Agenda item

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA70/20 Land At Common Road Sissinghurst Cranbrook Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr James Moysey, Senior 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 Julia August, a local resident.

·         Mr Sebastian Fogg, a local resident.

·         Mr Philip Jakeman, a local resident.

Public Supporters

·         Mr James Waterhouse, Invicta Self Build on behalf of the applicant.

Parish Council Representative

·         Parish Councillor John Smith, Cranbrook & Sissinghurst spoke in objection to the application.

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 only the access and the immediate internal road was being considered at the meeting along with the principal of the development.

             ii.        The layout element of the development would be considered at a reserved matters stage, at that time the impact on amenities of neighbouring properties would be fully accessed.

            iii.        In paragraph 7.15 of the report the Council’s Conservation stated that the proposed development would have a mid to low level of less than substantial harm to the listed buildings, and a low level of less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area.

           iv.        It was confirmed that the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer had no objections to the noise generated from the site.

            v.        The Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Officer was consulted on the application and had raised no objections to the application and had suggested conditions to address any concerns raised.

           vi.        Kent County Council Highways had been consulted and were satisfied that the access point was safe and offered no objections to this development.

          vii.        Pedestrian safety was also considered and a footpath outside the primary school along Common Road which would connect the site to services in Sissinghurst.

         viii.        Full comments from Kent County Council Education were noted in paragraph 7.17 of the agenda report and it was they did not anticipate the need for additional land for school expansion.

           ix.        It was confirmed that 40 percent affordable housing would be secured by a legal agreement which would result in eight affordable properties on the site for a scheme of 18 properties.

            x.        It was considered that eighteen units was an acceptable density for the location.

           xi.        Members were reminded that the layout of the development was indicative and not fixed, features such as the scale of the properties and landscaping would be addressed at reserved matters stage.

          xii.        It was not considered that this development would contribute or worsen any issues on Common Road that currently existed.

         xiii.        Condition 10 required the inclusion of a 1.8 meter wide footway which would connect the access point of the site to the footway which currently existed on Common Road.

         xiv.        As part of the preparation of the draft local plan various assessments had been taken across the borough and based on those results it was not considered the value of the grass lands of the site was so high that no development or future use should be allowed.

          xv.        Officers confirmed that an informative could be added to secure cycle storage, welcome packs, broadband and electric vehicle charging where possible.

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.        Concerns were raised about the impact of the development on the character of Sissinghurst and it’s proximity to the conservation area.

             ii.        Concerns raised the speakers were acknowledged.

            iii.        Members welcomed the affordable housing at 40%.

           iv.        Members felt the reasons for refusal of the initial application had been acknowledged by the developer and addressed.

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

RESOLVED – That application PLA70/20 be granted subject to the completion of  a planning obligation agreement  and the plans, conditions and additional informatives as set out in the agenda report and shown below:

The following initiatives should be implemented part of any development to limit the use of cars and promote more sustainable travel options;

secure cycle storage can be provided for all dwellings;

information on cycle routes, public footpaths, and local bus and rail services will form part of any home buyer’s welcome pack;

broadband internet connections can facilitate home working; and

where possible, dwellings with garages should be equipped with domestic electrical sockets so as to facilitate the charging of electric vehicles.