Agenda item

Kelsey and Eden Park Ward

Description of application – Residential development comprising of 105 units with a mixture of 4 bedroom houses and one, two and three bedroom apartments together with concierges office and associated basement car parking (outline application).

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr John Escott.

Mr Escott provided a brief history of the site. A Counsel’s opinion that had been obtained  by the applicant had been submitted to the authority.  Mr Escott reported that he believed that an attractive scheme was in front of Members although he was aware that concerns had been raised round the number of proposed units.  The applicant was willing to review the scheme if necessary and invited Members to defer consideration of the application to enable further review and consideration if necessary.

The Deputy DC Manager reported that following publication of the report, the following additional representations had been received in support of the application:

• A petition, containing 9 signatures, which confirms support for the development which will increase activity to shops and businesses in the parade in Wickham Road
• Additional comments from residents confirming their support for the proposed development which would provide new homes and is considered to be of a high quality and of benefit to the area

Representations had also been received from the West Kent Badger Group, confirming their agreement with the recommendations made in the ecological report submitted by the applicant.

The Deputy DC Manager confirmed that the Committee report had been updated, along with the recommended grounds of refusal, to cross reference relevant London Plan policies.

In opening the debate, the Chairman and Ward Member Councillor Peter Dean reported that he was familiar with the land and was aware of its history.  It was the Chairman’s personal feeling that the site has potential for development however there were two major objections.  Firstly the land had been designated as Urban Open Space.  The Chairman suggested the site was prime for development and as other areas of the Glaxo Wellcome had already been developed the precedent for this large piece of land had already been set.  The Chairman further noted that any such development would represent a windfall for the housing supply.  In this respect the Chairman would support development.  The second objection related to over development of the site.  The Chairman reported that he felt that 105 properties constituted inappropriate development which would also have an adverse impact on transport and infrastructure.  As a result of this the Chairman moved that consideration of the application be deferred to enable the applicant to reconsider and revise the proposals before the Committee.  A number of Committee Members supported deferral of the item indicating that this would give the applicant time to revise the proposals to allow more space between the houses and respect the openness of the land.

Councillor Scoates stated that he did not believe that the development in designated Urban Open Space should be permitted. Instead an application should be made to remove the designation.  Only after the designation had been removed could an application such as this be approved.  As a result of this Councillor Scoates recommended refusal.

Councillor Michael stated that she believed it was a matter of principle that the application be refused.  The land was designated Urban Open Space and there were no circumstances which would justify building on the land and therefore the application should be refused.

In response to a question, the Chief Planner reported that the designation of the land is a matter for the Local Plan process.  The Local Plan was currently out for consultation and it was envisaged that it would be adopted by the end of 2017.

In summing up, the Chairman noted that two motions had been put forward.  The first motion for the Committee was to defer consideration of the item to enable the applicant to revise the proposals.  The second motion was to refuse the application as it currently stood in line with the recommendations outlined in the update tabled at the meeting.

The Chairman moved that the application be deferred to enable the applicants to submit a revised proposal.  Following a vote:

In favour: 8 Members

Against: 9 Members

The motion for deferral fell.

The Chairman moved that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the update tabled at the meeting.  Following a vote:

In favour: 9 Members

Against 6 Members

The motion for refusal was carried.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations RESOLVED that PERMISSION be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The site is designated Urban Open Space in the Unitary Development Plan and Draft Local Plan and its development for residential purposes would be contrary to Policy G8, wherein there is a presumption against such development leading to the loss of open land that serves an important function in the locality and provides a break in the built up area, and contrary to London Plan Policies 2.18 and 7.18.

2. The development, as proposed, would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site, out of character with and harmful to the visual amenities of the area and would fail to provide a satisfactory form of living accommodation for future occupiers contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and policies 7.4 and 7.15 of the London Plan and the Mayor’s Housing SPG.