![](https://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/SiteSpecific/mbc_files/mobbutton.jpg)
Issue - meetings
13/1456 - Great Pagehurst Farm, Pagehurst Road, Staplehurst, Maidstone, Kent, TN12 0JD
Meeting: 04/02/2016 - Planning Committee (Item 261)
Additional documents:
- 13/1456 - Committee Report, item 261
PDF 303 KB
- 13.1456 Great Pagehurst Urgent Update, item 261
PDF 53 KB View as HTML (261/3) 11 KB
- 13_1456_Great Pagehurst Farm_Urgent Update, item 261
PDF 1 MB
- 13 1456 Revised Urgent Update_Great Pagehurst Farm, item 261
PDF 54 KB View as HTML (261/5) 12 KB
- 13.1456_Great Pagehurst Farm_update_160204, item 261
PDF 90 KB View as HTML (261/6) 30 KB
- 13-1456_photos, item 261
PDF 2 MB
Minutes:
All Members stated that they had been lobbied.
The Committee considered the report and the urgent update reports of the Head of Planning and Development.
The Development Manager advised the Committee that a revised version of the first update report had been produced and uploaded onto the Council’s website to reflect the fact that, in the final paragraph of her consultation response letter, Helen Grant MP had stated that she felt that there was a substantial argument for this application to be rejected. A copy of the letter had been attached to the first update report.
The Development Manager then drew the Committee’s attention to the second update report, and, in particular, the additional tree protection conditions recommended by the Landscape Officer in relation to retained trees within the site area. He explained that reasons for these conditions had been omitted from the update report and that the reason in each case should read: In the interests of good arboricultural practice.
Mr Foulkes, for objectors, Councillor Buller of Staplehurst Parish Council (against), Councillor Mannington of Marden Parish Council (against), Ms Marriage, for the applicant, and Councillors Brice, McLoughlin, Mrs Blackmore and Burton (Visiting Members) addressed the meeting.
During the discussion on the application, the Development Manager amended the second sentence of paragraph 4.19 of the report to read “The proposal should not be regarded as a significant development of agricultural land where land of poorer ALC quality than the proposed site should be sought instead.”
Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission. In making this decision, Members considered the proposed development to be unacceptable by virtue of its adverse visual effect upon the landscape character and appearance, contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the National Planning Practice Guidance (2014), Saved Policies ENV6 and ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000), the Council’s Planning Policy Advice Notice (2014), the Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment (2012) and the Maidstone Landscape Capacity Study: Sensitivity Assessment (2015). The planning harm that had been identified would not be outweighed by the planning benefits of the development.
RESOLVED: That permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable by virtue of its adverse visual effect upon the landscape character and appearance, contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the National Planning Practice Guidance (2014), Saved Policies ENV6 and ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000), the Council’s Planning Policy Advice Notice (2014), the Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment (2012) and the Maidstone Landscape Capacity Study: Sensitivity Assessment (2015). The planning harm that has been identified would not be outweighed by the planning benefits of the development.
Voting: 6 – For 4 – Against 3 – Abstentions
Councillor Harwood requested that his dissent be recorded.