28-home outline scheme at Land West by Northwest of Meadow Court, Kingsnorth, Ashford
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Ashford Planning Committee on 22 Jul 2026.
What was proposed
Outline permission was sought for up to 28 homes, landscaping and infrastructure, with access, appearance, layout, landscaping and scale reserved.
“Outline planning permission for residential development for up to 28 dwellings, associated landscaping and infrastructure, with all matters reserved…”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The site covers two fields beside existing homes, with hedgerows and trees, and overlaps allocated residential sites S3 and S4.
“Site and Surroundings 2. The application site comprises of two fields adjoining each other to the south and west of existing dwellings located off the Ashford Road, Kingsnorth. The fields are bounded by existing hedgerows and mature/semi mature native trees.”
“The southern field’s eastern boundary adjoins the Ashford Road which has pedestrian pavements on either side of the Road. It currently forms part of the Kingsnorth Green allocated residential site under policy S4 of the Ashford Local Plan (ALP). The application site only forms a small part of this field, consisting of a narrow corridor from the Ashford Road linking to the northern field and measuring approximately 0.46 hectares in area.”
Officer report
Earlier planning history
Earlier outline permissions for larger developments at Kingsnorth Green and Court Lodge were allowed on appeal, while other applications remained undecided.
“Planning Application 15/00856/AS (Policy S4 & S5 Kingsnorth Green site): Outline application for a development comprising of up to 550 dwellings in a mix of size, type and tenure. Provision of local recycling facilities. Provision of areas of formal and informal open space.”
“Planning Application 18/01822/AS (Policy S3 Court Lodge site) Outline planning application with all matters reserved for future consideration (aside from access) for the construction of up to 1000 new homes (C3), local centre comprising retail uses (up to 450 sqm A1-A5) flexible office space (up to 350 sqm B1) and community facilities including a primary school (2.4ha), a combined community hall and site management suite (up to 650 sqm D1).”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended permission because the site is allocated for housing and the proposal was acceptable on character, amenity, highways, drainage, ecology and infrastructure matters.
“I have no objection in principle to the proposals as it involves new residential development and vehicular access on the ALP policies S3 and S4 allocated sites identified for such purposes. The proposals would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, neighbouring uses and residential amenity subject to the submission of final reserved matters details. It would provide 30 % affordable housing in accordance with policy HOU1 ALP.”
“The scheme would also be acceptable in terms of flood risk and providing an appropriate sustainable drainage system. KCC Flood and Water Management raise no objection subject to conditions. Southern Water have confirmed that they can facilitate foul sewerage /surface water run off disposal to service the proposed development. The application has provided background ecological information.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
Highways, flood, ecology and drainage consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while Natural England requested further information about nutrient impacts.
“Natural England: Comment that further information is required to determine potential water quality/nutrient impacts to European Sites (habitats sites).”
“River Stour Internal Drainage Board: comment in summary they raise no objection in principle subject to acceptable details provided at the reserved matters stage. Request conditions for a comprehensive drainage scheme and a verification report to confirm the system meets acceptable standards…”
Officer report
Objections received
The parish council and nine neighbours raised concerns about traffic, drainage, wastewater, wildlife, infrastructure, urbanisation, density and affordable housing.
“The Parish Council regards the current Meadow Court proposal as an extension of Kingsnorth Green, entirely dependent on its infrastructure and eventual completion, rather than a genuinely standalone scheme. Presenting it as a separate development is, misleading. • Meadow Court represents a continuation of piecemeal growth without proper strategic planning, contrary to the principles set out in the Local Plan process. • Highways Access and Cumulative Impact.”
“It would impact on water flood levels. • The site is on or near an area of natural subsistence and may be difficult/expensive to obtain insurance. • Impact on wildlife. • Access and egress on Ashford Road and Magpie Hall Road cause havoc on congested road. • Urbanisation of area unjustified. • BNG must be achieved. • The scheme must achieve the required 30% affordable housing with social housing as a number one priority.”
Officer report
Conditions and obligations
The decision required a section 106 agreement, Appropriate Assessment, biodiversity and drainage measures, highway works, archaeological evaluation and other planning conditions.
“(A) Subject to the applicant first entering into a section 106 agreement/undertaking in respect of planning obligations detailed in Table 1 (and any section 278 agreement so required), in terms agreeable to the Strategic Development and Delivery Manager or the Planning Applications & Building Control Manager in consultation with the Solicitor to the Council, with delegated authority to the Head of Development Management & Planning Enforcement to make or approve changes to…”
“Planning Obligation Detail Amounts (s) Trigger Points (s)”
Minutes
The committee decision
The committee resolved to permit the outline application subject to the agreement, Appropriate Assessment, planning conditions and notes.
“(B) Subject to the adoption of an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended) by the Assistant Director - Planning and Development which identifies suitable mitigation proposals such that, in his view, having consulted the Solicitor to the Council and Natural England, the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the Stodmarsh SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site alone or in combination with other plans or projects; and with…”
“PLEASE NOTE: • If an acceptable deed is not completed within 12 months of the committee’s resolution, the application may be reported back to Planning Committee and subsequently refused. • Depending upon the time it takes to complete an acceptable deed the amounts specified above may be subject to change.”
Minutes
Sources
- Ashford Planning Committee minutes, 22 July 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Ashford's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Ashford Planning Committee
- Council
- Ashford
- Date
- Wednesday 22 July 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Ashford committee decisions →
This committee's year
30 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.