Issue - meetings

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

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

Ms Lord, a Planning Agent, addressed the Committee on behalf of an objector.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission on heritage and privacy grounds.

In making this decision, and in relation to the heritage grounds, Members gave enhanced attention to the duty under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings as set out in East Northamptonshire DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Barnwell Manor) [2014] EWCA Civ 137; Members took into account that the previous Committee report in 2012 referred to the heights of lakes as 4m and 5m and those now proposed are higher notably near to the listed barn; Members took into account that the proposed banks would rise closer to the western boundary near the listed building than the proposals in 2012; and Members took into account the general changes of the proposals from 2012.

In relation to the privacy grounds, Members took into account that the previous Committee report in 2012 referred to the heights of lakes as 4m and 5m and those now proposed are higher notably near to some of the properties to the west; Members took into account that the proposed banks would rise closer to the western boundary than the proposals in 2012; and Members took into account the general changes of the proposals from 2012.

Taking into account all considerations including the material consideration of the previous consent and changes outlined above, Members considered that:

1.  The size, height and proximity of the raised lakes particularly the western bunding would cause less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Grade II listed Hertsfield Barn through loss of the open and level historic setting of the Barn which forms an important part of its significance and setting.  This would be contrary to policies SP18 and DM4 of the Maidstone Local Plan and the NPPF and the less than substantial harm would not be outweighed by any public benefits from the development.

2.  Due to the height and proximity of the raised lakes along the western boundary of the site, their use for fishing would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy and perceived overlooking from anglers at an elevated position to the houses and gardens of Hertsfield Barn, and numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6 Hertsfield Farm Cottages, resulting in harm to their amenity contrary to policy DM1 of the Local Plan.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.  The size, height and proximity of the raised lakes particularly the western bunding would cause less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Grade II listed Hertsfield Barn through loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230