17 new homes at Grove Farm, Maidstone Road, Hadlow

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing student accommodation and creating 17 private homes with parking, landscaping and communal amenity space.

“Description of Proposal: 1.1 The application proposes the demolition the existing buildings on the site to create 17 private residential properties. The development would largely retain the existing layout, scale and built form at the site. The submission indicates the extent of residential curtilage for each individual dwelling, including parking arrangements and associated hard and soft landscaping which involves provision of a communal amenity space.”

“The replacement buildings would be positioned on the footprint of this existing building and the partially implemented Social Club that was granted planning approval under application reference number:15/03658/FL. The resulting buildings would accommodate four units (2 pairs of semis), comprising four 2-bedroom (3 person) units. The units would all have a bathroom and open plan kitchen, living and dining areas.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is outside Hadlow’s built confines, in open countryside and the Metropolitan Green Belt, and was previously used for about 55 students.

“Part 1 Public and replaced with three 2 storey detached 3 bed (5 person) units. One unit would benefit from an attached single storey garage. The scheme includes provision of communal amenity space together with a landscape enhancement area to the southern end of the site. The proposal also includes parking areas together with a designated turning area. 2.”

“The southwest site boundary adjoins a series of fishing lakes used by Hadlow College as part of their fisheries management courses. To the north of the site is open agricultural land and a block of wooded area characteristic of the surrounding countryside. The site’s front boundary is enclosed by a short picket fence allowing open views into the site from the A26 (Maidstone Road. A Flood Zone 2 and 3 is located further to the south beyond the site boundaries.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeal

A similar 17-home scheme was refused and dismissed on appeal, with concerns about Green Belt openness and affordable housing evidence.

“Part 1 Public 4.1 As noted above planning permission was refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal for a similar scheme. This application seeks to address those previous concerns. The 2022 application was refused for two reasons, the first related to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the second in relation to the failing to provide provision of affordable housing.”

“These minimum requirements are material factors relevant to the determination of the viability, or otherwise, of the proposed development to contribute towards the provision of Affordable Housing required in policy CP17 of the TMBCS.”

Officer report

Why officers supported approval

Officers considered the redevelopment appropriate in the Green Belt, acceptable in design and living conditions, and beneficial for housing delivery despite no immediate affordable housing.

“Part 1 Public increase, as such, it is considered that the proposal would not cause ‘substantial’ harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore comply with paragraph 154 NPPF criterion g) and as such would be appropriate development in the Green Belt.”

“Affordable housing 6.30 Paragraph 64 (NPPF) notes where a need for affordable housing is identified planning policies should specify the type of affordable housing required (including the minimum proportion of Social Rent homes required) and moreover this should be provided on site unless off site provision or a financial contribution can be justified.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The parish council and highway authority raised no objection, while housing, drainage and ecology consultees requested further provision, information or conditions; residents expressed support.

“East Peckham Parish Council: No objections 4.13 Planning Policy: No comments received Housing Services: I note viability information has been submitted to evidence policy compliant 40% affordable housing provision is not viable, and a financial contribution is proposed. The amount of on-site provision that is viable needs to be established before a financial contribution can be considered.”

“Part 1 Public 5.16 As Land Drainage Consent is required, the Board strongly recommends that this is sought from the Board prior to determination of this planning application. The Board will only consider the proposals in detail on receipt of an application for Land Drainage Consent. The annexe at the end of this letter outlines the Board’s regulatory function and how to apply for Land Drainage Consent.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A member of the public and the applicant addressed the committee in person.

What members discussed

Members recognised the positive design and housing mix, including bungalows, and noted the need for better public transport and a safe pedestrian path.

“Due regard was given to the determining issues, conditions, reasons and informatives as detailed in the report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health. Members acknowledged the positive design aspects and the mix of housing types, including…”

Minutes

The vote

The committee unanimously agreed to approve the application and unanimously supported the first, index-linked affordable housing option.

“It was proposed by Councillor Palmer (Chair), seconded by Councillor Hudson, and the Committee unanimously agreed to approve the planning application subject to agreement of an option for the affordable housing mechanism as set out in the Heads of Terms of the s106 Agreement and, within the option, a revised condition to reflect the requirement for the Development to be implemented, rather than be built to Structural Slab Level, within 12 (twelve) months of the date of the…”

“The Committee further considered the two options set out in the report in respect of an affordable housing mechanism to secure the developer’s contribution as part of the Heads of Terms for the s106 Agreement. Following discussion, Councillor Hudson proposed that the first index- linked option be supported to ensure value over time, which was seconded by Councillor Lark and agreed by the Committee unanimously.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the submitted conditions, reasons, informatives and a section 106 agreement using the revised implementation condition and index-linked contributions.

“RESOLVED: That planning permission be GRANTED in accordance with the submitted details, conditions, reasons and informatives set out in both the main and the supplementary reports of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environment Health, subject to:”

“Developer Contributions Open space and KCC contributions (index linked)”

Minutes