All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration concerning application MA/07/2092 which was the subject of an appeal against the failure of the Council to determine it within the statutory period.  It was noted that:-

·  The Planning Committee, at its meeting held on 7 May 2009, agreed that had an appeal not been lodged against the Council’s failure to determine the application within the statutory period, planning permission would have been refused on the grounds set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

·  The appeal would be heard by way of a public inquiry commencing on 13 October 2009.

·  The Secretary of State had determined that the decision would be made by him on receipt and consideration of the Planning Inspector’s report that would be submitted following the closure of the inquiry.

·  At a pre-inquiry meeting held at the request of the appointed Planning Inspector on 12 June 2009, the appellants indicated that they would be submitting Supplemental Environmental Information in relation to the application and seeking to make changes to the scheme that was considered by the Committee on 7 May 2009.

·  The Supplemental Environmental Statement and details of the amendments were received on 3 July 2009 and put out to formal consultation and advertisement under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.

·  The changes that had been made to the appeal application and the responses received following the advertisement of the Supplemental Environmental Information were summarised in the report and the urgent update report.

The Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy advised the Committee that at the time of the consideration of the application by the Planning Committee, the reasons for refusal were based in part on the Structure Plan, the draft Regional Spatial Strategy and the information supplied up to that point by the applicant.  Since that date, the Structure Plan had ceased to have effect, the Regional Spatial Strategy had come into effect and the appellant had supplied considerable additional information.  There was, therefore, the need to refine the reasons for refusal in the light of the loss of the Structure Plan and the adoption of the Regional Spatial Strategy, to review the reasons for refusal in the light of the additional information, and to determine whether they should be amended or, in some cases, pursued.

The Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy drew the Committee’s attention to the urgent update report and, in particular, the schedule setting out details of the original reasons for refusal and the reasons for refusal now proposed together with appropriate comments.  He then submitted details of further amendments that he wished to make to the reasons for refusal now proposed.

At this point, Mr Clifford of STOPKIG, Councillor Jacques of the Joint Parishes Group and Councillor Horne addressed the meeting objecting to the amended scheme.

RESOLVED:

1.  That the wording of the proposed reasons for refusal 1-8, 10-14 and 16, as set out in the urgent update report, be adopted subject to the following amendments:-

  Reason for Refusal No.1

  Amend the second bullet point to read:-

The site is not located where the key rail and road radials intersect the M25.

  Reason for Refusal No.7

  Add the words “and the guidance contained in PPG 24” at the end as follows:-

7. The construction of the development, and its subsequent use as an SRFI for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, will result in levels of noise which will cause complaint, nuisance and harm to the amenities of nearby properties and is therefore unacceptable and contrary to Policies CC6 and NRM10 of the South East Plan 2009 and the guidance contained in PPG24.

Reason for Refusal No.8

Delete the words “likely number of luminaires” and insert the words “proposed lighting” and add the words “as well as affecting residential amenity” after the letters AONB as follows:-

8. The development and use of the site for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, would by reason of the proposed lighting have a highly damaging urbanising impact and adverse effect on the character of the countryside and the setting of the AONB, as well as affecting residential amenity, contrary to the advice in the Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (GN01) published by the Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILE2005) and Policy ENV49(4) of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

Reason for Refusal No.10

Add the words “and PPS7” at the end as follows:-

10. The proposal would result in the removal of 2 hectares of woodland, an additional 48 trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders and hedgerows of important historic value; removing the contribution they make to the landscape. 

Therefore, the proposal will result in harm to the character and amenity of the countryside, contrary to Policy NRM7 of the South East Plan 2009, Policy ENV21 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the guidance contained in PPS9 and PPS7.

2.  That in the light of the additional information supplied, proposed reason for refusal no.9 should not be pursued.

3.  That in the light of the additional information supplied and the fact that the issues can now be governed by condition, proposed reason for refusal no.15 should not be pursued.

4.  That the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration be given delegated powers to decide not to pursue reason for refusal no.7 so long as suitably designed mitigation measures can be provided.

Voting:  9 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions 

The Committee, wishing to receive legal advice from the Head of Legal Services and Counsel and to consider the proposed reasons for refusal nos.17 and 18 in private:-

RESOLVED:  That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information for the reasons specified having applied the Public Interest Test:-

MA/07/2092 – CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REASONS FOR REFUSAL NOS.17 AND 18

The Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy updated the Committee on his discussions with the Police.

RESOLVED:

1.  That the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration be given delegated powers to decide whether or not to pursue in full or in an amended form the proposed reasons for refusal nos.17 and 18.

2.  That the Chief Executive be requested to write to the Police explaining the reasons for this decision.

NOTE:  A schedule setting out the reasons for refusal, as amended, and the delegations to the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration is attached as an Appendix to these Minutes.