Agenda item

Strood Rural

Outline planning permission 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 Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, changes be made to the proposed Section 106 agreement and a new condition 29 be approved, details of which were set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In addition, he advised the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, twenty five further letters of representation had been received objecting to the recommendation in the report and the proposed development and expressing concern about issues and matters already summarised in the report on pages 59 and 60.

Additional representations had also been received from Councillor Elizabeth Turpin and Kelly Tolhurst MP for Rochester and Strood and from SAVE Cliffe Woods, copies of which were appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning also drew attention to additional comments to be added under the planning appraisal section of the report relating to climate change and energy efficiency, surface water management and highway issues, details of which were also set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

Referring to x) under the proposed Section 106 agreement, the Head of Planning clarified that of the £229,055.16 contribution to improve open space facilities, 5% would be directed to the Great Lines Heritage Park and the remaining 95% would be directed to the Cliffe Woods Recreation Ground and sports facilities in the area.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that whilst the Parish Council were opposed to the planning application, should the application be approved, the Parish Council wished to accept the offer from the developer to take on the control of the allocated allotment and open space provision.

Attention was drawn to the background to this planning application and in particular, the information set out on pages 72 and 73 of the report. The Committee was reminded that whilst an application for the development of up to 225 residential dwellings on this site had been refused in May 2017 (MC/16/3669) following a public inquiry the appointed planning inspector had recommended that the appeal be allowed. However, in September 2017 the appeal had been recovered by the Secretary of State for determination following which the Secretary of State had concluded that significant weight should be given to the housing benefits of the proposal and moderate weight to the economic benefits and the Secretary of State had subsequently dismissed the appeal on two grounds, details of which were set out in the report on pages 73 - 74.

The Head of Planning drew attention to the information contained in the report which explained how the two grounds for dismissal of the appeal had now been overcome.

The Head of Planning referred to concerns raised by objectors that the applicant was in effect buying planning permission by agreeing to pay Section 106 contributions and he explained that the purpose of Section 106 contributions was to require an applicant to make a financial contribution towards mitigating the impact of a development. Such facilities/improvements were then available for the benefit of all residents in the wider area.

The Committee discussed the report and during discussion, the following concerns were expressed:

·      this application proposing development of 225 residential homes is in addition to other approved developments nearby which is unacceptable and will have a negative impact on existing residents.

·      concern as to the quality of the land being offered for allotment provision as it is known locally as ‘the swamp’.

·      the impact on additional vehicular movements along the B2000.

·      GP facilities and school provision in the area are already oversubscribed and the addition of a further 225 residential homes will place additional pressure on these facilities.

In the light of the concerns raised during discussion and those objecting to the application, it was suggested that consideration of this application be deferred for further discussions and consideration.

The Committee noted that both Councillors Elizabeth Turpin and Williams had expressed a wish to address the Committee as Ward Councillors but they both advised that if the Committee was minded to defer consideration of the application at this meeting, they would wait and address the Committee if and when the application was re-submitted for determination.

Decision:

Consideration of the application was deferred to enable further discussions and consideration in the light of the concerns expressed.