Up to 40 homes at Buckland Farm, Chalk Road, Higham, Rochester

“SUMMARY REPORT Application Ref: 20250889 Site Address: Buckland Farm, Chalk Road, Higham, Rochester, Kent…”

“Application Description: Outline planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection up to 40 residential dwellings, public open space and associated works. Approval is sought for the principal means of vehicular access from Chalk Road and all other matters are reserved.”

“The reserved matters such as layout, scale, appearance and landscaping were not bring considered as part of the application presented. These would be considered at a later date if the outline permission was granted. • The site was located in Grey Belt land to the north west of Lower Higham and south west of the North Kent railway line and disused Kent and Medway Canal. • The site was currently accessed via Chalk Road.”

“This highlighted the proposed area for residential development use, the indicative area of land required for access within the residential development use and the proposed public open space. • Members were referred to the flood map on page 56 of the report, which showed the potential for flooding. It was noted that the proposed open space fell within the undefended flood zones 2 and 3.”

“The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and therefore the ‘tilted balance’ applies, this means permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh the benefits.”

“The the proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with overarching planning policy objectives to achieve a sustainable development in the Borough, meets the requirements of the NPPF 2024 where the adverse impacts of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF 2024 when taken as a whole.”

“There were 2 outstanding objections. There were from the Drainage Board and the Lead Local Flood Authority. The objections were in relation to the condition of the culvert, which was owned by Network Rail. The applicant was engaging with Network Rail to have this repaired. Due to the outstanding objection the recommendation in the report, included text to ensure this matter was addressed and satisfied prior to permission being issued.”

“Councillor Comments 1.1. Councillor comments are included within the Neighbour Comments published in the appendices, however, for clarity the following is a summary of the points made: Councillors Meade and H. Ashenden • Would constitute the inappropriate development of our greenbelt, without any evidence that special and unique circumstances have been met.”

“That it fails to uphold our local design policies in that the suburban-style housing proposed is inherently incompatible with open countryside in Higham and Green Belt character. • That prime agricultural land should not be developed as it is vital for food security that we protect our food growing capabilities locally. • That the scheme would cause traffic chaos for a village with already significant ongoing traffic concerns. 1.3.”

“Members were minded that the application should be deferred as Members were due to receive training on Grey Belt and this site was of a significant size. Members felt that a site inspection would be beneficial also.”

“Planning Committee 8.04.2026 7 RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED to allow Members to receive training on Grey Belt and for a Site Inspection to be undertaken.”