Tabled update added 10.09.25

Second tabled update added 11.09.25

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  He referred to the two tabled updates which included: further objections from Rodmersham Parish Council; and a further objection from CPRE - The Countryside Charity (Kent).  The Planning Consultant gave a presentation of the application, which included:  site location; site context; proposed site layout; visualisation; agricultural land classification; alternative sites search area; and proposed landscaping.

Parish Councillor Richard Bush, representing Bapchild Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Duncan Burnett, representing Rodmersham Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Paul Forshaw, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Robert Chamberlain, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

·         Aware that similar applications on best and most versatile agricultural land had been refused by Local Authorities and upheld by Planning Inspectors on appeal;

·         offshore windfarms generated far more electricity than solar farms;

·         there was no justifiable reason to erect solar farms on agricultural land;

·         surprised that this was considered acceptable on Grade 1 agricultural land;

·         highway concerns regarding access to the site;

·         other sites were available;

·         the application would result in a loss of employment in the area;

·         the Council had a duty to protect Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and farmland;

·         the industrialisation of farmland was unacceptable;

·         struggled to see how the benefits of the application did not outweigh the harm that would be caused;

·         the local rural lanes were too narrow for HGVs to access safely;

·         there would be ecological and biodiversity harm;

·         Grade 1 agricultural land needed to be protected for the nation’s food security;

·         there was no mitigation to protect the views of local residents;

·         a lot of hedgerows would need to be removed to accommodate the application and these could not be mitigated against easily;

·         there needed to be a change of government policy to ensure new housing was fitted with solar panels rather than having solar farms;

·         the Vigo Lane, Sittingbourne appeal decision which had been approved and this was very similar to this application in terms of size and the objections raised; and

·         Kent County Council (KCC) Highways, Transportation & Waste had not objected so could not refuse on highway grounds.

In response to questions from the Chairman, the Planning Consultant outlined the revised mitigation measures the applicant had agreed with officers as set out in paragraph 3.5 on page 13 of the report.  A Community Fund had been offered by the applicant but he was unsure whether it would be appropriate as mitigation measures needed to meet the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation Tests and be relevant and necessary in policy terms.

Prior to the vote, the Chairman reminded Members that if they voted against the application, they would need to provide a substantial reason for refusing and attend any subsequent appeal hearing.

As the vote was tied, the Chairman used his casting vote to approve the application.

Councillors Karen Watson and Tony Winckless asked that it be noted that they had abstained from voting.

Resolved:  That application 24/500125/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.