Landscape contractor base at Court Lodge Farm, Southfleet

What was proposed

The application sought a mixed horticultural and landscape contractor use, new buildings, storage, fencing, parking, drainage works and landscaping.

“(7) This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the site from horticultural/agricultural use to a mixed use for horticulture and a landscaping contractor's operating base including the erection of new buildings. Based on the planning statement this use would include a workshop, storage and distribution and office use in addition to some growing of plants in connection with the landscaping business.”

“(12) In addition to the above the scheme includes: 2.4m high weldmesh fencing to the site's perimeter; new gates; 1.2m high weldmesh fencing to separate parking areas from operational areas; aggregate storage bays; a designated area for skips; 2 SUDs ponds (one of which will replace an existing pond); additional planting including a planting screen to the south east and north of the site and planting to the existing bund to the south of the polytunnels.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is a 2.18-hectare rural Green Belt area at Court Lodge Farm, beside Dale Road and the railway, near a listed church and public right of way.

“(1) The application site comprises a 2.18-hectare portion of land located between Dale Road to the east and the High Speed railway line to the west. The site is part of Court Lodge Farm which comprises a much larger area of mainly agricultural land within the same ownership. Court Lodge Farm is an active farm in agricultural use but there are some commercial businesses which utilise buildings and land within the wider farm outside of the application site.”

“(3) The land about the building and polytunnels is relatively flat as it is at a low point in a small valley. The ground levels slope up steeply immediately to the north of the application site. Ground levels slope up more gently to the south but rise up steeply further to the east on the opposite side of Dale Road. The railway line to the west cuts through this undulating landscape and sits at a higher level than the application site by approximately 5 metres.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered horticultural buildings, an agricultural building and an access road, while a later variation was approved and implemented.

“(16) 25/00804/VCON - Application for variation of condition 2 of planning permission DA/20/01343/FUL to allow the substitution of drawing Nos. 3573.02revE, 3573.03, 3573.04, 3573.05revA and 3573.10 and drawing no MC0671-CIV01 and to allow completion of the development without compliance with conditions 03 (site levels), 04 (Archaeological watching brief) and 05 (Surface water drainage) 05.11.2025 - APPROVED and implemented.”

“(18) 20/01343/FUL- Erection of a greenhouse, office/ storage/ workshop/ flower studio building, compost store and water tank together with associated hardstanding and formation of new access off existing farm access road in association with a horticultural nursery 16.08.2021 APPROVED (superseded by 25/00804/VCON)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development was inappropriate in the Green Belt and its benefits did not outweigh harm to openness, landscape, sustainability, heritage and agricultural land.

“(116) In conclusion to the table above and to the detailed assessment within this report, it is considered that very special circumstances are not held to exist in this case. The benefits to the economy, BNG and habitat creation, relocation linked to the provision of the Lower Thames Crossing & enabling the continuation of the business, and provision of SUDs, are clearly outweighed by the harms identified, including, harm to openness of the green belt, harm to the character…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Development Manager introduced the application, and the applicant spoke in support, explaining the business relocation search and planned employment growth.

What members debated

Members considered the business relocation, possible job losses and new jobs, sustainability, landscaping, vehicle impacts and whether very special circumstances existed.

“In the debate that followed, a Member commented that the applicant operated a long established business that was compelled to relocate due to the Lower Thames Crossing Development and had been unable to find a suitable alternative site in that area. In view of the possible loss of jobs if the application was refused, and also the potential of creating new jobs, he felt that there were strong enough grounds to approve the application.”

“Another Member also felt that there were very special circumstances to approve the application and felt that the weighting of the planning considerations needed to be reconsidered, particularly in respect of material…”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted to defer the application so officers could summarise approval reasons and propose suitable conditions.

“A Member indicated his support to approve the application and moved a motion to defer the determination of the application in order to allow Officers to summarise Member’s reasons for approval and to suggest suitable conditions. The motion was seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

Minutes

What was decided

The Board was minded to grant permission, but deferred the application for reasons and conditions to be prepared.

“The Board agreed to the Development Manager’s clarification of the reasons to amend the material consideration weighting as shown in table 1 in deferring the application in respect of material considerations 1 and 3 being reassessed to substantial positive impacts, material consideration 5 being reassessed to moderate -limited negative impact and material condition 6 being reassessed to limited negative weight.”

“That Members were minded to grant planning permission and that the application be deferred to ensure that officers summarise the reasons for approval and suggest necessary conditions.”

Minutes