Agenda item

Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA50/22 Bracken Corner, 40 Bracken Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr James Moysey Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.

Updates and additional representation – Since publication of the report two conditions were added:

·        Condition – Prior to the hereby approved development commencing, a scheme for biodiversity mitigation and enhancement, which seeks to provide an overall net gain for biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It shall be implemented in accordance with the approved proposals within it and shall be carried out in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure the protection and necessary mitigation of protected species and to seek biodiversity net gain.

And

·        Condition – Priorto any above ground works taking place details of landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The landscape scheme shall specifically provide additional tree planting within the site.

Reason: These details are required prior to the commencement of development as no such details have been submitted and to ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development.

Registered Speakers – There were 2 speakers that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)

Supporters:

·        Mr Simon McKay, Director SJM Planning

Borough Councillor not on the Planning Committee:

·        Councillor David Hayward, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Pembury Parish Council.

Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers included:

                 i.          It was stated that Officers had assessed the application on it’s planning merits and Members were reminded that the application was not retrospective and correct procedures had been applied.

                ii.          It was confirmed that the size difference was set out in the table within the report and the application was considered to be acceptable in terms of its visual impact and impact on the AONB and that included correspondence with the Council’s Landscape Officer.

               iii.          Paragraph 10.04 in the report addressed the issue raised related to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

                 i.          The developers commitment to speak to the applicant about enforcement issues was welcomed.

                ii.          Condition 6 in the report addressed the issue related to the usage of the building which was for agricultural or equestrian purposes only.

               iii.          The scale of the application was questioned.

              iv.          It was commented that this application had to be looked at strictly on Planning law.

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

Councillor Le Page requested that his abstention from voting be noted.

RESOLVED – That application PLA50/22 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report and the additional conditions noted above.