20 homes at Land At Eastwood Road, Ulcombe, Maidstone

What was proposed

The application sought 20 homes, including eight affordable homes, with parking, open space, landscaping and access from Eastwood Road.

“APPLICATION: Erection of 20(no) dwellings [including 8(no) affordable dwellings], with 51(no) parking spaces, open space and landscape buffering with access from Eastwood Road.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The one-hectare undeveloped site lies beside Eastwood Road, the recreation ground and residential property, within designated countryside and an archaeological area.

“The application site measures approximately 1ha and is located on the southern side of Eastwood Road, some 90m to the east of the junction with Headcorn Road. The gently undulating and undeveloped site is bordered by Eastwood Road to the north; by a landscape buffer and then a residential property (‘Valebeck’) to the east; and Ulcombe recreation ground wraps around the southern and western boundaries of the site.”

“The site generally falls from the north-west corner towards the south-east corner. The group of trees (Italian Poplar) along the western boundary are protected by TPO no.11 of 1975. For the purposes of the Local Plan Review the site is within the designated countryside. The application site is also classified as Grade 3 agricultural land; and it is within an area of archaeological potential and Flood Zone 1. PROPOSAL”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for 20 homes and community facilities were withdrawn or considered unlikely to receive support, while a later pre-application raised character concerns.

“- At this time, it is difficult to see how proposal would respond positively to, and enhance, local & natural character of area, so proposal is considered contrary to LPRSP8, LPRSP15 & LPRQD4. - Meeting focused on ‘interpretation’ of policy & so there was extensive discussion on this. It’s strongly recommended further pre-app is sought to discuss design & other planning matters.”

“23/504704 – Erection of 20 dwellings & erection of community building including local shop and changing room facilities accessed from Headcorn Rd - Withdrawn…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the housing benefits, affordable homes and policy context outweighed localised countryside harm, subject to conditions and obligations.

“The identified harm resulting from the proposal centres around the significant localised harm the development would cause to the rural character and appearance of the countryside hereabouts, contrary to policies LPRSP8, LPRSP9, LPRSP15, and LPRQD4.”

“The proposal is also acceptable in highway safety terms; it is policy complaint with regards to residential amenity; it will achieve the required level of BNG; it is acceptable in terms of its impact upon protected species; there are no flood risk and surface water drainage objections; it is acceptable in terms of sustainable design; it is policy compliant in terms of onsite affordable housing provision; and the proposal is acceptable in all other material planning respects.”

Officer report

Concerns and technical advice

Residents and the parish council objected on countryside, sustainability, highways, drainage, ecology, recreation and infrastructure grounds, while technical consultees raised no objection on several matters.

“Local residents: 18 representations received raising concerns over: Impact upon character and appearance of countryside; development is contrary to LPR policy; site is in unsustainable location; highway safety/congestion; parking provision; residential amenity; light and noise pollution; impact on ecology/biodiversity; inadequate BNG; impact upon trees; flood risk; impact upon community infrastructure; loss of agricultural land; loss of recreation land; limited…”

“Footpath: Object to new footpath. This would involve lighting which we oppose, because majority of residents value dark skies and dark landscape and we wish to preserve healthy habitat for wildlife. Footpath would also make it easier for those living in new houses to use Village Hall car park for overflow/visitor parking. Concerned about injury to pedestrians from cricket balls & parish council liability.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, a parish council representative and a representative for the applicant addressed the committee.

What members considered

Members considered the site remote, within open countryside and unrelated to the village centre, with lighting and development changing the landscape character.

“Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development, the Committee resolved to refuse permission. In making the decision, the Committee considered that the site was remote, within open countryside, and did not relate to the existing Ulcombe village centre. The landscape characteristics of the area would be changed by the development including lighting and would be contrary to countryside protection policies.”

“The Committee adjourned for five minutes to refine the reasons for refusal with officers including the relevant policies and guidance.”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee found that the scale, layout, location, domestic features and lighting would urbanise the countryside, harm Ulcombe’s rural setting and outweigh the housing benefits.

“The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, layout, and location, together with its domestic paraphernalia and lighting, would result in urbanising development that would appear incongruous with the pattern and grain of development within the site's immediate surroundings.”

Minutes