Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 9th December, 2020 10.30 am

Download documents using the MOD.GOV app

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Online. View directions

Contact: Emer Moran  Democratic Services Officer

Media

Items
No. Item

PLA75/20

Chairman's Introduction pdf icon PDF 53 KB

Announcement on procedural matters.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

PLA76/20

Apologies pdf icon PDF 5 KB

Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors Mrs Thomas and Warne.

PLA77/20

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 5 KB

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

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Pound advised that in relation to application PLA83/20 MTB Computer Services MTB House North Farm Road RTW Kent, he knew the applicant Mike Herman of MTB Ltd. as Mr Herman and his company’s employees used to be the computer installers and servicers for the company registered in Cllr Pound and his wife’s name on the Council’s Register of Interest. The engagement between Cllr Pound and MTB ended 12 years ago, however, Mr Herman phoned Cllr Pound to advise he was the applicant in this case, they did not discuss the merits or otherwise of the application and Cllr Pound did not feel he had fettered his discretion in this matter therefore took full part in proceedings.

 

Councillors Backhouse and Poile declared that they had fettered their discretion in relation to application PLA82/20 Land Between Speldhurst Road And Bright Ridge Southborough RTW Kent and subsequently withdrew from the meeting while the application was being discussed.

PLA78/20

Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6) pdf icon PDF 6 KB

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.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillors Atwood, Backhouse, Cobbold, Funnell, Dr Hall, Hamilton, Poile, Pound, Bland and Noakes advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA83/20  MTB Computer Services MTB House North Farm Road RTW Kent.

 

Councillor Dr Hall advised that she had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA84/20 Hawkenbury Farm Hawkenbury Road RTW Kent.

 

Councillors Funnell, Hamilton, Poile, Pound, Bland and Noakes advised that they had been lobbied by objectors and supporters on application PLA84/20 Hawkenbury Farm Hawkenbury Road RTW Kent.

PLA79/20

Site Inspections pdf icon PDF 5 KB

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

PLA80/20

To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 18 November 2020 pdf icon PDF 165 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Dr Hall requested that it be recorded that she had asked for application PLA70/20 Land at Common Road, Sissinghurst, Cranbrook, Kent be returned to Planning Committee at design stage.

 

RESOLVED – That in addition to the above, the minutes of the meeting dated 18 November 2020 be recorded as a correct record.

PLA81/20

Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)

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

Additional documents:

PLA82/20

Application for Consideration - 20/00872/REM Land Between Speldhurst Road And Bright Ridge Southborough RTW Kent pdf icon PDF 405 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA82/20 Land Between Speldhurst Road And Bright Ridge Southborough RTW Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr James Moysey, Senior Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

 

Updates and additional representation – None.

 

Registered Speakers – There were 4 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

 

Public Objector

·         Ms Sue Westlake, a local resident.

·         Mr Gary Spikett, a local resident.

·         Ms Gail Constant, a local resident.

 

Public Supporter

·         Mr Mark Hendy, on behalf of Shandy Homes Limited.

 

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 application was a reserve matters application which followed on from previous outline consent paragraph 10.61 outlined details of the legal agreement.

             ii.        The Kent County Council (KCC) Highway authority was consulted and satisfied with proposed arrangement and the access point was deemed suitable to support the development and a condition secured the 30mph speed limit to the west of the development.

            iii.        The parking on site met with KCC Parking requirements.

           iv.        It was confirmed that paragraph 2.09 of the report should read; The land to the immediate East of the proposed access point is to be landscaped and devoid of built form other than three visitor parking spaces.

            v.        A survey had been carried out with regard to wildlife and ecology of the site and the Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer was satisfied with the findings.

           vi.        Condition 20 required details of bin storage to be submitted.

          vii.        It was advised that from a planning perspective officers were satisfied that all serious objections raised by Kent Police and KCC Highways had been addressed.

         viii.        Conditions secured at outline consent detailed drainage and lighting and those would be carried over.

           ix.        KCC Flooding had raised no objections to the development.

            x.        It was confirmed that the site was not currently an allotment site.

           xi.        The applicant would be required to demonstrate through transport assessments that the access point was safe as part of the development. 

          xii.        It was confirmed that the Section 106 had been secured and fixed at the outline stage of the proposal.

 

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.        It was questioned whether funds could be taken from Hawkenbury open space fund and used to test 20mph speed limit on Speldhurst Road, this was addressed and this would not be possible as the funds had been secured at the outline stage.

             ii.        It was felt that an opportunity had been missed to make the architectural design of the development more interesting and/or contemporary.

            iii.        It was suggested that Members may wish to lobby KCC Highways outside of this application with  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA82/20

PLA83/20

Application for Consideration - 20/00881/FULL MTB Computer Services MTB House North Farm Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent pdf icon PDF 515 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA83/20 MTB Computer Services MTB House North Farm Road RTW Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mrs Marie Bolton, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

 

Updates and additional representation – None.

 

Registered Speakers – There were 5 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

 

Public Objector

·         Ms Rosamunde Scott, a local resident.

·         Mr Oliver Vernau, a local resident.

·         Mr Michael Dunn, a local resident.

 

Public Supporter

·         Mr Sam Bowman, Cook Associates on behalf of the applicant.

 

Borough Councillor

·         Dianne Hill, Southborough and High Brooms spoke in objection to the application.

 

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 parking was to the adopted standard for the location and Kent County Council (KCC) Highways have raised no objections.

             ii.        Vehicle trip generation was expected to be less than the previous use.

            iii.        Consideration was given to the fact that this was already an active site where vehicles could visit.

           iv.        Condition 15 detailed conditions of resurfacing to be submitted and approved.

            v.        The site was considered to be sustainable given it’s proximity to transport services as well as walking distance to everyday services.

           vi.        Officers suggested that significant weight should be given to the decision of Planning Committee on the previous application, the inspectors findings on the site and the amendments that had been made since those decisions.

          vii.        The distance between the proposed properties to the North of Welbeck Avenue and Colebrook Road were outlined.

         viii.        KCC Highways had raised no objections to the access of Baldwin’s lane.

           ix.        It was advised that the Fire Service had not been consulted at this stage and this was usual at Planning stage, this would be addressed by Building Control at Building Regulation stage.

            x.        The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that the issues with fumes had been addressed to where they were satisfied to have their objections withdrawn but could not rule out incidences of fugitive emissions.

           xi.        The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer spoke at length about the noise impact from the development at night, conditions 6 and 7 addressed noise in the report and it was confirmed that the overall scheme conformed to British standards.

          xii.        In terms of right of access, it was advised that the rights of private land would be unaffected by planning consent.

         xiii.        It was advised that outdoor space standards varied across Council’s and without them applications would be judged on it’s own merits, the character of the area and type of site.

 

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 felt that this was not an suitable environment for future residents.

             ii.        The noise  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA83/20

PLA84/20

Application for Consideration - 20/01306/FULL Hawkenbury Farm Hawkenbury Road RTW Kent pdf icon PDF 440 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA84/20 Hawkenbury Farm, Hawkenbury Road, RTW Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Ms Antonia James, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

 

Updates and additional representation –  Since publication of the agenda report, the presenting officer updated as follows:

 

Plan update for Condition 1:

·         P2SE PL 153 010/P3 should read P5.

·         PL 3LA 010/P1 should read PL 3L1 010/P1

 

Summary Information table 3.0 of the report:

·         Proposed Phase 2 should include the additional 5.5 affordable houses for off site affordable housing.

 

To date the total number of approved affordable units on the entire site is 82 units, with 4

off-site affordable housing units (equivalent to 35% affordable housing). The approved affordable housing comprises of 36 units for affordable rent, 11 social rent, 35 units for shared ownership, and contributions equivalent to 4 off-site affordable housing.

 

1 additional representation highlighted similar issues already raised:

·         Developers profit

·         Abnormal costs

·         Query threshold

·         Traffic generation

 

Registered Speakers – There were 2 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

 

Public Objector

·         Mr Geoff Shewry, a local resident.

 

Public Supporter

·         Mr Alex Davies, Berkeley Eastern Counties, 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.        That viability was a material consideration hence and addressed in great detail within the report as well as independent specialist advice taken to ensure that the scheme was acceptable on affordable housing grounds.

 

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 welcomed the provision of social and affordable housing although it was mentioned that the amount did not fully accommodate the requirement either on or off site.

             ii.        Members expressed concerns that the scheme failed to provide 35% affordable housing in accordance with planning policy.

            iii.        It was suggested that Section 106 money that was granted for a children’s play space would be better contributed to the off site affordable housing sum, this was addressed and it was advised that the reasons for the chosen distribution of funds were addressed in the report, if members disagreed and wanted to distribute in a different way this was possible.

           iv.        Page 97 of the report provided a housing breakdown.

            v.        The importance of adult and children’s open space and its value toward mental health was mentioned.

           vi.        To date the equivalent of 35% affordable housing was achieved across Phase 1 and 2 of the development with an additional 26 units as part of the proposed scheme.

 

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 Poile, seconded by Councillor Backhouse and a vote was  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA84/20

PLA85/20

Appeal Decisions for Noting 15/10/20 to 30/11/20 pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

PLA86/20

Urgent Business pdf icon PDF 5 KB

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.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There was no urgent business for consideration.

PLA87/20

Date of Next Meeting pdf icon PDF 5 KB

The next Planning Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday 13 January 2021, at 10.30am.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 13 January 2021.