Clearance of existing nursery facilities and erection of 18 homes with associated parking and landscaping incorporating Oast House.

The proposal sought the clearance of existing nursery facilities and the erection of 18 homes with associated parking and landscaping incorporating Oast House. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr Manston to consider its impact upon the Metropolitan Green Belt and local community.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations sheet, which amended the recommendation.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification of the speakers and the officer.

They were advised that the application was initially submitted with an off-site affordable housing contribution of over £250,000, but that this had been reallocated as an education contribution, as current policy dictated that infrastructure provision was a higher priority than affordable housing. Kent County Council had accepted the proposed pedestrian crossing following a road safety audit. The parking provision for the site exceeded both national and local requirements, and storage for bicycles would be provided. On-site levels would be submitted before the development could commence, to address the changes in ground levels across the site. There would be a degree of overlooking into the garden area of a neighbouring dwelling, but there were no direct views into windows, and the boundary trees would be retained to provide screening. Conditions could be imposed to require further planting to reinforce this. The biodiversity management site would be secured to be development-free for 30 years through the Section 106 agreement, and a management plan would be made to ensure it was maintained. The site constituted previously developed land, as it previously had mixed uses, and was not solely used for agricultural purposes.

It was moved by the Chairman that the recommendations within the report, as amended within the late observations, be agreed.

Members discussed the application. They expressed concern regarding the infrastructure available within Ash to support the site, as it would increase the population of the area by nearly 20%. They discussed the density and design of the application, its height and bulk, and its impact on the character of the area and the openness of the Green Belt. It was noted that density of the site, when the Oast House was excluded, was high for the village. The street would have an urban effect in a rural area. There was concern that it was a significant development for the area and was not only a small infill.

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

It was moved and duly seconded that the application be refused, on the grounds that the proposal would be inappropriate development harmful to the maintenance of the character of the Green Belt and would result in a development that is materially larger in scale, massing than the existing development that would cause substantial harm by significantly eroding its openness, contrary to paragraph 149(g) of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy LO8 of the Core Strategy

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: That the application be refused, on the grounds that the proposal would be inappropriate development harmful to the maintenance of the character of the Green Belt and would result in a development that is materially larger in scale, massing than the existing development that would cause substantial harm by significantly eroding its openness, contrary to paragraph 149(g) of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy LO8 of the Core Strategy.

The Committee adjourned at 8:59PM for a comfort break.

The Committee resumed at 9:04PM.