Agenda item

Strood Rural Ward

Outline application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for demolition of existing buildings, the erection up to 800 dwellings (use class C3), 2-Form Entry primary school, mixed use local centre (use class E and F2), retirement living (use class C2), associated works and public open space. Approval is sought for the principal means of vehicular access from Lower Rochester Road and Higham Road.

Discussion:

The Chief Planning Officer explained why this planning application had been brought to the Planning Committee as a non-determination application and stated there was a holding objection from National Highways.  The applicant had also recently submitted further information which officers needed to consider and consult on.  He explained that the applicant was aware that the Council had a Draft Local Plan which was being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination next year.  The Chief Planning Officer clarified that if the applicant thought Members would refuse this planning application, and they wanted to appeal, the planning application could be heard through the Rosewell Procedures and, if appropriate, a public inquiry in advance of the Local Plan examination could be heard. 

It was clarified that the Council was not able to determine this planning application, however, the Planning Committee should consider what their decision would have been if they had been in a position to determine it.

The Planning Consultant discussed the outline application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for demolition of existing buildings, the erection up to 800 dwellings (use class C3), 2-Form Entry primary school, mixed use local centre (use class E and F2), retirement living (use class C2), associated works and public open space. Approval was sought for the principal means of vehicular access from Lower Rochester Road and Higham Road.

The Planning Consultant brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, where further comments were received from Active Travel England and an objection letter from the Independent Group.  The Chief Planning Officer confirmed that the Independent Group Member on the Planning Committee had not been involved or signed the objection letter. 

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Mrs Turpin addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following concerns:

• There were currently many challenges to the area and the development would change the current rural character.
• Disappointed that the applicant had already appealed, even though they were still submitting further information.
• Additional pressure on local healthcare provisions.  Already one of the 4 GP surgeries had closed.  How would a new community access their GP and healthcare provisions.  Recruitment of rural GPs was a much greater challenge.  Concerned with healthcare for all local residents.
• The developer was obliged to provide a one form entry primary school facility and contribute towards a secondary provision through S106 contributions.  Medway Council’s own Education Department objected to this planning application.  A one form primary entry was not favoured by the Department for Education (DfE) or Medway Council as it would be educationally and financially unviable.  The DfE rarely approved one form entry unless under exceptional circumstances.   
• The developer referenced a two form entry school, which could result in an excess of school places, attracting pupils from out of the area, adding traffic, congestion and pollution.  Medway Council did not have the additional funding to deliver a two form entry.  

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Williams addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following concerns:

• The land proposed was Grade 1 and 2 of agricultural soil, which would result in a reduction of agricultural land.  Although not within a green belt area, once built on it would be lost forever. 
• This proposal did not maintain or enhance the character amenity and functioning of the countryside.  
• Loss of habitat would affect bird and animal species and could have a detrimental effect on sites of special scientific interest (SSSI).
• Increased traffic would lead to road traffic emissions from major roads which would be detrimental to air quality.  
• Local amenities were already under extreme pressure. 

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the points raised by the Ward Councillors. 

The Chief Planning Officer explained that further work was required regarding the S106 contributions for highways and no agreement had yet been agreed with the applicant.  An Infrastructure Development Plan and an updated Developer Contribution guide would be considered.  He confirmed that he would speak to the local Ward Councillors regarding the S106 negotiations when this application got closer to an appeal.

The Highways Consultant confirmed that a Stage One Road Safety Audit had been undertaken along with a heavy goods vehicle tracking survey and safety concerns had been highlighted.  

Members were disappointed that the applicant was continuing to submit further information, giving officers no time to consider or consult on this additional information and had already gone to appeal.  Members wanted to wait for a response from National Highways to ensure their concerns had been addressed and also from Active Travel England as walking and cycling were significant issues but recognised that they had to give their opinions on the application as it stood due to the appeal.

Decision:      

That if the Local Planning Authority had been in a position to determine the application it would have been REFUSED for the reasons 1 to 6 as set out in the report.