17-home development at Land Adjacent To Eyhorne Street, Hollingbourne

What was proposed

The application proposed 17 homes, including affordable housing, with access, parking, landscaping, ecological enhancements and associated works.

“APPLICATION: Erection of 17 dwellings including affordable housing, access, parking, landscaping, ecological enhancements and associated works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an undeveloped arable field outside, but beside, Eyhorne Street, near a railway, public footpath, listed building and national landscape.

“The application site relates to a relatively flat and undeveloped parcel of arable land (some 1.2ha in area) that is located outside, but on the edge of Eyhorne Street, a ‘larger village’ as designated by the Local Plan Review.”

“There are other public rights of way within the vicinity of the site; the adjacent property, known as Godfrey House, is Grade II* listed; and for the and for the purposes of the Local Plan Review the site is within the designated countryside that falls within the setting of the Kent Downs National Landscape. The site is also within an area of archaeological interest and within Flood Zone 1.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier pre-application proposals for 18 and 17 homes raised concerns about countryside, landscape, heritage, parking and affordable housing.

“25/503962 – Pre-app: 17 dwellings – Officer summary: ‘In general terms, my conclusions have not significantly changed from 25/502863. With just a proposed layout to consider, whilst weight is given to benefits to development, perceived harm caused to countryside hereabouts and setting of Kent Downs NL would outweigh these benefits. There also remains heritage and parking provision concerns.”

“25/502863 – Pre-app: 18 dwellings – Officer summary: ‘Local Plan Review should be read as whole, and whilst weight is given to benefits to proposal, perceived harm caused to countryside hereabouts and setting of Kent Downs NL would outweigh benefits. Not providing 40% AH provision; likely heritage harm; potential failure to not adhere to adopted KCC parking standards; and not fully complying with LPRQD7, also weighs against proposal’. Response sent 27/08/25.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers identified heritage and countryside harm but considered the sustainable location, 17 homes, affordable housing and other benefits outweighed those impacts.

“The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of Godfrey House, a Grade II* listed property. The NPPF advises that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.”

“On this basis, it is concluded that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the heritage harm identified within this report; and when considering the NPPF’s tilted balance, the identified harmful impacts resulting from granting this permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing seventeen dwellings in this sustainable location. On this basis, a recommendation of approval is therefore made.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Seven resident representations and the parish council objected, while most technical consultees raised no objection; the conservation officer raised a heritage objection.

“Local residents: 7 representations received raising concerns over: Impact upon residential amenity; highway safety/parking/congestion; noise pollution; harmful impact upon character and appearance of area/countryside, including setting of Kent Downs National Landscape; proposal represents overdevelopment; loss of agricultural land; impact upon ecology/wildlife; flood risk/drainage; lack of affordable housing; harmful heritage impacts; site is in unsustainable location;…”

“MBC Conservation Officer: Raises heritage objection to proposal (see main report).”

Officer report

Who spoke

A Hollingbourne parish councillor and the applicant’s representative addressed the committee.

The decision

Permission was granted subject to conditions, completion of a legal agreement and delegated powers to settle or amend associated details.

“That permission be granted subject to the conditions and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the heads of terms set out in the report.”

“That the Head of Planning and Economic Development be given delegated powers to be able to settle or amend any necessary Heads of Terms, planning conditions and/or informatives in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.”

Minutes