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 Dr Hall and Mrs Thomas.

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

Councillor Bland advised that application PLA121/20 30 - 32 Crescent Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent was a property owned by Tunbridge Wells Property Holdings Ltd of which he was a Councillor Director. The application was discussed and approved for forwarding at a board meeting and Councillor Bland voted in favour of it therefore he had predetermined his decision and withdrew from the meeting while it was being discussed.

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 Atwood, Mrs Cobbold, Funnell, Poile, Pound, Warne, Bland and Noakes advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA118/20  3 Queens Gardens Royal Tunbridge Wells.

Councillor Bland advised that he had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA117/20  Sharps Hill Farm Queen Street Sandhurst 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 13 January 2021 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 PLA117/20 OS Sharps Hill Farm Queen Street Sandhurst Cranbrook Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr James Moysey Strategic Sites Senior 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:

·         Additional comments had been received from the High Weald AONB Unit:

They comment that that the committee report acknowledges that “The proposal would result in harm to the AONB and character and appearance of the countryside through the development of this predominantly greenfield site” but applies the presumption in favour of sustainable development in NPPF 11 and finds that this harm is outweighed by “the contribution the proposal would make to the Borough’s housing need; the provision of 40% affordable housing and financial contributions towards community services/facilities”. They draw attention to an appeal decision is Waverley in Surrey Hills AONB where the case clarifies that where harm to an AONB is identified, the presumption in favour is disengaged before the planning balance is assessed.  This was a case which was also acknowledged not to constitute major development under NPPF172.

The Council does not have a 5 year housing supply and the question is regarding whether the tilted balance is engaged. Following receipt of these comments further clarification has been sought from the Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer who has confirmed the harm to the AONB could be a clear reason for refusal under the policies of the Framework if the Council were able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and therefore Paragraph 11 of the NPPF does not apply. However, as the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, there is a need it is considered appropriate to go through the planning balance, giving great weight to the AONB as set out in the report.

·         Following these comments it was recommended that bullet point 2 in the summary for reasons for recommendation section was deleted as it incorrectly summarise the assessment undertaken. 

Registered Speakers – There were 6 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Public Objectors

·         Ms Alison Carter, member of the public.

·         Ms Joanne Tucker, member of the public.

·         Mr Peter Howard, member of the public.

·         Mr Andrew Leach, member of the public.

Public Supporters

·         Mr Thijx Bax, Agent.

Parish Council Representative

·         Sandhurst Parish Council provided a statement 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.        It was confirmed that this application was an allocated site under the draft local plan regulation 19 stage, and while in draft form it showed direction Council was going.

             ii.        The application had a net increase of up to 15 dwellings this figure was not fixed.

            iii.        A Summary of the contributions  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA117/20

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA118/20   3 Queens Gardens Royal Tunbridge Wells and this was summarised at the meeting by Ms Canan Clatworthy Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were no speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Public Objectors

·         Ms Sarah Balcon, member of the public.

·         Mr Neil Davies, member of the public.

·         Mr Stephen Glew, member of the public.

·         Ms Anika Daughton, member of the public.

Borough Councillors not on the Committee

·         Councillor Peter Lidstone (St John’s) 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.        It was advised that it had been revised amendment drawings had been submitted which included the reduction of the depth of the building by 1 metre and move the dwellings 1 further forward.

             ii.        The constraint of the access road was recognised and a condition was imposed related to construction traffic.

            iii.        The amendments related to separation were deemed to be sufficient and addressed in section 10 of the report.

           iv.        It was advised that there had been no line of sight checks received from the applicant from the top rooms of the Stephen’s Road properties into the new development.

            v.        It was advised that number 4 Queens Gardens (detached bungalow) had windows in rooms that were south west facing however it was not known what room they served.

           vi.        It was advised that the guidance and policies required consideration the impact of residential amenities.

          vii.        It was confirmed that there had been no shadow testing completed however it was advised that there would be a similar level of shadowing from the proposed development to that of properties 1 and 2 Queens Gardens and the distances involved would ensure that there was no significant over shadowing or loss of light

         viii.        It was advised that a degree of mutual overlooking was considered acceptable particularly in an urban context.

           ix.        Details of the landscape and boundary treatments had not been included as part of the application therefore a detailed condition (5) had been imposed which required all those details to be submitted before any works could be carried out.

            x.        It was advised that there could be some overshadowing in terms of the late-afternoon sun from the proposed development on the bungalow at number , however there would remain a degree of separation and it was suggested there would be a small impact on the front window of the bungalow.

           xi.        With regard to line of site it was advised that the distance involved was sufficient to ensure the future occupiers of the proposed development would have adequate amenity from overlooking.

          xii.        The conditions included for the glazed windows on the development would ensure that they  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA118/20

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA119/20 OS Cinder Hill Wood Gypsy Caravan Site Five Wents Matfield Tonbridge 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 no speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

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

              i.        Condition 10 addressed perimeter fencing to prevent encroachment.

             ii.        It was confirmed that feedback would be given to the Private Sector Housing team about the condition of the site and ongoing better management as a whole of the 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.        There was a need for the Borough Council to be more proactive and keep a closer eye on the site.

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 Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Mrs Cobbold and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application PLA119/20 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 PLA120/20 OS 98 Farmcombe Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Ms Ellouisa McGuckin Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were no speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

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 confirmed that the word ‘broad’ could be removed from the informative.

             ii.        It was confirmed that the roof level of the overall building would not change or increase above the existing roof height.

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 Hamilton and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application PLA120/20 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 PLA121/20 30 - 32 Crescent Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Ms Canan Clatworthy Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were no speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

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 number 30 had recently been used as a piano showroom, as well as a soup kitchen.

             ii.        Number 31 had been vacant since September 2019.

            iii.        Number 32 had been vacant since 2012.

           iv.        It was confirmed that there was an informative in place which related to working hours, that there would be no works carried out outside the hours of 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday without the permission of the project manager and that this within the construction guidance.

            v.        The site was in a sustainable local given its location and proximity to parking facilities therefore it was not considered parking provisions were a requirement.

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 this was a positive move forward.

             ii.        Acknowledgement was given to the next steps programme and to the Housing and Finance Officers that secured a grant from Central Government for an extremely good initiative.

            iii.        Members supported the viable for use buildings that provided a social use.

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 Backhouse, seconded by Councillor Pound and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application PLA121/20 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

There were no appeal decisions to 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 3 March 2021.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 3 March 2021.