To consider the following application:

19/503810/OUT, Land on the south east side of Bartletts Close, Halfway.

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 this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 4 March 2020.

Table Papers added 5 March 2020.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application and reminded Members that it was an outline application, with all matters other than access, reserved for future consideration.  He referred Members to the tabled update and to the responses to questions submitted by Members to officers prior to the meeting.

Mrs Caroline Barkway, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Peter Cooper, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

A Ward Member sought clarification between this application and the one for nine dwellings which was refused in 2004.  The Major Projects Officer explained that the 2004 application had been refused for four reasons, which he outlined for Members.  He explained that the main difference between that application and the current one was that although the site was outside the built-up area, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been introduced due to the need to increase delivery of housing sites.  The Major Projects Officer reminded Members that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing sites.  The site was considered to be sustainable, and any adverse impact of the development did not outweigh the identified benefits of the scheme.  The Ward Member sought further clarification on the issue of freshwater run-off on Uplands Way which resulted in gardens being flooded, and asked what surface water drainage measures would be taken to ensure this problem would not get worse with the new development.  He asked that Ward Members be consulted on this matter.  The Major Projects Officer explained that normally a technical assessment would be carried out and officers would liaise with the relevant agencies.  He said that Members could be included in the process, but advised that the matter would need to be assessed purely on technical merit.  The Ward Member said that residents shared an existing foul water sewer pipe and had lined it at their own cost, and raised concern that this pipe would also be used for the new development, and suggested the arrangements for this should be in place prior to the development going ahead.

Another Ward Member spoke against the application and raised the following points:  the condition of the road was awful, as indicated by photographs which had been displayed; the site was not allocated for housing; it was outside the built-up area; there was poor access to the site, no footpaths, and only one streetlight; there were no sustainable options of getting to the site and cars would be used; only one bus service remained; the pharmacy had shut down; there were 2,000 permissions outstanding, did not understand the need for this windfall site; and in the 2004 application Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had raised no objection, but had wanted the road to be made up to adoptable standards, their opinion had now changed.  The Ward Member sought clarification on the response to a Member’s question following the appeal decision for Barton Hill Drive, and whether this application conflicted with the Grampian condition attached to the Barton Hill Drive appeal.  The Major Projects Officer confirmed that Highways England (HE) were content that even though the Barton Hill Drive application had now been granted planning permission, the advice they had given to schemes along the A249 was unchanged, and as such did not affect the recommendation.  He referred to the statement that ‘no more than 100 dwellings were to be occupied at the Barton Hill Drive site until work on M2 Junction 5 was completed’, needed to be looked at differently as speed restrictions would be in place, whilst the road improvements were ongoing, and this would reduce the safety issues.

Members were invited to debate the application and made points which included:

·         Would have liked to have seen a written document from HE before a decision was made;

·         these were a complicated set of figures;

·         the 17 dwellings would not impact on the Council’s 5-year supply situation;

·         this site was not allocated for housing;

·         windfall sites should not impact on the Countryside Gap, should only do so for a very good reason, and this was not a good reason;

·         the access road was in an awful condition;

·         KCC Highways and Transportation had changed their mind with regard to the road being made up to adoptable standards;

·         independent highway advice should be sought;

·         if permission was granted, Ward Members should be involved with the Section 106 Agreement; and

·         the road was unfit for any additional traffic movements.

A Member sought clarification as to whether the road was a private road with public access, and how the NHS figures in the Section 106 Agreement were arrived at.  The Major Projects Officer explained that the road was privately maintained with public access, and the NHS figures were provided via a standard formula.  The Senior Planning Lawyer referred to the tabled response where it was stated that KCC had not commented on the suitability of the access road, and Members could decide themselves whether it was suitable or not.  He added that condition (12) in the report had been amended to ensure that the road was not damaged by construction traffic.  The Senior Planning Lawyer said that the public right to use the road was not a matter for this Committee.

Members made further comments which included:

·         The road was not suitable for any additional housing;

·         the road was not practical for use by pushchairs, wheelchairs and push bikes;

·         with reference to paragraph 108 of the NPPF, the road was not suitable for all users;

·         there was no footpath;

·         M2 Junction 5 figures did not add up;

·         the HE needed to be clear on what they meant; and

·         this application should not be approved.

The Head of Planning Services read out a response from HE which stated that the Barton Hill Drive appeal did not affect their representations on any other site currently undetermined.  He added that capacity was not related to the number of dwellings, but by the peak hour movements at M2 Junction 5. In response to a question, he confirmed that this site was too far from Junction 5 for HE to comment.

Further comments included:

·         After the application was called-in there should have been information on the cost implications to the Council; and

·         condition (12) was unenforceable.

A Member asked what number of dwellings triggered HE being consulted on an application.   The Major Projects Officer advised that it was not a set number, but when it was judged that a development would have a material impact on the strategic highway.  He said this application was set away from a major road.  The Member asked about the Council’s 5-year housing supply.  The Head of Planning Services stated that the Council had a 4.6-year supply which included the Barton Hill Drive development.  The Member queried this figure and the Senior Planning Lawyer confirmed that to-date the figure was between 4.1 (without windfall sites) and 4.6-years supply, and not five.

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer referred to paragraph 3.2 on page 4 of the report regarding the potential costs which would be awarded against the Council if the application went to appeal.  He said the cost could be significant, but it was not possible to give a precise figure.

A Member referred to condition (14) in the report and asked whether this could be changed to use the one on the tabled paper which followed the wording used by the Inspector under condition (9) of the Barton Hill Drive decision.  The Major Projects Officer confirmed that this could be done, and the Cabinet Member for Environment be consulted to confirm the exact wording.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19(2) a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

Against:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney, Roger Clark, Simon Clark, Mike Dendor, Tim Gibson, James Hunt, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington, Benjamin Martin, Ben J. Martin, David Simmons, Paul Stephen, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.  Total equals 17 (unanimous). 

The motion to approve the application was lost.

A Member suggested the application be deferred to get independent highway advice to add to the reasons for refusal.

Councillor Cameron Beart moved a motion to refuse the application on the following grounds: 

(1)  That the development, having a mix of houses and bungalows, would not be in-keeping with the existing streetscene.

(2)  That the site’s location within the open countryside and located within the important Countryside Gap would cause demonstrable harm to the value, landscape setting and beauty of the countryside, contrary to policies ST3 and DM25 of the adopted Local Plan.

(3)  That the site access road was not considered safe and suitable for access to be achieved for all users and would not promote sustainable transport modes, which would be contrary to policies DM6 and CP2.

This was seconded by Councillor Peter Marchington.

The Major Projects Officer reminded Members that the application was in outline form and only access was to be considered at this stage and not the housing mix, and as such reason (1) was not appropriate and Members agreed that it be deleted.

At this point the meeting was adjourned for five minutes.

The Head of Planning Services suggested that Members included sustainability as a reason, in front of the two other reasons and this would give more credence to those reasons.  He suggested that the development would not constitute a sustainable development in accordance with the relevant policies of the Local Plan.  The proposer and seconder were happy with this additional reason and on being put to the vote Members agreed to all three reasons.

Resolved:  That application 19/503810/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

(1)      The development would not constitute a sustainable development in accordance with the relevant policies of the Local Plan.  The development is therefore contrary to policies ST1, ST3, ST6 and CP3 of the adopted Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan (2017) and would be contrary to paragraphs 8 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(2)      That the site’s location within the open countryside and located within the important Countryside Gap would cause demonstrable harm to the value, landscape setting and beauty of the countryside, contrary to policies ST3, ST6, DM24 and DM25 of the adopted Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan (2017).

(3)      The site access road was not considered safe and suitable for access to be achieved for all users and would not promote sustainable transport modes which would be contrary to policies DM6 and CP2 of the adopted Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan (2017).