Consultation Statement January 2014
Transcription
Consultation Statement January 2014
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 COXHEATH DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 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 COXHEATH DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 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 COXHEATH DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 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 COXHEATH DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 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 E-mail: [email protected] 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 E-mail: [email protected] 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 E-mail: [email protected] 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 E-mail: [email protected] 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]] Sent: 11 December 2013 12:28 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]] Sent: 21 November 2013 15:40 To: [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 To: [email protected] 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]] Sent: 18 December 2013 15:37 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]] Sent: 18 December 2013 14:11 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 Coxheath Parish Council 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]] Sent: 14 November 2013 15:55 To: 'Moira Walter' Subject: RE: Coxheath Parish Council, nr. Maidstone, Kent - Draft Neighbourhood Plan - Public 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]] Sent: 18 December 2013 10:26 To: Moira Walter Subject: RE: Coxheath Parish Council, nr. Maidstone, Kent - Draft Neighbourhood Plan - Public Consultation Not had any responses direct to us – have forwarded on to all here today From: Moira Walter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 December 2013 10:03 To: Voluntary Action Maidstone Office Subject: RE: Coxheath Parish Council, nr. Maidstone, Kent - Draft Neighbourhood Plan - Public 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]] Sent: 07 November 2013 16:17 To: Moira Walter Subject: RE: Coxheath Parish Council, nr. Maidstone, Kent - Draft Neighbourhood Plan - Public 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]] Sent: 08 November 2013 11:41 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 COXHEATH DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 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 COXHEATH DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 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. 30 support the proposal. 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. 7 do not support the proposal: 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. 32 support the proposal. 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. 5 do not support the proposal: 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. 56 support the proposal. 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. 5 do not support the proposal: 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. 43 support the proposal. 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. 5 do not support the proposal: 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. 45 support the proposal. 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? 3 do not support the proposal: 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. 37 support the proposal. 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. 5 do not support the proposal: 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. 35 support the proposal. 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? 4 do not support the proposal: 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. 42 support the proposal. 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 COXHEATH DRAFT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION STATEMENT 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 Maidstone Borough Council Maidstone Borough Council 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 Coxheath Parish Council Coxheath Parish Council Coxheath Parish Council 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