Agenda item

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

In presenting the application, the Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that:

·  The previous day he had been sent details of an on-line petition objecting to development at Church Road, Otham.  The petition showed 1,386 supporters and this may have increased since then. 

·  In terms of the request by the Chapman Avenue Area Residents’ Association and Otham Parish Council for the application to be called in by the Secretary of State, he had received a communication from the Government’s Planning Case Work Unit advising that they had received the request and would consider their position should the Council agree to grant permission.

·  Further representations had been received but they did not raise any new material issues in relation to the application.

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

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

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

(a)  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;

(b)  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; and

(c)  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.

Prior to the vote being taken, the Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that a refusal on the first ground would be unreasonable.  It referred to air pollution and evidence had been submitted that there would be a negligible impact on air quality and this was agreed by Maidstone Borough Council Environmental Health.  A refusal on the grounds of the safety issues on Church Road would be unreasonable for the reasons set out in the report and the limited one additional movement per minute from the development over the peak hour.  The proposed reason for refusal on heritage grounds would also be unreasonable for the reasons set out in the report and this was an outline application.  The site had been assessed at the Local Plan Examination and the site allocation policy had criteria to mitigate the impact.  In summary, the proposed reasons for refusal were unreasonable and there was a risk of significant costs being awarded against the Council at appeal.

The representative of the Head of Legal Partnership advised the Committee that she agreed with the advice provided by the Principal Planning Officer in that it was unlikely that the proposed grounds for refusing permission could be sustained at appeal and that the Council would be at significant risk of an award of significant costs against it at appeal.

In line with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution, the Head of Planning and Development informed the Committee that based on the advice provided by the Principal Planning Officer and the representative of the Head of Legal Partnership he was giving a costs warning.  If the Committee agreed to refuse permission on the grounds proposed, then for the reasons previously specified by the Officers the decision would not be implemented but deferred until the next meeting of the Committee in line with 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 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.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 22.4, three Members of the Committee requested that the names for and against or abstaining from the voting be recorded in the Minutes.

Voting:

FOR (6):  Councillors Adkinson, English (Chairman), Eves, Parfitt-Reid, Perry and Spooner,

AGAINST (6):  Councillors Chappell-Tay, Harwood, Kimmance, Munford, Vizzard and Wilby

The Chairman exercised his casting vote in favour of refusal.

Note:  Councillor Brindle did not participate in the voting as she had missed some of the discussion due to connectivity issues.

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).