Agenda item

Application for Consideration - 22/03018/FULL Brokeswood Lodge, The Ridgewaye, Southborough, Kent.


Planning Report and Presentation – The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application PLA129/22 Brokeswood Lodge, The Ridgewaye, Southborough, Kent and this was summarised at the meeting by Richard Hazelgrove Interim Development Management Team Leader and illustrated by means of a visual presentation.


Updates and additional representation – Since publication of the agenda report, Mr Hazelgrove updated:


·        Replacement condition 13:


Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (excluding demolition works), full details of surface water drainage systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.


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.


·        Replacement informative 4:


The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of Kent County Council’s Public Rights of Way Officer, specifically;


        No furniture, fence, barrier or other structure may be erected on or across Public Rights of Way without the express consent of the Highway Authority.

        There must be no disturbance of the surface of the Public Right of Way, or obstruction of its use, either during or following any approved development without the express consent of the Highway Authority.

        No hedging or shrubs should be planted within 1 metre of the edge of the Public Right of Way.

        Planning permission confers no consent or right to close or divert any Public Right of Way at any time without the express permission of the Highway Authority.

        No Traffic Regulation Orders will be granted by KCC for works that will permanently obstruct the route unless a diversion order has been made and confirmed. If the applicant needs to apply for a temporary traffic regulation order whilst works are undertaken, KCC would need six weeks notice to process this.


Registered Speakers – There was 1 speaker that registered in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Planning Committee Procedure Rules)



·        Samuel Bowman, Managing Director Beau Architecture.


Matters of clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ questions to Officers included:

                 i.          In terms of the buffer zone, 3 metres was considered appropriate as the site was already developed as a garden and was appropriate to the characteristics of the site as it was already in residential use.

                ii.          The use of the phrase “out of date” with regard to the Government and the National Planning Policy Framework which required local authorities to be able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing, was explained.

               iii.          Officers confirmed that Woodland Trust were not a statutory consultee however, they were consulted by the Local Planning Authority where development potentially had an impact on ancient woodland.

              iv.          Members observed that the call in of an application created work for people and suggested that the person who called in the application should attend the Committee.


Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:

                 i.          Members considered the development may be better with 2 dwellings on the site as it appeared squashed, this was addressed and Members were advised that they needed to consider the application before them.

                ii.          Concerns from Natural England mentioned in paragraph 7.07 of the report were acknowledged.

               iii.          Concerns were noted about traffic movements.

              iv.          Concerns about the sustainability of the site.

                v.          Architecture was considered modern and attractive and nodded to the buildings already there.


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


Councillor Moon voted to refuse the application against the officer recommendation.


RESOLVED – That application PLA129/22 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.

Supporting documents: