Nine dwellings at Great Pett Farm, Pett Hill, Bridge

“The application site comprises a former farmyard, which contains a number of agricultural buildings, open sided barns, structures and concrete surfacing. It has a mostly square shape, with its means of access from Pett Hill, along a linear, compacted stone access track. Pett Hill rises to the north-west and south-east outside the access. The access track also serves residential properties located to the north-west of the site.”

“The site falls within the Bourne Conservation Area, the Kent Downs National Landscape and Area of High Landscape Value. The site is not allocated or otherwise designated within the Local Plan, but it has a housing allocation in the Regulation 19 draft Local Plan.”

“Policy S5 of the NPPF requires development outside of settlements to be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects.”

“However, these harms must be weighed against the benefits of the scheme and the polices within the NPPF. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and the proposal would deliver 9 dwellings physically well-related to the existing settlement. The site has also been identified in the draft Local Plan as an allocation for housing. Therefore, I conclude that the harms do not substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme.”

“CCC Trees - No objection subject to conditions requiring the trees in the SW corner of the site to be placed within the maintenance of landscape management company (and not within private individual ownership) and a Landscape and Environment Management Plan.”

“CCC Environmental Health - No comments on the application. KCC Ecology - No objection subject to conditions covering bat mitigation, lighting, a further pre-cautionary habitat/species mitigation strategy and ecological enhancements to achieve BNG.”

“A site notice was placed in the vicinity of the site, an advert was placed in the local press and neighbouring properties received letters informing them of the application. 12 representations have been received, those who objected to the application raised the following concerns:”

“Poor design - unrelated to the site, the local vernacular and a traditional farmstead scheme • Inappropriate and unacceptable in this location • Impact upon the National Landscape • Loss of farmyard results in increased travel distances for farmers travelling to the adjoining fields • Unsustainable form of development • Insufficient infrastructure • Would lead to localised flooding • Impact upon highway safety • Impact from noise and light pollution…”

“A proposal was put that planning permission be GRANTED as described in the above application with the addition of an informative that the condition of the footpath be maintained after the development is completed.”

“A record of the vote was taken as follows: For the proposal (8): Councillors Dixey, Edwards, Mellish, Moses, Prentice, Smith, Stockley, Thomas Against the proposal (0): none Abstained from voting (1): Councillor Bothwell…”