Agenda and minutes

Announcement on procedural matters.

The Chairman opened the meeting, introduced Committee members and officers in attendance, and outlined procedural matters of the meeting.

Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Pound and Mrs Thomas.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were made.

If a Member has been lobbied in connection with any application on the agenda, this should be declared at the start of the meeting, whether by, or in support of, the applicant or objectors.

Members in doubt about such a declaration are advised to contact the Legal Services Manager/Monitoring Officer before the date of the meeting.

Councillors Bland and Warne advised they had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA32/20 Land Adjacent Rothermere Close Walkhurst Road Benenden Cranbrook Kent .

To note the application sites visited, as recorded at the meeting.

Due to the current restrictions Members had not undertaken any site visits.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 12 August 2020 be recorded as a correct record.

The running order of the applications listed below is subject to change and will be agreed by the Chairman and announced at the meeting.

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA32/20 OS Land Adjacent Rothermere Close Walkhurst Road Benenden Cranbrook Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr Richard Hazelgrove, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were 3 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Public Objectors

·         Mr Peter Nuttall

·         Mr Roger Murphy

·         Baudouin Cuchet

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Members raised a number of questions and officers confirmed the following:

              i.        It was advised that the High Weald AONB Unit were not a statutory consultee therefore were not consulted however they did monitor and comment on applications were they felt it was needed.

             ii.        Kent County Council Highways had not objected to the application and were satisfied with the access arrangements in place and further details related to the crossing at the junction was explained.

            iii.        The Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer explained that he was confident that biodiversity net gain would be achieved and secured through the various conditions imposed.  

           iv.        Officers confirmed that the Parish Council had been consulted in accordance with requirements of the legislation on this application.

            v.        The use of materials such as yellow bricks would be controlled by a condition.

           vi.        The amended heritage statement had been available online since September 2019 and the Council’s Conservation Officer agreed with it’s analysis.

          vii.        It was confirmed that the outline part of the proposal would be addressed by the reserved matters which were responsible for the appearance, scale, landscape and the layout of the development and Officers would not wish to permit a design that doesn’t assimilate well with the Alms houses already there.

         viii.        It was advised that through the use of a landscape and ecological management plan conditions were put in place for the maintenance of the woodland and pasture.

           ix.        Conditions were put in place to prevent the removal of trees and the replacement of any should they need to be removed.

            x.        It was confirmed that the future reserved matters for the outline planning permission as part of the Hybrid could be called in to Committee by a Member in the future.

           xi.        An explanation was provided about the Section 106 agreement and the Parish Council’s involvement with it.

          xii.        It was advised that Officers had recommended conditions and 15 and 16 sought EV charging points and conditions 17 and 18 both sought renewable energy measures.

Committee Member Debate – Members of the Committee took account of the presentations made and raised a number of questions and issues within their discussions. These included:

              i.        Concerns were raised about the consultation with the Parish Council.

             ii.        The design and sustainability of the application was acknowledged to be good.

            iii.        Although Members acknowledged that they were in favour of Alms Houses the unknown impact of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA32/20

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA33/20 Tolehurst Farm Cranbrook Road Frittenden Cranbrook Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr Richard Hazlegrove, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There was 1 speaker that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Public Supporter

·         Mr Graham Fuller, Production Manager at Fridays Ltd on behalf of the applicant.

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Members raised a number of questions and officers confirmed the following:

              i.        Comments from Kent County Council Highways set out on page 80 of the report paragraphs 7.56 and 7.57, highlighted that the impact of the daily net increase in additional vehicles on the road would average at 1.5.

             ii.        Condition 7 addressed the concerns related to the removal of manure and it required the submitted plans and documents, prior to the first use of the premises a management scheme for the removal and disposal of chicken manure be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

            iii.        The Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer confirmed that the Council was satisfied under EIA legislation with regard to the issue of atmospheric pollution as this was thoroughly investigated through a nationally recognised consultant.

           iv.        It was confirmed that the management of the poultry and the possible outbreak of a poultry disease would fall under the remit of Defra and was not a planning consideration.

            v.        Details of the impact of the development to the scheduled monument were discussed.

Committee Member Debate – Members of the Committee took account of the presentations made and raised a number of questions and issues within their discussions. These included:

              i.        The specifics of external materials were addressed by Condition 4 and it was advised that Officers would have considered the comments made by Historic England.

             ii.        Concerns were raised about the scale of the development and it’s impact.

Decision/voting – On the basis that members were satisfied that all relevant planning considerations had been covered within the report, a motion was proposed by Councillor Hall, seconded by Councillor Backhouse and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application PLA33/20 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA34/20 117 Ashenden Walk Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr Peter Hockney, Development Manager and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – None

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Members raised a number of questions and officers confirmed the following:

              i.        That the application was received before any changes to government legislation related to proposals for extending permitted development.

Committee Member Debate – Members of the Committee took account of the presentations made and raised a number of questions and issues within their discussions. These included:

              i.        No matters of significance were discussed.

Decision/voting – On the basis that members were satisfied that all relevant planning considerations had been covered within the report, a motion was proposed by Councillor Bland, seconded by Councillor Poile and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application PLA34/20 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA35/20 David Salomons Estate Broomhill Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mrs Kirsty Minney, Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – None

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Members raised a number of questions and officers confirmed the following:

              i.        That the site had been used as a car park for approximately one year to date.

             ii.        The permission granted would be for a temporary 3 year period which would start from the date of the decision notice.

            iii.        There was an informative added to the proposal for the parking on site to be looked at and a strategy put in place with the hope of the local authority as well as the Parish Council being consulted in that process.

           iv.        A new planning application would be required in the future should the applicant wish to expand or extend the car park and it would be assessed on its merits at the time.

Committee Member Debate – Members of the Committee took account of the presentations made and raised a number of questions and issues within their discussions. These included:

              i.        Members voiced their frustration at retrospective applications from the David Salomons Estate.

             ii.        An amendment to the 3 year proposal was suggested by Members and a proposal of 18 months was recommended, however it was advised that the 3 years proposed allowed landscaping conditions to be attached to the approval. After further discussion the amendment was withdrawn.

Decision/voting – On the basis that members were satisfied that all relevant planning considerations had been covered within the report, a motion was proposed by Councillor Noakes, seconded by Councillor Hamilton and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution the Chairman had a casting vote, and the motion to approve was carried.

RESOLVED – That application PLA34/20 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

RESOLVED – That the list of appeal decisions provided for information, be noted.

To consider any other items which the Chairman decides are urgent, for the reasons to be stated, in accordance with Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was no urgent business for consideration.

The next Planning Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday 23 September, at 10.30am.

RESOLVED – That the next Planning Committee meeting take place on Wednesday 23 September 2020, at 10.30am.