Issue - meetings

Erection of 66 new homes (including affordable homes), together with associated open space, landscaping, access and parking.

Erection of 66 new homes (including affordable homes), together with associated open space, landscaping, access and parking.

Due regard was given to the determining issues, conditions, reasons and informatives as detailed in the report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services.  The views of public speakers were also taken into account.

Members expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the development to the existing Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), the loss of Best and Most Versatile land, the harmful impact of the layout on the landscape character and views of the Medway Valley.  Furthermore, Members considered the proposal to be an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  

Councillor R Betts proposed and Councillor S Hudson seconded that the application be refused, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

(1)      The proposal by virtue of the proximity of the development to the existing Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) would lead to the worsening of the AQMA contrary to paragraph 199 of the National Policy Planning Framework and policy SQ4 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document;

(2)      The proposal by virtue of the layout, loss of Best and Most Versatile land and loss of important views into and out of the Medway Valley would result in irreversible landscape harm to the detriment of this countryside location, contrary to paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CP14 of the Core Strategy and Maidstone Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment (Medway Valley); and

(3)      The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework for which no very special circumstances have been demonstrated.

Following a formal vote, the proposal was supported by the majority of the Committee and on the grounds that the above refusal reasons were not considered could be substantiated at an appeal, the vote taken was a recommendation only in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 Rules of the Constitution.

RESOLVED: That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED for a report from the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer on the risks arising from a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health* (as set out in Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 (Rules) of the Constitution).

[Speakers: Councillor K Hutchinson (on behalf of Wateringbury Parish Council), Mr P Coulling, Mr J Etheridge, Mr D Mitchell-Moore (statement read by the Democratic Services Officer), Ms J Northern, Ms E Peacock and Mr J Tilthorpe (statement read by Mr P Coulling) (members of the public); and Ms H Becker (Agent on behalf of the Applicant) addressed the Committee in person.]

*The post title of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health was renamed to the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services from 22 January 2026 and the relevant references within the Constitution were subsequently updated following approval by Full Council.