Contact your Parish Council


Agenda item

11/1948 - PART RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE RETENTION OF TWO LAKES KNOWN AS BRIDGES AND PUMA AND WORKS TO CREATE 3 ADDITIONAL LAKES ALL FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING, ERECTION OF CLUBHOUSE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AND LANDSCAPING - MONK LAKES, STAPLEHURST ROAD, MARDEN, MAIDSTONE, KENT

Minutes:

All Members except Councillor Harwood stated that they had been lobbied.

 

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

 

Ms Lord, a Planning Agent on behalf of a neighbouring resident, Councillor Mannington of Marden Parish Council, Mr Whitehouse, for the applicant, and Councillors McLoughlin and D Burton (Visiting Members) addressed the meeting.

 

The representative of the Head of Legal Partnership responded to some of the points raised in a further representation received from Ms Lord the previous day.

 

During the discussion on this application, it was proposed, seconded and:

 

RESOLVED:  That the meeting be adjourned for 15 minutes to enable Members to formulate coherent reasons to substantiate a possible decision to refuse this application.

 

Voting:  8 – For  2 – Against  2 - Abstentions

 

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission.  In making this decision, Members had regard to the changes to the proposals since the Council’s previous assessment in 2012 and, taking into account all considerations including the material consideration of the previous consent and changes to the application since then, considered that:

 

(a)  The overpowering height and proximity of the new formulation of the landscaping, particularly the western bund, causes less than substantial harm to the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed heritage asset which is not outweighed by an acceptable level of public benefits contrary to paragraph 196 of the NPPF; 

 

(b)  Because of the configuration of the land, in particular the height, there is a loss of residential amenity to the neighbouring buildings to the west of the site contrary to Policy DM4 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017; and

 

(c)  The effect on the landscape is contrary to the guidance set out in the Landscape Character Assessment and, in light of the clear views from the footpath KM129, there is a clear harm in that the changed landscape can be clearly viewed from that footpath and other locations.

 

Prior to the vote being taken, the Principal Planning Officer, on behalf of the Head of Planning and Development, and having previously conferred with the representative of the Head of Legal Partnership, advised the Committee that the proposed reasons for refusal were not sustainable and could result in significant costs being awarded against the Council at appeal.  He was therefore issuing a significant costs warning on all three proposed reasons for refusal. 

 

Members were informed that since a significant costs warning had been issued, if the Committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons proposed, the decision would be deferred until its next meeting pursuant to paragraph 30.3 (a) of Part 3.1 of the Council’s Constitution and paragraph 17 (a) of the Local Code of Conduct for Councillors and Officers Dealing with Planning Matters (Part 4.4 of the Constitution).

 

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.  The overpowering height and proximity of the new formulation of the landscaping, particularly the western bund, causes less than substantial harm to the settingof the adjacent Grade II listed heritage asset which is not outweighed by an acceptable level of public benefits contrary to paragraph 196 of the NPPF.

 

2.  Because of the configuration of the land, in particular the height, there is a loss of residential amenity to the neighbouring buildings to the west of the site contrary to Policy DM4 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017.

 

3.  The effect on the landscape is contrary to the guidance set out in the Landscape Character Assessment and, in light of the clear views from the footpath KM129, there is a clear harm in that the changed landscape can be clearly viewed from that footpath and other locations.

 

Voting:  8 – For  1 – Against  3 – Abstentions

 

The Head of Planning and Development confirmed the significant costs warning and deferral of the decision until the next meeting.

 

DECISION DEFERRED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 30.3 (a) OF PART 3.1 OF THE COUNCIL’S CONSTITUTION AND PARAGRAPH 17 (a) OF THE LOCAL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS DEALING WITH PLANNING MATTERS (PART 4.4 OF THE CONSTITUTION).

 

Supporting documents: