Tabled Paper added 5 February 2026.

The Planning Manager advised that some additional papers were tabled.  These included an officer update and a written statement from a member of the public.  Members were given a few minutes to read the papers.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, representing Upchurch Parish Council spoke against the application.

Jane Scott, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Hayden Brawn.

Two visiting Ward Members spoke against the application.

The Chairman invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Sought clarification as to why the application had not been determined on time;

·         noted that the application included a supporting report which had identified the land as Grade 3B, and so not best and most versatile (BMV);

·         considered the Council should have commissioned a report to check whether the land was BMV;

·         the application conflicted with Policy ST3 being outside the settlement boundary, this was an unallocated site in the countryside and could set a precedent; and

·         did not agree with the housing mix set out in paragraph 7.4.2 of the report and considered the affordable housing element was skewed away from what families needed and this conflicted with Policy CP3 which required development to deliver a balanced mix of dwellings.

In response, the Planning Manager said that in terms of the housing mix, it was correct that all the open market dwellings would be four or five bedroom houses and the affordable housing were the six smaller units: two one bedroom houses; three two bedroom houses and one three bedroom house.  He added that it was correct that this did not perfectly reflect the requirement identified in the housing market assessment (HMA).  The HMA requirement applied borough-wide.  The provision of affordable housing was given substantial weight in appeal decisions.  In terms of the provision of larger dwellings in the open market, he referred to Policy CP3 and Policy DM8. With the Council not having a five-year housing supply, the tilted balance applied and as such there were conflicts with some of the Council’s policies.  Officers were happy with the applicant’s testing of the quality of the land.  The Planning Manager outlined the reasons why the application had not yet been determined and these included various amendments to the application, discussion on affordable housing provision, and amended plans that needed to be consulted on.  The Planning Manager indicated on the site plan where the different types of housing would be positioned, together with the schedule of accommodation.  He also indicated the landscaping and provision of hedges on the site and the provision of car barns, parking spaces and garages and the community car parking area.

Members made further comments:

·         Clarification sought on the date the application should have been determined by;

·         recognised that this was an unsustainable site, but the Planning Inspector would grant the application as the Council did not have a five-year housing supply;

·         Members should go with the officer recommendation otherwise the Council would have to pay appeal costs; and

·         there was a shortage of agricultural land and housing should not be built on it.

On being put to the vote, the motion to grant the application was lost.

There was some discussion on the reasons for refusal.

Councillor Julien Speed moved the following motion:  That the application be refused as the proposed development, by virtue of the position of the proposed dwellings outside the built-up area boundaries of the Swale Borough, would conflict with the Council's Settlement Strategy.  Moreover, the development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the locality and a significant and inadequately mitigated impact on the local landscape.   The proposal is, therefore, unacceptable and contrary to policies ST1, ST3, CP4, DM14 and DM24 of Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Council (SBC) Local Plan 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  In addition, the proposed development, by virtue of the proposed mix of housing and affordable housing, would fail to reflect the established needs of the Borough and, as such, would conflict with Policies CP3 and DM8 of Bearing Fruits 2031: The SBC Local Plan 2017 and the NPPF.  Furthermore, the proposed development could result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and it has not been demonstrated that an overriding need exists for the development that cannot be met on land within the built-up area boundaries or that no alternative site on land at a lower grade could accommodate the proposed development.  The proposal is, therefore, unacceptable and contrary to Policies ST1, DM3 and DM31 of Bearing Fruits 2031 - The SBC Local Plan 2017 and the NPPF.  This was seconded by Councillor Peter Marchington and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved: That had an appeal against non-determination not been made that the Council would have refused application 24/504410/OUT for the reasons minuted above.