More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
Controversial proposals for up to 700 homes to be built on Sheppey have been refused.
SW Attwood and Partners' plans for farmland at Minster's Barton Hill Drive were considered at an extraordinary planning committee meeting last night, which had been called by Swale council.
The application sought for outline permission to build up to 700 homes on about 90 acres of farmland with infrastructure including land for a medical facility, shops, open space, play areas, access roads, footpaths, cycleways, parking, landscaping and drainage.
The site stretches from the Minster campus of the Oasis Academy and back gardens of Parsonage Chase and the Lovell Road play area to Barton Hill Drive and the Lower Road.
Parsonage Farm, a Grade-II listed building, is in nearby Parsonage Chase.
Council officers had recommended the plans be approved, subject to conditions and the completion of an agreement setting out financial contributions a developer would have to pay towards services.
The vast majority of the site is allocated in the council's Local Plan, which sets out what can be built and where, but three areas of land went beyond the site allocation.
Most of last night's meeting was spent picking the plans apart.
Members asked why no affordable housing was included in the proposals.
After being told introducing affordable housing would make the scheme "unviable", Cllr Simon Clark (Lab) said: "I don't believe that in the slightest.
"If you take 630 houses at an average of £200,000 a house, you're looking at £126 million.
"Are you telling me that someone who is making £126m on a plot can't afford to put in at least 10% affordable housing.
"That's the minimum we should be looking for on this site.
"The report says up to 700 houses, so it's only going to be 70 affordable houses. Take 70 affordable houses out of £126m, that's not a lot of money."
Planning officer Andy Byrne said the advice from consultants was that to include affordable housing would reduce revenues by £120,000 per affordable home.
Cllr Cameron Beart (Con), who represents Queenborough and Halfway, said he could not support the application.
He said: "I spoke at great length at the last meeting and I don't see that much has significantly changed and the things that have changed haven't changed it enough to make it that much more viable.
"The biggest concern is the highway improvements.
"What concerns me is that the mitigation that has been offered will not be enough to satisfy what this development is going to cause.
"I do not believe that it's going to mitigate the traffic movements, as we've heard we are going to have more and more traffic coming along the Lower Road to go to the schools at Sittingbourne and Rushenden.
"We've heard that the alternative route is already over capacity and the butt of it is, yes we're widening the Lower Road by a small amount but when that road is closed, the Island comes to a standstill.
"That is not going to change because the road has been slightly widened.
"I cannot see that there is any way that I can support this in its current form."
KCC Highways' Colin Finch confirmed the first phase of the Lower Road improvement works would go ahead, whatever the decision, but the rest of the works have been thrown into doubt.
He said: "The footway and cycleway is being provided by KCC from central government grant funding.
"That stage does include some improvements to the Cowstead Corner junction as well. Those works are underway at the moment."
He added that the developer would have paid £1.2m towards widening Lower Road from Cowstead Corner to the new roundabout, along with the right-hand turn lane into Wall End Farm.
In all, 13 members voted against the application, and three for it.
The reasons for refusal included the impact on the road network and the nearby listed building, the lack of affordable housing, the comparison of the allocation of the Local Plan compared with the allocation site in terms of additional parcels of land, impact on the countryside gap – protected plots of land that prevent areas merging together.
Last night was the second time the proposal had gone before the committee. It was deferred at a meeting in February after a decision to, once again, vote against the officer recommendation.
The developer has a right to appeal, which would be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.
Commenting on the outcome, Stephen Attwood said: "We are obviously disappointed with the committee’s decision.
"The site is allocated for housing in the council’s own Local Plan – in other words the council’s policy is to encourage the building of houses on this site.
"We are now left with no alternative but to appeal to the Secretary of State and this will mean unnecessary delay and unnecessary expenditure.
"Experience shows that at appeal the council is unlikely to achieve the level of infrastructure improvements that they would otherwise have achieved if planning permission had been granted.”
Cabinet member for planning, Cllr Mike Baldock (Swale Ind), said: "I fully support the councillors' decision on this application and we must be sure our arguments are robust for any future development."
