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 Hamilton and Mrs Thomas.

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

Councillor Warne advised that she was familiar with the site on application PLA70/20 Land At Common Road Sissinghurst Cranbrook Kent.

As Chairman of the Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Neighbourhood Development Plan (CSNDP) and Steering Group, Councillor Warne had overseen two sets of site assessments work which were undertaken as part of the evidence gathering for the CSNDP.

Councillor Warne declared that she was not pre-determined in the case, as she had not yet made up her mind on it.

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.

Councillor Warne advised that she had been lobbied by an objector on application PLA70/20  Land At Common Road, Sissinghurst, Cranbrook, Kent.

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

Due to the current restrictions Members had not undertaken any site visits

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 28 October 2020 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 PLA70/20 Land At Common Road Sissinghurst Cranbrook Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr James Moysey, Senior Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were 5 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Public Objectors

·         Ms Julia August, a local resident.

·         Mr Sebastian Fogg, a local resident.

·         Mr Philip Jakeman, a local resident.

Public Supporters

·         Mr James Waterhouse, Invicta Self Build on behalf of the applicant.

Parish Council Representative

·         Parish Councillor John Smith, Cranbrook & Sissinghurst spoke in objection to the application.

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Members raised a number of questions and officers confirmed the following:

              i.        It was confirmed that only the access and the immediate internal road was being considered at the meeting along with the principal of the development.

             ii.        The layout element of the development would be considered at a reserved matters stage, at that time the impact on amenities of neighbouring properties would be fully accessed.

            iii.        In paragraph 7.15 of the report the Council’s Conservation stated that the proposed development would have a mid to low level of less than substantial harm to the listed buildings, and a low level of less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area.

           iv.        It was confirmed that the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer had no objections to the noise generated from the site.

            v.        The Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer was consulted on the application and had raised no objections to the application and had suggested conditions to address any concerns raised.

           vi.        Kent County Council Highways had been consulted and were satisfied that the access point was safe and offered no objections to this development.

          vii.        Pedestrian safety was also considered and a footpath outside the primary school along Common Road which would connect the site to services in Sissinghurst.

         viii.        Full comments from Kent County Council Education were noted in paragraph 7.17 of the agenda report and it was they did not anticipate the need for additional land for school expansion.

           ix.        It was confirmed that 40 percent affordable housing would be secured by a legal agreement which would result in eight affordable properties on the site for a scheme of 18 properties.

            x.        It was considered that eighteen units was an acceptable density for the location.

           xi.        Members were reminded that the layout of the development was indicative and not fixed, features such as the scale of the properties and landscaping would be addressed at reserved matters stage.

          xii.        It was not considered that this development would contribute or worsen any issues on Common Road that currently existed.

         xiii.        Condition 10 required the inclusion of a 1.8 meter wide footway which would connect the access point of the site to the footway which currently existed on Common  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA70/20

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA71/20 Land West Of Sychem Place Five Oak Green Tonbridge Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr Richard Hazelgrove, Principal 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)

Public Supporter

·         Mr Martin Hull, Planning Consultant at KLW Planning, on behalf of the applicant.

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Members raised a number of questions and officers confirmed the following:

              i.        Paragraphs 10.42 to 10.62 of the report addressed the impact on the Green Belt.

             ii.        It was considered by Officers that the open part of the site was not previously developed land.

            iii.        The equestrian development would be removed.

Committee Member Debate – Members of the Committee took account of the presentations made and raised a number of questions and issues within their discussions. These included:

              i.        It was noted that Members were familiar with the site.

             ii.        Members were disappointed that there was no opportunity for social housing on the site.

            iii.        Concerns were raised about the affect on the Green Belt however it was felt that those concerns had been discussed in detail previously.

           iv.        It was felt that there was no gain to be had by a refusal.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA71/20 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 meeting to be held on Wednesday 9 December, at 10.30am.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled to take place on Wednesday 9 December 2020.