Agenda and minutes

Announcement on procedural matters.

In the absence of a Chair, as per the Constitution Members were required to vote a Chair. A proposal was made by Councillor Britcher-Allan, seconded by Councillor Neville for Councillor Godfrey Bland to Chair the meeting. This motion was carried.

RESOLVED: That Councillor Godfrey Bland Chair the Planning Committee on Wednesday 17 May 2023.

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 Councillor Johnson.

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 Bland, Britcher-Allan, Fitzsimmons, Le Page, Moon, Patterson, Pope, White and Neville advised that they had been lobbied by objectors and supporters on application PLA154/22 St Marks Recreation Ground, Frant Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Councillors Pope, White and Neville advised that they had been lobbied by supporters on application PLA156/22 Ashdown House, 11 Hungershall Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Councillors Britcher-Allan, Fitzsimmons, and Neville advised that they had been lobbied by Objectors on application PLA156/22 Ashdown House, 11 Hungershall Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

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

Members had not undertaken any site visits.

Councillor Le Page had visited the site of PLA154/22 St Mark’s Recreation Ground, Frant Road, RTW and PLA155/22 Grosvenor Garage, 123-125 St James Road, RTW.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday 12 April 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 PLA154/22 St Marks Recreation Ground, Frant Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by James Moysey Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

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

·        Condition 15 is proposed to be amended to the following:

No external lighting shall be installed on the site other than that shown on the hereby approved plans or as approved under condition 14 without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of adjoining residents.

Registered Speakers – There were 8 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Objectors:

·        Kenneth Arntvel, a local resident.

·        Kirsty Souter, a local resident.

·        Mark Brown, a local resident.

Supporters:

·        Mike Rigby, Chair of the TWRFC

·        Paul Carnell

·        Rory Joyce

Borough Councillors not on the Planning Committee:

·        Councillor Gavin Barrass, Pantiles and St Marks.

·        Councillor Peter Lidstone, St John’s.

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

                 i.          Officers referred to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and reminded Members that paragraph 92.A, set out that planning decisions should promote social interaction, including opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other and paragraph 93.A, set out that decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces and for community facilities and other local services.

                ii.          The Council's Landscape and Biodiversity Officer had commented on the application from a landscape perspective and impact on the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) and they concluded that, having regard to the NPPF and the great weight afforded to the AONB in decision making, their view was that the level of harm, when taking into account the limited nature and extent of that harm, the site context and the nature of the proposal was likely to be acceptable. Consequently, provided then that the mitigation enhancements were properly secured, they did not object to the application on landscape grounds.

               iii.          Conditions 5 and 6 largely related to tree protection, to preserve the existing boundary planting that existed.

              iv.          Condition 7 required landscaping details to be submitted to the council for approval.

                v.          Condition 8 required the approved landscape scheme to be fully implemented.

              vi.          Condition 9 related to a landscape and ecological management plan.

             vii.          The full wording of Condition 27 which related to levels and the visual impact was read for the benefit of Members.

            viii.          Officers spoke in detail about floodlighting and potential overspill. Officers had consulted the Council's Environmental Protection Team, who had raised no objection subject to conditions which had been put in place at conditions 14, 15 and 16.

              ix.          The Council’s Ecologist was satisfied with findings that concluded that it would have a negligible impact upon bats.

                x.          There were 55 parking spaces  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA154/22

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA155/22 Grosvenor Garage, 123 - 125 St James Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Charlotte Oben Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

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

·        11 additional representations from residents have been received (10 against and 1 for). They have raised the following points:

Parking concerns

Increase in traffic/congestion

Loss of light/sunlight

Overlooking

Question borough contributions going to Hawkenbury

Design out of keeping with area

·        Support the application: Need for high quality homes

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

Objectors:

·        George Liley, a local resident.

·        Chris Williams, a local resident.

Supporters:

·        Duncan Parr, on behalf of the applicant.

Borough Councillor not on the Planning Committee:

·        Councillor Rob Wormington, St. James’ spoke in objection to the application.

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

                 i.          The Council’s Urban Design Officer was involved in the pre application discussions prior to the submission of the application and her comments in paragraph 7.12 of the agenda demonstrated that she had no objection to the application and considered it was a suitable design.

                ii.          Comments from Kent County Council on the parking standards, correctly showed that it was one space per unit maximum. It was considered that the additional trips generated from the change in use was not likely to lead to any significant impact on the highway safety or congestion.

               iii.          Condition 9 addressed the potential overlooking from some of the windows to the rear.

              iv.          In response to concerns raised about the use of date parking ownership levels, it was understood that there were recent ones released from the 2021 census, but they had only been very recently been released, and so were unavailable before the application was submitted.

                v.          It was clarified that in terms of social housing, the emerging policies 40% was the requirement for greenfield sites. Given that Members were looking at a brownfield site, the requirement for affordable housing was 30% on the basis of the emerging policies, which was why the calculations came out as they did.

              vi.          There was no social rent provision on site. It was advised that the applicant sought to engage with registered providers to provide some on-site affordable units, however it was notoriously difficult to get registered providers to take on units when they were part of a single block as they did not have control of the circulation and other communal areas. The Housing Officer also engaged with a number of registered providers and they were unwilling to take up any units at the site.

             vii.          The wording of paragraph 10.45 of the agenda was clarified and discussed in detail.

            viii.          It was advised that the off site affordable housing Section 106 funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA155/22

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA156/22 Ashdown House, 11 Hungershall Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Abby Shillingford Senior Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

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

Objectors:

·        Melanie Taylor, a local resident.

·        Mark Taylor, a local resident.

·        Daniel Frazer, a local resident.

Supporters:

·        Simon Walker, the applicant.

·        Eimear Murphy, on behalf of the applicant.

·        Jim Richardson, on behalf of the applicant.

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

                 i.          Paragraph 10.08 set out the size of the extension in relation to Policy H 11, and at paragraph 10.14, it was acknowledged that the extension was large in terms of its size, but that it was not considered excessive in relation to the main dwelling as it was a less than 50% increase.

                ii.          Paragraph 10.11 set out that a volumetric increase was not the sole criteria on which applications were to be judged, and if the volumetric limits were breached, then it was necessary to judge if the proposal causes visual harm.

               iii.          The Council’s Conservation Officer confirmed and further reaffirmed that any previous heritage concerns had been addressed and also that there would not be any harm to the Arcadian area.

              iv.          Clarification was provided on the windows to the side and front of the property, Officers did not consider that there would be an impact on overlooking and privacy.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

                 i.          It was considered to be a vastly improved scheme when they look at the previous application was refused.

                ii.          Members were not persuaded that it was harming the residential amenities of the neighbours.

               iii.          It appeared that the applicant had listened to the objections of the Planning Committee on the occasion where the previous application was refused and had adapted their plans to meet the objections.

              iv.          It was noted that the Council’s Conservation Officer did not object to the application.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA156/22 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 PLA157/22 38 All Saints Road, Hawkhurst, Cranbrook, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Andrew McLachlan-Newens Planning Officer 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:

·        Clare Escombe, Hawkhurst Parish Council.

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 raised.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA157/22 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

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 21 June 2023.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 21 June 2023.