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 Fitzsimmons and Warne.  Councillor Bailey arrived at 6:35pm.  Councillor Atwood was not present.

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.

Councillor Poile  advised that he had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA 22/00088/FULL – No. 2-16 St. John’s Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells.

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

Members had not undertaken any site visits.

It was noted, that unless a recorded vote had been requested, details of how Members voted was not included in the minutes. 

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 29 June 2022 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 PLA22/00088/FULL, 2-16 St John’s Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr James Moysey, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were 7 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Objectors:

·         Sarah Wright

·         Lloyd Shaw

·         John Levey

·         Chris Pendleton

·         Cllr James Rands

Supporters:

·         Matthew Williams

·         Richard Abbott

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

-       It was noted the scheme had been amended from 5 dwellings to 4 dwellings.  The configuration was similar apart from the central plot which was originally a pair of semi-detached units.  Plots 3 & 4 were originally 2 storey, there were now 1 ½ storey, chalet bungalows.

-       The regional target in terms of density was 40 dwellings per hectare.  This application equated to 45 dwellings per hectare.  However, it was important to note that 40 dwellings was a regional target, and this scheme was a town centre scheme where development was usually of a higher density. 

-       In terms of the level of housing needs, the principle of developing this site, regardless of the Council’s housing requirements was considered acceptable.  This was a previously developed site inside the limits of built development.

-       In respect of overlooking towards Grosvenor Park, particularly towards the east of the site.  It was reconfirmed that no first floor openings were proposed on plots 1 and 2. Additionally there were no first floor openings on the east facing elevations on plots 3 and 4.  It was also noted that the boundary wall that sat on the east boundary of the site would be retained.  The height of the wall on the application side was approximately 2.3m and was higher on the Grosvenor Park side.

-       It was further noted that no additional windows or similar openings could be inserted (Condition 11).  Extensions were also restricted (Condition 10).

-       The profitability of a site was not a planning consideration.

-       Paragraph 10.61 of the report provided an explanation of the work undertaken by Officers in respect of shadow issues.

-       In terms of highway safety, the lawful use of the site was for a car park with around 30 car parking spaces.  There was nothing to prevent the site from being returned to a car park, which would generate more traffic movements.

-       The stability of the retaining wall was a building control matter.  Condition 12 made clear that details pertaining to walls and fencing had to be approved by the Local Planning Authority.

-       The retaining wall was a building control matter and not a planning matter.  Building Control Officers from the Council had assessed the wall and determined that it was sound. A Management Control Plan had been included as part  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA23/22

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA 22/01503/FULL, Car Park Warwick Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells and this was summarised at the meeting by James Moysey, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – Since publication of the agenda report, the presenting officers updated:

-       An additional informative had been proposed – ‘ the applicant is asking for consideration of the resurfacing of the entire car park and the installation of EV charging points in order to promote sustainable transport.’

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 included:

-       The application was coming to Committee because TWBC was the landowner.  If TWBC was not the landowner it would be a delegated decision, unless called-in by a Member. 

-       The existing hedgerow was causing subsidence.  The choice of using Yew trees was because it was a native species with non-evasive roots and relatively low maintenance.  This view was supported by the TWBC Tree Officer. 

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA22/01503/FULL, Car Park, Warwick Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report and as shown above.

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 was scheduled for Thursday 1 September 2022.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday 1 September 2022.