Planning Committee - Wednesday 12 April 2023, 6:30pm - Start video at 2:46:20 - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting
Wednesday, 12th April 2023 at 6:30pm
Agenda item : Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 2 Apologies
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 3 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 4 Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6)
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 5 Site Inspections
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday 22 March 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/03024/FULL Lamberhurst Vineyard Furnace Lane Lamberhurst Tunbridge Wells Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 7 b) Application for Consideration - 22/03262/FULL Former John Lewis At Home Kingstanding Business Park Kingstanding Way Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/00503/TPO Breakstones Speldhurst Road Langton Green Tunbridge Wells Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 14 March 2023 to 31 March 2023
Agenda item : 9 Urgent Business
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 10 Date of Next Meeting
Share this agenda point
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
good evening and welcome to this evening's Planning Committee on the Wednesday, the 12th of April 2023, we're just going to pose the meeting briefly and to allow members of the public to enter the chamber and be seated, so if you can bear with us we pose the meeting for a few minutes.
welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, the 12th of April 2023.
I am Councillor Patel, Chair of this committee,
before we get onto the agenda items, please give your full attention, tension to the following announcements from the Clerk and Mrs. Moran.
thank you, Chair and good evening everybody.
in the event of the fire alarm ringing continuously, you must immediately evacuate the building at walking pace officers will escort to view the most direct available route, and no one is to use the lift.
we will make our way to the fire assembly point, which is by the entrance to the Town Hall Yard car park, on Munson, Way, once outside a check would be made to ensure everyone has safely left and no one is to re-enter the building until advised that it is safe to do so.
this is a public meeting and proceedings are being webcast live online.
a recording will also be available for playback on the council's website shortly afterwards.
can I remind everyone to use the microphones when speaking the red light indicates that the microphone is on and any comments that are not recorded for the webcast will not be included in the minutes of the meeting.
you should all be aware that any third party is able to record or film council meetings unless exempt or confidential information is being considered, the council will not accept liability for any third party recordings.
it is very important that the outcomes of the meeting are clear at the end of each TTIP standoff item, a vote will be taken by show of hands, Members should raise their hands to indicate their vote and keep their hands up until the count has been announced,
Members requesting a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken.
members of the public who have registered to speak at the meeting will be asked to come to the microphone at the appropriate time they will have three minutes to address the committee after which they may return to their original seat, thank you Chair.
for the benefit of the recording, we are now going to take a roll call.
thank you, Chair, or expected members here this evening, Councillor Attwood Bresnan, Councillor Baillie,
Councillor Bridger, Alan Preston Councillor Fitzsimons present Councillor Johnson present Councillor Les Page Britain, Councillor Moon, president Councillor Pattison prisons, Councillor White present, Councillor Neville Vice Chair, present Councillor Poyle chair prison
and expected officers here this evening, Peter Hockney,
prisons are less home
present, James noisy present Charlotte open present, Tracy Wagstaffe
and just for the benefit of the recording if Councillor LB cabinet member for housing and planning at the meeting this evening Chair, thank you.
I would like to remind everyone that this is a full meeting of the Planning Committee and there should be no disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour, including clapping or interruptions by members of the public at this evening's meeting.
if such conduct does occur, all call for it to cease
should behaviour which I consider unacceptable continue, I know, would weigh well consider suspending the meeting if the behaviour resumes when Brook business recommences, those responsible, be excluded, and of delete the council chamber.
members of the committee should be familiar with the process, but for the benefit of any members of the public who may be watching, I would like to explain a couple of things.
committee members come from wards across the borough and, although they may have local knowledge when they make planning decisions, they must consider each application in the context of the whole borough area.
committee members have had their genitals for over a week and fed the up to opportunity, study VS and to clarify any issues with planning officers,
so all of our members of the public might wonder why some Met matters are not discussed in more detail at the meeting, it may well be but Members have already asked these questions and obtained satisfactory answers.
when we come to the substantive items on the agenda this evening, the officer will first set out in the report.
when ask any speakers to address the committee before we then move into member discussion?
at the end of the debate, I will try to summarise the Committee's views, and members should ensure that any proposals or actions are correctly captured before a vote is taken.
ITEM 2 apologies for absence, Mrs. Marian, do we have any apologies for absence?
we've had apologies from Councillor Pope this evening, Chair.
3 Declarations of Interest
declarations of interest members of the committee should declare at this point if they have any declarations of pecuniary or significant other interest. or if they fitted the discretion and need to withdraw from the meeting, while the particular application is heard, does any member have a declaration to make Councillor Edwards,
yes, Chair care item number 3 is from a family member, so when that comes up I'll excuse myself and take no part in that process, thank you. Does any other Member have anything to declare at this point I see nobody else. Thank you
4 Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6)
declarations of lobbying members of the committee should declare at this point if they've been lobbied on any of the application
applications in today's agenda.
the club could ask each member in turn please, state and which applications you've been lobbied if any, and whether it is by objectors, supporters or both.
thank you, Chair, Councillor Attwood,
thank you are being lobbied against item number 1.
I've also been lobbied against item number 7 A.
I have been lobbied against item 1 on the agenda.
cancer, betrayal, and
yes, I have been lobbied against item
number one third lamppost.
thank you, Councillor Fitzsimmons,
I too been lobbied against the lamppost application,
Councillor Johnson, yes, me to the lamppost or against
thank you, Councillor Page
have been lobbied against
agenda item 7, A
thank you, Councillor Moon.
I've been lobbied on agenda 7, A from
parish councils, so Lam behest
against thank you, Councillor Pattison,
yes, I'll be lobbied against item 7.
Councillor White, Alan lobbied against item 1.
I have been lobbied against item 7, A
thank you, Councillor Boyle
is all being lobbied against and and for item 7 I
thank you Chair.
5 Site Inspections
item 5 site inspections, members did not carry out any site visits.
6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday 22 March 2023
ITEM 6, to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Windsor, the 22 of March 2023.
members are asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of a true record of the proceedings,
please, my roving remind members, the only matters for discussion is the accuracy, do Members have any other comments?
if nobody has any other comments, I do have one amendment in the data than on the last item, the date of the next meeting, it says wynnstay, the 17th of May 2023, when it should say when see the 12th of April 2020, which is today's meeting
as noted is everybody happy with that amendment in the minutes?
are we happy to need to approve those minutes, I certainly agreed.
7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
ITEM 7 reports of the Head of Planning Services, these reports of Evos of the Head of Planning Services, a presentation provided by the Case Officer for the applications. but for those members of the public listening, I would like to be clear that the considerations, conclusions and recommendations of the report are voted the Head of Planning Services not to have individual case officers,
I'd like to remind members of the public that they have registered to speak, they should not use personal disrespectful or offensive language when making their presentations,
the order of business this evening will be as set out in the agenda.
7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/03024/FULL Lamberhurst Vineyard Furnace Lane Lamberhurst Tunbridge Wells Kent.
item 7, a 22 stroke 0 3 0 2 4 lamb behest vineyard phony, slang, Lamba, Hurst.
Ms open, your presentation, please.
thank you Chair.
this application relates to a housing development at the Lamar, has been yard for seven affordable dwellings with associated access, parking, landscaping and pedestrian link to Townhill.
so this is the site location
for the proposal,
so we have an area down here for the 7 units and a a link to Tan Hill up here with a
this is just a.
a plan showing where the conservation area lies.
as you can see, it's kind of a abuts up to the site down here and slightly goes into the site at this point here, the red lines around the buildings are listed buildings.
this is just to show where the existing limits to built development are for land behest.
at the top here, this is a site in question and I have just put a pink line here, which shows the additional limits book development for the lamppost down, which is set out in the submission local plan which is not yet adopted.
this is an aerial image of the sites,
just show you the surrounding bin yard
and the site in question we've got fairness, lane running along the bottom here and Townhill
up to this side, just to point out there some.
the commercial uses in the site or adjacent to the site here and some residential properties. and also there's the vineyard pub just in just off the shop here.
this is another area where images to show a bit more of a zoomed out aspect, again we've got the site here and read
the village centre is up here.
the primary school is. here
and just to show the existing dwellings along Furness Lane, including. there were the
1st Avenue on here.
sorry and there's an existing public footpath, which runs through the vineyards along the cross across the top here as well.
I just some photographs of the
site and surrounding area, so this is a fairness lane with the existing access into the site hair.
again, this is from sovereign the access, just looking down towards bonus
Avenue, which is just in
this junction point here.
this is within the site where the existing access road access road is looking east, the development would be on the area of land to the right here.
again, this is within the site, looking south towards a bonus lane and again towards the famous avenue.
and again, this is the opposite way, so looking north, I believe this is one of the business units and residential properties, and so just looking north across the vineyard.
and this is in the north-east corner, where the proposed proposed pedestrian footpath will link up to the existing public roadway and also into Townhill.
this is just from Townhill looking to where the ramp would be,
and it's a photo and showing where there's existing steps linking up to the public right of way.
so this is the submitted site plan for the proposal, so it's for seven affordable units to be started in the south-west down here, adjacent to existing residential dwellings or Furness Lane continuing the ribbon development
I this is just a bit of a zoomed in
on the site plan
so all the proposed dwellings are to be for social rent and there's a mix of there's a detached terraced and semi detached bungalows.
John explained a show,
but further detail in the second,
this is the other end of the site plan showing the proposed link to Townhill with the the access ramp.
so elevations of the proposed dwellings, this shows the two storey terraced properties which have three bedrooms in them.
this is the detached bungalow with two beds.
although we have the semi-detached bungalows also have two beds in.
and lastly, the detached, two storey four bedroom property.
this is just showing the ramp, the proposed rampant around Hill
and the sectional view here of the use of post and rail fencing and planted geo bags.
I was just a few updates to
to provide so bulletpoint free in the summary of recommendations in the report refers to paragraph 176 of the NPP F, where it should.
relate to I'm sorry, it should relate to 176 and not 172,
and the point bullet point after the recommendation should read the provision of seven dwellings for affordable housing at social rent within the site, with free bungalows built to them for three standard and the remaining units built to them for to standard where possible and on a local connection cascade basis.
I also have an update here regarding a recent secretary of state decision, which Carlos Hone head of planning going to update on.
so so, since the publication of the agenda, the council has received a decision on the Bog Home scheme at Tandon in Cranbrook
was the turning decision, and this application are fundamentally different in scale and in location. The sexual state decision does make reference to the housing land supply position and therefore it is material in the decision-making process for this application. In the secretary of state report and that of the Inspector references made that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, however, that the deficiency of 77 homes is considered to be slight. Nevertheless, there is still an acknowledgment that there is a need for delivery of both market and affordable housing across the borough, it's important that Members are aware that since the public inquiry, the housing land supply has actually worsened
in the most recent published figures. until last year, the has announced supply figures dropped to 4 point for nine years, meaning a difference of 380 dwellings rather than 77 at the point that the termed an application was considered.
there are fundamental reasons Osborne has announced by why turned an
was actually refused and it is officer's opinion that the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in the agenda report, is still engaged and policies relating to the delivery of housing should be considered out of date. and that the supply benefits are amongst a number of other factors that weigh in favour of this application, thank you.
but to do so.
thank you, so just to continue and that the conclusion for this is that, in the absence of a five-year supply of housing,
the policies, including those relating to the limits of built development, are out of date
paragraph 11 footnote 7 of the NPP f,
requires that where relevant, policies are out-of-date that permission for sustainable development should be granted unless specific policies in the M P P P F indicate that the development should be restricted
and all other material considerations are satisfied the proposal would result in the delivery of sustainable development and therefore in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPP F permission should be granted. subject to all other material considerations, considerations being satisfied, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan and local policy in respect of these material considerations, the proposal is not considered to be a major development due to its local context and it is considered to comply with paragraph 176 of the NPP F in terms of its impact on the area of outstanding natural beauty.
the development would not be materially harmful to the residential amenities of nearby dwellings
just to continue on here, the number of residents, residential units and the
mix of unit sizes are considered to be appropriate to the site, the proposal will deliver 7 affordable housing units for social rent
traffic music's movements generated by the development can be accommodated without detriment to the highway safety and the proposal includes and includes adequate club car parking provision,
the proposal would deliver improvements for pedestrians and cyclists for the improvement of the footpath from Furnace Lane to Townhill, which will benefit all unis users, not just the occupants of the new development the proposal would deliver a net ecological gain through the scheme of mitigation and enhancement
and lastly, additional landscaping is proposed which would reduce or mitigate to a degree the landscape an A and B impact of the development and wider landscape proposals within the lamp.
the recommendation would be the proposals, so it would be acceptable, having regard to the policies of the Core Strategy of this Site Allocations Plan, the saved policies of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Local Plan and the policies of the submission Local Plan as detailed in the agenda report. the offer recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a section 1 6 legal agreement and subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda, thank you.
we have eight speakers and this item
will I call your name, please come to the microphone and ensure it is activated when you speak, you have three minutes to make your statement
our first week of this evening in objection to the application is John McNamara a local resident,
Good evening Councillors, I'm his speaking as one of the hundreds of constituents in Lambeth has subjected to the prose scheme, nearly 200 have done so in writing.
the vineyard, which is on my doorstep has a very special place in the hearts of many villages as it's there they take their families to soak up its beauty and vitality
for nearly 20 years I brought my dogs around its beautiful vines and my children have grown up playing down in the valley every year we organise an Easter egg hunt with other families this Sunday was no exception.
The local primary school uses the vineyard as a safe place for field trips, the toddlers from the nursery at Fidges can be seen and heard enjoying the environment. obviously our provides, I cannot, think, of a less appropriate place to start building.
It is indeed an outstanding area of natural beauty, in both description and the literal sense of its designation.
So when a developer go properties limited comes along with a proposal to build seven affordable homes in such a vast plot, it sets alarm bells ringing, when will we hear about phase two, three and four, involving many more dwellings? This is the thin end of the wedge.
Many villages understand that we need to accommodate building of new and affordable homes. in this very room, not more, not much more than a month ago, we witnessed the approval of 26 homes, 10 of those were affordable. to be built on spray Hill in landowners. The developer in that application was praised for their engagement with our community and they received the full backing of the Parish Council, the development accorded with our Neighbourhood Plan in a secluded area of the village and met our outstanding affordable housing needs. If this application was for market housing, the council will be up nuns with no special policy available, but calling it affordable or other sensors seem to go out the window and the council ignores the landscape impact, the significant local objections and our neighbourhood plans. So I asked these questions. Where has the developer proven? Affordable? Housing need in desperate in lamppost is required and what was missed by the Parish, the Inspector and the borough in our 18 month old Nadler plan.
Why did the developer believe that only 25 or more houses were viable here, four years ago and continued reduce the number with each rebuff and the Council now it seems that 7 is the lucky number.
Allowing this development and granting permission will purely in college encourage future plans and potentially leading to the entire development of a small vineyard across the Tees Valley and a permanent loss of the a Whenby
if this was granted approval, it would call into question the purpose of local plans and present a very real probability that this asset would be lost for future generations respectfully councils. I ask you only to approve this application if you can identify where the applicant has found an unmet need in lamppost. Please reject this application
our second speaker this evening, in objection to the application, is Sarah what would Cook a local residents?
Good evening. I'm landowners resident and I object
land, the house is a tight-knit community, with people from all walks of life, and we all know each other very well. when villagers were asked to vote on issues of most concern during our Neighbourhood Plan, preparation, the lack of affordable housing came out highly as such we undertook a housing needs survey and the results informed, the final neighborhood plan and its need for 12 affordable houses
just six weeks ago you approve 26 houses at spray Hill. this scheme had been long in the making evolved in conjunction with the Neighbourhood Plan.
and made provision for 10 affordable homes,
it received the support of both community and parish council.
it received only nine objections, somewhat different to this development, which has garnered 194
spray hills, affordable housing is in addition to the existing social housing already in the village and Town and Country Housing Site of five new dwellings which are currently under construction
these, together with spray Hill have addressed our affordable housing need in a sustainable, targeted and planned way.
the community does not need housing at land behest, vineyard, affordable or otherwise, and nor do we want it,
sadly I, as many others have witnessed gold properties, questionable management of the vineyard over the last few years, literally letting grapes rot on the vine.
until recently, this was thriving and was part of the Chapel Down co-operative making wine served at both Prince William and Harry's royal weddings
reasonably, I believe this application is merely a sprat to catch a mackerel, the prize for the developer in the short term is possibly financial gain
as the council hopes possibly selling the site to a housing association, but I believe it's more likely the developer will soon be back with more and more houses until the entire vineyard is lost. if so, what hope for the future,
whilst the Council has recommended approval, it has ignored the neighborhood plans, rural one hand landscape, housing policy requirements, many of which are repeated in our local plan, it also refers to a borough housing register need 94% of which has nothing to do with land behest, the village should not have more affordable housing just because another parish council is failing to provide
the council was unhappy with the previous scheme conveniently withdrawn a year ago. but, strangely, a quick redesign and all is apparently well, this is despite the same type of houses on the same site in the same location, with the same impact on locals in the area,
this is also not to mention the proposed long path the development needs to build to appear in, I'm afraid your
the leisure, I've just got one more sentence.
councillors, you really do need to step in as the ultimate gatekeeper for development and stewards of our green and pleasant lands, you're elected by us, and 194 objectors to prep for Santas informed locals, we tried to work together with the planning rules to protect our spaces in time and cost to make a valid, viable neighborhood plan what a broken system if this is ignored, pleas rejected, thank you.
our food speak at this evening in objection to the application, is Sam Nicholas a local wrist?
thank you Chair, and thank you for everybody,
I am a resident of Lampard's parish for 26 years, I'm a parish councillor, I also worked for the Hayward A and B partnership, as Dot Sky's coordinator, as you know, paragraphs 1 7 6 and 1 7 7 of the MPPA attach great weight in serving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the A and B
the conservation enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage also important consideration in these legally protected areas. local Plan Policy in E and 24
and our Neighbourhood Plan policies all too, and all three
or repeat, that ambience are revered and must be protected at all costs, permanently damaging the A and B and its associated social, cultural and biodiversity impacts. is not a decision to be taken lightly and a clear outweighed weighing benefit must be shown
the view from fully slain, as ever be said across the site, or inspiring and shows a timeless image of stunning agricultural land, leading into our medieval village, which sits effortlessly within the landscape
the land is open, unspooled and has been underdeveloped throughout its history.
extending the ribbon of development along Furnace Lane and especially the northern bridge.
we'll lose this land, the traditional west ruler, approach into the village and the undeveloped character.
during the application assessment, the council's landscape officer stated that the proposal will have a severe impact on the location,
yes, today you said there was no impact the NB
and I may add it will inevitably erode our cultural heritage, which the neighborhood plan states is important to our community,
I quote the landscape officers, consultation response as follows,
the landscaped homestand for the use of greenfield land and the R and B and also effects on settlement pattern and will define of course developing a greenfield site result in landscape harm and that will need to be weighed against the benefits. as cultivated land on the edge of settlement, with open views, it still makes strong local, positive contribution to the landscape character of the area,
the significant effects more likely to be very local.
these are the locals' own deductions, not ours, I remind Councillors of your duty to conserve and enhance the A and B. and surely development should be refused where the damage is described as moderate, moderate or significant in moderate and severe do not justify refusal, then what does
a related but equal concern is that the loss of this land will degrade the overall area and ecosystem, which was once a profitable and thriving vineyard.
light pollution is the fourth biggest killer of insects, animals and health to humans.
This will be a rich top development looking across the Tees Valley and will inevitably produce artificial light.
When will I please
one more blows one more loin if it is a lonely
life obviously, and that will have a wide impact, these lights will flood across the vineyard, will then lead to negative effects on the important work of our pollinators and the related bio network. Please consider all of this and reject this application.
for speak of this evening in objection to the application is Tim Cornick a local resident.
thank you Chair, there's a lot to say about this application in the time available, I'm just going to confine myself to the significance of the Lambeth's Neighbourhood Development Plan, as you know, that is now a made plan and it has gone through all the proper channels. it's the here and now it has the force of law and it cannot be ignored now. The problem with this proposed development is that infringes a number of policies in the neighborhood plan. Very briefly, Policy H 1 basically says a new development in the A and B, except in exceptional circumstances, including if it's a rural exception site providing a local need for social housing. But, as we've already heard, that local need is already being satisfied by spray Hill and Townhill, so it has no application or relevance for the Vineyard application
policy H 1 also says
conserve and enhance the A and B, while this proposal does neither of those things, quite the contrary, destroys permanently part of the vineyard, which is the single most iconic site in lambasting, moving on policies all too and all three they again say can conserve and enhance the A and B which this development simply doesn't do all 2 and all three also say
limit new building on hillsides and conserve distant views. well, this site is at the top of a hill,
it's on a skyline, it will obliterate the view north across the TYS valley over a frontage of about 50 metres,
total policy failure,
finally, Policy T1
states that the development should be served by sustainable travel arrangements. but this site is about a kilometre from the middle of Lambesis, that's too far for a lot of people, particularly the elderly, they would jump in their cars
and the track which is proposed for the east end of the vineyard will completely alter the character of that part of the vineyard and will be an awful lot of hard landscaping simply to deliver people to halfway down town Hill, it's a complete nonsense.
the stuff that I could talk about regarding the NPP F and the Tunbridge Wells local plan, but there's no time to do that. but those policy breaches of the Neighbourhood Plan mean that if this application were approved, it would send out the message that the Neighbourhood Plan frankly counts for nothing.
now the fact is, the Labour plan actually counts for everything. I say again, it's a made plan, it has the force of law and it simply cannot be ignored.
and for that reason alone I urge you to refuse this application, thank you very much.
please no clapping.
all fifth speaker this evening, in support of the application is Law O'Brien.
members of the Planning Committee. My name is Laura O'Brien and I'm the agent for this application. The application before you is for a small development of 7 social rented homes, specifically for people on the housing register, with a local connection to lambast. The scheme has been developed in consultation with the council's planning and housing officers and with the English Rural Housing Association, a specialist provider of rural, affordable housing, working with and force more smaller rural communities.
The number, size and typology of the scheme has been designed to meet an identified local need and includes three wheelchair accessible bungalows, which could accommodate either people with disabilities or older residents. Looking to downsize the officers' report sets out in detail the clear and significant need for heritable housing in the borough more generally, and in Labour has specifically
as a rural exception site. The houses will be retained in perpetuity as social, rented social, rented, affordable housing, to be managed by housing association with strict restrictions on the rent levels that can be charged, although 10 affordable housing units have recently been approved as part of a larger Down Farm development in members, they do not provide the same mix of affordable, accessible homes proposed and are not ring fenced for people with a local connection to lambast,
as your officers have advised, the need for affordable housing in the village is extensive and will not be met by the combination of this scheme and the downfall of development and design team of work, with the council's planning and conservation and landscaping officers at pre-application stage and throughout the course of the application to ensure that the development respects nearby listed buildings and the setting of the A and B the scheme design takes cues from the High Weald Design Guide and uses high quality materials, including local brick weatherboard and clay tiles, to reflect the local vernacular,
added a detailed landscaping and biodiversity enhancement scheme, is proposed, and at your officers request we have made a number of amendments to soften boundary treatments and to incorporate swales as part of the SUD Strategy for the site. we are aware of the concerns raised by some local residents and the organised campaign to gather objections to the proposals, it is much more than we would have expected for a small development to provide much-needed social housing in the village, however, it seems that the objectors are principally concerned with the fact that more housing might come forward on other parts of the vineyard and surrounding areas in the future but that isn't what we propose this is just a small affordable housing scheme which has her full support from your offices.
to conclude, we believe that this is an excellent scheme and we trust that you are able to follow your officers' recommendations for approval of this application, thank you.
six speak of this evening is Councillor Graham White, on behalf of Lamberhurst Parish Council.
thank you tour good evening counsels, my name's grown white, I am the Chair of Lambeth has parish council
six weeks ago I came before this committee to speak in favour of a substantial development in land behest at spray Hill that met the conditions of unable development land and the identified future housing needs of our parish.
Unfortunately tonight I find myself here again speaking against a development that does not meet the criteria of our plan and will drastically affect a treasured asset in our village, landowners have in Europe which is one of the oldest in England.
like members of this committee as an elected official, I have a duty to represent the views of my constituents, 194 of whom have taken the time to express serious legitimate concerns,
this is considered a considerable number for a small village and so I'm sure you agree and you can see the numbers here tonight
are 18 month old Neighbourhood Plan and its evidence was has been endorsed by Full Council and the planning spectrum housing need was informed by an independent professionally prepared housing needs survey in 2019.
neighbourhood plan policies H 1 and H 3 are clear, in line with the Local Plan Policy, H 8 the that rural exception sites being affordable housing outside the village boundary in less sustainable locations would only be possible if they meet an identified local need.
our Neighbourhood Plan states that this need is 12 affordable homes, however 5 new dwellings are already being already under construction at Townhill and 10 more were approved at spray halt last month by this committee,
therefore, by arm us we have addressed the identified affordable
homes need for landlords have actually surpassed it
without meeting the local affordable need, this appreciation simply does not qualify as a rural exception site and therefore must be refused.
Even if the applicant had proven evidence, additional need that we all somehow miss, there is still the question for sustained suitability of a site, and the one
and only harm
has the applicant proven this identified, unmet need cannot be fulfilled elsewhere in the parish and no less conspicuous and damaging location. they have not
has the applicant proven the development, not Harmby A and B no, and in fact the honest conclusion of the council's landscape officer was that it would cause significant local impact and moderate wider impact from at least three public viewpoints,
furthermore, we are concerned by the creation of a bizarre cycle path which tries to connect the proposed development. top of Town Hill councils. You will see from this in Congress long track, heading north to the double ramp before it meets the highway, the top of the various stoop hill by itself. Even this aspect of the scheme should be should highlight that this site is not nationally suitable for sustainable development, as otherwise the track would be unnecessary. And your free mini I'm just concluding, if I may
the application is not a rural exception site and this is not a social housing project for the word village, it was just suddenly change the environment of the Oby you need views over the Tees Valley and in particular the vineyard itself, which sits at the doorway of the village,
please listen to the eyes and ears of Lambeth's residents and rejects application, thank you very much.
our seventh speak of this this evening is baroque Councillor Linda Hall, Gildersome Donbass.
before you start recording I'd like to do know, can everyone hear me?
because I had difficulty hearing at the back there right okay.
right point number 1, this application site was not selected by the Parish Council nor the neighborhood development plan, and was rejected by our planning policy officers in the call for sites in 2018, which makes it a purely speculative development plus the objectively assessed need for affordable houses has already been met by spray Hill and by Townhill being built currently, most importantly, these two sites meet the identified housing need in Lamberhurst, as expressed in the housing needs survey, with an excess of three. It cannot therefore be a rural exception site, as the essence of an array is to meet an unmet need. Second point, the site is conspicuously in the MBE and at the gateway to the village, and this development will in no way conserve or enhance it, which our landscape officer notes and the MP requires, as does the Endy P, because it is designated as a landscape with the highest status of protection. I quote from the MP P's paragraph 11 footnote 6 a very, very important footnote. Policies in this framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed point number 3, this application's very first reason for granting approval is the lack of a five-year housing land supply, but that is not necessary, as the NPP 4 makes clear. As you will hear, in a minute, paragraphs 12 and 14 are pertinent here, and I quote paragraph 12, where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, including any Neighbourhood Plan that is part of it. Permission shall not usually be granted. Paragraph 14 says where an application involves provision of housing. The adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighborhood development plan is likely to outweigh the benefits. Paragraph 14 adds in its subsection. It will outweigh the benefits if a if we have at least a three year. Housing, land supply note not a five-year being required, which we have as of a month or so ago, we had 4.8 9 B if the NGP became part of the development plan two years or less before the date of this very meeting, which it did in autumn 2021 and see if the MDP contains policies to meet its identified housing requirement which it does, I have served on this planning committee for 20 years, it is unheard of for any application to garner a hundred one night, 94 objections it can simply confirms the outrage of the Llambias community that both their MDP and the NPP F are being blatantly Councillor Dr Who
incentivised as a malice do the right reign by landowners and refuse this application.
as I said earlier, please no clapping.
I speak of this evening is borough councillor, David, Knight, Gildersome members.
thank you Chair good evening, fellow Councillors on David Norwich borough councillor for guarantors and lamppost, and I object his application along with the Parish Council and 194 of our residents, a few of which are here this evening and thank you for coming a few years ago the owners submitted this site under the boundless call for sites but the Bar Council dismissed this site because unsuitable there was concern about impact on the landscape, character and heritage settings of the settlement these concerns would also relate to proposals of a lower amount of development, however, the Planning Policy Team have apparently now done a U-turn, so what has changed the landscape is the same, the heritage setting is the same, and it's the same, I obey, so if it was unsuitable, then how is it suitable now
the council's landscape officer also accepts that these houses will have a significant adverse impact on the area. and moderate, significant impact of at least three public viewpoints. So our views are only being echoed for what the Bar Council has already stated. So what about the need? The cash has already identified a social need for 12 houses through its neighborhood plan, and it believes it is fully met. These and supporting the five units under construction and Townhill and 10 more that were approved last month by this committee at spray Hill. The committee report for some of these and ignores their neighborhood plan, needs survey and instead relies on the general Bauer housing register, which suggests 10 families have a local need as broadly aligns with their labour survey. However, it wrongly continues that Labor should take the burden of affordable need from elsewhere in the borough on a cascading approach. I'm sure Councillors know this is not what is detailed in local and national policies. The local community is the parish, and each parish should identify and provide for its own need. The the her should not have to build more houses on protected land, so other parishes do not have to Mavor Hood Plan Policy H fully states, the applicant must prove an unmet need for a detailed local study which the applicant is clearly failed to do. It is not right to ignore, and I will plan and rely on the general Bauer housing register, which is not specific to land behest in this case. If this was the case, why did Lab had other parishes have to pay out for a need survey if the borrower was then going to completely ignore them? Finally, in summary, there is no established local need, so this schemes would automatically be refused. They are no be will unnecessarily and permanently be damaged. Seller schemes should be refused. Thomas Wales Borough Council is a statutory duty to protect and enhance the our no B, and we, as elected councillors, had the very same duty. This is the wrong development in the wrong location and is not needed or supported by the Lambert's parish council or the local community. So I ask you please, to refuse this application. Thank you just
officers do wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by speakers.
I think that would be appropriate in this game yet.
thank you, Chair yeah, just a few points I've made notes on here, first of all about the affordable housing,
so as mentioned, there was a development recently approved for a housing development on.
I think it's referred to as Down Farm,
which included 10 affordable units on the site,
this include consisted of six social rented units and 4 shared ownership.
so, in regards to a local connection, we can actually only nominate for social rented properties for social rent. which means we can only do that for the six social went to prop affordable units on that site.
even with the
down from development being approved, there is still a shortfall of for the local connection to land behest.
I know that town, the development on Town Hill has been mentioned a few times, which was actually when I was involved in, so that was a.
redevelopment of site, which included four existing houses and redeveloped a five, so there was actually only a net increase of one on there.
also, sorry just on that.
because it was only for five houses, it didn't meet our housing,
our affordable housing policy, to put conditions on our section 6 for them to remain as affordablehousing so they can be sold as market houses.
and then, lastly, just on their
this site, does include free bungalows,
the site on Down Farm doesn't, so it's a different.
there's a there's a need, therefore mobile access,
so there is the bungalows with level access there as well, which could should be considered.
was anything catching.
but please. why we need to listen to the office?
OK, thank you, so just
gonna get my notes here bear with me a moment.
so I know there is a concern about this being a gateway development for the rest of the vineyard, so
I know the site was submitted as a whole under the for the
site allocations for the local plan. through the Shayla scheme, but it was deemed unsuitable development by planning policy because it would be a major development in the area be.
this has been reduced from that its seven houses are not concerned not considered to be major development in the Oby.
when the whole site was submitted, there was a discussion about impact on landscape, character and heritage setting,
however it was then subsequently reviewed again as part of the emerging Local Plan, and the policy team considered that it did have scope for small scale residential development of six to eight residential units.
however, given the small scale of this, it was not included as an allocated site and was considered to could come forward as a windfall site.
just regards to the impact on the NB bear with me a moment.
so the landscape and biodiversity officer, as mentioned he has said, that his conclusion of localised, adverse, modern, moderate sorry landscape and visual effects.
and he would accept that it has not been its, this is not unexpected for a greenfield site and it is significant, however it is important to note that the effects are very localised and also to note that the A and B Management Plan is supportive of small scale developments and affordable homes.
and it is these that there is a positive with regard to the AIRB management plan with the proposal for affordable housing.
and lastly, about the sustainability of the site.
currently, if you are walking from the site along Furness Lane and round the pub and up.
out along Townhill
it takes approximately 14 minutes to walk to the primary school, just to give a reference point, and it's seven minutes from where the edge of the footpath would be, the new footpaths with the ramp would be seven minutes on that point so.
it is considered that it is a sustainable site.
please, no coup, yet members of the public who do not have the right to speak during this meeting, any more public public speaking has finished its over, so please be quiet, while the officer is speaking, otherwise I'll have no choice but to adjourn this meeting.
thank you, I know there was a mention about biodiversity in the site and the the scheme does it where does
achieved the 10% net gain? I know was a question or a point about them lighting as well, only impact on that and condition 7 on the
in the report
does ask for lighting restrictions or a scheme to be submitted if there are any external lights, I think that's everything I had noted, I don't know if any of my colleagues have anything else to add,
thank you Chair,
I think one of the speakers, I think it was Councillor Dr Hall referred to
the housing land supply figures for point
I 9 years members will know
phew, obviously experience dealing with housing applications and from the report that it's currently 4 point for nine years.
not 0 8 9, so just a matter of clarification there,
in terms of the there's Simon's been been talking about the planning policy comments, just draw Members' attention to paragraph 7.5 3,
which which details
the aspect that Ms O'Byrne was describing
in, that this site was assessed through the through the call for sites,
Moore was not allocated,
the the team considered that it high had scope for small-scale development between six to eight units.
but, as as members will know, as part of the emerging Local Plan we are, we were not allocating any sites lower than a yield of 10 units, so it was, it was not put forward as a as an allocation.
in terms of the the housing housing need
as as I think every speaker said about the the housing needs assessment off of the parish, which forms the basis of the policies within the the Neighbourhood Plan
and that identified nine nine units, I think that was.
a 2014 2019 assessment.
the housing register.
which is current
a housing need of 10 households with a local connection to land behest.
and a great many more with a with a preference for lamb behest, as members will see from the from the report,
this application is being put forward.
or as a as a rural exception site in terms of the
securing that through the section 1 0 6 so those that. to those that would be eligible would be those with or with a strong local connection to neighbour to land first in the first instance, so that that would be
looking to meet that identified need, I think is, as Miss Oldman said, the
affordable housing units which were resolved to grant planning permission committed before last
era, there were 10, in total, six of those were were social rent, so those would be
those would be the ones that we can nominate on in terms of our housing housing team.
we won't be able to nominate for the shared ownership that's that's just the sort of how how the housing register works so yeah, that's that's all I had Joe thank you.
if there's no further points from officers, Members questions of officers.
Councillor Baillie and then Councillor Phil.
thank you Chair.
there does seem to be a lot of concern that this is kind of the thin end of the wedge and that there will be further applications being put forward on on this site.
I heard what you said about the fact that it had been identified for small-scale development and that a large development wouldn't be permissible.
but what what guarantees, if any, to do we have the there won't be
further applications being put in, you know, perhaps for a fairly small number of units, but those applications will will then start to accumulate, thank you.
thank you say,
I've said, we can't stop someone putting in an application, so if one did come free we'd have to assess it on that, but I think we could if and why I do consider this site and add what was submitted under the the Sheila and C is this cumulative impact on the A and B and would that be an unacceptable
if they did in with a permission or a proposal for the whole site, you know it, I think the outcome would be the same as the as a Sheila, so it's hard, I mean you, can't we have to determine it on a case by case basis and at that point,
you could have a look at what's been said in this, the Sheila.
thank you Chair, yes, I think, just to add to that I think I think that was the sort of point that Councillor Knight was making, that
in terms of the assessment I think he was, he was looking at what's changed in terms of the Sheila assessment and as a site to my mind the the HSE Lowrys assessment identified that it it wouldn't be acceptable for a large or large allocation.
that might be acceptable for for a small amount of dwellings and, as I say to my mind, is there's been no change since since that assessment and I would
the, as Ms Obermann said, without without
wishing to prejudge any potential future application at any point any point coming forward, but I would suggest that the the same conclusions could be reached as the
as the allocation.
it would be very difficult for them to come to a different conclusion on that aspect,
Members will also know that
obviously, in more recent times, the the the larger
major developments which have have been put forward on sites which have not been included in the in the submission local plans so those 1 those sites that are,
Major developments, we have come to the same conclusion as the Sheila on those
on those sites and and refuse them accordingly,
or the the development, I think the arguments by
by the applicant is the
while while a major development may not be permissible. it is permissible to to have my comrade, but the exact time, but was it ribbon ribbon development?
cad I mean, could that potentially be extended, I mean, could somebody else come come forward with another site
next to next to this development, and you're going to push that ribbon little bit further?
OK issue, as you can say so, from that, that aerial photograph there in terms of the
the sort of existing access.
into the vineyard,
which is which is proposed to be
used for this development I mean
society, to my mind, it forms a
as a barrier of sorts in in the existing landscape,
members will also know that.
sites, sites elsewhere in the borough in Hawkhurst were
development was was sought for.
cites that extended development down Holmes Road,
that that that those sites were were rejected for new housing, so there there is a point where.
to say you use you'd say now, a lot of that would
would be reliant on on the Council's expert landscape and biodiversity officer,
he concludes on this one that the the, although the the there would be, would be an impact.
predominantly from the development of that of that greenfield site
that he doesn't object to to the development and to the proposal.
of this scale,
so as to say we, we would be.
we would be informed and, to some extent, led by his by his comments on on any future
that was that was sought,
but as the site is is resolved,
it's impossible to to sort of say
this and no more,
looking at the at the location, it would be.
to my mind, it would it would encroach further into the character of that agricultural land.
I got Councillor Fitzsimons, Councillor Moon and then Councillor Blaen Councillor incidence and the thank you Chair,
I just want to get.
everybody's mind and my mind totally clear, the
Town Hill development was a redevelopment, so we've only got one net gain of affordable housing.
and spray Hill that we all.
agreed on was is six houses, six affordable houses, so that's seven.
that is is a net gain at the moment,
and can you just remind
me what is the makeup of the spray hill?
in terms of do you have that
somewhere in in terms of houses.
thank you, so,
yes, the one on Town Hill was a redevelopment of. 4 to 5, so a net increase of one, but just to remind you that we couldn't put a condition on or a section 6 on there because it was less than 10 so they can they could be sold at market housing great.
the one at Down Farm was for 10 affordable units 6 were for social rented and 4 for shared ownership,
so it was for three two bed houses, two 3 bed houses and one 4 bedroom property.
I'm not sure which ones are of supposed to be social rented, I might just if I can check that hot.
sorry, I thank you, so we've got.
part 4 for the two bed houses, one for free bed and one for four, so that's the six for social rent.
thank you so so we are three short and there are no.
bungalows in that site which might suit an older person.
yes, that's correct, then the down bomb site included no bungalows, this one includes three.
thank you, can I just have wonderful supplementary about ribbon development, it seems to me that south of the site, there's already development
this isn't really extending the village, is it
would you say?
I think you, in terms of the the limits to built development and the Mr. Ville built development to SA, is contained in the the sort of main parts of the village to the to the north of there, so in terms of
in terms of what you're looking at in terms of the village, if you're looking at the limits to built development, its use obviously be on that in terms of,
development and other houses you can see from from the
the map there that, as you quite rightly say, there are, there are dwellings on the other side of the road which are.
we know there is a cul, de sac opposite, and then
further development out out to the west
on the on the southern side of the road,
I think in in terms of extending clearly it's currently in a greenfield site, so it would extend the built development on the northern part of that.
or of that road, further westwards,
in my in my opinion, that would that extension
would not be out of character with the with
the current built form of the village.
Councillor Murray and Councillor Bland, Councillor Lloyd Councillor Pattison and Councillor Neville, so Councillor, moving your your first.
thank you Chair,
my question relates to the significance and the weight put on the rural exception site.
and really, my question is
to confirm that all of the 7 dwellings will actually be for social rent ii, subsidised rent and the people that are old enough, remember, council house rents in relation to that.
that they will be,
shall we say, protected, that in the future they would not be shared ownership or actually, at the worst scenario. sold off as private private dwellings, and to conceit confirm
the housing association that will be managing the site
with the subsidised rent, and that will or will be communication not only with the town the borough council rented housing team but of course with Town and Country who are dealing with our present.
shortfall or waiting list in the borough and in the report justifies I put the public here, it does actually state the housing need for social housing in the rural areas in relation to
affordable housing, and a lot of rural areas is not affordable. thank you.
I think the question was, was it was it,
is it going to be social rent
in perpetuity and, and the answer to that is yes, that's that's what will be secured through the through the Section 1 0 6 and planning permission would will not be granted until.
a legal agreement to that to that end has been, it has been agreed with.
ourselves, the head of legal services and
in consultation with the housing officer, so that that would be the basis of this of this application and this proposal.
was there another point Councillor Murray saw?
yes, I just wanted to confirm the actual management housing association that will be running the site and
yeah, if you can answer that one.
I think at the moment the there are discussions with English rural housing who are a registered social landlord
they haven't won, there's no, there's no sort of confirmation in terms of an agreement or a contract because obviously the site does not have planning permission yet so it it's it's sort of a bit bit early for that is as
as Members are aware quite often these these sort of negotiations and contracts come forward post planning permission and that's the that's normal, normal state of affairs but, in this case, there are.
there are discussions that have reached a sort of an advanced stage with English rule.
Councillor, just sorry, just one final point.
in the report the offices on the 1 0 shapes agreement illegal bondage said Nan John assuming there is, there is discussions with the housing association in relation to the 1 0 6 ring fencing, etc
sorry, yeah, Councillor Moon, I think you're you're referring to the summary table set correct on on the front front page of the report. that relates to excuse me, financial benefits of the proposals, so
because there are no financial contributions secured through the 1 0 6, that's why it says says none there, but in terms of the
the recommendation that, while that's so, what what miss out when there's put up
as part of that second bullet point, that's the element that will be secured through the section 1 0 6
could they officers help?
the Committee Way.
importance of the made
local development plan.
lack of a five-year housing supply.
many of the speakers referred to the
main local development plan.
wondered what the point of it was
An application like this which appeared to be in.
breach of that
should be submitted and approved,
could you help us?
go through the arguments, ourselves and
doubtless well where we are, and that
is to her,
thank you, Chair,
as as I set out.
in the updates, the the five-year housing land supply is still a fundamental matter and it is the tilted balance exercise that all the Members must go through in terms of determining the application, so
the report does set out in terms of sustainable development and the the benefits and disbenefits of the scheme.
in detail at section 10.7 6 onwards.
where policies in any development plan and the Neighbourhood Plan makes up part of the council's development plan,
where there is no five-year housing land supply, those housing policies are out of date, so that's why we've gone through the exercise of balancing the argument in the report
and it's there for members to see that there are some negative aspects and we have highlighted those but the the positive aspects of the scheme. are considered to outweigh those benefits.
Councillor White, thank you, I think.
thank you, and I just wanted to get my head around one really clear about the, I guess the need for social housing in Lambeth Hurst understand that we are, by my calculations, we have shortfall of about set about three houses at the moment. and I just I just knew what was really curious about what I'm looking at page 24 of the report and it's talking about we need five people, one to one bed to one to three, one wants the three and one and one wants a for and I'm just trying to guess correlate, although those needs with what is being built because it seems to me that there's a definite need still for one and two bedrooms, but potentially the three and four-bedroom need is met as one of them am I right on that or is that on my so correlating things incorrectly
I think the
the housing officer's comments that you were looking at on page 24.
and looking at the table on page 24 7.4 9
yeah, so the the comments of the of the the housing housing officer who identifies
those those with an existing
existing housing need and those with a local connection.
and again sets out the
5 5 requirements for 1 bed 2 or 3 for 2 bed.
and one each for three and four.
this proposal is for 3 2 beds.
3 3 beds and
a 4 bed,
so it would provide quite a mix.
it wouldn't provide one beds as such
but the seaside this is still
particularly with the
the two bids being bungalows as well, it offers up that mix for
those on the housing housing list.
which the housing officer is is is supportive of.
sorry, I just wanted to add to that as well, and the housing officer is also
noted that with this development it would free up existing houses for people who want to move up to bigger houses, so there could be people currently in 1 bed houses who are overcrowded and then they can move up which would then free up space.
yeah, OK that runs to them, because I think, yeah, it so doesn't have an exact fix, but we think there's an unmixed that will fit will sort out a lot of the problems that yeah OK, thank you,
but as Mr. Chairman I've got actually got a couple of questions, so if I do one first and then I'll go with the element,
the first ones related to the
a lamppost Neighbourhood Plan, and if we look at pages 14 and 15 there's a long list of or breaches of that plan, which the aka parish council which presumably understand the plan as they actually wrote, it
it made, I mean, can I ask them in a
the point that Councillor Bland made about the weight of the the Babel plan, I mean this is a very recently made Neighbourhood Plan. the boroughs Local Plan is 2006 and the submission plan was obviously, but always accepted by the Inspector, so presumably we have to put a lot of weight on to this plan,
given its part of the the documents we we we need to deal with. I mean, are there any issues within the comments of the Parish Council make the officers disagree with is, I think, my first question
yeah, in terms of the, as Members know, I think in terms of
determining planning applications, this is often a a balancing exercise to be to be undertaken
when looking at. various policies of the Neighbourhood Plan forms part of of the development plan is that it's a made plan.
members members need to give that the give that the white, the white of of a development plan.
within their determination,
the the parish of obviously identify various aspects that they consider.
the proposal does not meet, but there are other aspects within the within the neighbourhood development plan.
where you would you could
argue that it it does meet it, and a lot of that is within the
the housing needs assessment, which has been extensively discussed,
the there are, there is a rural exceptions, site policy
as part of the the the neighborhood development plan.
there's also in terms of their their affordable housing.
they stick within the Neighbourhood Development Plan, ensuring affordable housing for rent or shared ownership is provided to those with a strong local connection
which which this would
both now and in the future, to looking at future provision of affordable housing,
improving the balance in our housing stock,
again, you could argue that.
providing providing bungalows would would improve the balance of the housing stock.
delivering housing to support an ageing population and those wishing to downsize, so there's.
the site members members of well versed in.
taking a plan as a whole and balancing the often conflicting elements within within plans and often within within policies
to to come to a conclusion.
the Parish of the parachute are clearly objecting to the application and off and off referenced
all the aspects of the plan that they feel
the the proposal does not meet.
there's the we've looked at the Neighbourhood Plan policies throughout the report and referenced those that. the Turner, in our view, the proposal does meet, so,
as I said, it's it's some, it's a matter that say members are are well versed in in making those judgments.
thank you, his chum, the second question I had. in relation to sustainability, I mean, if I can have the map back
as I understand it, the the
the site is actually quite a long way from the central lamppost is that correct?
I just wondered
if these houses are presumably meant largely or some of them, at least for elderly or disabled people,
I'm not sure how you could get to the centre of Lambert's except by car
or in the footpaths I'm going on I'm not familiar with this site but I presume it's not a bin yard so it's gonna be soaping is that is that is that quote and and there was a reference to bus service going into Lambert.
I wondered how often the buses when?
on the one of the key things to consider as part of as part of this proposal was use, you see the
on that on that plan, the area in the in the sort of purple outline.
the and the the bottom bottom right-hand corner.
the site that two committees ago.
it was unanimously resolved to grant as
a sustainable form of development. now, looking at looking at the distances,
obviously that had that had a footpath which which was proposed to run up through the field.
and I think the first building you get to just to the south of the the brown limits to build development.
is the primary school.
the WRU, and then there is the village centre, he's obviously within the within the LBD.
now, if you were, if you were to look at the distances between that and that and the current site.
this is why I wouldn't want to argue that one was more walkable than the other.
County Councillor Neville.
stem thinking about
potential further proposals on the site, should this be approved, and then I don't have a crystal ball,
I didn't quite hear whether the site is.
deemed as a windfall site in its entirety, there will not, could you just please let me know.
in terms of what's assessed as a windfall site, a windfall sites are essentially sites that come forward and deliver housing that are that are not allocated in in the local plan, so because this this site is isn't as an allocated site because of the the size of the yield that the the planning policy team deemed was was appropriate for the site it would come forward as a as a windfall site.
members will all know from the
the extensive discussions on the local plan that, as part of our housing delivery strategy, we have included.
or a rather sizeable element of windfall allocations as part of our strategy for delivering housing, and that's with a view to sites such as this where
we deem that.
they are acceptable housing sites, but of a yield less than 10
to come forward and therefore meet the the overall housing need.
chair Councillor Bailey,
I'm sorry, can I just quickly clarify one thing on that just for Councillor Neverland for anybody else who's here,
I seem that by by the windfall site you're talking about the six to eight houses that were mentioned at the plan rather than the whole bin yard.
correct, yes, the the the windfall in terms of this proposal we took looking at today,
are there any further questions of the offices?
we will now move to member discussion.
I have to say I'm not particularly happy with this recommendation
and there's a couple of grounds which I think I've essentially flagged up in my comments,
I think if we ask parish councils and
but parish councils and and residents to make local plans and local plans and sometimes spend years making them,
I think it's very difficult for us to then turn round and reject.
the kind of comments that they made it quite detailed comments here and I'd take the point about the
the housing issue, but there are a lot of other comments that were made by the
landlords and Hamas Parish Council, about the impact of the Alien V, for example, which really weren't referenced in the in the in the in the comments, so I I'm unhappy about that and I'm unhappy also about the the siting of this I mean we've got seven.
affordable houses and we therefore pounds a week presuming that the people who can live in them probably are not in a huge amount of income so they they may or may not have cars
they may not, or they don't have cars, how they're going to access a centre of of lamppost very easily, I mean, if they're elderly or disabled again to walk over that
Rob along footpaths is not ideal. I think,
and for that reason I think it's it's
yes, yes, they need affordable housing, but I'm not sure this isn't the right place in Lampern, to put it, obviously there's an argument about how much affordable housing has been already built, will he confirm given planning permission, but I'm not sure that this is the site that I would have thought would be appropriate and I think they were because it has an impact there in be I find it very difficult to support it, thank you,
thank you any other members.
yeah, I'm only going to find it very difficult to support this, but I'm going to look at the internal quality of the application
and, as I went through the application and I started to write down in bits that were incomplete or were
something that you would still expect to have once the planning application had been granted, so I'm not going to go through them but I made a list of about
15 I suppose, calling them in of things that hadn't been.
dancer, for example.
the heritage statement is somewhat spot, so that's not really strong,
the internal road surface is not approved, the road widths are not met, Fire and Rescue hasn't been consulted.
I'm not sure if the formal name of the people who deal with the docks guys. initiative haven't been consulted, a notice with the aureus.
which is for local workers, local residents and family connections, and also to have them in perpetuity that these these conditions can this is the only bit of 1 0 6 that there is, these conditions are supposed to be reinforced by the resident.
and I know I know.
Mr. Hockey, that you pointed out that application comes first in the landlord second, but it still seems to me that it's going to be too easy, seeing the landlord hasn't really been identified, OK, rural England, maybe that those that really strict requirement for Orestes is actually kept so that worries me.
and I made just a few other things, then I'll stop my speech.
the one is about the ribbon development, because I went down there today to have a look in the hail.
the ribbon development is very clearly on the south side of the road, there is definitely ribbon development, and that's fine, but on the north side of the road it's very clearly to me not ribbon development because the open aspect of that road and the views over to the Hill
means that ribbon development doesn't really apply to that side of the road my mind,
for me, the main one of the main drive is that the council has to try and work on which is driving this application is the housing supply, and the fact that we down on has fallen for nine years now is that correct?
it's already been through the House of Commons, and it's half way, through the House of Lords, that the new bill on Landreth.
levelling up and Regeneration Bill, and that very, very clearly weakens that requirement, so I think it's also a bit
premature for this to go through while the requirement, especially that the the panellist, the planning the planning department, is going to have not to this green belt, even if there's a shortage that's in the new Bill so that worries me as well,
and it also seems to me that
by making it a smaller scale development with a lot of the requirements.
weakened. rather, it was in the development of 10 houses or more, there'll be lots more formal requirements, but because it's less or fewer requirements, KCC's expectations of contributions to
school playgrounds that hold of 6 1 or 6 as KCC asked for and that was summarily removed because it was deemed not viable for this development so with all of those views and internal weakness I think of the application and I could go on for hours I don't think I'm going to be able to support it.
I just to let members know that the levelling up Regeneration Bill is going through House Lords of Mon, it hasn't had royal assent, so we can't have any regard to to what's in that I appreciate what Councillor Page said about what is and is in draft format also the NPP of consultation has concluded but no changes have been made to the NPP of the report sets out. the relevant policies of the NPP f, the are to have weight and have regard to the those as set out in a report today, so I'll just be conscious that don't make any sort of decisions on
national policy or national legislation that actually isn't in place at this stage.
thank you Chair.
I, too, have looked at this application very carefully and
admit causes me some conflict
between actual may to the application and all the other associated downsides.
but it clearly is to me linked to.
they are, yes
and how that is interpreted in relation to the social housing dwellings within the site.
there is no doubt there is a clear need within the borough, and probably in every parish and town, for more social housing,
but coupled with that, there has to be a balance
which has already been referred to at this meeting.
but we have a deficit of 898 in the borough, there's 10
households, residents that have actually mentioned they would like to reside or live in the area of land hers,
and that clearly must be a family connection, whether that be an elderly couple, the my other systems from younger members of the family and the location is a possibility.
no, it's clear the foot path
is a key element of this in relation to, if you accept the social housing for all seven dwellings, including bungalows, but you must bear in mind that when an applicant seeks to move to another location within the social housing or the borough council's housing chain, they have certain criteria.
So if they are unable to may be engaged, footpaths with a steep element to it, then they would not necessarily be allocated that property or that location.
There are elements out there where disabled
people who have different forms of disability and may well be able to negotiate that footpaths, which has already been indicated, it could be a challenge,
but I am convinced they would not take that site if they were not able to venture into the village
also you have mobility scooters and and all those sorts of things mobility, transport within cars, there's assistance on that, so in that respect no, it's a concern.
it still doesn't necessarily with myself outweigh the need for the social housing.
there are clearly flaws in this application in relation to the high ways who were referencing, the surface vehicles were having to turn into the development and possibly go out on to Furness Lane, obviously because in the has NATS clearly mentioned in the application
there are other aspects.
the footpaths should be completely tarmacked.
right to the end, there are elements, so the footpath goes across the raised section of it, where the nursery is
and people were cut across, thereby may be causing a hazard, especially if you're in a mobility scooter with vehicles there that are attending the nursery so it's not perfect I accept that.
but my overall feeling is that.
the housing, the social housing, is a definitely a need. There are many in the villages that cannot afford affordable housing. We all know that no one locally, who's got a job, cannot afford an affordable house. They cannot even get a regular bus route to Maidstone Tunbridge Wells Tunbridge. They've been cut so dramatically, so
I do support the application and I know people in the room may think that that's a bit harsh in the way they feel but I like you to understand it's a social housing that I think is balanced up with the application, even though not perfect, thank you,
thank you, Councillor Bain.
thank you Chair.
boy, I also have reservations about this, this site in the houses didn't book the most attractive,
just to say the least, I don't know if they're going to look better in rural life
and it's it's you know, it's by no means ideal
but I would agree with Councillor Moon about about his point about
social housing, it is
it something that we don't we, we don't tend to hear people coming along to these meetings
telling us that they've been on the the housing waiting list for no two years.
we we, we just never really hear from these people. I did receive recently an e-mail from somebody in my my ward who has
for kids and she's living in a one and a half bedroom house or flat. I think it is
she was pretty desperate when when she contacted me and basically I you know, I couldn't give her any good news, she'd been on the waiting list for social housing for a long time and
you know there was no. There was no date when she was likely to get a house or a flat
we took this committee about numbers of people on the waiting list, but
we don't really tend to
talk about the situation and you know there are there, they are people who are in a pretty desperate situation, so I think the Councillor Moon has made or has made a very good point there, thank you,
Councillor British Ellen,
yeah yeah, I actually support Councillor me, one thing and the importance of the need for a socially rented housing.
I fully appreciate how the neighbourhood plans are important, they are made by the parent and parish councils while in Rostow, so I understand the knowledge that the likely people have.
and I appreciate losing views when you've got historic areas that are not on the I yeah and Oby, however the need is it's not a huge massive development, it's providing
mobility, accessible housing as well, they're not everybody who is old has a mobility problem and not everybody who's young doesn't there's a vast mix as Councillor me picked up as well and,
for one or two levels of mobility and accessibility needs people. I just think I have been, I think, as everyone has been torn really torn one way or another, but I do think, because it is the
social housing. I was
always slightly offended to his, I wouldn't say Well, I Councillor say actually that you know what we have to take on the burden of more social housing. I think that's a rather unfortunate terminology to use about having social housing in your parish,
and I think the need is high. The need isn't going to go away when we're in a you know, the economy is not going to spring back
massively fast, that this isn't gonna be necessary requirement the cost of living within the borough as well continues to go up and the desire for people I have people in my ward
can't can't afford to live there and I grew up their parents lived, there can't afford to live, have to move out, having to look at the Altadena Easter. The counties would like that to move to
as much as I appreciate, and I appreciate the anxieties of residents and the concerns of the Parish Council, I think I will be supporting this, I've I've not supported, will I've abstained because I haven't had
practical things to to you know.
vote against things on letting huge developments through 0 we've done the feasibility me not putting any social housing in before I was so impressed with the previous lamppost.
a planning application Rennie when he did have the social housing and said so I was really pleased to see the development and I continue to support development of social housing within our borough, so I will be supporting the application, and actually
Councillor Fitzsimmons, Councillor Johnson
Councillor Bland, Councillor Fitzsimmons,
thank you Chair
I just would like to sure everybody here, whose feelings I know are running very high, that I personally have spent a long, long time reading all the papers reading it with the NPP F, next to me aware of the lamppost neighborhood plan.
I do want you to think I haven't I'm just making a a kick judgement, but I think.
the identified need for social housing.
I just think we have to support it, I think we need more social housing, I also
like Councillor Brits' Alan I was thrilled with the Earth spray Hill site when they said
when we found that they hadn't put it a viability
clause in it and just.
refused social housing, so I'm really glad I was very, very happy that that had been sensibly brought forward and.
I think this is as a small site, as our officers are said, there's no.
it is no given right that.
further development of the vineyard will be, I know you probably all think it will be, but I think each one would be decided with its iniquitous historical context and on its own merits so.
I will be supporting this,
thank you, Councillor Johnson.
I appreciate what everybody saying about the social housing, but personally speaking, that should be found and put somewhere else, because knowing the area
you know, I just think, even if they had one house or two, it's
you know, it's like a stand out like a sore thumb I mean he is beautiful area and it would be a blot on the landscape, so I will be
supporting the application,
thank you, Councillor Blake.
from I first read this application, I thought.
this pressures all hot buttons.
Planning Committee pearls strongly about
all social housing and affordable housing, and I small number.
just what we what?
but as I look
below the surface of that.
to dislike and disagree with.
in this particular proposal.
I think that the
we cannot ignore that this is going to affect the area and be
that seven houses.
is not going to make
a decimal point difference
to our housing supply
recently made Local Plan.
carers for me, much weight.
I cannot support this application.
OK, Councillor Edwards,
thank you Chair.
sorry, I had a speech all whipped up in my head now, it's all gone, I just feel if we ask parish councils and
residents to spend their time in their efforts coming up with a Local Development Plan, local neighbourhood plan, then
we've got to put great stock
in what they say with their feet being on the ground in that immediate area and know what respect their views on
again, whilst I weigh up the need for social housing,
I can't support this application.
thank you, I'm gonna have to have been really conflicted, as I've read this and listened to this tonight, but.
I do think for me
I do think for me that the local plan is extremely important, we can't just ignore that, and I also the other thing that think is that we're talking about under 10 houses as though that's not very much it's not in a town but in a village that's quite a lot and I think we need to put this within the context of the place where it is going to be built, so I think after I'm not gonna be able to support this just due to the I feel we need to respect local democracy and yeah just think about the location.
I had the privilege of chairing the planning
committee for the spray Hill
development and it was
please, Councillor Hall, please do.
Councillor Hall, please be quiet.
I have lost my thread now.
planning meeting that I had the privilege of chairing regarding the spray Hill development was a triumph for the Indy P for the planning
for the officers for the community it was brilliant to watch everybody working together.
I am very impressed with the Neighbourhood Development Plan as a body of work and I fully support that, which is why I can't support this application, it's it, it is too large in the location that it is, it's too high
and with the volume of feeling that is behind that I won't be supporting this application.
anybody else want to make a contribution.
just a quick one.
I just wanted to make it clear that my objections have have nothing to do with the with the provision of social housing, because it can only get worse, we've got a big influx of Hong Kong Chinese. Afghans and Ukrainians would have to be housed, so I know that that's a very pressing
need. My objection is that the internal quality of the application that was put together by the developer is just not good enough and it has too many loose ends, and my judgment falls down on the fact that it's the wrong, it's not a good enough application to outweigh all of the other issues
of Councillor Bled.
Mr. Janan, with your permission I would like to propose.
we reject the officer's recommendation.
On what grounds Councillor Brett,
on the grounds of effect on the air and be?
feel free to all of us.
I'm not going to read any more, but I just wanted to be clear what your grants were refuse them,
yes, could I add grounds
that is outside the limits to development?
I doubt whether we can put down a reason for refusal being conflict with the adopted name lamppost Neighbourhood Plan.
and that it's unsustainable.
officers, do you have any comments on those particular sorry
just I was chatting, could you just repeat those decided I can no company
who's outside the limits of the built development of lamppost,
and and is an unsustainable in the sense that the access to the centre of Lambert's to be very difficult for people of limited mobility,
and that it is in conflict with the lamppost label plan.
Councillor blend, are you happy for those to be
from Councillor blend he's happy to take on those wonderful Councillor Patterson, are you seconding?
it would seem so I get a habit of seconding Councillor and
officers redeem wish to.
Councillor Fitzsimons, you want to propose we accept the opposite.
I do I do Chair. why those two of those recommendations, if not three,
why don't they apply to the spray hillside?
so you're proposing Councillor Fitzsimons, concrete or Councillor blends
London, we accept it in line with the officers' recommendations, as amended in the presentation is that correct?
do I see a seconder for that proposal, Councillor Moon?
yes, I second that to support the recommendation by the officers.
cannot can I just make one point
yeah Kelly and the
a comment just made by the seconder of against
I'm sure there are disabled people living in Lamba Hertz that go down to the shop on the corner and visit the pubs.
and you know the assumption may be that this development would not sustain that, and I just wanted to make that point.
so we have two proposals.
two proposals, I'm going to take the approval first.
proposed by Councillor Mrs. Fitzsimons and seconded by Councillor Moon to approve
I'm going to take that first.
all those in favour, please raise your hands.
that sex against her OK so that that
approval falls, so we got a counter proposal from Councillor Blaen seconded by Councillor Pattison.
obviously you want to comment on the
reasons for refusal before
yes, please, Chair,
we need to distil down the home that members members perceived from the from the application,
harm to the I O NB is is is clear society in our balance,
the the need for the social housing out wide that members
my my balance that differently, so I think the the harm there is is is
clear in terms of a reason
in terms of the aspects that Councillor Pattison raised.
I think in
this there was question about
it being contrary to the the neighbourhood development plan, and again I think it's a case of
really distilling down what
what members mean by that in terms of their their assessment, because
clearly, in the
in the list, on page 15 of the report
that the the the Parish Council talk about the policies within the development plan
for example, Policy D 6, which talks about
conservation areas and listed buildings now.
councillors conservation officer doesn't object to it, and I I haven't had any Member here, say that they think it has an unacceptable impact on on the listed buildings, so I think it's it's really looking at the other policies in in those plans and maybe
linking those relevant policies to the harm that's been identified in terms of the impact on the A and B
and you'll see that within those, there are a number of policies which talk about
views which talked about development in the A and B and that that is the site.
my advice as to how Members should frame any reason for refusal.
so could we basically say, contrary to Policy L 2, which is the one about the
I mean, it's now A and B policy, but it's a similar point about the first one.
and Policy H 1, which is similar and policy, all three, which is the one about viewpoints.
that would be relevant, I think, because this development would have been on the bro brow of a hill and, I think, quality the one, because actually I, although it wasn't mentioned an awful lot in the debate, I don't think the quality of the design was brilliant either.
yes, that's right, I think that the reason for refusal should identify the harm and then reference those relevant policies which which would include those three that you, you've mentioned,
it go through those again just for clarity.
it was all too
all three, and they won.
is there any council or Mr. Hockney?
what promoted me to Councillor again, Councillor Pope,
and obviously we would also reference the the local plan policies that were relevant and the the paragraphs of the NPP f as well,
priming the reason for refusal
assume Members are happy for for officers to to added,
has once clarified that the the reasons that have been given and policy references have been made
relate to the harm to the A and B
in any decision that we make in terms of a refusal we need to state clearly and precisely the reasons.
specifying all of the policies,
and I think it would be important in that reason for refusal to include balancing exercise as well, which indicates we do not have a five-year housing land supply
that housing is obviously important for the borough, but that's benefit of delivery of housing is outweighed by the harm to the A and B.
nobody got anything to add or we clear, Councillor Blaen, do you clear the wall?
yes, I will say or harm to the A and B,
it's on a prominent
I think the report identifies
at least three impairments of view.
over the landscape.
and that on balance.
compared with the relatively
trivial contribution it makes to the
five-year housing supply ways.
in my mind, in favour of preserving the airway and me.
if there is no further comments on this, we've got a proposal from Councillor Blaen, seconded by Councillor Patton, to refuse it on Owen B grounds and also
on Labour has enabled the development plan grounds, as outlined by Councillor Patterson. all those in favour of refusing please share your hands
okay varies against refusal.
that's for sure,
so the grounds for the motion to riff.
12 abstentions No, no, no.
so the motion to refuse the application has been approved, thank you very much that has been.
now, after the Jan, the meeting.
sorry. I mean, just starting out a second bedroom had to say.
yet section 4
I'm sorry, but we're going to have to break Apple to get sorry.
we need to take the exit that exceeds needs, it excuse me, we're going to have to take the vote again, there's there's an issue with the count, so we're gonna take the vote again, if that's OK,
if we could just have a bit of quiet please
goes limited if you could sit down.
OK, we're going to take the vote for refuse it again, this is a big some query on the numbers
I don't think it's going to fit the result that.
so all those in favour of refusing the application please raise your hands
I can't see us out.
a sorry, sorry 8.
sorry and those against
that's the full Sats for yeah, OK
so yes, as as before it's been refused, is yes, it's been refused, but we got the
venom, let's get the numbers right. Thank you OK,
Barry and I'm going to adjourn the meeting for 10 minutes to allow everybody to leave.
7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/03024/FULL Lamberhurst Vineyard Furnace Lane Lamberhurst Tunbridge Wells Kent.
welcome back everybody, we now start with Item 7 B 22 stroke 0 3 2 6 2, former John Lewis at home Kingstanding business park.
Mr. Morsi or prison,
yes, Mr. Morsi, your presentation.
thank you Chair, this application relates to the former John Lewis at Home units within the Kingstanding business park and seeks consent for change of use of the existing building and site to provide car showrooms, emptying garage facilities and an additional car sales office within the existing car park the application is required to be heard at Planning Committees the proposal comprises the creation of more than 2000 square metres of non-residential floorspace while a means of a change of use.
site falls within the north farm slash Longfield Road economic development area, which is the largest area for commercial floorspace within the terms dwells borrower the site itself is just under 0.9 hectares in size and is occupied by single rectangular shaped unit previously occupied by John Lewis and the site has two vehicular access points located along the site's eastern boundary and from Kingstanding Way with an additional pedestrian link along the southern boundary onto Longfield Road.
one of the vehicle access points serves the main car parking area and the additional access provides access to a service area.
and until you can see, the area was shut, the site at the existing building and site was last occupied by John Lewis, who vacated the site in April 21, and since this date the site and the building has remained vacant. The site is relatively open when viewed from the south and Longfield Road, as well as the east and along Kingstanding Way. Albeit there are a small number of trees situated along the boundaries of the site to the immediate north of the site lies a commercial unit slash warehouse presently occupied by a wholesaler to the immediate west of the site lies a small wooded area made up of dense trees which is subject to a blanket TPO and beyond this lies the Great Lodge retail park.
the public right of way also runs along this boundary, connecting Longfield Road to award a public right of way network to the north, the site is located inside the limits to bulk development, within a key employment area and within an area of outstanding natural beauty.
and he can see the sights from looking across from lung field roads,
and he can see looking up the Kingstanding Way and this is the the service sentience
Kelso seems to be.
now let me get it,
this is the service entrance you can see here.
and he conceded this the service yard, so they seating me the sort of back corner of the site is you could say.
and he can see the the main entrance to the site, which did lead to a customer parking, John Lewis.
and again, looking down the ramp, the main main to the vehicular entrance onto the car park.
and he can see the sites in the booting from from Kingstanding Way.
but you can see sits on a high land level,
and again we can see the site from Longfield Way, in close proximity to the roundabout.
and he can see the site again from Longfield Way and the pedestrian access.
into the site at an easy that is sites adjacent to a bus stop and just the to the left of the bus stop is the public right of way, which runs towards the north.
to see the site looking across the car park.
back towards key Kingstanding Way.
and you can see the site looking towards the north and you can just see de facto the council in the background areas the
the sort of retaining wall which leads up to the service area behind there.
and he can see the site again.
from the south east corner plot.
as he could see the existing site plan,
and just say to say bunches tallied the
one access in this corner, which sees the service area, which is separated off from the rest of the site and then the second access point, with the ramp leading down
into the the main car park
and he can see the proposed site plan. So the application seeks permission for the change of use of the site and building from retail to a car showroom an empty garage facility, along with alterations to the existing building and reconfiguration and amendments to the car park area, along with associated works. Proposed development includes the reconfiguration of internal floor space to accommodate five car showrooms, garage facilities, MOD facilities and car storage and the existing retail car park and service vehicle access points from Kingstanding Way proposed to be retained, as existing
car parking areas at the site proposed to be reconfigured to provide a mix of customer parking spaces, siting spaces, display areas for calls and other vehicles, demonstrate to car parking spaces, handover spaces, servicing spaces, employee car parking spaces, cycle spaces and a service area slashed delivery spaces at the price. The bars development also includes the creation or erection of a single storey sales office, which is just located in the south-east of the site.
she's just here, which is proposed to be effectively sunk into the bank and within the existing car parking area.
and the proposal includes the provision of new landscaping areas, including ornamental shrub, planting within the parking areas and new wildflower, meadow meadow planting along the boundary of the site at the junction of Kingstanding Way and knew no of the none of the existing landscape features or trees are proposed to be removed from the site,
the proposed development and change of use is estimated to provide 86 employment positions split across a range of different types of roles including sales administer and finish dual roles in engineering managerial and service roles.
and as set out within the Wrexham recommendation, there are outstanding highways matters to resolve them and whilst KCC Highways have not formally objected to the application, further clarification work is required in regard to the distribution of parking at the site and if a contribution towards sustainable transport options is required.
These discussions are ongoing and it is noted that National Highways have raised no objection to the above application, subject to a construction management plan condition.
and he conceived the proposed ground floor, so to this left of your screen, the coloured areas show the 5 proposed car showrooms the central grey space and back corner, show a sort of where warehouse in garage facility space, along with car storage in the back corner and the yellow areas show two storage areas.
and you can see the proposed sort of extended floor or first floor mezzanine level.
which is proposed to be confided, figured and expanded to provide additional two storage spaces, which is the yellow areas and plant areas, along with areas for employees, including offices, meeting rooms, toilets, lockers, box storage and changing out it.
and you can see the proposed elevation, so the elevation at the bottom is the elevation that would face towards Longfield Road, so the most prominent elevation and the one on the top is that that would face towards Kingstanding Way, so the proposed extent awards the building and site include the introduction of glazed frontages incorporating entrance doors to serve the proposed showrooms, the creation of two new service stores on the east elevation removal of existing plot equipment and associated structures,
the removal of two existing doors on the north elevation to be replaced with a single door, the replacement of an existing door in the west elevation and the introduction of PV panels on the roof, and then he can see the north and west facing elevation, so one that faces onto this this sort of dense woodland and the one that backs on to the wholesaler and in another industrial unit to the rear of the site.
and you can see the posed elevations of the car sales office proposed within the car park of the site.
and again he can see some perspective use in the floor plans of those.
so in terms of updates, further correspondence has been received from KCC since the agenda was published, advising that a figure of 3,005 100 pounds to be secured in regard to a t r over the within a section 1 0 6 to address the previous concerns raised by KCC in regard to access to the site from the larger car transporters, and this has been agreed with the applicant, and the recommendation is therefore updated to the following, to give delegated powers to grant planning permission subject to the resolution of the outstanding highway matters, to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning Services, subject to the completion of a Section 1 0 6 agreement and subject to conditions,
in addition, additional information has also been received from the applicant in regard to the outstanding highway matters and KCC being re consulted on this, and we await the further comments or feedback
in terms of the conclusions, the proposal would result in the delivery of sustainable development and therefore, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPP F, permission should be granted, subject to all material considerations, being satisfied proposal provides economic benefit benefits and the re-use of a redundant employment site within a designated key employment area.
the quantum of development proposed is considered to be appropriate for the context of the site and would create a high quality development which respects its locality, but the development would provide significant and a variety of employment opportunities, the development would not have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of any nearby neighbouring properties. development would not be considered to have a detrimental impact upon highway safety, the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact upon drainage and flood risk in the locality and the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon trees, wildlife and ecology.
as previously mentioned, the recommendation, as updated, is to give delegated powers to grant planning permission subject to the resolution of the outstanding highway matters, to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning Services, subject to the completion of a Section 1 0 6 agreement and subject to conditions,
thank you. we have one speaker beside him when I call you name, please come to the microphone, in short, is activated when you speak,
you have free minutes to make your statement a speaker this evening, in support of the application is John Hendy director at the Hindi group.
thank you good evening, Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the officer officer's recommendation for approval under delegated powers for this application submitted by Prudential Assurance company and Hendy Group, my name is John Hendy, and on the property director at the Hendy Group and as a fifth-generation member of the family that still runs the business.
firstly, I'd like to take this opportunity to commend your officers' approach to proactively dealing with this application and working collaboratively with my project team throughout the course of this application.
this application seeks to planning permission to change the use of the existing commercial building, previously occupied by John Lewis, to provide a car showroom to be operated by us, the Hindi group, a family run business with over 40 car dealerships throughout the south of England.
the proposal will bring the site back into positive economic use as part of the reorganisation expansion of our group operations within the area,
the proposal facilitate the relocation of the existing Mountie from Hendy site,
the site has been vacant since April 2021 and therefore has not been contributing positively to local economy.
the proposal therefore represents a positive investment by local business in long term vacant unit with an established commercial area
the new facility would provide approximately 86 jobs split across a range of job types and roles, including sales of ministerial engineering, managerial and service roles including apprenticeships,
the majority of the positions will be full-time, however there will be part time roles available and will also provide opportunities for flexible working.
the proposal is expected to support approximately 2.6 3 million in annual earnings to our colleagues.
in addition to the benefit of bringing the site back into use, the process will also enable the mountain from site to be made available for redevelopment that site is identified for redevelopment for residential purposes within the Council's own emerging local plan, so approving the application proposed at Kingstanding business park will therefore enable the opportunity to deliver a wider land use planning objectives contained within the Council's emerging Local Plan.
technical matters relating to energy and sustainability, drainage and flooding, noise and ecology have all been assessed by the Environmental Protection Team who have confirmed that proposal is acceptable and permission should be granted
in respect of the highway matters following a request for further information from the applicant National Highways are now satisfied that proposals are entirely acceptable and have recommended planning permission to be granted. discussions with KCC Highways are ongoing, however importantly it's now been agreed by them that further impact assessment is not actually required, as the development will not result in any severe impacts on the local highway network, the outstanding matter relates simply to the parking provision within the site, a response to address these comments are now being provided by our highways consultant which in summary confirms that parking provision is more than sufficient and notably exceeds provision that comparable sites within our group elsewhere.
in short, the technical evidence demonstrates that the proposal will not give rise to any unacceptable impact in terms of highway safety, the proposal will in fact, result in a significant saving of about 800 vehicle movements on the local highway network across the day, compared to the existing permitted retail use of the building.
we conclude, the proposal will ensure a long-standing vacant site can be brought back into positive economic use as a local business, the proposal provides public and economic benefits that would be acceptable in all regards, as confirmed in the officers report, we have now addressed all the technical matters and provide a scheme which accords to the Local Plan Core Strategy and emerging Local Plan as confirmed by the officers
we very much hope that Members can support the officers' recommendation for delegated power to be given to grant planning permission subject to the resolution of the outstanding highway matters. Thank you for your time.
first act would.
thank you Chair just a quick question about the car transporters, because I'm unable to experience because I often go to the wholesalers down their cars, often park opposite that site,
and you've got the bus depot and you've got the retail part further on from there
where the where are the car transporters likely to offload is there a set time for them to offload so it doesn't impact the bus depot anything like that?
OK, so it's envisaged that,
like John Lewis, the applicant or the car showroom and the drop off facility would be in the service area to the rear of the site, closer to the book wholesale entrance.
as, as provided by an update KCC considered a contribution of 3,500 pounds is required, and we have also conditioned, under condition 19, a travel plan, 20, a delivery plan, further details, along with 21 parking monitoring plan to to adequately sort of address that issue.
but yes, we are KCC and are so dissatisfied that access to the site is safe and adequate can be adequately dealt with through
the securing of a section 1, I 6 contribution, and through conditions.
any other questions Members Councillor Bailey, and then Councillor me.
thank you, Chair
sort, my brain is slightly fried from the previous.
previous item, but
what the highways issues are we now leaving to the Head of Planning to to resolve exactly?
so there are two outstanding issues are currently being discussed, one being parking and the distribution of parking, all that split between customer start of forecourt space
and the other being whether a contribution is required towards sustainable transport options, so you notice at paragraph 7.2 to the Highway Authority have set out that they don't consider that the
that any sort of further traffic impact assessment is required and that safe access and the the the numbers of movements associated with would cause such as a detrimental impact on the highway,
but it's just really hashing out the the parking distribution across the site and whether a contribution is required towards sort of towards sustainable transport options, supposedly the two outstanding matters.
thank you, it sounded or from what was the Andy was saying, as if
the company has come out with further information about the the parking
yes, we received that. it was either yesterday or the day before.
so that's out out to colleagues at Kent Highways at the moment for their their review
in terms of the the parking element, I think is it's essentially boiling down to.
how many spaces for sort of sales vehicles?
and how many spaces need to be retained for staff, parking
and and customer parking, and that that's that's the element that
the applicant's transport consultant has provided extra information on recently and we will be considered by. by Kent Highways.
we have discussed with Kent Highways the essentially the last three conditions on the on the recommendation, so 19 relates to to the travel plan.
in terms of the travel plan, and how how the applicant envisages the the staff to to get to the the site may impact on the requirement or otherwise for public transport contributions to be secured,
the deliveries plan, which is which is condition 20, which Councillor Attwood referred to in to, which is basically
we need and have your car transporters turn up and.
and how are they going to get in and out of the the site without?
causing undue congestion in terms of the the the tracking plans they have been submitted and and Ken Highways are happy that.
a car transporter can access
the the site and those tracking plans have been done with parked cars on the road,
so they have been there, they've been assessed essentially worst-case scenario in that respect,
the money for the traffic regulation order is in the event that,
should I say the the parked cars on the road are not parked,
as well as drawn on the tracking diagram
and therefore cause cause problems in access that's when I, a traffic regulation order may be maybe required to.
to put restrictions on on that area, but in terms of the
the tracking diagram works in it and it's safe, and then the third, the third one condition 21 is the the key parking, one which which relates to parking man monitoring plan
essentially so that when it's when the sites up and running it is not just a right where we, we've we've provided parking, so wash our hands of it and see what see what happens, it is one that.
each of the authorises will collectively and individually be responsible for the monitoring of that to ensure that essentially the the
the system works and the there's sufficient parking,
obviously from an operational point of view as well.
they're not gonna, be I, but they're not going to want to run or a car showroom where customers turn up and don't have anywhere to park, it's it's not, to my mind, not particularly good business model, so I'm sure,
I'm sure that. it would be running in a way, but that gives us a bit more control,
and Members will also be aware of the existing Hendy sites in in town, which are
very constrained, and I would suggest.
probably have a bit more.
sort of tighter shunting around a vehicles on daily basis than may be necessary on or on this site so.
that's why we think we think there is a solution there, which is why we've bought it to to members at this stage
so, rather than wait until everything's complete on,
thank you for that.
it did mention in the
in the report that there have
been come spillover problems on other sites, I think it was the Eastleigh site.
if there is a spillover from this site, where's that likely to affect as it is, it likely to affect the the car parks of kind of neighbouring businesses or or could it go onto the highway?
I think it is so difficult to predict with with any certainty it may it may be that you'd be looking at you as a say, some of the other car parks
in the in the area which would which would have
sort of overflow car park car parking from this site you may look at, I think as Councillor outwards there's a lot of there's lots of street parking on. on that road that exists at the moment, so it's it's an existing
so that that that could him back could increase, and that's this as to say why the the combination of condition 19 and 21.
as a saw put on, to try to ensure that that is that is monitored and and doesn't.
yeah, it doesn't harm the sort of free flow of traffic essentially.
again, Councillor Gruen, and
Councillor, thank you Chair.
in a way, my question relates to Councillor Bailey's point,
I was surprised to see that it was delegated powers.
to grant planning permission.
I have not seen that before in my role as a town councillor and
obviously a short time, even on the bar.
what justification is there for that, because, if it relates to various? items in the report in relation to Kent Highways concerns which are quite significant in relation to already mentioned car transport as.
and the parking issues in getting access to site with those transporters, as well as issues relating to construction traffic,
they were concerned about that National Highways on the impact on the existing access routes into the industrial development site overall.
that it would may be for transparency, etc to actually list the issues we've got a problem with or you think can be.
discussed, and I have an agreement with winners, we as members are looking at agreeing to delegate the powers because it is unusual
we're a planning committee members make decisions,
we respect from contributions by by officers, which is what I role is. so I see this is like stepping out of that role and if it does and its justification for it, then we still need to know exactly what the issues are, that we're giving delegated powers to
I think the key the key point says, as you sort of alluded to Councillor Moon, is that the
earlier in the in the consideration of the application.
we had an objection from National Highways who are
the statutory consultee on
sort of major trunk roads in terms of the impact on on the a 21.
that that has been overcome, an applicant has provided sufficient detail to to satisfy
National Highways and they have withdrawn their objection,
so they are now. satisfied that the application can be permitted
and they are requesting a construction Environmental Management Plan which we were proposing to put Thomas as a condition
in terms of Kent Highways,
again, they were they, they initially had objections
and they had concerns like concerns about the access and the deliveries for
they had concerns regarding the traffic generation from the site itself and the impact on the local road network.
they had concerns regarding the
the distribution of that,
in terms of the the information that's been submitted by the applicant, that has overcome the issue of the the access and the car transport, or so can Highways are satisfied that that is a safe and suitable access for the development,
the development in terms of traffic generation and the impact on the surrounding road network Kent Highways have agreed that that is acceptable and that,
no further work is required on that, so they're satisfied in that regard, so the the two elements that they.
they had objections to
are satisfied, the remaining elements is, as Mr. Morsi said, these, the the distribution of parking within the site in terms of
how many spaces for customers, how many spaces for staff, how many spaces for sales vehicles,
and that distribution across the site,
and that is that is the matter which so we've recently had additional.
information, and so hopefully that will be that will solve the last concerns of Kent Highways, but in terms of their the their view, they they don't object to the site to the proposal as it is, we're not, we not bring in.
we're not bringing the application to
to committee with an outstanding objection from Highways, and it's important to make that clear
a tight point, Councillor Booth, that it's an unusual position to be in in that we're seeking
members to essentially.
resolve that they're satisfied with the development and that they
they give officers delegated powers to essentially iron out the last last bit of the detail,
but it's it's not, it's not something which is never done, we have done it previously, we did it with the Kingstanding why
development which was of
so far greater scale
there also are
a much greater amount of outstanding work to be done on and then then what what remains on this site, obviously this is a
this is a site which has been vacant for
about two years now, it's a very prominent site on the entrance to Tunbridge Wells.
it is one that is aside, but in terms of the
the sort of committee schedule.
we deem that we had got sufficiently far along the road, pardon the pun of
dealing with the the highway issues.
to to bring it to members for their consideration,
Councillor Blake, thank you.
I got slightly lost on the proposal.
about the permeability
of the car parking itself.
where are we on that?
is it going to be permeable, iv, A to B?
Hard and flattering.
so the the existing car parking servicing is not proposed to be amended, and you know in the consultee comments, KCC Flood and Water Management have been consulted on the application on
a few occasions first time, recommending no objection subject to a couple of conditions
in that sort of space of time also addressing other highway matters, the applicant provided further drainage details, which I think has resulted in just a single
drainage condition, but those there's no proposed alterations to the surfacing of the existing car park as you can see on the screen now so it's as existing.
just about electric charging points, I'm sure that the businesses got 43
sites and knows all about how to do it, but I just wondered about if there was a
two things is a requirement that KCC or somebody else puts on the number of
electrical charging points compared with the amount of parking and what's to stop me shopping at the
parking at Hendy getting my car park my car charged up and shopping at B and Q is that monitored in some way because that will impact the traffic that's all.
sorry in terms of the charging points, I think it's parks of KCC guidance at the moment in one of the developing documents I don't think is fully adopted, as well as the council submission local plan
there are EV charging points shown on the propose sort of site plan Scott scattered around the car park and there is also a condition 14 which requires these to be implemented prior to the first use.
of the development and retained thereafter.
are there any further questions?
if not, we now move into discussion members.
thanks Chair, can I propose that we accept the officer's recommendation as as amended
yeah, Councillor Brandon.
so that's been.
the proposal to accept the recommendation officers' recommendation and Councillor Baillie seconded by Councillor Bridger Alan does anybody else want to make a contribution to the debate before we move to the vote?
thank you Chair just a quick
one in relation to 7.1 6
from KCC flooded and what the dissociated parts of that, but they deal with, is that it is a brownfield site and normally brownfield sites you have a reduction in
water run-off or surface water. but the particular
development and business is
usually probably lie,
7 b) Application for Consideration - 22/03262/FULL Former John Lewis At Home Kingstanding Business Park Kingstanding Way Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent.
would generate more surface water, washing cars or whatnot and item 1.7 dot 1 6 relates to that, it is asking that there is evidence that the runoff is reduced
to two. a 50% reduction in the peak runoff rate from the existing site has been sought so that the developer
the applicant bears that in mind.
it might weigh or even impact on the surface that's there originally. to make sure that reduction is
dealt with, thank you.
Councillor Moon, I think first point to point members out. Is it this site doesn't fall within an area of high flood risk, it doesn't fall within Environment Agency, Flood Zone 2 or 3 or a strategic flood risk area, and to refer you to 10.7 0 in the report. One of the suite of members' benefits at this for surface water proposal consists of conventional piped drainage and manholes conveying runoff to below ground attenuation in the form of geocell. Your attenuation, tank
bar intense tension, tunnel drainage is proposed to be utilised to collect runoff from the external paved areas to treat the runoff prior to entry into the main drainage system, and KCC. Flood and Water Management are satisfied with the proposed drainage details, subject to condition 18, which sets out that no buildings shall be occupied until a verification report pertaining to the surface water, drainage system and prepared by suitable competent person has been submitted to and approved by the LP. A report should demonstrate that the drainage systems constructed is consistent with that which was approved. The report shall contain information and evidence, including photographs of detail, details and locations of inlets, outlets and control structures, landscapes plans for 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 is constructed,
as the only other point, or it might come on drainage at the moment. Obviously it's the site has been vacant for two years, so any sort of outlets or ditches surrounding the site are now much more lockable would be much more likely to be monitored and maintained
with the site being occupied
thank you that a simple
reference to the 10 dot would have done, thank you.
just wanted to be sure.
OK. if there are no further comments, we've got a proposal from Councillor Baillie and seconded by Councillor Bridget Allen to approve this application in line with the officers' recommendations, all those in favour please show.
it's unanimous Chair, thank you.
application is therefore approved.
Councillor out with all you departing there. I answer OK all the time, Alana Nicky.
OK, we now move on to
7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/00503/TPO Breakstones Speldhurst Road Langton Green Tunbridge Wells Kent.
item 7 C 23 stroke 0 0 5 0 Free Brighstone, spelled as Road Lynton Green.
it says he and Mr. Jones, but I can't see it, Mr. Johnson.
in the midst of noisy Mr. Moyes.
thank you Chair, this application relates to.
this application relates to a TPO application. in a way, the application is at committee, as the
works relate to accounts or on the land of a council is relative and the application seeks.
surprise the crowns of bat of two trees by four to five metres trim and rebalance if necessary, and the site relates to break stones in Speldhurst, Road Langton Green.
site now you can see the application site, and the proposal relates to.
and again this tree here, so this is the property of books, stowed
wistaria and mystery here.
and he can see try one, so this is first pitch all shades of history here.
it's this big one here, so it's to effectively
remove the branches and into crown the tree from four to five metres from ground level to effectively clear every branch that's within that sort of 45 metre from ground level and then retain the rest of the site of the tree as existing.
and then this is the ice slightly hard to see, but the second trees sort of among sort of behind the the the house you can just see in the entrance, so that's sort of limited visibility of the tree
so the proposed tree works are to raise lower branches by no more than 5 metres over adjoining properties and to allow more light into the gardens and homes,
a reasonable amount of work proposed to improve location and surrounding area or pruning work is necessary to retain trees under good management in their relatively constrained garden, location and overall public visibility is limited due to the s due to their surroundings.
there are no updates to reports and the application is recommended for approval, as set out in the agenda, thank you.
thank you, we have no speakers on this item,
commitment, committee, members' questions, Councillor moving Councillor visual.
well, Chair, thank you, but I was going to propose that we accept the recommendation
question did you ever question
is any very quick, one held the Utri roughly dice of interest.
I'm not sure they are the edge of the tree, the tree preservation order was made in 1984, so racy 1984, it was deemed.
sufficiently mature to warrant a tree preservation order, and we're obviously
close to 20 years B on that so.
it's a of a fair age,
I think from the height of it again, the tree officers
that. That's why his view is that it can take a crown lift of up to 5 metres because the the the upper foliage would still would still maintain the the trees,
contribution to the surrounding character,
Councillor Baillie, you get a question.
I just wanted to check with the officers if, if this wasn't a relation of a Councillor, would this be a sort of fairly standard application that
there would be approved?
yes, I think it's fair to say would be a relatively routine application.
May I congratulate Councillor Moyesey on including the phrase verdant surrounds.
OK, Councillor Moon, you're going to propose that we, except this application,
yes Chair, because when you consider that tree it will benefit no end from the work being suggested
and balancing the branches, because at the moment you can see there is a slight imbalance, so I propose that we accept the recommendation.
do I see a seconder for that Councillor Bridger added Venky any cut further comments on this application, if not, we get a proposal from Councillor Moon. sic by Councillor Butcher Alan, to accept the office of remain convert recommendation and approved his application, all those in favour please show.
it's unanimous Chair, OK,
that application is therefore approved.
8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 14 March 2023 to 31 March 2023
item 8 appeal decisions for noting 14th of March to the 31st of March 2023, these are set out on page 92 of the agenda, vomit any Members have questions relating to these appeal decisions, they should be raised with planning officers outside the meeting.
urgent urgent business I can confirm there is no such business
9 Urgent Business
Date of next meeting, The next meeting is an on site, Wednesday, the 17th of May 2023.
obviously this is my last meeting, so of all I'll say goodbye to you,
yeah thanks members officers, and especially you EMA, for keeping in.
the numbers who
asked OK, but yet thank you, and I can't promise, I won't be turning up again, perhaps as a public speaker, but
at least I know the rules when, when you should be speaking in
yeah, three minutes yeah exactly I know.
anyway, anyway, the meeting is now closed and thank you all for your attendance,
thank you very much Chair.