Local people have only had four weeks to respond to Maidstone Borough Council's Local Plan, which sets out its development goals for the next 15 years. Many have you have told me that's not enough time. I've written to MBC passing on your concerns.
Here's what I wrote to Alison Broom, Chief Executive of MBC. You can see a copy of the letter by clicking on the attachment below.
"I am writing with reference to the emerging Local Plan for Maidstone Borough which I understand has just completed its Regulation 18 consultation. I note that the consultation period for this important stage was set at four weeks instead of the usual minimum six weeks and this is something I am extremely concerned about.
This is a critical document for the Borough, setting the direction of travel and detailed plans for development for the next 15 years. As such it is inevitably a detailed document with a great deal of information to digest for anyone wishing to comment.
The very purpose of this particular round of consultation is to provide all local residents, businesses and other parties with an opportunity to have their say on the emerging policies before these are finalised into the Submission Draft. At this final stage, whilst consultation will happen, it will focus primarily on the legality and soundness of the plan as opposed to the content.
I have received numerous representations from both individual constituents as well as parish councillors suggesting that the time provided has been insufficient to enable adequate assessment of the content. I myself have not been in a position to respond to the consultation for this very reason. Many parish councils only meet once a month or even bi-monthly. When one takes into account the need for a council to engage with its parishioners, clearly many would have struggled to meet the tight deadline for a document that will potentially have a profound impact on their futures.
I would like to draw your attention to correspondence received by me from KALC on this matter which highlights the experience of Langley Parish Council as an illustration of this: the council had their monthly meeting on 20th October and following this were able to put together a written response to the consultation. They consulted on this response with their local community via their website, an email bulletin and a newsletter delivered to all households. To ensure a full and rounded response, they also engaged the expertise of their neighbourhood planner.
Their all-encompassing and inclusive approach to the consultation has resulted in their representation being made too late to meet the given deadline and is unlikely to be considered. Clearly this is unacceptable and not the intention of the legislation in regard to engaging local people in the development of a Local Plan.
My understanding is that the Regulation 18 consultation is normally active for a minimum of six weeks. Many councils have extended this to 8 weeks and more. Certainly the previous Regulation 18 consultation of the Maidstone Local Plan followed this pattern being out for consultation for 6 weeks between 21 March 2014 and 7 May 2014.
I note that within the Parish Charter, Maidstone Borough Council has committed to running consultations for a minimum of six weeks, unless there is a statutory period required specifically relating to planning consultations. This would not appear to be the case in this instance. Additionally, the Statement of Community Involvement produced by the Council and setting out the parameters for local engagement suggests that consultation period of at least six weeks would be appropriate.
I realise that the Council is keen to maintain the momentum of the plan in order to ensure that future development can be strategically planned with a document that conforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. I would be grateful however if you could please advise as to why the consultation was open for just four weeks in place of a minimum of six and whether there is an opportunity to extend this to ensure that all those wishing to have their say have adequate chance to do so."
