|
Site
Ref
|
Location
|
Commentary
|
Recommendation
|
|
H1
(19)
(HO-113)
|
Bell
Farm North Street Barming
|
The
site promoters are seeking a significant westward extension to the
development area of this allocated site.
The
proposed area would accord with the area proposed at the time of the Local
Plan Inquiry into the MBWLP 2000.
The
Local Plan Inspector at the time recommended that the site should not be
allocated for the following main reasons.
‘4.243 From the arguments that I heard at
the inquiry I have considered the impact of housing on this site from two
main areas: from a distance to the south in Lower Road looking across the
Medway valley; and from close to in North Street.
4.244 Dealing with the distant views
first, I found on my visits in both summer and winter that the site can be
clearly seen from various places in Lower Road, particularly from directly to
the south in views which were not illustrated by the objectors’ landscape
witness. In these views, this edge of Maidstone has an attractive, rather
diffuse character, described by this witness as “... a quite subtle merging
of town and country. ...” (MB/PR.104, paragraph 3.14).
4.245 At present the site contributes to
the character and appearance of the area when seen from Lower Road because
its openness contrasts with the housing development around it, and extends
the rural character of the area to the west amongst that housing. The urban
boundary is therefore not clear cut, and town and country merge in an
attractive, subtle way. I have no doubt that this would change if the site
were developed for housing since, even with the landscaping proposed, the
green and open character of much of the site which I saw on my visits would
be lost. The effect of housing, therefore, would be to consolidate the urban
element in the area at the expense of the rural, and the subtlety of their
merging would be lost.
4.246 I agree with the objectors that
housing on the site would not be extend the urban area along the valley since
there is housing along its northern and southern boundaries. However, to my
mind the opposite effect, of reducing the countryside incursion amongst the
houses, is equally harmful. I do not agree with the objectors that the site
does not appear as an obvious part of the countryside, particularly in those
views directly from the south which were not illustrated at the inquiry. I
accept that the western boundary is well treed, but the site still appears
open, in marked contrast to the urban area to the east.
4.247 The objection site is in an area
which has no special landscape designation. However, I note the advice in
paragraph 2.14 of PPG7 that the countryside should be protected for its own
sake. Moreover, in Chapter 3 I have recommended that the Council should
extend the Medway Valley ALLI to cover this area north of its present
boundary. I conclude on this part of the issue, therefore, that housing on
the site would materially harm the distant views of this part of Maidstone
when seen from the south across the Medway valley.
4.248 I turn now to consider the effect
of the proposal on North Street. Architecturally the appearance of North
Street is dominated by modern housing. Nevertheless, the extensive views west
and south-westwards across the objection site from the northern end of the
Street, and the views due south along it and across the Medway valley, give
it a rural character to be expected on the edge of the town. This would be
completely changed by housing on the objection site, even with the area of
open space proposed on the eastern edge and which it has been agreed would be
included in a site specific policy. The rural views across the site, towards and
beyond the shelter belt planting, would be replaced by views across urban
open space towards housing. Even the extensive landscaping which is
illustrated cannot alter the change from a rural to an urban character and
appearance.
4.249 My concern is reinforced when the
illustrative road access proposals are considered. Whatever detailed design
is chosen for the junctions proposed to give access to the objection site
from North Street, they would introduce an urban form and scale wholly out of
place in this largely rural setting. I note that traffic could be removed
from the northern part of North Street, but this does not in any way overcome
the harm that road proposals of this scale would cause.
4.250 I accept the value of some of the
elements in the design concept, internal landscaping, footways and cycleways,
for example, but they do not address my concerns which are to the principle
of development.
4.251 For all these reasons I conclude on this issue
that the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of North
Street, and the distant views of the area from Lower Road across the Medway
valley.’
The
Inspector concluded that serious harm would arise sufficient to clearly outweigh
the need for housing.
The
circumstances of the site have not changes in the interim period except that
the Area of Local Landscape Value designation will not remain. The site is
still visible across the Medway Valley which is part of the Medway Valley Landscape
of Local Value.
The
physical characteristics of the site and its setting have not changed.
Councillors
should be advised that an application for 35 units on the allocated part of
the site (adjacent to North Street) was REFUSED on 05/11/2015
|
No Change
|
|
H1
(25)
|
Tongs
Meadow West Street Harrietsham
|
This
site was subject to Regulation 18 Consultation in March 2014 as a proposed
allocation.
Cabinet
on 9 March 2015, following consideration of the Reg. 18 representations and
advice from Natural England, recommended that it should not be allocated and
should be subject to a further Regulation 18 consultation for its deletion on
the following grounds;
‘In view of the recent advice from Natural England
(NE) that they would be unlikely to consider issuing an EPS (European
Protected Species) Development License given the fact that the site is a
receptor site for a previous development.’
The
site promoters consider that the site should be reinstated as an allocation
as a revised development that excludes the former receptor site is being
developed.
There
has been no new information submitted that clearly indicates that development
on a reduced site area would now receive an EPS licence.
|
No change
|
|
H1
(31)
|
Land
at Ham Lane Lenham
|
This
site was subject to Regulation 18 Consultation in March 2014 as a proposed
allocation.
Cabinet
on 2/4 February 2015, following consideration of the Reg. 18 representations,
recommended that it should not be allocated and should be subject to a further
Regulation 18 consultation for its deletion on the grounds
‘of (the)
unacceptably adverse impact on the AONB and on the character of the village
because it is peripheral to the settlement and beyond the open space occupied
by Swadelands School playing field.’
The
site was again considered by SPS&T Committee on 14/23 July 2015 who
re-affirmed the earlier decision of Cabinet that the site should not be
allocated for the same reasons.
The
site promoters are seeking the site’s reinstatement into the local plan as an
allocated site.
Councillors
are advised that application 14/502973/FULL for 82 units has been REFUSED and
is currently subject to an appeal.
It
is considered that there have been no change in circumstances relating to the
site to warrant Councillors previous decision being reversed.
|
No Change
|
|
H1
(57)
|
Land
at Former Astor of Hever School Farm Oakwood Rd Maidstone
|
This
site has previously been recommended for allocation by officers on two
occasions at Cabinet on 2/4 February 2015 and to SPS&T on 14/23 July
2015.
Councillors resolved not to allocate the site
on the grounds that
‘the site is retained for
education use and development would be unacceptably compromised by the lack
of adequate access.’
The
applicants have resubmitted the highway information considered by Cabinet and
SPS&T Committee and the information relating to the status of the land by
the site promoters KCC
The
circumstances have not changed in the interim period.
|
No Change
|
|
H1
(64)
|
Land
south of East Street Harrietsham (Bell Farm North)
|
This
site has previously been recommended for allocation by officers on two
occasions at Cabinet on 2/4 February 2015 and to SPS&T on 14/23 July
2015.
The
site was not accepted for allocation by Cabinet for the following reasons;
‘The cumulative impact of
development having a detrimental effect on the character, size and shape of
the village and community due to the increase in size and footprint of the village
and unacceptable cumulative impact for the community for education provision,
transport and other community infrastructure.’
SPS&T
Committee reaffirmed the earlier decision by Cabinet.
The
promoters are now seeking 45 units on the site.
In
other respects the circumstances of the site have not changed.
|
No Change
|
|
H1
69)
|
Land
at Lodge Road Staplehurst
|
This
site has previously been recommended for mixed-use employment and residential
allocation by officers on two occasions at Cabinet on 2/4 February 2015 and
to SPS&T on 14/23 July 2015.
The
site was not accepted for allocation by Cabinet for the following reasons;
‘the site should be retained for
employment use given the economic upturn and that infrastructure must be
improved to enable this to happen and the cumulative impact of residential
development in Staplehurst on social balance.’
SPS&T
Committee reaffirmed the earlier decision by Cabinet not to allocate the site
with the proviso that the site should not be allocated solely on the need to
retain its employment designation.
There
have been no further change in circumstances since SPS&T Committee last
considered the site
|
No change
|
|
HO2-173
|
Land
at Court Lodge Road Harrietsham
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2013 and 2014 SHLAA
Call-for-sites exercises on the following grounds;
‘Whilst this site is close to the
village of Harrietsham and the services it provides, it lies within the open countryside
and is somewhat disjointed from the existing built up area. Development of
the site would have a detrimental effect on the Kent Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.’
Councillors are advised that planning permission
has been refused for development on this site and is subject to a current
appeal for which a Hearing has recently been held. A decision is currently awaited.
There has been no further change in
circumstances relating to the site since the previous rejection to warrant a
different conclusion.
|
No change
|
|
HO3-203
|
78
Heath Road Coxheath
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2014 SHLAA Call-for-sites
exercise on the following grounds;
‘There are site-size and relationship to adjoining
dwellings issues with this site. It is not considered likely that development
in the form suggested could be satisfactorily achieved, certainly if access
is required to be from B2163 Heath Road as it is now’.
The
site promoters have provided further information in the form of a plan that
shows by demolishing an existing garage, an access of some 3.0m to 4.8m in
width can be provided.
However
this runs immediately past the dwelling (not included in the proposed site)
that is located at the front of the site and its use would therefore result
in amenity issues to the occupiers of this dwelling.
The
previous decision should still stand.
|
No change
|
|
HO3-230
|
Baltic
Wharf St Peter’s Street Maidstone
|
The
promoter considers that this site should be allocated for a mixed
retail/residential use.
The
site was considered by the SPS&T committee on 23/07/2015 in response to a
Regulation 18 Representation the site should be allocated for a food store as
part of a mixed use development.
The
report stated as follows:
‘4.19
A representation was received from the owners of Baltic Wharf, St Peters
Street in Maidstone stating that their site should be allocated in the Local
Plan for a large food store as part of a mixed use development.
4.20 This representation to the Reg 18
Plan was made before the Public Inquiry into the Council’s refusal of
permission for a foodstore (A1 use class), offices (A2, B1), café/restaurant
(A3) and assembly/leisure (D2) uses on the Baltic Wharf site was held in May
2014. The appeal Inspector concluded that a foodstore use was the only
primary use which would secure the future of this Grade II listed building,
provided a retailer would commit to the scheme and allowed the appeal in July
2014.
4.21 The appeal Inspector highlighted
what he regarded as an imbalance between the draft Local Plan’s inclusion of
a specific allocation for the Maidstone East/Sorting Office site and the lack
of a policy for the Baltic Wharf building, a substantial listed building in
the town centre. He stated this was not necessarily an incorrect approach,
but the net result was that he gave little weight to the draft Local Plan at
the point he was considering the appeal.
4.22 Clearly the site now has planning
consent; there is no need to allocate the site for the uses for which it has
permission. Further, whilst other uses such as residential would be
appropriate for the building, an allocation policy citing it as an
alternative main use would not be deliverable based on the viability information
so recently tested at the appeal.
4.23 That said, there is merit in making
reference to the site in the Local Plan as a substantial and underused listed
building in the town centre, should the position on viability change over the
lifetime of the Plan. It is recommended that the supporting text to Policy
SP1 – Maidstone Town Centre be amended to confirm that, should the consented
scheme not come forward, the Council will consider positively alternative
schemes that achieve the retention and restoration of the listed building.
Appropriate uses would include housing, offices, leisure uses, cafes and
restaurants.’
Taking account of the further
representations from the site promoter, it is still considered that the above
considerations remain valid. The Maidstone East/Sorting office site is still
regarded as the priority location for new retail floorspace in the town
centre; it is an edge of centre site with direct connections to the heart of
the town centre. The Council will respond positively to proposals for the
site that would deliver residential development (or an element of residential
development) which help to secure the future of the listed building and
officers would be happy to engage in pre-application discussions with the
landowners to this end.
|
No Change
|
|
HO3-254
|
Granada
House Lower Stone Street Maidstone
|
This
site was accepted but not allocated for development in the 2014 SHLAA
Call-for-sites exercise.
The
reason why it was not allocated was because it was located within the Town
Centre Broad Location and also the Broad Location centred on the Mall
Shopping Centre.
The
promoter considers that the site should be allocated for development and
advises that preparations are under way for the submission of an application
for a mixed use development of some 49 residential units (there are 20 on
site at the present time) and commercial units at street level.
Pre-application discussions have been held as well as a public exhibition.
Given
this and the fact that the emerging Local Plan gives broad support for
development it is not considered necessary to allocate the site.
|
No Change
|
|
HO3-259
& H1 (68)
|
Land
north of Pinnock Lane Staplehurst
|
This
larger site of between 22.4ha and 24ha in area was rejected following
assessment in 2014 SHLAA Call-for-sites exercise.
The
primary reason for this was that the Landscape Capacity Study which assessed
the site individually concluded in terms of the site’s Opportunities and
Constraints as follows.
· Scale of site is
disproportionate to existing extent of Staplehurst
·
Crisp
urban/rural divide between existing extent of Staplehurst and rural landscape
to west does not lend itself well to further development
·
Site
provides rural setting to Staplehurst and offers attractive views towards the
existing settlement and church spire
·
Further
development would not relate well to linear pattern of development to east
· Development
generally undesirable
There
has been no change in circumstances to warrant a different decision
|
No change
|
|
HO3-271
|
Land
South of Cripple Street Loose
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2014 SHLAA Call-for-sites
exercise. The suitability assessment concluded as follows;
‘Conclusion
Development of this site would extend the urban
boundary from Westwood Road and Sheppey Road further west and would encroach
on the gap between the urban area and the beginning of the gradual slope into
the Loose Valley.
This site contributes significantly to the rural
character of the area as one leaves the urban edge along Cripple Street.
Residential development here would have an unacceptable impact upon the
setting of the Loose Valley Conservation Area. Unlike other sites at the
urban edge in this location, there are no dwellings between the site and the
Loose Valley, which serves to enhance its rural character and warrants
protection.’
Since
that assessment was undertaken the site has been incorporated into the
Loose Valley Landscape of Local Value.
There
have been no other changes to the circumstances of the site other than the
permission allowed on appeal on the north side of Cripple Street. It is
conside4ed that this decision has rendered this site more important in its
role as part of the setting of the Loose Valley and its Conservation Area
given the fact that unlike the northern side of Cripple Street there is no
built development between the site and the valley edge.
The
changes in circumstances of the site are not sufficient to warrant a
different decision being made.
|
No change
|
|
HO3-273
|
Land
Adj. Ivan’s Field Warmlake Road Chart Sutton
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2014 SHLAA Call-for-sites
exercise on the following grounds;
‘Development on the site is achievable. However,
Chart Sutton is a village with very few services. Access to services in
adjoining villages is likely to be by means of the private car given the poor
bus service and the distances involved which would deter walking.
Development on this site would represent a
significant visual expansion of built development eastwards from the current
limit of the village. The arbitrary boundary across the open field is not
related to any existing hedgerows /landscape features etc.’
The
promoter of the site considers that the recent appeal decision (13.04.2015) on
Land at The Oaks Maidstone Road Sutton Valance (application 14/0830) to allow
the construction of 10 dwellings is sufficient change in circumstances to
allow development on this site.
It
is considered that there are differences between this site and the site where
development has been allowed at appeal. Sutton Valence is designated as a larger
village in the Council’s preferred spatial development hierarchy and has a
greater range of facilities than Chart Sutton including a primary school. The
bus service is also more regular than that which serves Chart Sutton.
It
is considered therefore that there have been no changes in circumstances to
warrant a different decision being made.
|
No change
|
|
HO-15
|
Land
at Stanley Farm (South of) Headcorn Road Staplehurst
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2013 and 2014 SHLAA
Call-for-sites exercises on the following grounds;
Overall conclusions: There are a number of transport
mitigation measures in order to bring forward development on this site. There
would be a relatively high impact upon the character and appearance of the
locality, as the site contributes significantly to the locality. These
factors along with the uncertainty of having a developer linked to the site
bring into question its deliverability. Coupled with the probable reliance on
the car given the distance to public transport links mean that on balance it
is recommended for rejection.’
The
greatest change since the assessment was undertaken is that there is now a
developer involved. In fact, an outline application for up to 110 dwellings (15/507124/OUT)
has been submitted, but currently remains undetermined.
The
proposed site in the representations received is also significantly smaller
than that previously proposed.
The
site is currently located within the Low Weald SLA as defined in the MBWLP
2000 and does fall within the Low Weald Landscape of Local Value as defined
in Policy SP5 of the emerging Local Plan. Development of this site even in
its reduced form would have a negative impact on the character and appearance
of the locality.
Notwithstanding
the reduction in site area from previous submissions it is considered that
the site would represent an unacceptable extension of the village into the
countryside. It is a site that remains separated from public transport links
and is likely to lead to reliance on the use of the private car by future
occupiers for their day-to-day needs.
|
No change
|
|
HO-22
|
Land
North of Cripple Street Loose
|
The
promoter considers that this site should be allocated following the recent
appeal decision (03/11/2015) which allowed 36 units.
Given
that this is a full planning permission, it is not considered necessary to
allocate the site
|
No change
|
|
HO-64
|
Land
at South Lane Sutton Valence
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2013 and 2014 SHLAA Call-for-sites
exercises on the following grounds;
‘The landowner has given no indication in terms of
the number of dwellings the site could accommodate. If the site were to be
considered for residential development, taking into account its edge of village
location, a low density development would be appropriate, with a potential
yield of around 60 dwellings.
However, notwithstanding the potential site capacity,
it is not considered that this is an appropriate use for this site due to its
location. Indeed, whilst there may be no overriding consultee objections to
delivering a residential scheme on this site, the redevelopment of the site
would transform the existing character of the area; and there would be
significant encroachment into the countryside that would harm the landscape
and go against the pattern and grain of development in the surrounding area
hereabouts.
In
addition to this, the site is located on greenfield land; and the site is
not in easy access of a train station, local service centre, employment site
or secondary school. It is therefore considered that the site should be
rejected.’
The
site promoter considers that site should be allocated due to the continuing
need to deliver greater housing numbers to meet the OAN and that the site is
suitable as it is close to an identified larger village
Since
the last assessment, two appeal decisions on land opposite this site on the
western side of South Lane have been made. Both have refused residential
development. The key consideration in both cases was the need to maintain the
existing gap between the upper village and the lower village at The Harbour
to preserve the landscape character of the area.
In
the light of this and the fact that there has been no change since the last
site assessment was undertaken, it is considered appropriate that the site is
not allocated.
|
No change
|
|
HO-65
|
(Part)
Land at Mill Bank Headcorn
|
This
site is part of a larger site that was rejected following assessment in the
2013 SHLAA call-for-sites exercise on the following grounds;
‘Although adjoining the northern part of the RSC, the
site would appear as a relatively isolated development in the open
countryside detached from the core of the village, which despite existing
screening would be quite visible from the highway; significant landscaping
belts would be required to mitigate the visual impact upon the open
countryside. Protected and non-protected trees may represent a constraint on
development. There are ponds and watercourses within the site and ecological
mitigation may be required.’
This
site represents the SE corner of that larger site
The
Landscape Capacity Study published in January 2015 also assessed the larger
site and concludes as follows;
‘Landscape Character Sensitivity: Moderate
• Site adjoins A274 which is locally
intrusive on the western site boundary
• Generally reasonable hedgerows to
boundaries with some trees
• Stream with ponds and adjoining hedgerow
and tree cover runs across the site
• Public footpaths on the western boundary
and crossing the site towards the east
• Remote from Headcorn and site has a
generally rural feel
• Pond, streams and trees amidst pasture
gives conservation
interest
• Limited area of large scale (nursery)
development to the north
• Heritage feature includes a listed
building near the site
• Evidence of loss of field pattern through
hedgerow removal,
however the site links with wider
countryside and is characteristic of the Low Weald
Visual Sensitivity: High
• Sensitive users of the strong footpath
network around and
crossing the sites are important in the
flat landscape
• Some generally filtered views from
residential properties along the A247 Maidstone Road
Landscape Value: Moderate
• Potential conservation value
• Sense of remoteness although tranquillity
reduced in areas close to Maidstone Road
• Listed building close by gives heritage
interest
• Generally attractive with scenic value
and a rural feel despite
hedgerow
loss
Opportunities and Constraints
• Low capacity to accommodate housing
• Network of streams and vegetation
• Opportunity to create a stronger rural
boundary to the north
• Retain rural character
• Distant from urban centre of Headcorn and
would substantially extend development into open countryside
• Site acts as a green wedge between
Headcorn and the settlement to the north
Mitigation
• Retain the green wedge function of the
site
• Network of streams and vegetation should
be conserved
• Create a stronger rural boundary to the
north
•
Retain
rural and undeveloped character’
It
is considered that even with the reduced area proposed development of the
site would result in a marked change to the character of the area by
introducing a substantial additional length of developed frontage to Mill
Bank and a consequent significant reduction in the gap between the pocket of
development just south of Stonestile Road and the existing development along Mill
Bank.
It
is thus considered that the site should not be allocated.
|
No change
|
|
HO-74
|
Fant
Farm Gatland Lane Maidstone
|
This
site was recommended for inclusion in the draft Local Plan by officers
following assessment in both the 2013 and 2014 SHLAA Call–for-sites
exercises. It was rejected as an allocation site twice, most recently by Cabinet
on 2/4 February 2015 who rejected the allocation of the site in the grounds
that;
‘The site is valuable for agriculture use, and would
have an unacceptable impact on the landscape, including the overall shape of
the urban area of Maidstone and the unacceptable highways impact for the local
community.’
The promoters consider that site should
be allocated given the continuing shortfall against the Objectively Assessed
Need and that appropriate development would not result in the harm feared.
The
Council is planning to meet its Objectively Assess Need in full.
There
have been no other change in circumstances to warrant a different decsi9on
being made.
|
No change
|
|
HO-94
|
Warmlake
Business Park Maidstone Road Sutton Valence
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2013 and 2014 SHLAA
Call-for-sites exercises on the following grounds;
‘Redevelopment would not cause significant visual
harm to character or openness of countryside or harm to residential amenity.
The
site currently contains commercial buildings, which do not contribute
positively to the character and appearance of the countryside, and their
replacement with housing could have a positive impact upon the setting of the
adjacent listed building.
However,
the site is not closely related to a good range of facilities and many trips
are likely to be made by car.
Also,
this site is in active employment use. Redevelopment would result in a loss
of employment space in a rural area, which may impact upon local employment
and thereby also upon sustainability.
On balance, considering the above, it is not
recommended that this site be accepted. It is noted that there is the
possibility of additional land adjoining this site – see HO-92 (Land to north
of Redic House, Warmlake Road, Sutton Valence).’
The
promoter of the site considers that the recent appeal decision (13.04.2015)
on Land at The Oaks Maidstone Road Sutton Valance (application 14/0830) to
allow the construction of 10 dwellings is sufficient change in circumstances
to allow development on this site.
There
are differences between this site and the site where development has been
allowed at appeal despite the proximity of the two sites to each other.
·
The
site at the Oaks is approximately 1.7ha in area and has a road frontage to the
A274.
·
The
proposed site is situated to the rear of existing development on an
undeveloped part of the existing business park and amounts to 0.55ha in
area.
In
addition this existing developed area of this site is identified in policy
DM18 of the Local Plan as an identified Economic Development Area and thus
should be retained. This decision was confirmed by Cabinet on 12 January
2015.
It
is considered therefore that the site should not be allocated for residential
development.
|
No change
|
|
HO-131
|
Land
at Maidstone Road Marden
|
This
site was part of a larger 30.44ha site rejected following assessment in the
2013 and 2014 SHLAA Call-for-sites exercises on the following grounds;
‘The indicated site capacity (500+
dwellings) would appear to be achievable on this 30.44ha site and there are
no abnormal constraints applying to the site as far as can be ascertained and
the landowner is willing to release the land although no developer has been
identified.
However, development of this site would result in a
substantial expansion of the settlement, out of scale with the existing
village.
The railway line currently acts as a physical limit
to the extent of the village to the north east. Beyond this point existing
development is limited, being sparsely distributed along Maidstone Road.
Development of the site would introduce an intensive
form of development in a location which is physically removed from the
existing built area of the village. A development of this scale could also
adversely impact on the setting of nearby listed properties.’
The
revised submission relates to the southernmost area (approx. 6.7ha) of the previously
assessed larger site (the land between Church Farm and the railway-line
including some additional land to the west and south of The Old Vicarage.
It
is considered that the same considerations relating to the harm arising from
a substantial area of new development north of the existing railway line and
the poor relationship to the existing built area of the village apply.
The
site should not be allocated.
|
No change
|
|
HO-150
|
Land
North of Vicarage Road Yalding
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2013 and 2014 SHLAA
Call-for-sites exercises on the following grounds;
‘The site is a wooded area on the edge of the
village. It would have a significant impact on the character of the area and
this change, loss of woodland, ecological impacts are likely to be
unacceptable. Whilst
there is now a developer on-board, there have been no changes in the
circumstances of the site since the previous assessment that would lead to a
different conclusion.’
The
agent now states that approximately 30 dwellings are proposed for the site
(previously 60) and indicates that further survey work on ecology and trees
has been undertaken (results not provided) that indicate the development
would not result in the harm feared in the earlier assessments.
Councillors
may recall that at the meeting of the SPS&T Committee on 14/23 July 2015
a booklet illustrating a potential a development option for the site largely in
the form described above was circulated as part of the urgent update report
and it was recommended that the site not be allocated. Members did not
recommend the allocation of the site at that meeting.
There
have been no change in circumstances in relation to the site
|
No change
|
|
HO-154
|
Broomfield
Park Kingswood
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2013 and 2014 SHLAA
Call-for-sites exercises on the following grounds;
‘This site is rejected for the reasons listed in the
suitability category. The proposed Eco village at this site is simply
inappropriate to add on to a settlement the size of Kingswood.
The proposed development is reliant on the delivery
of a link road that has not been built despite years of effort on the parts
of the County Council and the Borough Council.
The combination of these factors alone means that
this proposal would be unlikely to ever be delivered as outlined by the
developers. However, the brief that the developers submitted also proposes
the delivery of a cinema, a pub, a library, a medical centre, a new primary
school, a new village hall and light industrial units. While it is unlikely
that all of these facilities are required to sustain a village, even one that
is proposed to expand to the size that the developers propose for Kingswood,
the delivery of all of this community infrastructure is doubtful in viability
terms.
The combination of these factors means that this site
is not allocated for housing.
There have been no changes in the material
circumstances relating to the site since the previous assessment. Development
on this site does not accord with the Council’s preferred spatial strategy
and there are serious concerns about deliverability and viability for the
necessary infrastructure to serve the development. It is highly likely that
it would not be deliverable within the timescale envisaged by the proposers.’
There
has been no change in circumstances relating to the site since the previous
assessments.
|
No change
|
|
HO-159
|
Land
adj. Bensted Close Hunton
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2013 and 2014 SHLAA
Call-for-sites exercises on the following grounds;
‘Residential development would constitute a
significant encroachment into the countryside and would harm the open and
rural character of the Special Landscape Area. The site is very flat and
open and there are clear long distance views, particularly from West Street
to the north east. There is a residential close adjacent to the site, but
site is not part of an existing pattern of development. Development would
harm the open, rural character of the Special Landscape Area.
There would be some negative impact upon the setting
of adjacent listed buildings and historic parkland, although the road does
provide some separation.
Although, the site is within walking distance of
facilities in Hunton village, these are very limited. Hunton is not a defined
settlement and the site is not, therefore, considered well located in
sustainability terms.
In terms of any mixed use development, as proposed in
the submission, this is generally an unsustainable location, with limited
access to facilities. Also, such a development would have a similar visual
impact upon the openness of the countryside. Therefore, this type of
development would not materially alter the suitability conclusions.’
The
material circumstances and considerations relating to this site have not changed
since the previous assessments to lead to a different conclusion being made.
|
No change
|
|
HO-160
|
Land
North of George Street Staplehurst (The Grange)
|
This
site was rejected following assessment in the 2013 and 2014 SHLAA
Call-for-sites exercises on the following grounds;
‘The site is separated from the village of
Staplehurst by open countryside. The council are currently defending an
appeal for development to the south (car park for the station) which is
considered to cause visual harm. Further development to the north of this
site would cause additional harm. The railway line is considered a defined
barrier that the Council would not wish to see development to the north of.
Links to the village are poor, and would rely on a
single point of access across the railway bridge. This is not a particularly
pleasant environment for those on foot.
There is a substantial amount of tree coverage within
the site which would be impact by the proposal. I therefore conclude that
this is an unsustainable site that is detached from the village centre. There
would be significant visual harm should the site be developed. I therefore
recommend that it be rejected.’
The
agent has indicated that the development of the site would bring forward
22
over-60s dwellings
16
semi-detached bungalows
Redevelopment
of The Grange to create 1 and 2 bed over-60s apartments
6
detached family houses
18
2-bed homes for sale/rent to young families and elderly ‘down-sizers’
It
is indicated that the site would be deliverable within 2 years.
It
is contended that given the existing development in the area, the need for
this type of accommodation and the site’s relative sustainability that the
site should be allocated for development.
There was an appeal decision (application
14/501185/OUT) for 22 dwellings on land immediately to the west of this
larger site dismissed on 16 June 2015. The inspector concluded that that
development would cause unacceptable harm to the countryside and was not
sustainable albeit recognising that 22 dwellings would make a small
contribution to the social role of development as outlined in the NPPF.
Development of this larger site for a
greater level of development would have a greater adverse impact on the character
of the area and would it is considered given the ‘target market’ not be
sustainable given the distance to community facilities in the village.
It is not considered that the site should
be allocated and that the physical circumstances of the site have not changed
since previous assessments that would warrant a different conclusion being
reached.
|
No change
|
|
|
The
Mall King Street Maidstone
|
The
agents acting for the owners of the shopping centre consider that the site
should be designated as a Mixed-use site to include residential development.
The
same representation was considered by the SPS&T Committee on 19 August
when the representations to the 2014 Regulation 18 Consultation to Policy
RMX1 sites were considered. The following response was agreed;
‘Redevelopment of
The Mall is included in the Local Plan as a longer term redevelopment
proposal as the site is more complex to deliver and the exact form and nature
of development in this location will be the subject of further assessment and
refinement in conjunction with the landowners. It is considered appropriate
to identify this area as a broad location ahead of this more detailed work being
done but this does not prevent redevelopment being delivered earlier in the
plan period should the landowners decide to expedite it. The council is very
willing to work constructively with the landowners to bring the site forward
sooner.’
The
recommendation was that no change to the Local Plan be made and Councillors
accepted this.
There
have been no changes in circumstances since and the same response to the
latest representation is appropriate.
|
No change
|