‘Controversial’ vote gives go-ahead to 1,300 homes
A vote by just five councillors has determined Maidstone will get thousands more houses along the Sutton Road – even though the borough’s Local Plan has yet to be approved.
Members of Maidstone’s planning committee met last week to determine three applications for around 1,300 homes.
The exact figure is not known as one application is an outline one, with the exact number of homes to be decided later.
In recognition of intense opposition members had previously deferred a decision while seeking more information on the potential outcomes.
When it came to voting many councillors chose to abstain.
The first application was the outline scheme for 800 homes on land to the south of Sutton Road near Langley, which includes the golf driving range and Rumwood Nursery.
The applicant’s agent said a swathe would be left as open space and assured traffic measures would see less congestion along the A274, but KCC officers said congestion would only get worse.
Cllr Eddie Powell (Ukip) spoke passionately against the scheme on air quality grounds while Cllr Paulina Stockell (Con) described it as: “the most controversial application I can remember”.
Cllr Tony Harwood (Lib Dem) thought it was well designed.
Cllr Steve Munford (Ind) proposed a motion to approve, passed with five in favour, four against and four abstaining.
Councillors then considered an application for land north of Bicknor Wood for 250 homes.
After a motion to approve was made by Cllr Harwood the result was four in favour, four against and four abstentions.
Cllr John Perry (Con) then used his casting vote as chairman to approve the application.
Finally, councillors moved on to the third application: land at Bicknor Farm, adjacent to the other site, for 271 houses.
The applicant had already lodged an appeal with the secretary of state because the council had taken too long to give its decision.
That meant members were only being asked to rule on what decision they would have made.
Cllr English proposed approval should have been given and his motion was passed by four votes in favour, one against, and six abstentions.
The planning inspector will now determine this application taking the councillors’ decision into account.