Agenda item

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.

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 G Kenward, Mrs N Allen, Mr J Allen, Ms F Saunders, Mr M Crowcroft, Ms K Moore, Mr M Bagely (on behalf of Mrs S Page), Mr M Page, Mr P Jordan, Mr S Brett (members of the public) and Mr A Wilford (on behalf of the Applicant) addressed the Committee in person.]