Schedule of Decisions

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended.

The Chair reported that the Secretary of State had informed officers just less than three hours before the meeting, that under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 they were calling in the application.  He explained that this meant the Council were no longer the determining authority but could still inform the Secretary of State what the Council’s decision would have been.  This would also form the basis of the Council’s response to the Inquiry.

The Chair reported that any registered speakers could withdraw from speaking and instead provide comments to the Secretary of State via the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) website, and that Parish Councils could apply for Rule 6 Status.

A Member thanked the officer for all his due diligence and work in producing the ‘first-class’ report.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen moved the following motion:  That if the meeting was adjourned until Monday 11 November 2024, and then again until Thursday 14 November 2024, the meetings commenced at 7 pm, not 6 pm as suggested.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.  The Chair said it was not the right time to be considering such a motion and referred Members to the agenda and item 3.1.

The Principal Planning Consultant advised that following the call-in, the officer recommendation needed to be amended to read: “To delegate to the Head of Place the authority to manage and progress all aspects of the Council’s case before the Secretary of State in relation to determination of the application”.   The Principal Planning Consultant explained that whilst the report outlined the Council’s reasons for refusing the application, the Secretary of State might want the Council’s views on other areas including: delivering a sufficient supply of homes; building a strong, competitive economy, promoting sustainable transport; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; consistency with the development plan for the area; and any other matters the Inspector considered relevant.

The Principal Planning Consultant reminded members of the Committee that a briefing detailing the application had been provided, and given the Council were no longer the decision maker, his presentation would focus on the key issues where refusal was recommended as set out in the report.  This included: transport and highway matters; noise; air quality; energy; development in the countryside; the loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural land; trees and hedges; the rural economy; landscape and visual impacts; the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations: the Swale and Medway Estuary Special Protect Areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and RAMSAR sites; planning obligations and viability; and interrelationships between the application and cumulative issues.

Stuart Crossen (Cerda Planning Ltd), representing Bapchild Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Brian Clarke, representing Bredgar Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Tony Cross, representing Milstead Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Graham Haggar, representing Rodmersham Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Bruce Bamber (Railton TPC), representing Teynham Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Alastair Stewart, representing Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council spoke against the application.

Catherine Igoe representing Locate in Kent, spoke in support of the application.

Ben Geering, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Ward Member for West Downs, spoke against the application.

At this point Councillor Terry Thompson arrived at the meeting.

A Ward Member for Woodstock Ward, spoke against the application.

A Ward Member for Teynham and Lynsted Ward, spoke against the application.

A visiting Member, spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the following motion:  That discussion of the item be adjourned until the introductory presentation for item 3.2 had been considered.  This was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark and agreed by Members.

On returning to consider the application, the Chair moved the amended officer recommendation:  Noting that the Council would have been minded to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the officers report, that delegated authority be given to the Head of Place to manage and progress all aspects of the Council’s case before the Secretary of State in relation to the determination of the application. On seconding the motion Councillor Simon Clark proposed that Members moved straight to the vote.  This was agreed by Members.

Councillor Terry Thompson did not vote on this item as he was not in attendance for the whole time that the application was considered.

Resolved:  Noting that in respect of application 21/503906/EIOUT the Council would have been minded to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the officer’s report, that delegated authority be given to the Head of Place to manage and progress all aspects of the Council’s case before the Secretary of State in relation to the determination of the application.