Agenda item

Y16/1017/SH - Coast Drive Car Park, Coast Drive, Greatstone, Kent

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.

Minutes:

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:

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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)

 

Supporting documents: