Outline application for mixed use development comprising up to 61 new homes including up to 24 (40%) affordable homes, not less than 1.41 hectares of public open space, not less than 0.24 hectares of retained open land with vehicular access provided from Beechenlea Lane with some matters reserved.

The proposal was for an outline application for mixed use development comprising up to 61 new homes including up to 24 (40%) affordable homes, not less than 1.41 hectares of public open space, not less than 0.24 hectares of retained open land with vehicular access provided from Beechenlea Lane with some matters reserved. It had been referred to Committee by Councillor Searles to consider the impact of the scheme upon the neighbouring properties' amenities

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observation sheet which proposed amendments and changes to the recommendations before the Committee.  The Case Officer also advised the Committee that condition 1 was to be deleted, and that works to the bus stop fell within the Community Infrastructure Levy’s remit and was therefore not suitable for a s.106 agreement, and Kent County Council (KCC) would have to make an application for funding. 

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:        Mr Goode

For the Application:               Mr Buchanan

Parish Representative:          Cllr. Searles

Local Member:                       Cllr. Searles

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officers.  It was confirmed that there had not been discussions with the applicant to reduce the amount of social housing in favour of an affordable housing contribution as the application had been policy compliant.  It was also confirmed that it was estimated that at peak time the development would create two additional vehicle movements per minute. (Actual figures were provided in the Committee report).

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation in the agenda papers as amended by the late observations and by the officer as above, to grant planning permission subject to conditions be agreed.

Members were very concerned by the increase in traffic movements and the detrimental impact the access would have on neighbouring properties which was thought would be intolerable.  The size of the access and its suitability for construction traffic and heavy vehicles such as refuse freighters also caused concern.  It was pointed out that plans demonstrated overhang of vehicles onto neighbouring properties in order to be able to turn which would be impeded if a wall or fence were there.  There was also concern that the mount of social housing on the site created an imbalance in the local area, but was acknowledged that this was policy compliant.  Not only did the access cause concern but the increased traffic in Beechenlea Lane and possible worsening of London Road traffic and issues with the junction of Beechenlea Lane and London Road.  Members did not agree with Kent Highway Services. 

The motion was put to the vote and it was lost.

Having listened to Members’ concerns the Planning Officer advised that it would be difficult to defend grounds of refusal with regards to the access itself and its suitability as KHS had raised no objections as the consulting authority, and officer did not have the technical expertise to disagree.  However Members concerns were with regards to the detrimental affect to neighbouring amenities were reflected as being contrary to EN2.

Members reiterated their concerns as to the affect on neighbouring amenities and the detrimental impact of the additional traffic movements.  It was requested that an informative concerning the traffic concerns be added to the reasons for refusal if agreed. 

Cllr. Miss. Stack felt that the application should be refused on highways grounds and strongly disagreed with the advice from Kent Highways Services requesting that this be formally minuted.

The Chairman moved and it was duly seconded that the outline application be refused in line with concerns expressed concerning the access and increase in traffic and vehicular movements compared to that which would arise as a result of the previously approved schemes, being detrimental to the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and therefore contrary to Policy EN2 of the Allocations and Development Management Plan, with an informative expressing highway safety concerns.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That the outline planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

1)        The proposed location of the access and increase in traffic and vehicular movements compared to that which would arise as a result of the previously approved schemes would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. It would therefore be contrary to Policy EN2 of the Allocations and Development Management Plan.

Informative

Due to local knowledge of the site and surrounding area members of the planning committee raised concerns in regard to highway safety, in particular the safety of the site access when used by larger vehicles and would wish this aspect to be reviewed.