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.

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 in accordance with Rule 15.25 of the Council and Committee Procedure Rules.

[Speakers:  Cllr P Coulling (on behalf of Teston Parish Council), Mr G Kenward, Mr M Crowcroft, Ms F Saunders, Mrs N Allen, Mr J Allen, Ms K Moore, Mr M Bagely (on behalf of Mrs S Page), Ms Y Moss, Mr S Lockett, Mr S Brett and Mr M Page (members of the public) and Mr A Wilford (on behalf of the Applicant) addressed the Committee in person.  Ms R Calderwood (member of the public) addressed the Committee via MS Teams.]

*Recommended to Council