Contact your Parish Council
Issue - meetings
15/505493 - Land Adjoining Greengates, Lenham Road, Headcorn, Kent
Meeting: 07/04/2016 - Planning Committee (Item 356)
Additional documents:
- 15/505493 - Committee Report, item 356 PDF 111 KB
- 15-505493_photos, item 356 PDF 562 KB
- 15/505493/FULL_ urgent update, item 356 PDF 30 KB
Minutes:
Councillor Round stated that he had been lobbied.
The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Head of Planning and Development.
Mr Jones, for the
Applicant, addressed the meeting.
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 proposed development encroached into the open countryside, together with an urbanising effect through the introduction of a significant area of hardstanding and domestic paraphernalia which would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and special landscape area, which would be contrary to ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000, which give priority to the landscape over other planning considerations.
With the absence of an ecological survey, which would demonstrate to the contrary, it had not been demonstrated that protected species would not be adversely impacted upon, contrary to paragraphs 109 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
RESOLVED: That permission
be refused for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed development
encroached into the open countryside, together with an urbanising
effect through the introduction of a significant area of
hardstanding and domestic paraphernalia which would result in
substantial harm to the character and appearance of the countryside
and special landscape area, which would be contrary to ENV28 and
ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000, which give
priority to the landscape over other planning
considerations.
2. That with the absence of an ecological survey, which would demonstrate to the contrary, it had not been demonstrated that protected species would not be adversely impacted upon, contrary to paragraphs 109 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Voting: 10 – For 1 – Against 2 - Abstentions