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 Bailey, Bland, Poile, Pope and White.

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 Britcher-Allan, Johnson, Le Page, Neville, Patterson and Wakeman advised that they had received an email from Councillor Hayward containing two images related to application PLA113/22 Pastheap Farm, Hastings Road, Pembury, Tunbridge Wells, Kent. However it was not confirmed whether the email was in support or in objection to the application.

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 8 February 2023 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 PLA113/22 Pastheap Farm, Hastings Road, Pembury, Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Thomas Vint Senior Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

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

Parish Council Representative:

·        Councillor David Hayward spoke on behalf of Pembury Parish Council in objection to the application.

Borough Councillor not on the Committee:

·        Councillor David Hayward, Pembury spoke in objection to the application.

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

                 i.          In terms of enforcement it was clarified that there were 2 sites often referred to as Pastheap Farm with one to the west of the site also known as The Meadows. It was reiterated that they were two separate sites with different ownerships.

                ii.          The current application was for a dog day care facility for up to 10 dogs however, that figure depended on the outcome of the inspection by Mid Kent Environmental Health.

               iii.          Condition 7 addressed the disposal of dog waste and required all details from the proposed development be submitted and approved in writing by the council prior to the first operation of the dog day care which was standard practice on such applications.

              iv.          The Council’s Conservation Officer was consulted and did not consider the application posed a significant impact on the heritage assets adjacent to the site.

                v.          Paragraph 10.003 and 10.004 addressed the development in the Green Belt.

              vi.          Members were reminded that whether the application was retrospective or not the application was to be judged on its own merits.

             vii.          The impacts on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty were set out within paragraphs 10.09 to 10.17 of the committee reports.

            viii.          It was advised that the site had parking capacity for at least 3 vehicles on the site and up to 4 vehicles outside the site. National Highways were consulted on the application and had no objections.

              ix.          The applicant was required to ensure that the necessary dog day care licence was granted from the Council's Environmental Health department prior to the operation of the site.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

                 i.          It was noted that there was a possibility of all customers turning up on site at the same time to drop their dogs off which highlighted an issue with parking, however it was not considered a sufficient reason to refuse the application.

                ii.          It was questioned whether the application improved the landscape in any way.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA113/22 be granted subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA113/22

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA114/22 Land At Down Farm, Lamberhurst, Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Marie Bolton  Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

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

Supporters:

·        Mr Reece Lemon, Senior Planner, Lee Evans Partnership LLP

Parish Council Representative:

·        Mr Graham White, Chair of Lamberhurst Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

Borough Councillor not on the Planning Committee:

·        Councillor David Knight, Goudhurst and Lamerhurst spoke in support of the application.

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

                 i.          The link through the site was discussed and it was advised that there was a contribution which the applicant had agreed to that had been requested by Kent County Council (KCC) Public Rights of Way team to make improvements to the footpaths. It was also highlighted that through off-site works and through the Road Safety Audit, improvements were scheduled to be made to the existing footways to the south were issues had arisen that increased linkages to surrounding footpaths.

                ii.          The contribution to the GP practice came from the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG0, and was on a calculated basis, so Officers considered it was appropriate in terms of scale.

               iii.          Condition 26 sought the details and the timetable for the installation of the footway linking the housing scheme to the public right of away, along with improvements to the public right of way that will occur within the site.

              iv.          Disability access had not been specifically requested through the housing consultation however the applicant had agreed to M4(2) where possible and on a cascade basis where affordable.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

                 i.          The dark skies policy for the area and the PR lighting for security requested by Kent Police were highlighted as a concern.

                ii.          It was thought that this was a really good example of an application which the Inspector clearly has endorsed, it had responded to the needs of the local community and was building on the local neighbourhood plan.

               iii.          The applicant was applauded for their affordable and social rented housing contribution.

              iv.          Thanks were given to the Officer for a comprehensive report.

                v.          Historic England’s concerns were noted.

              vi.          It was considered essential to have at least 6 affordable housing properties in rural areas which included shared ownership.

             vii.          An informative to draw attention to the comments from Kent Fire Brigade was included.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA114/22 be granted subject to the completion of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA114/22

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA115/22 Land North of Juniper Close, Barnetts Wood, Southborough and this was summarised at the meeting by Thomas Vint Senior 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 included:

                 i.          It was clarified that condition 3 ensured that if the pond changed hands in the future that fishing did not occur for two reasons; to keep the wildlife there and secondly, because the application had not been assessed or judged with any car parking requirements or access arrangements. Whether a bylaw came forward was a matter for outside the planning process.

                ii.          It was advised that with regard to paragraph 7.05 of the report, detailed discussions were had between the Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer and the Environmental Protection Team which resulted in amendments being made and an informative added. Following which the  Environmental Protection Team were happy with the proviso.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

                 i.          Members stated it was good to see more biodiversity taking place.

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 Moon, seconded by Councillor Britcher-Allan and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application PLA115/22 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 PLA116/22 Spectrum House and Millennium House, Chapman Way, Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Richard Hazelgrove, Acting Development Manager Team Leader 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 included:

                 i.          Condition 25 addressed concerns related to the precautionary bat emergence survey and stated that it shall be undertaken prior to demolition of the existing buildings in accordance with best practice.

                ii.          Condition 6 addressed EV Charging bays, it was confirmed that Kent County Council required up to 7 kilowatts for EV charging points.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification 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 Fitzsimmons, seconded by Councillor Britcher-Allan and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application PLA116/22 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 PLA117/22 5 Newlands Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Peter Hockney, Development Manager 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 included:

                 i.          The report was taken as read.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

                 i.          Clarification was provided as to why the application was brought before Committee.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA117/22 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

There were no appeal decisions for noting.

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 however Members sent their best wishes to the Chair in his absence.

The next Planning Committee was scheduled for Wednesday MM YYYY.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 22 March 2023.