Item 1, Page 25

Item 14, Page 16






Land to the East of Hermitage Lane, Maidstone, Kent.

Correction to report


Paragraph 2.06 of the report refers to a “secondary point of access is also proposed from Howard Drive which would involve the demolition of 102 and 104 Howard Drive”.  This should in fact read demolition of 100 and 102 Howard Drive.


Updated information


Paragraph 9.08 of the report refers to a 5 year housing supply figure (calculated in April 2014) as showing the Council having a 2.1 year supply assessed against the objectively assessed housing need of 18,560. An updated figure has since been provided to the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Transport Committee on the 23rd July which shows that the Council is now able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 3.3 years as at 1st April 2015.


Consultee response


Further dialogue between the applicant’s drainage engineer and the Environment Agency have confirmed that additional infiltration testing and ground water monitoring will be undertaken to help inform the most suitable solution to the surface water management strategy. The applicants have confirmed that based on currently available information, deep infiltration will prove feasible and the most appropriate solution for surface water management. However, as an option B capacity checks have also been undertaken with Southern Water which have confirmed that some improvement works to the public drainage network would be required to discharge into it.


The Lead Local Flood Authority (KCC) have confirmed that this approach is acceptable and that further investigation will manage any risk for both discharge to ground and alternative arrangements if at all needed. They have confirmed that the conditions as recommended by the EA address this matter.


Officer Comment


The E.A, LLFA and Southern Water all confirm that suitably worded conditions can address matters relating to foul and surface water disposal.




New Allington Action Group (NAAG) have raised the following (summarised) points:


·        Raise concerns and question the reason why the application is being reported to committee before the Secretary of State makes his decision on the previous scheme – Scheme 1 ref: 13/1749.

·        Request that the application be removed from the Planning Committee agenda to await the outcome of the Public Inquiry and the Secretary of State’s decision.

·        Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council have stated they will not consider these applications until after a decision has been made on the appeal.


Officer Comment


There is no planning reason why the current application should await the outcome of the Secretary of State’s decision. The applicant has submitted an amended scheme from that previously refused in an attempt to address the grounds of refusal. The reports sets out that the scheme 2 application has addressed the principle grounds of objection raised by scheme 1. The Council raised no principle objection at the recent public inquiry to development of the reservoir field and to the community facilities located in the kite shaped area of land to the nw of the restricted by-way. The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to look for solutions rather than problems and to approve applications for sustainable development. The application site is allocated for residential development in both the adopted and emerging local plans with community facilities allocated in the emerging plan.


The Government’s Planning Guarantee requires applications to be progressed speedily and to agree with applicants any longer periods as may be necessary to progress an application towards a decision. The applicants have agreed to a delay in the decision to allow for work on the public inquiry to be progressed. Now the public inquiry has closed there is no planning reason to delay the decision on the current application.


Additional neighbour representation received raising similar comments to those already set out in paragraph 6.01 of the main report together with an additional standardised letter raising the same issues as set out paragraph 6.03 of the report.





My recommendation remains unchanged.