Agenda item

Strood Rural

Outline planning application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for up to 225 residential dwellings (including up to 25% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access point from Town Road and associated ancillary works. 

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and advised the Committee that this application was for outline planning permission with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale).

The Senior Planner explained in detail the reasons why the application was being recommended for refusal as set out in the report.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Williams addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the concerns of local residents should this application be approved, details of which are summarised as follows:

·         The development would result in the loss of 10.9 acres of agricultural land resulting in a loss of food production.

·         Concerns regarding sewage and foul water drainage.

·         The provision of 225 residential dwellings would place pressure on the local GP surgery where patients already wait 3 weeks for a GP appointment and where there is already a problem in recruiting GP’s.

·         The development will place pressure on local primary schools that are already oversubscribed and whilst one primary school is due for expansion, such expansion would be insufficient to cope with additional pressures arising from the provision of 225 new houses.

·         Cliffe Woods is a rural location and has a limited bus service during the day and no bus service during the evening and therefore residents are reliant on using private cars for transport. This proposed development will result in increased congestion on the B2000. This road already has a high volume of traffic including HGV’s and the width of the road is very narrow.

·         Increased traffic from the proposed development will place additional pressures on local roads and the Wainscott roundabout.

The Committee discussed the application in detail noting the concerns expressed by the local Ward Councillor and the level of objection received in response to this planning application.

In particular, concern was expressed that:

·         Surface water from this site would run off onto neighbouring land.

·         There is a rising water table in this area.

·         The proposed site is located outside the village boundary/envelope.

·         Whilst there is recognition that there is a need to make available land for housing, an application of this nature should be considered within the context of the Local Plan and not piecemeal so that the Local Plan is able to determine the most sustainable location for a development of this size.

·         This site is agricultural land and therefore not suited for residential development.

·         The application as submitted states that up to 25% affordable housing will be supplied as part of the development and, if this application was to be considered for approval, it should aim to provide ‘at least’ 25% affordable housing.

·         The road access to and from the application site is inadequate to serve a development of this size.

·         The local primary school and GP surgery would have insufficient capacity to cope with the additional pressures that an additional 225 houses will bring to the area.

The Committee referred to the two refusal grounds set out in the report and  considered that based on the concerns raised by the Committee and the local Ward Councillor, if the application was to be refused, it was possible that there were additional grounds for refusal that were relevant. The Head of Planning suggested that if the Committee was minded to refuse the application based on the two refusal grounds within the report, the Committee could grant him delegated authority to include any further refusal grounds which may be considered appropriate based on the Committee’s concerns in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, oppositions spokespersons and Counsel acting on behalf of the Council for this case.

Decision:

Refused on grounds 1 and 2 as set out in the report and the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to add further refusal grounds if appropriate in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, opposition spokespersons and Counsel acting on behalf of the Council on this matter having regard to the concerns outlined by the Committee.