Your Councillors

15 507124 Urgent Update_161027

Item 15, Page 48                                          Stanley Farm, Staplehurst

 

 

 

Reference number: 15/507124

 

Update to the report in relation to the following sections;

 

Local representations P51

 

  • The Council has been made aware that there is an online petition titled ‘A Safe Crossing at Cuckolds Corner, Staplehurst’ which has comments on the crossroads in the village, and which at the time of writing this report had 149 supporters.

 

  • Parish Councillor Lain-Rose

Parish Councillor Lain-Rose has made the following (summarised) comments:

Staplehurst Crossroads:

 

·         Works contradict Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan

·         Highway safety issues

·         Visual harm from railings

·         Will impede pedestrians

 

Officer Comment

 

These points have already been raised and considered in the main report.

 

 

New paragraph to be inserted in Section 9 of report

 

Affordable Housing

As set out above, the application proposes 40% affordable housing which accords with the emerging policy DM13 of the submission version Maidstone Local Plan 2011-2031. This policy requires 40% affordable provision within new development over five units in rural service centres such as Staplehurst. This provision could be secured by a legal agreement in the event planning permission was granted. The council’s housing officer set out the preferred mix of such provision and as the scheme is outline in nature it is considered this could be agreed at the detailed stage.

 

Update to Infrastructure Contributions  P68.

 Add further paragraphs to section regarding additional infrastructure requirements

 

·         Contribution to community facilities of £3376.63 (£30.70 per unit) towards cost of additional equipment required within village to mitigate impact of additional attendees

·         Contributions towards Highways (totalling  £39,490), Station Improvements (totalling £157,190) and Bus frequency (totalling  £92,400) as set out in the highways section in the report (including paragraphs 9.29, 9.40, 9.41 and 9.45)

·         Securing of 40% Affordable Housing provision within development

·         Contribution towards off-site improvements to the surfacing and condition of the public footpath routes of KM303 and KM304 which would be in the region of £26,400

  • The provision of a Residential Travel Plan to aim to achieve a 10% reduction in development traffic flows covering a 10 year monitoring period, and to include monitoring costs.
  • Annual monitoring and reporting of the effect of displaced traffic on highway routes surrounding the site (“rat-running” monitoring).
  • A financial contribution towards suitable mitigation measures to combat any significant adverse traffic flow conditions as may be established by the monitoring exercise to be conducted (delegated authority to the Head of Planning to agree the financial contribution)

 

Correction to figure outlined in paragraph 9.45 - This figure should be £289,080 not £249,590. 

 

Update wording to Conclusion Paragraph 10.01  P  P68

 

The site lies to the edge of the settlement of Staplehurst, adjacent to the development boundary of the adopted MBLP 2000 local plan. The site has been considered through the preparation of the SVMBLP and the SNP and was not chosen to form part of the future development of Staplehurst. The council are able to demonstrate a five year supply and therefore can give due weight to the status of the existing development boundaries and the fact the development boundaries are retained in this location in the emerging plans, significant weight can be placed on the protection of this village edge. The plans would be contrary to ENV6, ENV28, ENV34 and the strategy of the emerging plans, particularly that of the neighbourhood plan which implants the localism agenda with a local planning context. The development will have localised adverse effects on the character of the countryside which is brought by the urbanising impact of the development which will be visible from Headcorn Road and the adjacent public rights of way and the loss of the hedgerow to create the new access. This impact of the development would cause harm to the Low Weald Landscape which is designated as a special landscape area within the 2000 plan and a landscape of local value within the emerging plan. Therefore, as the housing needs of the village and borough will be delivered by other allocated sites in the village and the development would be contrary to ENV28, there are no overriding reasons that would outweigh this harm and justify a departure from the development plan. Accordingly, the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan and there are no material planning considerations that indicate that outline planning permission should be granted. Furthermore, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.

 

 

Section 11 Recommendation P68/69

 

Amendment to Reasons 1 and 2;

 

  1. The proposed development would result in an unjustified and unacceptable form of development which has associated urbanising effects that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside in this location which is located on a prominent gateway route into the village. The effects of the development by reason of the new access and built form which would be visible from Headcorn Road and the adjacent Public Footpaths and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and the Special Landscape Area, the Low Weald. Therefore, the development would be contrary to Policies ENV6, ENV28 and ENV34 of the adopted Maidstone Local Plan 2000 and emerging policies SP5, SP10 and SP17 of the emerging Maidstone Local Plan 2011-2031 and emerging policies PW2 of the Staplehurst Neighbourhood Plan 2015-2031. Accordingly, the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan and there are no material planning considerations that indicate that outline planning permission should be granted. Furthermore, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.

 

2.  The development has not secured the relevant mechanism to provide towards the relevant local infrastructure including education, public rights of way, highway matters, community, healthcare, community and youth services and thus in the absence of this the development will have unacceptable impacts on local infrastructure contrary to CF1 of the adopted Maidstone Local Plan and ID1 of the emerging plan and the NPPF. Furthermore, in the absence of such a mechanism the development also fails to secure the requisite level of affordable housing in line with the Affordable Housing DPD and emerging policy DM13.

 

The recommendation remains unchanged.