Mixed-use development at Land At Bodkin Farm, Thanet Way, Herne Bay

“Outline application with all matters reserved except access, including two vehicular access points from Thanet Way, for a mixed use development including secondary school (including sixth form) with indoor and outdoor sports provision, up to 300 dwellings, a care home, a Local Centre comprising up to 500m2 of retail space (Class E) and associated works including landscaping, drainage, engineering operations, pumping station, open space and play areas together with demolition…”

“APPLICATION TYPE: Outline planning application…”

“The application site is located to the south of Thanet Way, adjacent to the Urban Area of Whitstable. It comprises land east of the former Bodkin Farm covering approximately 24 ha of greenfield. The site includes a former farmstead (Bodkin Farm) with associated buildings, mostly derelict or in disrepair, and several fields. Bodkin Farmhouse was previously a Grade II listed building but was ‘delisted’, due to it’s very poor condition and the fire damage sustained in 2017.”

“Adjacent to the east of the site is Purchas Wood Ancient Woodland and a solar farm. To the south-west of the site are residential dwellings along the northern side of Maydowns Road, at the end of which there is a kissing gate providing access to the public right of way CH8. The eastern half of the southern boundary borders fields in agricultural use. An existing public right-of-way passes along the southern boundary of the site.”

“CA/14/01319/OUT - appeal dismissed for development on land including this site for a mixed-use development of up to 290 dwellings, primary school, restaurant…”

“CA//14/02626 - planning application refused for refurbishment of farm buildings to provide three new dwellings within two new buildings, plus associated car parking, garaging, external works and the refurbishment of the existing farmhouse.”

“The proposal in this instance would be located on Grade 3b agricultural land that is not BMV outside of the built-up area of Whitstable, within the designated Green Gap. However, the proposed development would deliver 300 dwellings, 30% would be affordable. This attracts significant weight in the planning balance, due to the fact that LPA is unable to meet 5 year housing land supply requirement.”

“The care home provision would deliver housing specific to older elderly population, for which a draft Housing Strategy identifies significant need. This is attributed significant weight in favour of the scheme, in line with the national policy. site is not therefore considered isolated and is located in a sustainable area.”

“KCC PROW - No objection, noting that applicant will need to submit an application to divert PROW. Suggests alternative improvements to the route to avoid unnecessary crossings (near secondary school area), which have been incorporated into the proposal. No objections subject to contributions of £80,000 towards prow improvements, including new surface.”

“Secondary Education (New Build) - £1,676,157.00 (towards provision of new secondary school places within the District, including provision a new coastal secondary school); • Secondary Education Land - 8.03 ha of land within the application site boundaries to be transferred (20 years) to KCC for a 6 Form Entry Secondary School with Sixth Form; • SEND Build - £167,949.00 towards provision of additional SEND places within district; • SEND Land - £136,932.00 - Contributions…”

“This application has been brought before the Planning Committee for determination as it represents a departure from the adopted Canterbury District Local Plan 2017, specifically policy SP4, OS6 and OS7.”

“Principle • Character and appearance • Living conditions • Open space • Affordable housing • Market housing - size and type • Highways, access and parking provision • Biodiversity and ecology • Drainage and flood risk • Energy, sustainability and air Quality • Archaeology • Community infrastructure • Contamination…”

“When put to a vote the proposal was AGREED.”

“For the proposal (5): Councillors Edwards, McKenzie, Prentice, I Stockley and Thomas Against the proposal (0): Abstained from voting (3): Councillors Buckman, Dixey and D Smith…”

“Recommendation: That authorisation be given to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a section 106 legal agreement to secure the obligations set out in this report and the imposition of the safeguarding conditions as recommended in this report.”