To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 November 2021 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider application 21/504571/FULL - Greystone, Bannister Hill, Borden, ME9 8HU.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 November 2021 (Minute Nos. 448 – 449) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

21/504571/FULL GREYSTONE, BANNISTER HILL, BORDEN, ME9 8HU

The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled update for this application, which included comments from Borden Parish Council, an update on highway matters and comments from local residents.  Borden Parish Council had considered that there were badgers on the site, however the applicant said there was no evidence of badgers and had asked an ecologist to investigate.  The ecologist had also said there was no evidence of badger setts or activity on the site.  Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation had no objection on highway grounds.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee spoke against the application.  He raised concern with the impact of the development on existing neighbours.  The Ward Member considered the principle of development to be acceptable at this location, but suggested a bungalow be built, rather than a house.  He said it was over-development, there were issues of increased traffic and it would have a significant impact on the Conservation Area.

In the debate that followed, Members raised the following points:

·         Concerned with the access road in terms of visibility;

·         Plot 4 was very close in proximity to the neighbouring properties;

·         a bungalow would be a better option;

·         acknowledged that the development would have an impact, but the distance from neighbouring properties was over the minimum distance required;

·         whilst some trees had been removed, this had added more light to the site;

·         highway issues were an existing problem;

·         this was not within the conservation area;

·         a single-storey building would not alter any highway issues;

·         this was over-development; and

·         impact on the conservation area.

On being put to the vote, the motion to approve the application was lost.

There was some discussion on the possible reasons for refusal which included: overdevelopment; the impact on neighbouring properties; impact on the conservation area; and highway visibility.

In response, the Conservation & Design Manager explained that the degree of harm to the setting of the conservation area was quite low as the properties were set back on the site, and with some trees on the site it was questionable as to whether this reason would stand-up at any appeal.  The Area Planning Officer advised that over-development was not a good reason as the site was large and it was not a dense development.

Some Members noted that comments from KCC Highways & Transportation and the Consultant had concluded that highway issues were not an issue on this development.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds of over-development in terms of the over-bearing impact on neighbouring properties and the detrimental impact on the setting of the conservation area.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless and on being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 21/ 504571/FULL be refused on the grounds of over-development in terms of the over-bearing impact on neighbouring properties and the detrimental impact on the setting of the conservation area.