Tabled paper added 5 March 2026.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report. 

Borden Parish Councillor Lee Small spoke against the application.

Sarah Booker, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Ryan Nicholls, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

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

• Noted the appeal timetable and the need to confirm the Council’s position quickly;
• acknowledged that the application had already been refused and would now be decided by an Inspector, with the committee’s task being to confirm which refusal reasons should be defended;
• emphasised that recent appeal decisions on nearby sites were important material evidence and should inform whether the existing ecology reason remained defensible;
• argued that the ecological refusal reason should be withdrawn to avoid a potential application for an award of costs, given the strength of the appellant’s evidence and lack of objection from KCC Ecology.

·         the site functions was a traditional orchard and priority habitat;

·         the ecological value and connectivity to the adjacent wildlife site remained significant;

·         the countryside gap reason was still robust and was upheld in a recent appeal;

·         criticised reliance on desktop ecology assessments and highlighted local knowledge of the site’s wildlife activity;

·         concerned about habitat fragmentation, countryside gap erosion, and the loss of agricultural potential;

·         voiced doubt that the ecological refusal reason could be successfully defended given national guidance, the treatment of wildlife impacts in recent appeals, and the ability to manage impacts through conditions;

·         sought clarification on what methodology the Inspector would use at appeal and whether they would rely solely on desktop evidence; and

·         questioned whether the applicant’s ecological surveys were adequate, given the site’s proximity to a designated wildlife site.

In response, the officer advised:

·         While costs risks could be highlighted, Members must base decisions on planning merits;

·         the committee must decide whether each refusal reason remained “sound” in the light of new evidence submitted as part of the appeal;

·         Inspectors normally held a site visit, but their assessment would most likely be guided primarily by the technical ecological evidence before them;

·         similar appeals (e.g., Riddles Road, Sittingbourne), inspectors acknowledged local observations but placed greater weight on professionally prepared ecology reports and the fact that KCC Ecology had raised no objection.

·         the applicant had submitted ecology surveys;

·         further ecological information accompanied the appeal;

·         KCC Ecology had raised no objection;

·         the new appeal evidence had not identified ecological constraints; and

·         an Inspector would consider countryside gap policy as a separate planning matter, distinct from ecology.

Resolved:  That application 24/502717/OUT be refused as per reasons 5.2a and 5.3i in the report.