Tabled updates from Ospringe Parish Council published 6 February 2025.

The Planning Consultant referred to two points raised at the site meeting.  The first point related to an application for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for the two trees either side of the existing entrance.  The Planning Consultant reported that the Council’s Tree Officer was of the view that the trees were prominent, healthy and worthy of protection, but as they would not be affected by the application so not under imminent threat, the TPO would be cautionary and not a high priority.  The second point related to the history of noise complaints regarding existing businesses at Brogdale Farm, Faversham.  The Planning Consultant reported that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that no recent complaints had been received for this site.  There were two historical noise complaints from 2009 and 2015 in relation to the Butchers at Brogdale Farm, however they had both been resolved, and no statutory notices were served in relation to noise nuisance.  Planning enforcement records showed that several enforcement cases were opened between 2009 and 2018 mostly relating to noise and lighting, including some associated with the butchers.  However, no enforcement notices were served, and no new investigations had been opened since.

The Planning Consultant stated that the application would be subject to separate planning conditions to control its hours of use and lighting.  The proposed workshop units would be restricted to Use Classes Eg(ii) and Eg (iii) which were uses that could be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area.

The Planning Consultant drew attention to the additional traffic data provided by Ospringe Parish Council which was tabled for Members. 

At this point the Chair adjourned the meeting to allow Members time to read the tabled papers.

The Planning Consultant summarised the additional traffic data from Ospringe Parish Council which included data from two separate speed watch sessions on 7 January 2025 and 4 February 2025 for a one-hour period in each session.  The results indicated the number of vehicles recorded passing the survey position and those that were travelling above 35 mph, along with the top speed recorded.  However, no methodology of this process had been provided or evidence of the qualifications of those carrying out the survey.  There were no details of the type or quality of the equipment used, therefore officers could not verify that the data provided was accurate and would advise against relying on the data over that provided in the Transport Statement.  Section 3.5 of the Transport Statement set out that two automatic transport surveys were undertaken along Brogdale Road either side of the proposed access.  Vehicle speeds were surveyed for one week from 28 March 2019.  Figures 3.3 and 3.4 showed the equipment used in the surveys.  The highest speed recorded was to the north and headed away from the development.  The recorded speeds affecting the proposed site access junction were 35.9 mph (southbound) and 34.3 mph (northbound).  The required visibility from the site access junction had been designed to account for the recorded speeds in accordance with the manual for streets visibility requirements.

The Planning Consultant said at the time the Traffic Statement was provided in 2021, the best data available would have been the latest data before the Covid-19 Pandemic, as traffic movements had significantly changed during and shortly after the lockdowns.  He said that whilst officers acknowledged that a certain amount of time had passed since then, Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation had not raised concern about the age of the data provided and they would be aware of the additional trips generated by the new developments in the area.

Grace Clements, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Julian Herrington, an objector, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Andrew Keel, representing Ospringe Parish Council, spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Terry Thompson.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and points raised included:

·         The ‘spirit’ of Brogdale was linked to the heritage of fruit and farming and it was an agricultural site not a suburban site;

·         concerned that the site had not been put forward for rural use by the applicants;

·         understood there was no longer support for the nursery school by Lorenden School and noted there was already a nursery within the village;

·         industrialisation of a rural area was not needed;

·         the application was the opposite of the remit of the East Malling Trust, which was “the advancement of science for public benefit, primarily through the support of research and development, particularly in the fields of horticulture and other plant-based disciplines”.

·         the site should be used for rural use and considered the glass houses on the site were useable;

·         pedestrians would not be able to safely access the site from Brogdale Road;

·         concerned regarding the visibility of accessing the proposed access;

·         concerned regarding the highway impact of the application;

·         there was strict protocol from Kent Police on using the Speed Watch equipment and it was a valid scheme;

·         did not consider that KCC Highways & Transportation had considered the cumulative effect of increased traffic from new developments such as Perry Court in the area since 2019;

·         the proposed access would be dangerous for parents and young children visiting the proposed nursery school by foot;

·         the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated development could be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on road safety;

·         did not consider an industrial area was an acceptable location for a nursery school;

·         understood that some of the existing industrial units were regularly vacant and not convinced there was a demand for the proposed additional industrial units;

·         the application conflicted with Policy DM31 (Agricultural land) of Swale Borough Council’s (SBC’s) Local Plan which protected best and most versatile land;

·         the site was not allocated within the SBC’s Local Plan and the applicant had not provided any evidence that alternative lower grade agricultural sites were unavailable;

·         the application contravened Policy ST3 (The Swale settlement strategy) as the site was outside of the settlement boundary;

·         the site was not within a rural service centre or designated employment site so it also contravened parts of Policy DM3 (The rural economy) from SBC’s Local Plan;

·         the application would also cause harm to the setting of Brogdale Farmhouse, a Grade II listed building, contrary to Policy CP8 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment – providing for green infrastructure) and Policy DM 32 (Development involving listed buildings) of SBC’s Local Plan;

·         not convinced that the benefits of the application would outweigh the contravention of so many of the Council’s planning policies;

·         saddened that the site had been allowed to fall into such disrepair;

·         would like to see the glasshouses repaired and a plant nursery opened on the site as it would be more in-keeping and allow the listed building not to be ‘hemmed-in’ on all sides;

·         would prefer that the existing access be used;

·         the pedestrian access was hidden and was an ‘accident waiting to happen’;

·         considered that the staff using the proposed nursery would arrive earlier than 7 am and leave later than 7 pm;

·         hard to believe that the proposed access had been considered acceptable by officers;

·         due to the noise of the motorway approaching vehicles could not bwe heard when trying to cross onto Brogdale Road via the proposed access;

·         Brogdale Road was not suitable for pedestrians;

·         this was the wrong side of the motorway for a nursery school;

·         the sharp gradient for vehicles leaving the application site via the proposed access was unacceptable; and

·         considered the application was ‘stretching’ diversification of the site.

In response to a question from the Chair regarding a possible deferment, the Planning Consultant said that the previously agreed extension of time for a decision on the application was 5 December 2024.

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

Members considered reasons for refusing the application, and reasons suggested included:

·         The benefits of the application did not outweigh the harm to so many of the Council’s Local Plan policies such as DM31; DM3, CP8 and DM32;

·         road safety concerns;

·         no demonstrable need for the nursery school; and

·         no demonstration of the need for the industrial units.

The Planning Manager said that Members needed to identify the harms caused and then tie them back to SBC’s Local Plan.  He suggested four possible reasons for refusing the application for Members to consider.

Councillor Julien Speed moved the following motion to refuse the application: 

(1)  As it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development would be able to be served by a safe access and as such the development would be likely to have a detrimental impact on highway safety.  The proposal was therefore contrary to Policies CP 2 (Promoting sustainable transport) DM6 (Management transport demand and impact) and DM 14 (General development criteria) of Bearing Fruits 2031 – The Swale Borough Local Plan 2017 and the NPPF. 

(2)  The proposed development would result in the loss of best and most fertile agricultural land and it had not been demonstrated that an overriding need exists for the development that could not be met on land within the built up boundaries or that no alternative site on land at a lower grade could accommodate the proposed development.  The proposal was, therefore, unacceptable and contrary to Policies ST 1 (Delivering sustainable development in Swale), ST 7 (The Faversham area and Kent Downs strategy), DM 31 (Agricultural Land) of Bearing Fruits 2031, the Swale Borough Local Plan 2017 and the NPPF. 

(3)  The quantum and commercial nature of the proposed development and its position relative to the nearby listed building on former farmland associated with the listed farmhouse would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of that heritage asset, and the harm was not outweighed by public benefits arising from the proposal.  The proposal was, therefore, unacceptable and contrary to Policies ST 1 and ST 7, CP 8 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment), DM14 (General development criteria), DM 32 (Development involving listed buildings) of Bearing Fruits 2031, the Swale Borough Local Plan 2017 and the NPPF. 

(4)  The application site lay outside any defined settlement boundary and within the countryside.  Therefore, by virtue of the inappropriate quantum and siting of the proposed development, the proposal would result in urbanisation of the site and the area.  Moreover, due to the position of the site relative to sustainable modes of transport, users of the site are likely to be highly reliant on the use of private modes of transport such as may undermine the objective of sustainably locating development.  The proposal was, therefore, unacceptable and contrary to Policies ST 1, ST 3, ST 7, CP 2, CP 4, DM 3, DM 6 and DM 14 of Bearing Fruits 2031, the Swale Borough Local Plan 2017 and the NPPF. 

This was seconded by the Chair.  On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was agreed.

The Chair added that if the application went to appeal that the council provided a traffic survey.  This was agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 20/505877/OUT be refused for the reasons as minuted.