Issue - meetings

15/505974 - Great Tong Farm, Great Tong, Headcorn, Kent, TN27 9PP

Meeting: 25/02/2016 - Planning Committee (Item 294)

294 15/505974 - CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR FARM TO INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY WITH TWO INVERTER STATIONS, SUBSTATION, CONTROL ROOM, GENERAL STORAGE, SECURITY FENCING AND CAMERAS AND ASSOCIATED TEMPORARY ACCESS TRACK AND SITE COMPOUND - GREAT TONG FARM, GREAT TONG, HEADCORN, KENT pdf icon PDF 143 KB

Additional documents:

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.

 

Mrs Prendergast, an objector, Councillor Andrew of Headcorn Parish Council (against), Councillor Mrs Lovegrove of Ulcombe Parish Council (against), Councillor Ireland of East Sutton Parish Council (against), Mr Richardson, for the applicant, and Councillors Mrs Blackmore and Thick (Visiting Members) 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 considered the proposed development to be unacceptable by virtue of its adverse effect on the character of the landscape and the visual amenity of the Special Landscape Area, contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the National Planning Practice Guidance (2014), Saved Policies ENV6, ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000), the Council's Planning Policy Advice Notice (2014), the Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment (2012, amended 2013) 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. 

 

Members also felt that the proposed development would result in harm to the setting of designated heritage assets such that the harm would outweigh the public benefits of the proposed scheme contrary to Paragraphs 126, 128-129, 131, 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and the National Planning Practice Guidance 2014.

 

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.  The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable by virtue of its adverse effect on the character of the landscape and the visual amenity of the Special Landscape Area, contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the National Planning Practice Guidance (2014), Saved Policies ENV6, ENV28 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan (2000), the Council's Planning Policy Advice Notice (2014), the Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment (2012, amended 2013) 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.

 

2.  The proposed development would result in harm to the setting of designated heritage assets such that the harm would outweigh the public benefits of the proposed scheme contrary to Paragraphs 126, 128-129, 131, 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and the National Planning Practice Guidance 2014.

 

Voting:  8 – For  3 – Against  2 – Abstentions

 

Note:  Councillor Harwood requested that his dissent be recorded.