Agenda item

Lordswood and Capstone

Outline planning application with some matters reserved (appearance, layout, scale and landscaping) for construction of up to 800 dwellings, primary school, supporting retail space of up to 150sqm and GP surgery with associated road link between North Dane Way and Pear Tree Lane and other road infrastructure, open space and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and in particular, referred to the presentation to the Committee on 3 February 2021 concerning the Housing Delivery Test and the need for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. He reminded the Committee that this did not mean that all planning applications had to be granted but that the Committee must be mindful of this when determining planning applications.

In addition, he referred to a recent Public Inquiry and referred to the various factors that had arisen at the Inquiry concerning the 5 year Housing supply and the Local Plan.

He informed the Committee that whilst the 2017 Development Strategy for the emerging Local Plan had included two scenarios (out of 4) which included possible development of the site that was the subject of this planning application, further work had been undertaken in producing the Medway Strategic Land Availability Assessment 2019 (SLAA) and subsequently the application site had been removed as it was not considered suitable for development.

The Committee was presented with plans showing the application site and its relationship with the Capstone Valley and Gibraltar Farm. This latter site had been the subject of a recent planning application for development which had been considered and refused on 13 January 2021.

The Head of Planning explained the application and the reasons why the application was not considered acceptable. It was noted that since despatch of the agenda, 38 additional representations had been received reiterating previous objections.

The Head of Planning stated that whilst a development of 800 units would normally be considered low density, the topography of the site and location of ancient woodland meant that the developable area was less and therefore the density of the development would be greater and would have a greater impact and dominance on the surrounding area, particularly taking into account the proposed 3 and 4 storey elements of the scheme.

The Head of Planning referred to various relevant policies that needed to be taken into account when determining the application and drew attention to the relevant sections of the committee report. In doing so, he outlined both the benefits and the harm which would result should this application be approved and he informed Members of the requirement for the Committee to balance and weigh up these factors before reaching a decision.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Jarrett addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and expressed the following concerns:

• The proposed development which includes both 3 and 4 storey buildings would have a detrimental visual impact from Darland Banks and be visually intrusive and this land is not identified for Housing in the Local Plan.
• The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the availability of valuable open space which is an important benefit for people’s health and well-being.
• The applicant’s argument concerning provision of GP facilities is invalid as it’s not GP surgeries that are needed but the availability of GPs to work in them.
• The development will exacerbate existing highway problems in the surrounding area.

The Committee discussed the report having regard to the various points highlighted by the Head of Planning and the Ward Councillor.

Concern was expressed that this development would be larger than some Parish areas in Medway.

Attention was also drawn to the Green and Blue Infrastructure Document which identified both Capstone and Darland as key sites.

In response to questions, the Head of Planning confirmed that the proposed provision of a school and community centre within the application site related to the provision of land space for these facilities but not the provision of the buildings.

The Committee acknowledged the importance of this open space particularly taking into account that it was surrounded by densely populated residential areas in both Chatham and Gillingham.

Decision:

Refused on the grounds set out in the report.