Two rural-worker homes at Land South of Brook Farm, Calehill Road, Little Chart

What was proposed

The application proposed changing the land’s use and building two semi-detached self-build homes for rural workers.

“Change of use of land and construction of two semi- detached dwellings for rural workers (self-build) Applicant…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was undeveloped grassland in the countryside, near a vehicle recycling facility, footpaths, Ancient Woodland and flood-risk areas.

“The site comprises an area of undeveloped grassland that is located to the immediate north of the access track to Bridgend Recycling (at Bridgend Farm). Bridgend Recycling is a licensed vehicle recycling facility that was established in the early 1980s and has operated for over 40 years.”

“The site is located in the countryside in the Great Stour Valley Landscape Character Area. The site is categorised as grade 3 agricultural land. There is a Public Right of Way (PROW) to the west of the site beyond Calehill Road (AW365 - Public Footpath), as well as to the south of the site (Hurstford Lane forms part of the ‘Greensand Way’ walk).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the business did not qualify for the rural-worker exception and two homes were not essential or sustainably located.

“Before considering the applicant’s justification, it is essential to establish whether the proposal is the type of development to which the rural worker exception in both policy HOU5 and paragraph 84(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework is intended to apply.”

“The Planning Statement suggests that, given the rural location, the employees working there are “de facto, rural workers” by virtue of being in a rural location. This interpretation is fundamentally incorrect. The exception in HOU5 and paragraph 84(a) is concerned with the functional characteristics of the enterprise, not the postcode.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Natural England requested further information, ecological advisers raised no objections subject to conditions, and no neighbour representations were received.

“Natural England; Further information required to determine impacts on designated sites. The proposed development has the potential to have a harmful effect on terrestrial Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and those Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or Ramsar sites that they underpin.”

“KCC Ecological Advice Service; No objections subject to conditions and informatives.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Ward Member attended and spoke in support of the application.

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission subject to habitat mitigation, amended rooflights and lighting, occupation restrictions, and delegated conditions and obligations.

“A. Subject to applicant submitting any necessary additional information to enable 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…”

“D. Subject to such Conditions and Notes as the Assistant Director - Planning and Development and the Strategic Development and Delivery Manager consider reasonable and necessary, to include Conditions on the Occupation of each dwelling to the effect that occupation shall be limited to (a) a person solely or mainly working in the existing business operating on the nearby site shown on an attached plan known as Bridgend Recycling (Kent), and (b) in the event that that business…”

Minutes