75 homes at Walnut Tree Grove, Hoo St Werburgh

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 75 homes, associated works and infrastructure, and demolition of existing equestrian and transmitter structures.

“This application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the construction of 75 residential units, with associated works and infrastructure. Alongside the demolition of the existing equestrian and VHF Transmitter buildings and structures onsite.”

“The residential area will provide the 75 proposed new homes at an average net density of up to 24 dwellings per hectare (taking into account the whole site, including open space). This will be formed of a mix of dwelling types however the exact mix of the units is not known at this stage as design and layout will form part of the reserved matters.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 3.15-hectare site lies north of Stoke Road beside recent and permitted housing schemes, with the Saxon Shore Way crossing it.

“The application site is located on the northern side of Stoke Road, immediately adjacent to the recently completed Walnut Grange development by Jones Home of 65 dwellings (planning reference MC/18/0247), to the north of the permitted 100 dwelling scheme by Dean Lewis Estates (planning reference MC/19/3129 currently subject to a reserved matters application reference MC/22/2800), and the 134 dwellings scheme by Esquire Development (Planning reference MC/23/2857).”

“The design at this illustrative stage demonstrates that it is possible to link the scheme to adjacent schemes and the existing footpaths around the site, with the Saxon Shore Way Public Right of Way (RS110) running from the south to the north through the centre of the site. The design of the scheme also demonstrates its ability to enhance access and understanding of the Second World War heritage assets located on site (Pillbox and Hoo Stop Line).”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers gave significant weight to housing delivery because Medway lacked a five-year housing supply, and considered the site acceptable in sustainability terms.

“Footnote 8 of the NPPF relates to paragraph 11(d) and together set out a presumption in favour of sustainable development where applications involving the provision of housing, and where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer, as set out in paragraph 78), or where the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing…”

“In determining whether the principle of this proposal is acceptable, it will be important to assess the matter of sustainability within the planning balance, giving significant weight to the benefits the proposal brings to the delivery of much needed housing to contribute towards the five-year land supply. It is also important to have regard to the current development taking place within the immediate vicinity of this site.”

Officer report

Main objections

Objections concerned countryside development, loss of agricultural land, infrastructure, transport, heritage, air quality, connectivity and highway safety.

“Loss or rural land Loss of agricultural land Impact on transport infrastructure Impact on local services Lack of new infrastructure Impact on WW2 infrastructure Concerns in relation to proposed layout Impact on air quality…”

“Impact on Habitats Regulations and SPA / Ramsar Location in the countryside, outside the settlement boundary and not an allocation Harm to landscape and settlement edge character Inadequate sustainable transport credentials and highway safety concerns Insufficiently robust treatment of air quality and modal shift Uncertain and potentially inadequate BNG Impacts on air quality Impacts on rights of way Contrary to neighbourhood plan…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Pearce addressed the committee as ward councillor and raised concerns about overdevelopment, highway safety and a felled ash tree.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the presentation, report, supplementary advice and ward councillor’s points, including air quality and footpath width.

“The Committee discussed the planning application noting the officer presentation, the report, the supplementary advice sheet and the points raised by the Ward Councillor.”

“In response to some concerns raised during the discussion and by the Ward Councillor, the Senior Planner firstly advised that the applicant was not Jones Homes which was a different site and incident. With reference to air quality, the proposed condition 26 required submission of an emissions mitigation statement. The Senior Planner had visited the footpath which appeared wide enough for a pushchair and person overtaking and deemed it adequate.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to the agreed Section 106 obligations and conditions 1 to 31.

“A. The applicants entering into agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure:”

“B. Conditions 1 to 31 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.”

Minutes