Issue - meetings

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

Councillor Smith of Tovil Parish Council and Councillor D Mortimer spoke in objection to the application. Mr Jell addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.

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 development by reason of its design, scale and site coverage, including cramped parking arrangements and a lack of landscaping, would result in an incongruous and cramped form of development that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene of Church Street contrary to advice within the NPPF and draft policy DM1 of the Maidstone Local Plan (2011-2031).

The development by reason of its height, expanse and proximity would have an overbearing and oppressive impact on the rear outlook of nos. 4 and 6 Albert Reed Gardens and would therefore be harmful to the living conditions of these properties contrary to advice within the NPPF and draft policy DM1 of the Maidstone Local Plan (2011-2031).

In the absence of an appropriate legal mechanism to secure necessary contributions towards local libraries, primary education, healthcare, and public open space, the impact of the development would be detrimental to existing social infrastructure and therefore contrary to policy CF1 Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000, and Council's Open Space DPD (2006).

RESOLVED:

1.  That permission be refused for the following reasons:

The development by reason of its design, scale and site coverage, including cramped parking arrangements and a lack of landscaping, would result in an incongruous and cramped form of development that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene of Church Street contrary to advice within the NPPF and draft policy DM1 of the Maidstone Local Plan (2011-2031).

The development by reason of its height, expanse and proximity would have an overbearing and oppressive impact on the rear outlook of nos. 4 and 6 Albert Reed Gardens and would therefore be harmful to the living conditions of these properties contrary to advice within the NPPF and draft policy DM1 of the Maidstone Local Plan (2011-2031).

In the absence of an appropriate legal mechanism to secure necessary contributions towards local libraries, primary education, healthcare, and public open space, the impact of the development would be detrimental to existing social infrastructure and therefore contrary to policy CF1 Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000, and Council's Open Space DPD (2006).

2.  That the Head of Planning and Development be granted delegated powers to negotiate suitable Section 106 planning obligations if an appeal is lodged with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government against the decision of the Borough Council to refuse the application.

Voting:  13 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions