Contact your Parish Council


Agenda item

19/501600/OUT & 19/506182/FULL - LAND WEST OF CHURCH ROAD, OTHAM, KENT

Minutes:

19/501600/OUT - OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR UP TO 440 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, INFRASTRUCTURE, DRAINAGE, LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE (ACCESS BEING SOUGHT WITH ALL OTHER MATTERS RESERVED FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION) - LAND WEST OF CHURCH ROAD, OTHAM, KENT

 

19/506182/FULL – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 421 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, INFRASTRUCTURE, DRAINAGE, OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING - LAND WEST OF CHURCH ROAD, OTHAM, KENT

 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development providing further advice (including Counsel’s Opinion) on the prospects of successfully defending its reasons for refusing applications 19/501600/OUT and 19/506182/FULL for 440 or 421 dwellings respectively on land west of Church Road, Otham and the likely risks of costs being awarded against the Council at appeal.

 

It was noted that:

 

·  Both applications were considered by the Committee on 28 May 2020.  Contrary to the recommendations of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee voted to refuse the applications for the following reasons:

 

Outline Application

 

1.  The proposal will result in severe traffic congestion on local road networks (Deringwood Drive, Spot Lane, Mallards Way and Madginford Road) and the increase in traffic will adversely affect residents to the point that air pollution is beyond what is reasonable for the Council to accept contrary to Policies H1(8) criteria 9, DM1 and DM6 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017. 

 

2.  The proposal will result in worsening safety issues on Church Road to the south of the site which has not been addressed and due to the constraints of the road likely will never be able to be addressed contrary to Policy DM1 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017.

 

3.  The proposal will adversely affect the settings of the Grade I listed Church and other listed buildings contrary to Policies SP18 and DM4 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 where the development will not be protecting or enhancing the characteristics, distinctiveness, diversity and quality of the heritage assets.

 

Full Application

 

1.  The proposal will result in severe traffic congestion on local road networks (Deringwood Drive, Spot Lane, Mallards Way and Madginford Road) and the increase in traffic will adversely affect residents to the point that air pollution is beyond what is reasonable for the Council to accept contrary to Policies H1(8) criteria 9, DM1 and DM6 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017.

 

2.  The proposal will result in worsening safety issues on Church Road to the south of the site which has not been addressed and due to the constraints of the road likely will never be able to be addressed contrary to Policy DM1 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017.

 

3.  The proposal will adversely affect the settings of the Grade I listed Church and Grade II listed Church House contrary to Policies SP18 and DM4 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 due to the visual effect of the whole development in both long and short term views and the development will not be protecting or enhancing the characteristics, distinctiveness, diversity and quality of the heritage assets.

 

·  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), before the votes were taken, Planning and Legal Officers advised the Committee that they did not consider each reason for refusal to be sustainable and that they could have significant cost implications.  The Head of Planning and Development gave a costs warning in respect of each application.  Therefore, the decisions of the Committee were deferred to this meeting.

 

In presenting the report, the Principal Planning Officer summarised the advice which had been provided concluding that reasons for refusal 1 and 3 on both applications were unreasonable, could not be sustained at appeal and were highly likely to result in significant costs awards against the Council.  Reason for refusal 2 was unreasonable, could not be sustained at appeal and there was a risk of a significant costs award against the Council but this risk was considered to be lower.

 

The Principal Planning Officer also provided the following updates:

 

·  The applicant had lodged an appeal on the basis of non-determination of the outline application with the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) on 11 June 2020.  This meant that the decision on the application would be made by PINS and not the Council.  The Committee would now need to inform PINS what decision it would have made and therefore what position the Council would take at the appeal.  The appellant had requested a Public Inquiry procedure and the Officers had advised PINS that they considered this to be appropriate.  The Council had instructed Counsel and preliminary work was underway for the appeal.  The start date for the Public Inquiry was awaited.

 

·  The applicant had confirmed that the dedicated Church car park would form part of their proposals at appeal and also the additional widening of Church Road to the south of the site.

 

·  Since the last meeting there had been a number of new representations on both applications, but none of them had raised any new material planning issues.  The petition which had been submitted had been reported to the Committee at its last meeting.

 

Application 19/501600/OUT

 

The Chairman read out statements which had been submitted by Mr Everett of the Downswood Community Association (an objector) and Councillor Gray of Otham Parish Council.  Councillor Weeks of Downswood Parish Council and Mr Goodban (agent for the applicant) addressed the meeting by video links.

 

Councillors Newton, Harper, McKay and Springett (Visiting Members) addressed the meeting.

 

In making his representations, Councillor Harper asked the Committee to consider adding the following either as additional conditions or reasons for refusal:

 

·  That all pedestrian/cycle routes on the site should be a minimum of 3m in width in accordance with Sustrans and national standards;

·  That the pedestrian/cycle path to the north east corner of the site should be connected to Foxden Drive and The Beams by a 3m wide walking/cycling route avoiding any steps to ensure full accessibility; and

·  That the site layout be adjusted to provide a central north/south cycle/walking route linking through to Woolley Road, retaining open views of the North Downs and giving an alternative to Church Road for active travel.

 

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, it was proposed and seconded that the Planning Inspectorate be informed that if the applicant had not lodged an appeal on the basis of non-determination of the application, the Committee would have refused permission for the following reasons:

 

1.  Whilst mitigating increased traffic congestion on Deringwood Drive, the proposed improvements to the Deringwood Drive and Willington Street junction will result in severe traffic congestion on Willington Street contrary to Policy DM21 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.  The proposal will result in worsening safety issues on Church Road to the south of the site which have not been addressed and due to the constraints of the road are likely to not be addressed by the application proposals and the mitigation proposed is not sufficient to overcome the safety concerns contrary to Policy DM1 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

The representative of the Head of Legal Partnership advised the Committee that, in her opinion, to now make reference to severe traffic congestion on Willington Street would be unreasonable and escalate the risk of costs.  The Principal Planning Officer concurred with this view.

 

The representative of KCC Highways advised the Committee that in the case of the Church Road applications, the Highway Authority had raised two objections in relation to highway safety and traffic congestion.  In terms of the proposed reasons for refusal, reason 2 relating to worsening highway safety on Church Road was consistent with the objection raised by the Highway Authority and would be supported in the event of any appeal.  In terms of reason 1 regarding traffic congestion on various local roads, he could also confirm that the addition regarding Willington Street would enable the Highway Authority to support the reason in the event of any appeal.  The proposed mitigation put forward by the applicant would relieve congestion on Deringwood Drive but in doing so introduce delays onto Willington Street.

 

During the discussion, the Committee considered the Council’s position at appeal and, specifically, conditions to be attached to any planning permission.  It was suggested and agreed that in terms of the Church car park, the Council should be seeking a crescent parking approach rather than a more conventional car park approach as this would cause less harm to the listed buildings and the landscape.  The Council should also seek to include the suggestions made regarding pedestrian/cycle routes.

 

RESOLVED: 

 

1.  That the Planning Inspectorate be informed that if the applicant had not lodged an appeal on the basis of non-determination of this application, the Committee would have refused permission for the following reasons:

 

1.  Whilst mitigating increased traffic congestion on Deringwood Drive, the proposed improvements to the Deringwood Drive and Willington Street junction will result in severe traffic congestion on Willington Street contrary to Policy DM21 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.  The proposal will result in worsening safety issues on Church Road to the south of the site which have not been addressed and due to the constraints of the road are likely to not be addressed by the application proposals and the mitigation proposed is not sufficient to overcome the safety concerns contrary to Policy DM1 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.  That at the Public Inquiry, the Officers be requested to seek to include the Committee’s suggestions regarding conditions to be attached to any planning permission.

 

Voting:   9 – For  2 – Against  2 – Abstentions

 

Having regard to the potential associated substantial costs, the Head of Planning and Development asked the Committee to move into Part II of the meeting (private session) in accordance with paragraph 30.3 (b) of Part 3.1 of the Council’s Constitution and paragraph 17 (b) of the Local Code of Conduct for Councillors and Officers Dealing with Planning Matters (Part 4.4 of the Constitution).  However, in so doing, the Head of Planning and Development advised the Committee that he considered that the report contained all the salient information to support the Officer’s recommendation.  The Committee agreed that it was not necessary to move into Part II of the meeting at this stage.

 

Application 19/506182/FULL

 

Mr Hatcher of the Chapman Avenue Area Residents’ Association (an objector) addressed the meeting by video link.  Councillor Gray of Otham Parish Council, Councillor Weeks of Downswood Parish Council and Mr Goodban (agent for the applicant) had already addressed the meeting.

 

Councillors Newton, McKay and Springett (Visiting Members) indicated that they had nothing further to add.

 

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, it was proposed and seconded that permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.  Whilst mitigating increased traffic congestion on Deringwood Drive, the proposed improvements to the Deringwood Drive and Willington Street junction will result in severe traffic congestion on Willington Street contrary to Policy DM21 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.  The proposal will result in worsening safety issues on Church Road to the south of the site which have not been addressed and due to the constraints of the road are likely to not be addressed by the application proposals and the mitigation proposed is not sufficient to overcome the safety concerns contrary to Policy DM1 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

During the discussion, the Committee considered the Council’s position in the event of an appeal and, specifically, conditions to be attached to any planning permission.  It was noted that the detailed plans showed the additional landscape buffers previously requested by Members and, in terms of the Church car park, a crescent parking approach rather than a more conventional car park approach.  In addition to the suggestions made regarding pedestrian/cycle routes in relation to the outline application, it was agreed that the Council should request the incorporation of renewable energy measures on the affordable housing element of the development.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.  That permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

  1.  Whilst mitigating increased traffic congestion on Deringwood Drive, the proposed improvements to the Deringwood Drive and Willington Street junction will result in severe traffic congestion on Willington Street contrary to Policy DM21 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

  2.  The proposal will result in worsening safety issues on Church Road to the south of the site which have not been addressed and due to the constraints of the road are likely to not be addressed by the application proposals and the mitigation proposed is not sufficient to overcome the safety concerns contrary to Policy DM1 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.  That, in the event of an appeal, the Officers be requested to seek to include the Committee’s suggestions regarding conditions to be attached to any planning permission.

 

Voting:  10 – For  2 – Against  1 – Abstention

 

Immediately after the vote was taken, the Head of Planning and Development advised the Committee that on the assumption that Members did not wish to move into Part II of the meeting (private session) to receive further advice as they had not done so in relation to the outline application, it was his recommendation, due to the risk of substantial costs, that the outline application and the full application be referred to the Policy and Resources Committee for determination pursuant to paragraph 30.3 (b) of Part 3.1 of the Council’s Constitution and paragraph 17 (b) of the Local Code of Conduct for Councillors and Officers Dealing with Planning Matters (Part 4.4 of the Constitution).

 

The representative of the Head of Legal Partnership advised the Committee that she agreed with the Head of Planning and Development that given the risk of significant costs being awarded against the Council at appeal and the implications for the Council’s budget, the applications should be referred to the Policy and Resources Committee in line with the Council’s Constitution.

 

The Chairman indicated that he concurred with the Officers in line with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution.

 

APPLICATION 19/501600/OUT & APPLICATION 19/506182/FULL REFERRED TO THE POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 30.3 (b) OF PART 3.1 OF THE COUNCIL’S CONSTITUTION AND PARAGRAPH 17 (b) OF THE LOCAL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS DEALING WITH PLANNING MATTERS (PART 4.4 OF THE CONSTITUTION).

 

Supporting documents: