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.

At this time Councillors Pound and Warne both read statements which expressed their displeasure that they felt obliged to attend the Planning Committee in person and that it wasn’t held remotely which may have risked the health and safety of Members, Officers and their families.

Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Bland, Mrs Cobbold, Hamilton, Podbury, Poile, and Mrs Thomas.

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 Noakes, Atwood, Backhouse, Pound and Warne declared that they had been lobbied by objectors on minute item PLA146/19 – 2 Belgrave, Woodbury Road, Hawkhurst, Cranbrook.

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

There were no site inspections.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 5 February 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 PLA146/19 and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr Moysey, Senior Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were 5 speakers registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee procedure rules). Their statements were read by Ms Charlotte Oben, Senior Planning Officer with no connection to the applications:

Public objectors

·         Ms Susan Elliott, a neighbour

·         Ms Jane Pyne, a neighbour

·         Mr David Lyddiatt, (joint statement with Ms Lynne Naylor), both neighbours

Public supporters

·         Mr Paul Nicholls from Graham Simpkin Planning on behalf of the applicants

Borough or ward members (not Committee members)

·         Ms Clare Escombe on behalf of Hawkhurst Parish Council also objected

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Following comments and questions raised Members; officers confirmed the following:

              i.        That within the Hawkhurst Neighbourhood Plan which was developed since the 2016 application, point 2 of HD 4 states careful and innovation in design or thoughtful modern or contemporary architecture is not precluded by it’s policy and such designs are encouraged.

             ii.        Parking was compliant with Highway safety parking standards and it was deemed that the design would not result in any loss of on street parking.

            iii.        That the property was in a sustainable area within the Limits to Built Development (LBD) of Hawkhurst and was within walking distance to services and public transport links.

           iv.        That concerns raised related to slippage were acknowledged however as the property was single story it was unlikely the foundations would be dug too deep into the ground.

            v.        The property would largely be screened by the two proposed dwellings in front and it was not considered that it would break up the pattern of development.

           vi.        Concerns regarding loss of privacy were acknowledged however it was considered that the building would not have significant views by virtue of it’s height, roof position and upward angle in relation to neighbouring properties bedrooms.

          vii.        KCC Flood and Water Management were ultimately satisfied with the development and condition 8 required that the driveway and parking area are surfaced and drained in accordance with the details that were submitted.

Committee Member Discussion – Members proceeded to discuss the application and the principal issues as follows:

              i.        Notwithstanding the welcoming of modern, innovative designs, concerns were raised on the site being too constraint leading to overdevelopment.

             ii.        Acknowledgement of the sustainability of site was noted.

            iii.        The guidelines in the Hawkhurst neighbourhood plan seemed to be contradictory.

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 to refuse the Officers recommendation which was not carried. A motion was proposed by Councillor Atwood, seconded by Councillor Backhouse and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the Officer recommendation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA146/19

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA147/19 and this was summarised at the meeting by Ms Oben Senior Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were 5 speakers registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee procedure rules). Their statements were read by Mr James Moysey, Senior Planning Officer with no connection to the applications:

Public objectors

·         Mr Alastair Pringle, a neighbour

·         Mr Jim Hyde, a neighbour

·         Mr Bill Martin, a neighbour

Public supporters

·         Ms Hannah Ronan from Parker Dann Chartered Town Planning Consultants on behalf of the applicants

Borough or ward members (not Committee members)

·         Councillor Tom Dawlings, Benenden & Cranbrook also objected

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Following comments and questions raised Members; officers confirmed the following:

              i.        That the land would be used for the keeping of livestock but the building would be used for storage of stock and machinery.

             ii.        There was no definition for agricultural storage however, in the Planning Act there is a definition for agriculture therefore should an enforcement investigation be necessary, this would be used for reference.

            iii.        Given that condition 4 relates to agricultural storage only and for no other purpose, Members were advised that could consider varying this condition to have the usage limited to that plot of land only.

           iv.        The Council’s Rural Planning Advisor was satisfied with the adjustments made by the applicant relating to the size of the building compared to the previous proposal.

            v.        Members were reminded that the use of the land is agricultural already and does not need planning permission, the purpose of the application was to look at the building and whether there was an justifiable agricultural need.

           vi.        The comments of the speakers were acknowledged and the second part of condition four which required the building to be removed should the enterprise not succeed within ten years.

          vii.        A condition has been included for the applicant to provide information regarding foul sewage.

         viii.        It is noted that the location of the building was set a higher level of land however it was set against the tree belt and this would provide some screening.

Committee Member Discussion – Members proceeded to discuss the application and the principal issues as follows:

              i.        Questions and discussion focused on need, location, design of the proposed development, the suggested wording of Condition 4 and how/whether the reasons for refusal of the previous application had been addressed in this application.

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 Backhouse, seconded by Councillor Pound and a vote was taken to approve the application subject to changes in condition four.

RESOLVED – That application 20/00039/FULL be granted subject to the plans, conditions as set out in the agenda report and revised  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA147/19

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA148/19 and this was summarised at the meeting by Miss Oben Senior Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There was 1 speaker registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee procedure rules). Their statement was read by Ms Charlotte Oben, Senior Planning Officer with no connection to the application:

Public supporters

·         Mr Alan Legg, Urban Designer Property & Estates Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Following comments and questions raised Members; officers confirmed the following:

              i.        Stripping Works already undertaken were agreed by the conservation officer in order to gauge the amount of works needed to be carried out.

Committee Member Discussion – There were no matters of significance raised.

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

RESOLVED – That application 20/00221/LBC be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report.

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA149/19 and this was summarised at the meeting by Miss Oben Senior Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – None.

Registered Speakers – There were no members of the public who had registered to speak in accordance with the Constitution rules.

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers – Following comments and questions raised Members; officers confirmed the following:

              i.        The windows being replaced or repaired will be single glazed which would be on a like for like basis which would exclude the need for listed building consent.

Committee Member Discussion – There were no matters of significance raised.

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

RESOLVED – That application 20/00114/LDLB be granted subject to the conditions 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.

RESOLVED – That there was no urgent business for consideration.

The next Planning Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday 13 May 2020, at 5pm.

The next Planning Committee meeting take place on Wednesday 13 May 2020, at 5pm.