Tabled update published 6 February 2025.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Chair allowed Members time to read the tabled update which included the additional comments of the Faversham Community Land Trust and the officer response.  It also suggested the addition of a Conservation Management condition.  The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  

Steve Atkins from The Faversham Community Land Trust, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Town Councillor Charles Gibson, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

The Chair asked what the position was in relation to the adopted Faversham Neighbourhood Plan (NP), December 2024 against planning applications yet to be determined?  The Team Leader (Planning Applications) explained that whilst this application had been submitted in 2022, officers had still carefully assessed it against the policies contained within the adopted Faversham NP and made a balanced view on the benefits and disbenefits. 

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

The Chair invited comments from Members, and points raised included:

·         Safety concerns in respect of visibility onto Front Brents due to the sharp bend in the road;

·         referred to paragraph 5.2 and 5.3 on page 180 of the report and concerns regarding surface water near the creek;

·         requested clarification that it was a minor development;

·         referred to paragraph 7.5.5 on page 190 of the report and KCC Highways & Transportation confirmed the proposed nine dwellings would generate less vehicle movements than the existing use;

·         poor design;

·         as this had been identified as a residential site under the adopted Faversham NP, was this underutilisation of a resource?;

·         the application was contrary to the spirit and to Policies Fav 3, Fav 7, Fav 8, Fav 11, Fav 10 and Fav 23 of the adopted Faversham NP; and

·         made more sense to have development for the whole site.

In response the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the site area fell below the one- hectare requirement for affordable housing contributions.  The national definition was 1 hectare or 0.5 hectares and the number of dwellings proposed was unknown.  This application proposed nine dwellings which did not meet the trigger for affordable housing contributions.

With regard to whether it was an underutilisation of a resource, the Team Leader (Planning Applications) said officers had considered the historic sensitivity of the site.  They had taken into account the comments from the Council’s Heritage Officer about reducing the density and had responded sufficiently  more sympathetically to the context.

In response to a question from a Member, about why it had taken so long for the application to be considered, the Planning Manager (Planning Applications) explained there had been several amendments to the original application and also different case officers.

Councillor Tony Winckless proposed a site meeting.  This was not seconded.

A Member requested an additional condition be imposed to address drainage concerns.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed this was possible.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

The Chair adjourned the meeting so that Members and officers could consider suitable wording to refuse the application.

Councillor Ben J Martin moved the following motion to refuse the application:

1. The proposed development would fail to include a mix of housing that would meet local needs and would fail to make efficient use of the land available.   The proposal would therefore be unacceptable and contrary to policies ST1 and CP3 of the Local Plan 2017, policy FAV3 of the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan 2023-2038, and the NPPF. 

2. The proposed development by virtue of the scale, density, form and arrangement of the development would harm the character and appearance of the site and the area, cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and less than substantial harm to the setting of listed buildings that is not outweighed by the public benefits of the development. The proposal would therefore be unacceptable and contrary to policies ST1, ST7, CP4, CP8, DM14, DM32 and DM33 of the Local Plan 2017, policies FAV10, FAV11 and FAV23 of the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan 2023-2038, and the NPPF. 

This was seconded by Councillor Julien Speed.  On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 22/503389/FULL be refused for the reasons as minuted.