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 Mrs Cobbold and Mrs Thomas.

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

Councillor Pound declared that the applicant for application 21/00229/FULL Bonds, Bullingstone Lane, Speldhurst was known to him as a former client some 10 years prior. This was not a prejudicial interest.

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 Poile had been lobbied by the applicant on application 20/03810/FULL Le Bergerie, Churn Lane, Horsmonden.

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

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

Members reviewed the minutes. The following matters were discussed:

·         In respect of minute PLA134/20 committee members had not been aware before the meeting that the developer had intended to not include any social homes in the scheme therefore the final bullet point in the debate was inaccurate.

·         Generally, where officer comments were included in the debate the sub-headings in the minutes gave the impression that these may be member comments and a distinction should be drawn.

·         Comments from members of the public were no longer recorded within the minutes.

RESOLVED –

1.    That minute PLA134/20 be amended to remove the last bullet point which read “It was acknowledged that it was known before the meeting that the developer was not going to include any social homes” and replace with “It was acknowledged that officers had known before the meeting that the developer was not going to include any social homes”;

2.    That PLA133/20 and PLA134/20 be amended to remove the sub-heading “Committee Member Debate” and replace with “Committee Debate and Officer Responses”; and

3.    That, subject to the above amendments, the minutes of the meeting dated 3 March 2021 be approved as a correct record.

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 20/03810/FULL Le Bergerie, Churn Lane, Horsmonden and this was summarised by Lisa Williams, Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

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

Applicant

·         Mr March, member of the public.

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

·         Whilst the council empathises with the applicant’s personal circumstances, little weight could be applied to these in respect of policy.

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

·         The application failed to meet a number of criteria. It was an unsustainable location and the existing building would be unlikely to be granted permission under current policy.

·         The extension to the building was not disproportionate and allowed it to remain in viable use. Such buildings were necessary if rural communities were to flourish. The original dwelling was considerably small in the first instance, the extension was of a lesser height than the existing structure and discretion may be applied to policy to those living in rural areas and working in agricultural roles.

·         There should potentially be agricultural status applied to the property in order to both discourage further unauthorised development in agricultural areas and to also support this application in respect of individual need.

·         Agricultural use had not been part of the justification for the application therefore it would not be appropriate for an agricultural occupancy condition to be applied to this holding.

·         Whilst there was sympathy for the type of dwelling required, being that it is on agricultural land, this particular application was too large. A more modest size might be acceptable.

·         It was noted that there had been an application for an agricultural worker’s bungalow on the same land in 1974 and from the officer’s comments this building seemed to date back to the 1970’s, therefore there was a concern that this building had been built despite permission being refused.

·         Though the committee were sympathetic to the personal circumstances of the homeowner, the application failed on material planning considerations.

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 Dr Hall, seconded by Councillor Backhouse, and a vote was taken.

RESOLVED - That application 20/03810/FULL Le Bergerie, Churn Lane, Horsmonden be refused in line with the recommendations of the officer.

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 21/00229/FULL Bonds, Bullingstone Lane, Speldhurst and this was summarised at the meeting by Hayley Starkey, Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were no registered speakers.

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

·         Excavated material would be laid across the existing lawn area to meet and match the patio height and would be contained by an additional course in the existing retaining wall. The drawings and calculations provided evidence that this was possible.

·         The level of the lawn would be raised by approximately 400mm.

·         The only difference between an exercise pool and a swimming pool was that an exercise pool was generally smaller.

·         The pool was 7 metres from the dwelling and 70 metres from the nearest neighbouring property.

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

·         Bullingstone Lane was discretely located and it would be difficult to see the property from the lane and it was therefore unlikely that an exercise pool at the property would have any impact on the area or any neighbouring properties.

·         The development met all the relevant requirements.

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 Pound, seconded by Councillor Warne, and a vote was taken.

RESOLVED – That application 21/00229/FULL Bonds, Bullingstone Lane, Speldhurst be approved 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 0031/2020/TPO Moat Farm, St Marks Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells and this was summarised at the meeting by Jeff Mashburn, Tree Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – Due to the unusual circumstances in this case, legal advice had been sought. Whilst the Council was sympathetic to the frustrations and dissatisfaction expressed by Mr and Mrs Holmes in the TPO process, the recommendations set out in the report remained the same.

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

Public objector

·         Mrs Holmes, member of the public.

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

·         The public amenity value of the tree at 21 Moat Farm was subjective but it was not agreed that it had no such value. In terms of the tree’s bearing on nearby houses, the tree was growing but had not grown significantly in the time that the houses had been built and the Council was not aware of any complaints before the current owners.

·         The context in which the appropriateness of a TPO could change might involve the addition of buildings, new trees had grown to the extent that old trees no longer proportionately contributed to the amenity of the landscape or if the condition of a particular tree no longer merited a TPO or needed to be removed on safety grounds. None of these applied in this case.

·         No representations nor any informal comments from neighbours, either for or against the TPO, had been received therefore there was no evidence to support comments that the neighbours consider the tree to be too large and of no amenity value.

·         It was demonstrated via the photographic evidence that the crown of the tree had been removed in previous works which could cause decay and this was therefore discouraged under current practice. Other severe pruning has been carried out in the past which could also cause stress, but this particular tree had responded well to historic pruning and no evidence of growth disfunction could be observed.

·         If the Council were advising on a tree like this presently it would encourage less harsh pruning, however the works that were carried out had been fortuitous for the property owners as it had limited the overall growth.

·         It was estimated that the tree was over 100 years old.

·         Based on assessments it was expected that the tree would continue to have a slow growth rate.

·         Under any existing TPO pruning would be permitted if carried out in accordance with guidance given.

·         It was regrettable that Mr and Mrs Holmes were misinformed about the status of the tree but it was reasonable that the Tree Officer relied upon the public map. TPO information had subsequently been corrected and this did not detract  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA148/20

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 to be held on Wednesday 14 April 2021.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 14 April 2021.