Agenda item

Strood Rural

Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout, scale) for construction of up to 530 dwellings with public open space; new primary school and community use; A1 retail unit (up to 200sqm); public house; landscaping; attenuation pond and vehicular access point from Chattenden Lane and the existing roundabout off Peninsula Way. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that as the applicant for this particular planning application had lodged an appeal against non-determination, the Committee was now being requested to formally indicate how it would have determined this planning application had it been in a position to do so.

The Head of Planning drew attention to a correction to the proposed refusal ground no. 5 and an additional refusal ground no. 8 as set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He also drew attention to an additional representation from the RSPB and a revised flood risk section, full details of which were also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and advised that prior to the application being submitted and, during the pre-application process, a meeting had been held in which the principles of developing this site had been considered and the constraints and general concerns of the Council had been put forward which included, but were not restricted to, access, impact on landscape and character of the area and the impact of this potential application on the existing residential settlements of Chattenden and Hoo.

The applicant had argued that the proposal represented sustainable development which could be approved in advance of the new Local Plan on the basis that it would contribute to the delivery of housing in the absence of a 5 year land supply. This view was not accepted by the Council and the reasons for this were set out in full within the report.

The Committee was informed that the Local Plan process was considering the potential to accommodate growth in the wider Hoo area as part of the plan led approach to deliver sustainable growth in Medway over the plan period and the promotion of this proposed development in advance of the development framework on the draft Local Plan compromised the ability to determine the most appropriate and sustainable use of land and to secure strategic solutions to major issues such as transport, infrastructure provision and environmental management.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that the applicants had offered to enter into a package of Section 106 contributions and to contribute to the provision of a new footbridge to be constructed near to the site to allow for a pedestrian link between Hoo and Chattenden.

The Committee discussed the planning application having regard to the concerns set out within the report and, in particular, the affect that the proposed development would have upon the safety of vehicle occupants, cyclists and pedestrians using the access on the A228 (Main Road roundabout).

Whilst there was a recognition that there was a need for the provision of housing, it was considered that this application was premature in advance of the Local Plan as it would require substantial planning and adequate infrastructure to support the development and should therefore not be considered in isolation of other potential sites.

Concern was also expressed that the level of funding proposed for education, would not be sufficient to provide a new primary school and local schools were already full to capacity.

Decision: 

If the Committee had been in a position to determine this planning application, it would have been refused on grounds 1 – 4 and 6 – 7 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report, condition 5 amended and new condition 8 as set out below:

5.         When considered in isolation the proposed development fails to consider the potential cumulative impact in relation to ecology and effective environmental management strategies, in particular the indirect impacts from development and associated urbanisation on the SSSI such as cat predation, contrary to contrary to Policies BNE35 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and Paragraphs 8, 175, 176 and 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

8          The current outline proposal fails to sufficiently demonstrate that surface water flood risk would be adequately managed for the lifetime of the development. This is contrary to Paragraph 163 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.