Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 16th August, 2023 6.30 pm

Download documents using the MOD.GOV app

Venue: Council Chamber, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS

Contact: Democratic Services Team 

Media

Items
No. Item

PLA178/23

Chair's Introduction pdf icon PDF 92 KB

Announcement on procedural matters.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In the absence of a Chair and as per the Constitution, Members were required to vote for a temporary Chair for the meeting.  A proposal was made by Councillor Neville, seconded by Councillor Fitzsimmons that Councillor Patterson be Chair for the meeting.  This motion was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED – That Councillor Hugh Patterson be Chair of the Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday 16 August 2023.

 

 

The Chairman opened the meeting, introduced Committee members and officers in attendance, and outlined procedural matters of the meeting.

PLA179/23

Apologies pdf icon PDF 28 KB

Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

Apologies were received from Councillors Bland and O’Connell.

PLA180/23

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 67 KB

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

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were made.

PLA181/23

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:

Councillors Britcher-Allan, Fitzsimmons, Moon, Neville, Osborne, Pope and Patterson advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA 23/01616/FULL, 15 Lurkins Rise, Goudhurst, Kent.

 

 

PLA182/23

Site Inspections pdf icon PDF 28 KB

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members had not undertaken any site visits.

 

Councillor Le Page had visited 2 sites – PLA 23/01445/FULL, Brokeswood Lodge, The Ridgeway, Southborough, Kent and PLA23/01616/FULL, 15 Lurkins Rise, Goudhurst, Kent.

PLA183/23

To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 19 July 2023 pdf icon PDF 227 KB

To approve the minutes a previous meeting as a correct record.  The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

No amendments were proposed.

 

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 19 July 2023 be recorded as a correct record.

PLA184/23

Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached) pdf icon PDF 28 KB

The running order of the applications listed below is subject to change and will be agreed by the Chairman and announced at the meeting.

Additional documents:

PLA185/23

Application for Consideration - 23/01445/FULL - Brokeswood Lodge, The Ridgeway, Southborough pdf icon PDF 431 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA 23/01445/23, Brokeswood Lodge, The Ridgeway, Southborough, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Richard Hazelgrove Interim Development Management Team Leader and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

 

Updates and additional representation – None

 

Registered Speakers – There was 1 speaker that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

 

Supporter – Mr Sam Bowman – BEAU Architecture (on behalf of the applicant).

 

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

 

-       Officers confirmed that visibility displays had been designed for the 20mph speed limit. 

-       The planning application included a condition for a Construction Management Plan, that would manage the way construction vehicles accessed the site.  An Informative could be added so that parking bays were included to accommodate vehicles using the site.

-       The Construction Management Plan would also include provision to address any environmental issues associated with the site, e.g. noise, dust etc. 

-       If residents experienced excess noise, dust etc. they would be able to contact TWBC who would then go out to ensure the applicant was complying with the Construction Management Plan.

-       Because the 4th dwelling was quite a distance  from the original 3 dwellings there would be no further impact on the woodland, and therefore no need to amend the details of the already approved buffer zone. 

-       As an amendment to the public right of way was a separate legislative process, and the responsibility of Kent County Council, TWBC could not require the applicant to make those amendments prior to the start of the build.

-       TWBC could include an Informative to this effect, however, it was noted, the applicant was already aware of this requirement.   

 

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

 

-       The addition of the 4th dwelling was a good use of the land. 

-       The architect had been innovative, and included energy saving measures which were very welcomed.

-       It was noted, a previous application that had been submitted for 4 dwellings had been refused.  It had now been approved for 3 dwellings.

-       The Woodland Trust had still commented about the 15m buffer zone.

-       Kent County Council had commented that the footpath diversion should be in place prior to the start of the development.

-       It was suggested the additional dwelling was making the site over intensive and it spoilt the overall outlook of the site.

-       It was further suggested the omission of the 4th dwelling ‘helped’ the application for 3 dwellings receive planning permission in March 2023. 

 

 

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

 

Councillor Moon voted against the recommendation.

 

RESOLVED – That application PLA  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA185/23

PLA186/23

Application for Consideration - 23/01616/FULL - 15 Lurkins Rise, Goudhurst, Kent pdf icon PDF 243 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA 23/01616/FULL, 15 Lurkins Rise, Goudhurst Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by James Taylor, Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

 

Updates and additional representation –  Since publication of the agenda report, Greg Clarke MP had emailed requesting that Members consider the representations made by neighbours.

 

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

 

Objectors:

-       Miss Jordan Richards, a local resident

-       Mr Nick Gearing, a local resident

-       Councillor David Knight, Goudhurst and Lamberhurst

 

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

 

-       One of the speakers referenced an earlier planning application for 7 Lurkins Rise (09/00145) stating that the application had been refused.  This was not the case, the application had been approved for a 2 storey rear extension and was strikingly similar to the application for 15 Lurkins Rise. 

-       In terms of the development plan policies, it depended whether proposed extensions to properties were outside or inside the limits of built developments as to how they were assessed. 

-       Those properties that were outside the limits of built development were subject to policy H11, which suggested a guideline of an increase in size of no more than 50%. 

-       Applications for extensions within the limits of built development were not subject to the same guidelines.  Instead, applications were looked at in context with their surroundings and what was appropriate and in keeping with the area.

-       Access to the property would remain unchanged.  The access had been in its current position since at least 2000 and although it didn’t appear to be in use at the moment, there were no proposed changes to its position, only changes to the hard standing.

-       Regardless of the current application, the access could be resurfaced under permitted development rights and brought into use at any time. 

-       Officers confirmed that the height and boundary of the new extension would not constitute a significant degree of harm in terms of loss of light to the neighbouring property.

-       There was no policy requirement for the applicant to undertake a daylight and sunlight assessment and one had not been submitted.

-       The window located on the 1st floor and immediately adjacent to the boundary was a hallway window and not a habitable room. 

-       The kitchen window on the adjacent property would be the other window affected, but this one was already located under the eaves so any additional loss of light would not be deemed significant.

-       The bar to the test ‘significant harm’  within Local Plan policy EN1 was high with appeal decisions from Inspectors corroborating this level of harm. 

 

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

-       The objections related overwhelmingly to the over intensive development in relation to the size of the extension.

-       The size of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA186/23

PLA187/23

Application for Consideration - 23/01542/FULL - Cinderhill Wood, Caravan Park, Five Wents, Matfield, Kent pdf icon PDF 214 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA 23/01542, Cinderhill Wood, Caravan Park, five Wents, Matfield, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Richard Hazelgrove Interim 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:

 

-       The report was taken as read.

 

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

 

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

 

RESOLVED – That application PLA 23/01542/FULL, Cinderhill Wood, Caravan Park, Five Wents, Matfield, Kent be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

PLA188/23

Application for Consideration - 23/00999/FULL - 1 Orchard Close, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent pdf icon PDF 214 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA 23/00999/FULL, 1 Orchard Close, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Andrews McLachlan-Newans, 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:

 

-       The applicant would be seeking to drop the kerb outside the new property.  Officers confirmed that because the road and pavement was owned by TWBC, the application was required to come to Planning Committee. 

-       An application for a dropped kerb would have to be submitted to Kent County Council for approval.

-       Payment by the applicant for use of the footway was outside the remit of the Local Planning Authority.

-       The residents of Number 1 were the applicants so would be aware of the disruption during the building phase.

 

 

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

 

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

 

RESOLVED – That application PLA 23/00999/FULL, 1 Orchard Close, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

 

PLA189/23

Appeal Decisions for Noting 10 July 2023 to 4 August 2023 pdf icon PDF 59 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

PLA190/23

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.

PLA191/23

Date of Next Meeting pdf icon PDF 28 KB

The next Planning Committee was scheduled for Wednesday 13 September 2023.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 13 September 2023.