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 Councillor Pope.

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 Atwood, Bailey, Bland, Fitzsimmons Le Page, Moon, Neville, Patterson, Wakeman and Poile advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA63/22 Former ABC Cinema Site Mount Pleasant Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent.

Councillors Atwood, Bailey, Bland, Britcher-Allen, Dawlings, Fitzsimmons Le Page, Moon, Neville, Patterson, Wakeman and Poile advised that they had been lobbied by supporters on application PLA63/22 Former ABC Cinema Site Mount Pleasant Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent.

Councillor Poile advised that he had been lobbied by objectors on application  PLA64/22 St Andrews Medical Centre, St Andrews Court, Pinewood Gardens, Southborough.

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

Members had not undertaken any site visits.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday 19 October 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 PLA63/22 Former ABC Cinema Site Mount Pleasant Road Royal Tunbridge Wells 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 report the Officer updated:

·        Additional representation from Chairman of Water in the Wells.

·        Pleased that the scheme includes a water feature that is visible from Mount Pleasant. It will provide an invitation for people to come in and take a rest in the courtyard. The water feature is well-sited but previous concerns remain and feel the scheme is unsightly and an inappropriately sited development.

·        Private representation.

·        Raises issue of rumble of trains from tunnel below. Recommend that shops removed from scheme as so many empty premises in RTW, could reduce height of building. Recommend balconies removed facing main road – noise and fumes for future occupants.

·        Trinity

·        Encouraged that the likely occupants would be active residents and will make the most of all the services and leisure activities the town offers. Interested in the mixed use space and Trinity may be able to work with applicant in utilising this area.

·        Local Plan Inspector

·        Para 55 of the Inspector’s letter from November 2022 states that ‘the latest proposals for the site include extra care and/or retirement housing which have materialised after the Plan was submitted. Although some representors have questioned the contribution that such uses would make to the vibrancy of the town centre, I see no reason why extra care and/or retirement housing would be inappropriate as part of a mixed-use scheme which included some active ground floor uses. Para 86(f) of the Framework specifically requires planning policies to recognise that residential development often plays an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and encourage residential development on appropriate sites. The site has been vacant for a long time and its redevelopment should be supported and encouraged by the Plan.’

·        Para 56 ‘in order to make the Plan sound, greater flexibility should therefore be provided by a re-drafted policy which supports the principle of a broader range of town centre uses. A re-drafted policy could also emphasise the importance of regeneration of the site to the town and the requirements for a sensitive, high-quality design.’

·        Para 92 refers to needs of older people. Quotes a gross need for the borough of between 342 & 431 units.  This figure is superseded by expert evidence carried by the Council for the Sandown Park Inquiry (held summer ’22) which found gross need of 593. Also queries by the Inspector regarding Tudeley and Paddock Wood allocations which may impact on how the needs for older people will be met as both of these allocations required the provision of an ECH scheme.

·        Officer queried calculation for C2 discount for five year housing land supply with Policy team. Policy response:

·        It is generally accepted that C2  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA63/22

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA6422 St Andrews Medical Centre, St Andrews Court, Pinewood Gardens, Southborough 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 – Since publication of the agenda the Officer updated:

·        Two further neighbour representations have been received. These raise similar issues to previous objections regarding safety along the shared footpath/roadway, loss of privacy, design and layout.

·        The topographical survey, block plan and site location plan have been slightly amended to exclude a small section of the shared roadway/footpath in the top north eastern corner which may belong to Southborough Town Council. These plans were published on the TWBC website on Friday afternoon. They do not result in a material change to the scheme.

As a result of the above condition 2 was proposed to be updated (to incorporate the amended plans); plus condition 18 was proposed to be amended to refer to the updated block plan, plus exclude reference to the retention of the litter bin (as it now falls outside the application site).

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

Objectors:

·        Mr Matthew Taylor, a local resident.

Supporters:

·        Mr Dan Harding, HAPA Architects.

Parish/Town Councillor Representative:

·        Councillor Alain Lewis, Southborough and High Brooms

Matters of clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ questions to Officers included:

                 i.          It was confirmed that a condition required the windows to be obscure glazed and restricted in it’s opening, and this was a common mitigation measure to reduce overlooking.

                ii.          Enforcement worked on a reactive basis and it was advised that if the obscure glazing was removed by the residents, it was a breach of conditions and the enforcement team would investigate.

               iii.          Paragraph 10.88 in the report advised that if the windows were not obscure glazed that the application would be unacceptable and Officers would recommended refusal.

              iv.          The view from the secondary bedrooms would not be good due to the obscure glazed.

                v.          Paragraph 10.71 in the report addressed the parking spaces and it was considered that this met the parking requirements of the residents and a shortfall of one space was not considered a valid reason for refusal.

              vi.          There were no issues raised by Kent County Council Highways.

             vii.          The density of the housing mix was outlined on the bottom of page 28 of the agenda, there wasn’t a strict housing density figure that was applied as this was an unreliable figure.

            viii.          It was advised that the national space standards are not standards that had been adopted by the council therefore the size of the rooms and parking spaces were a matter of judgement.

              ix.          It was recognised that empty properties attract anti-social behaviour, it was expected that the owners of the property would keep the property secure.

                x.          The access road will continue  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA64/22

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 Wednesday 7 December 2022.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 7 December 2022.