To consider the following application:

15/510595/OUT, Land off London Road, Newington.

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

Requests to speak on these items must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 25 May 2016.

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper which provided some further comments from a Ward Member, with officer responses.  One further letter of objection had been received which raised issues already noted in the report.  The Major Projects Officer referred to paragraph 8.0 on page 14 of the report which stated that the recommendation would have been to approve the application, subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions in the report, had an appeal not been submitted.

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Richard Knox-Johnson, representing the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to advise the Planning Inspectorate that the Council supported the proposals and this was seconded.

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised points which included:  consideration needed to be given to the KCC Waste and Mineral plan report on the brick earth; the geological data was not complete; a further brick earth survey was needed on the site; there would be a cumulative effect of building at this site; viability of brick earth needed to be looked at further; and detrimental impact on the landscape.

A second Ward Member spoke against  the application and raised points which included:  considered judgement on the application was finely balanced; heritage assets needed to be considered; landscape character assessment had stated serious concerns with the proposal; pressure on local services, and schools, with any expansion of local schools being detrimental to the highway; concerned with access to the site; and this would contribute to the 5-year supply of housing.

Councillor Mike Henderson proposed the following reasons for refusing the application if the motion to approve were to be lost:

·        The development was too large for Newington; it would be a 20% increase to a small village;

·        This development was not within the village envelope;

·        Loss of potential brickearth resource; it was clear the applicant had not carried out a proper survey;

·        Loss of best and most versatile high quality agricultural land;

·        This was not a sustainable development.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that a development had to be sustainable on economic, social and environmental grounds;

·        The development was contrary to Policies E6 and E7 of the adopted Local Plan;

·        There was a lack of 5-year supply of housing, with a 4.2 year supply, but it was for the decision maker to decide the weight to attach to each policy; and the Planning Committee was the decision-making body to decide the level of importance of the issues raised;

·        This site had not been selected as a housing site under the emerging Local Plan.

Members raised concerns which included:  nothing has changed since the last meeting; this went against Policies; cumulative effect on highway; mitigation measures on application were insufficient and would add to problems; report did not reflect the KCC Minerals and Waste Plan; there will be a demand for brick earth, and needed to protect potential sites for the future.

In response to a question, the KCC Highways and Transportation Officer confirmed that there would be around 4 to 5 vehicle movements per dwelling and this would amount to approximately 630 vehicle movements per day, plus vehicle movements from the Extra Care Unit.

A Member referred  to paragraph 6.18 on page 11 of the report and considered 630 movements not to be a relatively low figure.

The Head of Planning Services advised the Committee that recommendations from the Local Development Framework Panel meeting had been ratified by Cabinet on 25 May 2016.  This called for 15 additional sites, and this site was not included within the 15.  He explained that there was limited weight to the emerging Local Plan, as it still needed to go through a consultation, and the Planning Inspector’s examination at the beginning of 2017.  NPPF guidance stated that a housing application needed to be considered in the context of the relevant Local Plan, and the Head of Planning Services explained that Swale Borough Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing, and could not rely on the emerging Local Plan.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19(5) a recorded vote was taken on the motion to approve the application and voting was as follows:

For: none.

Against: Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Bobbin, Andy Booth, Roger Clark, Richard Darby, Sue Gent (substitute for Councillor Mike Dendor), James Hall, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Mike Henderson, Tina Booth (substitute for Councillor Peter Marchington), Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Ghlin Whelan.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion to refuse the application on the grounds that it was too large for a modest size village; loss of potential of brick earth; loss of best and most versatile high quality agricultural land; not economically (construction phase and care home employment could be supplied elsewhere, and loss of best and most versatile land and brickearth were negatives), environmentally (visual and landscape, and loss of best and most versatile land), noting landscape consultant recommended refusal, or socially sustainable (growth outside built-up area boundary, and not wanted by community); and contrary to Policies E6 and E7 of the adopted Local Plan, there was a 5-year supply on the way  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer explained that reference to the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in reasons for refusal might be difficult to defend on appeal as the Environmental Health Officer had advised that it was not safe to object on the grounds of adverse impact on the AQMA and as such there was no technical reason to refuse on that basis.

Members agreed that more detail be given to the above reasons for refusal following consultation with Councillor Mike Henderson (proposer), Councillor Andy Booth (seconder and Vice-Chairman), Councillor Bryan Mulhern (Chairman), Ward Members and officers.

Resolved:  That the Council informs the Planning Inspectorate that application 15/510595/OUT would have been refused on the groundsthat it was too large for a modest size village; loss of potential of brickearth; loss of best and most versatile high quality agricultural land; not economically, environmentally, or socially sustainable; not wanted by community; and contrary to Policies E6 and E7 of the adopted Local Plan.

More detail be given to the above reasons following consultation with Councillor Mike Henderson (proposer), Councillor Andy Booth (seconder and Vice-Chairman), Councillor Bryan Mulhern (Chairman), Ward Members and officers.