The developer’s Appeal against Ashford Borough Council’s decision to refuse permission for the “East Stour Park” development has been dismissed by the planning inspector.
Council Decision
Ashford Borough Council’s Planning Committee resolved to refuse the application to build on the Land at junction of Romney Marsh Road and north of, Norman Road, a site on Ashford’s Green Corridor, contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation, in February 2020.
The reason given or refusal was:
“The proposal would be contrary to Policies SP1 and ENV2 of the Ashford Local Plan (ALP) 2030, the Green Corridor Action Plan 2017 supporting the ALP and policies in the NPPF and would be harmful to interests of acknowledged planning importance for the following reasons;
- the application site is located within the designated Ashford Green Corridor and the proposed residential development is not compatible with, or ancillary to, the principal role and current use of the application site and would be harmful to the existing visual function of this part of the Green Corridor through the loss of an important undeveloped open space ‘buffer’ located between the existing built-up area to the west and the A2042 located to the east,
- as a consequence of (a) above, the proposal would result in a detrimental change to the landscape character and visual amenity of this part of the Green Corridor,
- the proposal would give rise to a detrimental change in the ability of the site to continue to function as a wide undeveloped corridor supporting varied wildlife habitat, wildlife connectivity and biodiversity,
- the proposal would result in unjustified residential development on land which is flood zone 3, and
- the site is not a brownfield site and the proposal would not provide overriding planning benefits sufficient to outweigh the significant harms identified above.”
Appeal
The developer, Quinn Estates Ltd, appealed the decision in July 2020, requesting that the appeal was considered at a hearing (rather than by Written Representation).
After many delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing was held virtually on 20 and 21st April of this year.
Appeal Decision
The Appeal Decision was received by South Ashford Community Forum, today, because we had submitted a representation and attended the hearing.
We reproduce some extracts of the decision below which we believe are relevant to future development proposals on this site and elsewhere on the Green Corridor:
Main issues
4. “There are three main issues in this case:
- The effect of the proposal on the Ashford Green Corridor in policy terms.
- The effect of the proposal on the Ashford Green Corridor in visual terms.
- The effect of the proposal on the Ashford Green Corridor in wildlife terms.
All in relation to policies SP1 and ENV2 of the Ashford Local Plan (LP) 2030 and the Ashford Green Corridor Action Plan 2017 (AGCAP).”
The effect on the GC in policy terms
24. “Overall the existing site, as acknowledged by the appellant, is an important undeveloped gap. However, as I discuss below, I do not agree with the appellant’s conclusion that its contribution is at most low to medium. The proposed high density major residential development would neither be compatible with or ancillary to the main open space use. It therefore conflicts with the LP and the AGCAP.”
The effect on the GC in visual terms
31. “I appreciate the landscape proposals would introduce significant planting into the remaining area, and this is obviously a benefit. However I do not consider that this comes close to compensating for the loss of the openness of the site and its buffer function. I cannot accept the appellant’s conclusion that the introduction of a substantial residential development and managed parkland would lead to a heightened degree of tranquillity. Nor do I agree that the effect of the proposal would be highly localised, as the buffer function extends well beyond the site boundary.”
The effect on the GC in wildlife terms
39. “Overall the proposal would not harm the GC in wildlife terms, and would not conflict with LP policies SP1 and ENV2. But overall, due to my concern with potential disturbance, this matter is neutral in the planning balance.”
Other matter – the implications of the location in Flood Zone 3
42. “The Council accepts that the development would be safe and would diminish flood risk elsewhere and that it meets the exception test.”
43. “However, as noted by the Council, this does not mean that the grant of planning permission is automatic. The authority states that the proposal is unnecessary and unjustified.”
Other matter – housing land supply
46. “The position regarding the supply of land for housing changed in the period leading up to the Hearing. But at the Hearing it was confirmed by the Council that, for the purposes of the appeal, there was a 4.8 year supply – a small shortfall beneath the 5 year supply at which point the ‘tilted balance’ in the Framework would normally come into play.
47. However, the Framework provides that the tilted balance would only apply if and when an appropriate assessment had concluded that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the protected sites.”
Planning documents
Ashford Borough Council’s Planning Case Reference is 19/00709/AS (tap to view all planning and appeal documents)
Tap on the links to view our: