Consultation Statement January 2014

Transcription

Consultation Statement Cover.qxp_Layout 1 31/01/2014 10:02 Page 1
COXHEATH
NEIGHBOURHOOD
PLAN
Consultation
Statement
January 2014
COXHEATH PARISH COUNCIL
COXHEATH DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
CONSULTATION STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1
Consultation Process ............................................................................................. Page 2
Section 2
Community Engagement and Consultation ............................................................ Page 3
Section 3
Statutory Consultation ........................................................................................... Page 5
Section 4
Issues and Concerns raised in the Consultation .................................................. Page 35
Appendix 1
Detailed summaries of community consultation response – November/
December 2013 ................................................................................................... Page 38
Appendix 2
Notes of the meeting/workshop with village organisations and businesses
held on 19 November 2013.................................................................................. Page 52
Appendix 3
Leaflet on draft Neighbourhood Plan Consultation ............................................... Page 55
1
1.
Community Engagement and Statutory Consultation on the Plan
Initial Community Engagement
The Parish Council held initial consultations to consider the objectives and content of a Neighbourhood
Plan on 4 December 2012 and 22 January 2013. These were workshops with local groups,
organisations, businesses and members of the local community.
8-9 March 2013 a public exhibition and consultation exercise was held to which all residents were
invited. In April a leaflet giving information about the consultation was distributed to every household in
the parish. It was also publicised in the ‘Community News’ section of the Kent Messenger (KM), on the
website, Twitter and Facebook. In total almost 1000 individual comments were received in the initial
consultation. A summary of the initial community engagement response is given in Section 2.1.
Pre – Submission Consultation
The Coxheath Draft Neighbourhood Plan was published on 8 November 2013 and a 6-week period of
consultation was held, ending on 20 December 2013. There was also a small permanent exhibition in
the Coxheath Library together with copies of the draft plan and leaflet. A leaflet giving information about
the plan, the consultation and the public exhibitions was distributed to every household in the parish.
Press releases were put out to the KM and the Downs Mail, and both publications gave good coverage
of the plan and the consultation opportunities. These were also publicised weekly in the ‘Community
News’ section of the KM. The Draft Plan document was available on the Coxheath website, and
information on the consultation was available on the website, Twitter and Facebook.
Public exhibitions were held on:
8-9 November 2013
15-16 November 2013
28-29 November 2013
The Parish Council also held a meeting/workshop with village organisations and businesses on 19
November 2013 and met with governors of Coxheath Primary School on 21 November 2013.
From the November exhibitions a total of 687 individual comments were received. The response to this
consultation was overwhelming in favour of the proposals outlined in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. A
summary of the main issues and concerns raised is set out in Section 2.2 of this Report.
16 statutory bodies were consulted and these are listed in Section 3 of this Report. 5 other interested
bodies and adjoining parishes were consulted, as were landowners directly affected by the plan. 11 of
the statutory bodies responded and these responses are given in Appendix 2 to this Report, together
with the responses from interested parties etc.
Section 4 sets out how the issues and concerns raised in the consultation were considered and, where
relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development plan.
Appendix 1 –
Appendix 2 –
Appendix 3 –
Detailed summaries of community consultation response – November/December 2013.
Notes of the meeting/workshop with village organisations and businesses held on 19
November 2013.
Leaflet on Draft Neighbourhood Plan Consultation delivered to every dwelling in the
parish prior to the consultation.
2
2.
Community Engagement and Consultation
2.1
Initial Community Engagement – December 2012 to March 2013
These earlier consultations showed a resistance to any more development in Coxheath. Most residents
responding to these consultations felt the existing infrastructure could not support the present level of
demand.
Of most concern was the ability of the surgeries to cope with present demand, lack of parking in both the
village centre and residential areas and the speed and volume of traffic going through the village.
Very many of the residents responding to these consultations like living in Coxheath because it has a
nice, friendly feel; they like its village character and its easy access to Maidstone.
There was a clear desire to maintain its separate character and identity and that the green belt around
Coxheath should be protected and maintained.
Many respondents felt there should be local needs housing, as opposed to social housing, and more
houses suited to older residents.
Many respondents would like to see better cycling provision and better maintained footpaths, but had
concerns over the cost of maintenance and security of these.
Many also would like to see the provision of further amenity and recreational areas and wildlife areas,
but again concerns were expressed about the cost of maintenance and security.
2.2
Pre-Submission Consultation – November/December 2013
Taking into account the views and comments from these earlier consultations, Coxheath Parish Council
prepared its Draft Neighbourhood Plan and published it on 8 November 2013. An exhibition was
prepared and residents were given several opportunities to view the exhibition.
Of those who responded the overwhelming majority supported the Vision, Objectives and Proposals
outlined within the Neighbourhood Plan.
Those respondents who objected to the Vision, Proposals and Objectives in the draft Neighbourhood
Plan feel that Coxheath is already over developed. Any further development would only compromise the
identity and character of Coxheath and they feel that the Parish Council is already planning to redraw the
village envelope to allow development of greenfield sites. Many believe that the existing infrastructure
must be improved now in order to meet the demands placed on it. They feel that most of the Proposals
outlined in the draft Plan are dependant on residents accepting that some development is inevitable.
The majority of respondents believed it important to protect the green countryside belt around Coxheath
to maintain its separate character and identity. There was concern that large scale expansion would
erode this green countryside belt and Coxheath would merge with Loose/Linton/ East Farleigh and
eventually with Maidstone.
The majority of residents who responded accepted the need for ‘modest growth’ as outlined in the
Neighbourhood Plan. Allthough many, whilst accepting the need, were concerned about the effect this
would have on existing services; e.g. surgeries, traffic, parking. Concerns were also expressed about
adequate parking provision and density.
3
The majority of those who responded supported the proposal to provide local needs affordable housing.
Many felt that ‘local’ element should not slip into the ‘social housing’ element. Demand must be
maintained, even if it means building less local needs houses in the first instance. Care needs to be
taken in the mix of property types, size and tenure.
The majority of those who responded supported the proposal to provide accommodation for a more
ageing population. Many felt any such accommodation must be priced at a level that encourages local
people to downsize and purchase. Many also felt that such accommodation needs to be close to health
care provision, shops, bus stops, etc. Some felt that ongoing costs connected with sheltered housing,
such as service charges, could prove expensive to older people.
The majority of those who responded support the proposal to relocate Stockett Lane surgery. Many
support the proposal of a wider range of medical care. The provision of adequate parking must be taken
into consideration. The location needs to be central and within manageable reach, particularly for the
elderly.
The majority of those who responded support the provision of safe cycle routes. However, many feel
these routes must be off-road. Thought must be given to the safety and security of cyclists. It was
suggested that safe cycle routes to Loose and Maidstone town centre might be developed using
footpaths and suitable rural lanes.
The majority of those who responded support the provision of easy access recreational walking routes.
A couple of respondents supported the idea of volunteer footpath wardens. Some felt that the footpaths
are generally in good condition, a little bit of clearance would help, but walkers should expect to get
muddy. A respondent asked that disabled access should be considered.
The majority of those who responded support the proposal to improve the environment of the village
centre, although many expressed concerns about inconsiderate parking and lack of enforcement.
Gateways and removal of unnecessary signage would soften the appearance of the village centre.
The majority of those who responded support the proposal to improve the environment of the village.
Many felt it was essential that enough off-street parking spaces should be provided in residential
developments, and that any development complements Coxheath’s rural character. It was pointed out
that Coxheath is one of the most densely populated parishes in Maidstone and needs more green
infrastructure. It was also felt that the countryside around the village must be maintained and improved.
The majority of those who responded support the proposal to provide more recreational, amenity and
wildlife areas. Many feel that this is a vital aspect of the overall plan. The provision of well-maintained
open space and leisure facilities develops and protects the community and would add to the quality of
life. Many would like to see more wildlife areas, and many stressed the need to properly assess, through
consultation, what additional types of recreational facilities should be provided.
All of those who responded support the proposal to nominate and register the list of community assets
as outlined within the draft Neighbourhood Plan.
One respondent felt that Coxheath should be developed considerably to stop it becoming a village full of
old people and that work opportunities should be provided for residents. A supermarket should be built
so residents do not have to shop in Maidstone.
A detailed summary of community consultation response – November/December 2013 is shown at
Appendix 1. A copy of the notes of the meeting/workshop with village organisations and businesses held
on 19 November 2013 is given at Appendix 2.
4
3.
Statutory Bodies and Interested Parties Consulted
3.1
The following agencies and organisations were consulted:
Statutory Bodies
Kent County Council
Maidstone Borough Council
Homes & Communities Agency
Natural England
Environment Agency
English Heritage
Highways Agency
Mobile Communications Companies (Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd)
NHS West Kent CCG
UK Power Networks
Southern Gas Networks
Southern Water
South East Water
Age Concern
Voluntary Action Maidstone
Church of England (Rochester Diocese)
Chamber of Commerce
The neighbouring Parish Councils of East Farleigh, Loose, Linton and Hunton have been consulted.
The following agencies and organisations who are interested parties were consulted:
CPRE Protect Kent
Arriva Kent & Surrey Ltd
Nu-Venture Coaches Ltd
Police
Fire
Ambulance
The following landowners, and their agents, who are directly affected by the planned proposals were
consulted:
Older’s Field
Christopher Atkinson, Chartered Town Planner
Mr Michael Older
Linden Farm
Savills
Mr and Mrs I Rankin
Clockhouse Farm
Alister Hume, Hume Planning Consultancy Ltd
Mr Robert Pascall
5
REPORT ON PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.2 The following statutory bodies and interested parties have responded and their responses are
shown below:
Statutory Bodies
Kent County Council
Homes & Communities Agency
Natural England
Environment Agency
Highways Agency
NHS West Kent CCG
UK Power Networks
South Gas Networks
Southern Water
South East Water
Voluntary Action Maidstone
Interested Bodies
Police
Linden Farm
Savills
Clockhouse Farm
Hume Planning Consultancy Ltd
6
Planning & Environment
Enterprise and Environment
Invicta House
County Hall
MAIDSTONE
ME14 1XX
Mr Terry Ketley clerk to
Coxheath Parish Council
60 Stockett Land
Coxheath
Maidstone
Kent
ME17 4PY
Phone: (01622) 221607
Ask for: Adam Reynolds
Email:[email protected]
Date: 17th December 2013
Dear Mr Ketley
Coxheath Neighbourhood Plan
Kent County Council (KCC) has carefully considered the above neighbourhood plan and regards the
document to have a focus on the village settlement that is detailed and forward looking. There are
certain strategic planning issues that we wish to comment on.
They fall into the following subject areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Highways;
Education;
Landscape Impacts;
Biodiversity;
Nature of the extant and emerging Development Plan in Kent;
Social Infrastructure Provision; and
Public Rights of Way (PROW).
I will address each in turn:
Highways
KCC notes the forthcoming traffic calming scheme for B2163 Heath Road and KCC Highways &
Transportation is supporting the Parish Council with this work.
KCC Supports the Plan’s aspirations to develop and enhance walking, cycling and public transport
routes and will work with forthcoming developers in and around the village to secure appropriate
improvements, in consultation with the Parish Council.
Education
KCC Education have considered the Coxheath Neighbourhood Plan and in the light of its current
Commissioning Plan 2013-18 and other policies. KCC notes that the Plan does not address education or
schools matters per se, KCC Education will use every effort to provide sustainable schooling for the
growing population of Coxheath in accordance with Maidstone Borough’s housing plans for the village –
for the benefit of the village inhabitants.
Landscape Impacts
7
KCC would encourage a more strategic approach to the Neighbourhood Plan, for instance: by identifying
the features of character, heritage and best quality habitats first. This would then allow for the most
appropriate sites for wildlife housing, recreation to be identified and promoted in the plan. Having this
evidence up front would support much stronger local policies, providing clear direction and ensuring
features are protected in any development scheme design.
KCC has the following guidance for your consideration on the three sites identified in Plan 4:
Site 1 and its associated ‘community’ area have significant potential from an ecological point of view.
The habitats present have recently been determined to be of interest as woodland/scrub habitats – whilst
not being ancient; their proximity to ancient woodland makes the significance of these sites as potential
ecological reserves greater. New development there will also serve to block off an existing well-linked
habitat. This must be considered, so too must the impact of using the woodland for community
recreation. Losses and gains should be carefully weighed up in order to reach a balanced decision.
Site 2 is a development on neutral grassland with remnant orchard along the road edge. Neutral
grassland, with positive management has the potential (if not already) to become a high quality, speciesrich habitat. The site behind the Hall is improved grassland, with less ecological value, and therefore
would be a better choice from a landscape viewpoint. The development crosses a field boundary which
should be avoided. The thick hedgerows should be retained and improved through new development.
This has been a field boundary at least since the 1st edition OS maps, and so could have significant
value in landscape, history and ecology terms. Cutting through them will not only impact upon
landscape character, but will also have a detrimental effect of species ability to move around and access
the wider countryside. If the area along the roadside is to be for community use, we’d recommend
involving the community in Orchard management through projects such as Orchards for Everyone where
help is available to support such activities. This would retain the heritage, ecological and landscape
value of these important features.
Site 3 has been orchard since the mid 1800’s, although the intensive nature of growing which exists
today means the ecological benefits of a traditional orchard are likely no longer present. Whilst retaining
this land use would be ideal from a landscape character viewpoint, the ecological value of this site
compared to the others is likely to be less. The field boundary however, like with site 2 should be
retained and enhanced through developer contributions. The final design should reinforce this historic
boundary. The associated greenspace is fully supported and could re-create a non intensive
orchard/grassland for recreation, or some other feature which supports and enhances the local
landscape character.
Biodiversity
It is proposed by the Neighbourhood Plan to “protect trees, hedges and other green infrastructure that
are a key element of village character” (3.6), in addition to establishing a nature area and nature trail
(3.7). KCC recommend that the plan would benefit from clear mapping of these features.
To accord with the NPPF the plan could also include some reference to ensuring no net loss of
biodiversity as a result of development within the parish. It is proposed that additional informal open
space to be provided through contributions as a result of development within the Parish (3.7) and this
proposal could benefit from additional detail on the expectations for the use of this space. If gains for
wildlife are to be sought in these areas, there should be consideration of the optimal areas for habitat
creation having regard to existing wildlife presence, for example the potential for connecting areas of
fragmented habitat.
Nature of the extant and emerging Development Plan in Kent
The Plan states, in the Preface, that ‘it is being prepared in parallel with Maidstone Local Plan’. KCC
would recommend that the Parish Council notes that the Maidstone Borough Local Plan is progressing at
the current time, with a likely timeframe from Regulation 18 consultation early 2014. The Parish Council
should ensure that it remains cognisant of the emerging policies of the Local Plan and works closely with
the Borough Council at this time, to ensure that there is appropriate consistency between the
Neighbourhood Plan and that of Maidstone Borough Council.
8
Social Infrastructure Provision
The Plan identifies in section 1.2 the vast increase in older persons predicted in Coxheath, and in 2.1
and 2.22 the Plan also identifies the need for some housing to suit older residents. KCC welcome this
and would like to work with Coxheath on different models of accommodation to benefit their ageing
population. KCC also notes that the Plan mentions ‘assisted living’, but there is no detail of what this
means. KCC would recommend that further clarification is provided.
There are many different housing options to enable older and disabled people to live independently.
This includes fully wheelchair accessible housing, assistive technologies in people’s home such as
Telecare, and ensuring that community facilities are fully accessible to all. All of these measures will
assist more Coxheath residents to live independently. It is important that Coxheath’s Neighbourhood
Plan takes this into account and presses for developers to build this type of infrastructure in, with the
new housing that is proposed.
Public Rights of Way (PROW)
KCC’s Public Rights Of Way (PROW) and Access Service are keen to ensure that their interests are
represented within the local policy frameworks of the parishes in Kent. The Service recognises and
supports the emphasis put into the plan on pedestrian and cycling connectivity to community facilities
and use of the Services Countryside Access Wardens.
KCC PROW have the following detailed comments:
3.5.2 Safe Cycle Routes
The Service supports the desire to create safer cycling links and in particular to the Cornwallis Academy
in line with the County Council’s Cycling Policy. The footpath network in this area is predominately in a
North/South direction and therefore in connecting this desired link, entirely new routes would need to be
created. The housing allocations identified by MBC to the East of the village could be looked at to
facilitate this link should it not be achieved through negotiation with the affected landowners.
Whilst supporting the desire it will be apparent to the Parish Council that there are considerable practical
and financial obstacles to achieve the Cornwallis link, most noticeably those private residencies that abut
and confine Heath Road.
The lack of recreational open space and use of rights of way is well recognised and evidenced.
However, the value of the rural lane network for recreational cycling and walking has not been included
in the plan. In particular lanes such as Well St, Forstal and Westerhill are well used for this purpose and
the Service believes that the lack of reference and policy to protect them is a missed opportunity that
should be addressed.
In assisting any forthcoming developers it would be useful to identify on the plans any area/routes along
which cycling provision should be considered.
It is noted that “policies” are replaced by “proposals” in the later stages of the plan. It is requested that a
consistent approach be provided.
3.5.3 East Access Recreational Walking Routes
The Service again supports the desire for the circular routes proposed through use of existing Public
Rights of Way Countryside Access Wardens to help achieve this.
In terms of surfacing and provision of “Access for All”, the County Council’s Countryside Access
Improvement Plan Officer would welcome discussions on the scope and practicalities on how best to
achieve this.
9
Summary
The Coxheath Neighbourhood Plan 2013 is well laid out, readable, informative and addresses the main
issues and opportunities that face the sustainable growth and maintenance of a vibrant village well into
the early 21st Century. KCC wish to engage with the Parish Council through its various functions, where
appropriate, to enhance the plan further and make a positive contribution to the future of Coxheath.
For further information and advice on Highways and Transportation matters, Landscape Service advice,
PROW matters, Biodiversity, Education and Social Infrastructure Provision please find (on the following
page) the contact details of the relevant staff.
Yours sincerely
Paul Crick
Director of Planning and Environment
10
Highways
Paul Lulham, Strategic Transport Development Planner
Tel: 01233 614062
E-mail: [email protected]
Kent County Council, Highways & Transportation
Ashford Highway Depot, Henwood Industrial Estate, Javelin Way, Ashford TN24 8AD
Landscape
Ruth Childs, Landscape Officer
Tel: 01622 694139
Kent County Council, Planning and Environment, Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone ME14 1XX
Waste & Minerals Planning
Bryan Geake, Minerals and Waste Policy Team
Tel: 01622 223537
Kent County Council, Planning and Environment, Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone ME14 1XX
Public Rights of Way
Colin Finch, Senior Projects Officer PROW
Tel: 07833 232698
Kent County Council, Customer and Communities Regulatory Services
Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone ME14 1XX
Social Infrastructure Provision
Nicola McLeish, Sustainable Communities Project Officer
Tel: 0300 3335463
Strategic Commissioning (Accommodation Solutions), 3rd Floor Brenchley House, Maidstone ME14 1RF
11
From: Anita Pearce [[email protected]]
Sent: 14 November 2013 12:00
To: Moira Walter
Subject: RE: Coxheath Parish Council, nr. Maidstone, Kent - Draft Neighbourhood Plan - Public
Consultation
Dear Moira,
Thank you for sending through your Neighbourhood Plan. I have had a look at the plan and we do not
have any comments to make.
Kind regards
Anita
Anita Pearce
Area Manager: Kent
Homes and Communities Agency, The Observatory, Brunel, Chatham Maritime, Kent, ME4 4NT
T: 01634 899223
M: 07920 537662
T: 0300 1234 500 (switchboard)
12
103277 - Coxheath - Draft Neighbourhood PlanFrom: Lister, John (NE)
[[email protected]]
Sent: 13 December 2013 15:24
To: [email protected]
Subject: 103277 - Coxheath - Draft Neighbourhood Plan
Dear Moira
Thank you for consulting Natural England on your Draft Neighbourhood Plan. My brief comments are as
follows:
Whilst there are sections in the plan on countryside, landscape and habitat issues, there seems to be no
objective about the natural environment outside the main settlement. It may be helpful to include an
objective that commits to matters such as:– to enhance the local landscape character through measures
such as retaining and reinforcing features such as woodland and tree belts (and many other
components); - to enhance habitats and biodiversity through care for BAP and other habitats networks,
to allow species to move in response to factors such as climate change (inter alia); - to enhance access
to natural green space and the countryside for walking and cycling, to improve the health and wellbeing
of local residents.
The landscape objective is relevant to meeting the “strong desire by the local community to maintain the
separate identity of the village and protect the surrounding countryside in order to maintain the character
and setting of the village” (see Para 3.1). We welcome your reference to the Maidstone Landscape
Character Assessment Supplement 2012. This provides a context for considering and monitoring
changes in the appearance of the countryside.
We note the expectation that development will “provide the community with significantly more open
space and the potential for a wider range of recreational and amenity facilities”. The management of this
space (see Policy H1) meets the active recreational needs of the community as well as providing seminatural corridors delivering attractive route for walking, landscape improvements and wildlife corridors linked to wider networks.
The allocations envisaged in Policy H1 seem to exceed the housing needs of the area, over the plan
period. It may be appropriate to consider phasing.
We welcome the ambition to “facilitate, where practicable, safe (mainly off-road) cycle routes around the
village, particularly to the Cornwallis Academy, and linking where possible with routes to other parts of
Maidstone”. These routes can be important landscape features and wildlife corridors, as well as making
a significant contribution to human health and wellbeing. These may be linked to the ambition (Para
3.5.3) to the use of new community land as a wildlife area/nature walk.
The subsequent proposal to “... ensure the development and maintenance of suitable easy access
recreational walking routes around the village, linking with recreational and wildlife areas, and
publicise/encourage greater use by residents and visitors.” is supported.
We particularly welcome the Proposals (see Plan 4) - to establish a nature area (approx 0.5 acre) and
nature trail and the other open space and allotment proposal.
Due to the current pressure of consultations on land-use plans, I have not been able to spend the time I
would have wished reviewing and commenting on your Draft Neighbourhood Plan. Nevertheless, I hope
you find these comments helpful.
If there are issues I have not covered please let me know and I will respond as quickly as possible. If
discussion would be helpful, please give me a call.
If you wish to comment on the service provided by Natural England please use the appended form.
<<Natural England Consultation Feedback(v4)_pub_0001 (2).pdf>>
13
Yours sincerely
John Lister
Lead Adviser
Land Use Services Team - Ashford
Natural England
Mobile - 0790 060 8172
www.naturalengland.org.uk
We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and
England’s traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations.
In an effort to reduce Natural England's carbon footprint, I will, wherever possible, avoid travelling to
meetings and attend via audio, video or web conferencing.
14
From: Wilson, Jennifer [[email protected]]
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Coxheath Parish Council, nr Maidstone, Kent - Draft Neighbourhood Plan
Attachments: map4139123033683672655[1].pdf; Neighbourhood Plan Guidance for Parish.pdf
Dear Moira
Apologies I sent the wrong response to you previously. Please see below the response you should have
received.
Thank you for consulting us on your draft Neighbourhood Plan (NHP).
We have the following comments to make which we hope you find useful.
Groundwater and Contaminated Land
General requirements that should be included within your document are:
Areas of previously used land, derelict or vacant land and intensively used agricultural sites will be
required to ensure that re-development proposals deal with any contamination arising from past uses
and remediate sites to minimise risks to future users, the wider environment and neighbours. Such sites
can impact on local aquifers and affect groundwater quality or local groundwater fed surface waters
(shown on attached map).
Please also find attached the advice note “Planning for the environment at the neighbourhood level” for
community groups and parish / town councils starting work on a neighbourhood plan, neighbourhood
development order or Community Right to Build Order. It covers:
• ideas on how to improve your local environment through neighbourhood planning;
• where to go for information about your local environment;
• information on environmental assessment;
• when to consult us.
If we can help any further with your NHP, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind Regards
Jennifer Wilson
Planning Technical Specialist (KSL - Kent)
01732 223272
Orchard House, Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington, West Malling, Kent, ME19 5SH
► Our Flood Risk Standing Advice
► Our Guide for Developers
► Our Pollution Prevention Guidance
15
16
From: Malik, Nawaz [[email protected]]
Cc: Bown, Kevin
Subject: Coxheath Parish Council - Draft Neighbourhood Plan - Public Consultation
Subject:
Coxheath Parish Council – Draft Neighbourhood Plan – Public Consultation
Moira Walter
Further to your email of 7 November 2013
The Highways Agency has no comments to make at this stage on the Coxheath Neighbourhood Plan –
Draft for Consultation November 2013, but please keep us informed as your plan progresses.
The HA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT). We are responsible for operating,
maintaining and improving England’s strategic road network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State
for Transport.
Sent on behalf of Kevin Bown at the Highways Agency
NAWAZ
Nawaz Malik MCIHT
Highways Agency | Federated House | London Road | Dorking | RH4 1SZ
Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk
Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers
Highways Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport.
17
From: Cassell Vivien (NHS WEST KENT CCG) [[email protected]]
Sent: 06 January 2014 10:51
Cc: McCahon Martine (NHS WEST KENT CCG); Gaston Jacqueline (NHS WEST KENT CCG); Lynch
Sandra (NHS WEST KENT CCG)
We have been contacted by Martine McCahon from West Kent CCG with regard to the neighbourhood
plan and asked to forward any comments to yourelves.
The Orchard Medical Centre is currently at capacity and would find it difficult to accommodate a further
influx of patients in its current location. We are endevouring to provide the level of service our currently
registered patients expect and deserve.
The lease on our current premises expires in 2018 and at this time we would be very interested in
moving to purpose built premises in conjunction with Stockett Lane Surgery, we understand there may
be a possibility of premises being provided.
In the meantime we will arrange a meeting with our Stockett Lane colleagues to discuss this matter
further.
Viv Cassell
Viv Cassell
Practice Manager
18
From: Baldock, Alan [[email protected]]
To: Moira Walter
Cc: Elmy, Ben; Dalton, Nigel
Subject: Coxheath Parish Council - Draft Neighbourhood Plan - Public Consultation
Attachments: iasprst_eFpENloH.PDF
Dear Ms Walters
Thank you for allowing UKPN the opportunity to comment on the Coxheath Draft Neighbourhood Plan.
I have circulated the Draft Neighbourhood Plan to my colleagues, and have received no seriously
adverse comment.
A consideration that should perhaps be noted concerns your preferred site Linden Farm (Site 1). This
location is crossed by an 11KV overhead line, the attached extract from our network records that shows
this and indeed other HV cables and overhead lines around Coxheath.
However this issue is not necessarily a problem, it would be the developer of this site, if planning
permission were to be granted, who would need to consider this factor in conjunction with UKPN and
fund if necessary the diversion of that line.
Obviously any development granted for the Parish Council’s preferred sites (indeed those identified by
MBC LP SHLAA proposals as well) would need to consider the supply of electricity to the new homes
and the potential costs associated with that provision together with UKPN.
I hope these minor observations are of assistance.
Yours sincerely
Alan
Alan Baldock IEng MIET
Lead Field Engineer (Kent Area)
UK Power Networks, Kingsmead Road Depot, CANTERBURY CT1 1DH
19
20
From: Gary Robertson [[email protected]]
To: Moira Walter
Subject: Re: FW: Coxheath Parish Council, nr. Maidstone, Kent - Draft Neighbourhood Plan - Public
Consultation
Moira,
Thank you for your Local plan data.
From your anticipated growth details, SGN do not envisage any supply difficulties in the foreseeable
future, within Coxheath Parish, other than the possibility of site specific reinforcement.
Please continue to forward your local planning decisions to ourselves for our supply consideration.
Best regards,
Gary.
Gary Stuart Robertson | Network Support Officer (Planning) | T: 0131 469 1785
Scotia Gas Networks, Axis House, 5 Lonehead Drive, Newbridge, EH28 8TG
www.sgn.co.uk
21
Parish Clerk
60 Stockett Lane
Coxheath
Maidstone
Kent ME17 4PY
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
Date:
19th December 2013
Contact:
Tel:
01273 663143
Dear Sir/Madam,
Coxheath Neighbourhood Plan – Draft for Consultation
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the above named document.
Southern Water is the statutory sewerage undertaker for Coxheath. Southern Water has a statutory duty to serve
new development, and is committed to providing the right wastewater infrastructure in the right place at the right
time. The adopted Coxheath Neighbourhood Plan and adopted Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan, will
inform Southern Water’s investment planning. Adoption provides the planning certainty required to support
investment proposals to Ofwat, the water industry’s economic regulator. Investment proposals are prepared every
five years through the price review process. The next price review is in 2014. Ofwat’s price determination will
fund the investment programme in the period to 2020. There will be another price review in 2019, covering the
investment period 2020 to 2025.
Strategic infrastructure, such as extensions to wastewater treatment works, can be planned and funded through the
price review process, and co-ordinated with new development. However, Ofwat takes the view that local
infrastructure, such as local sewers, should be funded by the development if this is specifically required to service
individual development sites. To this end, the principle is that new development needs to connect to the sewerage
system at the nearest points of adequate capacity. This may require off-site infrastructure if the nearest point is not
located within the immediate vicinity of the site. Southern Water would take future income from customers into
account, so that the developer would only need to fund a proportion of the total cost.
Please find following our response in respect of your specific policies. In summary, we seek policy provision to
require connection to the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network and support for the provision
of utility infrastructure.
We hope that you find our response useful and that it will be taken into account when drafting the next version of
the Neighbourhood Plan. We would be grateful if you could keep us informed of any future progress.
Yours faithfully,
Clare Gibbons
Development Manager
22
3.1 Maintain the Separate Identity and Character of the Village
Page 7
Southern Water understands Coxheath Parish Council’s desire to protect and enhance the countryside. However,
we can not support the current wording of the supporting text in paragraph 3.1. This is because it could create
barriers to statutory utility providers, such as Southern Water, delivering essential infrastructure required to serve
existing and planned development allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan or the Local Plan.
Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) establishes that development should be
permitted in designated areas in exceptional circumstances, where it can be demonstrated that the proposal is in the
public interest. This approach is further supported by paragraph 118, which describes the principle that
development should be permitted, if the benefit outweighs any harm. Provision of sewerage and waste water
infrastructure would be in the public interest, as it would serve both existing and new development.
Also there are limited options available for the location of new sewerage infrastructure (e.g. a new pumping
station) due to the need to connect into the existing sewerage network, so it is considered that the provision of
wastewater or sewerage infrastructure constitutes ‘special circumstances’. The draft National Planning Practice
Guidance recognises this scenario and states that ‘it will be important to recognise that water and wastewater
infrastructure sometimes has needs particular to the location (and often consists of engineering works rather than
new buildings) which mean otherwise protected areas may exceptionally have to be considered’.
Utility infrastructure should therefore be permitted within designated areas in exceptional circumstances, if no
reasonable alternative site is available.
Although Coxheath Parish Council is not the local planning authority in relation to wastewater development
proposals, support for essential infrastructure is required at all levels of the planning system.
Accordingly, we propose the following additional text to the proposal supporting paragraph 3.1 (new text
underlined):
Should the need arise, development for essential infrastructure will be granted in special circumstances, where the
benefit outweighs any harm, and it can be demonstrated there are no reasonable alternative sites available.
Policy H1 (Proposed Mixed Development Sites)
Page 9
Policy H1 identifies three proposed development sites: Older’s Field, Linden Farm and Clockhouse Farm. There is
limited spare capacity in the local sewerage system in the vicinity of these sites. This is not a constraint to
development, but it is important that the development connects to the local sewerage system at the nearest point of
adequate capacity. Also the developments should make provision for sustainable surface water disposal. These
measures will help to ensure that the system does not become overloaded, and that the new development does not
adversely impact on the service provided to existing customers.
Connection off-site is the mechanism by which developers can provide the local sewerage infrastructure required to
service their sites. However, Southern Water has limited powers to enforce such connection. Furthermore, the
company is not fully funded to provide local infrastructure, as Ofwat, the water industry’s economic regulator,
expects the company to recover new development and growth costs from developers. This approach ensures that
the cost is passed to those who directly benefit from it, and protects existing customers who would otherwise have
to pay through increased general charges. Southern Water will normally take future income from customers into
account, so that the developer will only need to fund a proportion of the total cost.
For the reasons explained above, there is a risk that the necessary local sewerage infrastructure will not be
delivered in time to service the proposed developments, unless delivery is supported by planning policies and
subsequently in planning conditions.
Paragraph 21 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning policies should recognise and
seek to address any lack of infrastructure. One of the Core Planning Principles in the NPPF is to ‘proactively drive
23
and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure
and thriving local places that the country needs’.
Proposed amendment
We propose the following additional text to policy 4:
Where capacity is insufficient in the local sewerage system, the development will need to provide a connection to
the nearest point of adequate capacity, as advised by Southern Water. Sustainable surface water disposal should
be provided
If the next version of the Neighbourhood Plan were to contain separate policies for each site, we would welcome
the recognition of the need for sewerage infrastructure in each policy.
We also take this opportunity to point out that there is a sewer running parallel to the southern boundary of the
proposed Linden Farm site, which needs to be taken in account when formulating development proposals.
Proposal: To protect existing areas of open space and, wherever possible, to add to them
Page 12
Southern Water understands Coxheath Parish Council’s desire to protect existing areas of open space. However,
we can not support the current wording of this proposal as it could create a barrier to statutory utility providers,
such as Southern Water, from delivering its essential infrastructure required to serve existing and planned
development.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies that there are ‘very special circumstances’ in which
development would be permitted. Paragraph 76 of NPPF sets out that neighbourhood plans can identify green
areas of particular importance with the intention of ruling out ‘new development other than in very special
circumstances’. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF explains that special circumstances exist if the potential harm of a
development proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Southern Water considers that should the need arise, special circumstances exist in relation to provision of essential
wastewater or sewerage infrastructure (e.g a new pumping station) required to serve new and existing customers.
This is because there are limited options available with regard to location, as the infrastructure would need to
connect into existing networks. The draft National Planning Practice Guidance recognises this scenario and states
that ‘it will be important to recognise that water and wastewater infrastructure sometimes has needs particular to
the location (and often consists of engineering works rather than new buildings) which mean otherwise protected
areas may exceptionally have to be considered’.
Although the Parish Council is not the planning authority in relation to wastewater or sewerage development
proposals, support for essential infrastructure is required at all levels of the planning system.
Accordingly, we propose the following additional text to the last proposal in the section on ‘Recreation and Open
Space’ (new text underlined):
‘To protect existing areas of open space and, wherever possible, to add to them. Should the need arise,
development for essential infrastructure will be supported in special circumstances, where the benefit outweighs
any harm, and it can be demonstrated there are no reasonable alternative sites available.’
Identified Assets of Community Value
Page 12
We are concerned that this policy could have an adverse impact on our ability to operate and provide essential
services as it effectively restricts development.
We appreciate the intention of this policy but consider that there should be a recognition of our infrastructure and
the role it plays in achieving sustainable development. One of the core planning principles cited in the National
24
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is that planning should ‘proactively drive and support economic development
to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs’.
Paragraph 157 is clear about the importance of planning positively for infrastructure required to meet the
objectives, principles and policies of the NPPF.
Proposed amendment
We proposed the following additional wording is included to be in line with NPPF:
Development will be permitted in exceptional circumstances, for example, if it is essential to meet utility
infrastructure needs and no alternative site is available.
New policy on the provision of infrastructure
We could find no policies to provide for new or improved infrastructure to support development. The National
Planning Policy Framework outlines the importance of achieving sustainable development and paragraph 177 states
that ‘It is equally important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable
in a timely fashion…’.
Although the Parish Council is not the planning authority in relation to wastewater development proposals, support
for essential infrastructure is required at all levels of the planning system.
On this basis, we propose an additional policy as follows:
New and improved utility infrastructure will be encouraged and supported in order to meet the identified needs of
the community.
New residential and commercial development will be permitted only if sufficient infrastructure capacity is either
available or can be provided in time to serve it.
25
From: Dance, Lee [[email protected]]
To: 'Moira Walter'
Consultation
Dear Moira Walker,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Coxheath Neighbourhood Plan.
I refer to in section 3.2.1 of the Neighbourhood Plan, and can confirm that with sufficient forward
planning South East Water can meet the modest growth and larger scale concentrated growth options
proposed. We have recently consulted on our Water Resources Management Plan covering the period
2015 to 2040. This plan includes the overall levels of population and property growth proposed by
Maidstone Borough Council, and sets out the measures we will take to maintain the balance between
supply and demand for water over that period.
I trust my comments are helpful to you.
Many thanks
Lee
_______________________________________________
Lee Dance
Head of Water Resources & Environmental
South East Water
Rocfort Road, Snodland, Kent, ME6 5AH
01634 87 3904 / 07976 820943
[email protected] / www.southeastwater.co.uk
26
From: Voluntary Action Maidstone Office [[email protected]]
To: Moira Walter
Consultation
Not had any responses direct to us – have forwarded on to all here today
From: Moira Walter [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Voluntary Action Maidstone Office
Consultation
Dear Sue
As the public consultation process ends on Friday 20th December 2013, have any of your agencies
made any comment direct to you?
Also, does VAM wish to make any comment on our draft Neighbourhood Plan.
Thank you.
Moira Walter
for Coxheath Parish Council
01622 745765
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Voluntary Action Maidstone [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Moira Walter
Consultation
Thanks Moira – will go out in the next Digest that will be Mon or Tues latest
Kind regards
Sue Morbi
Office Manager
39-48 Marsham Street Maidstone ME14 1HH Tel: 01622 677337 www.vam-online.org.uk
27
>>> Moira Walter <[email protected]> 14/11/13 17:49 >>>
Dear Nigel
Thank you very much for your response.
Coxheath Parish Council’s Neighbourhood Plan is to allow the community to have a greater input into
planning decisions which will affect the way Coxheath is developed between now and 2031, as allowed
for by the Localism Act 2011.
The Parish Council is holding two more public exhibitions of the Neighbourhood Plan;
1.
At Coxheath Primary School (in the Junior School Hall) tomorrow, Friday 15 November from
16:00-20:00 hours and Saturday 16 November from 09:00-13:00 hours.
2.
At Coxheath Village Hall on Friday 29 November from 16:00-20:00 hours and Saturday 30
November from 09:00-15:00 hours.
The Parish Council would be very happy to receive any comments the Police may wish to make on the
development plans for Coxheath.
Regards
Moira Walter
for Coxheath Parish Council
01622 745765
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------From: Nigel DOUGLAS PS 10091 [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Walter, Moira
Cc: HUNTER PSE 54829, Alan; KEMP PSE 57743, Rebecca; STRIDE PC 13138, Daniel
Subject: Re: Coxheath Parish Council, nr. Maidstone, Kent - Draft Neighbourhood Plan - Public
Consultation
Moira,
I have had a read - looks good. Is there anywhere that you want to include Policing, local PCSOs, or
crime types (probably not)?
If so, please advise what you want and we can supply it.
thanks,
Nigel.
PS 10091 Nigel Douglas
07870 252 828
[email protected]
Maidstone Police
Western Sector - Neighbourhood Team 3
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
4.
How the issues and concerns raised in the consultation were considered and, where
relevant, addressed in the proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan.
4.1 The issues and concerns raised in the initial community engagement from December 2012 to
March 2013 were used to decide the Vision, Objectives and Proposals in the draft plan. The main
comments raised by the community were:
− Many respondents stated that they liked living in Coxheath because it had a nice, friendly feel;
they liked its village character and its easy access to the surrounding countryside;
− One of the highest concerns was the provision of health care services. The two surgeries
cannot cope with the present demands made on them. Dental care provision also needs
improving;
− Another major concern was traffic, parking and traffic calming. The traffic calming causes
lengthy delays at peak times, which leads to dangerous and reckless driving, and rat-running
through unsuitable roads to escape the build-outs. There are not enough parking spaces in the
village centre and this leads to inconsiderate parking;
− Major doubts over the need for further housing, including local needs housing, because of
perceived problems with existing services and infrastructure of the village;
− Many respondents felt that the appearance of the village centre should be softened; making it
less car-centred and more pedestrian-friendly;
− The need to identify and secure additional parking areas close to the village centre, coupled
with a need for more effective enforcement;
− A clear desire to maintain the separate character and identity of the village;
− The importance of retaining a green belt around the village to keep its separate identity, its rural
village feel and character;
− General support of environmental issues such as the enhancement of the village centre and the
creation of easy access recreational walking routes and safe cycle routes around the village;
− General agreement that open space should be protected and recreational/amenity space
provided but more thought to be given to the actual facilities to be included;
− The provision of local needs housing as opposed to social housing;
− Some provision of housing suited to older residents;
− The provision of recreational facilities for 10-18 year olds.
4.1.1 The Vision: To maintain the separate identity and character of Coxheath as a compact, balanced
community with an enhanced, sustainable range of shopping, facilities, services and infrastructure; and
the Objectives closely reflected the issues and concerns raised in the initial community engagement:
1. Character: Maintain the separate identity and compact character of the village with a green belt
of countryside around it.
2. Housing: Meet the need for local needs affordable housing and housing suitable for the
village’s ageing population.
3. Business: Maintain and enhance the quality, variety and viability of shopping in the village
centre and other existing employment/commercial uses in the village.
4. Parking:
(a) Increase the number of public car parking spaces available to serve the village shopping
centre and key services.
35
(b)
Ensure that all new developments have adequate off road parking provision.
5. Traffic:
(a) Slow traffic speed through the village on the B2163, increase pedestrian priority in the
village centre and safe crossing points, minimise congestion, pollution and rat-running.
(b) Slow southbound traffic entering the village from Stockett Lane.
6. Amenity and Recreation: Improve recreation facilities at, and adjacent to, the village hall site
together with more amenity open space, including wildlife areas and allotments, and optimum
provision of children’s play areas.
7. Health Services: Improve local health facilities and services.
8. Green Transport: Encourage non-vehicular modes of travel by the creation of easy access
recreation walking route and the development of safe cycle routes.
9. Environment: Enhance the appearance and design of the village centre and residential areas.
10.Protect potentially redundant assets of community value.
4.1.2 The proposals in the Draft Plan which flowed from the Vision and Objectives also closely reflect
these issues and concerns.
4.2 The overwhelming majority of the community response to the pre-submission consultation from
November to December 2013 supported the Vision, Objectives and Proposals in the Draft Plan, although
a number of issues were raised particularly on the importance of infrastructure, protecting and enhancing
aspects of the environment, and the detailed implementation of the proposals.
4.2.1 The response from the statutory consultees was also supportive and positive; although a number
of issues were raised, in particular on infrastructure, the natural environment outside the village and rural
lanes, that require consideration as part of the Plan. Other issues were raised, such as offering advice
and support, that need to be pursued in the implementation of the Plan.
4.3 These responses have been addressed in the proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan as
follows:
1. Southern Water, the Environment Agency (see section 3) and a number of local residents made
comment on the need for adequate infrastructure to meet the identified needs of the community.
This is also one of the original planning principles adopted by the Parish Council on the basis of
previous consultations on the Parish Plan (see section 2 of the Draft Plan). A new Policy I1 has
therefore been added to the plan as follows:
Policy I1:
− New and improved infrastructure will be encouraged and supported in order to meet the
identified needs of the community. New residential and commercial development will be
permitted only if sufficient infrastructure capacity is either available or can be provided in time to
serve it.
− Should the need arise, development for essential utility infrastructure will be granted in special
circumstances as an exception to the other policies in the Plan, where the benefit to Coxheath
outweighs any harm, and it can be demonstrated there are no reasonable alternative sites
available.
− Areas of previously used land, derelict or vacant land and intensively used agricultural sites will
be required to ensure that re-development proposals deal with any contamination arising from
past uses and remediate sites to minimise risks to future users, the wider environment and
neighbours.
2. Natural England (see section 3) and a number of residents made comments about the need for
a policy to protect and enhance various aspects of the natural environment of the countryside
36
surrounding the village, as the Draft Plan specifically covered only the environment of the village
and the village centre. An additional section has therefore been added to Policy E1 as follows:
Countryside belt providing the setting for the village
− Enhance the local landscape character through measures to retain and reinforce features such
as woodland and tree belts;
− Enhance habitats and biodiversity taking into account the Kent Biodiversity Action Plan to allow
species to move in wildlife corridors in response to factors such as climate change;
− Enhance access to natural green space and the countryside for walking and cycling, to improve
the health and wellbeing of local residents.
3. Kent County Council, Natural England (see section3) and a number of local residents raised the
need to protect and enhance certain narrow low trafficked rural lanes that form an important
informal recreational resource for walkers, horse riders and cyclists that is either part of or links
with the countryside walking route around the village, and possible cycle routes that the plan is
aiming to develop. An additional Policy T4 has therefore been added as follows:
Policy T4:
− Low traffic rural lanes which provide a significant informal recreation resource for walkers, horse
riders and cyclists will be protected from significant increase in volume and speed of traffic and,
where possible, have their landscape and biodiversity potential enhanced.
4. The need to fill in key missing links in the local public rights of way network was also raised in
the consultation and an additional section to achieve this where possible and necessary has been
added to Policy T3.
5. The response of Mr A Hume, on behalf of the landowners/developers of Site 3 ‘Clockhouse
Farm’, states that, because there was significant opposition to the 6 Class B1 office/workshops in
their proposal, this element has now been removed and the Plan has been amended to reflect this.
However, appropriate enhancement of suitable employment/commercial opportunities is included
in the business objective (Objective 3) of the Plan. A statement of the Parish Council’s support for
the maintenance and appropriate enhancement of the village shopping area, together with the
employment uses within the existing footprint at Clockhouse Farm and the GML site has also been
included in the plan.
6. A section on delivery and viability of the Plan has been added to address issues raised in the
consultation about implementation.
37
Appendix 1
DETAILED SUMMARIES OF COMMUNITY RESPONSE
MAINTAIN SEPARATE IDENTITY & CHARACTER OF THE VILLAGE
58 responses.
49 support the proposal.
Comments:
Although more housing is required and brings benefits, it is vital to maintain a distinct village.
Everything possible should be done to prevent strip development along the roads in and out of the
village.
Protect, maintain and increase the provision of green space, the shortfall in existing provision reinforces
this.
Some of the proposed housing is far too near the boundaries with Linton and Loose.
If the 3 small areas of proposed development go ahead, will that bring more pressure for further
development on the east side of the village, along Heath Road?
Maintain the separation by only having the 3 small developments.
The proposed development on Older’s Field is not in keeping the this proposal.
Traffic calming is also a priority, speed should be cut. B roads should not have more than 7.5 tonnes.
Vibration from the 44+ tonnes are damaging private property.
9 do not support the proposal:
Expand Coxheath so that it will be a place for happy people and children to live, not a village full of old
people looking back to the old days. Let incomers have a chance to live and work here.
Can Maidstone Borough Council offer a 50 year moratorium on any further development?
How can the Parish Council guarantee this as it has stated at many meetings that it can be overruled by
Maidstone Borough Council and the Government?
But the Parish Council is planning to redraw the village envelope and allow development on greenfield
sites.
The identity and character of the village will be lost through the 37% population increase, if all the
proposed housing is permitted.
To retain Coxheath’s character, do not allow farmland to be built upon.
No development required then.
No expansion. Keep our surrounding countryside – it’s precious.
Keep the village a village. It’s really nice to be able to walk to all facilities as well as in the countryside
around it.
38
HOUSING – DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
107 responses.
77 support “Modest Growth”:
There was general agreement from these respondents that, because of national and borough planning
implications, Coxheath would have to accept some housing. The 3 smaller sites would help the village
retain its identity and would give some community benefits.
Many, whilst accepting modest growth, are concerned about the effect this would have on existing
services, such as surgeries, traffic, parking, etc., which are all under strain now.
3-4 respondents do not want high density housing.
2-3 respondents welcome elderly accommodation, but should be near the village centre.
1 felt that development on Linden Farm, Older’s Field and a portion of the large site off Forstal Lane
would not be detrimental to Coxheath.
1 preferred Older’s Field and Linden Farm sites, pointing out that Coxheath has the 3rd highest density in
the area and is over-populated per hectare.
1 preferred Older’s Field, provided the GP option is available on that site.
1 would not want the development of Clockhouse Farm.
1 asked if a traffic flow impact study has been done.
2 asked about access to Linden Farm development.
2 asked about planning conditions being adhered to and not altered after development has started.
1 said that 2 parking spaces per house should be provided.
1 suggested footpath and cycle routes linking developments to the village centre, and subsidising buses
to Maidstone to keep cars off the roads.
11 – Undecided:
5 respondents would prefer no growth. If there has to be – then only modest growth.
2 respondents do not want the Clockhouse Farm development.
1 respondent wants only the Older’s Field development.
1 respondent wants only the Linden Farm development.
1 respondent does not want any commercial units.
1 respondent said large scale concentrated growth would be a disaster.
39
HOUSING – DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS (cont)
18 support ‘No Growth’:
Most of these respondents commented that:
Coxheath is at capacity now.
The village cannot sustain any housing development with the existing infrastructure: surgeries, traffic,
parking.
Some also commented that the Parish Council was ignoring the wishes of the majority of residents who
attended the Clockhouse Farm exhibition; they felt the Parish Council had already agreed on the
decisions to be made and that Coxheath would be an over-populated congested community.
1 respondent objected to the omission of a “No Growth” option, thereby steering residents towards
agreeing with some form of development.
1 respondent said that 40% social housing is not an advantage, as evident on the Avante estate; and
that extending housing in Coxheath would invite people from outside the area who may have no respect
or willingness to conform or engage with village life, again as evident on the Avante site.
1 respondent said unlimited development will cover green lungs of Coxheath. Surveys seem based on
wants not needs or ability to pay for large houses. The country could end up in a similar situation as Eire
and Spain, with empty developments. Avante development increased the population by 10% with no
employment for these new residents. Coxheath will become a dormitory.
1 supports ‘Larger Scale Concentrated Growth’:
With shops and young people and children to live. Work for old people to do at 70 before OAP will be
available. Broadband connection required for all of Coxheath.
40
HOUSING – LOCAL NEEDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
37 responses.
Comments made:
Essential that the ‘local’ element does not slip into the ‘social housing’ element. Demand must be
maintained, even if it means building less local needs houses in the first instance.
Care need in mix of property types, size, location and tenure. More low cost/shared ownership, less
rented.
Affordable rented/part-rented housing is necessary to encourage younger people to remain in the village.
Would ensure young families are able to stay in Coxheath.
Should be small in scale and only for local people.
Any social housing should be for the benefit of those with a very strong tie to the village.
Only people who can trace a family connection to the village should be considered, those with a 20-25
year connection – not recent incomers.
Several respondents said it must be only for local needs. Avante was originally to have ‘local needs’
housing, not the social housing it has now.
There is an obvious need for a small amount of local needs housing, but ‘needs’ must not be confused
with ‘wants’. Coxheath should not become an overspill for Maidstone or the South East.
How would applicants be limited to those with local connections?
Local needs development must be in suitable style for Coxheath.
No flats above 2-storeys high.
The development is ‘for sale’ housing, not ‘rented social housing’.
Local people should have access to housing, but the village should not be overdeveloped.
Build a Tesco or similar on site of Older’s proposed garage of 30 years, with pathway for mobility
scooters so old people can shop and collect it there and not go to Maidstone.
What are ‘local needs’? Is this proposal designed to provide affordable housing for those working in the
village? What is the evidence for this and how can it be properly monitored?
Too many dwellings are envisaged for the three nominated sites and this would lead to great difficulty in
providing the necessary facilities.
Coxheath does not need more local housing. When the Avante estate was built, they said for local
people. I have met lots of people who come from London who have been given housing.
Coxheath does not need any development whatsoever. It is full to bursting. No development. Coxheath
should be a democratic parish – it is not at present.
There is no guarantee that these will go to local people, as the Avante site has proved.
Out of a 1000 people who responded to the Parish Council’s survey, only 35 said local needs housing
was wanted. Also, no guarantee that these will go to local people, whatever claims are made.
41
HOUSING – PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION FOR A MORE AGEING POPULATION
37 responses.
Comments made:
Must be priced at a level that encourages local people to downsize and purchase.
Accommodation needs to be close to bus stops, shops, etc.
Will allow houses to be sold/rented to younger residents.
Bungalows with gardens would be acceptable.
Assisted living accommodation would enable elderly people to remain in the area they know.
Such a development should not be undertaken in a way that could deter younger people and families
moving into the village.
There is a requirement for a small amount of housing for elderly parishioners, but do not let large
percentages of small numbers be used as an excuse for large development.
Could any proposed development provide a day centre for the elderly?
Not just increased housing for the elderly, but also better medical/social/public transport services. How
about an adults’ ‘green gym’ near the village hall?
Please do not mix elderly housing with social housing.
In the event of this being built at Clockhouse Farm, strong representation must be made for this to be
managed by a social housing provider rather than a ‘For Profit’ organisation.
Another development like Russet Court, although these are not fully used at present.
Biggest problem with sheltered private housing is cost, but council would be continually changing when
money is tight.
If significant development occurs, particularly with elderly residents, the bus service would need to return
to four an hour.
Coxheath will be a village of old people, where will the young people live? If old people work till they are
70, where will the jobs in Coxheath be so that they will not be required to travel?
Most elderly people in Coxheath own their own house so there is no need for more accommodation.
Very few of the 1000 responses to the Parish Council’s survey showed this was wanted. So the majority
of residents will have to put up with more development for a small amount of people. Also, can our local
people afford them and the maintenance/service charges? These will all go to outsiders.
This is mis-leading as it will be a private venture and they will let to whoever can afford the exorbitant
fees and charges, irrespective of where they are from.
This exhibition indicates that people like my family are on a decline – working, 30’s, starting a family. We
would not move here again knowing that the village would be housing yet more elderly.
42
HEALTH
61 responses.
Comments made:
These premises need to be built in tandem with housing developments so that provision is available from
the time of first new occupation of housing. Dental services need to be NHS. Sufficient professional
need to be recruited. Ancillary staff should be local, as far as possible.
10 respondents commented on the difficulty in parking at both surgeries. Any future medical facility must
provide adequate parking.
6 respondents support a medical centre, to include minor ops and dentist. Perhaps chiropdist and
optician.
6 respondents said expansion in medical services is essential now, and will be particularly so should
there be further development.
The location needs to be central and within manageable reach, particularly for the elderly.
Too many patients from neighbouring villages, meaning more traffic movement. Should neighbouring
villages be looking to provide medical services?
New clinic would be nice, but bigger means loss of familiarity so keep existing as well.
Are the doctors at both surgeries in agreement with this? Would they be prepared to combine their
practices? Dentist seems keen enough to recruit non-NHS patients – perhaps they should be
encouraged to take on NHS patients.
People will be able to choose whichever GP they want, in or out of the area, so there is no need to
relocate.
Extend the Orchard Medical Centre.
Not if it means that housing plans are a requirement of this.
Again misleading as the Parish Council has no current plans for this. All it has is a piece of land. It
knows that the health service is a major problem currently.
If another health centre is built it will soon be oversubscribed as surgeries are now, because there will be
more houses in Coxheath and the surrounding areas – more patients – and once again it will be
groaning under the weight. It is for other villages to have doctors’ surgeries to alleviate the demand in
Coxheath, not to build more houses in our village.
43
TRANSPORT – HEATH ROAD TRAFFIC CALMING SCHEME
133 responses.
115 support the Revised Scheme.
Comments made:
3 respondents feel that the puffin crossing should be outside Londis;
20 mph speed restriction through village centre;
Roundabouts at entrances opposite proposed developments on Heath Road;
Access/egress from Clockhouse Farm has safety implications for Georgian Drive;
Congestion at Linton Crossroads and no right turn filter from Heath Road to Linton Hill;
Would be better to remove it altogether;
Retain build-out on approach from East Farleigh to allow safer exit from Pembroke Road;
Enforce action on parking on double yellow lines by shops;
Move build-outs away from Woodlands and Park Way to allow safer left turn from these roads;
Replace existing interactive 30mph sign with one that shows actual speed;
Speed camera would be a better solution.
Also roads humps to deter racing between build-outs.
5 support ‘Retain Existing Scheme’.
13 – No Traffic Calming:
3 respondents would prefer speed cameras;
Install road humps;
Put build-outs away from edge of village, by Vanity Lane;
No small build-out by church;
Cycle park by shops could obstruct sight lines;
No development – no congestion.
44
TRANSPORT – SAFE CYCLE ROUTES
48 responses.
Comments made:
Many respondents stressed the need for cycle routes to be off-road for the safety of the cyclists.
Problem areas are Hunton Hill crossroads and Linton crossroads.
Speed and traffic congestion.
Will reduce cycle related accidents.
Off-road cycle routes must be lit for safety of cyclists.
Will encourage people to cycle instead of using their cars.
Pavement to Cornwallis Academy is too narrow. Nowhere safe to cycle at present.
Cycling promotion is good for health.
To be effective may encroach on farmland. Farmers should be encouraged to release their land for this.
Many people walk dogs, important to keep footpaths separate.
Cycle routes linking Coxheath to Loose and Maidstone, as well as the schools at Boughton Monchelsea.
Present cycle route along the Loose Road is a joke.
Perhaps the footpaths leading to Gordon Court could be converted to cycle routes.
Only as far as Cornwallis Academy, and not if the provision of these are only linked alongside
development. No development required.
The road is not wide enough, not enough land is available to widen the road and it wouldn’t encourage
students at Cornwallis to cycle rather than walk with their friends.
Crazy. What other parts of Maidstone is the Parish Council thinking of. Currently there are 250 cycle
racks at Cornwallis. I do not know how many are currently used and I bet the Council doesn’t know
either.
How is this attainable as there is no room to make exclusive cycle pathways. If it means more housing –
then no.
Difficult to implement due to hedgerows lining very narrow pavements. Main road too narrow and
farmland already has houses and cottages lining along the main road so impeding a continual cycle
route.
This would be a waste of money as I do not believe that students from Cornwallis would cycle to school.
45
TRANSPORT – EASY ACCESS RECREATIONAL WALKING ROUTES
48 responses.
Comments made:
Disabled access should be considered. Access through kissing gates is too difficult.
In view of the development of new houses this proposal is very much needed.
Walking areas very important, not least to dog walking fraternity. Waste bins should be included.
2 respondents supported the suggestion of voluntary wardens – some dog walkers may be willing.
Walkers should stay on footpaths and not along the back gardens in Springett Way, Wilberforce Road
and Aspian Drive. Perhaps fencing should be put up.
Routes need for gentle and energetic walking.
This could be linked to cycle routes.
Ensure walking routes are not too narrow – keep green buffer perimeters of walking routes.
Footpaths are generally in good condition, although a bit of clearance would help.
Footpaths are fine, walkers expect to encounter mud.
If money is available then an improved surface would make it easier to all to use them.
I walk three times a day and all I hear from those I meet is that walking routes will be built over. I moved
to Coxheath 17 years ago to be in countryside. Why are you trying to turn Coxheath into a town?
Ridiculous. Volunteers will be almost non-existent, as in many other walks of life I am involved in.
There are already walking routes around the village where people can enjoy the countryside if they want.
How will it be paid for? If it is to agree to more housing – then no.
46
ENVIRONMENT – VILLAGE CENTRE
42 responses.
Comments made:
Many respondents expressed concern about inconsiderate parking and lack of enforcement.
Agree to gateways, parking and removal of unnecessary signage, but not if it means more housing.
Some tall, narrow trees should be planted to enhance the ‘visual’ look.
This will greatly enhance the village centre.
I like a village I can use – pretty does not come into it. Clean – yes.
Coxheath is an overflow for nearby towns so needs better medical and education services. There
should be traffic lights in the village centre, especially at busy times. Yellow lines on tight corners at
Westway to discourage thoughtless parking which hinder the public facilities of the buses.
Toilets would be good and more parking.
Stop fly-tipping.
If a Tesco was built there would be no need for parking as everybody would be there parking and
shopping.
Best of luck with this one, the current double yellow lines are totally ignored.
Parking in the village centre – where? Make the village centre more greener – by adding more houses
and cars?
Where is the extra land coming from?
Increased population will mean more congestion, particularly in Stockett Lane around School and exit
from the new development. Parking restrictions in those areas will be necessary.
47
ENVIRONMENT – VILLAGE WIDE
39 responses.
Comments made:
Many respondents commented on lack of parking and stressed the importance of adequate off-street
parking in residential developments.
Parking should be within the boundary of each property – not in blocks.
This proposal must be a priority for any planning application and decision.
Coxheath is the most densely populated rural parish in Maidstone (Bearsted and Downswood have
become urban by excessive development). The village needs more green infrastructure for the current
development. Any extra development must have provision included to enhance the current lack.
2 respondents agreed that the green aspect of village must be maintained. Trees/hedges must be kept
and new sustainable planting may be required.
4 respondents agree that development should be well designed and in character. The Avante estate
was not well designed.
The 1960 architecture in the village centre is very unattractive.
A realistic amount of housing while retaining the village identity, together with more facilities such as
medical and parking.
How long would all this take and what disruption would it cause?
The environment of the village will be put under pressure with all the new homes. Did the village vote for
more homes?
No more development in Coxheath, apart from brownfield sites, whether or not well designed.
Just like the Heathside parking facilities.
This is a sweetener to get us to agree with the building of more houses, which our roads and medical
facilities cannot cope with.
48
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
48 responses.
Comments made:
This is a vital aspect of the overall plan. Provision of well-maintained open space and community leisure
facilities develops and protects ‘community’.
Important in maintaining and enhancing Coxheath’s character and would add to the quality of life and
assist in community life in Coxheath.
Providing additional social and recreational facilities will make Coxheath a more desirable location to
live, but the facilities need to be used and managed. New social and recreational facilities need to
encompass all age groups.
Provision for teenagers; skate park, cross country cycle paths, etc. Ask the youngsters what they want.
A walk around the village would be excellent and not difficult to establish or maintain. There may be
some vandalism but this may be because we are not catering for some elements of the village.
Transport in and out of the village is costly. There are no recreation facilities for young people at
present.
I do see that we have to accept some extra housing and, as explained, the three smaller areas are to be
preferred. As a walker, I really would appreciate the footpaths being looked after. Some are so
overgrown, especially up through the farm green sandway to Heath Road. We certainly need more
parking and medical facilities.
These would come with all three sites on Plan 4. The parish should approve those sites.
Limit this to Older’s Field and Clockhouse Farm as they are gifting land for recreation and open spaces.
As Coxheath is seriously lacking in public open space, any planning permission for multiple
housing/commercial development should have S106 agreements imposed so that the acreage of this
open space can be increased.
A new scout hut should be included in any recreational improvements to give them more outdoor space.
The current scout hut could be moved to the green area between the Church and the Spice Lounge and
become the Church Hall. The over-60s and the pre-school could still use it and would allow the Church
to further its community initiatives. This would allow the carpark in Westerhill Road to be enlarged with a
pedestrian access into Avante and to Heathside Clinic.
More mixed recreational land is always a bonus and should be protected, particularly if controlled by the
village, not the Borough Council.
Access all areas is essential. More recreational facilities will be needed in the future.
2 respondents think this a good idea but who will maintain and at what cost?
2 respondents would like some provision of allotments.
2 respondents would like the provision of a skate park.
49
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE (cont)
6 do not support proposal:
No housing or commercial development.
This is another way to get us to agree to more housing. Who would maintain these, because if people
are not interested in attending exhibitions they do not really care what goes on.
3 respondents say that the funding for maintenance must not come from raising taxes.
Do not require any more heathland or nature areas. We are surrounded by it already – am happy with
status quo. Just please protect what we already have.
50
ASSETS OF COMMUNITY VALUE
29 responses
All support the proposal.
Comments made:
2 respondents say none other than those on the list.
Other suggestions for inclusion on the list:
• Library
• Post Office
• GP surgery
• Bus shelters
• Spice Lounge
• Retail outlets in village centre
• Vet
• School playing field (asset for the school)
• It would be nice to have a church hall, to enable the Church to provide better outreach and support
to the community.
The Parish Council and Coxheath Village Residents Hall need to work more closely together. These two
vital bodies play a significant part in the future of Coxheath.
6 respondents feel this is important as it enables the community to use its influence to protect its assets.
The village needs to keep all its assets. There would be concern as to whether the School could cope
with a large influx – would need improvement.
Londis supermarket will be a great asset, particularly for the elderly. The medical services cannot cope
with the present numbers, so that needs to be looked at and improved before any building of new
houses takes place.
If any other assets come with Plan 4 developments, i.e. allotments; then these should be offered to
existing residents, not just incomers.
What benefit is the Beacon, it cannot be used as originally designed? If the area outside the scout hut is
to be used as a car park it needs a better surface and access, i.e. no parking up and down road to
maintain visibility.
Will there be the chance to decline being an ‘asset’ if privately owned?
The children’s play area in Whitebeam Drive is very poor. Used unsociably at night. Empty drink cans
etc. – not soft drinks.
51
Appendix 2
COXHEATH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN MEETING/WORKSHOP
19 NOVEMBER 2013
PRESENT:
Brian Mortimer
John Wilson
Brenda Wilson
Janet Greenroyd
Viv Cassell
Alan Turner
Keith Ferris
David Jones
David Simpson
Barbara Appleton
Fay Morris
Eileen Underdown
Ron Hickman
Mary Wright
Lynn Gover
Ray Batstone
Paul Kelley
Geoff Cooke
KCC Community Warden Service
Orchard Medical Centre
CALARA and Coxheath Village Hall
Coxheath Village Hall and Table Tennis Club
Holy Trinity Church
Holy Trinity Church
Coxheath Preschool
Coxheath Preschool
Coxheath Preschool
Coxheath Gardening Club
Coxheath Ladies Group
Coxheath Ladies Group
Coxheath Twinning Association
Maidstone Gymnastics Club
Coxheath Scouts
Clive Parker
Rodney Divall
John Hughes
Anne Brindle
Bill Milner
Val Page
Chairman, Coxheath Parish Council
Vice-Chairman, Coxheath Parish Council
Terry Ketley
Moira Walter
Clerk to Coxheath Parish Council
Admin Assistant, Coxheath Parish Council
52
ISSUES RAISED:
Mortimer:
Concerns over community benefits to be achieved on Clockhouse Farm site; Car
parking becoming a major issue, particularly in village centre;
Disappointing that businesses seem reluctant to become involved with
Neighbourhood Plan.
Parish Council:
Clockhouse Farm meets aspirations on Local Needs Affordable Housing,
accommodation for the elderly in need of care packages, some local
employment opportunities and land gifted for possible enhanced health
care facilities;
Talking to Spice Lounge, Golding Homes and Primary School re possible
options to increase village centre parking;
Surprised that businesses do not see the value of being involved in
discussions on rejuvenating the village centre.
Batstone:
Concerns over ability of surgeries and school to cope with influx resulting from
additional housing;
Possibility of using ambulance centre car park for overflow parking.
Parish Council:
Both surgeries currently operating at maximum capacity, hence the need to
consider changes/expansion;
Speaking to School Board of Governors but understand Coxheath Primary
School working well within capacity at present. Numbers of children under
15 years old have declined between 2001 and 2011;
Ambulance centre staff car park is fully utilised most of the time.
Cassell:
£136,000 ring-fenced for health services in the village from Avante Section 106
funds;
Stockett Lane Surgery cannot expand due to physical constraints whilst Orchard
Medical Centre has problems because the building is not owned by the current
doctors.
Parish Council:
Difficulties are recognised. Hence the relevance of the current NHS scoping
survey.
Underdown:
Should other villages build healthcare facilities?
Parish Council:
There are economies of scale. Visitors to health care facilities in Coxheath
will use other services such as the shops and the library, thereby helping to
sustain village life.
Turner:
Reasons for the lack of a Maidstone Local Plan;
Concerns over the length of time taken to resolve the traffic calming scheme in
Heath Road.
Parish Council:
Delayed due to other priorities such as the fight against the Kent
International Gateway (KIG) project. MBC has allowed previous policies to
lapse. In the absence of Local Plan, planning decisions will be guided by
the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);
It is hoped that if there is support for the revised traffic calming scheme
proposals, which forms part of the current public consultation,
implementation will follow in the early part of 2014.
Mortimer/Wilson:
There is unlikely to be a Maidstone Local Plan in place for at least two
years.
Kelley:
Interested to know what effect Neighbourhood Plan would have when dealing
with planning applications;
53
Consideration to be given to installing block tiles in the village centre highway,
similar to those installed in Hadlow.
Parish Council:
Neighbourhood Plan would have weight in planning law, particularly in the
absence of a Maidstone Local Plan. Even a draft Plan would be a material
consideration but the sooner a Neighbourhood Plan is in place the better;
Idea of block tiles worthy of consideration as part of the effort to improve
the environment of the village centre.
Jones:
Applauded Parish Council for their efforts made to date;
Neighbourhood Plan should be used, if possible, as an influence over Maidstone
Borough Council policy;
Consideration to be given to removing traffic calming from the Neighbourhood
Plan, if the timetable is accelerated.
Parish Council:
Agreed that Neighbourhood Plan would have significant influence but
would have to go through the process of MBC agreement, independent
examination and public referendum;
There would be no point in retaining traffic calming in the Neighbourhood
Plan, if an acceptable solution was achieved in advance of the public
referendum.
Cooke:
Requested timetable for the passage of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Parish Council:
Current aim was to complete the process in order to achieve public
referendum at Local Government/European Elections in 2014 (currently
thought to be on 22nd May 2014)
Morris:
Concerns over motorists parking in the Scout Hut car park and commuting by bus
into Maidstone.
Parish Council:
Difficult to police. Would have to consider ‘Pay and Display’ and signage.
Most important aspect would be to improve overall parking situation.
Mann:
Need to consider refurbishment of street furniture in the village centre;
Wish to retain the integrity and village feel of Coxheath.
Parish Council:
Agreed. Street furniture will form part of the project to refurbish the village
centre. Consideration to also be given to introduction of more greenery to
give a rural impression;
Wish to see a green countryside belt around a newly drawn village
envelope which would restrict activities to agriculture, horticulture and
forestry;
Also wish to introduce additional amenity/recreation facilities such as
nature areas/woodland trails but the key first step would be to acquire land
into public ownership. It would be sensible to plan for these facilities to be
on land adjacent to the existing village hall and other recreation areas.
Verbatim written comments by Keith Ferris:
“In summary, we either:
1.
Accept a village plan and retain some control over development on the only available and,
therefore, green field sites, or
2.
Have no plan and accept that either MBC (Borough) or central government impose an even less
acceptable plan.
Surely, we need some plan acceptable to the majority which can be put forward as a formal proposal as
the basis for a local referendum?”
54
Appendix 3
55
56
Consultation Statement Cover.qxp_Layout 1 31/01/2014 10:02 Page 4
‘Coxheath Village Mural’
Created by the children of Coxheath Primary School

Consultation Statement January 2014

Transcription

Similar documents

June 2014

VM - Village Market

Belstone - Dartmoor National Park

Dalmatisch stenen huis | U823 (6+2)

Terence Court, Belvedere, Kent Offers Over

CABANA BAR HAPPY HOUR

ITEM MOT 00-05141 Ammunition Purchase from Kiesler Police

May 15, 2016 - Immaculate Conception Catholic Church

Memorial Hall Brochure

Newsletter - Mar 13 - SCROLL vr