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 Councillor Mrs Thomas. Councillor Backhouse was not present.

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

Councillor Warne declared that she had fettered her discretion on application PLA106/20 Land adjacent to Turnden, Hartley Road, Cranbrook.  Councillor Warne made a statement related to this application and withdrew from the meeting while it was discussed.

Councillor Warne also stated that on application PLA/107/20 Land at Brick Kiln Farm, High Street, Cranbrook, the site already benefited from outline planning permission and this application related to the  approval of the reserved matters.  Although Councillor Warne had some prior knowledge of the case, as she had met with the applicant on a number of occasions in her role as Chairman of the Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group, before the reserved matters application was submitted, she was able to confirm that she had not yet made up my mind. Councillor Warne confirmed that she was considering the application with an open mind and therefore had not predetermined her decision.

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 Atwood, Cobbold, Funnell, Dr Hall, Hamilton, Poile, Pound, Warne, Bland and Noakes had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA106/20 Land Adjacent To Turnden Hartley Road Cranbrook Kent.

Councillors Hamilton, Poile, Pound, Warne, and Noakes had been lobbied by supporters on application PLA106/20 Land Adjacent To Turnden Hartley Road Cranbrook Kent.

Councillors Pound and Noakes had been lobbied by objectors on application PLA107/20 Land At Brick Kiln Farm High Street Cranbrook Kent.

Councillors Pound and Noakes had been lobbied by supporters on application Land At Brick Kiln Farm High Street Cranbrook Kent.

Councillors Atwood, Mrs Cobbold, Funnell, Hamilton, Poile, Pound, Warne and Noakes declared that they had received a bird box and/or mug from lobbiers.

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

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

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 PLA106/20 OS Land Adjacent To Turnden Hartley Road Cranbrook 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 – Since publication of the agenda report, the presenting officer updated as follows:

Additional representations:

·         One additional local representation raised matters of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) impact, ecology, pre-submission consultation by the applicants and highway safety matters

·         An additional representation had been received from the Parish Council in which it raised objection to the level of pre-submission consultation from the applicants.

·         One additional representation had been received from Campaign Protection Rural England (CRPE) and highlighted issues which related to the assessment of alternative sites. The issue of alternatives was stated by officers to be correctly addressed in the report.

The CPRE representation also mistakenly stated the Limits to Built Development (LBD) was not adjacent to the site when it was: its current extent includes Brick Kiln Farm and was set by the Site Allocations Local Plan 2016.  The need for this extent of affordable housing was also questioned by the CPRE, however the officers advised the purpose of affordable housing was to provide low cost housing for the future, not just satisfy current demand. Further, the shortage of affordable housing was borough-wide and affordable housing was not intended to simply satisfy local demand. Other matters related to air quality and highways were raised.

AONB Unit

A letter had been received from the High Weald AONB Unit to which Officers had responded, points included:

·         The letter quoted selectively from the report to Planning Committee and did not reflect the overall detailed appraisal of the application (which amounted to some 43 pages), or the impact on the AONB in particular (at least 17 pages).

·         Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s (TWBC) approach to assess major development in the AONB in delegated and committee reports was tried and tested – both the Planning Inspectorate and the High Court had not raised concerns or issues with this approach.  The High Weald AONB Unit, when previously disagreeing with TWBC’s decisions, had not previously offered such a criticism of the approach taken to the consideration of AONB matters in committee or delegated reports;

·         As was well established, including through case law, planning officers’ reports to committee were written for councillors experienced in AONB matters who already had local knowledge and who had had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the plans and documents prior to the meeting. Members were also very familiar with the importance of the AONB as a development constraint and of the importance of having regards to its purposes.

·         The AONB Unit disagreed with the conclusions of the Officer report however there was no evidence of a failure to properly fulfil the duty to ‘have regard’ for the purposes of AONB designation. Whilst not down playing the importance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA106/20

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA107/20 OS Land At Brick Kiln Farm High Street Cranbrook Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mrs Marie Bolton Principal 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 Liz Daley, member of the public.

·         Ms Philippa Gill, member of the public.

·         Mr John Wotton, member of the public.

Public Supporters

·         Judith Ashton, Judith Ashton Associates.

Parish Council Representative

·         Councillor Kim Fletcher, Chairman of Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council.

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 the Crane Valley ran to the east of the site and on the lower ground was the stream corridor that ran from south west to the north east.

             ii.        The idea was to protect the Crane Valley from development by making sure the ancient woodland was protected.

            iii.        It was confirmed that majority of this development was more than 15 metres from the ancient woodland edge.

           iv.        Officers worked for a considerable length of time with the applicant to ensure that the design was not a standard Persimmon scheme but one of high quality.

            v.        A number of conditions were attached to the outline which included the implementation of a travel plan and EV charging points as well as other methods which sought to improve air quality.

           vi.        Energy was subject to a condition which the Council’s Environmental Planning officer agreed with in principal.

          vii.        Flood alleviation was addressed by conditions 30, 31 and 32 with a final element to be clarified related to the pipe leading to the Crane Brook, this was discussed in detail.

         viii.        Outline consent was granted in March 2020 and it was requested that the reserved matters came back to Planning Committee.

           ix.        The remainder of the 2016 allocation site was where the pedestrian links would go through.

            x.        It was confirmed that the application had outline consent with 41 conditions which included energy conservation which still had to be discharged.

           xi.        Ongoing discussions had been had with the applicant related to green space, design changes , approach to restoration of features and details of the LEMP and officers were satisfied with the outcome of those conservation, landscape and AONB issues.

          xii.        Officers were satisfied and supportive of the design access statement and the way the design was developed.

         xiii.        Concerns raised about the attenuation basin were addressed.

         xiv.        Concerns raised related to the ancient woodland and the management along the Crane Valley were addressed.

          xv.        It was confirmed that the new residents would pay a maintenance fee for the management of the green space.

         xvi.        Semi mature trees would be sought to replace the tree (T24) that was  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA107/20

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 3 February 2021.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 3 February 2021.