Agenda item

Strood Rural Ward

Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the construction of up to 450 dwellings, commercial floorspace (up to 500sqm), community use building (up to 500sqm), associated public open space, landscaping, outdoor sports facilities, drainage and earthworks.

Discussion:

The Principal Planner discussed, in detail, the outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the construction of up to 450 dwellings, commercial floorspace (up to 500sqm), community use building (up to 500sqm), associated public open space, landscaping, outdoor sports facilities, drainage and earthworks.

The Principal Planner advised the Committee that as the applicants had lodged an appeal against non-determination the report and recommendation were to ascertain the views of the Committee should they have been in a position to make a decision.  Those views would then be used as the formal Council response to the appeal.

The Principal Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which included representation and a rebuttal to the case officer’s report from the Independent Group. 

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

• Members were urged to support the officer’s recommendation of refusal.
• Concern was raised that the proposal would lead to the coalescence between Hoo and Chattenden and would conflict with the Hoo Neighbourhood Plan and the emerging Local Plan.
• He highlighted a fundamental failure of transport infrastructure to support the proposal given the loss of the £170m HIF investment in the A228 and rail networks.
• Approval of 450 dwellings would have severe impacts on an already over-capacity network with a single access route on and off the Peninsula.
• It was noted that Active Travel England could not support the scheme, due to insufficient evidence.
• Significant concerns were raised regarding school capacity, road safety, bus services and being a car-dependent scheme causing more congestion.
• Serious concern was expressed regarding the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consultation zone constraints, including high-pressure gas pipelines, which were viewed as dangerous and unsuitable for this scale and density of development.  

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

• He stated a more robust and defensible reason for refusal was required.
• Concern was expressed that the site lay outside the built-up confines of Hoo, in open countryside, representing a major housing development beyond the settlement boundary and, therefore, a conflict in principle.
• He suggested that too much weight was given to the emerging Local Plan, while the adopted Hoo Neighbourhood Plan carried full statutory weight.  It was also noted that the Neighbourhood Plan sought to protect settlement separation, landscape character and deliverable transport solutions.
• The proposal was described as unsustainable and vehicle-led, with the Design Review report at Appendix 2, confirming the  car-dominated travel patterns.
• It was noted that Active Travel England could not support the development and that walking and cycling issues remained unresolved.
• Further concerns were raised regarding drainage, flooding, ecology and the urbanisation of the Hoo Road – Chattenden Valley.

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

• The Hoo Neighbourhood Plan was emphasised as playing a vital role in the planning process and should not be treated as a secondary or optional consideration. 
• The Neighbourhood Plan must be taken into account in the decision-making.  Its locally led nature was highlighted, reflecting community priorities, including maintaining separation between Hoo and Chattenden through green buffers.
• Concern was expressed that the proposal appeared to circumvent the Neighbourhood Plan policies and lead to settlement coalescence and countryside loss. 
• Reference was made to housing pressures, alongside concern about housing delivery models and the impact of meeting housing targets on rural areas. 

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the concerns by the Ward Councillors and some Members considered that one reason for refusal was not strong enough.  However, the Chief Planning Officer advised that he had to defend all reasons for refusal and it was important to not just add reasons to pad out areas of concern that could not be properly defended as this would weaken the strong case set out in the recommended refusal.

Members acknowledged that a physical separation was required between Chattenden and Hoo and they discussed, that over time, new residents would create their own identity and become part of the community.

Members agreed to give delegated authority to the Chief Planning Officer and to add a second reason for refusal if the applicant decided not to agree the S106 contributions.  Wording to be agreed in consultation with the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Opposition Spokespersons.

Decision:      

The Committee agreed that if an appeal had not been made the decision would have been to refuse this application.

Refusal

1             Although the principle of residential-led development on the site is supported, the proposal fails to provide a sufficient and effective landscape buffer capable of functioning as part of a strategic landscape corridor and would also adversely and unnecessarily exacerbate landscape and visual impacts as a result of developing this site. The proposal would result in the perceived coalescence of Hoo and Chattenden, and as a result would not successfully maintain the separate identity and character of those settlements. As such, the Development would conflict with the underlying objectives of Policy BNE25 of the adopted Local Plan; Policy H008 of the Hoo St Werburgh and Chattenden Neighbourhood Plan 2023-2040; Draft Policies SA8, and S4 of the Regulation 22 Medway Local Plan 2041.