Agenda item

Rainham North

Outline application with all matters reserved for residential development comprising approx 90 dwellings. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and referred to the letter from the applicant appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet circulated at the meeting.

He referred to the history of the site and advised the Committee that this application was an outline application with all matters reserved for residential development comprising approximately 90 dwellings.

The Head of Planning addressed the issues raised in the applicant’s letter and specifically the points raised by the applicant on each of the proposed refusal grounds as summarised below:

• Proposed refusal ground 1

The Council has undertaken work on assessing housing demand and this indicates that there is an anticipated need for the construction of 1,000 houses per annum.

It was not accepted that there had been persistent under delivery of provision of housing in Medway as whilst there has been some level of under delivery, this was largely due to the recession. Indeed Medway had experienced a higher level proportionally of housing provision over and above any other local authority in Kent. In a recent meeting with representatives of the CLG both these facts were acknowledged and it was agreed that Medway did not have a persistent under delivery of housing provision.

In respect of the applicant’s statement that Polices BNE25 and BNE34 were not up to date, and were not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Head of Planning confirmed that the Polices were saved policies included in the Medway Local Plan 2003 and all the saved polices within the Plan had been assessed against the NPPF. While it had been accepted that part of those policies referred to were not consistent wit the NPPF, only those parts of the policies that were consistent had been used in assessing planning applications.

As part of his presentation, the Head of Planning used an aerial photograph to show the location of the application site and its relationship to the surrounding area. He advised the Committee that the Medway Landscape Character Assessment had shown this area to be of particular importance as a green space to separate the urban area from the clusters of properties in the rural area and separate the site from the River.

He further stated that whilst the applicant had argued that this site had been a former brickworks, since the brickworks had closed, the area had regenerated and now fitted in with the surrounding green spaces. He drew attention to the NPPF and advised that the NPPF clearly stated that if a site has regenerated then it should no longer be considered as previously developed land.

• Proposed refusal ground 2

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that ordinarily whilst it was possible for issues relating to land contamination to be dealt with via appropriate conditions, in the light of the use of this site as a former brickworks, it was not considered that a desk top survey would be sufficient to assess the appropriateness of the proposed residential development of this site with regard to contaminated land issues.

• Proposed refusal ground 3

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that insufficient surveys and mitigation proposals had been provided by the applicants in respect of the reptiles, birds and bats that were currently on the open green space and the possible receptor sites.

Decision:

Refused on the grounds set out in the report.