Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 14th April, 2021 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

PLA152/20

Chairman's Introduction pdf icon PDF 89 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.

PLA153/20

Apologies pdf icon PDF 28 KB

Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

PLA154/20

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 66 KB

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

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Noakes declared that he had fettered his discretion on application 21/00131/FULL – The Pump House, North Road, Goudhurst. Councillor Noakes made a statement related to this application and then withdrew from the meeting. 

PLA155/20

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 28 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:

Cllrs Atwood, Cobbold, Funnell, Hamilton, Poile, Pound, Warne, Bland and Noakes advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application 21/00030/FULL – Land Adjacent to RTW Indoor Bowls Club, High Woods Lane, RTW.

 

Cllrs Atwood, Cobbold, Funnell, Hall, Hamilton, Poile, Pound, Warne, Bland and Noakes advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application 21/00131/FULL – The Pump House, North Road, Goudhurst.

 

Cllrs Backhouse, Funnell, Hall, Hamilton, Poile, Pound, Warne, Bland and Noakes advised that they had been lobbied by supporters on application 21/00131/FULL – The Pump House, North Road, Goudhurst.

PLA156/20

Site Inspections pdf icon PDF 28 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.

PLA157/20

Application for Consideration - 21/00300/FULL Land Adjacent to RTW Indoor Bowls Club, High Woods Lane, RTW pdf icon PDF 404 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 21/00030/FULL - Land Adjacent to RTW Indoor Bowls Club, High Woods, RTW and this was summarised at the meeting by Richard Hazelgrove, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

 

Updates and additional representation – Since publication of the agenda a couple of further objections had been received, raising similar issues as previous objections covered in the report.  The application was pursuant to an allocation in the existing Local Plan.  It was not an application for the new Sports Hub development proposed in the Regulation 19 Local Plan which was currently out to consultation. 

 

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

 

Public Objector:

-       Mr Ian Kirkham – Member of the public.

-       Mr David Murray-Cox – Member of the public.

-       Mr Barry Richardson- Member of the public.

Public Supporter:

-       Mr Brian Lippard – representing Tunbridge Wells Civic Society.

-       Mrs Susan McClintock – representing Royal Tunbridge Wells, District Indoor. Bowls Club.

 

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

 

-       TWBC could not control how people arrived at the proposed site, it could only control how traffic arriving at the site was managed, e.g. parking provision and turning facilities. 

-       No concerns were raised on the original application in relation to turning facilities etc. 

-       Condition 8 proposed a management plan that would limit pressure on parking facilities.

-       The site was on the edge of the limits of built development and on the edge of an existing recreation ground. As such it was located in one of the most sustainable locations in the borough with provision for pedestrian access, cycle access and only a short walk from Forest Road where there was a good bus service to and from the town centre.

-       Lighting at the site would be controlled by condition. Lighting design would take into account how best it would mitigate any impact on biodiversity and ecology.

-       The application was supported by a full phase 1 habitat survey.  The report stated that the necessary biodiversity net gain could be achieved through planting and other enhancements.

-       This site had already been allocated for this use so the impact on the Green Belt had been considered twice previously.  In terms of Very Special Circumstances, the developments were all small and lightweight and would therefore have very limited impact on the openness on the Green Belt (e.g. goalposts, security fencing etc.).  It would also work alongside the existing football pitches and recreational facilities.  The combination of all these factors were the Very Special Circumstances.

-       Significant weight would be attached to the extant permission which in this case expired on 1 May 2021.  This application was exactly the same as had been previously agreed and there were no  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA157/20

PLA158/20

Application for Consideration - 21/00069/FULL Land at Sychem Place, Sychem Lane, Five Oaks Green pdf icon PDF 351 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 21/00069/FULL, Land at Sychem Place, Sychem Lane, Five Oaks Green and this was summarised at the meeting by Richard Hazelgrove, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

 

Updates and additional representation – Since publication of the agenda report, the presenter update as follows:

 

-       Officers had received another highways drawing which clarified some of the turning movements within the site.  This did not affect the recommendation.

 

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

 

Public Supporter:

-       Mr Martin Hull (Kember, Loudon, Williams) – the Agent

 

Public Objector:

-       Mr Hugh Patterson – Representing Capel Parish Council

 

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

 

-       There would be no significant changes to the access to the site.  The pinch point would remain as the land up to the fence was owned by UK Power Networks.  There was no permission to remove the fence to enlarge the entrance.

-       Essentially, except for some minor works, access would be the same as was approved for the 6 houses.

-       The provision of a bell mouth junction would be a matter for Kent Highways.

-       There was no objection from Kent Highways regarding the access arrangements.

-       No development was permitted on the area of open space and the plans did not show that the area was enclosed or fenced off, it was therefore available for use.

-       The additional buildings would make the site overdeveloped and detrimental to the Green Belt.

-       The assessment of Green Belt openness includes the absence of buildings.  It was a matter of principle that was the consideration, rather than necessarily the visual impact. 

-       The additional 2 houses would make the site too congested.  The open space should be protected.

 

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

 

-       There was no further comment.

 

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 Dr Hall, seconded by Councillor Funnell and a vote was taken to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation.

 

RESOLVED – That application 21/0069/20 be refused in line with the officer recommendations.

PLA159/20

Application for Consideration -21/00131/FULL The Pump House, North Road, Goudhurst pdf icon PDF 307 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 20/00131/FULL, The Pump House, North Road, Goudhurst and this was summarised at the meeting by Emma Franks, Senior Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

 

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

 

-       It was advised that the applicant would be removing the original access gate, to be replaced with a new gate at the entrance.  This would open up the access and the public right of way.

 

Registered Speakers – There were 10 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

 

Public Objectors:

-       Mr Richard Vinton – Member of the Public

-       Mr Robert Pottinger – Member of the Public

-       Mrs Susan Hutty – Member of the Public

-       Mr Antony Harris – Member of the Public

-       Parish Councillor Craig Broom – Representing Goudhurst Parish Council

-       Councillor Barry Noakes

 

Public Supporters:

-       Mr Patrick Durr – Agent

-       Mrs Camilla Elms – Applicant

-       Mr Paul Gaston – Member of the Public

-       Mr Myles Hazebroek – Member of the Public

 

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

 

-       Officers confirmed that the land was not a rural exemption site.

-       Paragraphs 114 and 115 of the current NPPF related to electronic communications.  The speaker that made reference to these paragraphs may have been referring to the first iteration of the NPPF where paragraphs 114 and 115 referred to the AONB.  The section of the current NPPF that dealt with the AONB was contained in paragraph 172.

-       Sustainability was assessed on the grounds of environmental, economic and social factors, and not just the use of a car.  Consideration was also given to the reuse of the building, the benefits to the environment from the use of the building and the additional environmental enhancements and biodiversity measures proposed.  Taking all these factors into consideration, it was determined that the benefits outweighed the impacts on sustainability.

-       The applicants would be providing an electrical charging point for vehicles. 

-       There had been a number of refusals on the site.  The refusals were not all for the use of the building as a single dwelling.  For instance, the 2011 application was for the conversion of the house to a holiday let.  This application was refused and dismissed at appeal.  The sole reason for the refusal was highway safety.  The refusal was not related to the impact on the AONB. 

-       In 2013, consent was given to allow the building to be used as ancillary accommodation.  This secured retention of the building which was deemed to be a non-designated heritage asset in its own right. 

-       The 2019 application (approved in 2020) was for the new safer vehicular access point.  This application was supported by Kent Highways.

-  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA159/20

PLA160/20

Appeal Decisions for Noting 16/03/2021 to 06/04/2021 pdf icon PDF 101 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

PLA161/20

Urgent Business pdf icon PDF 28 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.

PLA162/20

Date of Next Meeting pdf icon PDF 28 KB

The next Planning Committee to be held on Wednesday 12 May 2021 at 10:30am.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 12 May 2021.