450 homes and community facilities at Land West Of Hoo St Werburgh, Rochester

What was proposed

An outline application sought up to 450 dwellings, commercial and community floorspace, open space, sports facilities, landscaping, drainage and earthworks.

“The Principal Planner discussed, in detail, the outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the construction of up to 450 dwellings, commercial floorspace (up to 500sqm), community use building (up to 500sqm), associated public open space, landscaping, outdoor sports facilities, drainage and earthworks.”

Minutes

The recommended outcome

The officer recommendation was refusal, and the committee was asked to express its view because an appeal had been lodged against non-determination.

“The Principal Planner advised the Committee that as the applicants had lodged an appeal against non-determination the report and recommendation were to ascertain the views of the Committee should they have been in a position to make a decision. Those views would then be used as the formal Council response to the appeal.”

“Members were urged to support the officer’s recommendation of refusal. • Concern was raised that the proposal would lead to the coalescence between Hoo and Chattenden and would conflict with the Hoo Neighbourhood Plan and the emerging Local Plan. • He highlighted a fundamental failure of transport infrastructure to support the proposal given the loss of the £170m HIF investment in the A228 and rail networks.”

Minutes

Who addressed the committee

Councillors Crozer, Pearce and Sands addressed the committee as ward councillors and raised concerns about the application.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed settlement separation, community identity and whether an additional refusal reason would be sufficiently strong and defensible.

“The Committee discussed the planning application noting the concerns by the Ward Councillors and some Members considered that one reason for refusal was not strong enough. However, the Chief Planning Officer advised that he had to defend all reasons for refusal and it was important to not just add reasons to pad out areas of concern that could not be properly defended as this would weaken the strong case set out in the recommended refusal.”

“Members acknowledged that a physical separation was required between Chattenden and Hoo and they discussed, that over time, new residents would create their own identity and become part of the community.”

Minutes

The committee’s vote

The committee agreed that, if no appeal had been made, it would have refused the application.

“This record is available on our website – www.medway.gov.uk Decision:”

“The Committee agreed that if an appeal had not been made the decision would have been to refuse this application.”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The proposal lacked an effective landscape buffer, worsened landscape and visual impacts, and risked coalescence between Hoo and Chattenden.

“1 Although the principle of residential-led development on the site is supported, the proposal fails to provide a sufficient and effective landscape buffer capable of functioning as part of a strategic landscape corridor and would also adversely and unnecessarily exacerbate landscape and visual impacts as a result of developing this site.”

Minutes

Possible additional reason

The committee authorised a possible second refusal reason if the applicant did not agree the Section 106 contributions.

“Members agreed to give delegated authority to the Chief Planning Officer and to add a second reason for refusal if the applicant decided not to agree the S106 contributions. Wording to be agreed in consultation with the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Opposition Spokespersons.”

Minutes