Application for 28 Houses behind Archer’s Court Road and Newlands

New information will be posted here as it is available

20th April 2017 – application decision deferred by DDC Planning Committee Members.

DDC Planning Committee deferred  the Decision on this applicationand asked for more information on the distance between the access road and existing houses, information from Southern Water and KCC highways on provision for surface water and sewerage disposal and asked for an independent traffic survey.

Hopefully when this comes back to the Committee we can also get them to consider refusal on the grounds of loss of open space, excessive noise for the new inhabitants of any homes built and loss of privacy and disturbance caused by the access road.

The Parish Chairman spoke at the meeting and asked for refusal on all the material matters and not to reserve all the details for planning conditions and officer’s delegated decisions.

Whitfield District Councillor, Jim Back, put a strong case forward on the flooding issues, traffic volume and the cumulative impact of all the potential development in the area– if DDC keep allowing in-fill development we could end up with 100 extra houses on Archer’s Court Road alone.

The committee decided that it was better to defer rather than go for a refusal as it was agreed that a refusal could be appealed and there is a more than a good chance that the appeal could be upheld, but by deferring they should be able to make a more water tight refusal, so they took the more robust decision.


Parish Council Response to Application DOV/16/01328 – January 2017

The Parish Council have objected to this latest application.

Link to DDC Website  [ LINK to Application ]

Parish Council objection:

Download (PDF, 228KB)

 


New Application for 28 Houses to be built on ground behind Archer’s Court Road and Newlands – December 2016

A new application has been submitted to DDC for 28 houses on the triangle of ground next to the A2.

Last time DDC refused permission and the Developer took the matter through several stages of appeals – loosing the final stage in January 2016 – see previous report below:

The application is for : DOV/16/01328 Outline application for the erection of 28 dwellings (all matters reserved apart from access): Land to rear of, Archers Court Road, Whitfield, CT16 3HP

[  Link to DDC Web site and all documents  ]

(Click on plans below for a larger map)

Location Plan
Location Plan
Block Plan
Block Plan

January 2016 – the Appeal for the plans to build 28 houses behind 14 Archer’s Court Road has been dismissed.

The Planning Inspector refused the Developers appeal and upheld the ealier decisions by DDC and Appeal Hearings to not allow permission to build houses here.

The Parish Council submitted a reasponse  [Link to document] to the planning inspector to ask that the earlier refusal for permission, and subsequent appeal against that decision, should be upheld.

The Planning Inspector has published his decision [ Link to Decision ] and concluded that:

I have found that the proposed development would result in adverse impacts in terms of the proposal failing to protect local biodiversity. Whilst I have found in favour of the appellant in terms of the potential impact on local highway infrastructure, and consider that the provision of housing, including 30% affordable is a modest benefit in favour of the proposal, these would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the adverse impacts.


In accordance with S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended, applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, whilst the proposed development would broadly comply with the policies of the adopted development plan, I attach significant weight to the material consideration in terms of the harm to biodiversity interests, as set out in the Framework. This material consideration indicates that a determination should not be made in accordance with the development plan in this instance.


For the above reasons, and having taken into account all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.


Cullum J A Parker


INSPECTOR