Issue - meetings

14/503167 - Land At Cripple Street, Cripple Street, Maidstone

Meeting: 19/03/2015 - Planning Committee (Item 286)

286 14/503167 - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 36 UNITS AND RE-ALIGNMENT OF CRIPPLE STREET - LAND AT CRIPPLE STREET, CRIPPLE STREET, MAIDSTONE, KENT PDF 144 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

All Members except Councillor Butler stated that they had been lobbied.

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

Mr Carter of the North Loose Residents’ Association (against), Councillor Miss Hogg of Tovil Parish Council (against), Mr Daniells, for the applicant, and Councillor D Mortimer (Visiting Member) (against) addressed the meeting.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission. In making this decision, Members felt that the northern part of the development would result in significant harm to the setting of Bockingford Farmhouse and the Loose Valley Conservation Area and any benefits arising from the development would not outweigh this harm to heritage assets. To permit the proposal would therefore be contrary to Central Government policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraphs 131, 132 and 134.

Members also felt that the protrusion and consolidation of the development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside in the Loose Valley Area of Local Landscape Importance. To permit the proposal would therefore be contrary to policies ENV28 and ENV35 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and any benefits would not outweigh the harm.

RESOLVED: That permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The northern part of the development would result in significant harm to the setting of Bockingford Farmhouse and the Loose Valley Conservation Area and any benefits arising from the development are not considered to outweigh this harm to heritage assets. To permit the proposal would therefore be contrary to Central Government policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraphs 131, 132 and 134.

2. The protrusion and consolidation of the development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside in the Loose Valley Area of Local Landscape Importance. To permit the proposal would therefore be contrary to policies ENV28 and ENV35 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and any benefits would not outweigh the harm.

Voting: 10 – For 1 – Against 1 – Abstention