Your Councillors

Agenda item

18/502320 - ERECTION OF 3 DETACHED HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED GARAGES ON VACANT LAND TO THE EAST OF THE GROVE RESIDENTIAL HOME, WITH A NEW ENTRANCE AND DRIVE OFF BOWER MOUNT ROAD - LAND EAST TO THE GROVE RESIDENTIAL HOME, 6 BOWER MOUNT ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT

Minutes:

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.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that since publication of the agenda, Helen Grant M.P. had made representations objecting to the application and reiterating the concerns of her constituents and local Councillors.  Specific reference was made to the negative impact of the development upon the privacy, outlook and sunlight of adjoining properties; the impact on the neighbouring residential care home; and concerns amongst local residents that if the application were to be approved, it could incentivise other landowners in the area to seek to redevelop garden areas.

 

Ms Austin, an objector, Mr Collins, for the applicant, and Councillor Purle (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.

 

It was established during the debate that Councillor Adkinson had pre-determined the application.  Councillor Adkinson did not participate further in the discussion or the voting.

 

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission.  In making this decision, Members felt that the proposal would result in the removal of part of a visually important ragstone wall and loss of mature landscaping to the front of the site, which would harm the special character of this section of Bower Mount Road.  The proposed development did not respect the spacious character of the local area and particularly the western part of Bower Mount Road and resulted in a compact and incongruous form of development, which significantly harmed the character of the local area.  As such the proposal would be contrary to policies DM1 and DM11 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) and the London Road Character Area Assessment Supplementary Planning Document.

 

Members also felt that the proposal due to the size of the properties and their close proximity to the side and front boundaries was unable to adequately mitigate through landscaping and appropriate boundary treatment against the significant harm to the visual appearance and spacious character of the street scene and the local area.  As such the proposal would be contrary to policies DM1 and DM11 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) and the London Road Character Area Assessment Supplementary Planning Document.

 

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following summarised reasons:

 

1.  The proposal will result in the removal of part of a visually important ragstone wall and loss of mature landscaping to the front of the site, which would harm the special character of this section of Bower Mount Road.  The proposed development does not respect the spacious character of the local area and particularly the western part of Bower Mount Road and results in a compact and incongruous form of development, which significantly harms the character of the local area.  As such the proposal would be contrary to policies DM1 and DM11 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) and the London Road Character Area Assessment Supplementary Planning Document.

 

2.  The proposal due to the size of the properties and their close proximity to the side and front boundaries is unable to adequately mitigate through landscaping and appropriate boundary treatment against the significant harm to the visual appearance and spacious character of the street scene and the local area.  As such the proposal would be contrary to policies DM1 and DM11 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017) and the London Road Character Area Assessment Supplementary Planning Document.

  

Voting:  10 – For  0 – Against  0 - Abstentions

 

Note: Councillor Parfitt-Reid entered the meeting during consideration of this application (6.15 p.m.), and did not participate in the discussion and the voting.

 

Supporting documents: