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.

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.

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 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.

(Speakers:  Mr P Coulling (Teston Parish Council), Ms J Smith, Mr G Kenward, Mrs F Kenward, Mr M Steward, Ms K Moore, Ms E Peacock, Mrs N Allen, Mr J Allen, Ms F Saunders, Ms K Jordan, Mr S Lockett, Mr P Jordan, Mr M Crowcroft, Mr A Stevenson (statement read out Ms F Saunders), Ms Y Moss, Mrs S Page (statement read out by Mr M Bagley), Mr S Brett, Mr M Bagley, Mr M Page (statement read out by Mrs C Woodger), Mr G James, Dr B Prince and Mr A Wilford (agent)).