Decision details

TMBC Owned Sites - Local Plan

Find out more about this issue

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Decision:

Consideration was given to recommendation FRP 23/13 of the Finance, Regeneration and Property Scrutiny Select Committee of 13 June 2023.

Subsequent to the meeting of the Scrutiny Select Committee, further information in respect of site 59469 (land at Russett Close, Aylesford) had been provided and the previous views of the Planning Inspectorate supporting the protection of this green space were noted. The comments of the local ward Members were also taken into consideration and reflected the concerns raised by residents at the potential loss of this area of open public space.

On the grounds of the extra information provided and having regard to the comments of local Ward Members, Councillor Betts proposed, seconded by Councillor Taylor that site 59469 be unavailable for development when formally responding to the letter from the LPA.

RESOLVED: That

(1) the following 9 TMBC owned sites identified in the urban capacity study be considered available for development when formally responding to the letter from the LPA:

• 59559, 59560, 59561, 59562, 59563, 59581 (Cage Green and Angel);

• 59554 59555 (Vauxhall); and

• 59572 (Judd)

(2) the Angel Centre, Tonbridge site be considered available for development when formally responding to the letter from the LPA; and

(3) the following 12 TMBC owned sites identified in the urban capacity study be considered unavailable for development when formally responding to the letter from the LPA:

• 59437 (Larkfield);

• 59449 (East Malling, West Malling and Offham);

• 59456 (Birling, Leybourne and Ryarsh);

• 59502 (Snodland East and Ham Hill);

• 59469 (Aylesford South and Ditton);

• 59515; 59516 (Cage Green and Angel);

• 59521; 59522 (Trench)

• 59524 (Higham); and

• 59550;59552 (Judd)

[In accordance with the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, this decision was the subject of a call-in and was scrutinised by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 1 August 2023. Members of the Committee considered the grounds for the call-in and had regard to the responses provided by the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Regeneration and Property and the Leader. After in-depth discussion and a formal vote, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had no further recommendations to make to the Cabinet and the decision came into immediate effect. The proposals in respect of TMBC Owned Sites - Local Plan came into effect from 1 August 2023.]

Publication date: 07/07/2023

Date of decision: 04/07/2023

Decided at meeting: 04/07/2023 - Cabinet

Effective from: 15/07/2023

This decision has been called in by:

Councillor Mark Hood who writes The 5 Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (set out below) have called-in this decision in respect of sites 59554, 59555 and 59572 for the following reasons: 'The rationale for including these sites but discounting the other non-car park sites is incomprehensible and actually contradictory to the reasoning used by the HPSSC and Cabinet. The views of local members had been acknowledged by members in all other sites considered by H&PSSC. Green Group members actually abstained on the vote regarding 59469 as the local members voted to include the land in their ward and we respected their decision which has just been reversed now that they have changed their minds. We believe the decision to include these sites is contradictory to; CP1-3 The need for development will be balanced against the need to protect and enhance the natural and built environment. In selecting locations for development and determining applications the quality of the natural and historic environment, the countryside, residential amenity and land, air and water quality will be preserved and, wherever possible enhanced. CP24-4 The Council will seek to protect, and wherever possible, enhance, existing open spaces, including the provision of public art and ensure that new open space is made to meet the future needs of the Borough. CP26-3 Proposals for development that will result in the loss of whole of part of sits and premises currently or last used for th =e provision of community or recreation, leisure or cultural facilities will only be proposed in the LDF or otherwise permitted if: A. An alternative facility of equivalent or better quality and scale to meet identified need is either available, or will be satisfactorily provided at an equally accessible location. B. A significant enhancement to the nature and quality of an existing facility will result from the development or part of that facility or C the applicant has proved, the satisfaction of the council that for the foreseeable future there is likely to be an absence of need or adequate support for the facility. The sites listed in respect of this call in would deliver only 8, 7 and 13 units of housing respectively and the loss of these sites to their communities is unacceptable to deliver such a minuscule number of new properties. Many of the other sites rejected at this stage would have delivered many more units and there is no logic for the inclusion of these in the next Regulation 18 consultation. These sites are identified as amenity spaces to be protected within MDEDPD, they are home to a considerable number of mature trees and some benefited from recent work to increase biodiversity. It is incomprehensible that a council that has declared a Climate Emergency would decide as a landowner to follow a course of action which would have such a detrimental effect on biodiversity. ' Cllrs M Hood, G Hines, A Cope, F Hoskins and D Thornewell"

Accompanying Documents: