66 new homes at Land North Of Drayhorse Meadow Fields Lane Wateringbury

What was proposed

The application proposed 66 two-storey homes, including 50% affordable housing, with open space, landscaping, access, parking and pedestrian links.

“Erection of 66 new homes (including affordable homes), together with associated open space, landscaping, access and parking.”

“Description of Proposal: Planning permission is sought for the development of the site to provide 66 dwellings (including 50% affordable) together with associated access, parking, open space and landscaping. The development would deliver a mix of new homes (limited to two storey) comprising of 6 x 1 bed, 24 x 2, 24 x 3, and 11 x 4 bedroom homes.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The only relevant planning history was a 1974 application for residential development with access, which was refused.

“A stretch of Tonbridge Road to the west (by the junction with Bow Road) is located within an Air Quality Management Area. Planning History (relevant): There is no recent relevant history for the site, the only planning history concerns an historic application for residientail developent in 1974. 74/12761/OLD - Refuse - 15 May 1974 Residential development with access. 5.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the site Grey Belt, sustainably located and with benefits that outweighed the loss of best and most versatile land.

“Grey Belt 6.25 In regard to Grey Belt, paragraph 155 (NPPF) states that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where: a) The development would utilise ‘grey belt’ land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b) There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c) The development would be…”

“Part 1 Public encroachment, the definition of Grey Belt is clear that it excludes Green Belt. As such, the site is not located in any of the other assets referred to in footnote 7. Therefore, the next test would be to establish if the parcel of land ‘strongly’ contributes to the Green Belt under purposes a), b), or d) as set out in Paragraph 143 (NPPF). These are: a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative, members of the public and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members were concerned about the AQMA, best and most versatile land, landscape and Medway Valley views, and considered the proposal inappropriate Green Belt development.

“Members expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the development to the existing Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), the loss of Best and Most Versatile land, the harmful impact of the layout on the landscape character and views of the Medway Valley. Furthermore, Members considered the proposal to be an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.”

“(2) The proposal by virtue of the layout, loss of Best and Most Versatile land and loss of important views into and out of the Medway Valley would result in irreversible landscape harm to the detriment of this countryside location, contrary to paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CP14 of the Core Strategy and Maidstone Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment (Medway Valley); and…”

Minutes

The committee vote

A majority supported a proposal to refuse, but the vote was only a recommendation because the proposed refusal reasons might not withstand an appeal.

“Councillor R Betts proposed and Councillor S Hudson seconded that the application be refused, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:”

“Following a formal vote, the proposal was supported by the majority of the Committee and on the grounds that the above refusal reasons were not considered could be substantiated at an appeal, the vote taken was a recommendation only in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 Rules of the Constitution.”

Minutes

What happened next

The application was deferred for a report on the risks of deciding contrary to the planning director’s recommendation.

“RESOLVED: That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED for a report from the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer on the risks arising from a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health* (as set out in Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 (Rules) of the Constitution).”

Minutes