REFUSED: Erection of Up To 22 Dwellings, Chestnut Lane

21/03759/OUT Brenchley & Matfield, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

‍See application details here.

There are a series of reasons for refusal.

This application is in outline only, but includes the vehicular access, which is pretty critical when submitting an application for a housing site. There are a series of reasons for refusal, but the principal ones are the lack of provision of a safe access, and the lack of an agreement to contribute towards off-site amenities, these are known as section 106 contributions, and are pretty-much obligatory for most schemes of above 10 houses across the country.

There are a series of objections to this application, which is to develop an orchard on the edge of a settlement into housing. Thich will always be controversial, but on schemes such as this the success is in overcoming the reasons for planning refusal and this is what the applicants must focus on. The officer's report holds two significant paragraphs, which read as follows:

This application is being refused – the refusal reasons 2-4 refer to failure to secure affordable housing and S.106 contributions. This in no way infers a refusal on the part of the applicant to pay the monies or provide affordable housing; rather these three reasons are there to secure the LPA’s position at appeal, at which point a legal agreement would be negotiated between the LPA and the appellant in the event of permission being granted on appeal by PINS.

As such, the proposal would result in a net increase of twenty-seven dwellings and would provide a meaningful, albeit modest contribution to the supply of housing in the Borough, which is currently significantly beneath the “five year” requirement as discussed above. The affordable housing to meet an identified local need within the locality which is a further benefit to the supply of housing. Significant weight can be attached to this in considering whether the proposal comprises sustainable development.

PAPA SAYS: So the planners are in support of the addition of housing but the highway safety issues cannot be overcome, it looks like the applicant will need to look to an alternative access, possibly working a deal with a neighbouring owner.