We write further to our submission dated 11^th May 2021 which should be referenced with this supplementary representation outlining further grounds for objection. This follows the issuing of significantly amended plans by the applicant, Brogdale Farm Ltd, in July 2021. 

 Our first objection strongly rejected the proposals for development at Brogdale which represents urbanisation South of the M2 within the gateway to the AONB which is 200m away.  The town boundary, defined by the A2, was breached by the Perry Court development and the M2 represents the last physical closure of the town envelope to the North of Faversham.  It is noted that the SSSI is within 6km and mitigation against human and pet disturbance will be required.

Policy ST3 states  that new development should not be permitted outside the built-up area of the Faversham Town boundary.

 The scheme should be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment.

Summary - Grounds for refusal.  

For the reasons outlined and explained above we believe that the application should be refused on the following grounds.

1          The land is not allocated for development in the local plan.

2          The proposed development is located outside the Faversham built-up area boundary and the application should be refused on grounds justified by the Settlement Strategy Policy - ST3.

3          The scheme is car-dependent and should be refused on sustainability grounds.

4          The amended scheme has a significant shortfall of parking spaces set against  Swale’s policy guidance for the proposed workshop/ business use.  An Inadequate allocation of parking has been provided.

5          It would appear that the amended scheme has been drafted with residential use in mind.  There is potential for overdevelopment if the scheme is approved. If permitted development rights are not excluded  the application should be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment

6          The grant of outline consent embracing the visitor attraction would provide a threat to the continuance of the unique character of the place.  If the red line plan is not amended, consent should be refused on the grounds that no development proposals for this area have been submitted. Insufficient information has been provided.

Our six page submission can be downloaded here