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-Allen and White.

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

Councillor O’Connell declared that whilst she had called in both applications to the Committee, she had not yet made up her mind and would only do so once all the considerations, discussion and debate were completed.

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, Moon, Neville, O’Connell, Osborne, Patterson, Pope, Fitzsimmons and Bland advised that they had been lobbied by supporters on application PLA241/23 – 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Councillors Johnson, Le Page, Moon, Neville, O’Connell, Osborne, Patterson, Pope, Fitzsimmons and Bland advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA241/23 – 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Councillors Moon, Neville, O’Connell, Osborne, Patterson, Pope, Fitzsimmons and Bland advised that they had been lobbied by supporters on application PLA242/23 – 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Councillors Le Page, Neville, O’Connell, Osborne, Patterson, Pope, Fitzsimmons and Bland advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA242/23 – 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

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

Members had the opportunity to visit site PLA241/23 and PLA242/23 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 8 November 2023 be recorded as a true record of the proceedings.

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 PLA241/23 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Kirsty Minney Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

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

·        Revised plans were received to address inconsistencies between the proposed floor plans and elevations.  These are amended elevations showing the blocking up of a window and an additional window in the side porch that have already received consent

·        1 letter of objection has been received. 

Registered Speakers – There were 6 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Objectors:

·        Deborah Reese, a local resident provided a statement which was read by Mr Chris Weller.

·        Dr Phillip Whitborn, a local resident.

·        Mr Paul Avis, spoke on behalf of the Decimus Burton Society.

·        Dr David T Wright, on behalf of the Decimus Burton Society.

Supporters:

·        Barry Kitcherside, Chartplan Ltd the agent on behalf of the applicant provided a statement which was read by the Clerk.

Borough Councillors not on the Committee:

·        Councillor Justine Rutland, Culverden

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

                 i.          All applications had to be determined on their own merits and what was before Members.

                ii.          With regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirements, Officers felt there was not less than substantial harm therefore paragraph 202 (Public Benefit Test) was not engaged. It was acknowledged speakers held a different view.

               iii.          It was clarified that the extension was set back from and was not part of the front elevation.

              iv.          Officers stated that they had in no way tried to play down the significance of the building or the area within which it was set and it was set out in the report in significant detail how important the building was.

                v.          The applicant's agent had submitted a list of planning history to Members, Officers confirmed the information had not been checked for accuracy in time for Committee.

              vi.          Condition 3 covered the means in which the development would come forward if consent was granted and how the trees would be protected.

             vii.          The Council’s Principal Conservation Officer (PCO) clarified how the Local Planning Authority (LPA), with the use of the NPPF Policies and England Heritage guidance determined that the significance to the asset had not been harmed, albeit the extension was quite large. The Council’s Legal Officer stated that the PCO’s comments were a professional expert opinion on the heritage asset and any harm that might be identified, it was not a legal point.

            viii.          In terms of the gap between the properties, Officers confirmed that if the development went ahead it would close the gap between the existing building and the boundary of the site and the neighbouring property at number 1. It was important to note that the spatial  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA241/23

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA242/23 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Kirsty Minney Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

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

·        Revised plans were received to address inconsistencies between the proposed floor plans and elevations.  These are amended elevations showing the blocking up of a window and an additional window in the side porch that have already received consent

Registered Speakers – There were 4 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Objectors:

·        Mr Paul Avis, on behalf of the Decimus Burton Society.

·        Dr David T Wright, on behalf of the Decimus Burton Society.

·        Mr David Cooper, a local resident.

·        Ms Deborah Reese, a local resident provided a statement which was read by Ms Sheila Phillips.

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

                 i.          It was confirmed that diagrams that showed the rear elevation of the building were used within the Officer presentation.

                ii.          Officers stated that they had taken the opinions of the various consultees and the various people that had written to the Local Planning Authority very seriously and the dedicated responses in the report showed it had been given due consideration.

               iii.          Members attention was brought to paragraph 7.01 on page 60 of the report, which showed the response from historic England, the main statutory body for historic buildings and they had provided no comment on the application.

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, there was no motion from Members to support the Officer recommendation to approve the application. A motion was proposed by Councillor Patterson, seconded by Councillor Neville and a vote was taken to refuse the application against the officer recommendation.

·        Councillor Moon voted against the motion to refuse the application.

RESOLVED – That application PLA242/23 be refused subject to the reasons as shown below:

·        The proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II* listed building by reason of the position, form, and size of the side extension which would unduly impact on the symmetry of the pair of listed buildings. The public benefits associated with this proposal would not outweigh this harm. It would therefore be contrary to saved Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006, Policy CP4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010 and Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.

RESOLVED: That the appeal decisions dated 26 October 2023 to 27 November 2023, 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 10 January 2024.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 10 January 2024.