Agenda item

At the beginning of the item, members of the public spoke against the Officer recommendation for the Committee to ‘agree that the sole reason for refusal recorded in the Council’s decision notice, should not be defended at appeal’. The members of the public who spoke on this item were:

·  Councillor Mrs Cheryl Taylor Maggio, speaking on behalf of the Kent Association of Local Councils

·  Councillor Horne, speaking on behalf of the Joint Parishes Group

·  Mr Roger Vidler, speaking on behalf of the Bearsted and Thurnham Society

·  Mr Gary Thomas, speaking on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England

·  Councillor Bennett, speaking on behalf of Hollingbourne Parish Council

Following public speaking, the Principle Planning Officer and Head of Planning and Development made a presentation to the committee which summarised the Council’s current position in relation to planning application MA/15/503288/OUT – Land at Woodcut Farm, Ashford Road, Hollingboure, Kent:

·  The application was originally taken to Planning Committee on 30 June 2016, with an officer recommendation to approve the application. The committee resolved to refuse the application due to it being harmful to the character of the countryside, Special Landscape Area and the setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and any benefits were considered to be outweighed by this harm. The Committee also gave the grounds for refusal that the development would cause less that substantial harm to a Grade II listed building (Woodcut Farm) and the public benefits were not considered to outweigh this harm. At this stage the local plan was an early draft and had not been examined by the Inspector.

·  The developers appealed against this refusal. The appeal commenced on 27 January 2017 and a public enquiry was due to commence on 10 October 2017.

·  Since the application was refused, and before the public enquiry was due to commence, the Draft Local Plan was examined at public hearings and the Inspector published his Interim Findings. The Woodcut Farm site was an allocated employment site in the Draft Local Plan, and the Inspector did not request that the site was rejected (as he did with several housing sites) and did not dispute the figures given for proposed employment need.

·  Continuing to sustain the grounds for refusal at appeal could lead to the council being liable for paying costs. This was because the refusal was contrary to the Draft Local Plan policies, an employment allocation had been made at the site in the Draft Local Plan and the refusal did not recognise the site’s importance in providing for the employment need in the borough.

·  A new application for the site had also been received by Council, which at the time of the meeting appeared to be policy compliant with the Local Plan.

After the officers made their presentation, Visiting Members spoke on this item. The following visiting members spoke against the Officer recommendation to not defend the reasons for refusal at appeal:

·  Councillor Perry

·  Councillor Garten

·  Councillor Prendergast

·  Councillor Springett

·  Councillor Spooner

·  Councillor Newton

·  Councillor Powell

Councillor Garland spoke in favour of the Officer’s recommendation and Councillor Clark provided the Committee with further information on how the Planning Committee reached their decision.

In response to the points raised by visiting members, the Head of Planning and Development clarified the following:

·  The Draft Local Plan, including an allocation for Employment Land at this site, had been approved by Full Council.

·  The Inspector had confirmed that the Council had fulfilled its duty to co-operate with other boroughs.

·  No other neighbouring districts had agreed to take Maidstone’s employment need, therefore it fell to Maidstone Borough Council to provide for this need within the boundaries of the borough.

·  The site in question would provide a significant amount of the office space needed in the borough.

Following public speaking, and speaking by Visiting Members, the Committee considered the Officer’s report and presentation.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Head of Planning and Development confirmed that:

·  The grounds for refusal were drafted on the basis of the debate at Planning Committee, with the reasons for refusal being supplied by Planning Committee and the specific refusal being drafted in full by Planning Officers.

·  If the Council removed the site from the local plan, it would need to find an alternative site to provide the employment allocation required.

·  The Council were not able to add any further reasons for refusal to the decision before it was heard at appeal.

At the conclusion of the debate, the committee voted on the Officer’s recommendation, which was:

‘To agree that the sole reason for refusal recorded in the Council’s decision notice, should not be defended on appeal’

Voting:  For - 1  Ag - 2  Ab - 0

Therefore the Officer’s recommendation was not carried.

RESOLVED:

That the sole reason for refusal in the Council’s decision notice should be defended at appeal.

Voting:  For - 2  Ag - 1  Ab - 0

Note – as the committee decided to continue to defend the appeal, the remaining officer recommendation was not required.