The applicant has lodged an appeal against the refusal of planning permission. The appeal will be the subject of a public inquiry conducted by an Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate. The date of the appeal was set for 25 February 2008 but has now been postponed. The public inquiry will now take place at the Civic Centre, Gravesend starting on 30 September 2008 and last for about 5 days.

Cobham Parish Council is opposed to the proposed development and fully supports the decision of Gravesham Borough Council to refuse Planning Permission.

The Regulatory Board of Gravesham Borough Council, meeting on 20 July 2007 considered outline application GR/2007/349 for the erection of a total of 85 dwellings comprising 14 detached three and four bedroom dwellings, 39 two and three storey terraced dwellings; a two storey building to provide 32 two bedroom self contained flats each with parking space and a two storey building for community/ mixed uses with provision of 52 car parking spaces and laying out of roads and amenity areas.

 Resolved that application GR/2007/349 be REFUSED on the grounds that:-

 (1) the development is contrary Policy SS2 of the adopted Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006, Policy GB2 of the adopted Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 and Policy RA2 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Draft 2006 which include the site within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The development is also contrary to policies CC10a and KTG11 of the emerging South East Plan which indicates that existing Green Belts will be retained and supported and that if there is a case for any small scale local reviews this should be pursued through the Local Development Framework process. Within the Green Belt there is a strong presumption against permitting any new development outside the present defined extent of urban areas and the present built up extent of any village, unless it conforms with the open recreation functions of the Green Belt or is directly related to agriculture and other uses appropriate to a rural area; the proposal does not fall within these categories and therefore constitutes inappropriate development given the open character of the area. The proposal therefore seriously prejudices the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to the advice in PPG2 (Green Belts);

 (2) the development is contrary to Policies EN1, EN3, QL4, HP5 and SS8 of the adopted Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006, and Policy C0 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 as the site is outside of any identified village or settlement and is in open countryside. These policies establish the principle of general restraint of development in rural Kent and resisting sporadic development in the countryside;

 (3) the development is contrary to Policy EN5 of the adopted Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006, Policy C4 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 and Policy NE2 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Draft 2000 in which the site is included in the North Downs Special Landscape Area. These policies give long term protection of these areas and will normally give priority to their landscape over other planning considerations;

 (4) the proposed development will result in the loss of productive or potentially productive agricultural land that is within an area of Grade 2 quality on the National Agricultural Land Classification Map, defined in PPS7 as "the best and most versatile" agricultural land. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy EP9 of the adopted Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006, policy C2 of the Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994 and NE14 of the Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) deposit draft 2000;

 (5) the access to the site is onto White Post Lane, which is an unclassified and in many places a narrow single track country lane with only informal passing places. It also has a poor junction with Round Street, close to the application site, with restricted visibility and Round Street itself is similarly narrow with poor forward visibility. The additional traffic associated with the use of the site for residential or business purposes, without significant improvements to the road network, will result in additional highway safety dangers to other road users. This is contrary to Policies T1, T3, T4 and T5 of the approved Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994 and Policies T1 & T12 of the Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) deposit draft 2000;

 (6) no traffic impact or transport assessment has been submitted with the application to demonstrate the applicant's assertion that "the existing local highway network has the capacity to accommodate the vehicle movements likely to be generated by the development". In the absence of any such studies the proposals must be contrary to policies T1, T3, T4 and T5 of the approved Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994 and policies T1 and T12 of the Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) deposit draft 2000;

 (7) the proposal is contrary to Policy TP3 of the Kent & Medway Structure Plan 2006 which encourages Local Planning Authority's to ensure that developments are well served by public transport, walking and cycling, or will be made so as a result of the development. Developments that generate a large number of trips should be located where there is either a good choice of transport already available or where such can be provided. In this instance the site is located on a narrow country lane outside the village envelope and where public transport provision is very limited in Sole Street and Cobham;

 (8) insufficient parking provision has been made within the site for the scale of development proposed in accordance with the adopted Kent Vehicle Parking Standards. As such the proposal is contrary to policy P3 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994 and policies T16 and T19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review deposit draft 2000;

 (9) the provision of the quantum of low cost (affordable) housing proposed in this location does not meet the identified local need for the parish of Cobham, is not a "small site", is not an appropriate location and would concentrate a substantial amount of affordable housing on one site. As such the proposal is contrary to policies H6 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994, RA12 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review deposit draft, policy HP8 of the adopted Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006 and the Borough Council's supplementary planning guidance 6: Affordable Housing- towards a revised policy;

 (10) the proposed business development associated with the proposals which would be located outside any identified village or settlement and within open countryside is contrary to policy C15 of the adopted Gravesham Local Plan First review 1994, policy RA14 of the Gravesham Local Plan Second Review Deposit Draft 2000 and policy EP7 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006;

 (11) the location of the community/mix-use parking area at the rear of existing dwellings in Round Street and the location of two and three storey development in such close proximity to adjoining dwellings in White Post Lane pays total disregard to the privacy and amenity of the occupants of adjoining dwellings; as such the proposals are contrary to policies TC0 and TC1 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review 1994, and policies BE1 and BE12 of the Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) deposit draft 2000;

 (12) the proposals are not reflective of the guidance in Kent Design in embracing good contextual design principles and local distinctiveness and would result in an urban style and intense form of development out of the character with the semi-rural character of residential dwellings within Sole Street and are therefore contrary to policies TC0 and TC1 of the Gravesham Local Plan (First Review) 1994 policies BE1 and BE12 of the Gravesham Local Plan (Second Review) deposit draft 2000 and policy QL1 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006;

 (13) if the proposals were permitted it would be make it difficult to refuse permission for further residential development of similar sites adjoining the village which would further increase the built appearance of the village, further erode the countryside and would not be sustainable.