Agenda and minutes

Announcement on procedural matters.

The Chair 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 Britcher-Allan, Fitzsimmons, Moon and 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 Johnson, Le Page, Neville, O’Connell, Osborne, Patterson, White and Bland advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA199/23 High View, Grovehurst Lane, Horsmonden, Tonbridge, Kent.

Councillors Le Page, Neville, O’Connell, Osborne, Patterson, White and Bland advised that they had been lobbied by supporters on application PLA199/23 High View, Grovehurst Lane, Horsmonden, Tonbridge, Kent.

Councillor Neville advised that she had been lobbied by supporters on application PLA200/23 W A Turner Ltd, Broadwater Lane, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

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

Members had the opportunity to visit site PLA199/23 High View, Grovehurst Lane, Horsmonden, Tonbridge, Kent.

Councillor Le Page advised that he visited the site of PLA200/23 W A Turner Ltd, Broadwater Lane, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 16 August 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 PLA199/23 High View, Grovehurst Lane, Horsmonden, Tonbridge, Kent 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 – None.

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

Objectors

·        Jamie Hutchinson, a local resident.

·        Will Colin, a local resident.

·        Tony Colin, a local resident.

·        Bill Guest, a local resident.

Supporters

·        Paul Brown KC spoke on behalf of the applicant Mr Joe Busby.

Parish Representative

·        Councillor Jane March, Parish Chair spoke in objection to the application.

Borough Councillor not on the Committee

·        Councillor Steve McMillan, Brenchley and Horsmonden provided a statement in objection to the application.

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

                 i.          An explanation was provided to Members with regard to enforcement and previous consents and how that related to the proposed development before Members.

                ii.          It was clarified that the property was approximately 1m closer to the road than approved.

               iii.          The Council’s Principal Conservation Officer was formally consulted under the current application and he assessed it and concluded that there was no heritage impact from the proposal.

              iv.          It was confirmed that the additional height was 9.1m high, therefore 0.7m higher than the approved scheme.

                v.          Condition 7 addressed external lighting on the scheme and it was required to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for assessment with the Council’s specialist officer who would look at the lighting impact on wildlife and dark skies  prior to installation. If Members were minded to approve the application an informative about a sensitive lighting scheme could be added. If approved, it was possible to enforce against any lighting that that wasn't deemed appropriate and submitted as part of the scheme.

              vi.          Paragraph 10.14 on page 83 of the agenda addressed the definition of the word obtrusive in the report.

             vii.          It was permissible to submit a retrospective application, and the planning regulations and guidance required Members as decision makers to treat retrospective applications as they would do any other application.

            viii.          With regard to the trees, the landscaping scheme had been considered the Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer extensively and had been revised a number of times during the course of the application. That ensured that the species type was suitable and their benefits to biodiversity in terms of that enhancement had been rigorously examined.

              ix.          There was no change to the overall footprint of the dwelling as approved.

                x.          Further clarification with regard to the height of the property was provided.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

                 i.          It was considered by some Members that the retrospective application was more intrusive than the original dwelling.

                ii.          Concerns were raised about artificial grass on site and dark skies harm, this was addressed and Members were reminded that the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA199/23

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA200/23 W A Turner Ltd, Broadwater Lane, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Richard Hazelgrove Acting Development Management Team Leader and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

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

·        There was an error in the description of the mix of shared ownership affordable units at paras 7.56 and 10.111. The report stated this will be 4 x 3 bedroom houses, when it will in fact be 2 x 3 bedroomed and 2 x 4-bedroomed houses. The Officer also made reference to the provision of 6 No. 1-bedroom socially rented units in the presentation (rather than 6 No.2-bedroom units listed).

·        The architects had provided a plan showing the location of the affordable housing in the development.

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

Supporter:

·        Stephen Ward Town Planning and Development Consultants Ltd on behalf of the applicant Urban Life (TBW) Ltd.

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

                 i.          An update was provided to Members advising affordable housing provision within the development.

                ii.          It was advised that the viability review had been undertaken as an ongoing process and concluded earlier in the year. Factors such as the potential rises in property values, increases in build costs as well on costs of materials because were taken into account. It was not an exact science as acknowledged by Officers in the report however it was a guide and was consistent with the way other applications such as the one before Members were determined.

               iii.          It was advised that there were policies in the current and emerging Local Plan that required a certain amounts of affordable housing. However there were also policies that allowed for exceptional circumstances when sites cannot provide the full requirement of affordable housing because of the costs of developing them.

              iv.          The land contamination surveys were submitted with the application and were reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officers showed it was likely that there would be oil/fuel storage tanks, septic tanks drainage systems and material storage that would have contributed towards surplus land contamination. This was not specific as so much of the factory covered the site.

                v.          Paragraph 2.1 in the report addressed the size of the proposed property on site.

              vi.          Kent County Council (KCC) requested the Section 106 monies for education, and for the distribution of the funds to be  legislatively compliant, there had to be an ongoing scheme for those monies to be contributed to such as the expansion of Bennett Memorial.

             vii.          An explanation was provided on KCC working with Academy Trusts.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

                 i.          Thanks was given to the officers for challenging the viability report on the proposed development and welcomed the integration of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA200/23

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA201/23 1 Littleworth Cottages, Etherington Hill, Speldhurst, Tunbridge Wells, 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 – 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.          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 Patterson, seconded by Councillor Neville and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application PLA201/23 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

RESOLVED – That the Planning Enforcement Report October 2022 to March 2023 provided for information, be noted.

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 11 October 2023.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 11 October 2023.