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 Britcher-Allen and Pope.

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.

No declarations of lobbying were made.

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

Members had not undertaken any site visits.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 28 April 202 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 PLA8/22 Land Adjacent And 15 - 16 Eridge Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Ms Jennifer Begeman 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:

Corrections:

·         Page 59, Paragraph 10.58 – The date of the Site Investigation Report is 26 November 2021.

·         Page 66, Paragraph 11.0 – The fourth line of Recommendation (A), the date is 31 July 2022.

·         Page 72, Condition 13 – The fifth bullet point - delete “(1 condition for each block to aid discharge?)”

Reword conditions to read:

·         15) Electric vehicle charging points

Prior to commencement of development, details of electric vehicle charging points to be provided within the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be installed prior to the occupation of any unit. The  development shall be built in accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of sustainable development.

·         18) Measures to reduce noise pollution

This condition should be  “Prior to occupation” not “Prior to commencement”

·         20) Hard and soft landscaping

Last sentence should state 5 years not 10 years “within a period of five years”

New planning condition 30 to read:

·         30) Disabled access apartments

“That prior to commencement, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to show at least 1 apartment to be built to M4(2) standard, and at least one apartment to be built to M4(3) standard. The development shall be built in accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: This information is required in order to ensure good quality design, and to ensure a satisfactory standard of development, which meets the needs of current and future generations.”

Registered Speakers – There was 1 speaker that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Supporter:

Mr Matthew Jeal, on behalf of the applicant.

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

              i.        Officers advised that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways had accepted the view of the Planning Services related to the bus stop improvements and after discussions were supportive of the scheme as a whole.

             ii.        It was confirmed that the issues related to the car parking rear of Neville Terrace was a civil matter.

            iii.        It was advised that the petrol station was outside the control of the applicant, page 37 of the report highlighted KCC highways final comments on the report.

           iv.        It was confirmed that there were 44 parking spaces in total, 2 for the semis (one each), and 42 for the 40 apartments.

             v.        Paragraph 10.63 of report stated that the eight parking spaces used by Nevill Terrace residents will be retained and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA8/22

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA9/22 Sunhill Place, High Street, Pembury, Tunbridge Wells ,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 were 3 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Objectors:

·         Mr Paul Roberts

·         Ms Anna Murphy

Supporters:

·         Mr Gerry Phoenix

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

              i.        Officers stated that there was no way the application would be recommended for approval if there was a risk of significant overlooking from the windows in the flank of the extension and this was addressed in condition 9 in the report.

             ii.        Kent County Council (KCC) had different parking standards for one and two bedroom flats as opposed to one and two bedroom dwellings that were applied across the county.

            iii.        Officers acknowledged that the development may result in a loss of sunlight however that would not be significant to be contrary to Policy EN1 and justify a refusal.

            iv.        Officers advised there was no policy requirement for a sunlight report by a consultant to be submitted based on the scale of the development, the potential loss of light was addressed in the report.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

              i.        It was felt that the building did look run down and the application would have a positive impact.

             ii.        Paragraph 10.08 referred to the 2018 Housing Needs Survey and it was stated that a more up to date survey would have been preferred.

            iii.        Some Members were not convinced about the potential public benefit of the development.

            iv.        It was suggested that the application did not fulfil the parking requirements, this was addressed and it was advised that the conditions offered more control for the requirements to be retained.

             v.        The issue about loss of light was acknowledged as a concern however it was understood that a refusal based on this would not stand at appeal.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA9/22 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 PLA10/22 26 And 28 Cambridge Street, Royal Tunbridge Wells, 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 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 included:

              i.        It was confirmed the ridge height of the application had increased by 1.6 metres which was comparable to similar applications noted in paragraph 10.03 on page 103 of the report.

             ii.        It was confirmed that as the reasons for refusal given in February which related solely to the design and impact on the character and appearance to the conservation area had been met, the Conservation Officer was satisfied with the application.

            iii.        It was confirmed that the Local Planning Authority enforced conditions.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

              i.        It was commented that a Member felt the design was unappealing.

             ii.        Concerns were raised about the impact on privacy on nearby residents.

            iii.        It was confirmed that the Conservation Officer was satisfied with the drop in the height of the roof, and they had not cited any refusal reasons based on appearance or impact to the streetscene.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA10/22 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 PLA11/22 Town Hall and Assembly Hall, Mount Pleasant Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, 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 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 this was an application to certify that the works carried out did not require listed building consent and not actually an application for listed building consent.

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 felt that the works had prolonged the life of single glazed windows when they could be upgraded to double or triple glazed to help be carbon zero by 2030.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA11/22 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 PLA12/22 Calverley Grounds, Mount Pleasant Avenue, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Richard Hazelgrove Principal 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 the rink was slightly greater in size and it was orientated differently.

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

              i.        Concerns were raised about traffic footfall in the Santa Cabin and whether the pathway was wide enough.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA12/22 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 10 August 2022.

The next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 10 August 2022.