Agenda item

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

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

Mr Lupton, an objector, Councillor Bennett of Hollingbourne Parish Council (against), Councillor Fort of Leeds Parish Council (against), Mr Blake, for the applicant, and Councillors Newton, Springett and Cuming (Visiting Members) addressed the meeting.

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

It was moved by Councillor Harwood, seconded by Councillor English, that subject to the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement in such terms as the Head of Legal Partnership may advise to secure the obligations 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 subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, as amended by the urgent update report, and the additional condition set out in the urgent update report.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, an amendment was moved by Councillor Mrs Stockell, seconded by Councillor Prendergast, that outline permission be refused for the summarised reason set out below and that the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers to finalise the exact wording.

The proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside, Special Landscape Area and the setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  It would also cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II listed building “Woodcut Farm” and any public benefits are not considered to outweigh this harm.  The development would therefore be contrary to saved policies ENV21, ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

The voting on the amendment was as follows:

AMENDMENT CARRIED

The substantive motion was then put to the vote.

The voting on the substantive motion was as follows:

RESOLVED:  That outline permission be refused for the following summarised reason and that the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers to finalise the exact wording:

The proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside, Special Landscape Area and the setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  It would also cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II listed building “Woodcut Farm” and any public benefits are not considered to outweigh this harm.  The development would therefore be contrary to saved policies ENV21, ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and advice within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Voting:  7 – For  6 – Against  0 - Abstentions 

FURTHER RESOLVED:  That the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers in consultation with the Head of Legal Partnership to negotiate and agree the S106 legal agreement in the event of an appeal.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 - Abstentions