A statement from the Chairman, Cllr. Williamson, was read as his apologies were tendered due to a decision to not take part in the proceedings, in line with the rules of fairness and public perception and taking into account a recent article in the local press, due to the proximity of a property he was buying to the application site at the Fort and in light of para. 496 of the Officer’s report.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 August 2015 as a correct record.

Resolved: That the minutes of the Development Control Committee held on 20 August 2015 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

There were no declarations of interest or predetermination.

There were no declarations of lobbying.

The Committee considered the following planning application:

Outline planning permission for the demolition of buildings and development of a mixed-use development comprising a business area (Use Classes B1 and B2 with ancillary energetic material testing) of up to 27,000 sq m GEA, 450 residential units, a hotel of up to 80 beds, a village centre (Use Classes A1-A3, B1a, D1 and D2), use of the Fort Area and bunkers as an historic interpretation centre (Use Class D1) with ancillary workshop space, and works associated with the development including roads, landscaping, security fencing, formal and informal open space, pedestrian, cyclist and public transport infrastructure, utilities infrastructure, sustainable urban drainage system, cycle and car parking (with all matters reserved); and detailed approval for two access points at Otford Lane/Crow Drive (primary) and Star Hill (secondary).

The proposal was for outline planning permission for the demolition of buildings and development of a mixed-use development comprising a business area (Use Classes B1 and B2 with ancillary energetic material testing) of up to 27,000 sq m GEA, 450 residential units, a hotel of up to 80 beds, a village centre (Use Classes A1-A3, B1a, D1 and D2), use of the Fort Area and bunkers as a historic interpretation centre (Use Class D1) with ancillary workshop space, and works associated with the development including roads, landscaping, security fencing, formal and informal open space, pedestrian, cyclist and public transport infrastructure, utilities infrastructure, sustainable urban drainage system, cycle and car parking (with all matters reserved); and detailed approval for two access points at Otford Lane/Crow Drive (primary) and Star Hill (secondary).

It had been referred to Committee at the discretion of the Chief Planning Officer, as the development was of a significant and sensitive nature.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers, the supplementary agenda (additional information) which set out comments received as a result of the latest consultations and recommended an additional recommendation following representations made about the S106 legal agreement along with  conditions as a result of legal advice, and the late observation sheets.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:        Mr North        

For the Application:               Mr Roberts

                                                (Present to help answer any questions: Ms Tero, Ms                                             Maxwell, Mr Callaghan, Mr Shelley and Mr                                                                        Waterman)

Parish Representatives:        Cllr. Brooker (Halstead PC)

                                                Cllr. Dilley (Chevening PC)

                                                Cllr. Whitehead (Otford PC)

                                                Cllr. Radford (Knockholt PC)

                                                Cllr. Parkes (Shoreham PC)

Local Members:                     Cllr. Grint       

                                                Cllr. London

Members asked questions of clarification from the officers and speakers.  The Council’s Legal Advisor clarified that, should the application be granted subject to a s.106 agreement,  the Secretary of State was currently refusing to sign the s.106 legal agreement and the amended recommendations therefore allowed for no development other than enabling works until all willing interested had parties had signed up.    This was a departure from normal procedure but should the Committee be minded to grant subject on a s.106 agreement it would allow some preparation works to be commenced prior to all interested parties signing up and could solve the issue of the Secretary of State not having signed by giving time for Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to leave the site.  If they did not leave the site and did not sign the agreement, then no further work could be carried out.  The Applicants further clarified that the current status was that as DSTL would be leaving the site the agreement had no relevance to them and they did not need to sign it.  He agreed that the word ‘willing’ was not necessary.

In response to further questions from Members the case officer advised that the five year provision of the community bus would commence at a date fixed by the s.106 agreement and when deemed there would be sufficient residents.  The affordable housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.