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 Atwood, Hamilton and Patterson.

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 Backhouse, Bailey, Bland, Fitzsimmons, Funnell, Poile, Pope, Pound and Warne advised that they had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA140/21 3 Queens Gardens, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Councillor Bland advised that they had been lobbied by supporters on application PLA138/21 Land at Four Acres, Cranbrook Road, Frittenden, Cranbrook, Kent.

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

Members undertook a virtual site visit for application PLA138/21 Land at Four Acres, Cranbrook Road, Frittenden, Cranbrook, Kent.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 2 February 2022 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 PLA138/21 Land At Four Acres Cranbrook Road Frittenden Cranbrook Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Ms Marie Bolton Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation –

·         Amendment to condition 2: To include revisions to the plans and Tree report as set out below;

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

-     P100 Floor plans Plots 1 & 2

-     P101 Elevations Plots 1, 2, 3 & 4 

-     P102 Floor plans Plots 3 & 4

-     P105 Floor plans Plot 5

-     P106 Floor plan Plot 6

-     P106 Elevations Plot 5

-     P107 Elevations Plot 6 Rev B

-     P108 Floor plans Plot 7

-     P109 Elevations Plot 7 Rev B

-     P110 Floor plans Plot 8

-     P111 Elevations Plot 8 1 of 2 Rev B

-     P112 Plot 8 2 of 2 Rev B

-     P113 Floor plans Plot 9

-     P114 Elevations Plot 9 Rev B

-     P115 Floor plans Plots 10 & 11

-     P116 Elevations Plots 10 & 11

-     P117 Floor plans Plots 12 & 13

-     P118 Elevations Plots 12 & 13

-     P119 Floor plans Plots 14 & 15

-     P120 Elevations Plots 14 & 15

-     P121 Floor plans Plots 16 & 17

-     P122 Elevations Plots 16 & 17

-     P123 Floor plans Plots 18,19 & 20

-     P124 Elevations Plots 18, 19 & 20

-     P125 Floor plans Plots 21, 22 & 23

-     P126 Elevations Plots 21, 22 & 23

-     P200 Rev B Plot 1 & 2 10 & 11 Garage

-     P201 Plots 3 & 4 Garage

-     P202 Plot 5 Garage

-     P203 Plot 6 Garage

-     P204 Plots 7 & 9 Garage

-     P205 Rev B Plots 12 & 13 Garage

-     P206 Rev B Plot 14 & 15 Garage

-     P207 Plots 18-20 & 21-23 Carports

-     P07 Proposed block plan

-     Landscape plan P03 Rev D

-     Sections A-A & B-B

-     Parking and Refuse Strategy P05 Rev C

-     Tree report April 2021 

Reason: To clarify which plans have been approved.

·         Re-numbering of conditions 16- 23 as condition 16 was not numbered.

·         Drainage conditions to be updated following receipt of updated comments.  (Note only change is to include a line to implement in accordance with the approved details).

Registered Speakers – There were 3 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Supporters:

·         Mr Russell Jarvis, the Applicant.

Parish/Town Council Representative:

·         Mr Anthony Staples, Chairman of Frittenden Parish Council

Borough Councillor not on the Committee:

·         Councillor Fairweather, Frittenden & Sissinghurst

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

              i.        Kent County Council (KCC) Lead Flood comments had been received and no objections were raised. If Members were minded to approve, conditions were recommended regarding securing detailed sustainable surface water drainage. It was of note that the wording was  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA138/21

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA139/21 Telecommunications Mast between Harland Way and Birchwood Avenue, Southborough and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr James Moysey Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were 3 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Objectors:

·         Mr Alex Hatcher, local resident.

Supporters:

·         Ms Katy Jessop, on behalf of the applicant.

Borough Councillors not on the Planning Committee:

·         Councillor Joe Simmons, Southborough North

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

              i.        Officers acknowledged that there would be harm to the surrounding heritage assets and that the proposal would appear visually more prominent, however, given the improved network coverage and capacity along with the introduction of 5G in the area, the public benefits would out way the harm.

             ii.        It was considered that the mast would appear in context along a busy road with other street furniture.

            iii.        Officers considered that the use of an existing site rather than a new site was preferable and this was supported in paragraphs 114 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

           iv.        The Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) Environmental Protection Team raised no objections, and the relevant certificates in line with the European Union and UK guidelines were provided therefore TWBC were satisfied from a health and safety perspective.

             v.        Officers stated that their recommendation was based on the current application and not the possibility of alternative technology options.

           vi.        The position of the mast and the range of coverage was discussed and illustrated by visual aids.

          vii.        It was understood that to introduce 5G technology the mast needed to be at the proposed height so that it would be higher than surrounding street furniture and trees.

         viii.        It was advised that there were no air conditioning units proposed and in the interest of residential amenity Condition 7 related to rated level of noise.

           ix.        Officers confirmed they were not aware of any 5G masts of the proposed height on A roads.

             x.        Officers referred Members to page 69 of the report paragraph 7.02 which related to radiofrequency public exposure limits.

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.        The height of the mast was considered an issue.

             ii.        Members were referred to paragraph 118 of the NPPF which outlined the guidelines that could be considered under planning grounds only related to the proposed mast.

            iii.        Officers suggested that the previous appeal decision was something to bare in mind, where it was considered that there would be negligible harm to the conservation area, however the public benefits would out way the harm.

           iv.        It was felt that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA139/21

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA140/21 3 Queens Gardens, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Jennifer Begeman Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were 3 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Objectors:

·         Ms Anika Daughton

Supporters:

·         Mr David Bedford on behalf of the applicant

Borough Councillors not on the Committee:

·         Councillor Peter Lidstone

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers included:

              i.        It was confirmed that paragraph 10.24 was a typo and should be removed from the report.

             ii.        It was clarified that in the appeal the inspector dismissed the first application due to the detail, design and scale of the proposal rather than the intensification of the plot.

            iii.        It was advised that the scale of the proposed dwelling was slightly smaller than the previous proposal.

           iv.        Paragraph 7.02 of the report addressed the requirement of emergency access under building control regulations.

             v.        Officers considered there was satisfactory distance between the proposed dwelling and number 2.

Committee Member Debate included:

              i.        It was felt that the application was much improved from the previous proposal and officers were commended for the communication with the owners of the proposed dwelling.

             ii.        It was considered that the impact of a development on the proposed site on house number 4 was not significant.

            iii.        The line of the new development in relation to houses 1 and 2 was considered to be appropriate.  

           iv.        Members acknowledged the officers comments that related to the inspector who did not reject the application on principle but on the scale of the proposal.

             v.        Officers acknowledged the sustainability of the site.

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 Bland and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application PLA140/21 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 PLA141/21 237 Upper Grosvenor Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Michael 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 – Members raised a number of questions and officers confirmed the following:

              i.        It was confirmed that as the materials had changed the application did not go through under permitted development.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA141/21 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 6 April 2022.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 4 April 2022.