Minutes:
Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA165/21 Church Farm and Land Church Road Paddock Wood Tonbridge 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 condition updated as shown below:
Changes to conditions/financial contributions as follows:
· Condition 7 (Verification Report) amended to include specific reference to attenuation ponds:
“No building on any phase (or within an agreed implementation schedule) of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a Verification Report, pertaining to the surface water drainage system, including the attenuation ponds, and prepared by a suitably competent person, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Report shall demonstrate that the drainage system constructed is consistent with that which was approved. The Report shall contain information and evidence (including photographs) of details and locations of inlets, outlets and control structures; landscape plans; full as built drawings; information pertinent to the installation of those items identified on the critical drainage assets drawing; and, the submission of an operation and maintenance manual for the sustainable drainage scheme as constructed. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that flood risks from development to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those risks to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development as constructed is compliant with and subsequently maintained pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”
An additional condition 33 for at least 3 homes (5%) to be M4(3) compliant
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.
The Primary Land figure was updated at committee, and is now £81,043.20 not £202,622 as stated in the committee report.
Registered Speakers – There were 2 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)
Objectors:
· Mr Andy Mackie, on behalf of Paddock Wood Town Council.
Supporters:
· Mr Patrick Reedman, on behalf of the applicant Countryside Properties.
Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers –
i. Members questioned drainage in great detail throughout the meeting. Officers advised that the matter had been investigated extensively by the Environment Agency, the Kent County Council Flood team and the Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board and all were satisfied that the surface water solutions on site ensured there was no increased flood risk to current surrounding residents or to future residents of the site.
ii. It was confirmed that the change in the amount for the school contributions was a request from Kent County Council and was a correction to the original calculation not a reduction in the need.
iii. With regard to highways issues that included Warrington Road and surrounding roads, highway modelling had been undertaken and it was advised that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways were satisfied that no other highway works were required as part of 60 units and highway improvements secured under the hybrid application were sufficient to accommodate additional traffic.
iv. It was advised that the developable area remained the same and the additional housing was no closer to the sewage farm and Southern Water were satisfied with that.
v. The letter from the Drainage Board summed up that the attenuation ponds were managed by the Management Company and the culverts under the railway line were managed by Network Rail.
vi. Paddock Wood Town Council (PWTC) were consulted as a statutory consultee on the application. Issues raised were explored and it was explained as best as possible to PWTC the reasons behind why the application was acceptable when specialist consultees had raised no objections.
vii. Condition 5 in the report required the provision and implementation of a timetable of drainage works and required any upgrade to be undertaken prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
viii. Sequential modelling was technical information gained from the expertise of the Environment Agency and KCC Flood and Water.
ix. Officers advised that based on the 60 dwellings Members were considering, KCC Highways considered that any further developments over and above what had already been approved under Section (S) 106 funds for the 300 dwellings already approved in 2018 were not justified.
x. Officers advised that traffic calming was not justified. Calming measures may be considered in future master planning for the Paddock Wood area.
xi. Paragraph 7.94 and Condition 14 in the report outlined the details related to EV charging points.
xii. Officers confirmed issues related to ditch clearance was an ongoing conversation between TWBC, the developer, Network Rail and Drainage Board.
xiii. Members queried whether is was possible to strengthen the wording of Condition 7 to specifically reference the attenuation pond, Officers advised although already covered within the current condition this was possible.
xiv. Officers confirmed that standard of building regulations M4(2), M4(3) was looked into as part of S106 process with the registered social landlord and the TWBC Housing team and if Members were minded they could request a condition to secure that.
Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers –
i. Members acknowledged local concerns raised related to overdevelopment in Paddock Wood.
ii. The implications of appeal were considered.
iii. Members advised they felt comfort that the master planning process going forward would fund infrastructure and address highways issues mentioned throughout discussions.
iv. Members spoke again about Surface water and foul water issues and confirmed that they were satisfied at the level of seriousness the issue was dealt with by all agencies. Members advised local residents that conditions 5, 6 and 7 of the recommendation offered them protection and placed an incentive on the developer to get issues solved.
v. Members were pleased that the developer had embraced the idea of 40% affordable housing, of which 60% was social rent.
vi. The lack of innovative design was mentioned.
vii. Members expressed disappointment that EV charging points were not at every property and suggested this was a disadvantage to some residents in affordable housing.
viii. Members proposed an additional condition which stated at least 3 homes, 5% or more to be at a M4(3) standard, and of that number at least least one of the M4(3) homes be in a property for social rent.
ix. Members proposed to amend the wording of condition 7 (Verification Report) to include a specific reference to the attenuation ponds.
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 Bland, seconded by Councillor Fitzsimmons and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.
RESOLVED – That application PLA165/21 be granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.
Supporting documents: