Agenda item
3.2 - 21/503914/EIOUT - Land South and East of Sittingbourne, Kent
Minutes:
|
3.2 REFERENCE NO – 21/503914/EIOUT |
||
|
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Southern Site. Outline Planning Application for the phased development of up to 577.48 hectares at Highsted Park, Land to the South and East of Sittingbourne, Kent, comprising of up to 7,150 residential dwellings including sheltered / extra care accommodation (Use Class C2 and Use Class C3). Up to 170,000 sq m / 34 hectares of commercial, business and service / employment floorspace (Use Class B2, Use Class B8 and Use Class E), and including up to 2,800 sq m of hotel (Use Class C1) floorspace. Up to 15,000 sq m / 1.5 hectares for a household waste recycling centre. Mixed use local centre and neighborhood facilities including commercial, business and employment floorspace (Use Class E), non-residential institutions (Use Class F1) and local community uses (Use Class F2) floorspace, and Public Houses (Sui Generis). Learning institutions including primary and secondary schools (Use Class F1(a)). Open space, green infrastructure, woodland, and community and sports provision (Use Class F2(c)). Highways and infrastructure works including the provision of a new motorway junction to the M2, a Highsted Park Sustainable Movement Corridor (inc. a Sittingbourne Southern Relief Road), and new vehicular access points to the existing network; and associated groundworks, engineering, utilities, and demolition works. |
||
|
ADDRESSLand South and East of Sittingbourne, Kent. |
||
|
WARD West Downs Teynham and Lynsted Woodstock Roman |
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Teynham |
APPLICANT Quinn Estates Kent Ltd, G.H. Dean & o Ltd, Attwood Farms Ltd, Attwood Trustees, and AG Kent Holding BV. AGENT Montagu Evans LLP |
The Chair reminded Members that as for item 3.1, the Secretary of State had informed officers that under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 they were calling in the application. 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 Secretary of State’s Inquiry.
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 committee 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 reported that given the Council were no longer the decision maker, he would focus on the key issues where refusal was recommended as set out in the committee report which included: interrelationship with the Southern Relief Road; severance; modelling and mitigation; Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations: air quality and noise; and planning obligations and viability.
Stuart Crossen, representing Bapchild Parish Council, spoke against the application.
Penny Thwaites, representing Bredgar Parish Council, spoke against the application.
Parish Councillor Tony Cross, representing Milstead Parish Council, spoke against the application.
Parish Councillor Duncan Burnett, representing Rodmersham Parish Council, spoke against the application.
Bruce Bamber, representing Teynham Parish Council, spoke against the application.
Parish Councillor Clive Simms, representing Borden Parish Council, spoke against the application.
Maurice Dunk (We are Pioneer Group), a Supporter, spoke in support of the application.
Paul Forshaw, an Objector, spoke against the application.
Ben Geering, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.
The Ward Member for West Downs, spoke against the application.
A Ward Member for Woodstock, spoke against the application.
A Ward Member for Teynham and Lynsted, 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 Monday 11 November 2024. This was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark. On being put to the vote the motion was lost. At this point, the Chair referred Members back to consider agenda item 3.1.
The Chair moved the officer recommendation as amended: 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.
The Principal Planning Consultant outlined the next steps for Members as set out in the tabled letter from the Secretary of State.
In response to questions from Members, the Council’s external barrister explained that all the information and representations submitted to the Local Planning Authority would now be passed to the Secretary of State, including any additional considerations. He advised that other parties would also be able make their views known. The Team Leader (Planning) added that all the information requested by the Secretary of State would be published on the planning portal pages of SBC’s website. He said that deferring both applications would not have been beneficial, as the principal issues were already contained within the officer’s report and delaying the process would put more pressure on officers given the prescribed deadlines for the Secretary of State’s consideration.
A Member stated how disappointing and frustrating it was that local people were not allowed to make decisions about their local environment.
Resolved: Noting that in respect of application 21/503914/EIOUTthe 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.
Supporting documents:
PDF 2 MB