Public Meeting:
Development at Junction 8
Wednesday, 11th December 2013
Mercure Maidstone Great Danes Hotel
Andrew Roach
Planning Policy Manager
Kent County Council
Waterside Park
A significant development:
• 56,000m2 of light industrial/office, general
industrial, warehousing, distribution.
• Road access, parking
• Ancillary works (landscaping, cafe, creche)
• Significant earthworks/site re-grading
Some Significant Concerns
• Number of significant grounds of objection
• Clearly defined planning policy
considerations which go against the
proposal
• Not just relying on the expertise within KCC
- our views tested by independent
specialist consultants.
Landscape / Visual Impact
• Greenfield site in the open countryside
• In the setting of the Kent Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
• Adjoining a ‘Special Landscape Area’ as
designated by Maidstone Borough Council
Policy Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework:
• 12 core planning principles, including:
‘....recognising the intrinsic character and
beauty of the countryside’
Policy Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework:
(Para 115)
‘Great weight should be given to conserving
landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the
Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
which have the highest status of protection in
relation to landscape and scenic beauty ...‘
Policy Considerations
Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan:
(Saved, Objective 3)
‘To protect the countryside for its own sake and to
restrict the development of green field sites to the
minimum necessary to conform with Structure Plan
development requirements; to identify and implement
policies to protect areas of countryside and open space
having special qualities, or achieving particular functions
(such as separating urban areas).’
Policy Considerations
Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan:
(Saved Policy ENV28)
‘In the countryside planning permission will not be given
for development which harms the character and
appearance of the area or the amenities of surrounding
occupiers … ‘
Policy Considerations
Emerging Maidstone Planning Policies:
(As presented to MBC Cabinet, December 2013)
‘The distinctive character of the Kent Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting, and the
extent and openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt will
be rigorously protected and maintained. Landscapes
of good condition and high sensitivity will be
conserved …’
Other Considerations
• Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Guidance & Management Plan
• Kent Landscape Character Assessment
• Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment
Key Points
1. The site is in an important area in terms of landscape
character (Within the setting of Kent Downs AONB,
Open Countryside, Special Landscape Area)
2. These areas are afforded significant protection under
policy (at all levels)
Potential Impact
A significant development:
• 56,000m2 of light industrial/office, general industrial,
warehousing, distribution.
• Road access, parking
• Ancillary works (landscaping, cafe, creche)
• Significant earthworks/site re-grading
The most significant impacts:
• Re-grading/earthworks – significant changes to
topography and landform.
• Development design which is not sympathetic to the
landscape character of the area (large, bulky
‘industrial’ buildings)
These Concerns are Shared By:
• Kent Downs AONB Unit
• Noted in an independent review as potentially the
most significant issue for the proposal
• Natural England (objection to allocation)
• Backed up by previous decisions from the Planning
Inspectorate (KIG development)
Employment Land Allocations
• Is this the most appropriate site for this type of
development?
• Is it needed in this location?
• Will there be impact on the Maidstone Town Centre?
• Are there other more appropriate sites?
Policy Considerations
• Policy at all levels sets mechanisms for determining
appropriate locations for employment development.
• Considerations include how much employment space
is needed, the impact on existing town centres,
availability of infrastructure ...
Is The Site Needed to Satisfy
Demand?
• Maidstone Borough Council’s Employment Land Forecast
(March 2013) showed a decrease in need for industrial,
but an increased need for office space.
• The Report to Maidstone Borough Cabinet (March 2013)
said:
‘...based on this evidence, the justification to release
employment land near Junction 8 is less clear cut than
previously’
Impact on Maidstone Town Centre?
• The proposal states that it aims to provide:
‘9,531 m2 of required and speculative office
floorspace’
• Would this not be better off located on identified sites
near to Maidstone town centre, so as to protect the
viability of Maidstone?
Alternative Sites:
• Are there alternate sites within near proximity that are
more suited to such a development (meets the needs
of the developer, and the community, without
significant impacts).
• Needs further consideration by the developer.
Alternative Sites?
The Report to Maidstone Borough Cabinet (March 2013)
also stated that:
‘... it is recognised that there is a stock of industrial and
warehousing land in nearby authorities, in particular in
Swale, Medway and Ashford which is currently available
to meet market needs.’
Other Impacts
• Loss of Agricultural Land
• Poorly located in terms of access to public transport
infrastructure, walking, cycling, buses and rail.
• Lead to increased impacts on road network,
including local roads
• Adverse impacts on air quality
• Cumulative impact of development in the Junction 8
corridor.
• Potential harm to existing areas of historical
significance, setting of nearby Bearsted
• Impacts on operation of other (tourism) dominated
businesses – including Leeds Castle.
• Cumulative impact of a succession of such
developments
Well Known Issues:
The issues for this site are well known, primarily as a
result of:
1. Previous Applications and potential for emerging
applications in the area (KIG, Woodcut Farm); and
2. Consideration of the Junction 8 location as strategic
locations for employment by Maidstone Borough
Council.
Some Useful Information
• Potential for employment uses in this location have
been examined previously, including:
• Sustainability Appraisal undertaken by MBC
• Inspectors Report for KIG site
Sustainability Appraisal
Scored negatively on a number of key criteria:
• Poorly located in terms of transport and beyond easy
walking distance from bus routes/trains
• Increase congestion on the road network, including
significant impact on local road network
• Lead to increased noise, including traffic noise
Sustainability Appraisal
• Loss of valuable agricultural land, including grade 2
and 3 agricultural land
• Adverse impact on air quality,
• Impacts in terms of archaeological heritage, and
listed buildings, as well impact on the amenity of
nearby villages (such as Bearsted)
Sustainability Appraisal
• Potential impact on sites within the town centre.
• Significant Landscape Impacts
KIG Appeal
Appeal dismissed primarily on the basis of:
• Loss of open countryside
• Landscape Impacts, including impact on the setting
of the Kent Downs AONB
KIG Appeal
• Impact on Conservation Areas and Historical Items
(including the setting of Bearsted).
• The availability of other, more suitable sites to
accommodate the development
• ‘Serious damage to the attractiveness and amenity
value...’ of bridleways, public access areas
KIG Appeal
Regarding Impacts on Bearsted:
‘...the proposal would cause moderate harm to the character of the
Bearsted Green Conservation Area and some limited harm to the
Bearsted Holy Cross Conservation Area. Consequently ... the
proposal runs counter to the desirability of preserving or enhancing
the character of conservation areas...’
And
‘... the overall impact would materially degrade the present
ambience of Bearsted.’
KIG Appeal
Regarding the AONB/Landscape Issues:
‘...the appearance and scale of the development would be
alien and out of character with the countryside and the
existing built-form of neighbouring settlements, and that it
would cause substantial harm to the setting of the AONB.’
John Horne
Chairman
Joint Parishes Group
Richard Knox-Johnston
Vice President and Ambassador
CPRE Protect Kent
Paul Carter
Leader
Kent County Council
Question & Answer Session
Chair Iain McBride
Panel Members
Paul Carter, Leader, KCC
John Horne, Chairman, Joint Parishes Group
Richard Knox-Johnston, Vice President and
Ambassador, CPRE Protect Kent
Closing Remarks
Iain McBride
Local journalist and ITV Meridian correspondent