5 to 9 homes at Land North West Of Charton Manor Gorse Hill, Farningham

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for between five and nine net dwellings with associated ancillary works.

“- 25/02117/PIP Revised expiry date 29 September 2025 Proposal: Erection of dwellings with a minimum of 5 or a maximum of 9 net dwellings and associated ancillary works. Location: Land North West Of Charton Manor, Gorse Hill, Farningham Kent Ward(s): Farningham, Horton Kirby & South Darenth Item for decision The application has been referred by Councillor White to Development Management Committee on the grounds of failing to demonstrate local housing need or deliver…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was an L-shaped part of agricultural land with a barn, existing accesses, Green Belt protection and nearby residential development.

“Further guidance for applicants, including information about how to clarify the highway boundary and links to application forms for vehicular crossings and other highway matters, may be found on Kent County Council's website: https://www.kent.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/highway-permits-and-licences/highways- permissionsand-technical-guidance. Alternatively, KCC Highways and Transportation may be contacted by telephone: 03000 418181.”

“A secondary access and dropped kerb is visible off Gorse Hill however, this is more overgrown. The site lies within Metropolitan Green Belt and just outside the Kent Downs National Landscape. To the south/south east of the site lies the residential village of Farningham and to the east Charton Manor. Description of proposal 4 The application seeks permission in principle for a minimum of 5 or a maximum of 9 net dwellings and associated ancillary works.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission in principle because the site was considered suitable in location, land use and development amount.

“Chief Planning Officer’s appraisal 33 The main planning considerations are: The application is made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 as amended. The proposal seeks permission in principle for residential development. This consent route has two stages. The first stage establishes whether a site is suitable in principle. The second stage, i.e.”

“While ensuring it would not result in excessive overlooking, visual intrusion, vibration, odour, air pollution, vehicle movements, or a loss of privacy and light enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby properties. Amenity is not a matter that can be fully considered within a permission in principle application.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Parish councils and the ward councillor objected over Green Belt, access, traffic, safety, lighting, noise and affordable housing, while Natural England did not object.

“Consultations 11 Farningham Parish Council – Object to the scheme on the following basis: • Unacceptable release of the Green Belt • Has no abided by the Golden Rules and is speculative Grey Belt • Highways safety concerns due to location on A20 and increase in vehicles and narrow Eglantine Lane.”

“Whilst it is noted only two dwellings are likely to be served KCC Highways would expect the applicant provides evidence to demonstrate this constitutes safe and suitable access in line with Manual for Streets 2 and Kent Design Guide IGN 2. In addition, further dwellings will be served via an access onto the A20 Main Road, it is unclear if this will be a new or re-sited access.”

Officer report

Resident concerns

One objection raised road safety, increased traffic and incidents, lighting impacts on wildlife and the lack of affordable housing.

“Kent Wildlife Trust– No comment received Representations 32 We have received one objection to the application which raised the following concerns: • Road Safety – increase traffic and incidents • Impact on wildlife from lighting • No affordable housing…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Cllr Kevin McGeough spoke as a parish representative against the application, with no speaker recorded for the application or as a local member.

What members debated

Members were significantly concerned that crossing the A20 would harm pedestrian safety and that traffic and access would severely affect highway safety.

“Members discussed the proposal, giving consideration to the location of the site and its access. They expressed significant concern that walking to Farningham from the site would involve crossing the A20, adversely impacting pedestrian safety. They were further concerned that the additional traffic generated by the dwellings and the access would severely impact highway safety.”

Minutes

The final decision

Permission in principle was refused because the proposal was considered to create severe and unsafe highway conditions and to be in an unsustainable location.

“Resolved: that permission in principle be refused on the following grounds:”

“1) The proposal would result in severe and unsafe highway conditions, both for motor vehicles and pedestrians. The site was not in a sustainable location, in part due to the separation of the site from Farningham, by the busy A20 strategic highway network road. As such the proposal was contrary to policies EN1 and T1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan and paragraphs 116 and 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes

Why the recommendation changed

The committee’s reasons focused on vehicle and pedestrian safety and the busy A20 separating the site from Farningham.

“It was moved and duly seconded that permission in principle be refused, on the grounds that the proposal would result in severe and unsafe highway conditions, both for motor vehicles and pedestrians, as the site is not in a sustainable location, in part due to the separation of the site from Farningham, by the busy A20 strategic highway network road, contrary to policies EN1 and T1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan and paragraphs 116 and 117 of the…”

Minutes