Amendments to conditions 23 and additional informative:

Concern has been raised in respect of the compatibility of the use of the land in the south of the site as semi-wild public open space and as a receptor site for biodiversity assets. The Kent County Council Biodiversity Officer has confirmed that the uses are not incompatible, and that an appropriately worded condition will safeguard the ecological value of this part of the site. As such, I propose the following amended ecological enhancement condition:

Amended condition 23:

“No development shall take place until an ecological design strategy addressing the ecological enhancement of the site, as outlined in chapter 7 (Biodiversity Action Plan) of the Aspect Ecology Ecological Appraisal reference ECO3367.EcoApp.dv6 received 21^st May 2014, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The ecological design strategy shall fully consider the impact of the use of the relevant area(s) of the site as semi-wild public open space, and shall include the following:

a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works;

b) Review of site potential and constraints incorporating up-to-date ecological surveys where necessary;

c) Detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) to achieve stated objectives;

d) Extent and location/area of proposed works on appropriate scale maps and plans;

e) Type and source of materials to be used, e.g. native species of local provenance;

f) Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development;

g) Persons responsible for implementing the works;

h) Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance;

i) Details for monitoring and remedial measures.

Reason: To secure appropriate management and enhancement within the site in the interests of ecology and biodiversity.”

It has also been requested that the SUDS details submitted in connection with condition 14 and 15 include the provision of swales in the south of the site. It is not considered that this is reasonable or deliverable due to the constraints on development in this land by way of the CTRL covenants, and the need for such systems to confirm to the ground conditions, which may not favour this location, but the following informative is suggested:

“Any swales or basins required in association with the details required in connection with conditions 14 and 15 above should, where possible, be located in the south of the site where they can contribute towards the biodiversity enhancement of the semi-wild public open space and receptor site.”

Additional representations:

Harrietsham Parish Council and Kent County Council Public Rights of Way have confirmed that no objection is raised to the changes to the scheme in respect of the partial extinguishment of the KH276.

Southern Water has confirmed by email that there is sufficient treatment capacity in the Harrietsham Waste Water Treatment Works to accommodate the applications for which resolutions to grant have recently been taken, together with the application currently under consideration. However, given the additional sites that are currently under consideration and the time scales for actual issuance of permissions following completion of appropriate legal mechanisms, it is considered appropriate to impose the proposed condition 16, as amended by the urgent update report published on 3^rd February 2015.

Recommendation:

My recommendation remains unchanged, subject to the amendments set out above and on the urgent update report published on 3^rd February 2015.