Examination into the Early Partial Review of the Kent Waste and Minerals Plan – Submission by Ashford Borough Council Early Partial Review of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan Ashford Borough Council Matter 2 Submission i. Ashford Borough Council (ABC) recognises the importance of planning for the future of waste and minerals supply in the county and welcomes Kent County Council’s (KCC) actions in seeking to ensure co‐operation on the Early Partial Review of the Kent Waste and Minerals Local Plan (KWMLP). ii. The Council are not raising concerns about legal compliance or the duty to co‐ operate. The Council and KCC have engaged in a number of arrangements and discussions as part of the Review. However, as yet, no Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been signed regarding the Partial Review, despite the concerns outlined in this submission being raised. Further discussions are welcomed. iii. The Council are raising objections to the proposed additions to criterion 7 of Policy DM7 of the KWMLP as they would result in the current minerals exemption being removed for sites allocated in development plans. It is considered that this change is not justified, nor is it needed to achieve effective plan making. The additions would be in direct conflict with the Council’s Ashford Local Plan 2030 which was adopted very recently (February 2019). iv. The Council’s concerns have been written as a composite submission, as opposed to answering specific questions from the Inspector. Where relevant, this submission references the Council’s recent experience of dealing with waste and minerals matters with KCC, through the evolution of the Ashford Local Plan 2030. Impact of the proposed additions to Policy DM7 on existing allocated sites v. In June 2016, the Council produced a ‘Publication Version’ of the Local Plan. A number of proposed site allocations were within mineral safeguarding areas. Most were located in or near to the existing built up area of Ashford, the Borough’s principal town and hence these sites exhibit wider sustainability planning benefits. In line with Policy DM7 of the KWMLP 2016, the Council considered that these sites should be exempt from mineral safeguarding, as they were ‘urban’ locations. At the time, KCC supported this position through representations. vi. In July 2017, the Council produced a series of ‘Main Changes’ to the Local Plan. These changes included additional site allocations, required to meet the most up to date overall housing need figure for the borough. 1 Examination into the Early Partial Review of the Kent Waste and Minerals Plan – Submission by Ashford Borough Council vii. During formal consultation, KCC amended their position to request that minerals assessments were now required as part of the site assessment process. This change of position followed KCC’s adoption of the Kent Waste and Minerals SPD (2017). viii. The Council did not agree that such assessments were necessary, nor did it support many of the changes proposed to mineral safeguarding which were set out in the SPD. The Council felt that such changes in policy direction should be pursued through the Local Plan process, as opposed to SPD. It is therefore welcomed that the debate is now happening. ix. The Council’s view was that the Local Plan approach was consistent with the policies in the Kent Waste and Minerals Plan 2016 – policies which carried greater planning weight than guidance contained in an SPD. x. Nevertheless, and following a series of questions from the two Planning Inspectors presiding over the Local Plan 2030 examination, it was agreed that the Council and KCC would work together to resolve this issue. Accordingly, a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) was signed in June 2018 between KCC and the Council. Please see Appendix 1 of this submission. xi. As part of this process, it was agreed that individual site assessments for 21 proposed site allocations, located within mineral safeguarded areas would be undertaken. It was also agreed that Policy DM7 of the KWMLP (2016) would be applied to the site assessment approach and its conclusions. The proposed amendments to Policy DM7 being suggested through the Partial Review, which mirror much of what the 2017 SPD seeks to achieve, would not be applied. xii. Following this site assessment work, KCC concluded that the process used to inform the Local Plan was robust and consistent with the strategic objectives of the adopted KMWLP (2016). No site was removed on mineral safeguarding grounds and only one site was required to have a Minerals Assessment completed prior to planning permission for non‐mineral use being granted. The site was non‐strategic in nature and proposed to come forward in the latter part of the plan period. xiii. On balance, the Council consider that the method used for the Local Plan was a robust and pragmatic one. It allowed for a bespoke process to be applied, one which took account of the spatial context of Ashford. Subsequently, strategic judgements could be made, by the Council and KCC, which balanced the need to 2 Examination into the Early Partial Review of the Kent Waste and Minerals Plan – Submission by Ashford Borough Council promote sustainable development growth with the need to protect and enhance the local environmental assets. xiv. It is entirely correct therefore that the allocated sites in the Ashford Local Plan 2030 should be exempt from the need for further minerals assessment. Requiring such an assessment raises questions about their suitability, even though their suitability has already been established. Their planning weight has been tilted towards the need for housing and/or employment uses, outweighing the need for minerals safeguarding. xv. Should the Inspector support the proposed additions to criterion 7 of Policy DM7, the exemption would be lost. Recently allocated development sites would now need to undertake a detailed Minerals Assessment, before planning permission for non‐mineral uses could be granted. The detail of this assessment ‐ according to the SPD that is referenced in Policy DM7 ‐ would be ‘the same as would be required for a planning application’ (para 5.16 of the Kent Minerals and Waste SPD 2017). xvi. Such an approach would afford no greater certainty to an existing development plan site, compared to a windfall site coming forward, irrespective of how recently the Local Plan was adopted. This cannot be the intention. xvii. Adopting such a position would have direct implications for the Council in terms of fettering our ability to demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing land. It also raises concerns about our ability to meet the new housing delivery test requirements and about delivering the overall housing number identified over the Plan period. xviii. Many of the sites allocated in the Local Plan that fall within mineral safeguarding areas are also required to deliver key infrastructure on‐site, early in the Plan period. Such infrastructure is needed to ensure that the overall level of development planned across the borough comes forward in a sustainable way. xix. These strategic considerations underpin the planning strategy outlined in the Local Plan 2030 and are consistent with a number of core objectives of the NPPF. The strategy has been robustly and thoroughly assessed and has ultimately been supported by two planning inspectors through a recent Examination. 3 Examination into the Early Partial Review of the Kent Waste and Minerals Plan – Submission by Ashford Borough Council xx. It is therefore recommended that the proposed additions to Policy DM7 are deleted so they do not form part of the development plan. The Council considers that the exemption for allocated development plan sites should remain in place. It is unclear why KCC want this caveat removed. xxi. Should the Inspector not support this position, the Council request that any additions to Policy DM7 are sufficiently caveated to make it very clear exactly what is expected by any further Minerals Assessments for those sites which are allocated in Plans. Such clarity should be included in the Plan itself to allow the Council to review what is being proposed. xxii. It should be noted that the Council accepts that criteria 1–6 of Policy DM7 should be applied to windfall sites. These sites have not been subject to the same level of scrutiny and assessment as allocated development sites. Impact of proposed additions to Policy DM7 on future plan making xxiii. In tandem with our concerns above, the Council are also concerned about the proposed additions to Policy DM7 in a future plan making context. At face value, these additions would require local planning authorities to undertake a detailed assessment for all potential site allocations, as part of the formulation of the Local Plan. Such assessments would be of the same detail as assessments needed to support a planning application. xxiv. In practice, this would be a significant undertaking. To put this into context, the Council received over 750 potential site allocations as part of the preparation into the Local Plan 2030. Whilst it is accepted that not all of these sites fall within safeguarding areas, a reasonable number do. Like many authorities, large areas of Ashford borough are covered by mineral safeguarding areas. Such areas include land in and around Ashford which is the most sustainable location in the borough with significant market interest to develop. All of these sites would now require detailed mineral assessment work. xxv. On balance, the Council considers that the approach now being sought by KCC would place an undue burden on the Council and require a level of site assessment work that is not proportionate for a Local Plan. In doing so, it could significantly delay Local Plan production – an outcome which is inconsistent with a number of core objectives of the NPPF.