More on KentOnline
Angry villagers were left in “shock” after a planning officer stepped in to stop councillors rejecting a controversial bid for a new 52-home estate on a picturesque orchard.
The planning committee at Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council had been set to refuse the unpopular proposals following more than 200 objections from locals.
But in an unexpected move, the authority’s chief planner, James Bailey, exercised his right to prevent the decision being rubber-stamped.
The intervention stunned residents who attended a meeting to oppose the plans, but Mr Bailey argued he had a duty to protect the council from the hefty costs of an appeal it had little chance of winning.
A motion to refuse the plans from Esquire Developments for the homes planned for Ivy Farm in Wateringbury Road, East Malling, was put forward by Cllr Michelle Tatton (Lib Dem) and passed with eight votes to two.
Mr Bailey didn’t believe the councillors had sufficient grounds to reject the application and believed they would lose any later appeal.
He explained: “I have to protect this council from costs.”
This means the decision is viewed as just a recommendation and officers will now prepare a report on what they see as the financial risks associated with a refusal.
The committee will be asked to consider that report at a meeting on February 19.
If the committee still insists on refusing the application then it will have to go before a meeting of the whole council for a final decision.
But the move has confused many of the 40 people who attended the meeting to speak against the plans.
Frances Saunders said: “We were very grateful to the councillors who spoke so passionately about our village, but then shocked by what happened next.
“We had no idea that Mr Bailey could step in like that.
“Applications are supposed to be determined on valid planning grounds; it just doesn’t feel right or legal that cost implications should have a role.
“It just feels as though the odds are stacked against us.
“It means the applicant will end up with three chances to get the scheme through - that doesn’t feel like democracy.”
She said: “I understood that civil servants are supposed to advise the elected members, but all the way through this application it has felt like it is the planning officers who are pulling the strings. The tail is wagging the dog.”
Marc Page, who told the committee the application would lead to more road accidents and claimed it was “technically, morally and socially wrong” during the meeting, said: “It was an encouraging decision by the committee, but now we have more hurdles to jump and more pitfalls to avoid.”
The council first looked at the application in September and almost refused permission then, but - at the recommendation of chief planner Mr Bailey - deferred a decision to await further officer advice on the effect the application would have on nearby heritage buildings and on the East Malling Conservation Area.
That advice had now been received - and it was thought although there would be an adverse effect it would be “less than substantial.”
However, Cllr Trudy Dean (Lib Dem) argued that there were a number of elements weighing against granting permission that all formed a reason to say no.
The application has attracted 271 letters of objection and several people attended the meeting at the Tonbridge and Malling council offices in Gibson Drive, Kings Hill to have their say.
Virginia Gillece, a planning consultant engaged by East Malling and Larkfield Parish Council, argued the application would generate an extra 100, 000 traffic movements a year, with most travelling through the Conservation Area.
She also said the noise, fumes and vibration would have a deleterious effect on the area.
Cllr Peter Couling, chairman of Teston Parish Council, was concerned that any traffic that didn’t go through East Malling would go through his village or through Wateringbury, both of which already had their own severe congestion problems.
The traffic study had also been based on figures gathered between 2013 and 2019 - now well out of date.
Seven residents lined up to oppose the application, including Natasha Allen, who lives next to the site. She struggled to hold back tears as she read her speech, saying: “Imagine this was your village, your home, your quality of life (being destroyed).”
Steve Brett observed: “It seems there is no piece of our countryside that is too beautiful to destroy.”
Many councillors agreed with the residents raising concerns about parents having to drive rather than walk their children to school and the loss of good agricultural land.
Cllr Mike Taylor (Ind Alliance Kent) proposed the committee once again defer the decision, this time to ask the developer to move the access road much further into the site, away from Mrs Allen’s house, and also away from a badger sett known to be at the site, but his colleagues wanted a stronger response.
The developer wants to build 39 market homes and 13 affordable houses across the 4.6-hectare site, leaving space for a community orchard.
Tonbridge and Malling council does not have a valid Local Plan and cannot show it has a five-year supply of land for future housing.
In such cases, the government says the balance should always be tilted in favour of development.
Find out about planning applications that affect you at the Public Notice Portal.
Details of the Ivy Farm application can be found on the TMBC website under application number 22/01570.