This meeting will consider the following outstanding items from the Planning Committee which was adjourned on Thursday 12 November 2020:

Deferred Items - 1 and 2

Part 2 - 2.3, 2.8 and 2.9

Part 5 - 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6

Please see link below to the Agenda:

Planning Committee (12.11.20)

DEFERRED ITEMS

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.  He reported that a Ward Member had raised a number of issues with regard to this application and the other application on the agenda at this site.  The issues related to technical matters in respect of the nature of the application, the extent of hardstanding for storage of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) canisters for each unit, overlooking distances, whether the buyers of the chalets could be controlled such that they could not be used as second homes, additional pressure on water supplies and sewerage, and lack of infrastructure, for example, doctors and schools.

The Area Planning Officer stated that a small area of hardstanding for an LPG canister would, in his view, be so insignificant that planning permission would not be required. The overlooking distances permissible here were set by the existing relationships between chalets, which were much less than would normally be considered desirable.  The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that the existing chalets could be used 12 months of the year without restriction.  The Area Planning Officer advised that, as the units were replacements, officers would not be able to justify restricting who could purchase them.  He considered the impact on water supplies and sewerage, and on doctors and schools was likely to be minimal.

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

Members were invited to debate the application and points raised included:

·         Disappointed that the applications are being submitted in a piecemeal fashion;

·         poor design and layout;

·         landscape harm;

·         lack of parking spaces;

·         would be an improvement and give an open appearance to the site; and

·         had thought the application had been deferred for sustainability issues.

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

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following motion:  That the application be refused due to poor layout and design, lack of parking provision, and lack of energy efficiency provision and be delegated to officers to provide the exact wording.  This was not seconded.

The Planning Team Leader (Mid-Kent Legal) stated that Members needed to state their reasons for refusal, they could not delegate to officers to provide a reason.  The Area Planning Officer urged Members to be cautious about including highway reasons for refusing the application.  He stated that Members also needed to be precise when giving reasons and demonstrate the harm they considered the development would cause.

In response to queries from Members, the Area Planning Officer advised that Members could not split the decision.  He also advised that whilst the application did not meet the Council’s 50% energy efficiency  rating, officers considered the proposed 35% was acceptable.

The following further reasons for refusal were put forward by Members:

·         The orientation of the chalets would have a detrimental impact on the site; and

·         over-intensification of the site caused harm to the character and appearance of the site.

The Development Manager requested a 10 minute break to allow officers to consider a way forward.

The meeting reconvened and at this point the Head of Planning Services used his delegated powers to call-in the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application would be deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Committee when the Head of Planning Services would advise Members of the prospects of such a decision if challenged on appeal and if it becomes the subject for costs.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report.  She reported that the Council had sought independent highway advice, the Railton report, on the submitted indicative layout, and that advice had been included as a tabled update which had previously been sent to Members and published on the Council’s website.

The Senior Planning Officer further reported that the wording of Condition (4) on page 21 of the report, needed to be amended to refer to the Council’s adopted Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), rather than the Kent County Council (KCC) Vehicle Parking Standards.

Parish Councillor Ray Ingham, representing Iwade Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

Ward Members spoke against the application and raised points which included: would lead to over-development of the site; was not included in the Council’s Local Plan for development and was one of the few green spaces left in Iwade; it was unacceptable to “cram” a further 20 dwellings in an already highly built-up area; drew attention to the independent Railton report which addressed highway concerns highlighting that the proposed servicing arrangements were inadequate and could lead to safety concerns, was over-development in terms of transport, there was an under provision of parking spaces, bike parking provision, poor pedestrian access and it was dangerous for delivery vehicles to access; improvements to the A249 were needed before further development could be allowed in Iwade; the road infrastructure in Iwade was at breaking point; the junction of Sanderling Way and The Street, Iwade was dangerous; the road to the site was narrow and had many pinch points; it would cause demonstrable harm to the area; services in Iwade needed upgrading before further development could be considered; the Parish Council were against the application; and concerns about the impact on the great crested newts in the area.

A visiting Member spoke against the application and raised concerns which included: just because the Council did not have a five year housing supply it did not mean it had to accept unacceptable applications;  it was clear from the Railton report that it had not been demonstrated that the application could be delivered in a way that was acceptable and in-line with the Council’s policies;  lack of parking spaces would lead to a significant increase in on-street parking; poor service delivery for accessing bins; and it was an over-development of the site.

Members were invited to debate the application and points raised included:

·         Improvements to the A249 Grovehurst Road junction needed to be completed before considering this application;

·         significant weight should be given to the fact that the M2 junction 5 needed to be completed before development in the area could be considered, as per the Barton Hill Drive application;

·         concerned that construction traffic would be accessing the site via a residential area;

·         loss of amenity area;

·         concerned about the consequences of refusing the application as all the technical issues had been covered in the report;

·         could not include highways as a reason for refusal, it would not be supported at any subsequent appeal;

·         the Council had no five year housing supply so should approve the application;

·         concerned that if the application was refused on access grounds the applicant could resubmit it with two access roads through a residential area which needed to be avoided;

·         Members needed to provide a clear reason for refusal;

·         unhappy with the application but could see no grounds to refuse which would be upheld at any subsequent appeal;

·         could not refuse on policy grounds or overlooking grounds as outlined in the officer’s report;

·         mitigation land had already been provided for the great crested newts;

·         paragraph 29 of the Railton report would be an adequate reason to refuse the application;

·         20 dwellings on this site was clearly over-development; and

·         what weight should we give to the Railton report?

In response to a query from a Member, the Planning Team Leader (Mid-Kent Legal) stated that it was an outline application for access, all other issues would be considered at the reserved matters stage.  If Members were minded to refuse the application then the planning officer would need to confirm what grounds they could support refusal on. 

The Senior Planning Officer considered the issues raised by the Railton report could be addressed at the reserved matters stage, however if Members were minded to refuse the application then officers could provide relevant Policies to support this. 

A Member drew attention to the wording in paragraph 29 of the Railton report, specifically “These concerns could be overcome when the site layout is subject to detailed design but it appears likely that the number of dwellings will need to be reduced and the layout itself will be significantly altered from that shown currently.”  She considered that it was clear that the application for 20 dwellings should not be supported.

The Development Manager noted that the Railton report was a material planning consideration and included concerns about the number of dwellings proposed and other material planning concerns which he suggested Members considered as possible reasons for refusal. 

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

Councillor Roger Clark suggested the following possible reasons for refusal: impact on the local road infrastructure, demonstrable harm to children and residents, lack of parking and amenities, loss of wildlife habitat, DM14 (Safe access) and over-development of the site. 

The Chairman invited Members to add any other reasons to the motion and the following points were made:

·         the main reason for refusal was over intensive use of the site which would lead to the other issues raised by Councillor Roger Clark;

·         lack of capacity at the A249 Grovehurst Road junction;

·         lack of capacity at the M2 junction 5 Stockbury roundabout;

·         access to the site was unsuitable for construction traffic; and

·         lack of amenity space.

The Development Manager stated that concerns around wildlife habitat had been addressed as outlined in the report.  Natural England and KCC Ecology raised no objection.  KCC Highways also raised no objection.  He suggested that Members focussed on paragraph 29 of the Railton report, in particular lack of parking and service areas as possible reasons for refusal.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following motion:  That the application be refused as it was over-intensive development of the site, it would lead to poor pedestrian access and service delivery arrangements to the development and that it would have a negative impact on the surrounding area.  Members gave significant weight to the Railton report in particular concerns in paragraph 29.   This was not seconded.

The Development Manager read-out a possible reason for refusal:  That application 18/506328/OUT be refused as the proposed development was likely to represent a potential overdevelopment of the site, with harm arising from a likely under provision of car parking or suitable parking arrangements; likely inadequate servicing arrangements due to the lack of turning area at the eastern end of the site resulting in lorries and other large vehicles having to reverse along the length of the access road, causing danger and  inconvenience to other highway users. The proposed development for 20 dwellings would therefore be contrary to paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework and contrary to policies CP2, CP4, DM7, DM14 of Bearing Fruits Local Plan 2031, and the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2020.

Councillor Bonney agreed to withdraw her original motion for refusal and proposed the reason set-out above as read-out by the Development Manager.  This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.  On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/506328/OUT be refused as the proposed development was likely to represent a potential overdevelopment of the site, with harm arising from a likely under provision of car parking or suitable parking arrangements; likely inadequate servicing arrangements due to the lack of turning area at the eastern end of the site resulting in lorries and other large vehicles having to reverse along the length of the access road, causing danger and  inconvenience to other highway users. The proposed development for 20 dwellings would therefore be contrary to paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework and contrary to policies CP2, CP4, DM7, DM14 of Bearing Fruits Local Plan 2031, and the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2020.