To consider the following application:

21/500173/FULL, Land East Of Hawes Woods High Oak Hill Iwade Road Newington Kent ME9 7HY

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that this application will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 6 April 2022.

Additional information which might be referred to added 6 April 2022.

Tabled paper added 7 April 2022.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application and said the Applicants had recently provided an updated site plan.  He drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper for this item and provided a further update to section 5.2 of the update to report that in total 19 further representations had been received, 18 in support of the application and one in objection.  The Major Projects Officer said the Council accepted the principle of using land as an animal sanctuary, subject to it being on the right site, with appropriate planning controls in place.  He reminded Members that the application site was sensitively located next to a designated ancient woodland and within an Area of High Landscape Value.  The Major Projects Officer said that areas such as these ancient woodlands were a finite and diminishing resource nationally and were protected under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 

The Major Projects Officer said that care needed to be taken that new development did not detract from the quality of the landscape.  Officers had concluded that this was not the right site for this development.  They had looked at the additional information provided by the Applicants following the Planning Committee meeting in December 2021.  Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation and KCC Ecology had continued to raise concern, and there had been four noise abatement breaches.  Officers were not satisfied that enough information had been supplied by the Applicants to address the previous concerns and remained with their recommendation that the application should be refused for the reasons set-out on pages 25 and 26 of the report.  The Major Projects Officer said the harm of the scheme significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits when assessed against the Local Plan (adopted 2017) and the NPPF (July 2021) and the other material planning considerations.

Mr David Warren, a supporter, was registered to speak, but withdrew before the meeting commenced.

Amey Jones, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

At this point, a Member raised a point of order and said that Appendix II on page 48 of the report had stated that the officer recommendation had been to approve the application.  The Chairman acknowledged that this was a typing error, and it should have read ‘officer recommendation to refuse’.

A visiting Member spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         Supported the application;

·         it was not unusual to hear animal noises in a rural setting;

·         there were more supporters for the application than in objection to it;

·         needed to be compassionate about the application and consider animal welfare;

·         compassion was not a material planning consideration;

·         a considerable amount of damage had been done already to bio-diversity on the site, and on the edge of the nationally protected ancient woodland;

·         a lot of hardcore had been placed on the site leaving it very difficult to return the site to farmland;

·         increased traffic on local roads;

·         the Applicant had not carried out the mitigation work requested by the Planning Committee in December 2021;

·         the site was not appropriate for farm or domesticated animals;

·         acknowledged the work of this charity, but concerned about the damage to the ancient woodland buffer zone;

·         the scheme needed to be better organised; and

·         this use on the site was not acceptable in planning terms.

The Major Projects Officer displayed photographs of the site which showed various hardstandings, caravans, enclosures for animals, general paraphernalia, the proximity of Hawes Wood, and rubbish on the site.

In response to points raised by the visiting Ward Member, the Major Projects Officer referred to the agricultural status of the land.  He compared what was on the site now with a typical agriculture site and said the issue was the intensity of the use and the sheer number and diversity of animals in close proximity and its location close to residential dwellings.  The Major Projects Officer said there were traffic implications, different to an agricultural use, as the site was intended to be visited by members of the public.  He added that the adjacent ancient woodland was protected under the NPPF.  The woodland was a nationally diminishing resource which should be treasured and any planning application within a 15-metre buffer of ancient woodland would raise concern.  The Major Projects Officer explained that a number of officers had looked at this application with very careful consideration, and the decision to recommend refusal was not reached lightly, but was the appropriate course of action as noted by the reasons set-out in the report.

Members made further comments which included:

·         Suggested there be time limited conditions on outstanding issues;

·         as a Council, we were in a position to help this charity;

·         the land needed a lot of work on it and could be improved if there was more funding;

·         temporary planning permission could be given;

·         more information sought on the ecology report and the timescale for the Applicant to resolve the issues Members had concerns with;

·         the waste on the land might have changed the topography of the site and this might have affected surface drainage;

·         considered that the changes specifically to the topography of the site, movement of hardcore etc. required planning permission;

·         more information sought on the alleged escaped animals from the site into the Ancient Woodland; and

·         noise issues from the animals were of concern.

The Senior Environmental Health Officer gave an update on the noise nuisance at the site.  He explained that the main issue of noise was from the cockerels and geese.  There were 120 cockerels, and this was not normal in a farm setting.  He said that this was factual noise and abatement notices had been issued and breaches of these had been witnessed on site very recently.  The Senior Environmental Health Officer said there was constant, excessive noise at the site, and this impacted on the families who lived nearby.

The Major Projects Officer responded to concerns raised by Members.  He said that attaching conditions and a temporary permission was not appropriate in this instance as it was recommended that the application was refused.  The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to Appendix III on pages 51 to 53 of the report which set-out a letter to the Applicant from the Head of Planning Services sent following the Committee in December 2021.  The letter included measures that the Applicant was required to put in place, which included a Management Plan.  It had been hoped that the application would have been reported back to the Planning Committee on 10 March 2022, but further information from the Applicant had not been forthcoming.  He explained that one of the reasons for refusal included the inappropriate use of hardcore materials and the submitted planning application had not included land raising or hardcore.  The Environment Agency (EA) were looking at this matter separately under their legislation.  The Major Projects Officer added, in response to a specific question from a Member, that the alleged escaped animals were not a point that had been relied upon in the refusal reasons.

The Planning Lawyer advised Members that they were required to look at planning issues and merits and not make a decision based on non-planning issues.  There needed to be sound and legally compliant decisions.  She read out relevant sections of paragraphs 174 and 180 of the NPPF, in terms of bio-diversity and refusal of an application unless there were wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy.

Resolved:  That application 21/500173/FULL be refused for the reasons set-out in the report.