Item 16 Pages 29-59                                                     Vicarage Fields at Wares Farm, Linton Hill, Linton, Kent

Ref. 16/505401/FULL


S106 requests from Linton Parish Council (paragraphs 2.23 to 2.27 of the main report)

In response to the request from Linton Parish Council for s106 financial contributions towards off site highways improvements KCC highways have provided the following additional response. This advice supports the conclusions already set out in the officer report that highway junction improvements and a pedestrian crossing in the centre of Linton Village are not required on highway grounds.


KCC highways additional comments:  “The traffic movements generated by a development of this scale will fall within the day-to-day variations in traffic flow on the A229. Accordingly, there are no justifiable grounds on which to seek mitigation of traffic impact at the Linton Crossroads junction. S106 contributions that will facilitate improvement of the junction have already been secured in conjunction with the various planned new developments in the Coxheath area.


The pedestrian crossing requested by the Parish Council is understood to be intended to assist those crossing the A229 in the centre of Linton village. The relatively small number of additional pedestrian movements generated by a development of this scale will not be sufficient to warrant such provision, given that new residents will be able to access most facilities within the village without the need to cross the A229”.


Affordable housing (paragraphs 2.06 to 2.11 of the main report) 

In relation to affordable housing policy SP20 following publication of the committee report the applicant has provided further information in relation to their ability to provide ‘An identified off-site scheme” or “The purchase of dwellings off-site” as set out in policy SP20.


The joint developers for this proposal will be Countryside Properties Ltd. and Firmin. 


The applicant’s advise in relation to Countryside Properties Ltd. that “Whilst Countryside control a number of sites within the borough, these are sites with planning permission or have a resolution to grant, and therefore the development is agreed and the affordable housing provision is resolved/agreed with RPs.  Countryside are unable to consider alternative sites which are outside their control and notwithstanding this, within the immediate vicinity of the site there are not considered to be any suitable sites for affordable housing.  In terms of existing dwellings within the vicinity of the site, there are no suitable houses available to purchase that would support affordable housing (given their size, cost, etc)”.


The applicant’s advise in relation to Firmin. I can confirm that Firmin do own land in the vicinity and within the parish.  However this land is all outside of any built confines, is greenfield and does not have any planning permission upon it.  It could therefore be said to be potentially available but there are significant doubts however on deliverability and MBC would need to be willing to release greenfield land in that area for more housing. 


As you are aware the quality of the scheme proposed at Vicarage Field cannot come forward with the community benefits proposed with affordable on-site. …… We still strongly consider that the off-site payment of nearly £1m is the best way forward for the Council who then have options open to them to deliver the affordable housing either through purchase of properties or on alternative sites they have access to. Andrew Connors has also confirmed that he is content and supports this approach too.” 


After assessment of this additional information, it is considered by officers that it has been demonstrated that the development cannot provide affordable housing through an identified off-site scheme or the purchase of dwellings off-site. With the proposed off site financial contribution towards affordable housing it is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with policy SP20.


In these circumstances the recommendation to defer a decision (Recommendation A) to seek further information is no longer required and is removed.  Recommendation B is the sole officer recommendation to members.      




Remove recommendation A

RECOMMENDATION B remains unchanged