The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  She reported that the applicant had submitted a new drawing to indicate solar panels on each dwelling.  The Planning Consultant said condition (12) would be amended to reflect the new drawing.  Reference to car parking on the first page of the report needed to be deleted. Also, in paragraphs 7.8.5 and 7.8.6, the word ‘not’ was missed off, so it would now read as:  LVIA was not independently assessed….  The Planning Consultant also advised that the application was assessed against the Kent minerals and waste local plan.

Parish Councillor Lee Small, representing Borden Parish Council spoke against the application.

Sarah Booker, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark.

The Chairman invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         The application would result in the loss of an Important Local Countryside Gap;

·         there would be a loss of wildlife corridors with no realistic safe way for wildlife to move around;

·         overlooking issues;

·         the access was too close to an existing property;

·         concerned with the impact on local schools and GP provision, the contributions were not enough;

·         the layout was not good, it appeared to be a long cul-de-sac, with no sense of community or focal point to it;

·         there was a loss of connectivity for wildlife;

·         the affordable housing needed to be integrated to achieve social cohesion;

·         the development did not complement the area or itself;

·         the back gardens were really small;

·         the design of the dwellings needed to be improved; and

·         smaller affordable/family homes were needed.

The Planning Consultant said the affordable housing was set out in the northern part of the development and this was because the registered providers preferred to have the affordable housing situated together for management purposes.

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

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion to refuse the application and this was seconded by the Chairman:

(1)  That the proposed development, by virtue of the position of the proposed dwellings outside the built-up area boundaries of the Swale Borough would conflict with the Council's Settlement Strategy.  Moreover, the development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the locality, result in the affordable housing being segregated within the site and conflict with the purposes of the Important Local Countryside Gap.   The proposal is, therefore, unacceptable and contrary to policies ST1, ST3, CP4, DM8, DM14, DM24 and DM25 of Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Council Local Plan 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(2)  That the proposed development would have a detrimental and insufficiently mitigated impact on protected species at and within the vicinity of the site.  The proposal is, therefore, unacceptable and contrary to policies CP7 and DM28 of Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Council Local Plan 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(3)  That in the absence of an appropriate legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the application fails to secure and provide measures to meet development plan policy requirements and mitigate the impacts of the development through enhancements to services and the environment necessary as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development in respect of ecology, education (including special needs), community learning, waste, open space, health care and affordable housing.  As such the development fails to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities, infrastructure and environment. The proposal would be contrary to policies ST1, CP3, CP5, CP6, CP7, DM8, DM17 and DM28 of Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Council Local Plan 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

On being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was agreed.

Resolved: That application 24/503677/FULL be refused as per the reasons set out in the above minute.