Agenda and minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Ash, Harwood, Munford, Paine and Perry.

It was noted that Councillor Butler was substituting for Councillor Ash.

There were no Visiting Members.

There were none.

The Chairman stated that, in his opinion, the update reports of the Head of Planning and Development should be taken as urgent items as they contained further information relating to the applications to be considered at the meeting.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

RESOLVED:  That the items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

All Members except Councillors Butler and Paterson stated that they had been lobbied.

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

Mr Rogers, an objector, and Councillor Titchener of Ulcombe Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of this application be deferred to enable the Officers to request further guidance from the Highways Officer in relation to the adequacy of the vehicle access to the houses in terms of highway safety and the potential conflict with drivers and pedestrians using the adjacent school. 

Voting:  6 – For  0 - Against  0 – Abstentions

Note:  Councillor Clark entered the meeting following consideration of this application (6.30 p.m.).

Councillor Round stated that he had been lobbied.

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

Mr Snowdon, an objector, Councillor Bennett of Hollingbourne Parish Council (against) and Mr Baty, for the applicant, 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 proposals represented an overdevelopment of the site resulting in an overly urban appearance and resultant loss of landscaping that would be out of character and harmful to the street scene and Conservation Area contrary to policies ENV6 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the NPPF.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refusedfor the following reason:

The proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site resulting in an overly urban appearance and resultant loss of landscaping that would be out of character and harmful to the street scene and Conservation Area contrary to policies ENV6 and ENV34 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the NPPF.

Voting:  7 – For  0 – Against  0 - Abstentions

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

Councillor Bowie of Detling Parish Council (against) and Mr Collins, for the applicant, 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 proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Special Landscape Area and open countryside by reason of the change of use to residential and domestication of the site and encroachment into the open countryside which would be contrary to policies ENV28, ENV33, ENV34 and ENV45 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the NPPF.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Special Landscape Area and open countryside by reason of the change of use to residential and domestication of the site and encroachment into the open countryside which would be contrary to policies ENV28, ENV33, ENV34 and ENV45 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the NPPF.

Voting:  7 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Chairman and Councillors Clark, Cox and Round stated that they had been lobbied.

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

Mr Newton, an objector, addressed the meeting.

During the discussion on this application, Councillor Round stated that he was one of the Council’s representatives on the Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board whose offices were situated at 17 Albion Place.  Since the Board had not objected to the application and was unlikely to be affected financially by the development, Councillor Round indicated that he would continue to participate in the discussion and the voting on the application.

RESOLVED:  That outline permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report as amended by the urgent update report.

Voting:  4 – For  3 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development setting out details of appeal decisions received since the last meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

There were no Chairman’s announcements on this occasion.

6.00 p.m. to 8.25 p.m.