Agenda item

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA21/01389/FULL, 131-133 St John’s Road, 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 two speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

-       Mrs Claire Godley and Mr Chris Godley (Applicants)

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

-       Permission granted for a new dwelling at the end of Southfield Road was for a different type of development in a different road and complied with the relevant planning policies.

-       The street scene on the applicant’s side of the road had remained unchanged since 2017.  Inspectors had given great weight to this in the past rather than to developments to the north, south and west of this location.

-       Henrietta Court was a development of 6 dwellings (paragraph 10.11 refers).  Inspectors took this development into consideration as part of the 2020 appeal (Appendix 2).

-       Highway safety harm was not a factor in the appeals of 2017 and 2020, both were dismissed on the visual impact of the development on the street scene.  Paragraph 10.31 stated that if the highway safety reason fell away, officers would still recommend refusal on visual impact grounds. 

-       Works on the front garden were still allowed under permitted development but this would not include vehicular access which would always require planning permission. 

-       Permission to grant the installation of turntables elsewhere was not a precedent.  Parking related convenience matters (as opposed to highway safety concerns) were not a material consideration and therefore did not carry significant weight in the decision making process.

-       The issue of reversing into the street was not a matter in the 2017 or 2020 appeals.  It was only a consideration for this application because the route shown was considered by Kent CC to be insufficiently wide and therefore hazardous.

-       An Inspector’s decision at appeal carried great weight, particularly when it related to similar development on this site and one a few doors away with the same characteristics.

-       Permission from Kent CC would be required in order to drop the kerb and cross the pavement.

-       The decision by Kent CC to grant permissions for the dropped kerb would be made entirely on their own merit.  That said, they would no doubt take into consideration any other related decisions made by other authorities. 

-       Further consents from other bodies (Kent CC, Environment Agency, Building Regulations etc.) were common practice.  This separate Kent CC requirement for a dropped kerb should have no bearing on the decision making process for this application.

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

-       The character of the area was of major concern.  To change the character would upset the rhythm and balance of what was a traditional style of St John’s Road.

-       There was a danger that granting this application would set a precedent.

-       It was confirmed that there was no precedent in planning terms. Each application was assessed on its own merits.  However, if the road and character of a particular site were similar, it was likely the outcome of any decision would be similar. 

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 Dr Hall, seconded by Councillor Patterson and a vote was taken to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED – That application 21/01389/FULL. 131-133 St John’s Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells be refused in line with the officer recommendation.