in paragraph 9.3 to specify the of a new site and new hall is good, the features of any new hall to ensure that practical elements unwelcome with such a hall primarily serves the needs more car journeys on the narrow roads. of the local community, thus limiting Volume of traffic and safe walking were the increase in vehicular traffic. a major issue in the survey carried out • We feel that by only having use of the with local residents. halls in Senacre and Downswood, an However there are two village halls opportunity will be missed to enhance located nearby, one at Senacre and the sense of community which is another at Downswood which could be central to our vision for Otham. accessed instead. • We propose that residents are given I would prefer to see priority given to another opportunity to comment if a safe walking/biking by making public need and a site is identified by the footpaths suitable for all and where awaited Survey of Community Need. possible traffic calming measures We have added an additional point in introduced. Policy CL1 to ensure that the construction of a new village hall will only be supported if the location, size and access arrangements are supported by the majority of residents. • The issues of safe walking/biking and suitability of public footpaths are addressed in Chapter 7. • Traffic calming is not a matter that can be addressed in a Neighbourhood Plan.

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 13 APPENDIX 1

Otham Neighbourhood Planning Survey – March 2018

Q1. What further housing would you like to Q4. How interested are you in a Community see built? Transport Scheme?

160 80 141 140 70 69

120 60

100 50 45 80 40 31 60 30 26

40 30 20

20 10 4 2 2 0 0 Further Further No further Don’t know/ Very Fairly Unlikely Not at all Don’t large scale small scale housing No opinion likely likely know housing 10 houses or less

Q2. How important is it to you that building Q5. How important is it to you to retain and style is included in Neighbourhood Plan? protect existing Green Spaces?

160 200

140 137 175 167

120 150

100 125

80 100

60 75

40 50 25 20 25 10 8 3 0 0 0 0 Very Fairly Not Don’t know/ Very Fairly Not Don’t know/ important important important No opinion important important important No opinion

Q3. How do you see the future of the Q6. How important is it to retain existing Village Hall? views?

160 120 150 140 105 98 90 120

75 100

60 59 80

45 60

30 40

15 12 20 14 6 8 3 0 0 Maintain Build a new I do not think Don’t know/ Very Fairly Not Don’t know/ existing hall community Otham needs No opinion important important important No opinion centre a village hall elsewhere

14 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement APPENDIX 1

Q7. Would you like to see Heritage Walks Q9. Should we extend the Bridleway established? Network?

160 80 76 143 140 70

120 60 51 100 50 48

80 40

60 30

40 20

20 15 17 10

0 0 Yes No Don’t know Yes No Don’t know

Q8. Construction of Wheelchair Accessible Q10. Age range of respondents Footpaths

90 80 84 80 70 67 70 60 54 60 52 50 50 40 40 30 30 24 25 22 20 20 17 10 10 5 0 0 Important Fairly Not Don’t know/ Under 18 18–30 31–50 51–70 Over 71 important important No opinion

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 15 APPENDIX 2

Otham Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan 6. In your view, what type of housing is Questionnaire Summary 2015 needed?

Large Family Homes 8% 1. Please indicate your age group and sex? Small Family Homes 17% 18-20 2% Male 48% Affordable Housing 19% 21-45 21% Female 51% Housing for the Elderly 12% 46-55 19% No Reply 1% Housing for the disabled 5% 56-65 21% No further housing needed 68% 66-75 13% No Opinion 4% 76+ 23% No Reply 0% No Reply 1% 7. What other types of development would 2. How long have you lived in Otham? you like to see?

Minimum 1 year None 36% Maximum 84 years Other Response 26% Average 22 years No Reply 38%

3. What type of property do you live in? 8. Do you run a business in Otham?

Detached 65% Yes 12% Terrace 4% No 88% Flat 3% Semi 18% 9. Where is your main place of work or study? Bungalow 8% At Home 33% No Reply 2% Elsewhere in Village 1% Outside Village but Within 10 Miles 16% 4. Approximate age of dwelling? Within 11-15 Miles 8% Minimum 0 years Within 16-50 Miles 2% Maximum 800 years Over 50 Miles 3% Average 155 years London 5%

5. How many cars do you have and where Not Working 30% are they kept? No Reply 1%

Number Percentage 10. What is your main means of transport in Car Storage of Cars of Replies and out of Otham? Garage, Covered Area 272 cars 78% or Driveway Car 88% Roadside, Outside your 13 cars 5% Van 4% Property Bus 9% Elsewhere in Village 10 cars 1% Train 1% Off Road 15 cars 5% Motorcycle 0% None 0 cars 10% Bicycle 5% On Foot 7% Minimum 0 cars Other 3% Maximum 7 cars Not Applicable 0% Average 1.9 cars

16 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement APPENDIX 2

11. How many times a month do you use the 16. Do you walk or cycle through the village?

footpaths and bridleways? Cycle Day 30% More than 20 21% Walk Day 80% Between 11-20 27% Walk With Children Day 21% Between 5-10 12% No Walk or Cycle Day 13% Less than 5 27% Cycle Night 1% Never 14% Walk Night 14% Walk With Children Night 2% 12. Do you or have you used the Len Valley Walk? No Walk or Cycle Night 86% Yes 48% 17. Are you happy with the tidiness of the No 52% village?

Yes 65% 13. Do you feel like Otham suffers from the following types of disturbance? No 35% Traffic Noise 37% 18. Would you be willing to help with a village Shooting/Bird Scarers 0% tidy?

Noisy Activities in the Village 14% Yes 64% Agricultural/Chemical Odours 13% No 36% Inconsiderate Parking 22% 19. How important are the village pubs Agricultural Machinery on Roads 21% (White Horse and Orchard Spot) to you? Oversize Vehicles in General on Roads 68% Speeding Traffic 82% White Horse Vital 3% Bonfires 12% Important 8% No Reply 2% Nice to Have 35% 14. How important is farming to the village? Not Important 50% Very Important 61% Orchard Spot Important in Ecological Terms 33% Vital 3% Important in Economic Terms 34% Important 8% Important in Defining Rural Character 67% Nice to Have 29% Not Sure or No Opinion 5% Not Important 58% Not Important 1% No Reply 1% No Reply 1% 20. How often do you visit them a month?

15. Do you ride, own or keep a horse in the White Horse village? More than 10 1% I Ride a Horse in the Village 2% 6-10 1% I Own a Horse in the Village 0% 1-5 5% I Keep a Horse in the Village 1% Very Infrequently 27% No Horse 97% Never 66% Orchard Spot More than 10 1% 6-10 1% 1-5 2% Very Infrequently 24% Never 70% No Reply 1%

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 17 APPENDIX 2

21. How important are the following to you? 25. How important is the village green and play area to you? Mobile Library Vital 4% Vital 48% Important 12% Important 26% Nice to Have 43% Nice to Have 22% Not Important 41% Not Important 2% St Nicholas Church No Reply 1% Vital 16% 26. Do you feel there are adequate street Important 32% parking places in Otham? Nice to Have 33% Yes 28% Not Important 19% No 42% 22. How important is the village hall to you? No Opinion 29%

Vital 17% No Reply 1% Important 30% 27. Do you consider street parking a hazard Nice to Have 47% in Otham? Not Important 5% Yes 44% 23. How important are the allotments and No 33% football ground to you? No Opinion 22% No Reply 1% Allotments Vital 13% 28. How do you view street lighting currently? Important 23% Adequate 59% Nice to Have 36% More Street Lighting Required 19% Not Important 27% No Opinion 21% No Reply 1% No Reply 1% Football Ground Vital 5% 29. How important is the bus service to you?

Important 11% Essential 16% Nice to Have 21% Important 19% Not Important 63% Not Important 16% Do Not Use 48% 24. How important are village-based clubs and societies to you? No Reply 1% Vital 7% 30. Are you satisfied with the general state of Important 22% the roads in Otham?

Nice to Have 44% Yes 24% Not Important 30% No 72% No Reply 1% No Opinion 3% No Reply 1% Church 7 Church Tea Party 3 31. Do you think the maintenance of hedges and verges with regard to road safety are: Football 1 Garden Scheme 1 Good 21% History Society 14 Reasonable 55% Pre-School 1 Poor 22% No Club or Society 142 (86%) No Opinion 1% No Reply 1%

18 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement APPENDIX 2

32. Do you think the road warning signs in Street Lighting Otham adequate for safety? Good 17% Yes 38% Reasonable 31% No 48% Poor 15% No Opinion 13% No Opinion 36% No Reply 1% No Reply 1%

33. Should Otham Lane be signposted/ designated as a single lane with passing Street Cleaning places? Good 15% Reasonable 41% Yes 78% Poor 32% No 12% No Opinion 11% No Opinion 10% No Reply 1% No Reply 1%

34. Which of the following do you feel would Winter Weather Service best improve road safety in Otham? Good 18%

Improved/Additional Pathways 28% Reasonable 38% Speed Humps 24% Poor 22% Illuminated Speed Warning Signs 35% No Opinion 21% Reduce Legal Speed Limit from 30 to 50% No Reply 1% 20mph

Extend 30mph speed limit to all roads in 57% Broadband Otham Good 16% No Reply 1% Reasonable 30% 35. What are your views on the standard of Poor 34% the following environmental services in No Opinion 19% Otham? No Reply 1% Water Supply Good 61% Mobile Phone Reception Reasonable 30% Good 12% Poor 7% Reasonable 36% No Opinion 1% Poor 41% No Reply 1% No Opinion 10% No Reply 1% Electricity Supply Good 71% Community Policing Reasonable 27% Good 11% Poor 0% Reasonable 28% No Opinion 1% Poor 28% No Reply 1% No Opinion 32% No Reply 1% Refuse Collection Good 63% Reasonable 29% Poor 4% No Opinion 3% No Reply 1%

Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement 19 APPENDIX 2

36. Do you feel the quality of life has County Council improved since you moved here? Yes 21% Yes 10% No 44% No 71% No Opinion 32% No Opinion 18% No Reply 3% No Reply 1% Member of Parliament 37. Does Otham Parish Council publicise its Yes 15% decisions and activities well? No 46% Yes 62% No Opinion 36% No 15% No Reply 3% No Opinion 22% No Reply 1% 41. If further housing development does go ahead, what benefits should the village 38. Are you aware of the following methods gain from it? of communication used by Otham Parish Improved Road Safety 53% Council? Improved Footpaths 37% Ragstone Delivery 90% Improved Village Hall 26% Website 41% Street Lighting 24% Noticeboards 65% Gas Mains 41% Bi-Monthly Meetings 41% Fibre Broadband 45% Facebook 15% No Reply 1% No Reply 6% 42. Would you like to attend a public meeting 39. Do you think sufficient publicity is given to discuss the findings of this to planning applications that affect questionnaire? Otham? Yes 65% Yes 35% No 35% No 56% No Opinion 6% No Reply 3%

40. Do you feel your elected representatives are aware of local concerns and feelings?

Parish Council Yes 79% No 5% No Opinion 14% No Reply 2%

District Council Yes 28% No 37% No Opinion 32% No Reply 3%

20 Otham Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement

Report to Maidstone Borough Council

by Robert Mellor BSc DipTRP DipDesBEnv DMS MRICS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date 27 July 2017

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

(as amended)

Section 20

Report on the Examination of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan

The Plan was submitted for examination on 20 May 20 16

The e xamination hearings were held between 4 October 2016 and 24 January 20 17

File Ref: PINS /U2235 /429 /8

Abbreviations used in this report

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government dpa dwellings per annum DtC Duty to Co -operate GTTSAA Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment HMA Housing Market Area HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment KCC Kent County Council KMWLP Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan LDS Local Development Scheme LP Local Plan MBC Maidstone Borough Council MM Main Modification MSA Mineral Safeguarding Area NPPF National Planning Policy Framework OAN Objectively assessed need OAHN Objectively assessed housing need ONS Office of National Statistics PPG Planning Practice Guidance PPTS Planning Policy for Traveller Sites PSED Public Sector Equality Duty SA Sustainability Appraisal SCI Statement of Community Involvement SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SH ED LAA Strategic Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment SNPP Sub National Population Projections WMS Written Ministerial Statement

2

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

Non-Technical Summary

This report concludes that the Maidstone Borough Local Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough , provided that a number of main modifications [MMs] are made to it. Maidstone Borough Council has specifically requested me to recommend any MMs necessary to enable the Plan to be adopted.

The MMs all concern matters that were discussed at the examination hearings. Following the hearings, the Council prepared schedules of the proposed modifications and carried out sustainability appraisal of them. The MMs were subject to public consultation over a seven week period. In some cases I have amended their detailed wording where necessary. I have recommended their inclusion in the Plan after considering all the representations made in response to consultation on them.

The Main Modifications can be summarised as follows: • Strategy The creation of a Strategy Chapter in order to: incorporate strategic objectives that are present in various parts of the submitted Local Plan; fill gaps in the strategy; and to more clearly identify which are the strategic policies of the Local Plan. • Natural and Historic Environment A revised strategy for the natural environment and the historic environment to include the demerging of relevant development management policies on these matters for greater consistency with national policy. • Minerals Safeguarding The identification of minerals safeguarding areas in the recently adopted Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan and the addition of requirements for minerals assessments where appropriate for consistency with national policy for minerals safeguarding. • Transport and Air Quality Modified policies to confirm and strengthen the use of sustainable transport measures as well as highway improvements in order to mitigate the potential impacts of additional movements on congestion and air quality. The development management policy on air quality is modified for clarity and effectiveness to include updated reference to other measures that are being pursued. • Housing Need and Supply The objectively assessed housing need is reduced and the backlog is to be addressed over 10 years in order to smooth the trajectory with a further review of housing needs to form part of the intended review of the Local Plan as set out in the submitted plan but with a target adoption date brought forward to April 2021. • South East Maidstone Strategic Development Location Modified policies in relation to transport mitigation, infrastructure provision, the setting of listed buildings, and open space. • Other South Maidstone Allocations Delete housing allocations H1(29) New Line Learning, Boughton Lane and H1(53) Boughton Lane due to their adverse traffic impacts on Boughton

3

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

Lane and the A229. • Policy H2 Broad Locations for Housing Development Modify the Broad Location policies to: increase housing provision in Maidstone town centre and further define its location within the town centre; reduce the proportion of the housing at the Invicta Barracks site that is likely to be delivered within the Local Plan period ending 2031; reduce the amount of housing that is likely to be delivered at Lenham and provide that its location is to be determined by the Lenham Neighbourhood Plan or, by default, the Local Plan Review. • Other Housing Supply A series of modifications to individual housing allocations and the windfall housing allowance to reflect new evidence. • Other Relevant Development Management Housing Policies Moving the Housing Mix Policy to the Strategy chapter whilst providing that Neighbourhood Plans can provide flexibility and local context in determining the appropriate housing mix. Modifying the housing density policy for reasons of clarity and effectiveness. Modifying the policy on Affordable Housing for consistency with modified national policy to exempt smaller developments. Modifying the policy on Local Needs Housing in the interests of clarity and effectiveness. • Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Modifying Policy DM16 in the interests of effectiveness and consistency with national policy • Employment Modify the requirements for employment floorspace in the interests of clarity and effectiveness. To address viability issues it is necessary to modify where provision is to be made to meet the identified need for office floorspace allocations as well as including windfall provision. Modifying the policy for the strategic employment site at Woodcut Farm to reduce its impact on the landscape and on heritage assets whilst safeguarding office provision. Modifying policy for employment development in economic development areas in the countryside and for development involving the expansion of existing rural businesses. • Retail and Mixed Development Modifying relevant policies to clarify when retail impact assessments are or are not required for consistency with national policy. Remove the residential and employment allocation at the former Syngenta Works in Yalding for reasons of flood risk whilst retaining a policy to allow for other uses that can be shown to be compatible with that location. Add a new policy for the Baltic Wharf site to address a policy vacuum concerning the comprehensive approach to the future use of the site that has regard to the listed status of the principal building. Redefine the Mote Road site in Maidstone as a mixed use residential led allocation with a reduced requirement for office floorspace in order to address viability issues. • Other Development Management and Open Space Policies Allowing for the redevelopment of qualifying brownfield sites in the countryside with revised transport criteria whilst clarifying that residential gardens in the countryside do not qualify as brownfield land. Modifying policy for non-conforming uses in the interests of clarity and effectiveness. Modifying policy on external lighting to protect intrinsically dark landscapes

4

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

and wildlife. Providing that proposals for renewable and low carbon energy developments in the AONB would be addressed by AONB policies and not precluded which would be inconsistent with national policy. Modifying some open space allocations as a consequence of changes to housing allocations or where the original allocation is not justified. • Infrastructure Delivery Modifying misleading wording in the interests of effectiveness and providing that sufficient infrastructure is to be available in order for new development to be supported. • Implementation, Monitoring and Review Comprehensively modifying the monitoring provisions with new more specific and measurable targets and triggers for review.

5

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

Introduction 1. This report contains my assessment of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). It considers first whether the Plan’s preparation has complied with the duty to co- operate. It then considers whether the Plan is sound and whether it is compliant with the legal requirements.

2. The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 182) makes it clear that in order to be sound, a Local Plan should be:

• Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;

• Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

• Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and

• Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework’.

3. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local planning authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The Maidstone Borough Local Plan, submitted in May 2016, is the basis for my examination. It is the same document as was published for consultation in February 2016.

Main Modifications

4. In accordance with section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act the Council requested that I should recommend any main modifications [MMs] necessary to rectify matters that make the Plan unsound and thus incapable of being adopted. My report explains why the recommended MMs, all of which relate to matters that were discussed at the examination hearing(s), are necessary. The MMs are referenced in bold in the report in the form MM1, MM2, MM3 etc, and are set out in full in the Appendix.

5. Following the examination hearings, the Council prepared a schedule of proposed MMs and carried out sustainability appraisal of them. The MM schedule was subject to public consultation for seven weeks (allowing extra time for bank holidays). I have taken account of the consultation responses in coming to my conclusions in this report and in this light I have made some amendments to the detailed wording of the main modifications. None of the amendments significantly alters the content of the modifications as published for consultation or undermines the participatory processes and sustainability appraisal that has been undertaken. Where necessary I have highlighted these amendments in the report.

6

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

Policies Map

6. The Council must maintain an adopted policies map which illustrates geographically the application of the policies in the adopted development plan. When submitting a local plan for examination, the Council is required to provide a submission policies map showing the changes to the adopted policies map that would result from the proposals in the submitted local plan. In this case, the submission policies map comprises the set of plans in A3 format identified as one of the documents entitled ‘Maidstone Borough Local Plan Publication (Regulation 19) February 2016’ as set out in Document SUB 001 Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2011-2031.

7. The policies map is not defined in statute as a development plan document and so I do not have the power to recommend main modifications to it. However, a number of the published MMs to the Plan’s policies require further corresponding changes to be made to the policies map. In addition, there are some instances where the geographic illustration of policies on the submission policies map is not justified and changes to the policies map are needed to ensure that the relevant policies are effective.

8. These further changes to the policies map were published for consultation alongside the MMs in Document ED 155 ‘Schedule of Minor Changes Plus Maps’.

9. When the Plan is adopted, in order to comply with the legislation and give effect to the Plan’s policies, the Council will need to update the adopted policies map to include all the changes proposed in ‘Maidstone Borough Local Plan Publication (Regulation 19) February 2016’ and the further changes published alongside the MMs .

Consultation

10. I am satisfied that the consultation carried out has been in accordance with the regulatory provisions and the Statement of Community Involvement. Assessment of Duty to Co-operate 11. Section 20(5)(c) of the 2004 Act requires that I consider whether the Council complied with any duty to cooperate imposed on it by section 33A in respect of the Plan’s preparation.

12. S33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out a statutory ‘Duty to Cooperate’ (DtC) which here applies to Maidstone BC and other local planning authorities, to Kent County Council, and to other persons prescribed by Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) England Regulations 2012 (the Regulations).

13. The duty requires Maidstone Borough Council to cooperate with other persons to ‘maximise the effectiveness’ with which named activities are undertaken. Those activities include the preparation of development plan documents (such as this local plan) and activities that support that activity ‘so far as relating to a strategic matter’ . A strategic matter is defined by S33A(4) in summary as: (a) ‘sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas’ (a planning area in this case is the area of a borough or district council); and (b) ‘sustainable development or use of land in 7

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

a two tier area ’ (as this is) ’if the development or use (i) is a county matter, or (ii) has or would have a significant impact on a county matter’ . County matters broadly relate to minerals and waste and associated developments as defined by Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

14. S33A(7) requires Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) (and persons subject to the DtC) to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State about how the duty is to be complied with. In that regard Paragraph ID 9-004-29140306 of the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) confirms amongst other things that the duty to cooperate is not a duty to agree albeit that local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross border matters before they submit local plans for examination.

15. In this case the strategic matters at issue are:

• Cross border housing needs and supply

• Cross border provision for economic development and employment

• Cross border provision of strategic infrastructure, especially transport

• Cross border strategic gaps in development

• Minerals planning issues

16. MBC has issued a ‘Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement’ [SUB 008] as recommended in paragraph ID 9-011-20140306 of the PPG. This was published after the closing date for representations on the submission plan and thus was not available when Representors were preparing their representations. It lists the relevant bodies and the forms and methods of cooperation undertaken over many years. This demonstrates that there has been extensive engagement notwithstanding that the minuting of meetings and their outcomes is sometimes incomplete.

17. The DtC Statement sets out the 4 strategic areas where there has been active cooperation under the following headings:

• The homes needed in the area

• The provision of employment, retail and commercial development

• The provision of infrastructure (includes transport)

• The natural and historic environment

18. There has not been agreement between MBC and all the persons with which there has been engagement under the DtC and that has impaired the ultimate effectiveness of cooperation. However the above national guidance confirms that there is not a duty to agree. Whether a lack of agreement raises an issue of soundness may be of relevance to other findings.

19. The evidence of the DtC Statement and supplementary written and verbal evidence provided during the examination in relation to cross border strategic

8

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

gap and landscape issues, employment development, and minerals planning issues supports my conclusion that MBC has engaged with neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies to address strategic matters and has sought maximum effectiveness. It has therefore met the statutory duty set out in section 33A of the 2004 Act. Assessment of Soundness Background

20. The Maidstone Borough Local Plan covers the period from 2011 to 2031. It would replace the saved policies of the Maidstone Borough-wide 2000 Local Plan, the Affordable Housing DPD 2006, the Open Space DPD 2006 and the Sustainable Construction SPD. The Local Plan would include strategic, development management and development allocation policies.

21. Other parts of the development plan in Maidstone would include adopted Neighbourhood Plans (of which several have either been adopted or are in preparation) and the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2016 which was recently adopted by Kent County Council.

Main Issues

22. Taking account of all the representations, the written evidence and the discussions that took place at the examination hearings I have identified 36 main issues upon which the soundness of the Plan depends. Under these headings my report deals with the main matters of soundness and legal compliance rather than responding to every point raised by Representors.

MATTER 1 – STRATEGY

Issue 1 – Whether the Plan is positively prepared in that it has a clearly identified strategy

23. Paragraph 156 of the NPPF includes the provision that local planning authorities should set out the strategic priorities for their area in the Local Plan.

24. The submitted Local Plan includes strategic objectives and a spatial strategy set out in the single Policy SS1. However it also includes other spatial policies that are strategic in nature. Some of the site allocation and development management policies are also wholly or partly strategic but are not clearly identified as such. This makes it difficult for those preparing Neighbourhood Plans to identify whether they are in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan in order that they are consistent with national policy at paragraph 184 of the NPPF. The plan is consequently not clearly demonstrated to be positively prepared based on a strategy and risks being ineffective in that regard and consequently unsound.

25. The strategic policies in the Local Plan can and should be more clearly identified and distinguished from the non-strategic policies. Because these changes are necessary for soundness MM3 and MM61 reorder and amend the relevant policies so that the strategic policies are more readily identifiable. There are also consequential modifications to these and other policies throughout the Plan that are included in other main modifications. 9

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

Issue 2 - Whether the plan is the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence

26. A core planning principle of the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 17 is that planning should: ‘ actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’ .

27. The spatial strategy set out in Policy SS1 of the submitted Local Plan appropriately seeks that Maidstone town is the principal focus of development. This includes: making best use of available sites within the urban area; for the town centre to be the primary office and retail location; and with two strategic development locations to the north west and south east of the urban area. Five rural service centres are identified as second tier locations for development. Five large villages are identified as third tier locations and there are policies to restrain development elsewhere, with exceptions.

28. The physical layout of the Borough includes the existing distribution of settlements, the location of rail and road routes, and landscape, flood risk and other environmental constraints. These all limit the reasonable alternative development strategies that are available.

29. Maidstone town has the most services and facilities and is the logical focus for most development. Accessibility to services and facilities by sustainable modes will inevitably vary between locations across the Borough. However distance to facilities cannot be the only consideration. Other matters include infrastructure capacity, congestion, and site specific considerations such as the conservation of the natural and historic environment.

30. The Sustainability Appraisal [Document SUB 002] appraised 5 alternative strategies for the distribution of housing development of between 18,600 and 19,600 dwellings. Two strategies involved a new settlement to the east of Maidstone. These were rejected because of the need for extensive new infrastructure and the harm to the area’s character. The other rejected alternatives involved differing amounts of development at the villages, including whether or not there should be major development at Lenham. I consider that the alternatives have been appropriately assessed.

31. The spatial strategy set out in the Local Plan for housing development is consistent with national policy to manage growth patterns that favour sustainable means of travel whilst also having due regard to environmental protection and other relevant factors.

32. The spatial strategy for employment is consistent with national policy to support town centres. Some modifications are needed in relation to its support for rural businesses and to allow for redevelopment on existing employment sites in the countryside (MM51 & MM56 ). In relation to the identified quantitative and qualitative needs for employment development the strategy is consistent with national policy to seek to meet such needs locally within the Borough and thereby reduce the need for increased out commuting. Considerations of space, traffic capacity and viability all support the decision to allocate the main strategic employment site adjacent to Junction 8 of the M20. Whilst this has some drawbacks in terms of landscape impact and public transport accessibility, no more appropriate site has been identified within the Borough. 10

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

33. Overall and subject to the above modifications the Local Plan has the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.

Issue 3 – Whether the plan is based on effective working on cross-boundary strategic priorities

34. The urban area of Maidstone town is close to neighbouring urban areas in Tonbridge and Malling Borough. There are strong functional relationships across the Borough boundary. To the north of the Kent Downs, other urban parts of Maidstone Borough closely adjoin the Medway urban area. Road and rail connections allow significant cross-border commuting in both directions between the 3 districts to access work, shops and other facilities. There is also significant commuting to and from Swale and Ashford and by road and rail from Maidstone’s town and villages to more distant locations including central and South East London. These movements have implications for the location of new employment, housing and other facilities, as well as for travel volumes. The adjoining boroughs also have their own cross-border relationships with other areas in North, West, and East Kent, and with Sussex and London.

35. There has been cooperation between Maidstone and the adjoining Boroughs of Tonbridge & Malling and Ashford in the identification of housing needs. This has included jointly commissioned Strategic Housing Market Assessments which have identified where the housing market areas overlap between these areas. An earlier suggestion from Swale that some of their housing needs might be met in Maidstone was resolved after additional development sites were identified within Swale in their emerging Local Plan. There are no outstanding requests for housing needs to be met outside the boundaries of any of the neighbouring authorities.

36. Transport modelling has taken account of the committed and emerging proposals for housing and employment development in the adjoining Boroughs where relevant, and based on current travel patterns.

37. In relation to employment provision, each of the neighbouring Councils is seeking to meet its own identified employment needs and none has requested additional provision within Maidstone. The future scale of cross border movements is difficult to predict. However, the broad distribution of planned employment growth across the defined economic area of Maidstone and its adjoining Boroughs would still allow either that people could be employed within their own Boroughs and close to their own homes or that the existing pattern of commuting could continue.

38. High levels of commuting risk increased congestion, particularly if movement is by car. Where people actually choose to live and to work and how they move between them is likely to be affected, as now, by considerations of travel time/reliability, cost, and comfort. However this underlines the need to make adequate provision for employment within each Borough, and preferably in or near the main settlements, in order to provide choice and to reduce reliance on long-distance commuting by car.

39. There is evidence of cross border working between the neighbouring planning authorities. The submitted Statements of Common Ground confirm that this has

11

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

been effective in avoiding significant disagreements between the Boroughs on the main strategic priorities.

40. Whereas there was joint working with Kent County Council during the preparation of the plan this was not followed by agreement on a transport strategy within the Borough for the full plan period. However that is not a cross boundary strategic matter. The County Council has agreed a series of interim transport improvements for the period up to 2022. Following the refusal of the County Council to agree to other measures the Borough has adopted its own Integrated Transport Strategy with supporting evidence [Document TRA 038]. The Council has also adopted a separate Maidstone Walking and Cycling Strategy 2011-2031 [Document TRA 039].

41. The Borough Council’s strategies are consistent with national policy to take up opportunities for sustainable travel modes, to cost effectively limit the significant impacts of development, and to avoid severe residual cumulative impacts of development. They are also broadly consistent with the objectives of the County Council’s Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2016) and with the ambition, outcomes and supporting policies of the County Council’s consultation draft Local Transport Plan 4 (2016-2031).

42. I conclude that the plan is based on effective working on the cross-boundary strategic priorities.

MATTER 2 – NATURAL AND HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Issue 4 - Whether the Local Plan is supported by an adequate evidence base in relation to heritage and whether there has been adequate assessment of the impact on heritage of proposed development

43. Following initial representations from Historic England concerning the evidence base on heritage matters I conclude that the Council has submitted satisfactory supplementary evidence which has demonstrated what account has been had to heritage matters in the development strategy.

Issue 5 - Whether the Local Plan includes the strategy for the historic environment that is sought by national policy and is otherwise consistent with national policy

44. Amongst other things Paragraph 126 of the NPPF seeks that local planning authorities should set out in their local plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.

45. The submitted Local Plan is inconsistent with that national policy as it lacks a clearly expressed strategy for the historic environment. Whilst it does include a relevant development management policy in Policy DM3 ‘Historic and natural environment’, the attempts of that latter policy to provide merged policy criteria for the treatment of both the natural environment and heritage assets mean that the policy is inconsistent with relevant national policy and statutory provisions which differ as between these subject areas. That would also harm the effectiveness of the policy and make it unsound.

46. These soundness issues can be addressed by creating a new strategic policy SP18 ‘Historic Environment’ (MM12 ) and by removing heritage matters from Policy DM3 to a new Policy DM4 ‘Heritage Assets’ (MM57 ). The policy text would then 12

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

be consistent with national policy for the historic environment in the NPPF and with statutory provisions for heritage assets. However as pointed out by Kent County Council in representations on the proposed modifications the reference in the second paragraph of Policy SP18 to ‘historic parks and gardens’ should be amended to ‘registered parks and gardens’ for consistency with national policy. I have therefore included that slight modification to the wording as part of MM12 .

Issue 6 – Whether the policies for the countryside, natural environment, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Green Belt and Landscapes of Local Value would be justified, effective ,and consistent with national policy

47. The Local Plan strategy for the natural environment is set out primarily in Policy SP17 ‘The Countryside’. It is supplemented by relevant parts of Policy DM3 ‘Historic and Natural Environment’, by DM34 ‘Design Principles in the Countryside’ and by a number of other development management policies concerning particular forms of development that may be acceptable in the countryside.

48. Policy DM3 seeks to employ hybrid criteria for the natural and historic environment which are not consistent with national policy for the protection of natural assets and would be ineffective in that regard and thus unsound.

49. The necessary separation of DM3 into two distinct policies for the natural environment and for the historic environment respectively allows that DM3 can be more readily amended in respect of criteria to protect sites of biodiversity value. This includes making the distinctions that national policy requires according to the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites. Wording amendments are also needed for effectiveness where the wording of Policy DM3 is inconsistent with overlapping criteria for landscape protection in Policy SP17 ( MM40 ).

50. Policy SP17 seeks to list the forms of development that will be permitted in the countryside. However that list is incomplete as other plan policies allow for different types of development subject to more comprehensive criteria. This risks confusion and consequent ineffectiveness. However that can be remedied by deleting the partial list from Policy SP17 and substituting a cross reference to the other plan policies. It makes clear that development which does not accord with relevant policies will not be permitted in the countryside (MM11 ).

51. Policy SP17 and its reasoned justification misinterpret the statutory duty regarding Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In particular there is no statutory duty to conserve and enhance the AONB. The statutory requirement as set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 may be summarised as for public bodies to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of an AONB and for a local planning authority to take such action as appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of an AONB. National policy allows for the weighing of these considerations with other matters.

52. The Plan is also unclear as to the policy which is to apply to development proposed in the Green Belt. The merged criteria for the Green Belt and the AONB contributes to consequent inconsistency with national policy and a risk of ineffectiveness. The further wording changes proposed in MM11 would also rectify these matters.

13

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

53. SP17(6) sets the policy criteria for Landscapes of Local Value but is vaguely worded which would risk its effectiveness. This can be addressed by modifications to the wording and to the reasoned justification at paragraph 5.88 as also included in MM11 .

54. DM34 Design Principles in the Countryside (to be renumbered as DM30 on the appended schedule) includes criteria for landscape protection that unnecessarily overlap with criteria in Policies SP17 and DM3. Moreover the varied wording would be confusing and ineffective. This can be addressed by modifications to the wording and the reasoned justification (MM55).

MATTER 3 - MINERALS SAFEGUARDING

Issue 7 - Whether the Local Plan is consistent with national policy for facilitating the sustainable use of minerals

55. The NPPF provides at paragraph 145 that minerals planning authorities (MPA) should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates, and at paragraph 146 that they should plan for a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals. More specifically, there are requirements to maintain aggregates landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and 10 years for crushed rock. For industrial minerals there are specific requirements for a stock of permitted reserves for silica sand sites, primary and secondary materials and for brick clay. For minerals used in industrial and manufacturing processes the MPA is to cooperate with neighbouring and more distant authorities to ensure adequate provision to support their likely use in industrial and manufacturing processes [my emphasis].

56. The MPA is Kent County Council (KCC). On 14 July 2016 KCC adopted the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-2030 (the KMWLP) as part of the development plan. This event post-dated the submission of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan for examination. Policy CSM5 of the KMWLP provides for the safeguarding of economic mineral resources from unnecessary sterilisation by other development. This is to be achieved by the identification of Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA), sites identified for mineral working in an Appendix to the KWMLP, and sites to be identified in a proposed Minerals Sites Plan.

57. KMWLP Policy DM 7 provides that when proposing non-minerals development within a Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA) a series of criteria need to be addressed. One provision is that adopted Local Plan allocations within an MSA may be excluded from other requirements of the policy. However the position is less clear with regard to emerging Local Plan sites which have not previously been subject to individual minerals assessments, as is the case with sites in the submitted Local Plan. In particular the KMWLP states at 5.5.14 that:

“The allocation of land within an MSA [Mineral Safeguarding Area] will only take place after consideration of the factors that would be considered if a non- minerals development were to be proposed in that location, or in proximity to it, as set out in Policies DM7, DM8, CSM5 and CSM6.”

But the KMWLP does not require that proposed allocations must be subject to a prior Minerals Assessment, as is the case for other types of sites, and Policy DM7 (7) specifically exempts allocations in adopted Local Plans from being subject to this requirement. 14

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

58. Maidstone BC and KCC have agreed a Statement of Common Ground on Minerals Matters [Document SUB 018]. That Statement provides that for a number of site allocations where permission has not yet been granted, there would be a need for a minerals assessment regarding the practicality and viability of extracting the minerals before development goes ahead. However, whilst MBC agrees to apply such a relevant policy criterion in respect of most minerals subject to a MSA, it does not agree that the requirement for a minerals assessment should be applied for allocated sites within the MSA in respect of ragstone or Sandgate formation industrial sands.

59. In this matter MBC reasonably relies on the evidence of an Information Note produced by Kent CC itself in May 2016 [Document R19570 Appendix 2]. Ragstone underlies much of the developable land around Maidstone. The note acknowledges that a landbank of crushed rock is only required by the NPPF to be maintained for a 10 year period and that ragstone is a plentiful material with a landbank of 61 years supply. It is also concluded in the note that to attempt to extract the mineral would result in significant difficulty in viably delivering the allocated sites for non-mineral development. The probability of significant adverse effect on NPPF objectives by sterilisation of this resource is reasonably assessed by the Mineral Planning Authority as low.

60. The Sandgate formation industrial sand is assessed in the same KCC note as potentially important for industrial applications. It has previously been quarried in West Sussex for use as moulding sand in iron casting. However it has not been quarried in Maidstone in recent times and KCC’s own evidence note concludes that this is unlikely to reoccur in Maidstone Borough. There is no evidence to support what quantum of reserve would be required and the material would appear to be economically marginal. Any potential sterilisation is therefore reasonably assessed by KCC as unlikely to be material.

61. In September 2016 KCC published for consultation a draft Supplementary Planning Document entitled ‘Minerals and Waste Safeguarding .’ MBC has made representations on this document [Document ED 119] and has highlighted that the approach to emerging site allocations has not yet been clarified. It remains unclear what type of minerals assessment is needed for such sites.

62. In these circumstances I conclude that the absence of a policy requirement for a minerals assessment in respect of allocated non-minerals development within the ragstone or Sandgate formation MSA would not result in material inconsistency with national policy since these minerals are not likely to be needed. However such a policy criterion to require an assessment of whether other minerals can be extracted prior to sterilising development in other MSA areas is required for consistency with national policy if the plan is to be sound and consistent with the KMWLP. MM16 would add a minerals safeguarding criterion to relevant allocations. Where there is already a full or outline planning permission for non- minerals development on these sites it is too late to require a minerals assessment. The criterion would however apply to relevant new development proposals. The Borough Council however agrees with the representations of Kent County Council insofar as MM16 should not apply to updated policy numbers H1(34), (36), (44), (50), (63) and H2(2) which were included in error in the proposed modifications and these have therefore been deleted from MM16 . These modifications are necessary for soundness.

15

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

MATTER 4 - TRANSPORT AND AIR QUALITY

Issue 8 - Whether the Local Plan is consistent with national policy for the avoidance of severe traffic impacts on the strategic road network resulting from development and whether it is supported by proportionate evidence in that regard

63. Following representations from Highways England, further modelling work has been undertaken during the examination to test the cumulative impacts of planned development in Maidstone and adjoining Boroughs on the strategic road network and especially the M20.

64. A Statement of Common Ground [Document ED 103] has been agreed between Highways England and Maidstone Borough Council which concludes in summary that proposed junction improvements at M20 junctions 5-8 can adequately mitigate development but that timely implementation and continued monitoring are necessary as well as the possibility of Plan B mitigation if the planning permissions that would provide mitigation are not implemented in a timely fashion. Changes to the Policies DM24 and ID1 are recommended in the Statement including the use of Section 278 agreements under the Highways Act 1980.

65. Where the proposed mitigation involves works at the motorway junctions to reduce congestion these typically involve either signalisation or carriageway alterations that are below the threshold for the nationally significant infrastructure projects to which the National Policy Statement for National Networks applies.

66. I conclude that with the additional evidence that has been provided during the examination the Local Plan is now supported by adequate proportionate evidence. I further conclude that severe traffic impacts on the strategic network are capable of avoidance through mitigation. However for the Plan to be sound main modifications MM52 and MM58 include the necessary changes to Policies DM24 (renumbered as DM21) and Policy ID1 to ensure that the mitigation measures are effective and that severe traffic impacts are avoided in line with national policy in the NPPF at paragraph 32. Moreover, because the policy applies to all types of road MM52 now includes reference to Highways England guidance alongside the existing reference to Kent County Council guidance on Transport Assessments and Travel Plans. Additional text has been added for this purpose.

Issue 9 – Whether the plan is consistent with national policy for sustainable travel, for the assessment of transport impacts and for managing air quality

Sustainable Travel and Transport Impacts

67. Under the heading ‘Promoting sustainable transport’, Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework provides amongst other things that:

‘Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

• the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

• safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and 16

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

• improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.

68. The Local Plan’s transport strategy is not easily identifiable because it is set out in 2 development management policies as criteria 1 & 2 of Policy DM24 and criterion 1 of Policy DM25. These criteria set out actions to be taken by the Borough Council and its partners and are consistent with national policy. Main modification MM13 is needed: to clarify that these are part of the plan’s strategy; to demonstrate consistency with national policy; and to improve their effectiveness. This would be achieved by combining these criteria in a new policy SP23 ‘Sustainable Transport’ within the strategy chapter. This would include changes to the text and reasoned justification in relation to: the timing and implementation of mitigation; the role of the Integrated Transport Strategy; and the opportunity to review and improve the functionality and effectiveness of Park and Ride services.

69. Subject to the removal of those strategic criteria by MM13 , Policies DM24 Sustainable Transport and DM25 Public Transport (as renumbered and modified as Policy DM21 ‘Assessing the transport impacts of development’) would be effective as a development management policy. MM52 is needed to reduce the risk of severe residual congestion and air quality impacts on the local and strategic highway network that would contravene the above national policy. Those parts of Policy DM24 Sustainable Transport which relate to assessing the transport impacts of development would remain.

Air Quality

70. Paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework provides amongst other things that in preparing to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment.

71. An issue that has come to the fore during the Examination is that of air quality, especially in relation to road traffic emissions and their associated health impacts. This follows the intended quashing by the High Court of the National Air Quality Plan (AQP) 1 and the direction from the Court that the Government should urgently replace it with a new plan by 31 July 2017 to replace the AQP. An Air Quality Plan for Nitrogen Dioxide was published by the Government on 26 July 2017.

72. The national PPG on Air Quality provides in summary at paragraph ID 32-002- 20140306 that the Local Plan may need to consider:

1 ClientEarth v SoS EFRA [2016] EWHC 2740 (Admin) 17

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

• the potential cumulative impact of a number of smaller developments on air quality as well as the effect of more substantial developments;

• the impact of point sources of air pollution (pollution that originates from one place); and,

• ways in which new development would be appropriate in locations where air quality is or likely to be a concern and not give rise to unacceptable risks from pollution. This could be through, for example, identifying measures for offsetting the impact on air quality arising from new development including supporting measures in an air quality action plan or low emissions strategy where applicable.

73. Maidstone town as a whole and including the M20 corridor is designated as an Air Quality Management Area, not because the entire town has substandard air quality but because Nitrogen Dioxide emissions at a series of locations within the town exceed air quality target limits set by an EU Directive and national regulations. These locations are mainly along the busiest roads and they include The Wheatsheaf junction (A274/A229) and Upper Stone Street which is part of the town centre gyratory and which carries high volumes of traffic towards the A274, A229(S), A20(E) and B2010.

74. An Air Quality Action Plan was adopted for Maidstone in 2010 and its measures were referred to in the national AQP published in 2015. One notable measure is Measure M6 ‘Improvements to Public Transport’ which cites as an example an extension of the existing bus lane on the A274 Sutton Road to create bus capacity for new bus routes, to improve public transport uptake and to reduce traffic entering the Air Quality Management Area. That and many other measures in the AQAP have not been implemented (or only in part) and the Plan has not yet succeeded in bringing emissions within the limits in all parts of the AQMA. However there are many areas within the extensive AQMA where air quality is within national guidelines. The Council is now reviewing the AQMA with a view to consulting on a more focussed approach that concentrates on areas of genuinely poor air quality. This relates mainly to the radial roads and the M20.

75. Whilst some have argued that the air quality issue warrants a moratorium on new development in the town, that would not solve the existing problem. Neither would it be consistent with national policy to also meet development needs. A solution is therefore needed that both addresses the existing air quality problem and which also allows that the identified need for housing and other development can still be met whilst minimising pollution in accordance with the above aim of paragraph 110 of the NPPF. Part of the solution lies within the Local Plan and its policies but support is also needed from other measures outside the Local Plan. The Local Plan will also need to be kept up to date as the technical and policy environment changes.

76. The amount of emissions from road vehicles is affected both by the number of vehicles and also by the means of propulsion. A twin track approach is therefore essential to maximise the chances of meeting the emissions limits at the earliest possible date having regard to the urgent need for legal compliance. Such an approach needs to encourage the use of alternative means of propulsion such as electricity and engines with cleaner emissions. However it would inevitably take a number of years to materially change the overall composition of the vehicle

18

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

fleet in use in the Borough. Therefore it is essential to renew and reinforce measures to encourage a reduction in the number of polluting vehicles.

77. The number of vehicles is unusually high in Maidstone because of high levels of car use relative to other modes such as public transport, walking and cycling. Measures are therefore needed to encourage modal shift in the interests of both air quality and congestion.

78. In relation to the means of propulsion and their associated emissions, the proportion of diesel vehicles has grown in recent years and is likely to have arrested what was previously a downward trend in emissions. As the range of electric vehicles improves and their costs reduce a switch away from older diesel vehicles towards electric vehicles might help to achieve overall reductions in emissions .

79. Heavy diesel vehicles such as lorries and buses also make a significant contribution to emissions although the introduction of low emission vehicles can achieve reductions. Electric buses are being introduced in London and elsewhere. Encouragement of low emissions vehicles is a matter best addressed through the emerging low emissions strategy.

80. Moreover one bus can carry as many people as a large number of cars, resulting in less emissions overall. This further supports the need for a bus lane on Sutton Road to encourage modal shift in South East Maidstone, including by existing residents when travelling to and from the town centre and the railway stations.

81. MM6 is needed to modify the strategic Policy SP3 as part of the mitigation which is necessary for consistency with national policy to minimise pollution. This includes the extension of the existing bus lane in Sutton Road to support the South East Maidstone development. Several site allocation policies in the vicinity (and existing permissions and S106 agreements) already make provision to support bus prioritisation measures on this road. They also support improving the frequency and routing of bus services, including better connections to railway stations.

82. Because many of Maidstone’s roads are within closely built-up areas the opportunities for road widening and other physical capacity improvements are limited. Where they are physically possible, road capacity improvements may reduce congestion and pollution from stationary traffic. A series of road capacity improvements at junctions are already included in site allocation policies. There is agreement between KCC, MBC and Highways England on a number of the shorter term capacity measures which are included in the MBC Integrated Transport Strategy 2011-2031 [Document TRA 038]. However capacity improvements alone are unlikely to minimise pollution as they can also facilitate or encourage more vehicle movements with their associated emissions. Also further work is needed to cover the later local plan period (including additional site allocations) and to implement measures which are as yet only outlined in the emerging KCC Local Transport Plan 4. These need to be included in the Local Plan Review and at an earlier date than proposed in the submitted Local Plan in order that there is timely provision of necessary measures. Main modification MM1 sets a target adoption date for the Review of April 2021.

19

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

83. The need to reduce emissions supports the aims of the Borough Council’s adopted Integrated Transport Strategy and the Walking and Cycling Strategy [Document TRA 039] to encourage modal shift.

84. To further reduce emissions, additional measures are likely to be needed including:

• the designation of low emission zones or clean air zones,

• additional bus priority elsewhere in the urban area to encourage modal shift,

• replacing or retrofitting existing buses to reduce emissions from diesel engines,

• encouraging the use of electric cars and electric bicycles by requiring charging places and storage provision at homes, and

• a review of the amount of parking provision in the town centre and its costs relative to other travel modes, especially bus travel. In that regard the commitment in the Integrated Transport Strategy to increase long stay parking costs 50% by 2031 lacks sufficient urgency. It is unlikely to prompt the necessary early shift to other transport modes that is needed to reduce congestion and improve air quality, particularly if bus and train fares rise at a similar or greater rate, cancelling any price advantage.

85. Park and Ride (or Park and Train) may also be part of the solution if it results in fewer vehicles entering the town centre. It would be of most benefit to those travelling from locations outside Maidstone with poor public transport connections. However careful siting and pricing policies are needed if park and ride sites are not to encourage passenger transfer from service buses to cheaper park and ride services that depend on subsidy, especially if this would harm the frequency or viability of service buses. Whereas there has been a recent reduction in park and ride provision for reasons of cost, MM13 is needed to ensure that MBC continues to review and improve the functionality and effectiveness of park and ride services.

86. That significant modal shift is possible is demonstrated by the experience of other towns in the south including Brighton, Poole and Oxford. Concentrating development in or adjacent to the town on high frequency bus routes (as proposed in the Local Plan at South East Maidstone and North West Maidstone) and in those rural service centres with railway services, makes modal shift more likely to be achieved than if development were to be more dispersed or located in new settlements with fewer facilities or public transport services and which consequently still relied heavily on access to Maidstone town by car for employment, services and facilities.

87. A land use plan like the Local Plan can only partially address the wider air quality issues. Other available measures include the emerging Low Emissions Strategy, the intended review of the Maidstone Air Quality Action Plan, and a review of the parking strategy. The final version of the national Air Quality Plan may propose other specific measures for local implementation. However it is not known at this time what measures would require local policies for their implementation. The necessary solution to achieve consistency with current and emerging national 20

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

policy is to prepare a separate Development Plan Document to address air quality. This is included in main modification MM42 . Such a document would have regard to other measures in preparation such as an update to the Air Quality Action Plan, the emerging Low Emissions Strategy and likely revisions to national policy.

88. The Council’s Draft Low Emissions Strategy (June 2017) indicated that the timescale for delivery of the DPD would be 3-5 years in which case it would overlap with the proposed review of the Local Plan. However in subsequent correspondence [ED 156 and ED 157] the Council has confirmed its commitment to adopting the Air Quality DPD before the adoption of the Local Plan review. The Council now intends to submit the DPD for examination in January 2019 with adoption targeted by September 2019. In the meantime the Council intends to approve as a material consideration Planning Guidance that has already been produced by the Kent and Medway Air Quality Partnership to include some Maidstone-specific amendments such as additional text to illustrate when the criteria of emerging Local Plan policy DM6(1) Air Quality will apply.

89. The need to address poor air quality within the Air Quality Management Area and especially at the exceedance locations would not justify a moratorium on development. However it does emphasise the need for mitigation measures for individual developments. Many of the site allocation policies already make provision for mitigation measures. To achieve satisfactory air quality is likely to require a range of measures to address the existing problem whilst also allowing for necessary growth. In the submitted Plan, Policy DM5 ‘Air Quality’ sets out criteria for development proposals that would have a potential impact on air quality. It seeks to provide for the assessment of impacts and the means whereby they may be minimised and mitigated. However, as worded, the criteria and the reasoned justification are unclear and are therefore likely to prove ineffective in some circumstances and consequently make the plan unsound in that regard. Main modification MM42 would reword the policy to make it clearer and renumber it as Policy DM6. Minimisation and mitigation may include encouraging use of sustainable travel modes, amongst other things. The associated amendments to the reasoned justification expand on the issue.

MATTER 5 – HOUSING NEED AND SUPPLY

Housing Need

Issue 10– Whether the plan is positively prepared in that it is based on a strategy which seeks to meet an objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing including any unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

90. That England as a nation has for a number of years been building many fewer houses than are needed by a growing population and growing household numbers has been widely reported. The resulting pressures on the housing stock and associated issues of affordability are particularly acute in London and the South East. As one of the main urban areas in Kent, Maidstone town cannot be insulated from these pressures, including those arising from migration from other areas, and must have a role in addressing them. The spatial strategy appropriately considers the role that the Borough’s other settlements can play, particularly those that already have supporting services and infrastructure, such

21

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

as the railway stations that provide connections to London and other parts of the region.

91. Paragraph 159 of the NPPF provides amongst other things that local planning authorities should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries.

92. The Housing Topic Paper [Document SUB 005] describes the action taken which includes the SHMA that was first published in January 2014 and updated in June 2015.

93. The SHMA and its update are based on the appropriate housing market area and reasonably use the DCLG population and 2012-based household projections as the starting point. The Local Plan was submitted for examination on 20 May 2016. Four days later on 25 May 2016 the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published 2014-based population projections. On 12 July 2016 the DCLG published 2014-based household projections. In the national Planning Practice Guidance paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 2a-016-20150227 confirms that previous assessments are not automatically rendered out of date simply by the publication of new projections. An analysis by the Council concluded that whilst the projected housing growth is 3.6% stronger in the 2014-based projections, that is moderated by evidence of reduced vacancy rates and that the scale of difference between the 2012 and 2014 based projections is well within the error margins associated with long term projections. I agree with that conclusion. Moreover it would be counter-productive to delay the adoption of the Local Plan pending a review based on the revised projections when there will be the opportunity to review and update housing needs during the intended first review of the Local Plan.

94. There are no outstanding requests to accommodate unmet housing needs from neighbouring authorities. The submitted Local Plan seeks to meet the full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN) for housing in Maidstone that was identified in the SHMA update, including a 5% uplift for market signals.

Relating Employment Needs to Housing Provision

95. The national PPG provides at paragraph ID 2a-018-20140306 that plan makers should make an assessment of the likely change in job numbers and also have regard to the growth of the working age population in the housing market area. Caution is advised where the supply of working age population that is economically active is less than the projected job growth. That is not the case here.

96. The 2012-based Office for National Statistics Sub National Population Projections (SNPP) result in growth in the workforce of 17,300 persons over the plan period (HOU 004 Table 13). The 14,400 jobs target derived from the Council’s Economic Development strategy is less than the projected increase in the workforce but is nevertheless acknowledged as ambitious.

97. Currently there are an estimated 1.3 jobs per household in Maidstone. If the same rate is maintained in both new and existing housing then that jobs target could fall short of the numbers of employed persons that might be accommodated by the new dwellings proposed in the Local Plan. Some increase 22

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

in net out-commuting is likely to occur in any event (see below in relation to economic development considerations). However it does not follow that the current ratio of jobs to households will necessarily persist for either the new housing stock or the existing stock during the remainder of the local plan period.

98. Relevant factors in the ratio of jobs to household numbers could include changes in average household size including more single person households, and an increase in the proportion of retired persons and other households no longer participating in the labour market. These trends would affect existing as well as new households such that the average number of employed persons in all households in the Borough would change and probably reduce such that there would be a closer balance between housing provision and employment.

99. I conclude that employment considerations do not warrant an adjustment of the OAHN from that defined by the SHMA and its update.

Market Signals

100. In the first 5 years of the Local Plan period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2016 there were 2,860 completions in Maidstone Borough – an average of 572 dwelling completions per annum. Subtracting those completions from the Objectively Assessed Housing Need of 17,660 dwellings (excluding any market signals uplift) would leave 14,800 dwellings to be delivered over a 15 year period or an average of 987 dwellings per annum (dpa).

101. If the rate of delivery is increased to address the shortfall in 10 years then the annual average rate of delivery in the first 5 years would need to rise to 1091 dwellings (including a 5% buffer). That represents a near doubling of delivery compared to the previous 5 years.

102. The national PPG provides at paragraph ID 2a-020-20140306 that plan makers ‘should increase planned supply by an amount that, on reasonable assumptions and consistent with the principles of sustainable development, could be expected to improve affordability.’

103. In the submitted Local Plan an approximate 5% uplift for market signals was added to the base OAHN figure of 17,660 dwellings That increased the total housing need figure by 900 to 18,560 dwellings. That equates to an extra 45 dwellings per annum (dpa) over the full plan period.

104. At the examination hearings it was acknowledged by participants that the 5% figure is arbitrary and lacks a scientific basis. The Home Builders Federation acknowledged that a 5% uplift would be too modest to make a difference to affordability. The HBF sought a higher uplift of 10% but that also lacks any scientific basis and has not been shown to be consistent with the principles of sustainable development in the Borough. This report has identified that there are challenging issues of housing delivery including flood risk, congestion and realistic delivery rates for the Broad Locations. A 10% uplift would require the identification of sites for a further 1,766 dwellings before the plan could be adopted and the associated delays would risk significant delays in the short term delivery of housing.

105. I acknowledge that higher market signals uplifts of 10% or more have been applied in some other local plan areas in the South East. However there is a lack 23

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

of evidence before me as to what rate of uplift (assuming it could be delivered in practice) would have a significantly greater effect on the market in Maidstone when compared to the proposed near doubling of the building rate that would in any event be needed to meet the OAHN even without any market signals uplift.

106. I conclude that the 5% market signals uplift would not be effective and is not justified in this case. Moreover as I conclude elsewhere in this Report that some of the housing sites proposed in the submitted plan would not be deliverable, it would be necessary to delay the adoption of the plan in order to identify additional sources of supply in order to achieve either that 5% uplift or a higher uplift figure. That delay in itself would reduce the supply of housing in the short term with the opposite effect on affordability to that intended. The OAHN figure should accordingly be reduced by 900 dwellings. However consideration of any need for a market signals uplift for delivery later in the plan period would necessarily form part of the intended Local Plan review.

Migration

107. A large proportion of the identified need for housing is accounted for by migration from other areas within the UK and, to a lesser extent, from abroad. Some Representors have suggested that the assessed need underestimates future migration from London, or from West Kent which is itself subject to its own migration pressures from London. Others consider that housing needs will decline because of reduced net international migration when the UK leaves the European Union.

108. As the London Plan is under review and the Local Plans for some West Kent authorities remain at an early stage, it remains uncertain whether future plans for those areas will be successful in providing for their full needs for housing over the period of this plan. There has been no request from the Greater London Authority or any other authority to accommodate any unmet needs. It is possible that a future increase in migration from West Kent or London would place pressure on areas beyond the Green Belt such as Maidstone which have transport links to those areas. However this is a matter which should be considered as part of overall housing needs at the first review of the Local Plan when policy provisions for housing supply in London and West Kent will be clearer.

109. In relation to international migration, the national population projections which underlie the SHMA already assume that net in-migration will be only about half the rate experienced in recent years (which include in the first 5 years of the Local Plan period). That is a reasonable assumption. There has only been a modest decline in the net migration figure over the last year. The Secretary for Exiting the European Union has also indicated that some continued migration from the EU is anticipated to meet continuing workforce needs. Even if the present net in-migration rate falls by half that is already built into the projections. Moreover about half of net in-migration currently comes from countries outside the EU and is already subject to border controls. It is unclear how or when such non-EU migration would reduce or what effect that would have in Maidstone. In this context it is reasonable for the SHMA not to depart from the assumptions on international migration which underlie the DCLG population projections.

110. I conclude that the migration assumptions that underlie the OAHN figure are reasonable at present but that the position will require review as part of the

24

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

housing needs consideration in Local Plan Review for which the submitted Local Plan makes provision. Further detail and a target date for adoption are needed for the plan to be sound and this is provided by main modification MM60.

Affordable Housing Need

111. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF includes the provision that local planning authorities should use their evidence base to meet the full objectively assessed need for affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in the Framework.

112. The SHMA identifies an affordable housing need for 5,800 dwellings from 2013 to 2031. The Housing Topic Paper 2016 [SUB 005] identified a supply of 5,350 affordable dwellings from completions, commitments, allocated sites, broad locations and local needs housing on exception sites. In the Erratum [Document SUB 005(A)] that figure has already required downward revision to 4,961 because of the effect of the recent reintroduction of revised Government policy to raise the threshold for the size of developments where affordable provision is to be required.

113. The figure will require further downward revision to reflect other changes in supply including a reduced supply of housing from the ‘Broad Locations’ within the Local Plan period. In particular, the reduced supply from the Lenham and Invicta Park Barracks Broad Locations later in the plan period would significantly reduce the number affordable dwellings from this source within the Local Plan period (from 1,182 to about 550). That alone would reduce the anticipated supply of affordable dwellings from 4,961 to 4,411. However there will be an opportunity at the plan review stage to identify further provision from alternative allocations. Moreover additional supply is also expected from the activities of registered providers of social housing.

114. What effect a redefinition of affordable housing to include starter homes may have is uncertain and awaits further Government guidance. The SHMA Update also refers to the significant role of the private rented sector in Maidstone. Those who cannot obtain a mortgage sufficient to purchase in the open market are likely to resort to private rented housing and will pay a market rent. Housing benefit may be available to some of those renting in the open market. However this is correctly not relied upon in the plan as part of the supply of affordable housing.

115. The reduced supply from the Broad Locations would be felt mainly in the final years of the plan period when overall housing supply will also reduce. However this is a matter that can be addressed at the Local Plan review stage by further allocations. In the meantime the reduced figure includes the maximum amount of affordable housing that can be expected from sites taking into account national policy on thresholds and development viability.

116. The national Planning Practice Guidance advises that an increase in the total housing provision in the plan should be considered where it could help deliver the number of affordable homes that is needed. However to delay the adoption of the Local Plan whilst additional site allocations were sought would risk harming the delivery of both market and affordable homes. Moreover the Local Plan already makes provision for an upward step change in delivery in the early years of the Local Plan period and any additional delivery would be unlikely to come 25

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

forward until later in the Local Plan period. Any such increase in provision is thus a matter that would be better addressed as part of the overall assessment of housing need for the proposed review of the Local Plan.

117. As councils and housing associations are limited in their ability to borrow to fund direct provision of affordable housing, there is heavy reliance on the private sector to deliver affordable housing as part of a mixed development with market housing for which provision is made in the plan. One consequence that was pointed out by some Representors at the hearings is that provision of affordable housing in rural settlements may exceed current identified needs within those settlements. Those from other parts of the Borough who are in need of affordable housing would need to relocate to those rural settlements in order to access it. Moreover the plan seeks a higher proportion of affordable housing in rural areas where property values are higher and the inclusion of affordable housing is more viable. Where affordable housing is defined as that with a 20% discount on market rents or house prices then it may be as expensive as housing in other parts of the Borough such as in Maidstone town where market values are lower.

118. However the viability evidence shows that a greater proportion of affordable dwellings cannot be achieved on developments in Maidstone town. Moreover affordability is a more pressing issue in the higher value rural settlements. To reduce provision there would likely reduce overall provision across the Borough as well as preventing the rural settlements from being balanced communities.

Conclusions on Housing Need

119. In relation to the issue identified above it is concluded that:

• the objectively assessed need for housing has been appropriately assessed;

• the plan is positively prepared in that it is based on a strategy which seeks to meet that objectively assessed need for housing and there is not at this time a need to provide for unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities - although that position will require review during the life of the Local Plan as provided for in MM60 ;

• the likely shortfall in affordable housing provision against identified needs would occur in the later part of the plan period and is capable of being addressed at the review stage against an updated OAHN assessment (MM60 ) insofar as it relates to housing allocations and measures within the control of the local planning authority;

• whereas the overall boost to supply compared to past delivery rates would be likely to improve affordability, the addition of a further 5% to supply as a response to market signals is unlikely to be effective and is not justified or the most appropriate strategy given the environmental and infrastructure constraints and would make the plan unsound;

26

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

Housing Supply

Issue 12 – Whether the proposed supply of market and affordable housing would be deliverable over the plan period (including the maintenance of a 5 year supply of housing land) and is otherwise justified, effective, and consistent with national policy

Issue 13 – Whether there are constraints on the supply of suitable sites that would justify a lower housing requirement which would not meet or exceed the OAHN

120. Paragraph 159 of the NPPF provides amongst other things that local planning authorities should prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period.

121. The Housing Topic Paper [Document SUB 005] describes the action taken which includes the SHLAA that was incorporated in the Strategic Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment (SHEDLAA) published in January 2016.

Housing Land Availability and Constraints

122. The submitted Local Plan seeks to meet the identified housing need in full. That would be positive and consistent with the aims of national policy to seek such provision of housing where reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development according to policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

123. Many representations on the submitted Plan have alleged that the Borough lacks the capacity to meet the identified housing need. Reference is made both to earlier draft versions of the Local Plan which sought to make provision for a lesser amount of housing and to previous policy to avoid housing development on greenfield land.

124. It is true that at a time when the policy requirement for housing in Maidstone Borough was significantly lower than the currently assessed Objectively Assessed Housing Need, and when there was an increase in the development of apartments on urban sites, the Council was able to operate a moratorium on greenfield development which prevented the release of some greenfield sites that had been allocated in the previous Local Plan. However that position is no longer sustainable if the identified need for housing is to be addressed.

125. The submitted Local Plan still includes significant redevelopment of brownfield land, especially in the town centre. However the SHEDLAA demonstrates that the amount of such brownfield land that is available for redevelopment falls well short of the assessed housing needs and means that development on greenfield sites is also needed.

126. Maidstone town is the main settlement with the most facilities including the best transport connections. However there are physical constraints on its expansion which include the proximity to the Borough boundary to the west, the presence of the River Medway, and the physical barrier created by the M20 motorway to the north.

27

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

127. Unlike in much of West Kent, the Green Belt covers only a small part of Maidstone Borough. It therefore does not represent a significant constraint on development across the Borough. Outside Maidstone town the main potential constraints of relevance to national planning policy are rather:

• landscape (especially the Kent Downs AONB and its setting);

• transport and other infrastructure;

• agricultural land quality;

• flood risk; and

• the natural and historic environment.

In some instances national policy provides for a sequential approach to site selection (such as where there is a flood risk or where land is of agricultural value). Other policy tests also provide in various ways for the weighing of any adverse impacts with any public benefits.

128. Whilst development constraints are relevant considerations in Framework policies, they do not in this case preclude all housing development or create a fixed capacity limit for the Borough. Rather it is necessary to assess locations individually and to apply judgements as to the impact of development including whether any significant adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated to allow development to proceed.

129. Because consideration of the relevant constraints involves judgements, there have been inevitable disagreements in the assessments of impacts as between the Council and those making representations on the Local Plan including those participating at the hearings. In some case this Report has identified constraints which would prevent or limit the contribution of particular sites to housing supply unless satisfactory mitigation can be identified. Some issues remain to be addressed at the review stage. However the overall aim to meet the identified housing need in full remains sound and achievable.

130. In order to maintain a supply of housing and other land to meet identified needs, a significant proportion of the sites proposed for allocation in the submitted Local Plan are already the subject of either a full or outline planning permission or are the subject of resolutions to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal planning obligation.

The Housing Trajectory and the 5 Year Housing Land Supply

131. The revised housing need figure of 17,660 dwellings over the plan period would equate to 883 dwellings each year on average. As delivery in the first 5 years of the plan from 2011 to 2016 was at a lower rate there is an existing supply shortfall which needs to be made up. The national Planning Practice Guidance advises that, where possible, this backlog should be made up in the first 5 years of the plan period (also known as the Sedgefield Method). The trajectory on page 291 of the submitted Local Plan seeks to reflect this.

132. That trajectory also takes account of the 5% buffer sought by paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework whereby supply is brought forward from

28

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

later in the plan period. Some have argued for the application of a higher 20% buffer on the basis of alleged persistent under delivery of housing in the past. I disagree. Past delivery overall has exceeded the previous housing targets set out in the South East Plan and it would be unreasonable to apply retrospectively to earlier years the higher housing need figures that were only identified as recently as 2014.

133. Nevertheless, the combination of:

• a much higher housing need figure than the previous housing target;

• the Sedgefield method of addressing the backlog over only 5 years; and

• the 5% buffer

together lead to a trajectory which oscillates from a past low rate of delivery against currently assessed needs to a short term very high and likely unachievable rate before reverting to a low rate of delivery later in the plan period. The latter low rate is exacerbated by a heavy and unrealistic reliance on high rates of delivery over a short period from 2 identified Broad Locations for housing development. There is also some evidence of likely slippage in the delivery of some allocated sites earlier in the plan period.

134. There is therefore a strong case for seeking a smoother and more realistic rate of delivery over the plan period. That would also provide more regular local employment in construction as a contribution to the identified need for additional employment in the Borough to accompany the uplift in housing provision. Such a smoothing of the trajectory would be most readily achieved by addressing the existing backlog over a 10 year period from April 2016 rather than over 5 years as proposed in the submitted plan. To reflect the recommended main modifications to the housing allocations and broad locations the Council has prepared a revised housing trajectory. This indicates the anticipated relative smoothing of housing delivery in the 10 year period from 2016 to 2026 which results in part from spreading the existing backlog over the 10 years from 2016 to 2026.

135. However should an updated SHMA show an increased need for housing by the time of the Review of the Local Plan then there would be an opportunity for additional allocations on a greater variety of sites in the latter part of the plan period and the opportunity to address the identified shortfall in affordable housing provision. If sufficient sites cannot be identified then the matter would need to be pursued through the duty to cooperate.

136. The recommended smoothing of the trajectory would strengthen the 5 year supply position as at 1 April 2016. Document ED 116 indicates that there would have been a five year supply of 6,666 dwellings at that date which would represent a surplus of 1,211 dwellings over the 5 year land supply target or 6.11 years of supply. That many additional planning permissions have been granted since that date indicates that the 5 year supply should also be strong at 1 April 2017 and in subsequent years. Indeed the Council has subsequently calculated that the 5 year housing land supply position at 1 April 2017 equated to 6.3 years [Document ED145]. The 20 year supply from 2011-2031 is also calculated by the Council to be in surplus based on the figures at 1 April 2017 [Document ED146] whereas there was a small deficit at 1 April 2016. Nevertheless I am not in a 29

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

position to endorse the calculations at that 1 April 2017 date which have not been tested in the examination. The Local Plan should therefore continue to use the 1 April 2016 base date as set out in MM1 to include the modifications that are made necessary by the revised approach to housing land supply that is recommended in this report.

137. If the predicted delivery rates from allocated and windfall sites are realised, and if the 5% allowance for non-implementation is included, the overall supply of housing across the plan period (after the recommended modifications) would fall just short of the revised need figure of 17,660 dwellings. That should not present problems for maintaining a five year supply in the early years of the plan. However the more realistic delivery rates for the broad locations mean that the trajectory indicates a reduced rate of house building and supply in the final 5 years of the plan period. Before then there would need to be a revised assessment of housing needs which would be likely to require additional allocations at the review stage of the Local Plan.

Conclusions on Housing Supply

138. In relation to the issues identified above it is concluded that:

• the submitted plan is unsound in that it is unlikely to be effective in delivering the proposed supply of market and affordable housing owing to the dramatic fluctuations in delivery that the trajectory indicates and which arise from the attempt to deal with the delivery backlog in 5 years;

• there are specific issues with individual housing allocations and the broad locations which are addressed elsewhere in this report and which would reduce the overall supply of housing; however the acknowledged constraints on the supply of suitable sites are not such as to justify a lower housing requirement than the objectively assessed housing need;

• with the recommended modifications the total supply of housing in the Local Plan would be 17,575 which would represent only a negligible deficit against the revised OAHN of 17,660. That deficit does not need to be addressed now by selecting additional sites from amongst those alternative or omission sites that Representors have put forward as there is an adequate 5 year supply of housing. However the OAHN should be reviewed as part of the recommended review of the Local Plan and when the position on housing supply will be clearer in the surrounding area and in London. There is likely to be an increased need for housing in the latter years of the Local Plan period including a need to address the shortfall in affordable housing against needs, a need to increase supply in those years to address affordability issues, and to avoid over-reliance for delivery on only 2 broad locations.

139. The main modifications issued for public consultation included modifications to the text at paragraph 4.3 to update the figures for the number of homes that had been built by 1 April 2016 and the number with planning permission. The Council has since acknowledged that the latter figure includes some sites with a resolution to grant planning permission but where the permission had not been issued at that date. This needs to be clarified by additional wording which is now included in MM1 .

30

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

140. A typographical error in the final sentence of paragraph 4.3 also requires correction and would clarify that the target for adoption of the Local Plan Review is April 2021 as also set out in MM60 .

141. In conclusion the plan can be made sound by dealing with the delivery backlog over 10 years instead of 5, removing the 5% uplift for market signals, and by providing for a review of the plan by 2021. That review would include issues of housing need and supply in the later years of the plan period such as : consideration of the latest housing projections; the need for affordable housing; any newly identified needs arising under the duty to cooperate; whether market signals then indicate a need for additional housing delivery; and the maintenance of a 5 year supply of housing land. These measures are included in main modifications MM1 and MM60 .

MATTER 6 - SOUTH EAST MAIDSTONE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT LOCATION

Issue 14 – Whether the strategic development location is justified as part of the most appropriate strategy

142. Policy SP3 of the submitted Local Plan proposes a Strategic Development Location in South East Maidstone as a major contribution to the overall supply of housing. This would comprise 6 housing sites on either side of the A274 Sutton Road. A key issue for these sites concerns highways and transport infrastructure. Some Representors including Kent County Council consider inadequate transport infrastructure to be a constraint that makes this location unsuitable for that development.

143. The Local Plan needs to be consistent with national policy in the NPPF where paragraph 32 provides amongst other things that plans and decisions should take account of whether ‘ the opportunities for sustainable travel modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.

144. The Local Plan is also required to have regard to the Kent County Council Local Transport Plan. The Local Transport Plan for Kent 2011-2016 [Document ORD 013] (LTP3) provides that the Maidstone Transport Strategy and an Integrated Transport Programme: ‘will be driven by the desire to preserve and enhance the accessibility of Maidstone town centre by sustainable means. The proposed level of development will be underpinned by a package containing a number of traffic management measures including the enhanced provision and priority of bus services through the Maidstone Quality Bus Partnership involving the County and Borough Councils along with the town’s principal bus operator, Arriva. These priorities will drive scheme delivery irrespective of the future development scenario, with the detail and phasing dependent on the specific sites that come forward through the Local Development Framework’ .

145. The Implementation Plan for the LTP3 theme of a ‘Safer and Healthier County (2011-2016)’ identifies as the sole method of air quality management proposed in LTP3: ‘Provision of bus priority and traffic management measures to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow in Air Quality Management Areas.’ 31

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

146. Whilst the LTP3 Local Transport Plan refers to the then draft target of 10,080 dwellings in Maidstone Borough, that figure referred only to a plan period ending in 2026, not 2031. The submitted Local Plan seeks to provide housing for a further 5 years. In any case the LTP3 Local Transport Plan states that the priorities will be retained irrespective of the future development scenario.

147. It is acknowledged that the Local Transport Plan 2011-2016 (LTP3) is due to be replaced by the Local Transport Plan 4 2016-2031 (LTP4) which is currently at draft consultation stage [Document TRA 034]. The draft LTP4 plan contains much less detail than LTP3. Nevertheless it does set out outcomes which include measures to:

• improve air quality;

• reduce congestion and improve journey time reliability; and

• to promote affordable, accessible and connected transport.

A relevant Countywide priority in LTP4 is to provide: ‘Increased access to jobs, education and health by public transport, providing opportunities to Kent’s residents without the need for a private car and therefore reducing road congestion ’. An integrated transport package remains a priority for Maidstone in LTP4.

Traffic Congestion

148. Maidstone as a whole currently experiences unusually high rates of car ownership and use. Car use is encouraged by the town’s close proximity to the motorway network with 4 motorway junctions along the town’s northern edge. The radial routes that converge on the town centre gyratory system from all directions (including from the motorway) already experience congestion, particularly in the peak hours. These routes include the A229 to the south of the town centre and the A274 which diverges from the A229 to serve South East Maidstone and the rural area beyond. In South East Maidstone there is also congestion in the side roads that connect the A274 and to the A20 and M20 to the north of the town, avoiding the town centre. Congestion on the A274 also affects bus services including the high frequency bus route that already connects South East Maidstone to the town centre and which is to be improved with direct connections to the railway station. Congestion hampers the reliability and attractiveness of that bus service to both existing and potential users. Peak hour congestion here also affects the bus services used by school pupils and others who travel into Maidstone from the rural areas to the south and east.

149. The NPPF seeks cost effective mitigation of the significant impacts of development and the taking up of opportunities for sustainable travel modes to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure.

Sustainable Travel Modes

150. The issue of congestion in the A274 Sutton Road is not new. When the current Local Plan (ORD 048) was adopted in 2000 it included 2 large greenfield sites (H3 and H8) for development adjoining Sutton Road. Those sites are similar to sites H1(5) and H1(6) in the submitted Local Plan and which are part of the SP3 strategic site allocation. To address congestion in the area the 2000 Local Plan 32

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

included both a proposed bus lane along Sutton Road and an improved road link from the A274 to the A20, bypassing the villages of Langley and Leeds. Neither measure has been implemented apart from a very short bus lane close to The Wheatsheaf junction. In promoting bus priority measures the 2000 Local Plan at paragraph 6.12 noted the success of the bus priority measures which had then recently been introduced on the A20 London Road corridor.

151. Planning permissions for the H1(5) and H1(6) sites were granted in 2014. Both sites are now under construction and they will together provide some 886 dwellings. Following a Transport Assessment each planning permission gave effect to a unilateral planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This included a financial contribution to highway mitigation works on the A274 which included both road capacity improvements and measures to encourage sustainable travel modes. The works included:

• bus stops;

• highway widening;

• bus prioritisation measures on the A274 between the Willington Street Junction and the Wheatsheaf junction; and

• junction capacity improvements in the vicinity of Willington Street and Wallis Avenue.

The need for such works had been identified in the adopted Local Plan and in Transport Assessments for each site.

152. Those works include an identified opportunity for sustainable transport which is consistent with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Bus priority on the A274 Sutton Road would accord with those LTP3 priorities.

153. Bus prioritisation by means of an extension of the existing short bus lane on the A274 Sutton Road would improve the reliability and speed of the bus service during congested periods and make it a more attractive mode of travel to the town centre and the railway stations as an alternative to car use. Bus priority on Sutton Road has been included in the adopted Local Plan since 2000 under saved Policy T2. The planning obligations would have been taken into account as highways mitigation when the planning permissions were granted.

154. The installation of an extended bus lane in Sutton Road would certainly qualify as a sustainable transport mode which has previously been identified as suitable in this location. Its installation would be cost effective in that developer funding is already available. It would accord with the objectives of the adopted Local Plan and both the current and emerging Local Transport Plans. It has been relied upon as mitigation for the already permitted developments.

155. Similar existing bus lanes have previously been installed by Kent County Council on the A20 London Road (and on part of the A274 itself). As is already the case with the London Road bus lanes, a lack of space on the highway network means that the extended A274 bus lane would not extend all the way into the town centre. However the main local bus company confirmed to the examination that the existing and proposed bus lanes are, and would be, effective in making bus

33

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

journeys faster and more reliable, thereby encouraging the use of buses as an alternative to cars and making more efficient use of road space.

156. The Examination was informed that payments for the works specified in 2014 in the above S106 obligations have already been made to Kent County Council as the local highway authority. However the County Council has stated that, whilst it supports the junction capacity improvements it will not implement the bus prioritisation measures on the grounds that they would disadvantage other road users. The County Council is seeking instead to divert the relevant funds from the provision of bus priority measures as set out in the relevant Section 106 obligations to instead pay for exploratory work to develop a case for a new road from the A274 to the A20, which it would join in the vicinity of Junction 8 of the M20 and which is known as the Leeds-Langley Relief Road.

157. Of the remaining 4 sites in the SP3 allocation, H1(9) has planning permission and sites H1(7) and H1(10) are the subject of resolutions by the Borough Council to grant planning permission subject to the completion of S106 planning obligations which would also include transport mitigation payments. These would include:

• additional contributions to bus priority measures,

• the provision of new bus services connecting South East Maidstone to railway stations (including the main Maidstone East station which is to be a Thameslink terminus), and

• various junction capacity works including signalisation to address congestion at Junction 7 of the M20.

There is no application as yet on the fourth housing site - H1(8).

158. Kent County Council has not objected to the allocation of sites H1(5) and H1(6) which in any event are already committed on the basis of the above mitigation measures which I am satisfied would be effective and which would accord with:

long-standing saved policies of the adopted Local Plan;

the Borough Council’s adopted Integrated Transport Strategy 2011-2031 (September 2016);

the sustainable travel objectives of the County Council’s own Local Transport Plan 3 - 2011-2016;

the similar objectives of the County Council’s emerging Local Transport Plan 4; and

paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

159. To divert those funds to a study of a relief road would at best delay mitigation by up to 10 years and at worst may result in no mitigation if that road does not go ahead. Neither would that road promote sustainable travel or provide significant transport capacity for movements between South East Maidstone and the town centre.

34

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

160. The County Council has suggested that a bus lane would disadvantage other road users but has not produced substantive evidence to that effect. Not to implement bus priority measures on these grounds would be to prioritise other road users, and specifically motorists, over bus users which would contravene declared LTP3 or LTP4 priorities whilst failing to achieve the reduced congestion and improved air quality which are objectives of those local transport plans. In any event the A274 Corridor Study prepared for the Borough Council demonstrates that a bus lane can be provided almost entirely within the existing highway land whilst maintaining one running lane in each direction for other traffic as at present. A bus lane would enhance the speed and reliability of bus services and provide a strong incentive for modal shift from car to bus use that would benefit all road users including other car drivers. The A274 Corridor Study also considered additional bus priority measures to the north of The Wheatsheaf junction. However by reducing the number of lanes available for other traffic there those measures would risk greater congestion and the benefits are less certain. They are not recommended here.

161. The County Council has objected to the allocation of the remaining four sites within the SP3 Strategic Development Location. This is on the grounds that their interpretation of transport modelling is that after mitigation the residual cumulative impacts of development would remain ‘severe’. That modelling included a series of junction improvements but did not include any bus priority measures. The Borough Council disagrees that the impacts would be severe.

162. There is no national definition of what may constitute a severe impact. The Secretary of State’s decision in relation to the New Line Learning appeal in Boughton Lane (see below) does not provide such a definition. That decision related to a particular development with access to the A229 and where adequate mitigation had not been identified. The decision has in any event been quashed. New transport evidence was to be presented to the Secretary of State when the appeal was redetermined. However the appeal was withdrawn in March 2017.

163. Whilst the various Sutton Road developments would generate additional traffic movements, some mitigation measures have been agreed by the County Council to increase junction capacities, including at the junctions of Sutton Road with Willington Street and Wallis Avenue, as well as measures elsewhere in the town including at the north end of Willington Street and at Junction 7 of the M20. These should at least partially mitigate an increase in car traffic. However additional measures are needed to encourage sustainable alternatives to car use within Maidstone, and especially bus use, if the Local Plan is to be consistent with national policy in paragraph 32 of the NPPF to take up the opportunities for sustainable travel modes. In particular MM18 would add bus access to allocation H1(5) and MM6 would again provide for the Sutton Road bus lane to support all of the Policy SP3 allocations including those which have already been granted planning permission on the basis that bus priority would be provided.

Leeds-Langley Relief Road

164. The County Council again wishes to develop a case for constructing a new road between the A274 and the A20 which would by-pass the villages of Leeds and Langley and provide relief to existing roads (including Willington Street and the B2163) with potential environmental benefits as well as reduced congestion in those roads. Modelling suggests it may also reduce the number of cars heading

35

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

through the town centre to destinations beyond the town. However it would not otherwise increase the capacity of routes for journeys between South East Maidstone and the town centre.

165. Such a new road was included in the adopted Local Plan 2000. Policy T18 had expected that a Leeds Langley Heath Bypass would be implemented during the period of that Local Plan, but that has not happened. Such a road was also considered subsequently in the context of a proposed new settlement outside the town to the south east. However proposals for a new settlement with that road were later abandoned for reasons which included the difficulty of identifying funding for the road, which remains an issue today.

166. The Leeds-Langley Relief Road has yet to be justified or designed and it is not included as a proposal in the submitted Local Plan. The road is referred to at paragraphs 17.125 and 17.126 which however point out that the case for justification and delivery lies with the County Council as the highway authority. KCC estimate the cost at £50-£80 million pounds. The scale of the road scheme would qualify it as an item of major transport infrastructure in the terms of paragraph 32 of the NPPF. The matter is to be reconsidered as part of the first review of the Local Plan. Whereas paragraph 17.126 referred to that review commencing by 2022, I recommend below that it should be completed by April 2021 to address a number of issues of which the Relief Road is one.

167. Several alternative routes have been proposed in the past and no route for a road has been selected. The Borough Council is generally supportive but funding the road would remain a significant challenge even if there were to be a contribution from further major development that is not included in the submitted Local Plan.

168. Even with sufficient funding, the County Council advised the examination that the earliest date at which such a road could be brought into use would be 2027. In any event it would be unlikely to be delivered until very late in the plan period or even outside the plan period. It would thus not mitigate the transport impacts of development that has already been permitted or otherwise support the provision of housing that is needed in the shorter and medium terms. To delay that housing on the basis that a new road could be a possibility would not be justified when other measures (including those to encourage more sustainable travel) are already available to mitigate transport impacts within a much shorter time frame for implementation.

Conclusion on Transport in South East Maidstone

169. The development proposals in the submitted plan already incorporate measures to mitigate the travel impacts. These include highway capacity improvements and improved bus services (including direct links to railway stations). If these measures are further supported by the bus access and bus priority measures, the impacts on congestion need not be severe. Air quality issues are capable of being addressed by these and other measures, including by action at national level.

170. In conclusion the Policy SP3 South East Maidstone Strategic Development Location will generate additional traffic and could contribute to an increase in congestion, particularly at peak hours, even after mitigation in the form of road improvements and other measures to make sustainable travel more attractive and effective. However the concentration of development close to the town does allow alternative and more sustainable means of travel to be made available. 36

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

That is less likely to be the case were the housing to be located away from the town in another part of the Borough where residents would still need access to employment and services in the town.

Other Matters

171. In addition to the traffic issue, Representors have raised a number of other concerns about the Policy SP3 strategic allocation. These include:

• the loss of greenfield agricultural land and countryside;

• the reduced separation of Maidstone from rural settlements; and

• associated impacts on the area’s character, appearance and biodiversity.

172. Greenfield allocations in the countryside are needed in order to meet the identified needs for development that cannot be accommodated only on brownfield urban sites. An expansion of the urban area inevitably will reduce the distance to other settlements but the proposed allocations maintain suitable separation. The other impacts have been suitably assessed by the Council. However for the allocations to be justified as part of the most appropriate strategy and consistent with national policy for the provision of infrastructure and the protection of heritage assets, some modifications are needed to the site allocations. In particular these relate to some infrastructure, education and open space provision and to the setting of a listed church in Church Road which adjoins H1(8). The necessary changes are included in main modifications MM18 and MM19 .

MATTER 7 - OTHER SOUTH MAIDSTONE ALLOCATIONS (ALSO INCLUDING BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA)

Issue 15 – Whether the Boughton Lane housing allocations are justified as part of the most appropriate strategy and would be consistent with national policy on transport impacts.

173. Traffic congestion is also a key issue for housing allocations that would rely on access to the A229 road which joins the A274 at The Wheatsheaf junction. In particular this relates to allocations H1(29) New Line Learning and H1(53) Boughton Lane. Both sites would be served from the northern end of Boughton Lane which joins the A229 at its junction with Cripple Street (also known as The Swan junction) to the south of The Wheatsheaf junction. In the submitted Local Plan these sites are proposed for allocation for 220 and 75 dwellings respectively.

174. In 2014 the H1(29) site was the subject of a refused planning application for 220 dwellings. The appeal Inspector recommended, and the Secretary of State agreed in early 2016, that the appeal should be dismissed for reasons which included that the proposed development would have a severe adverse impact on the highway network in terms of congestion and inconvenience to local residents and other road users and on the strategic transport planning of the area generally, contrary to the aims of paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework (APP/U2235/A/14/2227839). That decision was subsequently quashed for unrelated reasons. As Highway Authority, Kent County Council did not object to the original application but has stated that it would have objected to the proposal when the appeal was redetermined. However, following the 37

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

publication of my interim findings (which proposed the deletion of this allocation for similar reasons to those set out here), the appeal was withdrawn and the Inquiry has been cancelled.

175. Compared to that appeal scheme the H1(29) allocation including the proposed changes would reduce the dwelling numbers and amend the access arrangements within Boughton Lane. A scheme to alter The Swan junction has also been investigated as a means of improving its capacity. The Borough Council has also proposed the addition of a policy criterion relating to capacity improvements at The Wheatsheaf junction. However one scheme to improve capacity by restricting access to the Cranborne Avenue arm of that junction has already been rejected. The alternatives would require acquisition of private land to extend the highway, road widening, and the relocation of services - which measures have not been agreed by the highway authority. Kent County Council as Highway Authority now objects to the proposed allocation on the basis that the mitigation would not be sufficient to avoid a severe impact and it has particular safety concerns about the proposed Swan junction improvements.

176. The A229 already carries more traffic than the A274 and is also likely to attract additional movements due to development at villages to the south of Maidstone and the withdrawal from the Local Plan of proposals for a park and ride site at Linton Crossroads which would have diverted some trips. Unlike the A274 road there is insufficient room within the highway to create bus priority measures that would encourage modal shift. A lack of capacity at The Wheatsheaf junction is likely to contribute to queues backing up and obstructing the Swan junction. Moreover Boughton Lane is itself already anticipated to carry significantly more traffic due to school expansion.

177. In all of these circumstances I do not consider the allocation of the H1(29) site to be sound. The H1(53) site is proposed for 75 dwellings which would also generate significant movements in the northern part of Boughton Lane. Without adequate identified mitigation that allocation is also unsound and that site allocation should also be deleted.

178. The H1(54) Boughton Mount site is a brownfield site for only 25 dwellings. It was included on a list of sites in South Maidstone to which the Highway Authority objected in its letter of 16 December 2016. However it would generate fewer traffic movements than the H1(53) site to which the Highway Authority did not then object and some movements would have been generated by the site’s previous use. The allocation should be retained but renumbered as H1(52).

179. Another site H1(55) for 40 dwellings at the junction of Church Road and Heath Road in Boughton Monchelsea may also generate additional movements on Boughton Lane. However traffic from that site has the opportunity to disperse to other routes and is likely to do so depending upon congestion levels on each route. Its development has not been objected to by the highway authority in relation to traffic impacts. This allocation should also be retained.

Conclusions

180. Having regard to the previous conclusions of the Secretary of State concerning development in Boughton Lane and because adequate mitigation measures for the impact on the A229 have not been demonstrated, I conclude that allocations H1(29) and H1(53) are not justified as part of the most appropriate strategy and 38

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

their severe highways impacts would not be consistent with national policy in paragraph 32 of the NPPF. The allocations would make the plan unsound and should be removed from the Local Plan in accordance with main modifications MM22 and MM26 .

181. As the development proposed in the deleted allocation H1(53) is also part of Policy SP12 Boughton Monchelsea there would be a consequential change to the housing numbers and open space provision as set out in main modification MM9 .

MATTER 8 - POLICY H2 BROAD LOCATIONS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

Issue 16 – Whether the broad locations housing developments would be consistent with national policy in that there is a reasonable prospect that they are in a suitable (broad) location and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

182. Paragraph 45 of the National Planning Policy Framework provides amongst other things that local planning authorities should identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing and to ‘identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15’ . Footnote 12 provides that: ‘To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged’ .

183. The submitted Local Plan relies on 3 Broad Locations for the delivery of 3,500 dwellings. However there are issues relating variously to the suitability, availability and viability of these locations for the amount of development proposed.

H2(1) Town Centre Broad Location

184. The submitted Local Plan defines the whole of Maidstone town centre as a Broad Location for approximately 700 dwellings. During the examination the Council clarified that this figure would not include the other specific housing allocations proposed within the town centre and that neither would it include all windfall development. Following more detailed investigation the Council has also proposed a change which would reasonably increase the estimated number of dwellings from 700 to 990 such that the total delivery from all 3 Broad Locations would rise from 3,500 to 3,790 dwellings.

185. The town centre covers a large area and development could take a variety of forms, including high density and mixed development schemes. There is thus some uncertainty about how and where this housing would come forward if its location is not further defined. It thus has not been demonstrated that this Broad Location is developable in the terms of the NPPF and it is thus not consistent with national policy.

186. In further evidence to the examination the Borough Council has agreed that the policy should be modified so that delivery is concentrated firstly on 2 locations where change is anticipated in the plan period – The Mall and the Riverside Quarter. Both were previously identified in the Town Centre Study [Document CEN 002]. For consistency with paragraph 157 of the NPPF the Broad Location should be indicated on the key diagram as proposed by MM2 . The other main source of supply of town centre housing would be through office to residential 39

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

conversions. These would typically come forward through the prior notification process as permitted development. The scope for such development has previously been identified in Document ECON 002 and has already been demonstrated by a stream of prior notification applications. The residual 50 dwellings on unidentified sites in the town centre should be removed from the Broad Location and added to the windfall allowance. That would avoid the risk of double-counting.

187. I conclude that for the H2(1) Town Centre Broad Location to be shown to be developable and consistent with national policy it should be modified in accordance with MM30 to:

• increase the amount of housing to 940 dwellings from the 700 proposed in the submitted Local Plan; and

• focus on the 2 areas of The Mall and the Riverside Quarter within which redevelopment is expected to deliver additional housing together with an allowance for office to residential conversions elsewhere in the town centre; and

• 50 units should be added to the Borough wide windfall allowance in respect of other development on unidentified sites in the town centre that was previously part of the Broad Location allowance.

H2(2) Invicta Park Barracks Broad Location

188. The second Broad Location identified for housing development in the submitted Local Plan is the Invicta Park Barracks site which at present remains in operational use. At the date of submission it remained uncertain whether the Invicta Barracks site would become available for development within the plan period. However the Ministry of Defence has since announced that the Barracks are to close in 2027. This is a brownfield site in a sustainable location. However it is improbable that all 1,300 dwellings proposed on the site could then be delivered between 2027 and the end of the plan period in 2031. A more realistic figure would be 500 dwellings for which a detailed site allocation policy can be left to the Local Plan Review. However there is likely to be additional delivery on that site beyond 2031. The amount and timing of that development would be a matter for the review of the Local Plan, should that review extend the plan period beyond 2031.

189. For consistency with paragraph 45 and Footnote 12 of the NPPF and for effectiveness in housing delivery, I conclude that the H2(2) Invicta Park Barracks Broad Location should be amended in accordance with main modification MM31 as only 500 of the anticipated 1,300 dwellings are likely to be delivered within the Local Plan period. For consistency with paragraph 157 of the NPPF, the Broad Location should also be indicated on the Key Diagram in accordance with MM2.

H2(3) Lenham Broad Location

190. Lenham is unusually well provided with services and facilities including shops, primary and secondary schools, a railway station and direct access to the A20. It is also in a housing market area which overlaps with that of Ashford. The submitted Local Plan consequently proposed Lenham as a Rural Service Centre and as a Broad Location to deliver 1,500 dwellings in only 5 years between 2026 40

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

and the end of the plan period in 2031. Nevertheless development on that scale would represent a very substantial increase in the size of the village. Whilst there are direct rail services to Maidstone, Ashford and London, the speed and frequency of the rail service is inferior to that on other lines. The village is relatively distant from both Maidstone and Ashford where there would be competing housing developments. Whilst there is some evidence of demand for housing at both Lenham and neighbouring Harrietsham, I nevertheless consider it improbable that housing could be delivered in Lenham at a rate as high as the 300 dwellings per annum implied by the policy.

191. There is no reason to delay delivery until 2026 as was proposed in the submitted Local Plan. However, as there is an available supply of planning permissions and proposed allocations in both Lenham and nearby Harrietsham to address short term needs, neither is it necessary or appropriate to bring development forward sooner than 2021, particularly as there are expected to be infrastructure constraints to be addressed including sewerage and waste water treatment capacity and the need for a new primary school.

192. To avoid double-counting the Council has agreed that 2 existing permissions for sites that were recently granted on appeal at Ham Lane and the Old Goods Yard should be deducted from the Broad Location figure since they represent committed development that would otherwise have come forward later within the Broad Location. That would still leave a need to identify sites for 1,350 dwellings. However I consider that it would remain unrealistic in this village location to deliver even 135 dwellings each year for 10 years. I therefore consider that the Broad Location should be further reduced to 1,000 dwellings, equivalent to delivering 100 dwellings per annum from the Broad Location between 2021 and 2031.

193. There is controversy over where development should be located around Lenham and especially what effect housing development at Lenham would have on the Kent Downs AONB which borders parts of the village to the north. If development is to come forward after 2021 that would allow that the emerging Lenham Neighbourhood Plan can determine what sites should be allocated. In particular it can examine the scope for development south of the railway which the Borough Council no longer opposes in principle.

194. Paragraph 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework provides that Broad Locations are to be identified on the key diagram. In this case the OS-based plan on page 169 includes 2 stars to the east and west of the village which are identified in the key as the Broad Location for development. That is not shown on the plan of the village on page 50. Neither is it indicated on the ‘Key Diagram’ on page 23. For consistency with national policy and to reflect the Council’s revised position MM2 is needed to modify the Key Diagram to indicate that the village would be a Broad Location but without further identifying where land would be developed and to also include the Town Centre and Invicta Barracks Broad Locations.

195. The above reduction in total numbers would also create more flexibility for the allocation of sites and there is sufficient land available around the village . A Neighbourhood Plan is required to generally conform with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and should not deliver less housing than the strategic policies. Should for any reason the Neighbourhood Plan not progress in identifying suitable

41

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

sites it would fall to the review of the Local Plan to make the necessary allocations.

196. Landscape capacity assessments have recommended that sites around Lenham and especially to the east have a low capacity for housing development. However such an assessment by its nature can only consider landscape character impacts within the identified areas and not also the many other considerations that need to be weighed in the planning balance.

197. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act requires that due regard be had to the purposes of the AONB designation when considering development that may affect an AONB. In this case it should not be necessary to develop housing within the AONB boundary. Whilst the duty would require consideration of the effect of relevant development within the setting of the AONB, as would be the case at Lenham, it does not constitute an overriding duty to conserve or enhance all views to and from the AONB without regard to other considerations.

198. Evidence at the examination was that the main concern relates to views to and from the scarp and the Pilgrims Way long distance footpath which passes close to a memorial cross on the hillside. The outward views from here already include the built up area of Lenham, where not screened by trees, and especially the prominent industrial estate to the east of the village. There are also wide and distant views beyond the village as well as across the open foreground within the AONB which would be retained.

199. In that context the identified low landscape capacity east of Lenham means that more housing development can be expected to result in some change to landscape character adjacent to the village and some adverse effect on outward views from the AONB - albeit mitigated by the design and landscaping of the development. Some views towards the AONB and towards the Memorial Cross may also be affected. However views are already restricted in places by buildings and vegetation and important viewpoints can be protected in the design and layout of schemes. Neither does the ability to see development from within the AONB necessarily harm the purposes of the AONB.

200. The H2(3) Lenham Broad Location should be reduced from 1500 to 1000 dwellings to be delivered between 2021 and 2031. That would be a more realistic delivery rate. The reduced total development within the Plan period would also allow more flexibility for the individual site allocations. These allocations would be determined by a Neighbourhood Plan or, by default, in a Local Plan review before April 2021. The plans would need to address any infrastructure constraints. An additional 146 dwellings which would have been part of the Broad Location will now come forward before 2021 as commitments following appeal decisions at Ham Lane and the Old Goods Yard.

201. For the above reasons and to make the Local Plan strategy sound and consistent with national policy, I conclude that main modification MM32 is needed to comprehensively amend Policy H2(3) Lenham Broad Location and its reasoned justification, including in relation to the timing of development, the role of the Neighbourhood Plan and/or the Local Plan Review in allocating sites, revised dwelling numbers and infrastructure measures.

202. For the same reasons main modification MM8 is needed to similarly revise Policy SP8 and its reasoned justification. 42

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

Overall Position Regarding the 3 Broad Locations

203. The necessary changes to the scale and delivery of the 3 broad locations would have significant implications for their contribution to overall housing delivery as set out in Policy H2 and Table 9.1 of the submitted Local Plan. These need to be addressed by main modification MM29 . The Broad Locations also need to be identified on the Key Diagram ( MM2 ).

204. The overall number of dwellings anticipated at the 3 locations within the plan period would fall from 3,500 to 2,440. However this would not materially affect housing land supply early in the plan period. Whether, as a consequence of this and other modifications, additional allocations would be needed later in the plan period is a matter that can be left to the local plan review.

Lenham Housing Allocations

Issue 17 – Whether the Lenham Housing Allocations are justified as part of the most appropriate strategy

205. Whereas the final siting and allocations for the Lenham Broad Location development would be a matter for the Neighbourhood Plan, or by default the Local Plan Review, the submitted Local Plan also includes proposed housing allocations at H1(42) Tanyard Farm and H1(43) Glebe Gardens.

206. The small H1(43) site is already the subject of planning permission and does not require further consideration here.

207. The H1(42) site is separated from the AONB only by the A20 road. It straddles a right of way that leads from Old Ashford Road up and across the A20 to the Memorial Cross on the Pilgrims Way long distance footpath and from which long views are available. Parts of the proposed site allocation have also been affected by ground water and surface water flows during periods of high rainfall.

208. The H1(42) site would be visible from the AONB, just as the adjacent industrial estate is already visible. However there is scope for mitigation in the design and landscaping of the development to soften the edge of the built development. The site is sufficiently distant from the Pilgrims Way and set at a lower level such that its impact on the wider available views beyond the village would be limited. Views towards the AONB and the Memorial Cross would continue to be available from the right of way that leads through the site and development can be set back from this route to allow broader views. Whilst there would remain some residual effects on views to and from the AONB I consider that these would be outweighed by the benefits of early provision of needed market and affordable housing in a sustainable settlement. The ground water and surface water issues would require detailed assessment through the development management process but there is likely to be a suitable engineering solution.

209. I conclude that the H1(42) Tanyard Farm allocation should be retained in the Local Plan to support housing delivery before 2021. However in order to retain an important vista towards the Kent Downs AONB and the Memorial Cross from the public right of way across the site, development needs to be set back from that route with an associated reduction in dwellings numbers from 155 to 145. Main modification MM25 would make these changes and is required for consistency with national policy in paragraph 115 of the NPPF to accord great 43

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

weight to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of an AONB. This would here include the appreciation of that landscape when viewed from outside the AONB. The allocation would be renumbered as H1(41).

MATTER 9 – OTHER HOUSING SUPPLY

Issue 18 – Whether the other policies for the supply of housing are justified, effective, and consistent with national policy

Maidstone

210. Several policies for the supply of housing in and around Maidstone town are addressed above. There are also site-specific issues with several of the other proposed H1 housing allocations in and around Maidstone.

211. Policy H1(2) East of Hermitage Lane would not be effective in maintaining an open gap as the relevant land is outside the Borough boundary where the Local Plan has no effect and where decisions concerning development on that land are a matter for the adjoining local planning authority. Main modification MM17 would accordingly delete that reference.

212. Policy H1(11) Springfield, Royal Engineers Road and Mill Lane proposes a development of approximately 500 dwellings at an average density of 132 dwellings per hectare. Further work has demonstrated that the site could be more efficiently and effectively developed at a higher density. In order for the Local Plan to be effective as the most appropriate strategy, main modification MM20 would revise the density whilst also drawing attention to the need to avoid development within that part of the site which is in Flood Zone 3a where development would be inconsistent with national policy.

213. In Policy H1(23) North St, Barming, criterion (5) would be ineffective as an incorrect figure was included for open space. Main modification MM21 would accordingly delete criterion (5). Provisions for open space would remain subject to other policy requirements in the Local Plan.

214. For Policy H1(30) West of Eclipse, Sittingbourne Road, Maidstone the Borough Council has revised its assessment of the site’s capacity having regard to the relationship of the site to the adjacent M20. To make more effective and efficient use of the site main modification MM23 would amend the anticipated number of dwellings from 35 to 50.

215. All of these necessary modifications to relevant H1 and RMX policies for housing allocations in Maidstone Town would marginally reduce the supply of housing from 1,859 dwellings in the submitted Local Plan to 1,846 dwellings. A consequential change to Policy SP1(3) Maidstone urban area is set out in main modification MM5 . This does not include the recommended modifications of the H2 Broad Locations or the windfall allowances.

Rural Service Centres

216. The situation at the Lenham Rural Service Centre is addressed above.

44

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

217. In general the other Rural Service Centres are appropriately identified and the amount of development is suitably related to the existing services and facilities which they possess.

218. At Headcorn, Policy H1(37) Ulcombe Road and Millbank, Headcorn has been subject to an updated assessment of the access and infrastructure requirements including education provision. Changes are needed if the policy is to be effective in housing delivery and are set out in main modification MM24 .

Larger Villages

219. The other Larger Villages are also appropriately identified as part of the plan’s spatial strategy. The amount of development is suitably related to the existing services and facilities which they possess. Where for example Coxheath is proposed for more development than Sutton Valence, it also possesses a wider selection of services and facilities, rivalling the Rural Service Centres (apart from the lack of a railway station but benefitting from closer proximity to Maidstone with reduced travel distances).

220. Nevertheless, the RMX1(4) Syngenta site in the Larger Village of Yalding should be deleted as an allocation for housing or for specified employment use. The site is in a Zone 3a flood risk area and, in addition to the associated risk to the future occupiers, it has not been demonstrated that development would avoid increasing the risk of off-site flooding. The allocation would thus be inconsistent with national policy for addressing flood risk in the NPPF. This would remain a large derelict brownfield site and an eyesore in the countryside. Alternative uses should be sought that would be more compatible with its location in a flood risk area. Accordingly main modification MM36 would amend Policy RMX1(4) to include deletion of the 200 dwelling housing allocation and 8,600 sq m of employment floorspace whilst still providing that other development which addressed and mitigated the identified flood risk may be possible. Consequential amendments to Policy SP16 would be made by main modification MM10 which also refers to a need to improve health infrastructure in order for the plan to be positively prepared.

221. The loss of that allocation for 200 dwellings at Yalding does not require immediate replacement as there would be an adequate supply of housing pending the review of housing needs in the intended Review of the Local Plan. However the loss of this site locally emphasises the need to retain the only other housing allocation in this Larger Village in order to maintain a suitable contribution to local and wider housing needs. It is acknowledged that Yalding experiences congestion at peak hours due to the narrowness of the river bridge and because the railway station is on the far side of the river and some distance from the main village. However the limited improvements to transport infrastructure that would have been needed to support the original large scale RMX1(4) housing and employment allocation cannot be justified as essential to support the remaining more modest allocation. Whether any additional housing allocations are needed in the parish later in the Local Plan period is a matter that can be addressed by the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and/or a Local Plan review.

222. The Policy H1(53) Boughton Lane housing allocation at Boughton Monchelsea should also be deleted for traffic impact reasons (see above).

45

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

223. Main modification MM14 is needed as a consequence of the above deletion of the Syngenta and Boughton Lane housing allocations which would be deleted from Table 6.1.

Windfall

224. Windfall housing development concerns housing development that is permitted on sites which have not been allocated in the development plan. Paragraph 48 of the NPPF provides that: ‘ Local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five year supply of housing if they have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply . Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends, and should not include residential gardens.’ It is accordingly reasonable for the Borough Council to allow that windfall may contribute to housing delivery. However the allowance may require adjustment in subsequent reviews according to up to date monitoring information and expected trends.

225. The Borough Council has provided suitable evidence to support its estimate of the contribution to housing supply of windfall development on brownfield sites. It has reasonably excluded a windfall allowance for the early years of the plan as this would risk double counting with existing commitments. It has also reasonably concluded that the number of anticipated windfalls should be reduced in the middle years of the plan period as many sites which in the past could have come forward as windfall development have already been identified through the SHEDLAA and subsequent allocation processes.

226. There is evidence that more development could come forward later in the Local Plan period on sites that have yet to be identified. The effectiveness of the Local Plan and its monitoring is at risk in that there would then be an overlap between the windfall allowance and delivery on small unidentified sites within the town centre which are included in the Broad Location figure. Main modification MM1 includes 50 windfall units that were previously included in the Town Centre Broad Location figure. The modification also includes an increase in the potential contribution anticipated from dwellings on windfall sites in the final 5 years of the plan period. However, as the Local Plan is to be reviewed at an earlier date, some sites that might have been considered as windfall are likely to be identified in that review process when the intentions of the landowners are known. In that case the windfall allowance for that period would need to be adjusted as part of the review.

227. It is concluded overall on this issue that the above main modifications are necessary for the relevant policies for the supply of housing to be effective and consistent with national policy.

46

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

MATTER 10 – OTHER RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT HOUSING POLICIES

Issue 19 – Whether the development management policies for housing are justified, effective, and consistent with national policy

Housing Mix

228. Paragraph 156 of the NPPF provides amongst other things that Local Plans should include strategic policies to deliver the homes needed in the area. Paragraph 50 of the NPPF provides amongst other things that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community. Paragraph 184 of the NPPF provides that Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan that the ambition of the neighbourhood should be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area.

229. Policy DM11 ‘Housing Mix’ seeks to give effect to the objective to meet different housing needs. It is strategic in that it sets out matters to be taken onto account by the Council and developers to meet the various needs for housing but does not prescribe particular mixes. However it is not clearly identified as part of the plan’s strategy and it would consequently not be clear whether Neighbourhood Plans would need to be in general conformity with it. That would risk the effectiveness of the Local Plan in meeting overall housing needs across the Borough. Criterion (5) is also unclear as to what is meant by the Council’s role to ‘facilitate’ the provision of specialist and supported housing for the elderly.

230. Main modification MM45 would move Policy DM11 into the proposed Strategy chapter of the Local Plan and renumber the policy as SP19. It includes a revision to the reasoned justification to clarify that Neighbourhood Plans can provide flexibility and local context in determining the housing mix whilst still contributing to wider strategic needs which would necessarily include the needs of people moving into the area as well as those of existing residents. In criterion (5) the word ‘facilitate’ would be replaced by the more readily understood term ‘support.’ The modification is needed to ensure that the plan does adequately address the needs for all types of housing and the needs of different groups as required under the Public Sector Equality Duty. Any further identified needs are capable of being addressed as part of the proposed review process.

Housing Density

231. Paragraph 59 of the NPPF provides amongst other things that design policies should amongst other things guide the overall scale and density of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. Other national policies and the recent Housing White Paper seek that land is used efficiently and that development is concentrated in locations where there are opportunities for sustainable travel, such as in town centres.

232. Policy DM12 ‘Density of housing development’ seeks to provide guidance on what density of development should be sought in different locations in order that it should be sustainable. However its effectiveness is undermined by unclear wording including the relationship of the numerical expected densities in different locations to the criteria on character and efficient land use. Locations ‘close to’ 47

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

the town centre are not clearly defined. Neither is there any guidance on density in urban locations that are not close to the town centre. An apparently fixed density for development in settlements in the countryside would be difficult to apply as such settlements are not defined in the plan and there are likely to be overriding issues of character and appearance.

233. Main modification MM46 would address the above issues of ineffectiveness and of inconsistency with national policy by bringing together the overriding considerations of character and efficient land use, replacing the term ‘close to’ with ‘adjacent to’, include a single guidance density for development elsewhere within or adjacent to defined settlements, and remove the density guide for developments elsewhere in the countryside which would be assessed on the character and efficiency criteria alone.

Affordable Housing

234. Since the Local Plan was submitted for examination, the courts have reinstated a Written Ministerial Statement which seeks to exempt developments of 10 dwellings or less (or which have less than 1000 sq m of gross internal floorspace) from a requirement to provide affordable housing. It also includes a ‘vacant building credit’ which would reduce the need to provide for affordable housing in circumstances where a development site already contains vacant buildings. Policy DM13 is no longer consistent with this national policy and requires modification to be sound.

235. The NPPF at paragraphs 50 and 159 provides that local planning authorities should assess the need for affordable housing and set policies to meet this need. Much of the provision for meeting the need is necessarily as part of mixed developments with market housing such that it will have a similar distribution across the Borough, including within Neighbourhood Plan areas. To be effective the provision of adequate affordable housing should therefore be part of the strategy of the Local Plan with which Neighbourhood Plans are expected to generally conform. This requires that Policy DM13 Affordable housing is clearly identified as part of the Local Plan strategy and included in the proposed strategy chapter.

236. For the above reasons main modification MM47 is needed for the modified and renumbered Policy SP20 Affordable Housing to be both effective and consistent with revised national policy.

Local Needs Housing

237. Policy DM14 Local Needs Housing refers to what is more commonly described as the provision of housing on ‘Exception Sites’ in the countryside where a local need for housing would not otherwise be met. The provision of such housing would be consistent with paragraph 54 of the NPPF. However, whilst the policy is seeking the provision of affordable housing on these sites the Policy is not consistently worded in that regard and it requires main modification MM48 to be effective. Further wording changes may be needed when Government policy has been finalised as indicated in the Housing White Paper.

238. It is concluded overall on this issue that the above main modifications are necessary for the relevant development management policies for housing to be effective and consistent with national policy. 48

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

MATTER 11 - GYPSIES, TRAVELLERS AND TRAVELLING SHOWPEOPLE

Issue 20 – Whether the plan would be effective in seeking to meet the assessed needs and would be consistent with national policy

239. The Government’s document Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) sets out national policy. Paragraph 7 requires local planning authorities to use robust evidence to plan positively and manage development. Paragraph 9 requires them to work collaboratively when setting targets for pitches. In preparing their local plans, local planning authorities should undertake an objective and up-to-date assessment of need. That need should be translated into a policy confirming pitch requirements over the full plan period. There should be a realistic assessment of supply (including whether potential sites are achievable / deliverable). Where there is a gap between need and supply, there should be proposals to meet that gap, including achieving a deliverable 5 year supply of pitches and identifying developable sites or broad locations beyond that period (paragraph 10).

240. According to paragraph 11.1 of the Local Plan, the Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (2012) (GTTSAA) [HOU 001] revealed a need during the Local Plan period for 187 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be provided in the Borough together with 11 plots for Travelling Showpeople which includes 7 existing unauthorised plots and future household growth between 2016 and 2031.

241. The NPPF seeks that Local Plans should use a proportionate evidence base and be based on adequate up to date and relevant evidence. The GTTSAA exercise predated the PPTS that was issued in August 2015. The PPTS provides for the exclusion from the needs assessment of those who had ceased to travel. However the GTTSAA had already asked those surveyed whether they had ceased to travel. The Council told the examination that if the exercise were to be repeated the only difference would be to add a question concerning whether there was an intention to start travelling again. Moreover Section 124 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 imposes a statutory duty to make provision for those people residing in or resorting to their district with respect to sites on which caravans can be stationed . Those who have no intention to travel again are not precluded from that consideration even though they are now excluded from the PPTS definition. The likelihood is thus that a new assessment would result in relatively small changes in the needs figures.

242. I conclude that the submitted needs evidence is adequate. To pause the examination to undertake a new survey would be disproportionate and would cause unnecessary delay in the adoption of the Local Plan. Moreover other evidence could become out of date during this pause.

243. Paragraph 7a of PPTS also states:

‘7. In assembling the evidence base necessary to support their planning approach, local planning authorities should:

a) pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and traveller communities (including discussing travellers’ accommodation needs with travellers themselves, their representative bodies and local support group)’. 49

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

I do not consider that this amounts to a mandatory requirement to consult the settled community about the needs assessment. That was not done in this case. However the parish councils and others in the settled community have been included in the overall consultation on the Local Plan itself including in the identification of sites.

244. The Report of Findings of the Gypsy & Traveller Site Assessment is Document HOU 006. Policies GT1 and GT1(1) to GT1(16) would allocate sites for approximately 41 pitches for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation with site specific criteria. Policy DM16 provides for development either on the allocated sites or that meets specified criteria elsewhere.

245. MBC has issued a Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Topic Paper [Document SUB 004]. Amongst other things the Topic Paper records that planning permissions were granted for 92 pitches for Gypsies and Travellers between 1 October 2011 and 13 May 2016. 21 pitches are also expected to become available on public sites during the Local Plan period leaving a residual need for 33 pitches to be delivered on unidentified sites under policy DM16. The Paper claims that there is therefore a 5.6 years supply of pitches. The Topic Paper provides that the need for plots for travelling showpeople can best be addressed through the development management process.

246. The identification of more sites for allocation would be desirable but has been constrained in that the repeated calls for sites did not result in more suggestions of suitable sites from landowners, parish councils or others. To delete any of the proposed allocations would exacerbate the problem. The relatively large extent of the need for sites in Maidstone Borough and the landscape, flood risk and other constraints make it inevitable that there will be a concentration of sites in some parts of the Borough and they will not be spread evenly across the whole area. If sufficient windfall sites do not come forward then it may be necessary to seek additional allocations when the Local Plan is reviewed in order to maintain a sufficient supply to meet needs.

247. Policy DM16 ‘Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation’ is the criteria-based policy which would apply to planning applications for accommodation on sites that have not been identified in the Local Plan. Some of the wording is unclear and would thus be ineffective. In particular the term ‘inappropriate harm’ in criterion 2 is not readily understandable as it lacks any criteria for judging what harm may or may not be appropriate. Also in criterion 2 the references to the Kent Downs AONB and the Metropolitan Green Belt do not accord with the national statutory or policy tests for those areas which are better reflected in other policies of the Local Plan as proposed to be modified. Those references should therefore be deleted. The necessary modifications for effectiveness and consistency with national policy (and thus soundness) are set out in MM49 . These include the replacement of ‘inappropriate harm’ with ‘significant harm’ and the deletion of references to the AONB and the Green Belt.

50

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

MATTER 12 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT

Issue 21 - Whether the plan is positively prepared in that it is based on a strategy which seeks to meet an objectively assessed need for economic development , including any unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

Economic Development Needs

248. The NPPF provides that local planning authorities should use their evidence base to assess the needs for land or floorspace for economic development including both the quantitative and qualitative needs for all foreseeable types of economic activity over the plan period.

249. Paragraph 4.7 of the submitted Local Plan explains that the plan seeks a balance of sustainable housing and employment growth and that a forecast of 14,394 jobs growth across all employment sectors includes 3,732 jobs in the office, industrial and warehousing sectors and 4,200 at the Maidstone medical campus at Junction 7 of the M20. The other employment would come from sectors such as construction, retailing, leisure, care services, tourism and transport.

250. The Employment and Retail Topic Paper 2016 [Document SUB 003] explains that the Local Plan anticipates the creation of 14,400 jobs in Maidstone Borough by 2031 in accordance with the aims of the Maidstone Economic Development Strategy 2011-2031 (2015) (EDS) [Document ORD 005]. This figure is derived from the Economic Sensitivity Testing and Employment Land Forecast Final Report (February 2014) [Document ECON 001] (the ESTELF). This may be compared with the projected workforce growth of 17,300 persons over the plan period in the 2012-based ONS Sub National Population Projections. That suggests that there is headroom for additional employment provision within the Borough above the identified floorspace needs. If this is not delivered then there will be additional out-commuting, whether to neighbouring Boroughs within the functional economic area or further afield, including to London.

251. The jobs forecast was converted into a land requirement for those sectors that require new office, industrial or warehousing and distribution space between 2011 and 2031. However there are errors in Table 4.4 which seeks to set out the net floorspace requirement for offices, industry and warehousing.

252. Main modification MM1 would include a corrected version of Table 4.4 which sets out an identified net quantitative requirement at 1 April 2016 for 24,600 sq m of office floorspace (Net Internal Area) and 7,965 sq m of warehousing space (Gross Internal Area) but a negative requirement for -18,610 sq m of industrial floorspace (GIA). However these figures do not translate directly into the amount of business floorspace required to be met by Local Plan allocations for reasons which are explained in the MM1 modifications to the reasoned justification for Policy SS1. Specifically there is a qualitative need for new office, industrial, and storage floorspace which is additional to the identified quantitative needs. Supporting evidence for that conclusion includes the Economic Sensitivity Testing and Employment Land Forecast [Document ECON 001], the Qualitative Employment Site Assessment [Document ECON 002] and the Council’s Economic Development Strategy 2015-2031 [Document ORD 005]. If floorspace provision exceeds the quantitative need then that should reduce the out-commuting that is otherwise likely to occur. 51

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

Functional Economic Market Area

253. Some representations query what account has been taken of the need for and supply of employment land in adjoining districts having regard also to commuting patterns.

254. National Planning Practice Guidance advises that the assessment of economic development needs should relate to the functional economic market area. The Economic Sensitivity Testing and Employment Land Forecast Final Report (February 2014) [Document ECON 001] (the ESTELF) concluded that it is reasonable to define the functional economic area of Maidstone as including the immediately surrounding districts.

255. In its assessment of needs the ESTELF referred to a selection of plans and proposals in the adjoining districts. It also included some of their targets for jobs and housing growth. However it acknowledged that the plans and proposals in those areas were being revised or finalised and could be subject to change. However the document did not arrive at any overall assessment of employment needs or of provision across the neighbouring districts.

256. The Council’s Economic Development Strategy acknowledges that Maidstone Borough has moved from being a slight net importer of labour to a net exporter. Information provided to the examination on commuting patterns in the 2011 census indicates that the net daily outward flow from Maidstone to London is 5,834 persons and that there is a net daily inflow to Maidstone from other mid and West Kent authority areas of 3,844 persons. The strongest net daily flows include 2,008 persons from Maidstone to Tonbridge and Malling and 3,413 persons from Medway to Maidstone.

257. Table 33 of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (the SHMA) [Document HOU 002] acknowledged that employment growth in Maidstone could partly support housing demand in the Medway Towns, Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone and Swale. It might have also referred to Ashford from which there is also a significant net daily inflow of commuters to Maidstone.

258. Table 33 of the SHMA also sets out what was then known about Housing and Employment Growth policies in the nearby authorities (including Ashford). However 3 of the 6 authorities then had no employment growth target. The only recent targets for the period ending in 2031 were then in the Swale Draft Local Plan of 2013. The Swale housing target has since been increased.

259. My Interim Findings published in December 2016 [Document ED 110] advised that further work was then needed to:

• update the position on job targets and employment land provision in Maidstone and the adjoining Boroughs/Districts within the same functional economic area relative to the anticipated housing and population growth in those areas;

• establish what effect there may be on travel patterns, including net flows to London or elsewhere; and to

• establish whether there is likely to be sufficient land overall to accommodate the employment needs. 52

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

260. In response Maidstone Borough Council has since prepared an Employment Update [Document ED 118].

261. Some of the plans of the neighbouring authorities remain at an earlier stage and they relate to different time periods. Nevertheless there is evidence that where the adjoining authorities have assessed their employment needs they consider that they can meet their needs within their own areas. Most of the authorities are proposing new employment allocations to that end. Amongst other things the Employment Update concludes that:

• if the Local Plan housing and employment proposals are implemented, and if in-commuting to Maidstone remains constant as a proportion of employment, then there would be a deficit of about 1,300 jobs in Maidstone Borough which would potentially increase the level of out-commuting from the Borough by 4% over the plan period.

• across the functional economic area which comprises Maidstone and the adjoining boroughs there would be a 1% increase in out-commuting. This is likely to be absorbed by a continued increase in out-commuting to London and to other locations in Kent where significant jobs growth is expected.

Employment and Housing

262. The Employment Update Assessment was based on the housing requirement of 18,560 dwellings set out in the submitted Plan. As other main modifications would reduce this target by 900 dwellings to 17,660, the local jobs deficit should also reduce. But as an overall deficit is likely to persist with an associated increase in out-commuting the recommended reduction in dwelling numbers does not justify any reduction in the provision for employment within the Borough.

263. The Employment Update assumes that commuting patterns across Borough/District borders will remain the same notwithstanding the conclusion that there will be a modest overall increase in out-commuting. In practice individuals may make different choices about where they live and work and how they travel between home and work. This will be influenced by variable factors that include journey time, journey reliability, cost, and comfort or convenience.

264. The transport modelling that has been undertaken includes much of the development that is planned on both sides of the borders. But it cannot precisely predict changes in these choices which are based on too many variables. For example, people may move house, opt to work from home, or change jobs - whether to avoid a congested or expensive commute or in response to a change in public transport services or to changes made by their employers in working practices. In that respect the modelling should represent a worse case than that which would actually occur when people adapt their behaviour to react to changed conditions.

Conclusions on Economic Development Needs

265. I conclude that:

• The Local Plan is based on an appropriate and objective assessment of economic development needs and of the associated land and floorspace 53

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

requirements including both quantitative and qualitative needs. However for the plan to be sound main modification MM1 is needed to correct errors in the tabulated figures and to amend the reasoned justification.

• The plan is positively prepared in that it is based on a strategy which seeks to meet an objectively assessed need for employment and associated infrastructure where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

• There is at present no identified requirement to address unmet needs from any adjoining authority and the Plan would make an appropriate contribution to identifying and addressing needs across the functional economic area.

• Employment trends have been appropriately taken into account when assessing housing and employment needs.

• The Plan has had regard to evidence of current commuting patterns but future changes may occur which cannot be reliably predicted.

Issue 22 – Whether the EMP employment allocations are justified and consistent with national policy and whether they would be effective in terms of deliverability

EMP1(1) Mote Road, Maidstone Town Centre

266. Policy EMP1(1) in the submitted plan proposes a site within the town centre at Mote Road for development of 8,000 sq m of office space in a building not exceeding 9 storeys in height. The town centre is the sequentially preferable location for office development and already has a substantial stock of office space. However much of the existing stock is unsuitable for modern needs. Whilst new modern stock is needed, the oversupply of older offices has contributed to the suppression of rental values. This should improve as older stock is converted to other uses, particularly flats, as envisaged by Policy H2(1).

267. The Council has accepted evidence that a purely office development would not currently be viable at Mote Road and is thus unlikely to be delivered. The allocation would thus be ineffective and unsound. The landowners have stated that the schemes most likely to be viable would be either 100% residential or a predominately residential development on the upper floors with a commercial element (retail, leisure or offices below). However the site is not within the defined shopping area. Moreover there is an identified need for offices and the town centre is the preferred location. Offices should therefore be the priority but mixed with sufficient residential accommodation for a viable scheme. Unless a minimum amount of office space is required then office space is likely to lose out in a mixed scheme to more profitable uses and the identified need would not be met.

268. Main modification MM38 would therefore substitute new Policy RMX1(6) Mote Road, Maidstone for EMP1(1) in the submitted plan. The revised policy would allocate the site for mixed development to include at least 2,000 sq m office floorspace in a residential-led development. It would also delete a specific height limit. Height would instead be determined under general design policies in the Local Plan that apply to all development. The revised policy also allows for the inclusion of leisure uses in the mixed development. 54

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

EMP1(5) Woodcut Farm

269. EMP1(5) Woodcut Farm is identified in the submitted Local Plan as a strategic site that is critical to address both a qualitative and a quantitative need for high quality business space.

270. Policy EMP1(5) would allocate this site of 18.71ha by Junction 8 of the M20 on Ashford Road, Bearsted for up to 49,000 sq m of mixed employment (B1a; B1c; B2; B8) and a possible ‘element’ of hi-tech and or research and development B1(b).

271. Notwithstanding the proposed allocation, and contrary to the recommendation of its officers, in July 2016 the MBC Planning Committee resolved by 7 votes to 6 to refuse an application for planning permission for a similar development on the site as that proposed for allocation. This was an outline application for a mixed commercial development comprising B1(a), B1(b), B1(c) and B8 units, maximum floor space 46,623 square metres (access being sought at this stage) [Reference 15/503288]. The outline scheme did not require approval of details such as scale, layout, external appearance or landscaping.

272. The reason for refusal dated 6 July 2016 is:

‘The proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside, Special Landscape Area and the setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and any benefits are not considered to outweigh this harm. It would also cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II listed building “Woodcut Farm” and any public benefits are not considered to outweigh this harm. The development would therefore be contrary to saved policies ENV21, ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012’.

273. Notwithstanding that decision (which is the subject of a current appeal to the Secretary of State) the Council has confirmed during the Examination that the allocation should be retained.

Woodcut Farm Development Mix

274. The Employment and Retail Topic Paper had suggested that the identified need for 24,000 sq m of office floorspace would be met with 16,000 sq m of offices at Woodcut Farm and 8,000 sq m at Mote Road in Maidstone Town Centre. However there are evident viability issues with both sites such that neither site is now expected by the Council to deliver this much space.

275. The indicative scheme for which planning permission was refused by the Council would have included only about 5,360 sq m of offices. That would have left a substantial shortfall against the 16,000 sq m of office space anticipated by the Topic Paper.

276. The MM39 modifications to the Woodcut Farm allocation policy include amended reasoned justification. Whilst the need for additional high quality office space is supported by the strongest evidence of quantitative need and by evidence of qualitative need, there is also evidence to the Examination that there are significant viability issues with developing stand-alone office space. That is especially true in the town centre but also applies at other sites on the edge of 55

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

the urban area. Thus it is unlikely that development would come forward at this location for a development that is mainly or exclusively for office use. A mixed development of business space stands a better chance of supporting such development by sharing the costs of landscaping, access, and other infrastructure provision, whilst also providing floorspace to address the quantitative and/or qualitative needs for different types of employment. Following negotiation with the site agents the Council now concludes that a minimum of 10,000 sq m (NIA) of office floorspace can be expected to be provided at Woodcut Farm during the Local Plan period.

277. The remainder of the allocation would be available for industrial and storage uses. In that regard there is an identified qualitative need for new sites in locations with good access to the motorway network. This is notwithstanding that there is anticipated to be a net loss of industrial floorspace across the Borough as older sites in less functionally suitable locations are redeveloped for other purposes.

278. That need for employment floorspace here has been exacerbated by the need to delete the RMX1(4) Former Syngenta site at Hampstead Lane, Yalding as a mixed residential and employment allocation owing to flood risk issues (see below). That site would have provided 8,600 sq m of employment floorspace. Whilst the MM36 modifications to Policy RMX1(4) would not preclude some employment development coming forward on that site in the future, the flood risk constraints and the absence of residential development make its development much more challenging such that it cannot be relied upon. Viability issues have also reduced the potential contribution of office development at the EMP1(1) Mote Road, Maidstone site from 8,000 sq m to 2,000 sq m (see above).

Woodcut Farm Landscape

279. The submitted Local Plan deletes from this and other parts of the Borough the former Special Landscape Area designation that was referred to in the 2016 refusal. The site lies close to but outside the Kent Downs AONB boundary. It is within the setting of the AONB. However in important views from the scarp it would lie beyond both the M20 motorway and the HS1 high speed railway line. Those features already intrude into the rural landscape and have their own visual and noise impacts on the setting of the AONB such that the impact of the development would be more marginal than if those features were not present.

280. The Kent International Gateway (KIG) was an earlier development scheme for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange with 374,000 sq m of floorspace on a very much larger (112ha) site that included the 18.7ha of the proposed allocation. That site extended much further to the west towards the built up area of Bearsted. Permission was refused by the Secretary of State, partly on the grounds of substantial harm to the landscape and to the setting of the Kent Downs AONB [Document ORD 029]. As the development would not have functioned well for its intended purpose as a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange the Secretary of State concluded that the identified harm would not have been outweighed. However the scale of development now proposed in the allocation is very much reduced. It would consequently have a much lesser impact in the landscape. Moreover, unlike the KIG, the Woodcut Farm development would serve a different and more local identified need.

56

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

281. My attention has also been drawn to the more recent appeals at Waterside Park [Document ORD 011]. That site lies to the south of the A20 and is closer to Leeds Castle. Two planning applications for alternative industrial developments were refused and the subsequent appeals dismissed. This was also in part because the harm to the landscape, to visual amenity and to the setting of the AONB again was not outweighed by the economic benefits of that scheme. However that proposal would have required considerably more site excavation on a more sloping site and there would have been less opportunity for landscape mitigation than at Woodcut Farm.

282. The 2016 refusal of planning permission for the scheme on the proposed allocation site was partly on the grounds of landscape impact. I conclude that additional design and layout measures are needed in Policy EMP1(5) to further mitigate the landscape and visual impacts of the development. The modifications recommended below would include such measures.

283. As mitigation would be unlikely to negate all of the adverse impact the development would still have adverse landscape impacts. That residual impact needs to be accorded substantial weight when weighed with the economic benefits of the scheme.

Woodcut Farm Heritage Assets

284. There is Grade II listed farmhouse at Woodcut Farm. The SHEDLAA acknowledged that development could potentially affect its setting and the MBC Planning Committee cited less than substantial harm to its setting as a reason to refuse outline planning permission for a development similar to that proposed in the allocation.

285. In relation to heritage assets, the Secretary of State also accorded some weight to the effect of that larger KIG scheme on heritage assets at Bearsted. However the proposed allocation is well removed from those assets and would not have such effects. Notably the Secretary of State did not identify any harm to the setting of Leeds Castle and its Park of that scheme. The current proposal would be of much smaller scale than the KIG scheme and no closer to that heritage asset.

286. The Waterside Park appeals were dismissed in part because of expected harm to the setting of heritage assets including the Registered Park which surrounds the nearby Grade 1 listed Leeds Castle and which contributes to its setting. However the identified harm to the heritage assets related mainly to direct views of the Waterside Park development from the Registered Park and from the entrance to the Grade II* Registered Park. The Waterside Park development would have been on raised ground to the south of the A20. However the Woodcut Farm site is set further from both Leeds Castle (3km) and its Park (1.5km) on lower land north of the A20 and south of the M20. The engineering works and land uses associated with the A20, the M20 and the HS1 railway line have all radically affected and eroded the historic landscape. Improved screening means that it would be unlikely to feature prominently in direct views.

287. The Waterside Park Inspector was not persuaded by arguments that visitors to Leeds Castle would be deterred because they may be driving past an industrial park on their way to the Castle (if approaching from the west). Neither do I consider that visitors would be deterred by passing a business park development 57

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

at Woodcut Farm, further to the west and beyond the junction between the A20 and the M20. Nor do I consider that the setting or significance of any designated or undesignated heritage assets other than Woodcut Farmhouse would be materially affected.

288. I conclude that design and layout modifications to Policy EMP1(5) are needed to minimise the potential for harm to the setting and heritage significance of Woodcut Farm House. Any residual harm to setting merits considerable weight and importance when it is weighed with the public benefits of the development.

Alternative sites for a strategic economic development

289. A number of Representors have argued during the examination that there are alternative sites which they would prefer to Woodcut Farm and that the Woodcut Farm site is consequently not part of the most appropriate strategy.

290. Some consideration was previously given to alternative sites during the Waterside Park Inquiry. In particular, the Waterside Park appeal Inspector considered whether that industrial development proposal could be located elsewhere either within the Borough or (under the duty to cooperate) within the wider local area.

291. She acknowledged that there did appear to be a need for more employment land allocations but was unable to then conclude on the evidence before her that it would be necessary to allocate land in the countryside. The Inspector noted that she had been referred to both the Detling Aerodrome site (also known as Binbury Park) and to the Aylesford Print Works site (in Tonbridge & Malling Borough) as potential alternative development locations. However she did not endorse those locations.

292. Further evidence has been provided during the examination in relation to those alternative site locations which was not before the Waterside Appeal Inspector. This includes the Sustainability Appraisal of the submitted Local Plan and the proposed modifications, the conclusions of the Strategic Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment (SHEDLAA), the Employment and Retail Topic Paper, and also subsequent evidence concerning sites in other Boroughs. In particular, Tonbridge & Malling has made its own assessment of employment land needs arising in that Borough and has not identified any surplus to meet needs arising in other areas such as Maidstone. Moreover the owners of the Aylesford Print Works are promoting a mixed development which would reduce the land available for employment there and that is said to be justified on viability grounds.

293. Detling Aerodrome lies within the Kent Downs AONB where national policy (NPPF Paragraph 116) provides that planning permission for major development should be refused except in exceptional circumstances. In particular there should be an assessment of the scope for developing outside the designated area. Whilst that text refers to planning permission rather than a development allocation the impact of development on the special qualities of the AONB would be the same. In this case there is obvious scope to develop instead at Woodcut Farm which lies outside the AONB. Whilst Woodcut Farm lies within the setting of the AONB, the impact on the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB would be less than if the development were instead to be located within the designated area. The Woodcut Farm site is thus to be preferred.

58

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

294. I agree with the conclusions of the Council that Woodcut Farm remains the most appropriate strategic location to address the objectively assessed quantitative and qualitative need for additional employment land, notwithstanding the residual harm (even after mitigation) to the landscape (including to the AONB setting), to visual amenity and to the setting of the listed Woodcut Farmhouse. There is a lack of evidence that any alternative development site of comparable scale, or multiple sites, would have less impact in these regards and still deliver comparable benefits.

Benefits

295. The principal public benefits are economic and in particular the provision of significant local employment opportunities for a growing population within the Borough, thereby reducing the need to travel outside the Borough for work. The associated economic activity would also have significant economic benefits and there would be opportunities for businesses to relocate from locations and premises that are less suitable for their needs. This would accord with national policy objectives to create economic growth by planning proactively to meet the development needs of business.

Conclusions on Woodcut Farm

296. I conclude that the public economic benefits merit considerable weight and that they outweigh the residual harm after mitigation to the landscape (including the setting of the Kent Downs AONB) and visual amenity and the less than substantial harm to the setting of Woodcut Farm House that could result, depending on the final scheme design.

297. However the recommended main modifications to EMP1(5) Woodcut Farm in MM39 are needed to: ensure that sufficient office floorspace is effectively delivered; to minimise the landscape and visual amenity impacts of development on this green field site in accordance with national policy to protect the character and landscape of the countryside and the AONB; and to reduce the potential for harm to the setting of the listed Woodcut Farmhouse, also in accordance with national policy for the protection of heritage assets. MM39 also includes the minerals assessment criterion requested by the Minerals Planning Authority as a safeguarding measure for consistency with national policy.

298. Those modifications are necessary for the Woodcut Farm employment allocation to be justified and consistent with national policy and to be effective in terms of deliverability.

Issue 23 – Whether the plan is otherwise consistent with national policy and positively prepared and effective so as to make adequate provision for development for employment

299. The NPPF includes objectives to seek to meet identified needs for development, including employment, and to secure economic growth and a prosperous rural economy.

300. In the submitted plan, in addition to the site allocations, Policy DM21 ‘Retention of Employment Sites’ lists a number of established sites to be designated as ‘Economic Development Areas’ which are to be protected for employment use. It also sets out criteria for changes to other uses within these areas. However it 59

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

fails to provide criteria for new development for business on these sites or to clarify that such development can in some circumstances be permitted on Economic Development Area sites that are in the countryside where development may otherwise be more restricted. This would hamper the provision of necessary development for business including small businesses and would fail to support the rural economy. The plan would therefore neither be positively prepared nor consistent with Government policy.

301. Main modification MM51 would make specific provision to permit redevelopment for business use and infilling within Economic Development Areas (whether in the countryside or otherwise) and adds design criteria for developments in the countryside so as to mitigate their impacts. This would allow such areas to make an appropriate contribution to the economy.

302. In the submitted plan Policy DM41 ‘Expansion of existing businesses in rural areas’ is a criteria-based policy for development at rural businesses in the countryside. It provides in summary that where there would be significant adverse impacts on the rural environment and amenity from the expansion of rural businesses they should instead relocate to a designated Economic Development Area or to within the Maidstone Urban Area or a Rural Service Centre. However it goes on to provide that where there are no significant adverse impacts or relocation ‘cannot be achieved’ then expansion will be permitted subject to stated criteria. However the policy is vaguely worded and is likely to be difficult to interpret and consequently ineffective. A more logical and effective sequence would be to allow limited expansion subject to criteria and then, if these criteria cannot be met, to encourage relocation to an Economic Development Area or to within a defined settlement. Other alternatives would need to be argued on the basis of an exception to policy.

303. Main modification MM56 would modify Policy DM41 on the above lines in order for it to be consistent with national policy and positively prepared and effective and thereby sound.

Overall Provision for Business Floorspace

304. With the necessary modifications to the EMP policies above and the RMX policies below, the Plan would make adequate provision to meet or exceed the identified net requirements for business floorspace. The provision for industrial and warehousing floorspace would comfortably exceed the requirement and would provide developers and employers with a choice of locations. Meeting the identified need for office floorspace is likely to be more difficult for reasons of viability. However with the recommended modifications adequate provision of office floorspace can be met by provision at Woodcut Farm, Maidstone East, Mote Road (subject in each case to revised floorspace figures) together with an allowance for windfall provision on unidentified sites.

305. The provision for windfall office development is supported by evidence included in the Employment Update (ED 118) which examined past provision from this source. It excludes existing commitments and thus provision for the first 3 years from 2016-2019 and would approximate to 717 sq m for each of the remaining 12 years of the plan period.

306. With the recommended modifications office provision in the Borough would comprise: 60

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

• 10,000 sq m at EMP1(4) Woodcut Farm (renumbered from EMP1(1));

• 4,000 sq m as part of allocation RMX1(2) Maidstone East and Royal Mail Sorting Office);

• 2,000 sq m at updated policy number RMX1(6) Mote Road (as part of a mixed housing-led development and renumbered from EMP1(1));

• and the remaining 8,600 sq m as windfall development on unidentified sites.

MATTER 13 – RETAIL AND MIXED DEVELOPMENT/TOWN CENTRES

Retail and Mixed Development

Issue 24 - Whether the plan strategy seeks to meet an objectively assessed need for retail and mixed development and is effective and consistent with national policy for town centres

307. The National Planning Policy Framework provides amongst other things at Section 2 that local planning authorities should define a network and hierarchy of centres and also define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas (based on a clear definition of primary and secondary shopping frontages in designated centres). They should then apply a sequential approach to the location of ‘main town centre uses’ (which are defined in the Glossary, as is edge of centre development). However this approach is not to be applied for applications for small scale rural offices or other small scale rural development.

308. Outside of town centres an impact assessment for retail, office and leisure developments should be required when they are not in accordance with an up to date local plan. A locally set threshold should exclude smaller developments from that requirement and, in the absence of such a local threshold, the default is 2,500 sq m of floorspace.

309. Policy DM17 - Town Centre Uses seeks to apply a sequential approach to the location of main town centre uses. There is no provision in the policy to exempt small scale rural offices or other development. Policy DM17 also requires an impact assessment for retail, office or leisure proposals outside of an existing centre. However no local threshold is included. Additional accessibility criteria are included for edge of centre or out of centre development.

310. Main modification MM50 is needed for effectiveness and for consistency with national policy. It would modify Policy DM17 Town Centre Uses and its reasoned justification to include a 2,500 sq m threshold below which the sequential test would not apply. Small scale rural offices and other development would also be excluded under set criteria. Policy DM17 would be renumbered due to other changes.

61

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

RMX1(1) Newnham Park, Bearsted

Issue 25 – Whether the RMX1(1) allocation would be justified as the most appropriate strategy and consistent with national policy for town centre uses, the protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the mitigation of environmental and transport impacts.

311. The policy concerns a mixed allocation of strategic scale comprising retail development and specialist medical facilities. The site is already occupied in part by a garden centre with associated retail facilities. Planning permission has previously been granted for the medical development elsewhere within the proposed allocation. A renewal of that permission has recently been sought.

312. The retail part of the proposed allocation seeks the replacement of the retail facilities and to allow for their modest expansion. However the site owner’s evidence is that the modest expansion of retail floorspace would not allow for a viable redevelopment if the existing businesses had to close whilst it is carried out. Moreover this is an out of centre site and the retail development has not been subject to the sequential or impact tests that are usually required by national policy when creating new retail floorspace. As the allocation would not be effective or consistent with national policy in respect of the impact test main modification MM33 would delete the provision for additional retail floorspace and revisions to the reasoned justification would refer to the need for a sequential and impact test in the event that additional retail space were to be proposed.

313. The site is in a sensitive location within the setting of the Kent Downs AONB and the scale of the development would risk an adverse effect on the AONB if not sensitively designed. For consistency with national policy MM33 therefore also includes a number of necessary changes to the policy and the reasoned justification to mitigate the environmental and transport impacts of the development including with regard to the effect on the setting of the nearby Kent Downs AONB.

314. The site lies within a Minerals Safeguarding Area as defined in the recently adopted Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan in accordance with national policy. But the policy does not include a relevant criterion for minerals safeguarding such as a requirement for a Minerals Assessment to establish if prior extraction would be feasible and viable before the minerals are sterilised by other development. Such a criterion is therefore included in MM33 .

315. The existing retail floorspace is said not to be subject to controls on the type of goods to be sold. In that context Representors have pointed out that the revised wording of paragraph 13.8 set out in the consultation version of MM33 is unclear as to whether any restrictions on the goods to be sold and the operation of Class A and D2 uses would apply only to any additional floorspace. Some clarification of the wording is needed in this regard and the Council does not object to the Representor’s suggestion that the words ‘in relation to additional retail floorspace above 14,300 sq m and leisure uses’ be inserted in that paragraph. That is also included in MM33 in the interests of clarity and effectiveness.

62

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

RMX1(2) Maidstone East and Former Royal Mail Sorting Office, Sandling Road, Maidstone

Issue 26 - Whether the RMX1(2) allocation is justified and consistent with national policy for town centre uses

316. In the submitted plan this policy allocation provides for 10,000 sq m of comparison and convenience retail floorspace and approximately 210 dwellings.

317. The site lies within the town centre but outside the shopping area. It qualifies as an edge of centre site. According to the Employment and Retail Topic Paper (Document SUB 003) a planning application (MA/14/500483OUT) was submitted for a mixed use development on this site to include residential development and an 8,296 sq m foodstore but was withdrawn in January 2017. No sequential or retail impact assessment accompanied the planning application, as would be required by national policy in the NPPF. Neither does the submitted Local Plan policy address that matter. The Council has confirmed to the examination that the sequential test has already been applied to the proposed allocation in relation to retail use but as yet no retail impact test has been applied.

318. The policy in the submitted plan allows for up to 10,000 sq m of comparison and convenience floorspace but does not specify the proportion of each and would allow for developments with reduced retail floorspace as this is a mixed allocation. There are uncertainties in relation to what impact retail development would have on the town centre by the time that this site is developed. In particular there is an extant consent for an out of centre foodstore nearby at Baltic Wharf (see below) which may or may not be implemented. A further foodstore has been permitted for Waitrose at an out of centre site adjacent to Junction 7 of the M20 which would itself address the identified need for convenience floorspace. Retailing is undergoing a period of change due not least to an increase in internet shopping. In these circumstances, and because retail development could take a variety of different forms and at different scales, a retail impact test should also be applied when a planning application is made to support the amount and type of retail floorspace that is included in the mixed development of this site.

319. Office development on the site would be consistent with national policy for town centres. It is referred to in the reasoned justification to the allocation policy as part of a mixed development but is not referred to in the policy itself. That would result in confusion. Neither is office development likely to come forward if it is in competition with more profitable uses unless it is included as a policy requirement. Owing to viability issues with a standalone office allocation at Mote Road (see above) and with large scale office provision at Woodcut Farm (see above), there is a need for additional office space to meet the need identified in the evidence base for the Plan.

320. Since the Local Plan was submitted for examination MBC and KCC have jointly purchased the site from Royal Mail in September 2016 and they have formed a partnership to progress the project. Network Rail owns the southern element of the site surrounding Maidstone East Station and have engaged in discussion. The establishment of a masterplanning process is being actively discussed. The resulting work will help establish design parameters and proposed uses for the site.

63

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

321. The allocation is not consistent with national policy in that the impact of the retail development on the town centre has not been assessed. Whilst this is a suitable location in the town centre for office development for which there is an identified need, the reference to office provision in the reasoned justification alone and not in the policy would be ineffective in providing for office employment. The policy is therefore unsound but this can be rectified by the proposed main modification.

322. Main modification MM34 would clarify the amount of office development that is expected to be provided in the policy and which is required to meet an identified need. The modification would also require a retail impact test in relation to the retail component of the mixed development, once that has been identified.

RMX1(3) King Street Car Park and Former AMF Bowling Site

Issue 27 - Whether the RMX1(3) retail development is would be consistent with national policy

323. Like the RMX1(2) allocation, this site lies within the town centre but outside and immediately adjacent to the defined shopping area. The site is to be allocated for 1,400 sq m comparison and/or convenience retail and approximately 53 dwellings.

324. The Employment and Retail Topic Paper (document SUB 003) explains that the site, which is in the ownership of the Borough Council, is a well-used car park which is not being actively marketed for development at this point in time. This will be kept under review and the Council, as landowner, has indicated that it would respond positively to approaches at any time from retail developers.

325. Comparison and convenience retail would each be likely to have different impacts on the town centre shopping area. Those impacts have not been tested. As an edge of centre site and for consistency with national policy and the recommended approach to the RMX1(2) site, retail development here should also be subject to a retail impact test. As there has been no such assessment and because it is not currently a policy requirement the policy is unsound. Main modification MM35 would remedy this by amending criterion (1) of the policy.

RMX1(4) Former Syngenta Works, Hampstead Lane, Yalding

Issue 28 – Whether the allocation is consistent with national policy for addressing flood risk

326. The former Syngenta site at Yalding is a large flat brownfield site that was previously used for agro-chemical production. The site has been mainly cleared of buildings and remediated for land contamination. It was identified in the submitted Local Plan for 8,600 sq m of business space and 200 dwellings. However the site is wholly within Flood Zone 3a and is at high risk of flooding. The national policy aims for Flood Zone 3a in the NPPF are to relocate development to areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Environment Agency therefore objects to residential development on the site. The deletion of a housing allocation is necessary for reasons of flood risk. However as the housing was needed to assist development viability of the mixed use scheme the site is also unlikely to be developed for the proposed business use.

64

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

327. The site nevertheless remains unsightly and it detracts from its surroundings. It would be desirable to find an alternative use for it if the flood risk issues can be overcome using a less sensitive form of development.

328. Main modification MM36 would modify Policy RMX1(4) by deleting the residential and business allocation whilst substituting a policy to support alternative forms of development that addressed the flood risk issue and could potentially include B class employment, leisure use, commuter car parking (associated with the adjacent railway station) and open space. Other site specific policy criteria would also be modified. The policy would then be more consistent with national policy but the site would not be relied upon to deliver strategic housing and employment space.

Alternative Site – Baltic Wharf, Maidstone Town Centre

Issue 29 - Whether the national policy support for heritage assets would require a modification of the Local Plan

329. National policy in the NPPF provides amongst other things at paragraph 126 that the Local Plan should have a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats.

330. This site includes a listed building built in 1917 as a multi-storey factory but which has been vacant for several years. Elsewhere on the site the owners have secured certificates of lawfulness and planning permission for open A1 retail use of 2,600 sq m of what are described by the owner and MBC as ‘sheds’.

331. In April 2014 the site was the subject of a successful appeal against the non- determination of a planning application for mixed development including 7,430 sq m (Gross Internal Area)/4,194 sq m (Net Sales Area) retail in one unit. A planning condition provides that not more than 1,045 sq m of the net sales area was to be used for comparison goods. That would allow for a large foodstore of 3,149-4,194 sq m. This would use parts of the existing listed building (with alterations and extensions) and with offices on the upper floors. [Appeal Refs: APP/U2235/A/13/2299693 & APP/U2235/A/13/2209695].

332. On the evidence before him the Appeal Inspector concluded amongst other things that retail development was then the only viable use for the listed building. He also pointed to a ‘policy vacuum’ surrounding this site. This was contrasted to then draft proposals for comparison and convenience retailing at the RMX1(2) location at Maidstone East on the opposite side of the River Medway.

333. In the Employment and Retail Topic Paper at paragraph 64 it is stated that there is a requirement for 6,100 sq m net sales area of convenience floorspace in Maidstone by 2031; and at paragraph A12 that there are existing commitments for 6,754 sq m of such space including the extant Baltic Wharf permission. In November 2016 the Borough Council also resolved to permit a new Waitrose foodstore of 3,901 sq m (4,105 GEA) at Eclipse Park adjacent to Junction 7 of the M20.

334. The sequential assessment for the Waitrose development excluded the Baltic Wharf site for various reasons including that it would similarly be an out of centre

65

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

site. Baltic Wharf is more than 300m from the primary shopping area and thus not within or on the edge of centre in terms of the Framework Glossary definition.

335. There is no evidence of active interest in implementing the appeal permission for a large convenience food store. Moreover there has been a weakening of demand for large scale food stores in recent years. A number of proposed schemes by the main supermarket operators have been abandoned around the country. The foodstore consent is unlikely to be implemented in its current form. Also to seek to prioritise the development of this site with a foodstore over a sequentially preferable site such a Maidstone East would not be consistent with national policy for town centres.

336. National policy at paragraph 126 of the NPPF does nevertheless require account in policy making of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. The submitted Local Plan is inconsistent with this national policy in that it lacks any policy to help secure the future of the listed building at Baltic Wharf. In particular there is a risk that in the absence of any site specific policy, the area would be developed in a piecemeal fashion by its several owners without securing the future of the listed building or adequately protecting its setting.

337. For the above reasons main modification MM37 would insert a new policy RMX1(5) for Baltic Wharf in Maidstone. This would seek a comprehensive approach to the development of the listed buildings and adjoining premises. It provides in principle support for a variety of uses including housing, offices, leisure, cafes/restaurants and retail. In relation to retail development it would require a sequential test and impact test only if the retail floorspace were to exceed that currently on site.

MATTER 14 – OTHER DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND OPEN SPACE POLICIES

Issue 30 – Whether the other development management policies not addressed above are justified, effective, and consistent with national policy

Design

338. Having regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty I find the Plan to be generally consistent with national policy including: the provision in Policy DM 1(i) that the design and layout of developments should be accessible to all; that Policy DM11 seeks a sustainable range of house sizes and types to reflect the needs of those living in the Borough; and that Policy DM 15 makes provision for nursing and care homes.

Development on brownfield land

339. Policy DM4 ‘Development on brownfield land’ is generally supportive of development on previously-developed land (brownfield land) within the defined settlements of Maidstone, the rural service centres and the larger villages, subject to stated criteria. Residential gardens within settlements do not qualify as previously-developed land according to the definition in the glossary to the NPPF.

66

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

340. Policy DM4 as drafted would also ‘exceptionally’ allow residential development on brownfield sites in the countryside, including in smaller undefined settlements elsewhere, subject to the same criteria, but also to other criteria on location and environmental improvement that are not clearly defined. As worded, this would include development in residential gardens in the countryside which the courts have recently confirmed as qualifying as previously developed land according to the NPPF definition because this is not ‘land in built-up areas’. There are many such gardens of a wide range of types and sizes. That and the loose definitions of location and environmental improvement would potentially open the way to considerable development in unsuitable locations and with significant adverse cumulative impacts.

341. Main modification MM41 would accordingly amend Policy DM4 so as to disqualify gardens in the countryside as previously developed land for the purposes of this policy whilst still exceptionally allowing development on other brownfield land in the countryside with reasonable accessibility by sustainable modes to the defined settlements with their services and facilities. Where there are no more sustainable alternatives regard would be had both to past traffic generation by the site’s previous use and to the number and length of car movements that would be generated by the new development. However the bullet points proposed to follow paragraph 17.34 need to be brought into line with the revised policy wording and with national policy by ensuring that consideration is given both to what sustainable modes of transport are currently available at a brownfield site in the countryside and what opportunities may be available to facilitate the use of sustainable modes. An additional bullet point has been added to this end with the following wording ‘What sustainable travel modes are available or could reasonably be provided.’

Non-conforming uses

342. Policy DM6 ‘Non-conforming uses’ is poorly drafted and would in consequence be ineffective in that it would permit development which the policy itself describes as ‘unsuited to the local area’ . The policy does not identify what other plan policies may warrant exceptions and does not justify why development defined as unsuitable would nevertheless be acceptable.

343. Main modification MM43 would modify the policy wording and create criteria to protect local amenities, to mitigate adverse impacts on the local road network, and to otherwise meet other policy requirements. As such it would create a policy that is both justified and effective.

External Lighting

344. Paragraph 125 of the NPPF provides that planning policies should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. Policy DM7 External Lighting sets criteria for external lighting but omits reference to protecting intrinsically dark landscapes. Neither does it seek to protect Special Areas of Conservation or Local Wildlife Sites. Main modification MM44 would rectify these matters and make the policy consistent with national policy.

67

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

345. Policy DM28 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy sets out criteria for such development. However its specific reference to impacts on the Kent Downs or High Weald AONB and its setting is unnecessary as this is covered by other plan policies. National policy does not preclude development of renewable or low carbon energy within an AONB or its setting. The wording risks creating a test that would not be consistent with national policy and the statutory duty in respects of such areas. Main modification MM54 would remove this reference. Proposals would still be judged against other relevant plan policies relating to the AONB.

Open Space

346. Policy OS1 sets out specific open space allocations. A series of modifications are needed for consistency with other main modifications. These relate to the deletion of the RMX1(4) and H1(53) housing allocations with their related open space allocations and the modification of the open space provision related to the H1(8) and H1(42) housing allocations. The necessary modifications are set out in main modification MM28.

MATTER 15 - INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY

Issue 31 – Whether the plan is positively prepared and effective in respect of infrastructure delivery

347. The National Planning Policy Framework provides amongst other things at paragraph 162 that local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure and its ability to meet forecast demands. The Local Plan is accompanied by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

348. NPPF Paragraphs 203-204 provide for the use of planning agreements and planning obligations and include tests for their use which are also included in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.

349. Policy ID1 is the main Local Plan policy concerned with Infrastructure Delivery. As worded the policy misleadingly refers to the use of S106 agreements as relating only to the provision of site specific facilities when they can have a wider role in mitigating impacts on infrastructure. Neither does the policy make clear that the use of such obligations is subject to national policy tests. There are circumstances where infrastructure would be more appropriately provided by Community Infrastructure Levy payments or Section 278 agreements. To meet development needs new residential and commercial development should be supported if it is provided with sufficient infrastructure capacity.

350. Without wording changes to address these matters the Plan is not positively prepared and there is a risk of ineffectiveness. Main modification MM58 would suitably address these matters.

Specific Infrastructure Issues

351. After the Local Plan was submitted, the Council has accepted that there is inadequate reference in a number of spatial policies to the need for enhanced 68

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

health facilities to support new development. For the Plan to be positively prepared in that regard, main modification MM4 would modify spatial policies SP1-3, 6-7, 9-10, and 13 - 15.

352. At Headcorn specific reference to capacity issues in the sewerage network and wastewater treatment is also needed for the Plan to be positively prepared and would be provided by main modification MM7 to policy SP7.

353. For the Plan to be positively prepared and effective, many of the individual development allocations would also necessitate works to ensure that adequate sewerage capacity is available. Main modification MM15 would address this by adding a sewerage infrastructure criterion to most Policy H1 housing allocations.

MATTER 16 – IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING & REVIEW

Issue 32 – Whether the implementation and monitoring arrangements would be effective

Monitoring

354. The submitted Local Plan includes a series of 11 Key Monitoring Indicators (KMI) which incorporate some targets. The numerical targets are typically expressed in 5 year periods whereas an annual report would need annual assessments.

355. The Annual Monitoring Report published in July 2016 makes reference to the KMI indicators. It also cross refers to a number of Topic Papers and other evidence submitted for the Local Plan examination.

356. In general the Key Monitoring Indicators would not include a number of important matters which should be monitored. They perform poorly when considered as ‘SMART’ objectives (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely) and would thereby undermine the effectiveness of the Local Plan. However the Council has prepared a rewritten chapter with new performance targets that would remedy these deficiencies and which are incorporated in main modification MM59 .

Review

357. During the examination, consideration has been given to when the Local Plan should be first reviewed and whether the timing of such a review should be adjusted to address particular issues that have arisen. The national PPG on Local Plans provides amongst other things at paragraph ID12-008-20140306 that: ‘Most Local Plans are likely to require updating in whole or in part at least every five years. Reviews should be proportionate to the issues in hand. Local Plans may be found sound conditional upon a review in whole or in part within 5 years of the date of adoption.’

358. In this case there are some issues which do need to be resolved before the plan is first adopted. However there are other issues, especially in relation to housing delivery at the end of the Local Plan period, which are less urgent because they do not impact on strategy in the first 5 years of the Local Plan. To delay the adoption of the Local Plan to resolve all of these matters would have other disbenefits including prolonged uncertainty about the 5 year housing supply position later in the plan period. 69

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

359. The submitted Local Plan indicated at paragraph 17.126 that a first review of the Local Plan ‘will commence in 2022’ . A change had been proposed by the Borough Council (PC/59) to amend this to ‘will commence by 2022.’ However there is no commitment to how quickly such a review would progress and no timetable for the necessary work. Moreover that would be too late to address the need to identify specific development site allocations in the Broad Locations (including any need to address a failure of the Lenham Neighbourhood Plan to make such allocations).

360. A review would also be needed in association with any decision by Kent County Council to go ahead with the Leeds-Langley Relief Road. Additional allocations will also be needed for the latter part of the plan period to supplement supply from the Broad Locations in order to provide necessary choice and to offset a reduced rate of delivery from those sites whilst maintaining an adequate supply of housing.

361. The Local Plan should therefore include a policy commitment to a review with a target adoption date by April 2021. That review process would accordingly need to start much earlier. The plan could then be rolled forward to extend the Plan period.

362. A plan review within 5 years of its submission for examination in 2016 would accord with proposals in the recent government Housing White Paper to require plan review at least every 5 years.

363. Main modification MM60 accordingly makes provision for a new Policy LPR1 which includes a target adoption date for the review of the Local Plan in April 2021. It sets out a list of candidate matters that may need to be addressed. This is not an exclusive list and it could be added to, particularly to address issues raised in annual monitoring. Assessment of Legal Compliance 364. My examination of the compliance of the Plan with the legal requirements is summarised in the table below. I conclude that the Plan meets them all.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

Local Development The Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with Scheme (LDS) the Council’s LDS December 2015 [Document SUB 012]. Statement of Community The SCI was adopted in 2013. Involvement (SCI) and Consultation on the Local Plan and the MMs has relevant regulations complied with its requirements. Sustainability Appraisal SA has been carried out on the submitted Local Plan (SA) and the Main Modifications and is adequate. Habitats Regulations A Habitats Regulations Assessment has been Assessment (HRA) undertaken (February 2016). It recommends minor wording changes to the Local Plan which have been incorporated in Policy DM3 and a commitment by Maidstone Borough Council to ensure funding continues at an appropriate level to ensure existing management measures at North Downs Woodlands

70

Maidstone Borough Council - Maidstone Borough Local Plan - Inspector’s Report July 2017

SAC are suitably maintained (such as fencing, gateways etc and entrance points) thus ensuring existing and future levels of residential development do not result in likely significant effects upon the North Downs Woodlands SAC as a result of increased recreational pressure. [Document ENV 016]. Natural England considers the assessment reasonable subject to its recommendations being incorporated in the Plan. Document ED 148 provides evidence of the Council’s intentions in this regard. As the main modifications would result in a reduction in the amount of development proposed in the Local Plan any relevant effects should be reduced as compared to the Regulation 19 plan. National Policy The Local Plan complies with national policy except where indicated and MMs are recommended. 2004 Act (as amended) The Local Plan complies with the Act and the and 2012 Regulations. Regulations.

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 365. The Plan has a number of deficiencies in respect of soundness for the reasons set out above, which mean that I recommend non-adoption of it as submitted, in accordance with Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act. These deficiencies have been explored in the main issues set out above.

366. The Council has requested that I recommend MMs to make the Plan sound and capable of adoption. I conclude that with the recommended main modifications set out in the Appendix the Maidstone Borough Local Plan satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework. Robert Mellor

Inspector

This report is accompanied by an Appendix containing the Main Modifications.

71

Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications to the Regulation 19 Maidstone Borough Local Plan

March 2017

The Main Modifications which are proposed to be made to the Regulation 19 version of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (which was dated February 2016) are set out in the schedule below.

The schedule includes the proposed Main Modifications which at this stage the Local Plan Inspector, Mr Robert Mellor BSC DIPTRP DIPDBE DMS MRICS MRTPI, considers will be necessary in order for him to be able to find the Local Plan sound and legally compliant. The proposed Main Modifications are put forward without prejudice to the Inspector’s final conclusions on the Plan and they need to be subject to public consultation.

The public consultation on the proposed Main Modifications runs from Friday 31 st March until 5pm on Friday 19 th May 2017.

All duly made representations on the proposed Main Modifications received by 5pm on Friday 19 th May 2017 will be sent to the Inspector for his consideration. Please note that representations must relate to the proposed Main Modifications Schedule and not to other, unchanged aspects of the Plan.

Text proposed to be deleted is shown as strikethrough and new text is shown as italic and underlined. Each proposed Main Modification is referenced for ease and also indicates its location in the submitted plan, a reference to its origin (PC/ ref) and a reason for the proposed Main Modification.

Main Related PC/ ref Proposed Change text Reason Modification Policy Number Number MM1 Policy SS1 PC/2; Amend 4.3; 4.8; 4.14; and Table 4.4 and Policy SS1 (1), (4), (8) and (10): To update the and PC/3; housing and supporting PC/77; 4.3 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2015 confirms the objectively assessed housing need for the borough employment supply to text PC/132; over the plan period 2011 to 2031 is confirmed as 18,560 17,660 dwellings (928 883 dwellings per annum 1). This reflect the Interim Action need is based on an analysis of national population projections with key local inputs, including net migration, Findings. 7.2; household formation rates and housing vacancy rates. The council will monitor the impact of new data releases on its Action objectively assessed housing need and respond as appropriate. The council does not need to allocate land to meet the This is the key 8.5; whole need of 18,560 17,660 dwellings because at 1 April 2016, 2860 homes have already been built since 2011 or strategic policy of the Action and 5,475 have been granted planning permission on sites that are not yet completed. A reduction of 5% has been Local Plan. Changes point made to the number of dwellings expected to be built on sites with planning permission in order to allow for the non- therefore required to 4.10 implementation of some planning permissions. The local plan allocates a further 5,150 8,707 dwellings, and identifies demonstrate the Local broad locations for housing growth that can yield around 2,440 3,500 dwellings. Adding a windfall allowance of 1,650 Plan has been dwellings 114 dwellings per annum from unidentified sites in the latter years of the plan period, the council will be positively prepared able to meet its objectively assessed housing need of 18,560 17,660 dwellings in full, as set out in the table below. and is justified, to The housing trajectory (appendix A) demonstrates in detail how this need will be met. This is a ‘snapshot’ of the reflect new evidence borough’s housing land supply position as at 1 April 2016, which will be updated annually through the authority’s that justifies the monitoring report. Any shortfall in supply will be addressed through the Local Plan review, which will be adopted by strategy. or housing

Dwellings Dwellings Housing land supply (net) (net) 18,560 1 Objectively assessed housing need/ Local Plan housing target 17,660 2 Completed dwellings 2011 to 2015 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2016 2,341 2,860

3 Extant planning permissions as at 1 April 2016 (including subject to S106 and a 2,907 5,475

1 As per ‘Interim Findings from the Examination of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan’, 22 December 2016.

1

non -implementation discount ) to 30.11.15 4 Local Plan allocated sites ( balance of allocations not included in line 3 above) 8,707 5,150

5 Local Plan broad locations for future housing development 2 3,500 2,440

6 Windfall sites (2022 -2031) contribution 1,026 1,650

18,481 7 Total housing land supply 17,575

9 Housing land deficit 2011/2031 565 (85)

Table 4.1 Meeting objectively assessed housing need

4.8 Part of The office, industry and warehousing floorspace provision have been requirements can be met in part through the occupation of vacant buildings and land, redevelopment and planning permissions granted/ completed since 2011 -16 . The amount of floorspace needed in addition to what is available from these sources is shown in Table 4.4 below as a net requirement for the remaining plan period. For industrial uses, sufficient land is already available from these sources to more than meet the amount of floorspace which is forecast to be needed. The net requirement therefore appears as a negative figure. For offices, the required floorspace will be met, in part, through development on windfall sites in addition to the specific allocations in the Plan.

Offices (NIA) Industry (GIA) Warehousing (GIA) Gross requirement sqm 39,830 20,290 49,911 (2011-31) Supply 24,247 16,595 36,964

Net requirement sqm 15,583 24,600 3695 -18,610 12,947 7,965 (2016-31)

Table 4.4 Net floorspace requirement for offices, industry and warehousing

4.9 In addition to establishing the quantity of additional B class employment floorspace needed, an assessment of the existing, established employment sites in the borough and their continuing role in meeting future business needs was also completed. This analysis identified that, without further action, the borough would lack a new, well serviced and well connected mixed use business park which could be particularly aimed at providing new offices, small business orientated space, stand-alone industrial and manufacturing space built for specific end users and smaller scale distribution businesses. There is a gap in the borough’s portfolio of employment sites to be addressed and this ‘qualitative’ need is distinct from the purely numerical need identified through the forecast. The outcome is that the Local Plan allocates more land than the purely numeric requirement for offices, industry and warehousing would imply to ensure that the right type as well as the right amount of land is delivered. The local plan allocates sufficient land to provide for offices, industrial and warehousing needs and medical use. With respect to offices, a restricted level of office demand and take up within the market has been demonstrated over an extended period by persistently high vacancy rates and unbuilt permissions. This trend is replicated across the South East, including in more local locations such as Kings Hill, Ashford and Ebbsfleet, and is unlikely to may not change in the short term. However, g Given the considerable supply of dated and outmoded stock within the town centre there are opportunities to encourage replacement of poor quality stock and also to foster new provision through the Plan’s policies in the latter years of the plan period that is likely to achieve greater space efficiencies.

2 Figures include only 500 dwellings of the 1,300 dwellings identified at the broad location of Invicta Park Barracks. The council is working with the MoD to bring forward the release date of this site.

2

4.14 Rural service centres have constraints to development. All the rural service centres sit within landscape which is in good condition and has high landscape sensitivity with the exception of the Harrietsham to Lenham Vale. The location of Lenham and Harrietsham within the setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty makes this an area sensitive to change. Headcorn is surrounded on three sides by the functional floodplain of the River Beult and its tributaries and. has limitations in respect of sewer and sewerage treatment capacity.

Amend Policy SS1 Maidstone Borough Spatial Strategy:

1. Between 2011 and 2031 provision is made through the granting of planning permissions and the allocation of sites for: i. 18,560 17,660 new dwellings; ii. 187 Gypsy and Traveller pitches and 11 Travelling Showpeople plots; iii. 39,830m2 floorspace for office use; iv. 20,290m2 floorspace for industrial use; v. 49,911m2 floorspace for warehousing use; vi. 98,000m2 floorspace for medical use; vii. 6,100m2 floorspace for retail use (convenience goods); and viii. 23,700m2 floorspace for retail use (comparison goods).

2. New land allocations that contribute towards meeting the above provisions are identified on the policies map.

3. An expanded Maidstone urban area will be the principal focus for development in the borough. Best use will be made of available sites within the urban area. Regeneration is prioritised within the town centre, which will continue to be the primary retail and office location in the borough. Strategic locations to the north west and south east of the urban area provide for substantial residential development and junction 7 of the M20 motorway is identified as a strategic location for additional business provision in association with a new medical campus.

4. A prestigious business park at Junction 8 of the M20 that is well connected to the motorway network will provide for a range of job needs up to 2031. The site will make a substantial contribution to the need for new office space in the borough as well as meeting the ‘qualitative’ need for a new, well serviced and well connected mixed use employment site suitable for offices, industry and warehousing and will thereby help to diversify the range of sites available to new and expanding businesses in the borough to help accommodate future demand. 5. Harrietsham, Headcorn, Lenham, Marden and Staplehurst rural service centres will be the secondary focus for housing development with the emphasis on maintaining and enhancing their role and the provision of services to meet the needs of the local community. Suitably scaled employment opportunities will also be permitted.

6. The larger villages of Boughton Monchelsea, Coxheath, Eyhorne Street (Hollingbourne), Sutton Valence and Yalding will be locations for limited housing development consistent with the scale and role of the villages.

7. Broad locations for significant housing growth likely to come forward in the later phases of the plan period are identified at Invicta Park Barracks, in the town centre and at Lenham.

8. Suitably Small scaled employment opportunities will be permitted at appropriate locations to support the rural economy (in accordance with policy DM41).

9. In other locations, protection will be given to the rural character of the borough avoiding coalescence between settlements, including Maidstone and surrounding villages, and Maidstone and the Medway Gap/Medway Towns conurbation.

10.The green and blue network of multi-functional open spaces, rivers and water courses, will generally be maintained and enhanced where appropriate; and the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting, the setting

3

of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and landscapes of local value will be conserved and maintained enhanced .

11. Supporting Infrastructure schemes that will be bought forward in a timely way to provide for the needs arising from development will be supported . New residential and commercial development will be supported if sufficient infrastructure capacity is either available or can be provided in time to serve it.

Amend Appendix A Housing Trajectory to reflect changes to Table 4.1

MM2 Key PC/86 Amend the Key Diagram to show Lenham as a broad location in addition to its Rural Service Centre status, and reflect Reflection of a change Diagram the change in the legend of the Key Diagram. in approach for Lenham as a Broad Location (Policy SP8 and H2(3)), required to demonstrate the Local Plan has been positively prepared, consistent with national policy, is justified and effective. MM3 Introducti PC/118 Amend paragraph 1.17 and move to paragraph 4.1 to state: To ensure consistency on with national policy paragraph 1.17 The policies within the Maidstone Borough Local Plan comprise: and to clarify the 1.17 and relationship between Policy SS1 4.1 To deliver the Spatial Vision and Spatial Objectives outlined in chapter 3 of the Local Plan a number of strategic local and supporting policies have been identified. The strategic policies are contained within this chapter and set out the overall approach neighbourhood plans. text towards providing new homes, jobs, infrastructure and community facilities over the plan period to 2031. These policies form the basis of this Local Plan’s policy framework, as well as providing the core principles that planning applications and Neighbourhood Plans are expected to generally conform with. The Strategic policies set out:

• The borough wide spatial strategy which sets development targets ; and explains the factors that influence the distribution of development; • Spatial policies that focus on Maidstone urban area, Maidstone town centre, rural services centres, larger villages and the countryside; • A settlement strategy for the direction and distribution of development across the Borough, amplified by a series of area based strategies for Maidstone urban area, the rural service centres, larger villages and the countryside; • Specific site allocation policies that set criteria for development sites: housing (including future broad locations for growth), Gypsy and Traveller pitches, employment, retail and mixed use; • Development management policies that apply across the borough, within Maidstone urban area, Maidstone town centre, rural service centres, larger villages and in the countryside which focus on delivering the spatial strategy and set criteria against which planning applications for development will be determined; and • Requirements for open space, broad locations, employment and gypsy and traveller allocations; • Strategic policies for housing mix, affordable housing, economic development, retention of employment sites and sustainable transport; and • An A strategic infrastructure delivery policy which explains how infrastructure required to support new development will be delivered.

4.2 The strategic policies in this chapter are underpinned by strategic site allocation policies (set out in chapter 5) which detail specific site based criteria for new development ( housing, employment, Gypsy & Traveller, retail & mixed use and employment) against which planning applications for these sites will be determined.

4.3 Chapter 6 sets out the development management policies to be used by the council in helping to determine individual planning applications.

4

4.4 Chapter 7 sets out the monitoring and review for the Local Plan to ensure that the plan is delivering the amount and type of development that is required by the strategic policies.

Housing and economic development targets

4.15 One of the principal aims of the local plan is to set out clearly the council’s proposals for the spatial distribution of development throughout the borough based on the vision and objectives of the plan. This section determines the housing and economic development targets for the plan period (2011 to 2031) and describes the council's approach to the distribution of development. The justification for this approach has been derived from…..

MM4 Policy PC/5 Additional criterion at SP1(3)(v)(e) to read: “ Improvements to health infrastructure including extensions and/or Change to policy to SP1, SP2, improvements at Brewer Street Surgery, Bower Mount Medical Centre, The Vine Medical Centre, New Grove Green reflect updated SP3 and Medical Centre, Bearsted Medical Practice and Boughton Lane Surgery ” assessment of SP6, SP7, infrastructure SP9, PC/4 Additional criterion at SP2(3)(iv) to read: “ Improvements to health infrastructure including extensions and/or requirements, and to SP10, improvements at Barming Medical Practice, Blackthorn Medical Centre, Aylesford Medical Centre and Allington Park or ensure the Local Plan SP13, Allington Clinic ” is positively prepared. SP15 and supporting PC/6 Additional criterion at SP3(3) (v) to read: “ Improvements to health infrastructure including extensions and/or text and improvements at The Mote Medical Practice, Orchard Medical Centre, Wallis Avenue Surgery and Grove Park Surgery ” PC/7 Amend criterion SP3(3)(ii) to read: “New two form entry primary schools on sites H1(5) and H1(10) and expansion of an existing primary school within south east Maidstone. PC/10 PC/11, Additional criterion at SP6(3)(iv) to read: “ Improvements to health infrastructure including extension and/or PC/13, improvements at Glebe Medical Centre. ” PC/15, PC/16, Additional criterion at SP7(4)(v) to read: “ Improvements to health infrastructure including extension and/or PC/18 improvements at Headcorn Surgery. ”

Additional criterion at SP9(4)(iv) to read: “ Improvements to health infrastructure including extension and/or improvements at Marden Medical Centre. ”

Additional criterion at SP10(4)(iv) to read: “ Improvements to health infrastructure including extension and/or improvements at Staplehurst Medical Centre. ”

Additional criterion at SP13(3)(iii) to read: “ Improvements to health infrastructure including extension and/or improvements at Orchard Medical Centre and Stockett Lane Surgery. ”

Additional criterion at SP15(3) to read: “ Key infrastructure requirements for Sutton Valence include: (i) Improvements to health infrastructure including extension and/or improvements at Sutton Valence Surgery and Cobtree Medical Practice. ”

MM5 Policy Approximately 1,859 1,846 new dwellings will be delivered on 24 23 sites in accordance with policies H1(11) to To reflect Interim SP1(3)(i) H1(28), and H1(30) to H1(32), and policies RMX1(2) to RMX1(3) Findings

MM6 Policy Amend para 3 (i) to state: To reflect Interim SP3(3)(i) Findings Highway and transport infrastructure improvements including: junction improvements, a new roundabout and capacity improvements on the A274 Sutton Road incorporating bus prioritisation measures , the installation of an extended bus lane in Sutton Road , together with improved pedestrian and cycle access…

5

MM7 Policy SP7 Action Paragraph 5.50 and Policy SP7, add additional criterion text regarding sewerage network capacity Clarification supporting 7.2 text Headcorn is surrounded on three sides by the functional floodplain of the River Beult and its tributaries and additional capacity will be required in the sewer network and may be required at the wastewater treatment works in the period to 2031 .

Additional criterion at SP7(4)(iv) to read: “ Additional capacity will be required in the sewer network and at the wastewater treatment works if required in the period to 2031.”

MM8 Policy SP8 PC/12 Amend para 5.52 as follows: Change in approach and and 5.52 It is recognised that the location of Lenham within the setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural for Lenham Rural supporting PC/85 Beauty makes this an area sensitive to change. The benefits of selecting this most sustainable of all the rural service Service Centre as a text centres is considered on balance to outweigh the potential negative impacts on the landscape. The precise scale and Broad Location (Policy location of future development will depend on further studies to assess the impact of development on the environment SP8 and H2(3)), and to identify the mitigation measures necessary for any proposals to proceed. The precise scale will also depend on which is required to the progress being made towards meeting the housing target as the local plan comes forward for review. Recognising demonstrate the Local the need to avoid large scale development in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and coalescence with Plan has been the village of neighbouring Harrietsham, land at Lenham is available to the east and west of the village that has positively prepared, is potential to deliver in the region of 1,500 1,000 dwellings. justified and effective.

Additional criterion at SP8(4)(iii) to read: “ Improvements to health infrastructure including extension and/or Reduction of 10 units improvements at The Len Valley Practice. ” for H1(42) and reflection of Interim Amendments to Policy SP8: Findings on Lenham Broad Location (1) In addition to …approximately 165 155 new dwellings …

(6) Lenham is also identified as a broad location for growth for the delivery of approximately 1,500 1000 dwellings post April 2021 in the latter period of the plan, in accordance with policy H2(3). Master planning of the area will be essential to achieve a high quality design and layout, landscape and ecological mitigation, and appropriate provision of supporting physical, social and green infrastructure. Housing site allocations and associated infrastructure requirements will be made through the Lenham Neighbourhood Plan or through the Local Plan review to be adopted by April 2021. Housing sites should avoid significant adverse impact on the setting of the AONB and coalescence with neighbouring Harrietsham.

MM9 Policy (1) In addition … approximately 193 118 new dwellings will be delivered on six five allocated sites (policies H1(52) and Deletion of H1(53) for SP12 H1(54) to H1(57)) 75 dwellings. To reflect Interim (3)(ii) A minimum of 1.79 0.30 hectares of publicly accessible open space will be provided. Findings.

MM10 Policy PC/19 Amend Policy SP16(1) as follows: Change to policy to SP16 reflect updated In addition … approximately 265 65 new dwellings will be delivered on two one allocated sites site (policies policy assessment of H1(67) and RMX1(4)). infrastructure requirements, and to Combine Policy SP16 criteria 2 and 3, as per other SP policies and include health infrastructure criterion so that the ensure the Local Plan policy reads as below: is positively prepared. Interim Findings - Amend Policy SP6(2) as follows: Delete RMX1(4) for 200 dwellings Key infrastructure requirements for Yalding include:

6

(i) Improvements to highway and transport ation infrastructure will be made in accordance with individual site criteria set out in policies policy H1(67) and RMX1 (4). Key schemes include junction improvements, a variety of measures to improve sustainable transport infrastructure, and improvements to pedestrian access. (ii) Improvements to health infrastructure including extension and/or improvements at Yalding GP Practice. (iii) A minimum of 4.4 hectares of publically accessible open space will be provided.”

MM11 Policy PC/128; Amend SP17 as follows Changes required for SP17 and Action Policy SP17 The Countryside consistency with supporting 11.6 The countryside national policy for text rural development, Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting landscape and Green Belt, and to ensure 5.77 A large part of the northern part of the borough lies within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that the policy is (AONB). This is a visually prominent landscape that contributes significantly to the borough’s high quality of life. It is justified. an important amenity and recreation resource for both Maidstone residents and visitors and forms an attractive backdrop to settlements along the base of the Kent Downs scarp. It also contains a wide range of natural habitats and biodiversity. Designation as an AONB confers the highest level of landscape protection and one which the council has a statutory duty to conserve and enhance have regard to the purposes of the designation including the great weight affording in national policy to its conservation and enhancement [1]. Within the AONB, the Management Plan provides a framework for objectives to conserve and enhance conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. The council has adopted the Management Plan and will support its implementation. Open countryside to the immediate south of the AONB forms a large extent of the setting for this designation. In Maidstone this is a sensitive landscape that is coming under threat from inappropriate development and is viewed as a resource that requires conservation and enhancement where this supports the purposes of the AONB.

5.78 The council will ensure proposals conserve and enhance the natural beauty, distinctive character, biodiversity and setting of the AONB, taking into account the economic and social well-being of the area. Rural diversification and land- based businesses in the Kent Downs AONB will only be acceptable where they help improve the special character of the AONB and are in accordance with the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan, supporting guidance and position statements. Economic development within the AONB should be located in existing traditional buildings of historic or vernacular merit in smaller settlements, farmsteads or within groups of buildings in sustainable locations.

5.79 New development in the AONB should demonstrate that it meets the requirements of national policy. needs to respect the vernacular architecture, settlement character and the natural beauty of the local landscape. This will require high quality designs as set out in policy DM34. To help developers produce designs of a suitably high quality, the council will continue to encourage the use of the Kent Downs AONB Unit’s design guidance and publications.

5.80 The above considerations apply equally to the setting of the Kent Downs AONB. The Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2014-2019 states that the setting of the Kent Downs AONB is ‘broadly speaking the land outside the designated area which is visible from the AONB and from which the AONB can be seen, but may be wider when affected by intrusive features beyond that.’ It makes it clear that it is not formally defined or indicated on a map.

5.81 The foreground of the AONB and the wider setting is taken to include the land which sits at and beyond the foot of the scarp slope of the North Downs and the wider views thereof. It is countryside sensitive to change, with a range of diverse habitats and landscape features, but through which major transport corridors pass. Conservation and enhancement of Having due regard to this area the purposes of the designation is also part of the council’s statutory duty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. and is covered under the guidance set out in nNational policy (National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance) directs that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB . However, proposals which would affect the setting of the AONB are not subject to the same level of constraint as those which would affect the AONB itself. The duty is relevant to proposals outside the boundary of the AONB which may have an impact on the statutory purposes of the

7

AONB. The weight to be afforded to potential impact on the setting will depend on the significance o f the impact. Matters such as the size of proposals, their distance, incompatibility with their surroundings, movement, reflectivity and colour are likely to affect impact. The Kent Downs AONB Management Plan advises that ‘where the qualities of the AONB which were instrumental in reasons for its designation are affected, then the impacts should be given considerable weight in decisions. This particularly applies to views to and from the scarp of the North Downs.’ It is considered therefore that it is not necessary to formally define the setting of the Kent Downs AONB and that the impact of development can be appropriately assessed through the criteria of the policy.

Metropolitan Green Belt 5.83 Green Belts afford protection to the countryside from inappropriate development, and policies for their protection are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. A small area (5.3km2) on the western edge of the borough is included within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The designation extends up to the borough boundary, contiguous with the Green Belt boundary in Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council’s administrative area; and lies between Teston and Wateringbury and west of the River Medway, which includes the settlements of Nettlestead and Nettlestead Green. The Council has undertaken a review of its Green Belt boundary (Maidstone Borough Council Metropolitan Green Belt Review, January 2016), which concluded there were no exceptional circumstances for revising the Green Belt boundaries within the borough.

Landscapes of local value 5.88 The Low Weald covers a significant proportion of the countryside in the rural southern half of the borough. The Low Weald is recognised as having distinctive landscape features: the field patterns, many of medieval character, hedgerows, stands of trees, ponds and streams and buildings of character should be protected, maintained conserved and enhanced where appropriate.

Policy SP17 The Countryside

The countryside is defined as all those parts of the plan area outside the settlement boundaries of the Maidstone urban area, rural service centres and larger villages defined on the policies map.

1. Provided Development proposals in the countryside will not be permitted unless they accord with other policies in this plan and do they will not result in harm to the character and appearance of an the area. , the following types of development will be permitted in the countryside: i. Small-scale economic development, including development related to tourism and open-air recreation, through: a. The re-use or extension of existing buildings; b. The expansion of existing businesses; or c. Farm diversification schemes; or ii. Small-scale residential development necessary to: a. Meet a proven essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work; b. Meet a proven need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation; or c. Meet local housing needs; and iii. Development demonstrated to be necessary for agriculture or forestry.

2. Where proposals meet criterion 1, development in the countryside will be permitted if: i. The type, siting, materials and design, mass and scale of development and the level of activity maintains, or where possible, enhances local distinctiveness including landscape features; and

8

ii. Impacts on the appearance and character of the landscape can be appropriately mitigated. Suitability and required mitigation will be assessed through the submission of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments to support development proposals in appropriate circumstances. 3. The loss of local shops and community facilities which serve villages will be resisted. In all cases, another beneficial community use should be sought before permission is granted for the removal of these facilities; 2. Agricultural Pproposals will be supported which facilitate the efficient use of the borough's significant agricultural land and soil resource provided any adverse impacts on the appearance and character of the landscape can be appropriately mitigated; 4. The distinctive character of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting, the setting of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the extent and openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt will be rigorously conserved, maintained and enhanced where appropriate; 3. Great weight should be given to the conservation and enhancement of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ; 4 Proposals should not have a significant adverse impact on the settings of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; 5 The extent and openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt will be rigorously protected;Green Belt is shown on the Policies Map and development there will be managed in accordance with national policy for the Green Belt; 6. The distinctive landscape character of the Greensand Ridge, Medway Valley, Len Valley, Loose Valley, and Low Weald as defined on the policies map, will be conserved, maintained and enhanced where appropriate as landscapes of local value; 7. Development in the countryside will retain the setting of and separation of individual settlements; and 9. Natural and historic assets, including characteristic landscape features, wildlife and water resources, will be protected from damage with any unavoidable impacts mitigated. Account should be taken of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan and the Maidstone Borough Landscape Character Guidelines supplementary planning document. [1] s85 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

MM12 SP18 - PC/130 Addition of a new policy as follows: Changes required to New Policy SP 18 – the Historic Environment ensure that the Local Strategic Plan is positively Policy for Maidstone borough has been shaped and influenced by a long past history, the legacy of which is a strong and rich prepared and the cultural heritage. Brewing, paper making and shipping along the Medway have been notable industrial influences on justified, and to Historic the borough’s heritage. The borough’s varied geology has been the source of locally distinctive building materials, provide a positive Environme namely Kentish ragstone, Wealden clay for brick and tile making and oak from the Wealden forests used in the strategy for the nt construction of timber-framed buildings and weather boarding. historic environment to ensure consistency The diversity of heritage assets is recognised through designations made at the national level by Historic England such with national policy. as listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and historic parks and gardens and also those identified more locally such as conservation areas, the parks and gardens included in the Kent Gardens Compendium and locally listed buildings. The term ‘heritage asset’ is defined in the Framework and, in addition to these ‘designated’ assets, encompasses features of more localised significance, so called ‘non-designated’ heritage assets.

Collectively these heritage assets contribute to the strong sense of place which exists across the borough. This historic inheritance also has wider economic, social and cultural benefits. The Archbishop’s Palace and Leeds Castle are two particularly high profile examples which help to drive tourism in the borough. Mote Park is an historic park which both local residents and visitors value highly as a popular recreational resource. Historic features such as buildings, traditional field enclosures and monuments are also integral to the borough’s high quality landscape, particularly enjoyed by users of the borough’s extensive public rights of way network.

This rich historical resource is, however, vulnerable to damage and loss. This importance is signified by the fact that heritage assets are inherently irreplaceable; once lost they are gone forever. Through the delivery of its Local Plan,

9

and its wider activities, the Council will ac t to conserve and enhance the borough’s heritage assets.

Policy SP 18 – the Historic Environment To ensure their continued contribution to the quality of life in Maidstone borough, the characteristics, distinctiveness, diversity and quality of heritage assets will be protected and, where possible, enhanced. This will be achieved by the Council encouraging and supporting measures that secure the sensitive restoration, reuse, enjoyment, conservation and/or enhancement of heritage assets, in particular designated assets identified as being at risk, to include; o collaboration with developers, landowners, parish councils, groups preparing neighbourhood plans and heritage bodies on specific heritage initiatives including bids for funding; o through the development management process, securing the sensitive management and design of development which impacts on heritage assets and their settings; o through the incorporation of positive heritage policies in neighbourhood plans which are based on analysis of locally important and distinctive heritage; and o ensuring relevant heritage considerations are a key aspect of site masterplans prepared in support of development allocations and broad locations identified in the Local Plan. MM13 SP23 – PC/118; New strategic policy by merging Policy DM24 criteria 1 and 2 with Policy DM25 criterion 1 to read: Changes to reflect New Action revised structure of Strategic 2.3 Policy SP23 the Local Plan and to Policy Sustainable transport ensure consistency with national policy 1. Working in partnership with Kent County Council (the local highway authority), Highways England, infrastructure providers and public transport operators, the Borough Council will manage any negotiations and agreements regarding schemes for mitigating the impact of development where appropriate on the local and Strategic Road Network and facilitate the delivery of transport improvements to support the growth proposed by the local plan. An Integrated Transport Strategy prepared by the Council and its partners adopted in September 2016 will have has the aim of facilitating economic prosperity and improving accessibility and modal shift across the borough and to Maidstone town centre, in order to promote the town as a regionally important transport hub.

2. In doing so, the council and its partners will: i. Ensure the transport system supports the growth projected by Maidstone’s Local Plan and facilitates economic prosperity; ii. Manage Deliver modal shift through managing demand on the transport network through enhanced public transport and the continued Park and Ride services and walking and cycling improvements; iii. Improve highway network capacity and function at key locations and junctions across the borough; iv. Manage parking provision in the town centre and the wider borough to ensure it is fair and proportionate and supports demand management; v. Improve transport choice across the borough and seek to influence travel behaviour; vi. Protect and enhance public rights of way; vii. Develop Deliver strategic and public transport links to and from Maidstone, including increased bus service frequency along the radial routes into the town centre and its railway stations, particularly in the morning and evening peak travel times; viii. Work with landowners and public transport operators to secure the provision of a new bus interchange facility that is more accessible, user-friendly and fit for purpose; ix. Work with service providers to improve bus links to the rural service centres and larger villages, including route options and frequency; x. Improve strategic links to Maidstone across the county and to wider destinations such as London; xi. Ensure the transport network provides inclusive access for all users; and xii. Address the air quality impact of transport.

1 3. Within the bus and hackney carriage corridors, as defined on the policies map, the council and the highway authority will develop preference measures to improve journey times and reliability and make public transport more attractive, particularly on park and ride routes and the radial routes into the town centre. Such measures will include:

10

i. Bus priority measures along radial routes including bus prioritisation at junctions; ii. Prioritisation of sustainable transport modes along radial routes within traffic management schemes; and/or iii. Enhanced waiting and access facilities and information systems for passengers, including people with disabilities.

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan will support the implementation of the Local Plan and outlines how and when necessary infrastructure schemes will be delivered.

Insert paragraphs 17.120 to 17.151 (inclusive) as the supporting text to Policy SP23 – Sustainable transport.

Amend paragraph 17.134 to read: The ITS will seek to retain the existing sites at Willington Street and London Road. All sites are aimed at long-stay commuters into the town centre. Bus priority measures will also be provided on Park and Ride routes in tandem with the service. The Council will continue to review and improve the functionality and effectiveness of Park and Ride services in Maidstone, including through the investigation of whether additional sites may be available and deliverable to contribute towards wider objectives for sustainable transport and air quality .

MM14 Table 6.1 Amend Table 6.1 to reflect amendments to housing site allocations as follows: To reflect Inspector’s Interim Findings and H1(11) Springfield, Royal Engineers Road and Mill Lane, Maidstone 500 692 MBC Modifications H1(29) New Line Learning, Boughton Lane, Loose 220 H1(30) West of Eclipse, Maidstone 35 50 H1(42) Tanyard Farm, Old Ashford Road, Lenham 155 145 H1(53) Boughton Lane, Boughton Monchelsea and Loose 75 RMX1(4) Former Syngenta Works, Hampstead lane, Yalding 200

MM15 Policy H1 PC/137 Insert additional criterion for sites (reference numbers reflect updated site policy numbers as set out in the revised Changes to policies to Housing contents page which forms part of this schedule): H1 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (17), (21), reflect updated Allocations (27) (31), (34), (36), (37), (38), (40), (41), (43), (44), (45), (46), (47), (48), (49), (50), (52), (53), (54), (56), (57), assessment of (58), (59), (60), (65) and RMX1 (4): infrastructure “Utility Infrastructure – A connection is provided to the local sewerage system at the nearest point of adequate requirements, and to capacity, in collaboration with the service provider. ” ensure the Local Plan is positively prepared and effective.

MM16 Policy H1 PC/71 Policies H1 (2), (11), (17), (21), ( 29 ), (3 0), (3 1), (3 2), (3 3), (3 4), (3 6), (4 4), (4 5), (4 6), (4 7), (5 0), (6 3), H2(2), Changes to policies to Housing RMX1(1), RMX1(4), EMP1 (1), EMP1(4); Insert Additional criterion to read: “ Minerals Safeguarding – This site falls reflect consistency Allocations within the Minerals Safeguarding Areas as shown on the policies map and therefore development proposals will be with national/county required to undertake a minerals assessment to assess the viability and practicability of prior extraction of the policy and to improve minerals resource. The minerals assessment will comply with Policy DM7 of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan the effectiveness of (2013-2030) and any supplementary planning guidance produced by the Minerals Planning Authority in respect of these policies. minerals safeguarding. ”

11

MM17 Policy PC/22; Delete Policy H1(2) criterion 14 To ensure that the H1(2) East policy is justified. of “14. Maintenance of the open character between Allington in Maidstone Borough and the Medway Gap settlements in Hermitage Tonbridge and Malling Borough.” Lane

MM18 Policy PC/24; Amend Policy H1(5) criterion 6 to read; “A separate bus , cycle and pedestrian access will be provided to site H1(10) Change to policy to H1(5) South of Sutton Road subject to agreement with the Highways Authority and Borough Council.” reflect updated Langley assessment of Park, infrastructure Sutton requirements, and to Road, ensure the Local Plan Boughton is positively prepared. Monchelse a MM19 Policy PC/133 Amend Policy H1 (8) as follows: To ensure that this H1(8) Policy H1 (8) – West of Church Road, Otham policy is positively West of prepared and Church West of Church Road, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for development of approximately 440 dwellings at an consistent with Road, average density of 35 dwellings per hectare. In addition to the requirements of policy H1, planning permission will be achieving sustainable Otham granted if the following criteria are met. development.

Design and layout 1. The tree line along the western boundary of the site will be enhanced, to protect the amenity and privacy of residents living in Chapman Avenue. 2. An undeveloped section of land will be retained along the western boundary of the site, to protect the amenity and privacy of residents living in Chapman Avenue. 3. An undeveloped section of land will be retained along the eastern edge of the site in order to protect the setting of St Nicholas Church and maintain clear views of the Church from Church Road. 4. The Church Road frontage will be built at a lower density from the remainder of the site, to maintain and reflect the existing open character of the arable fields on the eastern side of Church Road and to provide an open setting to St Nicholas Church. 5. The hedge line along the east boundary of the site with Church Road shall be retained and strengthened where not required for access to the site. 6. Retain non-arable land to the north and east of St Nicholas Church, to protect its setting. 7. Retain discrete section of land at the south east corner of the site to provide a 15 metres wide landscape buffer to ancient woodland (bordering site at this location), to be planted as per the recommendations of a landscape survey.

Access 8. Access will be taken from Church Road only.

Air quality 9. Appropriate air quality mitigation measures to be agreed with the council will be implemented as part of the development.

Open space 10. Provision of approximately 2.88ha of natural/semi-natural open space consisting of 1.4ha in accordance with policy OS1(18), and 1.48ha within the site, together with additional on/off-site provision and/or contributions towards off- site provision/improvements as required in accordance with policy DM22.

Community infrastructure 11. Contributions will be provided towards the expansion of an existing primary school within south east Maidstone to

12

mitigate the impact of the development on primary school infrastructure.

Highways and transportation 12. Widening of Gore Court Road between the new road and White Horse Lane.

Strategic highways and transportation 13. Bus prioritisation measures on the A274 Sutton Road from the Willington Street junction to the Wheatsheaf junction, together with bus infrastructure improvements. 14. Improvements to capacity at the junctions of Willington Street/Wallis Avenue and Sutton Road. 15. Package of measures to significantly relieve traffic congestion on Sutton Road and Willington Street. 16. Improvements to capacity at the A229/A274 Wheatsheaf junction. 17. Improvements to frequency and/or quality of bus services along A274 Sutton Road corridor.

MM20 Policy PC/79; Update Policy H1 (11) at first sentence to read: “Springfield, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for For consistency with H1(11) PC/80; development of approximately 500 692 dwellings at an average density of around 132 180 dwellings per hectare. ” housing land supply Springfield PC/135; evidence. , Royal To ensure that this Engineers Update Policy H1 (11) at (1) to read : “ A high density scheme will be developed reflecting that the site is in an edge of policy is positively Road and town centre location. T he highest density development should be situated on the north eastern and south eastern prepared and Mill Lane, parts of the site.” consistent with Maidstone achieving sustainable development. Additional criterion to be added: Flood Risk Residential development should only occur outside flood zone 3 unless appropriate mitigation can be provided. Consistency with national policy. MM21 Policy PC/26; Delete Policy H1(23) criterion 5 To ensure that the H1(23) “5. Provision of approximately 0.77ha of open space within the site, together with additional on/off-site provision policy is deliverable North and/or contributions towards off-site provision/improvements as required in accordance with policy DM22.” and effective. Street, Barming MM22 Policy H1(29) Delete Policy H1(29). New Line Allocation to be Learning, New Line Learning, Boughton Lane, Maidstone deleted to reflect Boughton Inspector’s Interim Lane, New Line Learning, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for development of approximately 220 dwellings at an Findings. Maidstone average density of 35 dwellings per hectare. In addition to the requirements of policy H1, planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met.

Design and layout

1. The character of this development will be complementary to its semi-rural location at the edge of the urban area. 2. The existing hedgerow and trees on the southern boundary of the site will be retained and enhanced with structural landscaping where necessary, to provide screening from the open countryside.

Access

3. Access will be taken from Boughton Lane only. 4. Pedestrian and cycle access will be made to footpath KB26 on the eastern boundary of the site.

13

5. Pedestrian and cycle access will be made to footpath KM98 on the southern boundary of the site.

Ecology

6. Provision of a 15 metres wide landscape buffer along the western boundary of the site adjacent to the designated area of ancient woodland (Five Acre Wood), to be planted as per recommendations detailed in a landscape survey.

7. Subject to further evaluation of their value, trees subject to a (woodland) tree preservation order will be retained, as per advice from the Borough Council.

Air quality

8. Appropriate air quality mitigation measures to be agreed with the council will be implemented as part of the development.

Open space

9. Replacement sports facilities will be provided, as agreed by the Borough Council, before development of this site commences.

Strategic highways and transportation

10. Highway improvements at Boughton Lane and at the junction of Boughton

Lane and the A229 Loose Road.

Amend Local Plan Policies Map to reflect the deletion of the allocation. MM23 Policy PC/136 Amend H1 (30) (29) as follows: To ensure that this H1(30) Policy H1 (30) (29) – West of Eclipse, Sittingbourne Road, Maidstone policy is positively (29) West West of Eclipse, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for development of approximately 35 50 dwellings at an prepared and of Eclipse average density of 35 dwellings per hectare. In addition to the requirements of policy H1, planning permission will be consistent with granted if the following criteria are met. achieving sustainable development.

MM24 Policy PC/31; Amend Policy H1 (37) (36) criterion 3 to read: ‘Primary access will be taken from Ulcombe Road either Kings Road or Change to policy to H1(37) PC/32; Mill Bank.’ reflect updated (36) PC/33; assessment of Ulcombe Amend Policy H1(37) (36) to add additional criterion under ‘Access’ to read: ‘ Emergency/pedestrian and cycle access infrastructure and Rd & will be taken from Kings Road. ’ access requirements, Millbank, and to ensure the Headcorn Amend site plan to include emergency/pedestrian and cycle access to be taken from Kings Road. Local Plan is positively prepared Amend Policy H1(37) to add additional criterion under ‘ Community Infrastructure ’ heading to read: ‘ Sufficient land and effective. shall be provided to allow expansion of Headcorn Primary School and transferred to the Local Education Authority (Kent County Council) for primary education use, the details of which will be agreed with the local education authority. ’

MM25 H1 (42) Amend policy H1 ( 42 ) ( 41 ) as follows: To ensure that this (41) policy is positively Tanyard Tanyard Farm, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for development of approximately 155 145 dwellings at an prepared and Farm, Old average density of 30 dwellings per hectare. In addition to the requirements of policy H1, planning permission will be consistent with Ashford achieving sustainable

14

Road, granted if t he following criteria are met. development. Lenham Amend Criterion 3 as follows:

The development proposals shall be designed to maintain existing vistas and views of the Lenham Cross from Old Ashford Road, through the site along PROW KH433.

The development proposals shall be designed so as to create a pronounced vista which would afford a clear view of the Lenham Cross from Old Ashford Rd. The axis of this vista shall be PROW KH433 and shall incorporate substantial public open space including an open drainage channel / swale.

Amend Policy H1(42) (41 ) Criterion 5 as follows:

The development proposals are shall be designed to take into account the results of a landscape and visual impact assessment which should be undertaken in accordance with the principles of current guidance that particularly addresses the impact of development on the character and setting of the Kent Downs AONB.

Insert additional criterion:

Flood risk and drainage

9. Development will be subject to the results of a detailed flood risk assessment and a sustainable surface water drainage strategy that demonstrates that surface water run-off from the site will not lead to an increased risk of flooding off-site.

Insert additional criterion

Open Space

10. Provision of 0.34 hectare of natural/semi-natural open space, otherwise known as the landscape vista, either side of PROW KH433, in accordance with Policy OS1 (XX) together with additional on-off-site provision and/or contributions towards off-site provision/improvements as required in accordance with policy DM22.

Add the above open space allocation to Policy OS1.

MM26 Policy Delete Policy H1(53) H1(53) Allocation to be Boughton Boughton Lane, Boughton Monchelsea and Loose deleted to reflect Lane, Inspector’s Interim Boughton Boughton Lane, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for development of approximately 75 dwellings at an Findings Monchelse average density of 28 dwellings per hectare. In addition to the requirements of policy H1, planning permission will be a and granted if the following criteria are met. Loose Design and Layout

1. Development will be restricted to the 2.7ha located to the south of Leonard Gould Way and to the rear of ‘Slade House’, ‘Milldean’, ‘Grove Cottage’, ‘Cherry Lodge’ and ‘Pendale’, Pickering Street.

2. The remaining 7.1ha of land to the east and north east of the development site will be provided as public open space (in accordance with criterion 13) or will remain undeveloped.

15

3. The retention and reinforcement where necessary of existing boundary hedger ows and tree belts.

4. The character of the development and its resultant density will reflect its role as a transition site on the edge of the urban area.

5. Development proposals will be of a high standard of design and sustainability incorporating the use of vernacular materials. Access

6. Access will be taken from Boughton Lane from the northern site boundary running southwards, to ensure the open space area is not unacceptably severed.

7. The provision of pedestrian and cycle access to PROW KM55 on the southern boundary of the site.

Heritage Impact

8. The development proposals are designed to take into account a detailed Heritage and Archaeological Impact Assessment that addresses the impact of the development on the setting of the adjacent Slade House.

Landscape/Ecology

9. The development proposals are designed to take into account the results of a landscape and visual impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the principles of current guidance.

10. The development proposals are designed to take into account the results of a detailed arboricultural survey, tree constraints plan and tree retention/protection plans.

11. The development proposals are designed to take into account the result of a phase 1 habitat survey and any species specific surveys that may as a result be recommended, together with any necessary mitigation/enhancement measures.

Flood risk and drainage

12. Development will be subject to the results of a detailed flood risk assessment and a sustainable surface water drainage strategy that demonstrates that surface water run-off from the site will not lead to an increased risk of flooding along the River Loose at The Quarries and downstream from The Quarries.

Open space

13. Provision of 1.49ha of natural/semi-natural open space in accordance with policy OS1(15) together with additional on/off-site provision and/or contributions towards off-site provision/improvements as required in accordance with policy DM22. Open space should be sited to maximise accessibility to new and existing residents.

Strategic highways and transportation

14. Highway improvements at Boughton Lane and at the junction of Boughton Lane and the A229 Loose Road.

Amend Local Plan Policies Map to reflect the deletion of the allocation MM27 [this MM number has not been used]

[unused]

16

MM28 Policy OS1 PC/134 Addition of new open space allocation s: Change to policy to Strategic ensure the Local Plan open OS1 (18) West of Church Road, Otham 1.40ha Natural/semi-natural open space is positively prepared space OS1 (19) Tanyard Farm, Lenham 0.34ha Natural/semi-natural open space in respect of allocations infrastructure Delete the following open space allocations: requirements.

OS1(14) Former Syngenta Works, 4.40ha Natural/semi -natural As a consequence of Hampstead Lane, Yalding open space deleting housing OS1(15 Boughton Lane, Loose 1.49ha Natural/semi -natural allocations RMX1(4) and Boughton open space and H1(53) Monchelsea

MM29 Policy H2 PC/78 Amend Table 9.1 Broad locati ons for housing growth to read: To ensure th at the Broad Local Plan is justified, Locations Policy Reference Area Approximate Dwellings yield is positively prepared H2(1) Maidstone town centre 940 700 and effective. H2(2) Invicta Park Barracks 500 1,300 H2(3) Lenham 1,000 1,500

Amend Policy H2 to read: The broad locations for future housing growth allocated under policies H2(1) to H2(3) have the potential to deliver up to 2,440 3,500 homes to meet the borough's housing need within the plan period .post 2026. These locations will deliver a range of developments of varying sizes, types and densities. In addition to the specific requirements set out in the detailed policies for the broad locations, all sites should meet the following criteria.

MM30 Policy PC/78 Amend Policy H2(1) to read: To ensure that the H2(1) Local Plan is justified, Maidstone Policy H2(1) is positively prepared Town Maidstone town centre broad location for housing growth and effective. Centre Maidstone town centre, as defined on the policies map, is identified as a broad location in accordance with policy H2 for approximately 940 700 dwellings.

1. In addition to the development, redevelopment and conversion of appropriate sites, new dwellings within the town centre broad location will be delivered at: i. The Mall, King Street, as shown on the policies map, for 400 dwellings; ii. The Riverside, St Peter Street, as shown on the policies map, for 190 dwellings; and iii. Through the conversion of poor quality office stock for approximately 350 dwellings.

2. Development proposals must comply with policy SP4.

The council will prepare a master plan to develop the vision for the town centre and to guide development proposals. Delivery of the town centre broad location will be achieved through a masterplanning approach, working with partners to guide development and to maximise opportunities for regeneration.

Amend Para 9.2 to read:

9.2 It is acknowledged that there is an oversupply of poorer quality office stock in the town centre which is no longer fit for purpose. This has the effect of suppressing the town centre office market and thereby inhibiting new development which could better meet modern business needs. A route to tackle this is to rationalise the supply of the poorest stock through conversion or redevelopment to alternative uses. Over the time frame of the plan it is

17

anticipated that the value of the lowest quality office stock, in terms of rents, will fall further making redevelopment for alternative uses increasingly viable. With a corresponding uplift in the market for town centre apartments, this trend could see the delivery of significant new housing in and around the town centre. The impact of the temporary permitted development entitlements for changes of use from office accommodation to residential use have had a significant effect on the potential supply of residential units in the town centre. At 1 April 2016, a total of 665 dwellings had been consented through prior notification within the town centre during the first three years of its operation - with 85% achieved through the conversion of poor quality office stock. There is substantial further poor quality office floorspace in the town centre from which to realise further residential opportunities, yielding approximately 350 dwellings during the plan period. The Town Centre Study and recent interest from landowners also signal further potential opportunities within the town centre including at The Mall (400 dwellings) and the riverside west of the River Medway (190 dwellings) through prior notification yet to be fully assessed, although a number of prior notifications have been submitted. In view of the market shifts needed, full delivery is unlikely to be realised until the end of the plan period. The town centre broad location has the potential to deliver in the order of 940 700 additional homes.

MM31 Policy PC/38; Amend Para 9.4 to read: “The MoD keeps it property portfolio under regular review. As part of the MoD review Change to policy to H2(2) PC/71 (November 2016) Invicta Park Barracks will be released by 2027. The MoD has confirmed to the council that, in the ensure the Local Plan Invicta longer term, there could be some prospect that the site may be declared surplus and so become available for is positively prepared Park alternative uses. In recognition of this potential and the clear need to plan positively for it, in the event that the site in respect of Barracks does become surplus the MoD requirements (again it is advised there are no immediate plans to vacate the site), the infrastructure local plan identifies Invicta Park Barracks as a broad location which is unlikely to come forward for housing growth requirements. until the end of the local plan period (post 2026). The site has the potential to deliver in the order of 1,300 new homes, of which a minimum 500 dwellings will be delivered within the plan period. The council is working with the MoD to encourage an earlier delivery of the site.

Amend criterion 3 of Policy H2(2) to read “Ensuring requisite community facilities, which may include neighbourhood shopping and health and education facilities, in addition to a new primary school , are delivered where proven necessary and in conjunction with housing; “

MM32 Policy PC/39; Amend Para 9.6 as follows: Change in approach H2(3), PC/85 for Lenham Rural Lenham 9.6 Land adjacent to the east and west of Lenham's built form is considered suitable to accommodate additional Service Centre as a and housing in the region of 1,000 1500 dwellings in total post April 2021 if required towards the latter end of the plan Broad Location (Policy supporting period (post 2026). The topography of this area is low lying and does not have the same landscape or infrastructure SP8 and H2(3)), text constraints as some other areas of the borough. However, it is accepted that a number of infrastructure improvements which is required to and mitigation measures (e.g. transport, highways, education, health, sporting facilities, waste water treatment works demonstrate the Local improvements ) would be required to ensure that any future development is integrated into the existing fabric of the Plan has been settlement and to ensure that Lenham remains a sustainable settlement. Masterplanning of the area will be essential positively prepared, is and housing site allocations and associated infrastructure requirements will be made through the Lenham justified and effective. Neighbourhood Plan and/or the Local Plan Review to be adopted by April 2021.

Amend Policy H2(3) as follows:

Policy H2(3) Lenham broad location for housing growth The rural service centre of Lenham is identified as a broad location in accordance with policies SP8 and H2 for up to approximately 1,000 1,500 dwellings post April 2021 towards the end of the local plan period (post 2026). Master planning of the area will be essential to achieve a high quality design and layout, landscape and ecological mitigation, and appropriate provision of supporting physical, social and green infrastructure . Housing site allocations and associated infrastructure requirements will be made through the Lenham Neighbourhood Plan and/or the Local Plan Review. It is important that development of Lenham takes place in a manner that is well integrated with the existing communities of Lenham, so that they are seen as, and functional as, the village which they adjoin, rather than stand-

18 alone communities. In order to ensure coordinated and planned approach, proposals for development within Lenham which come forward prior to an agreed Neighbourhood Plan and/or the Local Plan Review being adopted will be refused.

. If the council's housing land supply position requires this broad location, as illustrated on the inset plan, to come forward before the local plan is reviewed. the following criteria must be met in addition to other policies of this local plan:

Housing site allocations and associated infrastructure requirements will be made through the Lenham Neighbourhood Plan and/or the Local Plan Review which will illustrate how environmental, social, design and economic objectives of the Local Plan will be met and to demonstrate the physical and functional integration of the site(s) within Lenham. The Neighbourhood Plan and/or Local Plan will incorporate and address the following principles:

1. Preparation and submission of a master plan for the site(s) prepared in conjunction with and for approval by the which are relevant to attaining development guide development;

1. Make efficient use of land and provide a broad range or housing choice by size and tenure (including market and affordable housing) and cater for people with special housing needs; 2. Submission of necessary ecological, arboricultural, and landscape and visual impact assessments with detailed mitigation schemes where appropriate;

2. Outline measures to mitigate the traffic impacts from development on the strategic and local road networks;

3. Individual transport assessment for each development, to be submitted to and approved by the Borough Council in consultation with Kent County Council, as the highway authority, demonstrating how proposed mitigation measures address cumulative impacts of all the sites taken together;

3. Identify appropriate provision of, or contributions towards infrastructure improvements;

4. Provision of, or contributions towards infrastructure improvements that benefit public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists in and around the village;

4. Incorporate primary school(s) and secondary school(s) if the scale of development justifies on-site, or if not, contributions to provision off-site in order to meet the needs generated by the broad location; provision of, or contributions towards, other community infrastructure (e.g. medical facilities, youth facilities) where proven necessary,

5. Ensure development is fully integrated with the surrounding village through shared community uses, and a variety of transport modes including walking, cycling and public transport;

6. Provision of publicly accessible open space, including natural and semi-natural open space, as proven necessary, and/or contributions;

6. Provide, commensurate with the scale of development, a network of open spaces and green infrastructure for amenity, play, sport and recreation, including allotments, local nature reserves woodlands, green spaces and wildlife corridors. Such provision should respond positively to the wider area to ensure enhanced linkages and networks;

7. Appropriate surface water and robust flood mitigation measures will be implemented where deemed necessary, subject to a flood risk assessment, incorporating sustainable urban drainage systems;

19

7. Incorporate appropriate landscape treatment which ensures that developments can be satisfactorily assimilated into the surrounding area;

8. A feasible solution shall be identified to provide wastewater treatment capacity so that water quality objectives set by the Environment Agency are not compromised, and the necessary wastewater treatment capacity can be delivered in parallel with the development; and

8. Protect and, where possible, enhance any features of biodiversity value on site or which are off-site but might be affected by the proposed development; 9. Development proposals must demonstrate that the necessary sewerage infrastructure is either available, or can be delivered in parallel with the development.

9. Incorporate an appropriate flood risk management strategy and measures for its implementation;

10.Ensure adequate provision is made for enhanced and comprehensive sewerage infrastructure.

MM33 Policy PC/106; Amend Policy RMX1 (1) and supporting text To ensure that the RMX1(1) PC/107; policy is sound; Newnham Action 13.6 Building heights will be restricted across the whole site to two storeys. Exceptionally there are two locations positively prepared, Park, 9.2; 9.3 within the site where modestly higher buildings may be achievable. The first of these lies towards the north of the site, justified, effective Bearsted PC/40; immediately west of the stream and south of the KIMS phase 1 development where the site topography would enable and consistent with PC/41; a building of up to 4 storeys to be achieved. The second location is at the entrance to the site where buildings of up to national policy. PC/43; three storeys would be acceptable. Whilst the extant consent for the site (MA/13/1163) is less specific about the PC/44; locations for 3/4 storey buildings, future proposals will be considered against the criteria in the policy. In all cases PC/45; buildings should be designed and sited to respond to the site’s undulating topography and should avoid any significant PC/102; site levelling in the creation of development platforms for example by the use of terracing. Development will be PC/103; entirely excluded from the ‘grassy knoll’ area shown on the policies map. PC/104; PC/105; 13.7 The medical campus will deliver up to 100,000m2 of specialist medical facilities and associated uses, of which PC/71; 25,000m2 will provide for related offices and research and development. Appropriate uses on the site will include PC/106; hospital or healthcare facilities, specialist rehabilitation services, medical related research and development, central PC/107; laboratory facilities, and medical training. Medical facilities to the west of the existing stream will be delivered in Action 9 advance of those being provided on land to the east of the stream.

13.8 The regeneration and revitalisation of Maidstone's town centre is a priority and the town centre will continue to be the primary retail and office location in the borough. Development will predominantly comprise replacement premises for the existing garden centre and for the shops already established on-site (equating to some 14,300m2) and a limited amount of additional floorspace at Newnham Court Shopping Village (up to 700m2 ) within the vicinity of the existing retail footprint, as shown on the policies map. Restrictions on the type of goods sold and the class A and D2 uses operating should ensure that the Village is complementary rather than in conflict with the vitality and viability of the town centre and should ensure that the character and appearance of the area is consistent with its sensitive location. The town centre functions successfully due to the mix of uses in close proximity to each other. Consequently, new additional non-retail floorspace (i.e. that which does not fall within use class A1) at Newnham Park, such as cafés, restaurants and public houses, together with banks and estate agents, are unlikely to be acceptable. Similarly, leisure uses such as cinemas and bowling alleys, and other uses that are likely to conflict with that would undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre, are unlikely to be acceptable . will not be permitted. Proposals for any additional retail floorspace above 14,300sqm and leisure uses will require sequential and impact assessments at the planning application stage. Restrictions on the type of goods sold and the class A and D2 uses operating may be

20 required to further ensure that impacts on the town and other centres can be controlled. The types of goods which may need to be controlled include clothing, footwear, accessories, jewellery and watches. Subject to restrictions on the type of goods sold, retail premises that have a unique and recognised "out of town" format, such as ‘homeware’ offers, could be acceptable on the allocated site provided conflict with town centre uses would be unlikely. The height and bulk of the retail units will need to be controlled in this sensitive landscape location and for this reason conventional retail warehouse style buildings will not be acceptable. In order to assess the impact of proposals on the town centre, a retail impact assessment will be required.

Amend Policy RMX1(1) as follows:

Policy RMX1(1)

Newnham Park, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for a medical campus of up to 100,000m2, a replacement retail centre of up to 15,000m2 14,300sqm and a nature reserve. A development brief, to be approved by the council, will detail the way in which medical facilities, retail redevelopment and the nature reserve, together with integral landscaping and supporting infrastructure, are delivered in an integrated and coordinated manner.

Planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met.

Design and layout

1. Phased provision of a maximum of 100,000m2 of specialist medical facilities set within an enhanced landscape structure of which 25,000m2 will provide for associated offices and research and development.

2. Provision of a replacement garden centre and replacement retail premises of up to 14,300m2 gross retail floorspace and additional provision of retail floorspace not exceeding 700m2 gross retail floorspace which is not to be used for the sale of clothing, footwear, accessories, jewellery and watches. All replacement and additional The retail floorspace shall be confined to the vicinity of the existing footprint of the current retail area as shown on the policies map. New additional non-A1 floorspace will not be appropriate. The retail development should include the provision of a bus interchange and a car park management plan.

3. Creation of a parkland woodland nature reserve of approximately 3 hectares on land to the south east of the site, as shown on the policies map, and through a legal agreement transferred to a Trust secured through a legal agreement.

4. Construction of buildings of high quality design in a sustainable form that reflect the site's prime location as a gateway to Maidstone.

5. Mitigation of the impact of development on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting through: i. The provision of new structural and internal landscaping to be phased in advance of development to accord with an approved Landscape and Ecological management plan for the site; ii. The retention and enhancement of existing planting. Where the loss of selected existing planting is unavoidable, appropriate compensatory planting must be provided; iii. The use of the topography in site layout plans to exclude development on the higher, more visually prominent parts of the site; The absence of built development within the area shown on the policies map; iv. The restriction of building heights across the whole site to a maximum of two storeys. Exceptionally a building of up to 4 storeys could be accommodated on the land adjacent to the existing KIMS (phase 1) development to the immediate west of the stream and buildings of up to 3 storeys could be accommodated at the New Cut roundabout entrance to the site; v. The use of low level lighting; and vi. The use of green roofs where practical and avoidance of the use of light coloured or reflective materials

21

6. Medical facilities on land to the west of the existing stream will be delivered in advance of medical facilities on land to the east of the stream.

7. The additional retail floorspace must be of an out of town format that is complementary to town centre uses and, by means of a sequential sites assessment, demonstrably require an out of town location. Large scale retail warehousing style buildings will not be acceptable in this sensitive landscape location.

8. Submission of a retail impact assessment which clearly demonstrates that the retail development has no significant adverse impact on town and local centres.

x. [criteria 7 & 8 combined] For proposals which include retail floorspace additional to the existing 14,300sqm , submission of a sequential sites assessment and a retail impact assessment which demonstrate that the National Planning Policy Framework’s sequential and impact tests are met. The retail impact assessment will clearly demonstrate no significant adverse impact on town, district and local centres including those in adjoining boroughs. Large scale retail warehousing style buildings will not be acceptable in this sensitive landscape location.

9. Provision of a landscape buffer of between 15m and 30m in width along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site in order to protect Ancient Woodland, with tracts of planting extending into the body of the development.

10. Provision of a landscaped buffer of a minimum 15m in width on both sides of the existing stream running north- south through the site (minimum 30m width in total), in order to enhance the amenity and biodiversity of this water body.

11. Submission of a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to be approved by the council which includes assessment of the impact of the development on views to and from the Kent Downs AONB

Access 12. Vehicular access to the site from the New Cut roundabout, with bus and emergency access from the A249 Sittingbourne Road if required.

13. Enhanced pedestrian and cycle links to the residential areas of Grove Green, Vinters Park and Penenden Heath, and to Eclipse Business Park.

14. Submission of a Travel Plan, to include a car park travel plan, to be approved by the Borough Council.

Archaeology 15. Provision of a watching archaeological brief in order to protect any heritage assets found on-site.

Ecology 16. Submission of an ecology survey and detailed mitigation measures.

Highways and transportation 17. Submission of a full Transport Assessment to identify those off-site highway improvements and sustainable transport measures necessary to serve the development, to be secured in a phased manner by the provision of infrastructure or through contributions by means of a signed legal agreement which is to be completed prior to the commencement of development. Development will contribute, as proven necessary through the Transport Assessment, to the following improvements;

i. Capacity improvements and signalisation of Bearsted roundabout and capacity improvements at New Cut roundabout. Provision of a new signal pedestrian crossing and the provision of a combined foot/cycle way between these two roundabouts.

22

ii. Traffic signalisation of the M20 J7 roundabout, widening of the coast bound off-slip and creation of a new signal controlled pedestrian route through the junction.

Capacity improvements at M2 J5 (located in Swale Borough).

iii. Upgrading of Bearsted Road to a dual carriageway between Bearsted roundabout and New Cut roundabout.

iv. Increased frequency of 333 / 334 route to provide a bus service with 15 minute intervals between the site and the town centre, potentially to include the provision of bus priority measures on New Cut Road to include traffic signals at the junction with the A20 Ashford Road.

v. Improved bus links to the site from the residential areas of Grove Green and Penenden Heath.

Insert Additional criterion to read: “ Minerals Safeguarding – This site falls within the Minerals Safeguarding Areas as shown on the policies map and therefore development proposals will be required to undertake a minerals assessment to assess the viability and practicability of prior extraction of the minerals resource. The minerals assessment will comply with Policy DM7 of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2013-2030) and any supplementary planning guidance produced by the Minerals Planning Authority in respect of minerals safeguarding. ” MM34 Policy Action Amend paragraph 13.12 as follows; To ensure consistency RMX1(2) 8.9 with national policy Maidstone 13.12 Office uses will be an important component of the mix of uses on the site. The site is in a highly sustainable and to ensure the East and location adjacent to Maidstone East station which will benefit from improved services to London in 2018 and with good plan is positively Royal Mail access to Junction 6 of M20. Housing is also seen as an important supporting use on this site. Residential prepared to meet Sorting development could be delivered in separate blocks either to the west of the site or possibly south of the railway line identified needs. Office and Fronting Brenchley Gardens, or on upper floors above the retail development. paragraph 13.12 Amend Policy RMX1(2) as follows;

Maidstone East and former Royal Mail Sorting Office, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for development for up to 10,000m2 comparison and convenience retail, 4,000sqm of offices (B1a) and approximately 210 dwellings. In addition to the requirements of policy H1, planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met.

1 The provision of up to 10,000sqm of comparison and convenience shopping floorspace , 4,000sqm of offices (B1a) and some 210 dwellings. The submission of a retail impact assessment is required which demonstrates that the National Planning Policy Framework’s impact test is met.

MM35 Policy Action Amend paragraph 13.16 as follows; To ensure RMX1(3) 9.10 consistency with King 13.16 The King Street multi storey car park site has recently been cleared and is being used as a surface level car park national policy and to Street and for the short term. Together with the adjacent AMF Bowling site which has recently been demolished, this area offers a ensure the plan is paragraph significant redevelopment opportunity close to the heart of the town centre to deliver a mix of ground floor retail and positively prepared to 13.16 residential uses. This area could be brought forward in conjunction with the wider redevelopment of The Mall proposed meet identified needs. for the longer term. This would enable a comprehensive approach to development on both sides of King Street at this gateway location to the town centre.

Amend criterion 1 of Policy RMX1(3) as follows;

1 The provision of up to 1,400sqm of comparison and/or convenience shopping floorspace at ground floor level and up to 53 dwellings. The submission of a retail impact assessment is required which demonstrates that the National Planning Policy Framework’s impact test is met.

23

MM36 Policy Action Amend paragraph 13.17, inclu de a new sub -section after paragraph 13.17 and amend Policy RMX1(4) to read as To ensure that the RMX1(4) 10.1 follows; policy is justified Syngenta through proportionate Former Syngenta Works, Hampstead Lane, Yalding evidence and consistent with 13.17 The Former Syngenta Works site near Yalding is a large, flat brownfield site (19.5 ha) about one kilometre to national policy. the west of Yalding village and adjacent to Yalding Railway Station . The site was previously used for agro-chemicals production and is now vacant was decommissioned in 2002/2003 . The site has been cleared of buildings, apart from an office building at the site entrance, and the land has been remediated to address the contamination resulting from its previous use. Securing a significant proportion of employment uses on this site alongside housing will have important sustainability benefits. Comprehensive measures to address flood risk will be required in association with development. Immediately to the east of the site is a canalised section of the River Medway. The whole site lies within Flood Zone 3a.

13.xx The aim of the Sequential Test method set out in the NPPF is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible for the development to be located in areas with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be applied. Crucial to any redevelopment of this brownfield site is the identification of a comprehensive scheme of flood mitigation which addresses the identified flood risk. Subject to such a scheme being achievable, the site is potentially suitable for , employment, leisure, commuter car parking and open space uses.

Policy RMX1(4) Former Syngenta Works, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for development of approximately 8,600m 2 of employment floorspace and approximately 200 dwellings. In addition to the requirements of policy H1, planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met.

The Council will support the re-development of the brownfield Former Syngenta Works Site, as shown on the policies map, provided that a comprehensive scheme of flood mitigation which addresses the identified flood risk will be delivered in association with the development. A comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment which has been undertaken to a methodology agreed by the Environment Agency will be required. The FRA must identify measures to address safe site egress and access and measures to address the flood risk. Contributions may be required for measures to reduce flood risk to dwellings in Yalding.

Subject to the findings of the FRA, potential suitable uses for the site could include , employment (B classes), leisure, commuter car parking and open space. Planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met;

Design and Layout 1. Provision of at least 8,600m 2 of employment floorspace located in the western part of the site closest to the railway line and the retention or re-provision of the office building fronting Hampstead Lane. 2. 1. The height of new employment buildings should not exceed that of the existing office building. 3. Subject to the flood risk assessment, residential development of some 200 dwellings to be located on the eastern portion of the site. 4. 1. Within the site boundary, an area of land to the south (13ha) is to be retained as a nature conservation area. 5. 2. The significant landscape belt which lies to the south of the development area is retained, maintained and enhanced to provide a clear boundary to the developed parts of the site, to act as a buffer to the Local Wildlife site and to screen views from the attractive countryside to the south and from properties in Parsonage Farm Road. 6. 3. The retention, maintenance and enhancement of the landscape belts along the western boundary of the site, on both sites of the railway line, and along the eastern boundary adjacent to the canalised section of the river, to screen and soften the appearance of the development.

24

Access 7. 4. Access will be taken from Hampstead Lane only 8. Development should secure public rights of way improvements, including providing an alternative to the ‘at grade’ pedestrian footpath crossing the railway.

Ecology 9. 5. The site lies adjacent to the Hale Ponds and Pastures Local Wildlife site. A survey which assesses the site’s ecological potential must be submitted. The Development proposals must provide for the delivery of appropriate habitat creation and enhancement measures in response to the survey findings including the creation and enhancement of wildlife corridors, and, if required, mitigation measures.

Flooding and water quality Site Drainage 10. 6. The submission of a comprehensive flood risk assessment which has been undertaken to a methodology agreed by the Environment Agency. The FRA must demonstrate measures to address egress and access , and measures to reduce local flood risk. Contributions may be requested for measures to reduce flood risk to dwellings in Yalding. 11. 7. Measures are secured to ensure adequate site drainage, including through the implementation of sustainable drainage measures.

Land contamination 12. 8. Demonstration that contamination of the site resulting from its previous use has been remediated to the satisfaction of the local authority and the Environment Agency.

Open Space 13. Provision of 4.4 of natural/semi natural open space in accordance with policy OS1(14) together with additional on/off-site provision and/or contributions towards off-site provision/improvements as required in accordance with policy DM22 Open Space should be sites to maximise accessibility to new and existing residents.

Highways and transportation 14. Safety improvements to the level crossing at Hampstead Lane, Yalding 15. Provision of a right turn on Hamstead Lane at its junction with Maidstone Road. 16. Submission of a comprehensive transport assessment and travel plan to set out how opportunities for sustainable transport will be maximised including, if necessary, delivery of improvements to public transport and pedestrian connections to Yalding. 17. Public rights of way improvements, including providing an alternative to the ‘at grade’ pedestrian footpath crossing the railway. 9. Development will contribute, as proven necessary through a Transport Assessment, to requisite improvements to the highway network

Insert Additional criterion to read: “ Minerals Safeguarding – This site falls within the Minerals Safeguarding Areas as shown on the policies map and therefore development proposals will be required to undertake a minerals assessment to assess the viability and practicability of prior extraction of the minerals resource. The minerals assessment will comply with Policy DM7 of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2013-2030) and any supplementary planning guidance produced by the Minerals Planning Authority in respect of minerals safeguarding. ”

Delete OS1(14) Former Syngenta Works, Hampstead Lane, Yalding from Policy OS1 and the Local Plan Policies Map.

MM37 New Policy Action Delete paragraph 5.24 from the Local Plan and include a new sub -section after paragraph 13.17 (Policy RMX1 retail Changes required to RMX1(5) 9.11 and mixed use allocations) and a new policy RMX1(5) to read as follows; ensure that the Local Baltic Plan is positively Wharf Powerhub Building and Baltic Wharf, St Peters Street, Maidstone prepared and supporting justified, and to

25 text 13.xx The Powerhub building is a prominent and substantial Grade II listed building fronting the west bank of the River provide a positi ve Medway and situated within the wider Baltic Wharf site. The site includes the more modern warehouse style buildings strategy for heritage to the south of the listed building in which 2,596sqm of floorspace can be lawfully occupied for A1 retail use. Also assets to ensure forming part of the wider site is Raglan House which faces St Peters Street and the car park to the north of the railway consistency with bridge. The Baltic Wharf building, the warehouses to the south and Raglan House all lie within the town centre national policy. boundary whilst the car park to the north of the railway bridge is outside the boundary. For retail purposes specifically, the site is ‘out of centre’.

13.xx The Powerhub building itself is currently underused and is in need of restoration and its future would be best secured by bringing it into active use. Planning permission has been granted for a large foodstore and other ancillary uses (offices, restaurant and café and assembly and leisure uses) on the site comprising the Baltic Wharf building, the warehouses to the south, Raglan House and the car park to the north of the railway bridge (MA/13/0297). Should the consented scheme not come forward, the council will consider positively alternative proposals using the criteria in Policy RMX1(5). The site is considered suitable for a variety of uses namely housing, offices, leisure uses, cafes and restaurants and, subject to impact and sequential tests being met, additional retail use.

Policy RMX1(5)

The Baltic Wharf site, as shown on the policies map, is suitable for a mix of uses comprising housing, offices (B1a and/or A2), leisure uses (D2), cafes and restaurants (A3) and retail (A1). Planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met.

Design and layout 1. The proposal conserves and, where possible, enhances the heritage significance of the listed Powerhub building and its setting and secures the building’s restoration. 2. The proposal achieves the comprehensive development of the whole site and avoids piecemeal development which would undermine the achievement of the restoration of the listed building 3. The proposal is designed to enhance the site’s contribution to the townscape as seen from public vantage points, in particular from the banks of the River Medway.

Uses 4. For retail (A1) floorspace additional to the 2,596sqm which is lawful, submission of a sequential sites assessment and a retail impact assessment which demonstrate that the National Planning Policy Framework’s sequential and impact tests are met

Access 5. The provision of a level riverside footpath for use by the public extending from the site’s southern boundary with Scotney Gardens to connect at its boundary with Waterside Gate to the north 6. Submission of an employees’ Travel Plan to be implemented in conjunction with the development.

Flooding 7. Submission of a Flood Risk Assessment for the development undertaken to a methodology agreed with the Environment Agency and the delivery of resultant flood mitigation measures. 8. Submission of a surface water drainage strategy for the development based on sustainable drainage principles.

Noise 9. Submission of a noise assessment and the delivery of resultant noise attenuation measures

Air quality 10. The submission of an air quality assessment and emission reductions plan and the delivery of resultant mitigation

26

measures .

Land contamination 11. The submission of a land contamination assessment and the delivery of resultant mitigation measures Highways and transportation 12. Development will contribute, as proven necessary through a Transport Assessment, to requisite improvements to the highway network, to include the following; i. Improvements at the junction of Buckland Hill with London Road ii. Improvements to the capacity of the eastbound carriageway of the Bridges Gyratory in the event that the current improvement scheme does not provide sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the development

13. For proposals which include additional retail floorspace, measures to secure improved pedestrian, cycle and public transport links to ensure that the site is accessible and well connected to the primary shopping area.

MM38 Policy PC/91; [additional supporting text] : To ensure the policy EMP(1) PC/94 is effective and RMX1(6) and 13.a This site comprises a 0.4ha site which lies within a wider parcel of land bounded by Romney Place, Lower Stone deliverable whilst Mote Road PC/92; Street and Mote Road/Wat Tyler Way. The site is currently used for surface level car parking for nearby business uses seeking to meet Maidstone PC/93; and redevelopment represents an opportunity to make better use of this site. As it is located within the town centre, it identified needs Action is potentially suitable for a mix of uses including offices, residential and leisure uses. 8.2

13.b The site has the potential to contribute to the identified need for additional office floorspace (24,600sqm by 2031). This is only likely to be achieved if the scheme includes other, higher value uses, most specifically residential. The site is therefore allocated for residential-led mixed use development which will include a significant component of office floorspace .

13.c Development of the site will need to bring townscape improvements to this part of the town centre, including by establishing an improved frontage to Wat Tyler Way. The scale, siting and design of the development will have particular regard to the setting of the Grade II listed Romney Terrace to the north of the site.

13.d The policy does not prescribe amounts of floorspace of different uses as the overall development capacity of the site will be highly dependent on the specific scheme which comes forward. The evidence supporting the Local Plan highlights that the expected demand for office floorspace will predominantly be from small businesses who will seek to occupy small office units, often within multi-tenant managed ‘workspaces’. This type of provision operates on a different financial model than a traditional single occupier office, generating different financial returns and, potentially, having different build costs. The viability assessment accompanying an application should test the impacts of different forms of development and management of the office space on the development viability to demonstrate how the provision of office floorspace has been maximised. In respect of residential capacity, Policy DM12 sets out the density range acceptable on a town centre site .

Policy EMP1 (1) RMX1(6) Mote Road, Maidstone

Mote Road, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for residential-led mixed use development to include a minimum of 2,000sqm of office floorspace (B1a). redevelopment of up to 8,000 sqm office floorspace (B1 use class). Leisure uses (D2) would also be appropriate as part of the mix of uses on this site. Planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met.

27

Design and layout 1. Where possible development should be sited to create frontage blocks to Mote Road/Wat Tyler Way and to Romney Place. 2. The development preserves the setting of the listed properties in Romney Place. 3. Development does not exceed 9 storeys in height.

Uses x. The development should deliver a minimum of 2,000sqm of office floorspace. Any scheme which includes a lesser amount of office floorspace should be accompanied by a viability assessment that considers alternative delivery and management approaches and their impact on viability. It should clearly set out the sales and build costs assumptions used and demonstrate that the amount of office floorspace is the maximum which could be provided as part of a viable development.

Noise 4. The submission of a noise assessment and the delivery of appropriate noise attenuation measures as part of the development.

Air quality 5. The submission of an air quality assessment and appropriate air quality mitigation measures to be agreed with the council will be implemented as part of the development.

Land contamination 6. The submission of a land contamination report and appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented prior to development commencing. MM39 Policy Action Amend supporting text to Policy EMP1( 54) as follows: To ensure the policy EMP1(54) 8.5 is positively prepared, Woodcut 15.2 There is a unique opportunity in the borough to provide a prestigious business park at Junction 8 of the M20 that effective and Farm, is well connected to the motorway network and that can provide for a range of job needs up to 2031. The Woodcut deliverable whilst Ashford Farm site will meet the ‘qualitative’ need for a new, well serviced and well connected mixed use business park in the seeking to meet Road, borough which can meet the anticipated demand for new offices, small business orientated space, stand-alone identified needs. Bearsted industrial and manufacturing space built for specific end users and smaller scale distribution businesses. This site will Supportin overcome this ‘qualitative’ gap in the borough’s existing portfolio of employment sites and will thereby help to diversify g text the range of sites available to new and expanding businesses in the borough to help accommodate future demand. The key priority for the Woodcut Farm site is the delivery of new office/research & development floorspace (B1a/b). The site will provide at least 10,000sqm of B1a/b floorspace, thereby contributing significantly towards the evidenced need for 24,600sqm of this type of floorspace by the end of the Plan period. Land at Woodcut Farm is allocated to provide for a mix of business uses comprising industrial, offices and distribution/logistics. High quality office development is sought, such as that required by company headquarters for example, providing complementary provision to the town centre. As the viability of office development may be challenging in the shorter term, land will be safeguarded specifically for B1a/b uses, and for no other purpose, pending the viability position improving in the later part of the Plan period. This approach will help ensure that the site delivers a genuine mixed B class use business park, which is what is required, rather than a logistics park or conventional industrial estate. Industrial (B2) and distribution (B8) uses are nonetheless appropriate as part of the mix of uses on the site and, in addition to the office requirement, the allocation will help deliver the quantative need for the 7,965sqm additional warehousing floorspace which is needed in the borough by 2031.

28

15.9 The flatter area of the site, to the east of the stream, is better able to accommodate larger footprint buildings up to 10,000sqm 5,000sqm with heights restricted to a maximum of 12m. To the west of the stream the land rises and is suited to smaller footprint buildings of up to 2,500sqm and up to 8m in height. The siting, scale and detailed design of development within this area must also have particular regard to the setting of Woodcut Farmhouse (Grade II listed). On the highest part of the site, as shown on the policies map, to the east of the Woodcut Farm complex , building footprints will be limited to 500sqm .

Policy EMP1(54) Woodcut Farm, Ashford Road, Bearsted:

Woodcut Farm, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for development for up to 49,000m2 mixed employment floorspace (B1c; B2; B1a; B1b ; B8). The site will deliver a genuine mix of B class uses in terms of type and range. Office type uses (B1a & b) will be a vital component of this mix and the site will provide at least 10,000sqm of B1a /B1b floorspace as an absolute minimum . In the event of a demand arising, an element of hi-tech and/or research and development (B1(b)) would be appropriate as part of the overall mix of B class uses on the site. The mixed use employment, landscaping and infrastructure elements will be delivered in an integrated and co-ordinated manner that respect the site’s visual and physical relationship with the Kent Downs AONB. Planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met.

Design & layout 1. The proposals create a spacious parkland setting for development through the addition of substantial internal landscaping which will be sympathetic to the site’s countryside context and which will help to break up the visual appearance of the development including parking areas in particular in views from the AONB including through the use of substantial tracts of planting extending into the body of the development to achieve clear visual separation between individual buildings and between parking areas ; buildings will cover not more than 40% of the developed site area.

2. The development proposals will respect the topography of the site by minimising the need for site excavation.

3. Landscape buffers of at least 15m in width are established along the site’s boundaries, to M20 and to Musket Lane, which will also to help secure the setting to Woodcut Farmhouse (Grade II listed) and the amenity of residential properties at Chestnuts and White Heath. Development will have a landscaped frontage to A20.

3. Landscape buffers of at least 35m in depth are established along the site’s boundary to the M20 including a new native woodland shaw, at least 15m to Musket Lane, at least 25m to the A20 including a planted bund, and at least 30m along the western boundary, which will also to help secure the setting to Woodcut Farmhouse (Grade II listed) and the amenity of residential properties at Chestnuts and White Heath. Tracts of structural landscaping will extend into development areas of at least 15m in width.

4. An area of 9ha to the north and north west of Woodcut Farm is secured as an undeveloped landscape area in the form of open woodland including the addition of a landscape buffer of at least 30m along the eastern boundary. Future management of this area will be secured by means of legal agreement and maintained in perpetuity.

5. Larger footprint buildings will be are accommodated in the field to the east of the stream up to a maximum unit size of 10,000sqm 5,000sqm with building ridge heights not to exceed 12m. Units should be orientated end-on to predominant views to and from the AONB.

6. Development on the field to the west of the stream comprises smaller units of up to 2,500sqm footprint with g. Graded building heights that will take account of the site’s topography with building ridge heights not to exceed 8m. On the highest part of the site to the east of the Woodcut Farm complex at and above the 55m contour line as shown on the policies map, building footprints will be limited to 500sqm . The siting, scale and detailed design of development

29 must have regard to the preservation of Woodcut Farmhouse (Grade II) and its setting.

[additional criterion] X. The development proposals are designed to limit their visual impact including through the use of curved roofs on buildings, non-reflective materials, sensitive colouring, green roofs and walls on smaller footprint buildings (500sqm and below), and sensitive lighting proposals. Buildings should include active frontage elements incorporating glazing, and address both the A20 and M20.

[additional criterion]

Y. To the east of the stream, land to accommodate a minimum of 7,500sqm of floorspace within Use Classes B1(a) and B1(b) will be provided. Land sufficient for at least 5,000sqm of this floorspace will be provided with vehicular access and all necessary services including drainage and electrical power supply to the boundary of the plot/s prior to the first occupation of any units falling within Use Classes B1(c), B2 or B8. The land which is provided for the minimum of 7,500sqm of B1(a) and B1(b) will be safeguarded from any other uses until April 2026 or until otherwise allocated through a Local Plan Review.

[additional criterion]

Z. To the west of the stream, land to accommodate a minimum of 2,500sqm of floorspace within Use Classes B1(a) and B1(b) will be provided. This land will be safeguarded from any other uses until April 2026 or until otherwise allocated through a Local Plan Review.

Landscape and ecology 7. The development proposals are designed to take into account the results of a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) undertaken in accordance with the principles of current guidance. The assessment will specifically address the impact of development on views to and from the Kent Downs AONB escarpment. This will include environmental enhancements of the wider landscape beyond the allocation boundaries through financial contributions using the mechanism of a S106 agreement.

8. The development proposals are designed to take account of the results of a phase 1 habitat survey and any species specific surveys that may as a result be necessary, together with any necessary mitigation and significant enhancement measures.

Archaeology 9. The proposals are designed to take account of the archaeological interest on the site as revealed through appropriate survey.

Access 10. Vehicular access to the site will be from A20 Ashford Road.

Highways and transportation 11. Improvements to capacity at the A20/Willington Street junction.

12. Package of measures to provide bus stops, pedestrian refuges and improvements to the footway on the northern side of the A20 Ashford Road.

13. Development will contribute, as proven necessary through a Transport Assessment, to improvements at the following junctions: i. the M20 Junction 8 (including the west-bound on-slip and merge); ii. the A20 Ashford Rd/M20 link road roundabout;

30

iii. the A20 Ashford Rd/Penford Hill junction; iv. the A20 Ashford Rd/Eyhorne Street/Great Danes Hotel access; and v. the Willington Street/A20 Ashford Rd junction.

14. Development will deliver a significant package of sustainable transport measures to secure access to the site by a range of sustainable modes, including the provision of a subsidised bus route, and must be supported by the implementation of a Travel Plan.

Minerals safeguarding

15. This site falls within the Minerals Safeguarding Areas as shown on the policies map and therefore development proposals will be required to undertake a minerals assessment to assess the viability and practicability of prior extraction of the minerals resource. The minerals assessment will comply with Policy DM7 of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2013-2030) and any supplementary planning guidance produced by the Minerals Planning Authority in respect of minerals safeguarding. ”

MM40 Policy PC/129 Amend Policy DM3 as follows: To ensure the policy DM3 is positively prepared, Historic Policy DM3 Natural Environment justified, effective and and (paragraph numbering to be added when plan fully restructured to reflect other changes) consistent with Natural national policy. Environme 17.11 Maidstone’s historic and natural environment is a fundamental part of the borough’s economic wealth and social nt wellbeing, the benefits of which are far-reaching. It is essential to ensure these historic and natural asset s bases supporting remain robust and viable. text 17.12 Historic environment Maidstone has been shaped and influenced by a long past history, the legacy of which is a strong and rich cultural heritage. The Archbishop’s Palace and Leeds Castle are two high profile heritage assets but the borough also abounds with many other historical buildings. These heritage assets contribute to the strong sense of place which exists across the borough. However, this rich historical resource is very vulnerable to damage and loss. The local plan allows some flexibility for the re-use and conversion of historic assets but care must be taken to ensure this does not lead to unacceptable adverse impacts. Small scale changes over time, especially the standardisation of building materials and practices can erode the special character and appearance of places, and the setting of historic features such as listed buildings and scheduled monuments, which can be crucial in maintaining historic integrity. 17.13 The local plan will ensure the qualities and local distinctiveness of the historic environment are recognised and protected. This will be achieved in part through the protection of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas from inappropriate development. The local plan will seek to encourage a greater understanding of designated and non-designated heritage assets and their values through partnership working with communities, developers and asset managers. The council will encourage mutually beneficial and sustainable proposals to conserve and enhance heritage assets for future generations whilst acknowledging the social and economic challenges faced by land owners and managers. 17.14 All development proposals will be expected to be accompanied by an initial survey to establish what on-site assets there are. Sufficient information to assess the direct and indirect effects of development on past or present heritage assets together with any proposed prevention, mitigation or compensation measures will also be required.

17.18 The growth proposed in the borough provides a chance to increase the value of accessible green spaces and blue corridors. New development will be expected to contribute towards the goal of a linked network which extends across the borough and beyond. Development schemes will be expected to contribute towards improved connectivity through the provision of footpaths and cycle routes that are part of a strategic network; space for nature that contributes to the larger landscape-scale pattern of connected habitat; and the provision of imaginative recreational facilities that give educational and physical health benefits to local people. The council will liaise with neighbouring

31 local authorities, including Kent County Council, to ensure potential linkages at all scales and across administrative boundaries are recognised in the development of specific proposals. Developers will also be expected to provide details of how the green and blue infrastructure elements of their proposal, including publicly accessible open spaces, sites managed for their biodiversity, or geodiversity or heritage interest, will be managed and maintained over the long- term.

Policy DM3 Historic and n Natural environment

1. To enable Maidstone borough to retain a high quality of living and to be able to respond to the effects of climate change, developers will ensure that new development protects and enhances the historic and natural environment, where appropriate, by incorporating measures where appropriate to: i. Protect positive historic and landscape character, heritage assets and their settings, areas of Ancient Woodland, veteran trees, trees with significant amenity value, important hedgerows, features of biological or geological interest, and the existing public rights of way network from inappropriate development and ensure that these assets do not suffer any avoid significant adverse impacts as a result of development ; ii. Avoid damage to and inappropriate development considered likely to have significant direct or indirect adverse effects on: a. Cultural heritage assets protected by international, national or local designation and other non-designated heritage assets recognised for their archaeological, architectural or historic significance, or their settings; b. a. Internationally, nationally and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity; and c. b. Local Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. iii. Control pollution to protect ground and surface waters where necessary and mitigate against the deterioration of water bodies and adverse impacts on Groundwater Source Protection Zones, and/or incorporate measures to improve the ecological status of water bodies as appropriate; iv. Enhance, extend and connect designated sites of importance for biodiversity, priority habitats and fragmented Ancient Woodland; support opportunities for the creation of new Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats; create, enhance, restore and connect other habitats, including links to habitats outside Maidstone Borough, where opportunities arise; v. Provide for the long term maintenance and management of all heritage and natural assets, including landscape character, associated with the development; vi. Mitigate for and adapt to the effects of climate change; and vii. Positively contribute to the improvement of accessibility of natural green space within walking distance of housing, employment, health and education facilities and to the creation of a wider network of new links between green and blue spaces including links to the Public Rights of Way network.

2. Protect and enhance the character, distinctiveness, diversity and quality of Maidstone's landscape and townscape by the careful, sensitive management and design of development.

3. Where appropriate, development proposals will be expected to appraise the value of the borough’s historic and natural environment through the provision of the following: i. An ecological evaluation of development sites and any additional land put forward for mitigation purposes to take full account of the biodiversity present, including the potential for the retention and provision of native plant species; ii. Heritage and arboricultural assessments to take full account of any past or present heritage and natural assets connected with the development and associated sites; and iii. A landscape and visual impact assessment to take full account of the significance of, and potential effects of change on, the landscape as an environmental resource together with views and visual amenity.

4. Publicly accessible open space should be designed as part of the overall green and blue infrastructure and layout of a site, taking advantage of the potential for multiple benefits including enhanced play, wildlife, sustainable urban drainage, tree planting and landscape provision. The form and function of green infrastructure will reflect a site's characteristics, nature, location and existing or future deficits.

32

5. Development proposals will not be permitted where they lead to adverse impacts on natural and heritage assets for which mitigation measures or, as a last resort, compensation appropriate to the scale and nature of the impacts cannot be achieved. When significant harm cannot be avoided through consideration of alternative sites or adequate mitigation provided on-site within the immediate locality, compensatory measures will be achieved within the relevant Biodiversity Opportunity Area, or other location as agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

6. Development proposals will give weight to the protection of the following designated sites for biodiversity, as shown on the Policies Map, which will be equal to the significance of their biodiversity/geological status, their contribution to wider ecological networks and the protection/recovery of priority species as follows:

i) For internationally designated sites (including candidate sites), the highest level of protection will apply. The council will ensure that plans and projects proceed only when in accordance with relevant Directives, Conventions and Regulations. When the proposed development will have an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site, planning permission will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, where there are no less ecologically damaging alternatives, there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and damage can be fully compensated.

ii) For nationally designated sites (including candidate sites), development will only be permitted where it is not likely to have an adverse effect on the designated site or its interests (either individually or in combination with other developments) unless the benefits of the development at this site clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the designated site that make it of national importance and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Where damage to a nationally designated site cannot be avoided or mitigated, compensatory measures will be sought. Development will also accord with and support the conservation objectives of any biodiversity site management plans;

iii) For locally designated sites (including draft published sites), development likely to have an adverse effect will be permitted only where the damage can be avoided or adequately mitigated or when its need outweighs the biodiversity interest of the site. Compensation will be sought for loss or damage to locally designated sites.

Account should be taken of the Landscape Character Guidelines SPD, the Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy and the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan.

MM41 Policy Action Amend Policy DM4 DM5 (2) Development on brownfield land To ensure the policy DM4 DM5 11.1 is positively prepared Developm Exceptionally, the residential redevelopment of brownfield sites in the countryside which are not residential gardens , and justified. ent on which meet the above criteria and which are in close proximity to Maidstone urban area, a rural service centre or Brownfield larger village will be permitted provided the redevelopment will also result in a significant environmental improvement Land and the site is, or will can reasonably be made, demonstrably accessible by sustainable modes to Maidstone urban area, a rural service centre or larger village.

Additional paragraphs to be inserted after paragraph 17.34 of the supporting text:

A number of brownfield sites in current or previous economic use are located in the countryside. Such sites are outside of the settlement boundaries, and countryside restraint policies apply. Exceptionally, the council will consider proposals for residential development on brownfield sites in rural areas. Key considerations will include: • The level of harm to the character and appearance of an area; • The impact of proposals on the landscape and environment; • Any positive impacts on residential amenity; • What traffic the present or past use has generated; and • The number of car movements that would be generated by the new use, and what distances, if there are no more sustainable alternatives.

Residential gardens in urban and rural areas are excluded from the definition of a brownfield site.

33

MM42 Policy (PC/110 Policy to be amended as follows: To ensure the policy DM5 6 Air ) Action is consistent to Quality 11.2 17.36 The National Planning Policy Framework requires planning policies to sustain compliance with EU limit values or national policy national objectives for pollutants and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. The council has a responsibility to work towards achieving these targets and does this through the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) regime. Through this function the council has identified 6 areas currently exceeding EU guideline values (exceedance areas) and has an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) in place in order to identify measures aimed at reducing air pollution at these locations.

17.39 The significance of any air quality impact arising from development can be affected by a number of factors, including the scale, nature and location of development. For instance, a large housing development located outside of the AQMA may still have significant negative impacts on air quality within the AQMA, whereas a small scale residential extension within the AQMA may not have any perceptible impact on air quality. Similarly, a single additional dwelling may have a negative impact on an exceedance area whilst major development located elsewhere in the borough may not impact the AQMA itself, but may generate significant negative impacts in other locations. The council will review the potential significance of the air quality impacts from new proposals taking account of these factors and in line with national guidance.

17.40 Where an Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) is required, development proposals will be required to assess the existing air quality in the study areas, to predict the future air quality without the development in place and to predict the future air quality with the development, and mitigation, in place. As part of this process, the assessment should consider the potential cumulative impacts of development. Evaluation of air quality impacts will take into account factors such as the number of people affected, the absolute levels and the predicted magnitude of the changes in pollutant concentrations, the scale and kind of the proposed mitigation. The evaluation will AQIA should also take into account how the impacts from the development relate to the principles and measures contained within the council's Air Quality Action Plan and other relevant strategic guidance documents. Where the need for mitigation measures is identified through an AQIA, the delivery of these measures will be secured through planning condition or through s106 planning obligations. 17.41 It is recognised that planning can play an important role in improving air quality and reducing individuals’ exposure to air pollutants. Whilst planning cannot solve immediate existing air quality issues, it can ensure that has a role to play so any likely scheme impacts are reasonably effectively mitigated.

17.42 It is also important to ensure however that these existing air quality issues, and the cumulative impacts of developments, are responded to in a proactive and effective fair and proportionate way. In order to achieve this, the Council is in the process of updating the AQMA Action Plan and is currently preparing a Low Emission Strategy will be developed going forward. These documents provide a timely opportunity to address these long-standing issues, and the council will consider a wide range of options and measures, including further support for sustainable transport measures and the possibility of establishing Low Emission/Clean Air Zones, as part of this process. As well as the AQMA Action Plan and the Low Emission Strategy, forthcoming national policy changes are likely to have implications for the local plan policy. The Council is therefore committed to preparing a DPD on the subject of air quality to ensure the local policy framework is both effective and up to date.

17.41 The Low Emission Strategy will outline the principles behind defining the scale of a development and its likely impact depending on its location and proximity to exceedance areas and the public. It will be developed in line with emerging best practice and national guidelines and be developed to support the Air Quality Action Plan.

Policy DM5 6 Air Quality

Proposals that have an impact on air quality that meet the following criteria will be permitted:

34

1. Proposals located close to identified air quality exceedance areas as defined through the Local Air Quality management process will require a full Air Quality Impact Assessment in line with national and local guidance;

2. Proposals within or adjacent to Air Quality Management Areas that are likely to have a negative impact on air quality should identify sources of emissions to air from the development and an Emissions Statement identifying how these emissions will be minimised and mitigated against must be provided; and

3. Proposals in or affecting Air Quality Management Areas or of a sufficient scale to impact local communities should, where necessary, incorporate mitigation measures which are locationally specific and proportionate to the likely impact.

Proposals that have an impact on air quality will be permitted, subject to the following criteria being met:

1. Proposals that have an impact on air quality will be permitted, subject to the following criteria being met: i. Proposals for development which have the potential, by virtue of their scale, nature and/or location, to have a negative impact on air quality at identified exceedance areas, as defined through the Local Air Quality Management process, will be required to submit an Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) to consider the potential impacts of pollution from individual and cumulative development, and to demonstrate how the air quality impacts of the development will be mitigated to acceptable levels; ii. Proposals for development which have the potential, by virtue of their scale, nature and/or location, to have a significant negative impact on air quality within identified Air Quality Management Areas will be required to submit an AQIA to consider the potential impacts of pollution from individual and cumulative development, and to demonstrate how the air quality impacts of the development will be mitigated to acceptable levels, even where there will be no negative impact at identified exceedance areas; iii. Other development proposals, where criteria 1 and 2 do not apply, but which by virtue of their scale, nature and/or location have the potential to generate a negative impact on air quality within identified Air Quality Management Areas will not be required to submit an AQIA, but should demonstrate how the air quality impacts of the development will be minimised. iv. Development proposals which have the potential, by virtue of their scale, nature and/or location, to have a significant negative impact on air quality outside of identified Air Quality Management Areas will submit an AQIA to consider the potential impacts of pollution from individual and cumulative development, and to demonstrate how the air quality impacts of the development will be mitigated to acceptable levels.

2. The Council will prepare an Air Quality DPD which will take account of the AQMA Action Plan, the Low Emission Strategy and national requirements to address air quality.

MM43 Policy PC/111 Amend policy to read: To ensure the policy DM6 7 DM 6 7: Proposals for development which could create, intensify or expand noisy or noxious uses, or which could is consistent with Non- potentially generate volume or types of traffic unsuited to the local area, will only be permitted if they meet such other achieving sustainable Conformin exceptions as indicated by policies elsewhere in this plan where they do not, by way of their operation, cause nuisance development and is g Uses to residents or users in the vicinity, and where anticipated adverse impacts on the local road network can be mitigated therefore positively in accordance with Policy DM21. Proposals will also be required to meet other requirements set out elsewhere in this prepared. plan.

MM44 Policy PC/51; Amend Policy DM 7 8(1) (iii) as follows : To ensure the policy DM7 8 PC/112 is consistent to External iii. The lighting scheme would not be visually detrimental to its immediate or wider setting, particularly intrinsically national policy. Lighting dark landscapes .

35

Amend Policy DM7 8 criterion 2 to read: “Lighting proposals that are within , neighbour or are near enough to significantly affect areas of nature conservation importance, e.g. Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, and Country Wildlife Sites and Local Wildlife Sites will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.”

MM45 Policy PC/123 Amend Policy DM11 as below: To ensure consistency DM11 with national policy Housing Policy DM11 SP19 Housing Mix and to clarify the Mix Council’s role and the 17.58 Developers will need to access a range of sources, including the SHMA, to help shape their proposals. Local relationship between stakeholders, including parish councils, may often be able to provide targeted information that assists an applicant to local and submit a locally relevant scheme. Neighbourhood Plans can also be used as a mechanism to allow some flexibility and neighbourhood plans local context while contributing to the overarching strategic needs of the borough. Where affordable housing is proposed or required, the housing register will provide additional guidance.

Policy DM11 SP19 (5) Housing Mix

5. The council will work with partners to facilitate support the provision of specialist and supported housing for elderly, disabled and vulnerable people.

MM46 Policy PC/124 Amend Policy DM12 as below: To ensure the policy DM12 is consistent with Density of Policy DM12 achieving sustainable Housing Density of housing development development and is Developm therefore positively ent All new housing will be developed at a density that is consistent with achieving good design and does not compromise prepared. the distinctive character of the area in which it is situated. Development proposals that fail to make efficient use of land for housing, having regard to the character and location of the area, will be refused permission.

Subject to this these overriding consideration s:

1. At sites within and close adjacent to the town centre new residential development will be expected to achieve net densities of between 45 and 170 dwellings per hectare. 2. At other sites within and adjacent to the urban area new residential development will be expected to achieve a net density of 35 dwellings per hectare. 3. At sites within or adjacent to the rural service centres and larger villages as defined under policies SP5-10 and SP11-16 respectively new residential development will be expected to achieve a net density of 30 dwellings per hectare.

In other settlements not listed above new residential development will be expected to achieve a net density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Development proposals that fail to make efficient use of land for housing, having regard to the character and location of the area, will be refused permission.

MM47 Policy PC/126 Amend Policy DM13 as below: To ensure c onsistency DM13 with national policy Affordable Policy DM13 SP20 Affordable Housing Housing 17.61 Viability testing indicates that affordable housing is achievable across the borough on sites of five or more dwellings. The Ministerial Statement published 28 th November 2014 refers to the introduction of a threshold for infrastructure contributions. The National Planning Practice Guidance refers to circumstances where infrastructure

36

contributions through planning obligations should not be sought from developers : affordable housing should not be sought from developments of 10 units or less, and which have a maximum combined floorspace of 1,000m2. The viability testing has assumed the national threshold of 11 dwellings for affordable housing. To support community integration, affordable housing will be provided on-site, and alternative provision will not be accepted unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify it. Any proposals for off-site or financial provision must be made at the time of the application.

17.63 In order to respond to the identified need for affordable housing of different tenures through the period of the plan, the council will seek an indicative target of 70% affordable rented or social rented housing, or a mixture of the two, and 30% intermediate affordable housing (shared ownership and/or intermediate rent). This ratio was used for strategic viability testing purposes and has been shown to be viable. Specific site circumstances may affect the viability of individual proposals and the council recognises that the need for different tenures may also vary over time [2].

[additional paragraph] 17.xx The Government has introduced a vacant building credit to incentivise brownfield development on sites containing vacant buildings. In considering how the vacant building credit should apply to a particular development, the council will consider whether the building has been made vacant for the sole purposes of redevelopment and whether the building is covered by an extant or recently expired planning permission for the same or substantially the same development.

[2] Through the new Housing and Planning Bill 2015 Act 2016 , the Government has signalled its intention to place is placing a duty on local planning authorities to require a proportion of Starter Homes on all reasonably-sized sites. Secondary legislation is expected early 2017and the The council will maintain a watching brief and respond as appropriate.

Policy DM13 SP20 Affordable Housing On housing sites or mixed use development sites of five 11 residential units (gross) or more, and or which have a combined floorspace of greater than 1,000m2 (gross internal area), the council will require the delivery of affordable housing. MM48 Policy PC/65; Amend supporting text to read: To ensure consistency DM14 13 PC/127 with national policy Local Policy DM14 13 Affordable Local Needs Housing on Rural Exception Sites and to ensure the Needs policy is positively Housing 17.73 Affordable local needs housing seeks to address the lack of general supply by allowing the development of prepared. exception sites under agreed local needs, sustainability and environmental criteria. Exception sites are small sites in locations where sites would not normally be released for housing development. The housing must remain affordable in perpetuity and priority will be given to occupants who meet relevant criteria, i.e. those who have a specified connection to the settlement – often being residential, employment or family.

Amend Policy DM14 13 as below:

Affordable Local Needs Housing on Rural Exception Sites

Outside of Maidstone, the five rural service centres and the five larger villages, The the Council will work with parish councils and local stakeholders to bring forward sustainably located affordable local needs housing at its rural communities. The council will grant planning permission subject to the following criteria.

1. Development has been proven necessary by a local needs housing survey approved by the council which has been

37

undertaken by or on behalf of the parish council(s) concerned. In consultation with the parish council and registered provider of social housing, the council will determine the number, size, type and tenure of homes to be developed after assessing the results of the survey. The council will also use the housing register to determine where there may be unmet housing needs.

2. People meeting the relevant occupation criteria will be given priority to occupy local needs housing (under the council’s housing allocation scheme).

3. Affordable local needs housing will remain available in perpetuity to meet the need for which it was permitted. This will be secured by planning conditions and/or legal agreements as appropriate.

4. Sustainability of the site and its settlement will be a prime consideration in decision making. The council will give preference to settlements and communities where a range of community facilities and services, in particular school, health, and shopping are accessible from the site preferably on foot, by cycle or on public transport. The site must also be safely accessed to and from the public highway by all vehicles using the site at all times.

5. The scale of development must be in proportion to the context of the settlement where it is located.

6. Where national landscape, ecological and heritage designations are affected by the proposed development, the necessity for development proposal s must be proven to outweigh the purpose for which have regard to the designation and its purpose is made whilst complying with national policy and guidance.

An affordable and local needs housing supplementary planning document will be produced to expand on how the proposals in this policy will be implemented. MM49 Policy PC/108; Policy DM1 65; Amend criterion 2 as follows; For consistency with DM165 Action national policy. Gypsy, 10.6 2. The development would not result in inappropriate significant harm to the landscape and rural character of the area, Traveller in particular the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt. and Impact on these aspects will be assessed with particular regard to: Travelling i Local landscape character Showpeop ii Cumulative effect – the landscape impact arising as a result of the development in combination with existing lawful le caravans; and accommod iii Existing landscape features – development is well screened by existing landscape features and there is reasonable ation prospect of such features’ long term retention.

Additional planting should….

MM50 Policy PC/99; Add a new paragraph after paragraph 17.82 to read; To ensure consistency DM176 PC/100; with national policy. Town PC/101 17.82a A proposal for small scale rural development related to the expansion of an existing rural business or retail Centre development will not be required to comply with Policy DM176. Such development will be assessed under the terms of Uses Policy DM37 or DM40 respectively.

Amend paragraph to read: 17.83 An impact assessment will be required for proposals above the Framework’s specified threshold of 2,500sqm . In assessing the impact of proposals…

In Policy DM176 add ‘or’ the end of criterion 1(ii) as follows: 1(ii) …of a site allocated for the use proposed. Or

Include additional criteria 1(iii) and (iv) to state: (iii) The development is in the countryside and is in accordance with Policy DM37 or Policy DM40; Or

38

(iv) The development is designed to only serve the needs of the neighbourhood

MM51 Policy PC/66; Additional criteria to read (in new strategic policy SP22): To ensure the policy DM21 PC/67 “X. Within designated Economic Development Areas, the redevelopment of premises and the infilling of vacant sites for is positively prepared Retention business uses will be permitted. ” and in order to meet of identified needs and Employme “Y. Within designated Economic Development Areas located within the countryside proposals should ensure high is consistent with nt Sites quality designs of an appropriate scale and materials are accompanied by significant landscaping within, and at the achieving sustainable edge of, the development. ” development.

MM52 Policy PC/55; Merge Policy DM24 Criterion 3 and Policy DM25 Criterion 2 to form a revised Development Management policy To ensure the policy DM24 21 PC/114; DM24 21 : Assessing the transport impacts of development is positively prepared Sustainabl Action in respect of e 11.5 Policy DM2421 infrastructure transport Assessing the transport impacts of development requirements and is Assessing consistent with the 3. 1. Development proposals must: national policy. transport impacts of i. Demonstrate that the impacts of trips generated to and from the development are accommodated , remedied or developm mitigated to prevent severe residual impacts , including where feasible necessary an exploration of delivering ent mitigation measures ahead of the development being occupied; ii. Provide a satisfactory Transport Assessment for proposals that reach the required threshold and a satisfactory Travel Plan in accordance with the threshold levels set by Kent County Council’s Guidance on Transport Assessments and Travel Plans; and iii. Demonstrate that development complies with the requirements of policy DM5 6 for air quality.

2. Proposals for major development will be permitted if adequate provision is made, where necessary and appropriate, within the overall design and site layout for the following facilities for public transport secured through legal agreements:

i. Priority or exclusive provision for public service vehicle access to or through the proposed development area; ii. Safe and convenient passenger waiting facilities, information systems and signed pedestrian access routes; iii. Suitable provision for disabled access to the waiting facilities from all parts of the development area; and iv. Suitable provision for disabled access onto buses from the waiting facilities.

Insert the following text as supporting text to Policy DM2421 – Assessing the transport impacts of development.

Assessing the transport needs impacts of development

17. 152 New developments have the potential to generate a considerable number of vehicular and pedestrian trips which in turn has can have both a direct and cumulative impacts on the transport network. Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, developed in accordance with KCC guidance, will be expected to accompany all planning applications for new developments that reach the required threshold. Improvements to public transport, walking, cycling and highway infrastructure may be required to mitigate these identified impacts need to be in place to ensure the increase in trips generated will not lead to severe residual an unacceptable level of transport impacts. To further minimise these impacts, measures and initiatives must be incorporated into the design of development to minimise vehicular trip generation. Where appropriate , new development proposals will also be expected to enter into legal agreements to secure the delivery of mitigation to address both their direct and cumulative impacts on the transport network. The council will also seek to secure Construction Management Plans to minimise impacts from new developments during

39

construction.

[MM53 ] [MM number not used] [unused]

MM54 Policy PC/115 Amend DM2 84(2) to read: To ensure consistency DM284 with national policy. Renewable 2. The landscape and visual impact of development, with particular regard to any impact development within the on, and Low or the setting of, the Kent Downs AONB or its setting or the setting of the High Weald AONB. Carbon Energy Schemes MM55 Policy PC/120; Amend para 19.1 as follows: To ensure consistency DM34 ED 026 Policy SP17 sets out the type of development which would be acceptably located within the borough’s countryside. The with national policy DM30 local plan seeks high quality designs in all types of development but policy DM34 sets out additional principles to and the achievement Design ensure high quality designs are realised in the borough’s countryside. of sustainable Principles development. in the The achievement of high quality design in all developments is important. In addition to the requirements of policy Countrysid SP17, where development is proposed in the countryside the design principles set out in policy DM30 must be met. e and supporting Policy DM34 DM30 text Design principles in the countryside

Outside of the settlement boundaries as defined on the policies map, proposals which would create high quality design, satisfy the requirements of other policies in this plan and meet the following criteria will be permitted:

Where proposals meet criterion 1, development in the countryside will be permitted if:

1 The type, siting, materials and design, mass and scale of development and the level of activity would maintain, or where possible, enhance local distinctiveness including landscape features;

2 Impacts on the appearance and character of the landscape would be appropriately mitigated. Suitability and required mitigation will be assessed through the submission of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments to support development proposals in appropriate circumstances;

1. Conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Kent Downs AONB and its setting;

2. Outside of the Kent Downs AONB, not result in harm to the identified landscapes of local value, landscapes which have been shown to have a low capacity to accommodate change, and in all other locations respect the landscape character of the locality;

3. Outside the Kent Downs AONB, not result in harm to landscape of highest value and respect the landscape character of the locality;

3. Proposals would not result in unacceptable traffic levels on nearby roads; unsympathetic change to the character of a rural lane which is of landscape, amenity, nature conservation, or historic or archaeological importance or the erosion of roadside verges;

40

4. Where built development is proposed, there would be no existing building or structure suitable for conversion or re - use to provide the required facilities. Any new buildings should, where practicable, be located adjacent to existing buildings or be unobtrusively located and well screened by existing or proposed vegetation which reflect the landscape character of the area; and

5. Where an extension or alteration to an existing building is proposed, it would be of a scale which relates sympathetically to the existing building and the rural area; respect local building styles and materials; have no significant adverse impact on the form, appearance or setting of the building, and would respect the architectural and historic integrity of any adjoining building or group of buildings of which it forms part.

Account should be taken of the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan and the Maidstone Borough Landscape Character Guidelines SPD. MM56 DM 41 37 PC/97; Amend Policy DM 41 37 to read: To ensure the policy Expansion Action is effective. of existing 11.10 Expansion of existing businesses in rural areas businesses in rural Where significant adverse impacts on the rural environment and amenity would result from expansion, rural areas businesses requiring expanded premises should look to relocate to one of the Economic Development Areas identified in policy DM21 or to a site within Maidstone urban area or one of the rural service centres. Where it is demonstrated that there would be no significant adverse impacts on the rural environment or amenity or that relocation cannot be achieved, the expansion of existing industrial or business enterprises which are currently located outside of the settlement boundaries as defined on the policies map will be permitted where:

1. Planning permission will be granted for the sustainable growth and expansion of rural businesses in the rural area where:

1. There is no significant increase in the site area of the enterprise. Minor increases and rounding off the existing site will be acceptable; 2. There is no significant addition of new buildings.

(i) New buildings may be permitted, provided they are small in scale and provided the resultant development as a whole is appropriate in scale for the location and can be satisfactorily integrated into the local landscape; 3. (ii) The increase in floorspace would not result in unacceptable traffic levels on nearby roads or a significant increase in use of an existing substandard access; 4. (iii) The new development, together with the existing facilities, will not result in an unacceptable loss in the amenity of the area. In particular the impact on nearby properties and the appearance of the development from public roads will be of importance; and 5. (iv) The No open storage of materials will be permitted unless can be adequately screened from public view throughout the year.

2. Where significant adverse impacts on the rural environment and amenity would result from expansion, rural businesses requiring expanded premises should look to relocate to one of the Economic Development Areas identified in policy SP22 or to a site within Maidstone urban area or one of the rural service centres. MM57 New Policy PC/131 Addition of a new policy as follows: Changes required to DM4 ensure that the Local Developm Policy DM 4 – Development affecting designated and non-designated heritage assets Plan is positively ent prepared and affecting The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides specific protection for buildings and areas of justified, and to designate special architectural or historic interest. When making a decision concerning a listed building or its setting, the Council provide a positive d and must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special strategy for the non- architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The Act also places the duty on the Council in making its decisions historic environment designate to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation to ensure consistency

41

d heritage areas in the borough. with national policy. assets The local plan allows some flexibility for the re-use and conversion of historic assets but care must be taken to ensure this does not lead to unacceptable adverse impacts. Small scale changes over time, especially the standardisation of building materials and practices, can erode the special character and appearance of places, and the setting of historic features such as listed buildings and scheduled monuments, which can be crucial in maintaining historic integrity.

Policy DM1 provides clear guidelines about the need for development to be planned and designed in a manner which appropriately responds to its historic context and, where possible, positively enhances the historic character of the locality. Character analysis is provided in supporting documents such as the Conservation Area management plans, the Landscape Character Assessment and the specific character area assessment SPDs.

Where development is proposed for a site which includes or has the potential to impact on heritage assets, developers must submit an appropriate heritage assessment which analyses the direct and indirect effects of development on those assets. Significance can be defined in this context as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest which may be historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic. Significance derives not only from the heritage asset’s physical presence but also from its setting.

In the determination of planning applications, the relevant assessment factors, including weighting of potential harm against wider benefits of the development, is set out in detail in the Framework paragraphs 131 to 135 (or as superseded).

Policy DM 4 - Development affecting designated and non-designated heritage assets

1. Applicants will be expected to ensure that new development affecting a heritage asset incorporates measures to conserve , and where possible enhance, the significance of the heritage asset and, where appropriate, its setting;

2. Where appropriate, development proposals will be expected to respond to the value of the historic environment by the means of a proportionate Heritage Assessment which assesses and takes full account of; i. any heritage assets, and their settings, which could reasonably be impacted by the proposals; ii. the significance of the assets; and iii. the scale of the impact of development on the identified significance.

3. Where development is proposed for a site which includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, applicants must submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.

4. The Council will apply the relevant tests and assessment factors specified in the Framework when determining applications for development which would result in the loss of, or harm to, the significance of a heritage asset and/or its setting.

5. In the circumstances where the loss of a heritage asset is robustly justified, developers must make the information about the asset and its significance available for incorporation into the Historic Environment Record . MM58 Policy ID1 PC/57; Amend Policy ID1 (2) third sentence to read: To ensure the policy Infrastruct PC/58 is positively prepared ure (as Dedicated Planning Agreements (S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990) will be used to provide the a in respect of Delivery amende range of site specific facilities mitigation , in accordance with the S106 tests , which will normally be provided on-site infrastructure d by but may where appropriate be provided in an off-site location or via an in-lieu financial contribution. requirements. PC/137) Additional criterion to read: Infrastructure schemes that are brought forward by service providers will be encouraged and supported, where they

42

are in accordance with other p olicies in the local plan. New residential and commercial development will be supported if sufficient infrastructure capacity is either available or can be provided in time to serve it.

Insert additional paragraph to ID1 to state:

“In order to reflect National Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 107, and also overcome the constraints imposed via the use of S106 agreements and/or Community Infrastructure Levy, normally S278 agreements under the Highways Act 1980 will be used to secure any necessary mitigation in connection with the Strategic Road Network.” Monitoring Inspect Replace the Monitoring and Local Plan performance targets section of the submission Local Plan (paragraphs 21.1 – To ensure that the MM59 and or’s 21.25 inclusive) with the following: Local Plan is effective Review Agenda by monitoring the to Monitoring application of its Hearing policies. Session 21.1. Local plan policies will deliver sustainable growth to meet housing, employment and other identified needs and 15 associated infrastructure in a way which also aims to conserve the borough's built and natural heritage.

21.2. An effective and proportionate monitoring framework is essential to ensure that the plan delivers the amount and type of development that is required, in the right place and at the right time, and also that any risks to the plan’s delivery are highlighted promptly so that correcting action can be implemented in good time.

21.3. In developing the local plan allocations and policies, the council has been aware of the risks to delivery and has sought to mitigate these through: a dispersed development strategy which allows a range of landowners and developers the opportunity to contribute to development in the borough; the promotion of sites which are known to be available; and understanding viability and operating a positive and flexible approach where it can be demonstrated that viability would hamper delivery.

21.4. The results of monitoring will enable the council to understand the progress being made towards the local plan’s key objectives. A comprehensive monitoring framework is set out on the following pages. This identifies targets for key policies in the plan, specific triggers which would indicate that targets may not be met and, in such circumstances, the actions to be taken in response. A number of contextual indicators are also included which, whilst not linked directly to the application of the Local Plan’s policies, will provide helpful understanding of broader trends at play in the borough.

21.5. The outcomes of monitoring against the identified targets will be reported annually in the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR).

Topics

21.6. The overall performance of the plan’s policies will be monitored through review of appeal decisions and of applications granted as a departure from the Local Plan.

21.7. Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s desire to "boost significantly the supply of housing" and hence there must be a strong focus on housing delivery in the monitoring framework. The council will monitor delivery of past and anticipated future housing delivery including its housing trajectory and its 5 year supply position as well as its supply of pitches to meet its need for Gypsy and Traveller

43

accommodation.

21.8. Given its aspirations for growth, the council will also monitor the delivery of employment and retail opportunities including by measuring the net additional floorspace created either by new construction or change of use.

21.9. Key supporting infrastructure requirements are set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which also indicates potential funding sources for each project. It is vital to monitor delivery of identified schemes to ensure that the specific mitigation needed to support the plan’s growth is coming forward during the plan period.

21.10.In addition to the above there are a variety of further monitoring indicators addressing the full scope of the Local Plan.

Local Plan Performance Targets

Indicator No. Indicator Target Trigger Action Policy

General/Whole Plan

M1 Number and [no specific Analysis of departures Consider the need Whole nature of target] reveals a significant for changes to the Plan departures from trend/issue in the nature Local Plan as part the Local Plan of departures obtaining of a Local Plan granted consent consent Review. per year

M2 Appeals lost [no specific Analysis of appeal Consider the need Whole against Local target] decisions reveals a for changes to the Plan Plan policy per significant policy Local Plan as part year omission/issue of a Local Plan Review

M3 Successful Timely Annual update of the IDP Identify actions ID1 delivery of the delivery of identifies risks to the which would schemes in the the critical delivery of overcome barriers Infrastructure and essential critical/essential to delivery of the Delivery Plan schemes schemes; including infrastructure. (IDP) required to identified in • Risk of a shortfall support the the IDP in funding Consider the need development in • Risk to the timing for a review of the the Local Plan IDP of delivery funded through CIL, developer

contributions, New Homes Bonus and other funding sources.

Housing

M4 Progress on Timely Persistent shortfall in Review H1

44

allocated housing delivery of annual completions on deliverability of RMX1 sites per annum. allocated allocated sites compared housing sites and sites with target rates in the address barriers to trajectory delivery including bringing sites contained within the long term trajectory forward, where necessary.

M5 Predicted The target is A 5 year housing land Review SS1 housing delivery the supply cannot be deliverability of in next 5 years cumulative demonstrated taking into housing sites and (including NPPF housing account previous delivery broad locations (as buffer) target for and future targets appropriate), that 5 year including bringing period sites contained within the long term trajectory forward.

Consider need for call for sites.

M6 Housing The target is A supply of housing Consider need for SS1 trajectory: the cannot be demonstrated review of housing Predicted annualised for the remaining plan land supply housing delivery cumulative period in next 15 years housing target for that 15 year period.

M7 Windfalls: Number of Windfalls over phasing Reconsider windfall SS1 delivery of completions period (3-5 years) allowance element housing on corresponds deviate significantly from of housing unidentified sites with windfall the windfall allowance. trajectory and its allowance. contribution to Windfalls deviate overall housing Location of significantly from the land supply. all types of spatial strategy over windfalls Consider whether phasing period (3-5 corresponds policy changes are with spatial years) required to bring strategy. about greater

consistency and limit greenfield development as part of the review of the Local Plan.

M8 Prior Notification The number Completions over a Reconsider this SS1 office to of phasing period (3- element of the residential completions 5years) deviate housing trajectory conversions in corresponds significantly from the and its contribution the town centre with the allowance made in the to overall housing allowance trajectory land supply

45

made in the trajectory.

M9 Number of Number of Sustained low delivery of Review approach SP19 entries on the self-build self-build plots over a towards self-build self-build plots phasing period (3-5 plot provision, register. consented years) compared with including with over a registered interest. Registered Number of plots phasing Providers and for self-build period (3-5 housebuilders. units consented years) corresponds per annum to the borough-

specific interest on the self-build register.

M10 Number of Mix of Sustained and significant Review SP19 dwellings of dwellings mismatch in the dwelling interpretation of different sizes consented mix consented compared Policy SP19 (measured by corresponds with that outlined in the number of to the SHMA over a phasing Work with bedrooms) dwelling size period (3-5 years). housebuilders to consented per mix outlined identify and annum in the SHMA. address the mismatch.

M11 Number and Number and Affordable housing Work with SP20 tenure of tenure of delivery over phasing Registered affordable homes affordable period (3-5 years) falls Providers to secure delivered homes significantly below greater delivery or (including starter completed/co annual requirement change to tenure homes) nsented per of delivery annum Tenure of affordable matches housing delivered over policy phasing period (3-5 Promote council requirement years) deviates owned sites for significantly from affordable housing. indicative policy target Review interpretation of approach regarding off-site contributions.

M12 Affordable SP20 Proportion of affordable Review approach SP20 housing as a percentage housing delivered in the towards affordable proportion of requirements respective geographical housing provision, overall housing achieved on areas over phasing including with delivery in all qualifying period (3-5 years) Registered qualifying development deviates significantly Providers geographical s in from indicative policy areas consented/ geographical targets completed areas.

46

relative to Policy SP20 requirements.

M13 Density of Achievement Evidence of a trend in Consider the need DM12 housing of overall net achieved net densities for a review of H1 development in housing significantly above/below housing land Policies DM12, densities the rates specified in supply (trajectory) H1 specified in Policy DM12, H1 Policy DM12 Consider the need in/adjacent to revise indicative to the town densities as part of centre, a Local Plan urban area, Review Rural Service Centres and Larger Villages.

M14 Number of Net number Evidence of policy not Liaise with DM14 nursing and care of being effective in providers to homes delivered nursing/care delivering additional identify barriers to home places places including: delivery completed/ • low numbers of consented places over 5 year consented/comple period ted relative to matches requirement identified needs • (including significant any backlog) number of refused applications

M15 Number of [no specific [no specific trigger] [no specific action] applications on target] the Housing Register This is a contextual indicator to monitor wider changes in social housing demand.

M16 Number of [no specific [no specific trigger] [no specific action] homeless target] households in the borough This is a contextual indicator to monitor wider changes in social

47

housing demand.

M17 House price: [no specific [no specific trigger] [no specific action] earnings ratio target]

This is a contextual indicator to monitor wider changes in the local housing market.

Employment

M18 Total amount of Net increase Evidence of persistent Identify if barriers SS1 B class in B class under provision of to delivery can be employment floorspace employment land and/or overcome e.g. floorspace sufficient to Local Plan sites not though the consented/compl meet meeting the economy’s Development eted by type per identified requirements including: Management annum needs by • Slow/no delivery process, including 2031 of allocated sites resolving specific • Significant B class site constraints

land supply on Consider the need windfall sites in for changes to the addition to and/or employment land in preference to strategy as part of the the Local Plan allocations/EDAs review • Significant non B class floorspace being delivered on allocated sites/EDAs • Overall delivery falling short of identified requirements

M19 Amount of B Net increase As above As above SP22 class floorspace in B class by type floorspace consented/compl within EDAs eted within Economic Development Areas per annum

48

M20 Amount of B Timely As above As above SS1 Class floorspace delivery of EMP1 by type allocated RMX1 consented/compl sites eted on allocated sites per annum

M21 Amount of No net loss As above As above SP22 land/floorspace of EMP1 within Economic employment Development (B1, B2 and Areas and B8) allocated sites floorspace and elsewhere within EDAs lost to non B and allocated class uses sites and elsewhere

M22 Percentage [no specific [no specific trigger] [no specific action] unemployment target] rate This is a contextual indicator to monitor wider changes in the local economy.

M23 Number of jobs [no specific [no specific trigger] [no specific action] in the borough target]

This is a contextual indicator to monitor wider changes in the local economy.

Retail

M24 Amount of Net increase Evidence of Local Plan Identify if barriers SS1 additional in policies and/or sites not to delivery can be comparison and convenience meeting the identified overcome e.g. convenience and need for additional retail though the retail floorspace comparison floorspace, including: Development consented/compl floorspace • Slow/no delivery Management eted per annum sufficient to of allocated sites process, including keep pace • Significant retail resolving specific with site constraints. floorspace being identified needs and in delivered on Consider the need appropriate sequentially less for changes to the locations up preferable sites in retail

49

to 2031 addition to/in allocations/policies preference to as part of the Local allocations Plan review • Pipeline supply of convenience/ comparison floorspace falling significantly below the forecast requirement over phasing period (5 years)

M25 Amount of Timely As above As above SS1 convenience and delivery of RMX1 comparison retail allocated floorspace sites consented/compl eted on allocated sites per annum.

M26 Proportion of All 8 Primary Individual frontages Consider the need DM27 non-A1 uses in shopping falling significantly below for changes to the primary shopping frontages 85% of A1 retail policies as frontages contain at or part of a review of above 85% And/or the Local Plan A1. Significant number (e.g. 4 of the 8 frontages) fall below 85 %;

Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople accommodation

M27 Annual delivery Net increase The number of Consider the need SS1 of permanent in permanent permanent pitches/plots for changes to the GT1 pitches/plots pitches/plots consents granted Local Plan DM15 (allocated and sufficient to significantly above or allocations and/or unidentified keep pace below identified needs revising the sites) with over phasing period (5 allocation policies identified years) as part of a review needs up to of the Local Plan 2031

M28 Delivery of Timely Evidence of Local Plan Consider the need SS1 permanent delivery of sites not meeting the for changes to the GT1 pitches on allocated identified need for Local Plan allocated sites sites additional Gypsy and allocations and/or Traveller pitches revising the including: allocation policies • low/no delivery of as part of a review allocated sites of the Local Plan • Significant number of pitches permitted on

50

unidentified sites in addition to/in preference to allocations

M29 Five year supply Five year No confirmed five year The lack of a 5 SS1 position supply of supply of Gypsy pitches. year land supply Gypsy will be a significant pitches in consideration in place. planning decisions when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission

M30 Number of [no specific [no specific trigger] [no specific action] caravans target] recorded in the bi-annual This is a caravan count contextual indicator to provide a snap shot of Gypsy provision in the borough.

Heritage

M31 Number of and No loss of Analysis of the relevant Review reasons for DM4 nature of cases designated consents shows a loss of loss to ensure resulting in a heritage designated heritage correct application loss of assets over assets over the of Local Plan designated the monitoring period as a policies. heritage asset as monitoring result of development a result of period as a development result of development

M32 Change in the Decrease in Sustained increase in the Review approach SP18 number of the number number of entries from towards entries on of entries 2016 baseline interventions, Historic from 2016 including with England’s baseline potential Heritage at Risk stakeholders and register landowners

Natural Environment - Biodiversity

M33 Loss of No loss of Analysis of the relevant Review reasons for DM3 designated designated consents shows a loss of loss to ensure wildlife sites as a wildlife sites designated wildlife sites correct application result of as a result of over the monitoring of Local Plan development development period as a result of policies (hectares) (hectares) development

51

M34 Loss of Ancient No loss of Analysis of the relevant Review reasons for DM3 Woodland as a Ancient consents shows a loss of loss to ensure result of Woodland as Ancient Woodland over correct application development a result of the monitoring period as of Local Plan (hectares) development a result of development policies (hectares)

Agricultural Land

M35 Loss of the best No overall Analysis of the relevant Review whether a and most loss of the consents shows a specific change of versatile best and significant overall approach is needed agricultural land most reduction in the amount through the as a result of versatile of the best agricultural development development agricultural land over the monitoring management (hectares) land as a period as a result of process and/or at a result of consents for major review of the Local consented development on non- Plan. development allocated sites on non- allocated sites (major applications only)

Good Design and Sustainable Design

M36 Number of No qualifying Analysis of the relevant Review reasons for DM2 qualifying development consents shows that failure to comply, developments s fail to qualifying developments to ensure correct failing to provide provide are failing to comply with application of Local BREEAM very BREEAM very the terms of Policy DM2. Plan policies. good standards good for water and standards for energy credits water and energy credits over the monitoring period

M37 Completed No sustained Analysis of review Review the DM1 developments failure in the outcomes reveals a application of performing well application of sustained failure in the Policy DM1 in the in design Policy DM1 application of Policy DM1 development reviews. identified over a phasing period (3 management through the – 5 years) process. design reviews undertaken during a phasing period (3 – 5 years)

52

Open space

M38 Loss of No loss of Analysis of the relevant Review reasons for DM19 designated open designated consents shows a loss of loss to ensure space as a result open space designated open space correct application of development as a result of over the monitoring of Local Plan (hectares) development period as a result of policies. (hectares) development

M39 Delivery of open Open space Open space allocations Review reasons for OS1 space allocations allocations are not delivered as part failure to comply, delivered as of the planning consent to ensure correct part of the for associated housing application of Local planning development Plan policies. consent for associated housing development

M40 Delivery of new Delivery of Open space Review reasons for DM19 or improvements new or improvements and new failure to comply, H1 to existing improvement open space is not to ensure correct designated open s to existing delivered in accordance application of Local space in designated with DM19 and, where Plan policies. association with open space appropriate, Policy H1. housing and in mixed use accordance developments with Policy DM19 and, where appropriate, Policy H1.

Air Quality

M41 Progress in Improvemen Evidence of worsening Review reasons for SP23, DM6 achieving t in air situation in respect of air loss to ensure DM21 compliance with quality at quality at exceedance correct application EU identified areas and/or elsewhere of LP policies. Directive/nationa exceedance within the AQMA. Identify if barriers l regulatory areas to improving air requirements for measured quality can be air quality within from the overcome e.g. the AQMA 2011 baseline and though the from Development previous Management year. New process, including “existing” resolving specific baseline to site constraints; also be established. Consider the need for updates to the Air Quality Action Plan and/or policies for sustainable

53

transport and air quality as part of a review of the Local Plan.

M42 Applications All Applications being Consider need for DM6 accompanied by applications refused due to non- production of local an Air Quality demonstrate compliance with Policy planning guidance Impact compliance DM6 to provide further Assessment with Policy detail on the (AQIA) which DM6 delivery and demonstrate that requirements implementation of the air quality . DM6. impacts of Consider the need development will for updates to the be mitigated to Air Quality Action acceptable Plan and/or policies levels. for sustainable transport and air quality as part of a review of the Local Plan.

Infrastructure

M43 Planning Developer Analysis reveals that Identify reasons ID1 obligations – contributions significant deviations for deviation and contribution accord with from contribution consider the need prioritisation the prioritisation are to review the (Policy ID1(4)) prioritisation occurring approach where appropriate over the monitoring year.

M44 Planning Developer Analysis reveals that Identify reasons ID1 obligations – contributions contributions are not for non- number of are achieved being made in a contributions and relevant where needs significant proportion of consider the need developments generated by cases despite the to review the with planning the identification of needs approach and/or obligations development arising viability evidence are identified.

M45 Delivery of All Analysis reveals that Identify reasons ID1 infrastructure measure/fina measures secured for non-delivery SP1- through planning ncial through planning and consider the SP16, SP23, obligations/condi contributions obligations/conditions need to review to DM6 tions secured are not being delivered review the through approach and/or planning viability evidence obligations/c onditions are delivered/sp ent.

54

M46 Introduction of CIL Delay to timetable Reconsideration of ID1 CIL introduced CIL’s introduction by Autumn and/or and/or timing 2017 Government changes to CIL framework

Transport

M47 Identified Timely Identification of risks to Identify measures H1 transport delivery of the implementation of to overcome H2 improvements the identified required schemes barriers to RMX1 associated with transport including delivery. EMP1 Local Plan site improvement • delivery delay allocations s associated • potential funding Consider the need with Local shortfall to review the ITS Plan site allocations M48 Sustainable Timely Failure to identify specific Consider the need SP23, DM21 transport delivery of measures to accord with to review the ITS measures to sustainable Policy DM21 (2). support the transport growth identified improvement Failure to deliver the in the Local Plan s to support specific measures and as set out in the growth identified. the Integrated identified in Transport the Local Failure to achieve targets Strategy (ITS) Plan. in paragraph 9.2 of the and the Walking ITS & Cycling Achievement Strategy of the

targets set out in paragraph 9.2 of the ITS.

M49 Provision of All qualifying Analysis reveals a Identify reasons SP23, DM21 Travel Plans for development significant number of for non-provision appropriate to provide a qualifying developments and consider the development satisfactory failing to provide an need to review the Travel Plan. adequate Travel Plan. approach

M50 Achievement of [no specific [no specific trigger] [no specific action] modal shift target] through:

55

• No significant This is a worsening of contextual congestion as indicator to monitor a result of modal shift. development • Reduced long stay town centre car park usage • Improved ratio between car parking costs and bus fares

Monitoring PC/84 To ensure consistency MM60 and Amend paragraphs 21.26 to 21.30 to read as follows: with national policy, Review Review of the Local Plan and that the plan is positively prepared, 21.26 It is important to ensure that an up-to-date planning policy framework is maintained to help meet identified effective and justified. need and coordinate well planned development and supporting infrastructure.

21.27 The council is confident that the Local Plan can deliver the substantial growth required to meet objectively assessed need over the plan period. Existing planning consents and development interest and activity clearly demonstrate that substantial development will be delivered in the earlier parts of the plan period. Allocations in the local plan offer a degree of certainty to developers and a dispersed approach to site allocations allows a range of landowners and developers the opportunity to contribute to development in the borough. When considering proposals, the Borough Council takes a positive approach to sustainable development which reflects the NPPF. The local plan seeks a number of benefits from development but retains a flexible approach where it can be demonstrated that viability would hamper delivery.

21.28 To ensure the Plan continues to be up to date, a first review of the Local Plan will be adopted by the target date of April 2021. This review process will enable key pieces of evidence to be updated and any consequent changes to aspects of the Plan to be made as a result. Matters which this first review may need to consider include an updated assessment of housing needs and the need to make specific housing site allocations, including at the Lenham and Invicta Barracks broad locations. An updated understanding of employment land needs may also be merited, in particular the need for new office floorspace, and additional land allocations could be required as a result. Transport measures may also need to form part of the review including the case for the Leeds-Langley Relief Road and alternatives to it, as well as other sustainable transport measures. The review may also be the opportunity to reconsider progress with the Syngenta and Baltic Wharf sites. It is likely to be prudent to extend the plan period as part of the review process.

21.28 Progress in delivery into the longer term will depend on a number of factors, including national and international economic and environmental factors. Similarly, the need for development and the planning policy context may shift as the longer term is reached.

21.29 The council will monitor policies in the plan annually following its adoption using this framework. Monitoring of the key local plan targets will indicate if there is a need to amend the approach in parts of the plan.

56

21.30 For these reason s, the council considers it prudent to commence a review the plan, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and its supporting evidence in a timely manner and a review of the local plan will commence in 2022.

Policy LPR1

The Council will undertake a first review of the Local Plan. The matters which the first review may need to address include;

a) A review of housing needs; b) The allocation of land at the Invicta Barracks Broad Location and at the Lenham Broad Location if the latter hasn’t been achieved through a Lenham neighbourhood plan in the interim; c) Identification of additional housing land to maintain supply towards the end of the Plan period and, if required as a result, consideration of whether the spatial strategy needs to be amended to accommodate such development; d) A review of employment land provision and how to accommodate any additional employment land needed as a result; e) Whether the case for a Leeds-Langley Relief Road is made, how it could be funded and whether additional development would be associated with the road; f) Alternatives to such a relief road; g) The need for further sustainable transport measures aimed at encouraging modal shift to reduce congestion and air pollution; h) Reconsideration of the approach to the Syngenta and Baltic Wharf sites if these have not been resolved in the interim; and i) Extension of the Plan period.

The target adoption date for the review of the Local Plan is April 2021.

Restructur PC/118; As set out in examination document ED12 (subsequently renumbered again for inclusion of new policies DM 4 and To ensure MM61 ing of SP18: consistency with Chapters national policy, and to in the Plan Amend chapters of the submitted plan; amalgamate Chapters 4,5,6,8,9,11,13,15, and 20 to be called Chapter 4 clarify the relationship ‘Strategic Policies’; between local and neighbourhood plans. Amend chapters of the submitted plan; amalgamate Chapters 7,10,12,14 and 16 to be called Chapter 5 ‘Strategic Site Policies’.

Rename Policy DM11 as Policy SP18 19 and remove from Chapter 17 and add to new Chapter 4 'Strategic Policies'; Rename Policy DM13 as Policy SP19 20 and remove fr om Chapter 17 and add to new Chapter 4 'Strategic Policies'; Rename Policy DM20 as Policy SP20 21 and remove from Chapter 17 and add to new Chapter 4 'Strategic Policies'; Rename Policy DM21 as Policy SP21 22 and remove from Chapter 17 and add to new Chapter 4 'Strategic Policies'; Rename Policy DM24 as Policy SP22 23 - retain criteria 1) and 2) and merge with DM25 criterion 1) to form a new Strategic Policy in Chapter 4 'Strategic Policies'; Remove Policy DM24 criterion 3) and merge with Policy DM25 criterion 2) - renumber as Policy DM24 'Sustainable Transport'; Consequently delete reference to Policy DM25. Move Policy ID1 to the new Chapter 4 'Strategic Policies'.

Amend paragraph 2.5:

Neighbourhood development plans, which are also called neighbourhood plans, are being prepared by a number of parish councils and neighbourhood forums. A neighbourhood plan attains the same legal status as the local plan once it has been agreed at a referendum and is made (brought into legal force) by the Borough Council. At this point it becomes part of the statutory development plan. Government advises that a neighbourhood plan should support the

57 strategic deve lopment needs set out in the local plan and plan positively to support local development. Neighbourhood plans must be prepared in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the adopted Maidstone Borough Local Plan (Policies SP1 to SP23; H1, H2, OS1, GT1, RMX1, EMP1 and ID1 as well as Strategic Site Policies H1(1) – (66), GT1(1) – (16), H2(1) – (3), RMX1(1) – (5) and EMP1(1) – (4)). Whilst general conformity to an emerging local plan is not a legal requirement, the reasoning and evidence informing the local plan process may be relevant to the consideration of the basic conditions against which a neighbourhood plan is tested. Where neighbourhood planning has been undertaken before an up-to-date local plan is in place, the council has taken an active role in advising and supporting the local neighbourhood plan team, sharing evidence and information.

To reflect Foreword………………………………………………………………………………………...xx amendments to the 1. Introduction to Maidstone Borough Local Plan……………………………………….…xx structure of the Local Plan. 2. Key Influences ...... xx National policy and guidance………………………………………………………………xx Local plans and strategies ...... xx The evidence base ...... xx Sustainability appraisal and habitat regulations assessment ...... xx Duty to Cooperate ...... xx Test of soundness ...... xx 3. Spatial portrait ...... xx Spatial portrait ...... xx Key local issues ...... xx Spatial vision and objectives ...... xx 4. Spatial Strategy Strategic Policies ...... xx Policy SS1 Maidstone borough spatial strategy ...... xx Key Diagram ...... xx Policy SP1 Maidstone urban area ...... xx Policy SP2 Maidstone urban area: north west strategic development location ...... xx Policy SP3 Maidstone urban area: south east strategic development location ...... xx Policy SP4 Maidstone town centre ...... xx Policy SP5 Rural Service Centres ...... xx Policy SP6 Harrietsham Rural Service Centre ...... xx Policy SP7 Headcorn Rural Service Centre ...... xx Policy SP8 Lenham Rural Service Centre ...... xx Policy SP9 Marden Rural Service Centre ...... xx Policy SP10 Staplehurst Rural Service Centre ...... xx Policy SP11 Larger Villages ...... xx Policy SP12 Boughton Monchelsea Larger Village ...... xx Policy SP13 Coxheath Larger Village ...... xx Policy SP14 Eyhorne Street (Hollingbourne) Larger Village ...... xx Policy SP15 Sutton Valence Larger Village ...... xx Policy SP16 Yalding Larger Village ...... xx Policy SP17 Countryside ...... xx Policy SP18 Historic environment ...... xx Policy DM11 SP19 Housing mix ...... xx Policy DM13 SP20 Affordable housing ...... xx Policy DM20 SP21 Economic development ...... xx Policy DM21 SP22 Retention of employment sites ...... xx Policy DM24 SP23 Sustainable transport ...... xx Policy H1 Housing site allocations ...... xx Policy H2 Broad locations for housing growth ...... xx

58

Policy OS1 Open space allocations ...... xx Policy GT1 Gypsy and Traveller site allocations ...... xx Policy RMX1 Retail and mixed use site allocations ...... xx Policy EMP1 Employment site allocations ...... xx Policy ID1 Infrastructure delivery ...... xx 5. Spatial Policies Strategic Site Policies ...... xx Detailed site allocation policies for housing ...... xx Policy H1(1) Bridge Nursery, London Road, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(2) East of Hermitage Lane, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(3) West of Hermitage Lane, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(4) Oakapple Lane, Barming ...... xx Policy H1(5) Langley Park, Sutton Road, Boughton Monchelsea ...... xx Policy H1(6) North of Sutton Road, Otham ...... xx Policy H1(7) North of Bicknor Wood, Gore Court Road, Otham ...... xx Policy H1(8) West of Church Road, Otham ...... xx Policy H1(9) Bicknor Farm, Sutton Road, Otham ...... xx Policy H1(10) South of Sutton Road, Langley ...... xx Policy H1(11) Springfield, Royal Engineers Road and Mill Lane, Maidstone ... xx Policy H1(12) 180-188 Union Street, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(13) Medway Street, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(14) American Golf, Tonbridge Road, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(15) 6 Tonbridge Road, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(16) Slencrest House, 3 Tonbridge Road, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(17) Laguna, Hart Street, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(18) Dunning Hall (off Fremlin Walk, Week Street, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(19) 18-21 Foster Street, Maidstone...... xx Policy H1(20) Wren’s Cross, Upper Stone Street, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(21) Barty Farm, Roundwell, Thurnham ...... xx Policy H1(22) Whitmore Street, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(23) North Street, Barming ...... xx Policy H1 (24) Postley Road, Tovil ...... xx Policy H1(25) Bridge Industrial Centre, Wharf Road, Tovil ...... xx Policy H1(26) Tovil Working Men’s Club, Tovil Hill, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(27) Kent Police HQ, Sutton Road, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(28) Kent Police training school, Sutton Road, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(29) New Line Learning, Boughton Lane, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(30) (29) West of Eclipse, Maidstone ...... xx Policy H1(31) 30) Bearsted Station goods yard, Bearsted ...... xx Policy H1(32) (31) Cross Keys, Bearsted ...... xx Policy H1(33) (32) South of Ashford Road, Harrietsham ...... xx Policy H1(34) (33) Mayfield Nursery, Ashford Road, Harrietsham ...... xx Policy H1(35) (34) Church Road, Harrietsham ...... xx Policy H1(36) (35) Old School Nursery, Station Road, Headcorn ...... xx Policy H1(37) (36) Ulcombe Road and Mill Bank, Headcorn ...... xx Policy H1(38) (37) Grigg Lane and Lenham Road, Headcorn ...... xx Policy H1(39) (38) South of Grigg Lane, Headcorn ...... xx Policy H1(40) (39) Knaves Acre, Headcorn ...... xx Policy H1(41) (40) North of Lenham Road, Headcorn ...... xx Policy H1(42) (41) Tanyard Farm, Old Ashford Road, Lenham ...... xx Policy H1(43) (42) Glebe Gardens, Lenham ...... xx Policy H1(44) (43) Howland Road, Marden ...... xx Policy H1(45) (44) Stanley Farm, Plain Road, Marden ...... xx Policy H1(46) (45) The Parsonage, Goudhurst Road, Marden ...... xx Policy H1(47) (46) Marden Cricket and Hockey Club, Stanley Road, Marden . xx

59

Policy H1(48) (47) South of the Parsonage, Goudhurst Road, Marden ...... xx Policy H1(49) (48) Hen and Duckhurst Farm, Marden Road, Staplehurst ...... xx Policy H1(50) (49) Fishers Farm, Fishers Road, Staplehurst ...... xx Policy H1(51) (50) North of Henhurst Farm, Staplehurst ...... xx Policy H1(52) (51) Hubbards Lane and Haste Hill Road, Loose ...... xx Policy H1(53) Boughton Lane, Boughton Monchelsea and Loose ...... xx Policy H1(54) (52) Boughton Mount, Boughton Lane, Boughton Monchelsea . xx Policy H1(55) (53) Junction of Church Street and Heath Road, Boughton Monchelsea xx Policy H1(56) (54) Lyewood Farm, Green Lane, Boughton Monchelsea ...... xx Policy H1(57) (55) Hubbards Lane, Loose ...... xx Policy H1(58) (56) Linden Farm, Stockett Lane, Coxheath...... xx Policy H1(59) (57) Heathfield, Heath Road, Coxheath ...... xx Policy H1(60) (58) Forstal Lane, Coxheath ...... xx Policy H1(61) (59) North of Heath Road (Older’s Field), Coxheath ...... xx Policy H1(62) (60) Clockhouse Farm, Heath Road, Coxheath ...... xx Policy H1(63) (61) East of Eyhorne Street, Eyhorne Street, Hollingbourne ..... xx Policy H1(64) (62) West of Eyhorne Street, Eyhorne Street, Hollingbourne .... xx Policy H1(65) (63) Adjacent to the The Windmill PH, Eyhorne Street, Hollingbourne xx Policy H1(66) (64) Brandy’s Bay, South Lane, Sutton Valence ...... xx Policy H1(67) (65) Vicarage Road, Yalding ...... xx Policy H1(68) (66) Bentletts Yard, Claygate Road, Laddingford ...... xx Detailed policies for broad locations for housing growth ...... xx Policy H2(1) Maidstone town centre ...... xx Policy H2(2) Invicta Park Barracks, Maidstone...... xx Policy H1(3) Lenham ...... xx Detailed site allocations for Gypsy and traveler accommodation ...... xx Policy GT1(1) The Kays, Heath Road, Linton ...... xx Policy GT1(2) Greenacres (Plot 5), Church Lane, Boughton Monchelsea ...... xx Policy GT1(3) Chart View, Chart Hill Road, Chart Sutton ...... xx Policy GT1(4) Land at Blossom Lodge, Stockett Lane, Coxheath ...... xx Policy GT1(5) Little Boarden, Boarden Lane, Headcorn ...... xx Policy GT1(6) Rear of Granada, Lenham Road, Headcorn ...... xx Policy GT1(7) The Chances, Lughorse Lane, Hunton ...... xx Policy GT1(8) Kilmwood Farm, Old Ham Lane, Lenham ...... xx Policy GT1(9) 1 Oak Lodge, Tilden Lane, Marden ...... xx Policy GT1(10) The Paddocks, George Street, Staplehurst ...... xx Policy GT1(11) Bluebell Farm, George Street, Staplehurst ...... xx Policy GT1(12) Cherry Tree Farm, West Wood Road, Stockbury...... xx Policy GT1(13) Flips Hole, South Street Road, Stockbury ...... xx Policy GT1(14) The Ash, Yelsted Road, Stockbury ...... xx Policy GT1(15) Hawthorn Farm, Pye Corner, Ulcombe ...... xx Policy GT1(16) Neverend Lodge, Pye Corner, Ulcombe ...... xx Detailed site allocation policies for retail and mixed use ...... xx Policy RMX1(1) Newnham Park, Bearsted Road, Maidstone ...... xx Policy RMX1(2) Maidstone East and former Royal Mail Sorting Office, Sandling Road, Maidstone xx Policy RMX1(3) King Street car park and former AMF Bowling Site, Maidstonexx Policy RMX1(4) Former Syngenta works, Hampstead Lane, Yalding ...... xx Policy RMX1(5) Baltic Wharf ...... xx Policy RMX1(6) Mote Road, Maidstone ...... xx Detailed site allocation policies for employment ...... xx Policy EMP1(1) Mote Road, Maidstone ...... xx Policy EMP1(21) West of Barradale Farm, Maidstone Road, Headcorn ...... xx Policy EMP1(3 2) South of Claygate, Pattenden Lane, Marden ...... xx Policy EMP1(4 3) West of Wheelbarrow Industrial Estate, Pattenden Lane, Marden xx Policy EMP1(54) Woodcut Farm, Ashford Road, Bearsted ...... xx

60

6. Development management policies for Maidstone Borough ...... xx Policy DM1 Principles of good design ...... xx Policy DM2 Sustainable design ...... xx Policy DM3 Historic and Natural environment ...... xx Policy DM4 Development affecting designated and non-designated heritage assets xx Policy DM4 DM5 Development on brownfield land ...... xx Policy DM5 DM6 Air quality ...... xx Policy DM6 DM7 Non-conforming uses ...... xx Policy DM7 DM8 External lighting ...... xx Policy DM8 DM9 Residential extensions, conversions and redevelopment within the built up area xx Policy DM9 DM10 Residential premises above shops and businesses ...... xx Policy DM10 DM11 Residential garden land ...... xx Policy DM12 12 Density of housing development ...... xx Policy DM14 13 Local needs housing ...... xx Policy DM15 14 Nursing and care homes ...... xx Policy DM16 15 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation xx Policy DM17 16 Town centre uses ...... xx Policy DM18 17 District centres, local centres and local shops and facilities .... xx Policy DM19 18 Signage and shop fronts ...... xx Policy DM22 19 Open space and recreation ...... xx Policy DM23 20 Community facilities ...... xx Policy DM25 21 Public Sustainable Transport ...... xx Policy DM26 22 Park and ride sites ...... xx Policy DM27 23 Parking standards ...... xx Policy DM28 24 Renewable and low carbon energy schemes ...... xx Policy DM29 25 Electronic communications ...... xx Policy DM30 26 Mooring facilities and boat yards ...... xx 7. Development management policies for the town centre ...... xx Policy DM31 27 Primary shopping frontages ...... xx Policy DM32 28 Secondary shopping frontages ...... xx Policy DM33 29 Leisure and community uses in the town centre ...... xx 8. Development management policies in the countryside ...... xx Policy DM34 30 Design principles in the countryside ...... xx Policy DM35 31 Conversion of rural buildings ...... xx Policy DM36 32 Rebuilding and extending dwellings in the countryside ...... xx Policy DM37 33 Change of use of agricultural land to domestic garden land . xx Policy DM38 34 Accommodation for agricultural and forestry workers ...... xx Policy DM39 35 Live-work units ...... xx Policy DM40 36 New agricultural buildings and structures ...... xx Policy DM41 37 Expansion of existing businesses in rural areas ...... xx Policy DM42 38 Holiday caravan and camp sites ...... xx Policy DM43 39 Caravan storage in the countryside ...... xx Policy DM4440 Retail units in the countryside ...... xx Policy DM45 41 Equestrian development ...... xx 9. Monitoring and Review ...... xx Policy LPR1 Local Plan Review ...... xx

61

Policy SP3 Housing Allocations Otham CP Expansion of SE Maidstone along the A274 into Maidstone. Author:

Date: 17/10/2020 Scale: 1:25000

© Crown copyright and database right. All rights reserved (100060426) 2020 Map of anti coalescence function Otham CP An assessment of the relative anti coalescence function of land parcels in Otham. Author:

Date: 17/10/2020 Scale: 1:18019 Local Plan Housing Allocations

Otham Conservation Area

Anti Coalescence

Moderate Anti Coalescence

Parish

© Contains Ordnance Survey Data : Crown copyright and database right 2020,© Crown copyright and database right. All rights reserved (100060426) 2020