23 / 02 / 20
With a lack of transparency and openness from Maidstone Borough Council, we’ve had to resort to the Freedom of Information Act to try and access key detail to piece the chequered history of the Council-led garden community proposal together. You’ll find here the questions we’ve posed along with those asked by other residents and sent through to us. We’ve included the answers we’ve received so far.
Any conflict of interest declared by any Maidstone Borough Council official in respect of the awarding of a contract to Barton Willmore?
MBC (04/12/19): There have been no declarations of conflicts of interest.
We request all reports, communications and meetings with the appropriate agencies (i.e. Environment Agency) in respect of the water supply and sewage demand for the proposed new site, and or any assumptions MBC are making in respect of water and sewage demand for the area?
MBC (04/12/19): No such meetings or investigations have taken place, and no reports have been produced.
We request details of all communications, details of meetings and minutes with the High Speed 1 Railway owners, Network Rail and Department of Transport regarding the proposed new railway station at Lenham Heath?
MBC (04/12/19): There have been no such meetings or communications.
We request details of all communications, details of meetings and minutes & subsequent reports issued with Network Rail, Southeastern Trains, Rail Passenger groups & Department of Transport in relation to how existing railway infrastructure would cope with the proposed new homes as a result of this development
MBC (04/12/19): There have been no such meetings and there are no reports.
We request details of all communications, details of meetings and minutes between any property developers involved in this project
MBC (04/12/19): There have been no such meetings.
We request details of all communications, details of meetings and minutes with Highways England and all other authorities (e.g. The Environment Agency) concerning the proposed new motorway junction on the M20 between the current junction 8 & 9, including impact assessments and costs and all emails relating to the subject.
MBC (04/12/19): I can confirm that there has been one teleconference and one meeting with Highways England, however we do not hold minutes or any other documents relating to these.
We request details of all communications, details of meetings and minutes between MBC and Ashford Borough Council and all associated documentation between MBC and Kent County Council in respect of the proposed development.
MBC (04/12/19): I can confirm that there has been one meeting between Maidstone Borough Council and Ashford Borough Council, however we do not hold minutes or any other documents relating to this. There have also been two meetings between Maidstone Borough Council and Kent County Council, however we do not hold minutes or any other documents relating to these.
We request details of all communications, details of meetings and minutes that MBC are in possession of any meeting held, or committee meetings in respect of this proposed development.
MBC (04/12/19): The proposal was discussed in Policy and Resources Committees held on 22nd May, 18th September and 23rd October 2019, you can find the details of these meetings here.
We request access to the report produced by Barton Wilmore which was referred to in MBC’s press release on 19th September 2019.
MBC (04/12/19): Under Section 43(2) of the Act, I am not required to provide information in response to a request if it is considered to be commercially sensitive. In considering the public interest test, we consider that the public interest is greater for maintaining the exemption than it is for disclosure of the information. As the information is commercially sensitive, disclosure would have bearing on future and current negotiations, and would prejudice the commercial interests of both the Council and other parties.
We request detailed plans of the proposed development and all documentation that has been produced by Barton Willmore to date or any other company that has been employed by MBC re this proposal to date.
MBC (04/12/19): Under Section 43(2) of the Act, I am not required to provide information in response to a request if it is considered to be commercially sensitive. In considering the public interest test, we consider that the public interest is greater for maintaining the exemption than it is for disclosure of the information. As the information is commercially sensitive, disclosure would have bearing on future and current negotiations, and would prejudice the commercial interests of both the Council and other parties. All the documents that we have received that are publicly available which relate to this proposal have been published on our website here.
We request all documents relating to the award of the contract to Barton Willmore.
MBC (04/12/19): Please find enclosed information relating to the award of contract, redactions have been made to protect commercially sensitive information.
We request all minutes of meetings with land owners.
MBC (04/12/19): I can confirm two meetings have been held where minutes were taken. Under Section 43(2) of the Act, I am not required to provide information in response to a request if it is considered to be commercially sensitive. As the information is commercially sensitive, disclosure would have bearing on future and current negotiations, and would prejudice the commercial interests of both the Council and other parties.
We request all copies of all MBC environmental reports that relate to Lenham Heath and the surrounding areas.
MBC (04/12/19): Under regulation 12(4)(b), we consider that this request is manifestly unreasonable because the cost of compliance with the request is too great. It would require a large amount of time and resources for us to locate, extract and collate every environmental report we hold that relates to Lenham Heath and the surrounding areas.
We request details of all previous environmental impact studies and consultation, and details of all known archaeological sites of interest and wildlife considerations.
MBC (04/12/19): Under regulation 12(4)(b), we consider that this request is manifestly unreasonable because the cost of compliance with the request is too great. It would require a large amount of time and resources for us to locate, extract and collate all previous environmental impact studies and consultation, and details of all known archaeological sites of interest and wildlife considerations.
In respect of the proposed garden community development at Lenham Heath. we would like to request the technical brief that was provided to Barton Wilmore and commissioning documentation at the start of this project.
MBC (07/02/20): The commissioning documentation setting out the request for the work and the proposal from Barton Wilmore has been provided. [Please contact SOHL if you’d like to see this].
As MBC have stated that Lenham Heath is their preferred garden community site – can we have copies of the interim assessment / reports that has led MBC to make that statement. (This would indicate other sites have been compared already so therefore there must be an interim recommendation report).
MBC (07/02/20): The information requested is contained within the Barton Wilmore report. The requested report meets the definitions set out in regulation 12(5)(e) and it is for this reason it is being withheld.
In respect of Maidstone Borough Council acting as the ‘master planner / developer’ can we have copies of the relevant policy documentation that sets out the clear lines of delineation between the Council and the planning authority within MBC. How are conflicts of decision making as the master planner / developer and the planning authority de-conflicted?
MBC (07/02/20): Information is not held at time of request; the Council has appointed an Interim Local Plan Review Director to oversee the Local Plan Review and the Director of Regeneration of Place will oversee the Garden-Led Community.
In respect of the proposed garden community development at Lenham Heath there has been no public consultation or engagement until details were released in the press. A number of FOIA requests have been rejected based on the ‘public interest test’. Please share all documentation including analysis and evidence of the ‘Public Interest Test’ undertaken that concludes the site at east of Lenham be exempt on commercial sensitivity grounds. Please also confirm which officer (job title) formally took the decision.
MBC (07/02/20): The Head of Policy, Communications and Governance has responsibility for handling freedom of information requests. Under FOIA and EIR any decision to withhold information would include consideration of the public interest.
In respect of the proposed garden community development at Lenham Heath there had been no public consultation or engagement until details were released in the press. Please share any communications and engagement plans drafted for the Council’s garden community’s initiative.
MBC (07/02/20): Please find attached two communications documents and a frequently asked questions document prepared for the Garden Community Development at Lenham Heath. [SOHL: This is the same information provided on the MBC website here]
In respect of the garden community development at Lenham Heath. Will you disclose how much tax payer’s money has been spent to date on developing these proposals and on what? In particular how much has been paid for the legal advice being provided to the land owners.
MBC (07/02/20): Planning advice – £87,934.68 (Barton Wilmore); Legal undertakings – £24,684 (Pinsent Mason); Land surveying advice – £6,277 (Savills); Development appraisal advice – £5,000 (Martin Arnold Associates). Total £123,895.68. With regard to the cost of legal advice given to landowners this is within the Legal undertakings figure, which is inclusive of land surveying and commercial advice too.
How much tax payer’s money has been spent to date on the surveys and reports which MBC are using to base their decision making on? Can we have this broken down by date and who payment has been made to?
MBC (07/02/20): [SOHL: a breakdown of invoices for the above costs has been provided].
Does MBC not consider this as a fundamental conflict of interest in paying for and providing legal advice for land owners who may be disadvantaged as a result of that advice?
MBC (07/02/20): Information not held at the time of request.
MBC have already stated that early indications are that Lenham Heath is the preferred site for the garden community development. However it would appear no up to date sustainability appraisals have been conducted in respect of this site or others. Can we see the future schedule for when those sustainability studies will be completed and by whom? What measures are there in place to ensure these reports will be independent and when will they be completed and available to view?
MBC (07/02/20): Please see the report to Policy and Resources Committee September 2019 here.
Which Councillors sit on the resources planning committee and also on other committees that directly deal with the decision where to recommend the building of the Lenham Heath and other garden communities proposed?
MBC (07/02/20): Policy and Resources Committee membership can be found here.
Planning Committee membership can be found here.
Strategic Planning & Infrastructure membership can be found here.
Please provide all details of any meeting, minutes or communications with House England in respect of the proposed garden community at Lenham Heath.
MBC (07/02/20): There has been one meeting with Homes England and there are no minutes or communications relating to this.
On 14th November there was to be a further meeting with Highways England in respect of MBC local plans and effect on the transport system. Can we have details of the minutes or related documentation in relation to this meeting?
MBC (07/02/20): There has been one teleconference and one meeting with Highways England, however we do not hold minutes or any other documents relating to these.
Please provide copies of any further communications with Highways England in respect of the proposed new motorway junction at Lenham Heath.
MBC (07/02/20): Information not held at the time of request.
In respect of the proposed garden community at Lenham Heath. MBC have entered into non disclosure agreements with Land Owners. Can we have a copy of what that non disclosure agreement said? Also it came to an end on the 20th December – has a new non disclosure agreement been signed or extended?
MBC (07/02/20): Information not held at the time of the request; the Council has not entered into non-disclosure agreements with the Land Owners. [SOHL: we believe the non disclosure agreement is with landowners and Barton Wilmore, the Council’s appointed planning consultants, rather than directly between landowners and the Council].
What measures are now in place to stop landowners approaching developers directly to develop their land?
MBC (07/02/20): Information not held at the time of the request.
What position and or process will MBC take in respect of any land owner who outside of the MBC garden community proposals whom choose to apply for planning permission for new homes?
MBC (07/02/20): Our planning pages have more information on the Local Plan and Planning Policies and Processes.
In respect of the proposed garden community at Lenham Heath. MBC have entered into non disclosure agreements with Land Owners. Please confirm how much has been spent with ‘Mid Kent Services’ – the shared service function for Maidstone, Swale and Tunbridge Wells – in relation to legal professional services for this scheme split between financial years 2018/19 and 2019/20.
MBC (07/02/20): 2018/2019 – £647.25; 2019/2020 – £3,783.81.
On what date (or approximate date) and at which meeting did Maidstone Councillors and senior officer’s first initiate discussions on this potential development at Lenham Heath? Who was at this meeting? Please provide the minutes (if no minutes were taken, why not)?
MBC (13/02/20): Information on this meeting is not held at the time of request. However, the first time the item was considered by Committee for decision was at the Policy and Resources Committee on 22 May 2019, the agenda and minutes for the meeting can be found here.
When (on what date) did Maidstone BC first start discussions with Barton Willmore (either formally or informally) regarding this proposal?
MBC (13/02/20): Information on this date is not held at the time of request. An email exchange and the contract provided shows when Barton Willmore were commissioned to undertake the work and the scope of the work requested. [Please contact SOHL if you’d like to see this].
What meetings regarding this proposal have taken place since? Who was present? Were minutes taken, if so please provide me with the minutes? If not, why not?
MBC (13/02/20): A list of meetings has been provided below. We have replicated the titles of the meetings as they appear in the calendar of the Director of Regeneration and Place, as to duplicate and redact his Outlook calendar would take a considerable amount of time.
11/04/19 – Meeting at Lenham with Barton Willmore and Landowner
12/06/19 – Meeting at Lenham with Barton Willmore and Landowner
25/06/19 – Meeting at Lenham with Barton Willmore and Landowner
12/07/19 – Telecon: Garden Community with Pinsent Mason and Chief Executive (MBC)
17/07/19 – Governance Meeting with Pinsent Masons, Head of Policy, Communications & Governance (MBC) and Chief Executive (MBC)
25/07/19 – Garden Community Project Meeting with Landowners
04/09/19 – Telecon: Heathlands with Barton Willmore and Pinsent Masons
09/09/19 – Garden Community Project Follow up meeting with Landowners
26/09/19 – Meeting with Ward Councillors and Chair/Vice Chair of Lenham Parish Council.
01/10/19 – Follow up Governance Meeting with Pinsent Masons, Head of Policy, Communications & Governance (MBC) and Chief Executive (MBC)
11/10/19 – Garden Community Project Meeting with Barton Willmore, Pinsent Masons, Hobbs Parker and ASB Law
14/10/19 – Council Led Garden Community Internal Meeting with Communications Manager and Head of Policy, Communications & Governance
17/10/19 – Telecon: Possible Council Led Garden Community with Barton Willmore, KCC and Highways England
29/10/19 – Garden Community – Meeting with Landowner
05/11/19 – Meeting with Homes England
12/11/19 – Garden Community Successful Bidders Briefing
13/11/19 – Garden Community Project Meeting with Barton Willmore, Pinsent Masons, Hobbs Parker, ASB Law and Savills
15/11/19 – Telecon: Possible Council Led Garden Community – Follow up with Barton Willmore, KCC and Highways England
27/11/19 – Garden Community Project Meeting with Barton Willmore, Pinsent Masons, Hobbs Parker, ASB Law and Savills
18/12/19 – Meeting with RSK re surveys
19/12/19 – Meeting with Save Our Heath Lands (SOHL), Lenham Parish Council and Ward Councillors.
14/01/20 – Meeting with SOHL
23/01/20 – Follow up meeting with SOHL
24/01/20 – Residents Public Meeting
03/02/20 – Meeting with Lenham Parish Council
There are no minutes available for these meetings other than minutes taken by a third party for the landowner meetings on 25 July 2019 and 9 September 2019. We consider that the minutes of these meetings constitute commercial information because they relate to the commercial activity of both the Council and the landowner. This information is confidential because it is not in the public domain; this confidentiality protects the legitimate economic interests of both the Council and the landowner. We consider that the disclosure of this information would adversely affect the legitimate economic interests of the Council and the landowner because the discussions are still ongoing and disclosure may harm the Council’s and the landowner’s ability to undertake current and future negotiations. Therefore, the minutes of the landowner meetings have been withheld.
Will development likely require compulsory purchases of property for any reason e.g building homes, infrastructure such as the proposed motorway or railway station, roads, cycle paths and car parks? Will any existing buildings need to be demolished to make way for the development?
MBC (13/02/20): Information on compulsory purchases and the demolishing of buildings is not held at the time of the request. However, there is a Frequently Asked Questions page on our website.
Has Maidstone BC already purchased some of this land? If so, how much land and when? If not purchased in its entirety have the council secured rights/ options on any parcels of land in this area?
MBC (13/02/20): At the time of request, no land has been purchased.
How do MBC plan to fund the new motorway junction, school and High Speed railway station? What are the initial estimated costs of delivering these items?
MBC (13/02/20): This information is not held at the time of the request.
What discussions have taken place with these key partners i.e Highways England about the motorway junction and the relevant railway provider for the High Speed station?
MBC (13/02/20): There has been one teleconference and one meeting with Highways England, however we do not hold minutes or any other documents relating to these.
What interaction have you had with KCC and Brett Aggregates Ltd regarding how such development would impact upon the Kent Minerals and Waste Local plan as currently this site is supposedly the most viable option in the southeast for sand extraction according to KCC?
MBC (13/02/20): An email exchange between the Council and KCC on the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan has been provided. [Please contact SOHL if you’d like to see this].
What consideration (if any) has been given to the archaeological value of the site, road drainage and re-routing the CTRL power supplies that run through the site (which your consultants seem to have omitted from their documents?
MBC (13/02/20): A suite of technical and environmental surveys have been commissioned, a record can be found in the procurement document attached.
Was the way that residents found out about your plans (a leaked document in the press) your chosen method for delivering this message to the community, or did inadequate measures and/ or incompetence lead to a genuine ‘leak’?
MBC (13/02/20): We have set up a page on our news site to inform residents about this proposal. A report on the release of the exempt information went to our Audit Governance and Standards Committee on 16 September 2019 and can be found here.
From Highways England:
We have been made aware that as part of a plan to ruin miles of countryside in rural Kent, Maidstone Borough Council are leading proposals to build a new town near to Lenham, Kent. Part of the proposals include building a new junction on the M20 near Lenham. Can you advise us if you have had any contact with Maidstone Borough Council and if these plans are likely to happen and who will be paying for them?
HE (10/12/19): Yes we have had some contact with the Council regarding these proposals. To date, we have had one teleconference with the Council that included reference to the proposals. In addition we have had a meeting with the respective parts of the Council to discuss the Local Plan/ Lenham proposals more widely. But it’s very early days regarding whether the proposals can be shown to be acceptable and deliverable from many perspectives including their impacts on the Strategic Road Network (SRN). If they were to be adopted and permitted, then any SRN mitigation would need to be financed via the development or wider Local Plan rather than Highways England.
From Ashford Borough Council:
Maidstone Borough Council have announced proposed plans for a new garden community with at least 5,000 homes to be sighted at Lenham Heath. Can you provide any minutes of meetings, emails and other written records in relation to Ashford Borough Council’s involvement?
ABC (06/02/20): It is my understanding that Maidstone BC have published all the responses to their “Call for Sites” of which the proposed ‘garden settlement’ on the boundary is just one. I have attached two sets of email correspondence with Maidstone BC that make reference to the possibility of development at Lenham. Ashford Borough Council also made the attached comments on the Maidstone Local Plan Review – Scoping, Themes and Issues (Regulation 18) Consultation in September 2019. It is my understanding that officers from Ashford BC and Maidstone BC have met to discuss proposals but that no notes from these meetings were taken. [Please contact SOHL if you’d like to see this. The general thrust of the email correspondence is ABC Planning officers asking for urgent clarification on impact of areas cross-border into Ashford with the garden community proposal and in particular in relation to CPO. Second set of correspondence is more concern from ABC councillors as to exact boundary of proposed development].
In respect of future planned development, does Ashford have plans or are in consultation to build new developments between Charing and Lenham Heath. If so can the details be provided?
ABC (06/02/20): The Ashford Local Plan 2030 that was adopted in 2019 identifies an area for residential development immediately adjoining the western edge of Charing – the Plan indicates an indicative capacity if 180 dwellings. The Borough Council does not have any current plans to build developments between Charing and Lenham Heath. The Ashford Local Plan 2030 can be found on our website here.
From Homes England [Government delivery vehicle for new homes]:
Please provide all correspondence including emails, meeting minutes and notes, details of phone calls and any other form of communication had with Maidstone Borough Council and their appointed planning consultants, Barton Wilmore, in relation to new development sites and/or prospective garden communities and potential Housing Infrastructure Bids within Maidstone borough between September 2018 and December 2019
HE (06/02/20): I am able to confirm that Homes England does not hold the information detailed in your request. This is because there is no legal or business reason for Homes England to do so. In order to conclude that the information is not held, we have searched with all relevant teams who would have the requested information if held. For clarity, these include our Garden Communities Team, HIF team and Land teams who have all confirmed that they have not had any correspondence with Maidstone Borough Council.
From Network Rail:
Maidstone Borough Council have just released a proposal to build a new garden community development at Lenham Heath Maidstone. There plans include a proposed new railway station at Lenham heath on the HS1 high speed line. Can you under FOIA send me all communications with MBC or their planning company Barton Wilmore that you have received and replied to in respect of this proposed new station. Likewise any initial costings, environmental impact studies and any other related documentation.
NR (02/12/19): While Network Rail is aware of this proposal, we have had no written communication with MBC or Barton Wilmore, nor have we received or produced any initial costings, environmental impact studies and any other related documentation. Consequently, we do not hold the information you have requested.