Agenda item

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Head of Planning and Development.

Mr Lupton, an objector, Councillor Bennett of Hollingbourne Parish Council, Councillor Waite of Thurnham Parish Council, Mr Blake, for the applicant, and Councillors Garten, Springett, Cuming, Newton and Perry (Visiting Members) addressed the meeting.

It was moved by Councillor Harwood, seconded by the Chairman (Councillor English), that subject to (a) the prior completion of a legal agreement to provide for the Heads of Terms set out in the report, as amended by the urgent update report, and the additional Head of Terms set out in the urgent update report, with the inclusion of Councillor Springett as a member of the proposed Development Monitoring Group, and (b) the conditions set out in the report, as amended by the urgent update report, the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers to grant outline permission and to be able to settle or amend any necessary Heads of Terms and conditions in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

During the discussion, with the agreement of the mover and the seconder, the motion was amended as follows:

·  Amend Head of Terms No. 7 (Master Plan) to read:

Securing a Master Plan to be agreed between the applicant and the Council (with involvement of the Planning Committee Political Group Spokespersons, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, the North Downs Ward Member and Councillors Springett and de Wiggondene-Sheppard), prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application to include high level parameters such as the phasing of the development; layout of built areas; strategic landscaping; general building design, form and scale; road layout, and materials.

·  Amend Head of Terms No. 8 (Development Monitoring Group) to include the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee and Councillor de Wiggondene-Sheppard as members of the proposed Development Monitoring Group.

·  Add an informative as follows:

The applicant is informed that the illustrative Master Plan submitted with the outline application is not considered to provide for a spacious parkland setting as required by the site allocation policy and would therefore not be acceptable to the Council if submitted.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, an amendment was moved by Councillor Spooner, seconded by Councillor Mrs Stockell, that outline permission be refused for the following summarised reasons:

The proposed development is contrary to policy EMP1 (4) of the Maidstone Local Plan 2017 because the employment floorspace figure provided would not allow for the development of a parkland setting.  Also, the proposed development would be contrary to policy SP17 of the Maidstone Local Plan 2017 because an employment development in this sensitive and conspicuous gateway location in anything but a parkland setting would be harmful to the character and appearance of the local countryside and the nearby Kent Downs AONB.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that he considered these grounds to be unsustainable and unreasonable and that they would result in significant costs being awarded against the Council in the event of an appeal.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 21.4, three Members of the Committee requested that named votes be taken on this application.

The voting on the amendment was as follows:

AMENDMENT LOST

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, an amendment was moved by Councillor Powell, seconded by Councillor Prendergast, that outline permission be refused on the basis that, notwithstanding the advice of the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, the evidence submitted by the applicant to comply with policy DM6 of the Maidstone Local Plan 2017 was not sufficient.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that he considered these grounds to be unsustainable and unreasonable and that there was a risk of significant costs being awarded against the Council in the event of an appeal.

The voting on the amendment was as follows:

AMENDMENT LOST

The original motion, with the amendments accepted by the mover and seconder during the discussion, was then put to the vote.  The voting was as follows:

RESOLVED:  That subject to:

(a)  The prior completion of a legal agreement to provide for the Heads of Terms set out in the report, as amended by the urgent update report, and the additional Head of Terms set out in the urgent update report, with the amendment of Heads of Terms 7 and 8 as follows:

7.  Securing a Master Plan to be agreed between the applicant and the Council (with involvement of the Planning Committee Political Group Spokespersons, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, the North Downs Ward Member and Councillors Springett and de Wiggondene-Sheppard),prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application to include high level parameters such as the phasing of the development; layout of built areas; strategic landscaping; general building design, form and scale; road layout, and materials.

8.  The creation of a ‘Development Monitoring Group’ made up of Maidstone Borough Council Planning Officer(s), the Planning Committee Political Group Spokespersons, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, the North Downs Ward Member, Councillors Springett and de Wiggondene-Sheppard, and Hollingbourne Parish Council to monitor practical matters such as the implementation of the Section 106 Agreement, planning conditions submissions and compliance, and also to be kept up to date with potential future development of the site. To include a monitoring fee of £5,000; AND

(b)  The conditions set out in the report, as amended by the urgent update report, with an informative as follows:

The applicant is informed that the illustrative Master Plan submitted with the outline application is not considered to provide for a spacious parkland setting as required by the site allocation policy and would therefore not be acceptable to the Council if submitted.

the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers to grant outline permission and to be able to settle or amend any necessary Heads of Terms and conditions in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  7 – For  5 – Against  0 - Abstentions