The planning inspector approved the plans for the pretty Kent neighbourhood
A planning inspector has ruled in favour of a plan for 1,000 homes, a school, offices, and a community hall for a village in Kent. It’s a major scheme for the Ashford borough which would see a primary school built.
The land is at Court Lodge in Pound Lane in Kingsnorth, a pretty village around two miles of Ashford town centre, and the proposal also includes a local centre with shops, allotments, and new vehicle accesses onto Pound Lane, on which there would be two, Long Length and Magpie Hall Road.
Hallam Land Management launched its appeal against Ashford Borough Council which failed to make its decision on the outline planning application within the statutory time frame. The application says 18.5 per cent of the homes would be affordable housing – and there was “significant need in the borough ” for such homes, said the inspector.
The parish council submitted a four-page response to the inspector, in one point saying: “Kingsnorth Parish Council supports growth that is properly planned. But what we now face is a drift away from the SAGC (South of Ashford Garden Community) vision — replaced by ad hoc development, without coordination or long-term accountability. We ask the Inspector to consider whether the application truly reflects plan-led development, and whether the people of Kingsnorth — now and in the future— are being fairly served.”
The parish has a population of around 12,100.
The inquiry opened in July and was held on various days, closing on August 27. In the 35-page ruling, the inspector said that as discussions continued during the appeal, the council “withdrew its objections on all but one topic”. However, the inquiry was still structured around the following four main issues, said the inspector.
- The effect of the proposed development on flood risk and drainage
- The effect of the proposed development on biodiversity, including protected species
- The effect of the proposed development on heritage assets, with particular regard to archaeology
- The effect of the proposed development on the supply of affordable housing
The inspector imposed 57 planning conditions on the approval. They said the site was allocated for housing in the council’s Local Plan and the scheme was “essential” in helping the council meet its future housing targets. They said this “attracts very substantial beneficial weight” in deciding the application.
And they said: “The provision of affordable housing is an additional benefit. The viability assessments prepared and reviewed by the appellant and Council indicate a reasonable provision and would help to address a high level of demand for such accommodation. I allocate substantial beneficial weighting to affordable housing considerations.”
Deciding on the ‘harm to the surroundings and flood risk,’ they said: “There would be some harm resulting from minor changes within the natural landscape, although changes to the scheme would protect important trees. Nonetheless this consideration attracts minor harm. The absence of harm in regard to flood risk and drainage, nutrient neutrality, biodiversity and protected species are neutral considerations within the balance.”
Earlier in the document, the inspector said there had been concerns from the community about the likelihood of water discharge into Whitewater Dyke, and the capacity at the water treatment works. Southern Water had not objected to the proposal, and a water recycling centre is proposed as a fallback option, in addition to proposed upgrades to Ashford Waste Water Treatment Plant, said the inspector.
“I am satisfied that the proposed development makes appropriate provision for the accommodation of outfall for surface water within the development and that there would be no increase to flood risk either on or off site,” they said.
The council can not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and the council’s Local Plan policies for housing delivery, which are among the “most important” policies for the inspector to determine the appeal, are out of date, said the inspector.
Summing up, the inspector repeated that the council’s development plan supported such a use of this site, and also said the scheme would contribute to housing provision and growth within the borough.
The adverse impacts did not outweigh “significantly or demonstrably” the benefits of the proposal , when assessed against the council’s own policies in its development plan, said the inspector.
The amount of money the developer would pay in developer contributions, also knowns as Section 106 payments, has not been set, but a document within the planning papers at a whopping 154 pages long, sets out how the amounts will be calculated, such as, what formulas. These payments contribute to a wide range of amenities and services, including roads, adult care, libraries, school provision, public transport, schools, the NHS, and much more.
There would also be contributions for improvements to bus services and public rights of way including an improved footbridge between Merino Way and Pound Lane, management of waste, and measures for the protection of the Roman Road through the site.
The community hall would be combined with a management suite, and a “local centre” would house the retail units. Both the council and the developer agreed that 276 primary school places would be required by the development. And both parties agreed 188 pupil places would need to be “mitigated” by the development, and that would be done by using agreed calculations through the Section 106.
Get more news from KentLive straight to your inbox for free HERE.
