36 TM/22/01570/OA - Land North East and South of 161 Wateringbury Road PDF 245 KB
Outline Application: All matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 52 residential dwellings, including affordable housing, open space and landscaping, roads, parking, drainage and earthworks. New access to be formed from Wateringbury Road.
The following are attached:
· Recommendation AP2 25/11 of the Area 2 Planning Committee of 19 February 2025;
· Reports/related appendices of 19 February 2025, 15 January 2025 and 18 September 2024.
In accordance with LGA 1972 - Sch 12A Paragraph 5 – information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings, the legal report of 19 February is private and restricted.
In order to facilitate the proper consideration of the application, the Council will need to suspend its own procedure rules and resolve itself into a committee to which rules relating to a planning committee will be applied.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health in relation to outline planning permission for all matters reserved, except for access, for the erection of up to 52 residential dwellings, including affordable housing, open space and landscaping, roads, parking, drainage and earthworks at land northeast and south of 161 Wateringbury Road, East Malling.
The application had been adjourned for determination by the full Council in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No 15.25 following consideration by the Area 2 Planning Committee on 19 February 2025.
In order to facilitate the proper consideration of the application, the Council agreed to suspend its own procedure rules and resolved itself into a committee to which rules relating to a planning committee were applied.
In reaching its decision, the Council had regard to the reports considered by the Area 2 Planning Committee on 19 February 2025, 15 January 2025 and18 September 2024, including the report of the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer which contained exempt information (LGA 1972 Sch 12A Paragraph 5 – Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings). Members of the public addressed the meeting where the required notice had been given and their comments were taken into account by the Council when determining the application (speakers listed below).
Local Members reiterated concerns in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding listed buildings and non-designated heritage assets, the harm to the landscape and the East Malling Conservation Area. There were also concerns raised regarding air quality, the loss of agricultural land, lack of infrastructure around public transport networks and risk to protected wildlife species.
Cllr Thornewell proposed, seconded by Cllr Roud that the recommendation of the Area 2 Planning Committee to refuse planning permission be supported and following a formal vote it was
RESOLVED: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
(1) The development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Designated Heritage Assets of Huntley Cottage, Ivy House Farm and Barn, and to the setting of the non-designated heritage asset of Belvedere Oast, contrary to policy CP1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 215 and 216 of the NPPF.
(2) The development would cause less than substantial harm to the East Malling Conservation Area, contrary to policies CP6, CP24, SQ1 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 215 and 220 of the NPFF, and contrary to the East Malling Village Conservation Area Appraisal.
(3) The development would cause harm to the distinctive and historic landscape character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies CP1, CP6, CP24, SQ1 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 187 of the NPPF.
(4) The development was unsustainable, the site being outside the confines of East Malling with limited sustainable and active travel options that could reasonably meet the needs of all residents from the development which in turn would lead to an unacceptable reliance on ... view the full minutes text for item 36
11 TM/22/01570/OA - Land North East and South of 161 Wateringbury Road PDF 163 KB
Outline Application: All matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 52 residential dwellings, including affordable housing, open space and landscaping, roads, parking, drainage and earthworks. New access to be formed from Wateringbury Road.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Outline Application: All matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 52 residential dwellings, including affordable housing, open space and landscaping, roads, parking, drainage and earthworks. New access to be formed from Wateringbury Road.
Further to Minute AP2 25/4 of the meeting held on 15 January 2025, the Committee considered the above application with the report of the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer set out in Part 2 of the agenda (Minute No 25/14 refers). Members continued to express significant concern in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding listed buildings and non-designated heritage assets, the harm to the landscape and the East Malling Conservation Area.
Councillor M Tatton proposed, seconded by Councillor R Roud that the application be refused for the following reasons:
(1) The development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Designated Heritage Assets of Huntley Cottage, Ivy House Farm and Barn, and to the setting of the non-designated heritage asset of Belvedere Oast, contrary to policy CP1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 213 of the NPPF.
(2) The development would cause less than substantial harm to the East Malling Conservation Area, contrary to policies CP6, CP24, SQ1 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 215 and 220 of the NPFF, and contrary to the East Malling Village Conservation Area Appraisal.
(3) The development would cause harm to the distinctive and historic landscape character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies CP1, CP6, CP24, SQ1 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 187 of the NPPF.
(4) The development was unsustainable, the site being outside the confines of East Malling with limited sustainable and active travel options that could reasonably meet the needs of all residents from the development which in turn would lead to an unacceptable reliance on the private motor car. As such the development was contrary to policies CP1, CP2, CP25 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 115 and 117 of the NPPF.
(5) The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) that they have applied the sequential test relating to protected species, with the prioritisation of avoidance over mitigation and, lastly, compensation. As such, the LPA cannot be sufficiently confident that development in accordance with the submitted Parameter Plan would adequately protect protected species on the site and immediately adjacent to it. The proposal was therefore contrary to policies NE2 and NE3 of the MDE DPD 2010 and paragraph 193(a) of the NPPF.
(6) The development, by virtue of the height of the access road and difference in land levels in proximity to the boundary of no. 51 Wateringbury Road would result in overlooking and loss of amenity to the occupants of that property that cannot be satisfactorily ameliorated by landscape proposals. As such, the development was contrary to policies CP1 and CP24 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 135 of the NPPF.
RESOLVED*: That the application stand DEFERRED for determination by Full Council ... view the full minutes text for item 11
4 TM/22/01570/OA - Land North East and South of 161 Wateringbury Road PDF 205 KB
Outline Application: All matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 52 residential dwellings, including affordable housing, open space and landscaping, roads, parking, drainage and earthworks. New access to be formed from Wateringbury Road.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Outline Application: All matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 52 residential dwellings, including affordable housing, open space and landscaping, roads, parking, drainage and earthworks. New access to be formed from Wateringbury Road.
Due regard was given to the determining issues and conditions as detailed in the report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health, with particular attention given to the concerns raised by the public speakers. Members expressed significant concern in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding listed buildings and non-designated heritage assets, the harm to the landscape and the East Malling Conservation Area.
Councillor Tatton proposed, seconded by Councillor R Roud that:
(1) the application be refused for the following reasons:
· The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the Designated Heritage Assets of Huntley Cottage, 122 Wateringbury Road, East Malling, Ivy House Farm and the East Malling Conservation Area especially in relation to the landscape harm and less than substantial harm to the non-designated heritage asset of Belevedere Oast Farm. These adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the public benefits proposed by the application. The proposal would therefore be contrary to paragraphs 215 and 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Policy CP1 of the TMBCS and Policy SQ1 of the MDE DPD 2020.
· The ecological mitigation measures proposed would not adequately protect the protected species on the site sufficiently to give confidence to the Local Planning Authority that the sequential tests for mitigation had adequately been applied sufficiently that a conclusion cannot be reached to assess the direct impact. The proposal was therefore contrary to paragraph 193(a) of the NPPF and Policy NE3 of the MDE DPD 2020.
· The development by virtue of its location would not represent a sustainable location in accordance with paragraph 8 of the NPPF and would therefore lead to unacceptable reliance on the private car contrary to paragraph 117 of the NPPF and policies CP1 and CP2 of the TMBCS.
· The proposed development by virtue of the proximity to the boundary of 51 Wateringbury Road would result in overlooking and loss of amenity to the occupants of that property that could not be satisfactorily ameliorated by landscape proposals. As such the development was contrary to policies CP1 and CP24 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF; and
(2) the refinement of the wording be delegated to the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health, in consultation with Ward Members.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.25, Part 4 Rules of the Constitution, it was
RESOLVED: That the planning application be DEFERRED for a report from Legal Services on the risks arising from a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health (as set out in CPR 15.25, Part 4 (Rules) of the Constitution).
[Speakers: Cllr V Gillece (on behalf of East Malling and Larkfield Parish Council), Cllr P Coulling (on behalf of Teston Parish Council), Mr T Lock, Mr ... view the full minutes text for item 4