Agenda and minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Eves.

It was noted that Councillor Parfitt-Reid was substituting for Councillor Eves.

Councillor Garten had given notice of his wish to speak on application 18/504836/EIOUT (Binbury Park, Bimbury Lane, Detling, Maidstone, Kent), and attended the meeting in person.

The Chairman said that he intended to take the updates to be included in the Officer’s presentation as urgent items as they included further information relating to the application to be considered at the meeting.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

All Members stated that they had been lobbied on application 18/504836/EIOUT (Binbury Park, Bimbury Lane, Detling, Maidstone, Kent).

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

There were no petitions.

Prior to the introduction of the report by the Major Projects Manager, the Head of Planning and Development provided a short strategic overview explaining that:

·  The application site was situated within the open countryside and was within the Kent Downs AONB and great weight was afforded to the protection of the AONB in the NPPF.

·  The NPPF stated that development within AONBs should be limited, and that permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances and where it could be demonstrated that the development was in the public interest.

·  Paragraph 177 of the NPPF set out three tests for such applications i.e., the need for the development and the economic consequences arising from an approval or refusal; an assessment of alternative locations; and the environmental effects and the extent to which they could be mitigated.

·  In terms of need, it was considered that this was catered for in both the adopted Local Plan and the draft Local Plan Review.  The Council had identified that it was able to meet the objectively assessed needs for both housing and employment development as identified in the Local Plan and that as part of the Local Plan Review process it had identified sufficient land to meet needs for the period to 2037.

·  There were alternative locations, and they were set out in the Local Plan Review.  The application proposals did not form part of the Local Plan Review.

·  In terms of environmental impact, there was a clear impact on the character and appearance of the AONB.  The site was on the dip slope of the Kent Downs escarpment and contained a dry valley.  The proposals would result in the loss of ancient woodland and the NPPF afforded great weight to ancient woodland.  The proposals would also cause harm to non-designated heritage assets. 

·  In terms of broad environmental harm, it was considered that the site location was unsustainable and that it was not capable of being made sustainable because a number of the uses were car dependent.

·  The development did mitigate its own impact and the impact on the wider highway network and there were other benefits such as addressing a shortfall in affordable housing, a new sports hub, a country park and a SEN school.  However, the NPPF sets out a very high bar for development such as this on a greenfield site in the AONB and it was not considered that these benefits or any other material considerations were great enough to clear that bar.

·  If Members were minded to disagree with the recommendation that the application be refused, a decision could not be made until an ‘appropriate assessment’ was carried out of the potential effects on the North Downs Woodlands SAC in accordance with the Habitat Regulations.

The Committee then considered the report of the Major Projects Manager.

In introducing the report, the Major Projects Manager advised the Committee that:

·  Since publication of the agenda, two further communications had been received as follows:

Comments from the applicant on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 272.

6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.