A
hybrid application encompassing; 1) Outline application for the
erection
of
20 residential units within Zone A with matters of layout,
scale,
appearance and landscaping reserved for later consideration 2)
Full
application of Zone B for the re-provision of a public car park,
residential
parking for the 20 units and
landscaping areas.
David Campbell updated Members
that one additional comment from an objector had been
submitted. He clarified the situation
in respect of flooding and the sequential test. He confirmed that
paragraph 3.3 to state that access is being considered as part of
this application.
Mr Martin Chamberlain, local
resident, provided written representation on behalf of
Residents of the Community of
Greatstone who are vehemently opposed
to this proposed development highlighting the following:
- Significant local opposition
- Decision
has taken 3 years to reach this point through the Places and
Policies local plan
- Outline
planning application was changed to become a hybrid
application
- Environmentally sensitive seashore site
- Places and
Policies Local Plan has not been formally adopted
- Significant impact on local residents
- Car park
is intensively used
- No site
sequential test has been done
Cllr Patricia Rolfe, Ward
Member, spoke on the application highlighting the
following:
- 150 representations
against the application
- Site is not suitable
for intensive development
- Car park
is intensively used so reduction in size is not
adequate
- Tourism has increased
in the area
- A designated SSSI
site is adjacent to the application site
- Not in accordance
with policies CSD3, SD1, BE13 and TR11
- Legal covenant
applicable to the site
- Highway safety
issues
- Flood zone
areas
.
Cllr Paul Thomas, on behalf of
New Romney Town Council, provided written representation
highlighting the following:
- Planning development
not supported by the Town Council
- Not in accordance
with planning policies CSD3, SD1, TR11 and BE13
- Highway
safety
- Parking –
reduced parking will have an impact on local businesses
- Numerous objections
received
- Provision for the
Indee Rose Trust house should be
priority
Proposed by Councillor David
Wimble
Seconded by Councillor Gary
Fuller and
Resolved:
That
planning permission is refused on the following grounds not being
met:
- Insufficient
information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal has
passed the sequential test as required by the National Planning
Policy Framework. In the absence of this information, the Local
Planning Authority is unable to confirm that the proposal is
acceptable on flooding grounds and as such it is contrary to policy
SD1 of the adopted Shepway Local Plan 2006, policy SS3 of the
adopted Shepway Core Strategy 2013 and draft policy SS3 of the
emerging Core Strategy Review Submission Draft 2019.
- Insufficient
information has been provided to demonstrate how the proposed
development would deal with surface water drainage. In the absence
of this information, the Local Planning Authority is unable to
confirm that the application is acceptable on these grounds and as
such the proposal is contrary to policy SD1 of the adopted Shepway
Local Plan 2006, draft policy CC3 of the emerging Places and
Policies Local Plan Submission Draft and the National Planning
Policy Framework 2019.
- The proposed
development, by virtue of its close proximity to internationally
designated sites including the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay
Ramsar site, Special Protection Area,
Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific
Interest, would put undue pressure on the surrounding environment
to its detriment. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SD1
of the adopted Shepway Local Plan 2006, policy CO11 of the adopted
Shepway Local Plan 2006, policy CSD4 of the adopted Shepway Core
Strategy 2013, draft policy CSD4 of the emerging Core Strategy
Review Submission Draft 2019, draft policy NE2 of the emerging
Places and Policies Local Plan Submission Draft and the National
Planning Policy Framework 2019.
(Voting: For 9; Against 0; Abstentions 2)