Planning Committee - Wednesday 16 August 2023, 6:30pm - Feedback Tab - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
-
Seat 3
Agenda item :
1 Chair's Introduction
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 19 July 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 - 23/01445/FULL - Brokeswood Lodge, The Ridgeway, Southborough
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01542/FULL - Cinderhill Wood, Caravan Park, Five Wents, Matfield, Kent
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/01616/FULL - 15 Lurkins Rise, Goudhurst, Kent
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01542/FULL - Cinderhill Wood, Caravan Park, Five Wents, Matfield, Kent
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 d) Application for Consideration - 23/00999/FULL - 1 Orchard Close, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 10 July 2023 to 4 August 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
9 Urgent Business
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
10 Date of Next Meeting
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Seat 3 - 0:00:00
Good evening everybody,we seem to we've seemed to have lost one of the Councillors,
we're Brendan, Councillor Les Page, has gone.
members were fine.
we could start before we start the meeting proper, as you all are aware,
we, the Chair of Planning, is is away, so we have to elect a temperature for this evening's meeting.
so I know that there was an e-mail that went round earlier, and so this is just a matter of off of process, hopefully.
so can I have a proposal for the Chair,
Councillor Neville?
I am happy to propose Councillor Patterson, thank you very much, Councillor Patterson has proposed, do we have a seconder
Councillor Fitzsimons proposed a second are we agreed,
thank you, that was in essence straightforward, thank you very much.
to the purchaser.
good evening and welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, 16th August 2023 I am Councillor Patterson, before we get on to the agenda items, please could you give your full attention to the following announcements from our Caroline Brit,
Good evening, everybody and welcome to this evening this meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, the 16th of August 2023 0 sorry, I'm reading us Becky partner, Surrey, suddenly become chair.
thank you Chair good evening in the event of a fire alarm ringing continuously, you must immediately evacuate the building at walking pace officers with a scorching via the most direct available were 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 and once away once outside a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left and no-one is to re-enter the building until advised it is safe to do so. this is a public meeting. 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 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 any liability for any third party recordings. It is very important that the outcomes of the Meeting are clear. At the end of each subsequent substantive agenda item, a vote will be taken by a 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 members of public, who are perhaps the public, who have registered to speak but are unable to join the meeting, will have their statement read out, thank you Chair.
for the benefit of recording, we're going to take a roll call.
thank you Chair, Councillor Britta Alan present, thank you, Councillor Fitzsimons, present, thank you, Councillor Johnson,
thank you, Councillor Page present, thank you, Councillor Moon
present, thank you, Councillor Neville present, thank you Councillor Osborne present, thank you Councillor Pope present, thank you Councillor Patterson prison, thank you and Councillor White. present, thank you and officers this evening we have Richard Hazel Grove present, thank you, Peter Hockney,
present, thank you, Andrew McLoughlin nuance present, thank you, James Taylor, present, thank you, Joe Smith present, thank you. Thank you Chair.
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 agendas for over a week and have the opportunity to study these and to clarify any issues with planning officers.
So, although members of the public might wonder why some matters are not discussed in more detail at the meeting it may well be that Members already asked these questions and obtained satisfactory answers
when we come to the substantive items on the agenda this evening, the officer will set out their report at first,
I will then ask any speakers to address the committee before we then move in to member discussion.
at the end of the debate, I will try to summarise the Committee's view and members should ensure that any proposal or reactions are correctly captured before a vote is taken.
apologies for absence.
Caroline, do we have any apologies for absence,
thank you, Chair, we have received apologies from Councillors, Bland and O'Connell.
1 Chair's Introduction
2 Apologies
thank you, declarations of interest
members of the Committee should declare at this point if they have any declarations of pecuniary or significant other interest with both better their discretion and need to withdraw from the meeting while a particular application is had, does any member have a declaration to make?
3 Declarations of Interest
there seems none.
declarations of lobbying
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)
members of the Committee should declare at this point if they have been lobbied on any of the applications in today's agenda, the clock will ask each Member in turn, please, state, in which application you have been lobbied if any, and whether it is by objectors supporters or by
thank you Chair.
Councillor pitcher Alan,
thank you, I've been lobbied against agenda item 7 C.
OK.
Councillor Fitzsimons,
thank you, I've been
lobbied against
the doubtless
one which I have
to say
yeah, thank you, thank you, Councillor Johnson,
no lobbying.
Councillor Page,
no lobby que,
Councillor Noon.
item 70 lobbied against,
thank you, Councillor Neville. lobbied against item 70, thank you,
Councillor Osborne,
against 70,
thank you, Councillor Pope,
and I've also been lobbied against on Item 17 Goudhurst, thank you,
Councillor White,
no lobbying, thank you.
Councillor Pattison,
yes, I've been lobbied against Item 70, thank you,
thank you Chair.
5 Site Inspections
site inspections and members did not carry out any official site visits, but did any members carry out any individual site visits?
Councillor Page,
I visited the sites of 770,
thank you, everybody else,
it seems nobody else.
6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 19 July 2023
item 6 is to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday, the 19th of July 2023.
members are asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting are true record of the proceedings,
please, may I remind Members that the only matter for discussion is their accuracy. do the Members have any other comments?
thank you, the motion is to agree the minutes, all we agreed.
agreed.
7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
the motion is carried.
item 7 is the report of the Head of Planning Services
these report to those of the Head of Planning Services.
a presentation will be provided by the Case Officer for the application, but for those members of the public listening, I would like to be clear that the court, the considerations, conclusions and recommendations of the report are those of the Head of Planning Services and not of individual case officers. I would like to remind members of the public that are registered to speak, that they should not use personal, disrespectful or offensive language when making their presentation.
The order of business this evening will be 7, A Brookwood Lodge The Ridgeway Southborough, 7 C 15 Lycans Rise, Goudhurst 7 B Cinderhill would caravan park, 5 wins, Matfield and 7 D 1 Orchard Close Royal Tunbridge Wells.
7 a) Application for Consideration - 23/01445/FULL - Brokeswood Lodge, The Ridgeway, Southborough
item 7, A 23 stroke 0 1 4 4 5, straightforward brogues with Lodge The Ridgeway Southborough, Mr Hazel Grove, your presentation, please.
thank you, Chair,
and this application follows
a permission that was granted by Planning Committee back in March for three dwellings on this site. which lies within the limits to build development of Southborough,
so you can see the application site there outlined in red is currently a single dwelling positioned within the centre of the site and a small garage slightly to the south of it,
there are also public rights of way which you can see outline them in brown there
running through the site and running to the south.
so this is the application site in the context of
the bit limits to built development and southborough, so you can see this. housing is a housing estate to the south and and the Ridgeway is to the north as well, all of those both of those are in the limits to built development.
and then to the north-east, you have the
Brookwood area, which is in the Green Belt Yohan B, and is also a local wildlife site and an area of ancient woodland.
so, in terms of the constraints on the sites, you can see there.
W F R WS 18 along the bottom footpath WS 15 along the top which, as Members may remember from last time, may not do, but it's been, it was diverted back in the 19 80s, albeit unlawfully, so it follows the the line of the the red line.
you can see just there, it actually follows this course here, and this is the walkthrough that's been used by by local residents.
CSA, since 1980 s, this is its true legal line, which is disused and has a further footpath in this direction, going up 3 Upper Ridgeway,
this areas say natural is ancient woodland and,
within the A and B.
in addition, it is also within the Green Belt, and this plan shows the edge of the limits to build development.
so some photos of the sites this is
these few look towards the access, so this is the junction of the private part of the Ridgeway and the application site
is the entrance to the application site, which also shares the public right of way.
and it is the Jonathan with Hillcrest to the south, and the applicant also owns the
small piece of land here as well,
which is to be used for enhancements to the access, and those enhancements already have planning permission from March 2022. whilst 2023 committee meeting.
this is the view down the public right of way into the site.
and back up the driveway again where the two foot paths diverge.
this is the site itself as a large expanse of hardstanding, on one side with the house in the middle.
that's the house, the smug garage, that's just to the south of it.
in a view that the land levels drop quite steeply from
the south-west through to the north-east, and so this photo is taken from further down the garden looking up at the house.
this is the garden area with Broxwood in the background.
these are the typical designs of houses in the surrounding area.
along Hillcrest and Ridgeway, predominantly red, brick and red tile.
this is the current layout of the site in more detail, so you see
the the access route here and in the way the contours drop and are very closely away in this direction down towards the woodland. with the house in the middle, there are very few trees actually on the site.
as you can see here.
so this is the existing house
section showing it in relative to the houses around it, and you'll see it set much lower than the the nose around it, and these are three dwellings that were granted planning permission some years ago as a form of backland development.
I refer to the earlier planning permission granted in March this year, this was that was for 3 dwellings, sorry for three dwellings arranged at the centre of the site, just to refresh members' memory. access through here and then
enhancements to the public right of way the walked route along here, although the lawful route was kept,
open with this application.
this application also included a buffer to the ancient woodland.
which would be divided off from the gardens and managed separately, as well as this open amenity area, which was for the benefit of the residents, only also intended to be public open space.
in any way, and then work to the access was proposed around around here as well.
as you'll see from the layout for the current application,
essentially the application is for bored dwellings now, rather than three these, this entire section here is identical to what was granted planning permission before this area is retained as an open space
la wildlife enhancements phase or biodiversity enhancement space.
the only differences from the previous permission or the previous application are the addition of the fourth house here,
with its two parking spaces and also the application includes the permanent diversion of the highway to include its walked route, that it's the one that local residents around here use
and have done for many years, and the closing off of this section, this granted permission for this alone, for this scheme alone would ensure this diversion.
the applicant will be required to gain separate approval under the Highways Act in order to and from Kent County Council in order to formally divert this.
in terms of distances from the nearest dwellings.
the say these three dwellings or as previously approved that is this open area.
the new dwelling here is 30 metres from and corner of numbers,
6, The Ridgeway
and then 15 to 17 metres from these two, albeit down, they are set at a much lower level down the slope.
so this is a section.
proposed section, these are the three houses that already have planning permission, and then you'll see tucked just behind it, there is the fourth house that's proposed as part of this scheme.
again, on the section
3 houses that have consent already and in the fourth house, she set much further down the slope.
these are the enhancements to the access which are the same, as has already have planning, permission and grant that was granted in March 2023.
the first three plots are identical.
so it just runs very quickly through those.
and in the fourth plot, is a bit of an unusual design but is designed to accommodate the contours of the land, it's partly built into the slope.
it set well down below
the other houses nearby.
it takes the form of our
well, over one and a half storey dwelling, essentially with living accommodation in the roof space,
it would be largely unseen from outside the site, except for the
top of the roof due to the vegetation, strong vegetation boundary vegetation along the boundary with a public footpath.
so they say these are CJI eyes of the three houses
in the centre of the site.
and then it is a C G, I of the fourth House,
again it would appear as two storey when viewed from this angle,
one and a half storey, rather and but would appear as bore of a single storey structure from this endow into the
third, essentially the ground floor and the brief converging at this point.
there are no updates for members.
and so the conclusion, as Members will be aware, we can't currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
and therefore paragraph 11 and footnote 7 of the NPP f, requires that, where relevant, policies are out of date, that permission for sustainable development should be granted, where all other material considerations are satisfied,
the proposal would result in delivery of sustainable development.
and the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan and local policy in respect of all material considerations.
plots 1 to 3 and their gardens and parking areas, along with the internal access road, the buffer to the ancient woodland and Local Wildlife Site, and the provision of the biodiversity enhancement area have already been granted planning permission back in March.
the traffic movements generated by the development can be accommodated without detriment to safety on the public highway, the proposal would regularise the 19 80s diversion of and deliver surfacing improvements to the walked route of public rights of way WS 15
and it wouldn't significantly harm residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings, number of units and now are still considered to be appropriate to the site, the scale and massing of the layout of the development is considered acceptable,
the development can be accommodated around the existing trees with the loss of only one tree on site to deliver Plot 4 and that's a poor quality garden tree.
the proposal Kindle of a biodiversity net gain as it could before,
as it did before, the proposal would secure a buffer zone to the ancient woodland
it would preserve the setting of the A and B is within the lpd of Southborough which is a tier 1 settlement which hosts a wide range of shops, shops, schools and other amenities
is in a highly sustainable location close to a major bus route and within walking distance of shops, pre-school nursery, primary and secondary schools, GP surgery and other facilities
and other issues have been assessed and there are not any which would warrant refusal of the application or can't be controlled by condition,
and so the recommendation is to grant permission subject to conditions thank you.
Becky, thank you, we have two speakers on this item
when I call your name, please come to the microphone and insurance was activated when you speak, you have three minutes to make your statement
our first speaker this evening the support of the application is Mr Sam Bowman Bow architecture speaking on behalf of the applicant.
Mr Bowen.
Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this application. as set out in the officer's report. This application seeks approval for one additional unit to the scheme, which was approved by Planning Committee back in March for the three houses, with the exception of just one vote against that scheme was voted for in favour by all other committee members. The reason given for the vote against the previous scheme by the Council was in relation to providing a 50 metre buffer zone to the rear of the site adjacent to Broxwood. In respect of this application, additional unit now being sought is located to the upper part of the site and further away from Brookwood than the three houses previously approved. Therefore, the previous reason is a material to this application.
as with the previous application, Highways have no objection to the site access arrangements, and so, in this respect to this proposed proposal, there are no changes to what have previously been approved,
the additional new house has been carefully designed to ensure that it has absolute minimal impact on any amenity outside of the site, the design slopes with the contours of the site and given its overall height. it will not be seen in any meaningful way from outside the development and will have no material impact on the surrounding neighbouring properties.
A short diversion to the public right of way in this application seeks to regularise the existing established routes around the edge of the site that walkers already commonly use. The diversion involves a modest adjustment to a 48 metre stretch of the prowl which will not impact on the length, safety or enjoyment that walkers will experience to and from broadsword Lodge.
This is a sustainable site where your housing policy directs development towards. We consider this a thoughtful and respectful approach to providing a further good quality dwelling on his site. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Berman.
our second speaker is Ms Christine Fisher.
she is not here, so we will move on
officers, do you wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from what the speaker said, No, okay, committee, members, do you have any questions for officers?
Councillor Page.
thanks I noticed that the KCC drawing, and I know this was already a
approved talks, about 20 mile splays to do over 20 mile an hour roads just wanted to note that.
I am going to ask if that's a material thing if it's currently 30 miles an hour?
and I also wonder if there isn't on the plan is an excess parking, space or parking place, and I wondered whether the construction,
whether that should be put in place.
before the construction starts,
and disregarding the construction.
how we can enforce the environmental health regulations
for the construction, noise dust and all of that.
and
until I just keep going until I stop, I've got two
more quick to ask the officers firstly said that they felt with questions
which were asked to answer those first and perhaps Councillor Page to come back yeah it'd be.
yeah, with regards to the visibility splays.
yet I've been designed from what I've taken the report to 30 March to 20 miles an hour based the speed limit around them.
times a year.
at the parking bay during construction.
do you mean passing bays within the site itself?
well, there's already quite a large expanse of hardstanding there.
I mean we there's a conditional now that requires a construction management plan anyway, in order to manage the way the construction vehicles.
access the site, et cetera, so I think we could perhaps include an informative on this permission to say.
that the details submitted, pursuant to that condition, shall include
parking bay is essentially to hold vehicles or to and to accommodate vehicles on site so that there is sufficient room for them to pass.
OK, would you have any further?
Dylan was just about enforcing the construction.
requirements that Environmental Health put on noise and dust and all of that stuff now is that.
measured or monitored.
well, first again, the C M P would be required to address that that matter in terms of noise and dust generated by the business during the construction phase.
if residents experienced excess, what I consider to be excessive amounts of DAS Directors amounts of noise
they
be required, they would need to contact us and then we will go out and ensure that the C and P is being complied with.
thank you.
Councillor Bridgwood,
thank you, I just want to clarify in the last application, which obviously was approved, Woodland Trust made comments about the buffer zone at the back of the three houses, the buffer zone from garden, because there might be incursion of garden waste,
do I assume that on this one because the because in the last application it went through that we couldn't then take anything any of that flight into consideration with this application as well as it's only really the addition of the fourth
dwelling that makes sense, thank you.
yeah because the fourth dwelling, thank you, Chair, sorry, yes, the the fourth dwelling is, as you see on the plan quite distant from the buffer zone,
so there would be no greater impact on the and the Woodlands from this this proposal,
so that's and that's hence why the the buffer zone remains the same as approved last time.
I think we regret any further questions.
shall we move into both Councillor repayment was that question, are you going to
kick off with no, it's a question, really should the
can the public right of way, because if they're gonna, have to apply for regularising the 1981, I assume?
it is a
and we said that that has to be done worthwhile saying that has to be done before the building starts.
thank you Chair.
it's a separate legislative process, but we can
identify.
yeah, we wouldn't be able to require it because of the there's Ms Talgarth said that different legislation is required, it will be the sightedness.
requiring them to submit building regulations application before starting to build the houses, it's a different legislative requirement,
we can put an informative on each so that they're aware that they that areas that
extra step to go through, obviously the current applicant is aware of that.
so that would only be a case if, if, for any reason, the site changed hands but yeah, we could put an informative on to to to ensure that received similar situations on the the cinema site that obviously members considered and approved on that, with a difference
sort of route for the
for the public right of way that would go through the Square and then
subsequently that they applied to Kent County Council to have that route regularised
would be a similar process.
OK,
there are no further questions.
shall we move into debate?
he proposal. Councillor Hudson,
thank you Chair.
that previous
plot, the the plot for the fourth house, was just a big sort of amenity area, so I think it's actually quite a good idea to put a full property on there, and I think the architecture is quite.
innovative
and I like the
fact that it's sustainable
wallets, it's.
it's obviously in a sustainable
position, but I also like all the measures, the energy saving measures that are included in this development.
thank you,
thank you, Councillor Vinson, drawing proposing we accept the officer's recommendation and
I would propose that I'll be happy to propose the Chair.
can we have a seconder Councillor Neville? OK
Councillor Noble, do you want to speak
just just to confirm our second at present pattern?
Councillor Moon.
thank you Chair.
I had a few
concerns after reading the application.
I don't normally look at previous applications because you should look at the relevant application, but in this case. I think when you look at the application on the 11th of the fifth 18, there were four dwellings for the site and that was refused.
the application on the 23rd of the third 23, considering all the changes in legislation it was granted for the free.
on that basis, I looked at the comments made and in regards to the buffer zone, the Woodland Trust still made the comment in the application regards the 15 metre buffer zone.
that may not be relevant necessary in this location,
but it was still in there
the other point I note, which KCC P R O W
when they relate to the footpath diversion.
and they were quite concerned that that
diversion order should be in place before any development is carried out, and I welcome the informative if that's put in on that.
application on this application,
I, I do think that, looking at that previous application with that additional dwelling,
it is in itself
over-intensive, I think it does spoil the overall outlook of the site and I think not having that third or fourth dwelling did actually contribute to the part in the previous application on the 23 March 23.
thank you.
thank you, Councillor, and anybody else would like to speak on this.
while we have a
in that case, we will move to a vote, we have a proposal moved by Councillor Fitzsimons, seconded by Councillor Neville.
to support the officer's recommendation and I presume that, with the two informative that
the officers suggested
should we just very quickly remind ourselves of what they were the first
yeah yeah sorry I've just checked in in relation to the clarification of the construction Environmental Management Plan condition which was a condition 20 so the informative to just clarify it in terms of the the parking elements that
Councillor Page raised and in the second informative was in relation to the requirement
for the diversion and the separate legislation.
Q How clear to everybody so we will move to a vote then. please show those in favour of the proposal moved by Councillor Fitzsimmons and seconded by Councillor Neville.
and those against.
thank you.
as 8 4 and 1 against, the motion is carried.
the application is therefore approved.
the next.
yes, 9, neither
did I miss some of the same.
my apologies, it's nine for, and one against apologies, sorry.
yes, thank you.
please get it right.
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01542/FULL - Cinderhill Wood, Caravan Park, Five Wents, Matfield, Kent
7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/01616/FULL - 15 Lurkins Rise, Goudhurst, Kent
okay, we move on to Item 7 C 23 0 1 6 1 6. a full 15 learnings arise, Goudhurst.
Mr. Sorry, it's page 72 of the main agenda and page 8 of the supplementary pack.
Mr. Taylor, your presentation, please.
thank you, Chair, as this application is for 15 lurking for us. seeks permission for two storey side and rear extension with alterations to the fenestration.
situated within the south-western end of Goudhurst, where you see the crossroads in the centre and you come down the artery right down the hill, suffering a side road of lurking forest.
the site is covered by the A and B, but otherwise it seems slightly mistook development.
small views of the site. you can see it occupies a corner plot,
and it is mirrored by the attached neighbour to the north.
the site occupies a prominent position in streetscene. it is elevated above the public highway,
you see better there, so the sites are visible from surrounding roads for about 180 degrees from near the entrance, Lycans rise
to the south crossroads.
this stepfather occupies the existing driveway.
again, a view of the property, a 15 m rise is the site on the right. mirrored of the attached neighbour of number 13.
that's the view of the southern side elevation, there were concerns raised by residents of slow worms on a site that was a view shared by biodiversity and landscape officer. it wasn't considered that the land was sufficient to maintain a population of slow worms and the applicant clear that landed out beneath planning permission site has been subject to an informative
you can see where there were tolls missing on the southern side elevation there was a potential for bats
that was subject to condition or subject to condition for the prior commencement condition for a bat survey and mitigation enhancement to be carried out that you can also see that no side windows of the adjacent neighbour to the east facing onto the site and it also note the window on the rear elevation of the house is slightly tucked under the roof of the existing out shop.
there's no extinction death to the River Rea, the existing outshot the definitive snapshot was to be retained, the width of the rear extension would be enlarged, there's also landscaping to be introduced to the southern boundary that subject to condition.
5, so that's considered to
potentially improve the overall appearance of the site and streetscene. I think you can get a view of the site, despite the extinctions are still.
a significant amount of the plotless that would be undeveloped.
as a view of the principal elevation existing on the left post in the right,
you can see that the ridge is being lowered from the side extension, which introduces a degree of subservience to the extension and the white cladding to be used on the first floor, would provide a clear visual freedom between the original building and the extension. the existing half hipped roof of the main dwelling would be retained and also replicated on the side extension and indeed dormers would break through the eaves,
keep the development at a low level, reduced a message to the roof and a significant proportion of the roofscapes be retained.
again, the southern side elevation existing and proposed in the report
provides a view of the
side elevation, so you can see it set back from the principal elevation again, reinforcing subservience and the windows to the side elevation are considered to
add an element of visual interest to the dwelling.
rear elevation
again, so white cladding being used there, so it is clear which will read with Sweeney extinction and the main dwelling actually mentioned among dwellings tile hanging currently.
you've got distance between that side wall of the extension on the drawing, so the rear extension and the boundary as a distance of 0.9 metres and that window to the sort of brightly serving a hallway. taken out that's being retained,
and then you've got the rooflight within a rear extension that would be obscure glazed and that subject to condition 6.
existing floor plans, you see, the kitchen window is covered partially voilà existing out shop.
and then the proposed floor plans.
updates there's been an e-mail received from Greg Clark MP requesting Members to consider representations made by neighbours.
but its inclusion
in designing the additions would appear subservient to the house building.
after the existing character and context was thought to be retained. the extinctions are a large, however large does not equate to harm the design of the extension is otherwise acceptable and would not give rise to harm.
the development at Hornsey, appearance of the out and B and whilst there may be an impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining occupier at number 13, the degree of harm is unlikely to be considered significant, which is what would be required under policy aim 1 and nor would it be of a level unexpected in southern limits for development,
there are no other issues raised which would warrant refusal of the application
set, a recommendation is to approve the application considered in compliance with the relevant policies subject to conditions
thank you.
thank you, thank you, we had three speakers registered to speak on this item.
Mrs. Richards and Mr. Goring have submitted statements
which we read out by the Clarke BA and Ms Fisher is not here, I don't think either so.
we have two speakers, but we also have Councillor at night who's going to speak as the local Member, I believe so
I think the car will read out the statements first and then Councillor Knight will speak later.
thank you Chair.
This is the first statement is from Ms Jordan Richards to her, to whom it may concern due to the ongoing mental health and severe exert anxiety, I wouldn't be able to attend the meeting and speak in front of people, so I'm writing this letter to be read out at the meeting on Wednesday, the 16th of August. In regards to the planning on 15 Lycans Dries, I am the tenant at the house, 13 Lycans rise next door to 15. I strongly opposed against planning of the for the two storey side and rear extension the size of the two storey at the rear would cause me many problems with damp, which is already an issue with these properties. Due to the height of the proposed rear extension, the overshadowing it would cause in my garden and the sunlight would be highly reduced to dry any of my back garden space, as mentioned in the agenda 10.0 9 my hallway window, isn't a primary living space, but I will lose all sunlight and the loss of all light in my hallway if it was built to have no light going through, there wouldn't have been a window place there. My Sky dish would have to be removed in place somewhere to set the signal at to get the signal at my expense. I fought for six months to get the house. I'm currently in to get outside space for my mental health, but more so for my son's autism, sensory overload and borderline A. D. H. D. The proposed elevation at the back will be looking and feeling like a prison wall with no sunlight in the summer months. The parking is already an issue along this road. The driveway there is on the property is only enough for two cars being turned into a 4 bedroom property. If there was more than two cars, it would cause even more disruption
is going to look hugely out of place with the other houses from one to 15. All look the same
by having the approval of this Bill, there would be no reason for other properties to construct the same build where applications for a lesser build have been rejected. I spoke to Gary for the first time about a month ago and he said it was just a side expansion extension and wouldn't affect me at all until I just thought to look at the plans. Also, the planning permission went up outside my house after the first meeting at the Goudhurst Parish Council had already taken place, so no parishioners could object, as we weren't in the know to this happening. Also, when permit permission was being placed on post early evening, he was asked what permission was forward and he wouldn't answer and scurried away. Also, back in 2009 7 darkens rise asked for planning permission to extend two storey at the rear property 0 9 1 0 0 1 4 5 4 to neighbouring properties went against it with roughly the same reasons as myself and other neighbouring properties against 15. This got refused due to the reasons for the neighbours there are 11 comments against the planning properties, saying how much this will affect us and it is still being granted. The mass scale of this planning is huge and wasn't going to be of any surprise that whoever bought it was going to extend it, but not to the size of this one with his comments to myself and neighbouring properties, he doesn't care the effect it has on neighbours, he won't be living in the property, so it said he won't affect him. I'm not planning to move anytime soon after living in the village for 30 years. To this end, I strongly object to the application commencing
thank you Chair.
thank you and
we've now got the
that Mr. Gill, Mr. Gibbons.
yeah, thank you Chair.
I will get just to let you know I will get through as much as that is possible in the three minutes, but it is longer.
I am writing with regards to the planning meeting on the 16th of August 2023 as the application 23 slash 0 1 6 1 6 FULL will be discussed before starting to get to the full point. It is worth noting that every objection believed that the side extension is satisfactory and it is only actually the rear extension which needs correction on the plan. If the developer is willing to compromise, he would actually probably have a lot more support in the interests of saving time. I have written these as bullet points. One storey, adequate two storey plus pitch roof is going to overshadow our garden completely overshadowed. The whole of number 13 I've been in their garden and seeing this, and the applicant nor the architect nor James Taylor has been the garden is more wide and the height would completely overshadow even with the width of the outbuildings that belongs to number 13.3 on the applicant's supporting comments is odd as it highlights the only problem they are creating. it reads to the rear, the house is an existing single storey extension, which is mirrored on the adjoining house to the north, it currently mirroring it it currently mirroring is a good thing, the architect applicant, changing this to instead overshadow the neighbouring property with a two storey extension with a pitch roof is exactly our issue.
at this stage, I'm fairly certain, Mr Garland, the architect has raised our points and concerns for us at point 10 in this document has even copied the phrase significant overshadow shadowing of the neighbour's property, property or amenity space space from speedy.
mass and scale of the application is ridiculous. This extension will be the size of additional one additional house. The current semi detached will look more like a terraced. Section 2 for one of the Goudhurst Neighbourhood Plan 2013 2037 says that development must ensure development, preserves and enhances the character, appearance and integrity of the parish. This does nothing of the sort it actually impacts and contributes pretty much all the design policies. Section 11 of this document, out of proportion to the existing house number 13, that it will be joined to the plans also show details of putting white cladding on just the extension, which will show a real difference to the house. It is connected to and the original property itself to address point 4 in Mr Gardens document the document the architect has made a very poor attempt to compare the application to Cherry Tree House and Rosamund that will build, but that were built in place of a bungalow.
It is worth noting that a this was not built by current residents, be the semi detached houses were built on the same footprint as the button below that was there and see if you look online, there was not one objection or comment to this. However, there are 11 on this application. For the 15 Lycans rise.
Again, he is highly highlighted how neighbours were fine, with the house being built with boundaries and limits and like his client, which is which is clearly to access, who are upsetting every possible neighbour in every direction. Sorry, I have up to three minutes to
thank you.
and our final speaker on this item is the local member for godless members, Councillor Knight.
I don't even know, and thank you very much Chair, David Knight, about a Borough Council of outlets that lampposts. I've called this application into committee today due to the concern for many of our local neighbours and residents and request the Committee refuse this application.
There are now approximately 12 comments against this application and some of the pictures are clearly showing overshadowing that this development will cause other planning. Material considerations include the loss of privacy, the visual appearance and the mass and scale and form with the application. And it's also in the A&E, Oby gougères, Parish, Council. They're planning meeting on the 25th of July recommended refusal as it is contrary to Gouter Neighbourhood Plan policies D 1 A respecting and complimenting in scale, massing and form. The character of the existing buildings in the locality is also contrary to policy. D 1 B, respecting established building lines, arrangements of roof lines, including chimneys, front gardens and boundary treatments. The Parish Council also noted the concerns of the neighbours regarding loss of natural light and overshadowing, as you have already seen, and heard, for the proposed two storey, rear extension. However, they were very happy to support the app if it was a single storey. In addition, the resident is you have heard in the other part of the building. The semi is a single mum suffers from mental health issues. She also has a severely autistic child and they're like deprivation or be caused by this development will badly affect the development of the child. The mass of the scale of the development is out of proportion of the rest of the houses in the road, as it will become a four bedroom two bedroom property. There is also photographic evidence of protected wildlife, such as slow worms, whose habitat will be destroyed by this development. These factors, I believe, combine to be overwhelming evidence for the app to be refused and trust that the borrower council planning committee will support their local parish council's decision with refusal. Thank you Chair.
Councillor Knight.
officers, do you wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by the speakers?
thank you, Chair, I just wanna draw attention to an application, it was referenced in the first representation. 0 9 slash 0 0 1 4 5 70s workings rice, it was said that the application was refused, it wasn't it was approved,
ceased there for a two storey, rear extension, internal alterations and dormer I actually don't want the principal elevation and a two storey rear extension.
it's strikingly similar to that being proposed under this application, you can see the windows be removed from all measurements, it is closer to the boundary than that being proposed under this application,
and you can see it still to the southern side, elevation of the seven properties have the same impact on neighbours and the impact on neighbour and rather application was deemed acceptable.
thank you.
thank you.
two committee members have any questions for the officers,
Councillor White.
thank you, and
I just wondered if you could explain a bit more about how much about the size or shape, because.
there was a lot of worry that it's much bigger than the other houses in the road is that's something that I'm not quite sure within the context of the planning, nor how much we need to we can take that into account or whether that is a sort of a different issue.
so in terms of
the the development plan policies, there's the sort of two elements, there's those those extensions that are outside of limits to build development and out in the open countryside they are subject to Policy H 11, which
which seeks to restrict size of size of extensions and gives a guideline of, have sought 50% to t to an extension
for
applications for extensions within limits to build development, so within villages such as Goudhurst within other villages within Tunbridge Wells,
there is no such.
limitation, there is no, there's no calculation that is undertaken, it's very much looking at the impact of the size of the of the of the property, whether it's in keeping, and I think, as as Mr. Taylor's
outlined in his initial presentation,
if you look at the the extensions as proposed they are
that they are in. designed in keeping with the existing property they're set down from the main ridge, set down, set back from the front wall
to give it a degree of subservience which is recommended through the residential extensions s p d,
and also the
first floor element is again. taken off the boundary, which is again another recommendation within the supplementary planning document, thank you.
have we got any other Members question Councillor Neville?
thank you,
could we please have a look again at the the driveway proposals, the end and the bend around there.
because I'm not, I'm not convinced that the access that is safe.
so why would you could you tell me
what's going to happen with that driveway there,
please?
the access is is reminding Simon, so it's been assigned a position, he's been there for from aerial imagery from our earliest record is 3,000.
whether that was built, the original house, I'm not sure the original plans don't exist. but it has been there for over four years, so it is deemed to be there permanently.
we won't take action against it.
but it is there
and accessible and has been established.
there are no changes to the position, there are any changes to the hardstanding which is currently existing, but in terms of the access, it's the same as it is currently.
Councillor level.
just go back to that again, it doesn't look like accused.
I think we
are difficult to use is that the
and nothing is. you can see from the
photos generally,
the that the houses he is in are a bit of an unkempt state,
but in terms of the the access point itself, as, as Mr. Taylor said, it is an access point that exists and that serves that dwelling as a single dwelling.
there's.
the there is no change as part of the extensions to that.
the the access point could be resurfaced
under permitted development and brought into full use
tomorrow, with or without any planning permission,
so it's whilst I sort of take the point that you make in that it's on the corner, it doesn't look ideal in terms of
suitability,
it exists at the moment and it's beyond our control
what I would say that the sort of goes for it is that it is obviously a law or a very wide verge.
which, as a result, does afford.
quite considerable visibility when you, when you are at a sort of egressing from the from the property, but, as I say, in terms of the the access point and its use, it's it's nothing that we can control under this application, I'm afraid thank you,
do you have any other questions Councillor Fitzsimons,
and thank you Chair on the loss of light for the neighbouring.
properties. am I convinced there's no substantial loss of light?
thank you if I can just draw your attention to the plants
where you've got to consider rear elevation.
so you've got the existing outcome of the roof
that the eaves of the extinction measure at 1.00.3 metres buffer is that you can sit out shop. beside the point nearest, the boundary is is
1.3 metres higher than it is currently, you've also got 0.9 metres between that side wall and the boundary. then you've also got another 2.9 7 metres of the roof of the neighborhood play on the app shop.
with the height and the gap between
the extension and in any immediacy area, I don't think there'd be a degree of harm that would be considered significant again that the application at number 7 is similar, if not close to the boundary, and the impact on neighbours under that application was was deemed acceptable.
we wouldn't have a reason to go against that now,
thank you.
Councillor Pope.
yes, I am also looking at the the rear extension and the height and the loss of, or potential loss of sunlight, is there any actual analysis of of how it will impact the neighbour,
we can look at these, but it's not clear what how that's actually going to impact the next-door neighbours.
there is no daylight and sunlight assessment that's been submitted, but that that there isn't a requirement for for an applicant to do so.
it's not it's not part of our policy that requires that, and it's not part of our validation checklists to to require that, I think the
the key point
is that, obviously the the window at first floor level, which is immediately adjacent to the boundary is is is that of the the subtle hallway area, and that's clearly that the window that's most affected, because it because it's closest
but it's not or is not a habitable room window
the the the next window
which is essentially the mirrored version of the the left-hand side or rear elevation that that's there. is the
it is the kitchen window at ground floor level, now I think it was Mr. Taylor so doing when showing the the photographs of the of the rear elevation that that window itself is, it is essentially tucked under the eaves of of the existing outshot. of the of the the neighbouring property, and this extension would not result in
a significantly harmful effect on.
on the light that reaches that window,
beyond the existing situation.
the test of the test of the policy in terms of residential amenity is significant harm.
and that Boris is high.
and the
the appeal decisions that we get from inspectors.
corroborate that, in terms of that,
that level of harm, so
the society that I I, I think
in answer, I think, to Councillor F Simmons' earlier question, I think, yes, we are satisfied that there won the war there won't be.
a significant impact, thank you.
thank you very further questions.
and it seems none can we move into discussion who would like to start so.
Councillor Noon,
thank you Chair.
I've looked at the application
carefully and
overwhelmingly the objections relate to what I consider the over-intensive
development in relation to the size of the extension.
and specifically how that affects the comments made by 13 and 59.
and if you look at
1.00 of the comments read out on a letter
that appears to be, the main issue of contention is the size, not necessarily an extension there.
and that incorporates Over-intensive t the result of overlooking.
the loss of light
and fundamentally the overshadowing,
and I think we should really consider
the resident, I think, at 13 that has particular issues in relating to that extinction.
and if you take the size, I don't think that's an unreasonable comment to make, and I suspect, backed up by our MP, Greg Clark.
so I have reservations on the size,
is quite clear that if it was amended and the I don't know, if you can put a condition on it to reduce the size, the only other option is to reject the application
and it be resubmitted,
thank you.
thank you, Councillor Gruen, Councillor Bridgwood.
thank you Chair.
yeah, really, I'm I'm once agree with them Councillor Morgan, on this one, actually I think the complaints have been coming in.
about, and also from the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Plan that it is not in keeping with the area, whilst I concede that the property does need a bit of sprucing up
and it is in a highly visual area and works to it would improve that's official site. I think the risks of overshadowing
the the scale of the development,
when I think the neighbour had already who is on their honeymoon, Hills has indicated that actually it's that rear elevation, the double storey elevation rather than extension per se
that?
under these circumstances, those conditions and the impact that is going to have a little surrounding neighbourhood, I would also support rejecting the application as it stands and asking the
the develop to resubmit taking these considerations and concerns into account.
do you have any other?
Councillor Neville.
thank you, I, too, have some considerable reservations about this, and it is.
to do with the light issues and the scale of the proposal in the particular
spot that it's in as well. I do know that area and be the building lines and the roofing there, it wouldn't sit well and I I just I, I can't see how it doesn't have an impact on this on the surrounding neighbours, so I I will also be
rejecting this unless there is a proposal for to go back to the developer to say that the Parish Council have suggested a single storey.
and perhaps that we could find that acceptable,
thank you.
I dispute Councillor Pope,
thank you Chair, and
I am concerned that the the that this is a very logical, but it's essentially two separate extensions, really one one on the side, one in the rear.
it adds a huge amount of space to
to a house so that it almost looks like it's doubling the area.
I, I'm not sure how much the concern of overshadowing or loss of sunlight will actually come into play.
by
looking at it, I'm not can.
confident that the the that there will be less loss of sunlight in the rear garden, though there may be a little bit less of light going into.
hallway or landing area in a kitchen.
but it does feel as though this is pushing
wow what they can build to the limit
I I'm still
undecided which way I should actually go on this.
Councillor White.
yeah, I can say Vice, in which Councillor Pope, I mean on paper wanting to have a four bedroom house, doesn't seem an unreasonable request.
I don't know how big the rooms are inside it, it might be, there might be enormous sediment, maybe you could meet, you could do a bit smaller, but I think and I also think it's quite like the way they're sort of doing different sides of the house that haven't got one enormous extension at the back and yet it's kind of sort of trying to use the most of their plot, I think the best they can.
but I also take into account the fact that
people feel very strongly that it feels too big for the road and the fact that the Parish Council have opposed it as well, so I think I'm
but with Councillor Pope, I'm not re, I'm a bit undecided on this site if it doesn't feel like an unreasonable request, but I can see if there's a lot of a lot of neighbours against it then perhaps we need to take that into account as well.
can I ask, is
it appropriate for us to refer the application
to see if we can negotiate changes with the
applicant, given the fact that I think in principle must be committed in favour of the principle of it, but
have issues with the
size of the impact?
I think in in terms of
the application, I think members need to make a decision on the application.
to tonight, I hear what what Members have said
in terms of the concerns about the impact
one question that I would I would ask them.
prior to any articulation of a reason, potential reason for refusal would be
where where is the harm occurring to?
and, as I say that we were looking at what windows are on on that rear elevation,
it's a sort of hall, landing and
a kitchen which is
partially
obscured by its own property, in any case, so
if, if Members are the same with an element of concern that Members have, then I would need them to articulate what that harm is and on to onto what area of the neighbouring property thank you
thank you Councillor Osborne,
it seems to me, and I agree with the the conceptual.
it's clearly a large development, but there is a precedent of a very similar development. and it seems to me, therefore, given that there has been a statement, that there isn't significant diminution of light that were developer to appeal if we've turned this down and in all likelihood the developer would succeed in that appeal. and therefore I'm not sure what the basis is, but it's actually turning down, given that a there's a precedent development which is similar, and there's a view that there is not a significant diminution in in the amenity of the other properties.
thank you, Councillor
Councillor Page.
next year.
when I went to have a look at this today, I have read a lot of the residents' complaints, because there is obviously a strong feeling about it seems to me that, because that corner plot is actually very big it.
it's not overdevelopment of that plot,
so that's one thing, the second thing is regarding all of the wildlife and people are concerned about damage to reptiles, which is illegal, but almost the whole of the front area of their house is laid to concrete, so there's gonna be a much less concrete hardstanding people are worried about the fact that it's got white cladding which is not part of the general design of the area, and that's completely true, but next door was a bungalow that's been given planning permission for a substantial double storey pair of semis in white cladding.
sir, and I think one of the the other complaints was that the
the House, instead of looking like two balanced things that looked like, would look unbalanced, but the developer has at least pushed the extension back a metre, so it does preserve to some extent the
the look of two Cemaes mirroring each other.
so my view is that it's that I would be happy to
to approve it.
some loss of light is inevitable. The
with
with any extension
neighbours at number 13 may move in a week's time, and so then the the the particular circumstances of the lady's mental health than it sounds. Autism is not something that I can think about as far as planning is concerned, all I'd like to say is that
the broken record is that it is a serious issue, the disturbance that will cause during the construction, so somehow I'd like
a stronger than just overall market environmental health.
problem to deal with the construction, noise and construction dust and all that stuff because it can have a really detrimental effect on the neighbours, but there's something that you can do about that. then I would be happy to support it
thanks
do you want to respond to that in terms of the construction disruption?
I think if, if Members deemed that, I
in the SA, certain circumstances of the case that are.
a construction management plan was was necessary,
Ben
it's within their gift to to impose that condition, it's not, it's not the sort of condition that we would normally put on a a household extension.
and the reason for that is that in terms of the
the actual enforceability of that,
and I'm gonna say what Councillor Lynne Page
asked me not to, but the
the environmental health legislation is much more responsive in that in that case, then I
a planning condition because in terms of planning conditions
the lead-in time for any formal enforcement action.
is a minimum of 28 days, by which point
a smaller development has obviously gone on or a much longer time, which is why typically, we look at them only on the major schemes, for that very reason, the longer longer construction period so as to say it's within Members' gift to to impose it,
it's not within our recommendation and I don't believe it would be necessary, I think it would be better
better enforced through the Environmental Health legislation, but we could put on an informative that that outlines what's required, but by those elements in terms of.
hours of working, etc
no thanks, I think, if there is an informative that would at least make the construction of the constructor's and the builders aware of the issue, so that would be great thanks
on that basis, Councillor Page, are you going to propose?
yeah
Kaye
and Councillor Osborne said OK,
Councillor Lynne,
sorry, can I ask?
can I ask that that was recorded,
I don't think Councillor Page had his
microphone on, so you are proposing.
yes, I am happy to provide it.
I am happy to certain and
councillors will get a second Councillor Pope was an excellent Councillor Moon.
sorry, I just wanted to to say one thing I would not say I am one of
I get slightly struggling with this, but one thing I I tend to do is step back and try and go take a very independent view on this.
and ask you, what would the planning inspector in Bristol
decide on this,
so he doesn't have,
but he's going to be even more independent than we are who live within the area?
and I, even though I'm not that keen on this, I think the Planning Inspector would allow this to go through.
thank you.
Councillor Noon,
thank you Chair.
well, as part of considering
the application, I did consider harm,
and actually I made reference to it.
if you take the social
responsibility
of the
application
and the comments made by read out about the resident.
and the potential harm is quite obvious there now, then my night may not be in a purely planning term, I accept that so the only
way forward as far as I'm concerned to address that is to reject the application, because I still do consider with the size of the extension it is gonna cause harm in all the other points I raised earlier on, so I did consider it. I do understand the implications
but I think when you, as I said, you look at it, the MPs comments
there, there is going to be a harm there, and I think we should consider that as a planning committee and the only way to do that is to reject the application, thank you.
thank you Councillor, maybe I'll make a comment before we move to a
vote.
OK, so we have a proposal proposed by Councillor Page and seconded by Councillor Osborne with the informative.
she wasn't just summarised the informative again.
yes, course, the informative, too, to outline the requirements of the Environmental Health legislation, in particular
with reluctance with regard to construction hours.
so will take about, so those in favour of the motion could you please now shall.
sorry, Gareth.
thank you.
nods against.
it's.
that is 6 4 and 3 against set, the motion is carried,
the applications.
there are no councillor movements to have his name, Lord.
yeah, I keep missing somebody else, I think it's me.
sorry, can I just say that having an evening of it Councillor Fitzsimons, Councillor Johnson, Councillor Page, Councillor Osborne, Alex Councillor Pope sorry, Councillor Pope,
I?
or for it thank you.
sorry to confirm 7 4 and 3 against thank you,
thank you, the application is therefore approved.
the next item is item 7 B
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01542/FULL - Cinderhill Wood, Caravan Park, Five Wents, Matfield, Kent
23 0 1 5 4, to full Cinderhill Wood caravan park, 5, whence Matfield, which is on page 61 of the main agenda
and page 5 of the supplementary pack.
it's Mr Hazelgrove again for your presentation, please.
thank you Chair this application relates to the Borough Council, owns gypsy and traveller caravan site, in at Cindy Hill-Wood, caravan park, five wins in Matfield,
so the application site is on the edge of.
quite thickly wooded area is currently got six pitches.
and planning permission was granted in 2020. to
subdivide one of the pitches, and perhaps I'll sorry I'll flick back to subdivide this pitch here into two and then to add two further pictures at the end of the site.
and that permission remains extant.
as you'll see, the sites within on the edge of a local wildlife site.
and
it's in the A and B, and it's outside the the limits to built development.
it's also a public right of way that runs along the south and south-east of the site,
this is just some pictures of the site as it as it is now.
as I say, it's been a Borough Council site for
at least since 1980 s,
and it's got six pitches, this is the end of the site where there is already planning permission for two new pitches.
it's largely an area, an overgrown area, left over from when the site was a highways depot
and these were the plans approved back in 2021 from the 23 and 21. for say, this is subdivision of this pitch into two and then
two new pitches at the end.
and so again that was the that was the plans approved by three to three years ago.
this application seeks to.
amend the stamped permission by introducing two for each for the two new pitches at this end of the site, to add amenity blocks, amenity blocks or or, as you can see, there are already blocks here on the existing pitches and there are fairly common feature on Gypsy and Traveller sites to have a separate washroom and amenity block from the from the main residential caravan.
So the proposal is to add one block here, for this, this new plot and to add another block here on for this plot. They'll breast on concrete pads. Hence the four squares
and the amenity blocks would be, this is a plan of the amenity blocks so contained, essentially kitchen, accommodation,
toilet and bathroom
and
sort of area to the rear here, presumably for storage, and then this would be the the internal hallway.
and typically the little pods would be porta cabin products
and they would be typically had this appearance obviously single, storey structures that would just be craned in
and delivered to the site prefabricated,
as I say, there are similar structures already on the site for the existing,
existing pitches.
I won't read through the whole of the the conclusion other than to say.
this is already had existing Gypsy and Traveller site is managed by the Borough Council, is already planning permission for two additional pitches, this only seeks to add two additional amenity blocks to those are two amenity blocks to those pitches that already have planning permission and there are no objections to the application. including from the Parish Council, as the recommendation is to grant planning permission, thank you.
thank you as to how you grow, we had one speaker on this item, but she has not materialised,
so committee members do have any questions for the officers.
Councillor Fitzsimons,
thank you, Chair, that to propose
that we accept this proposal,
Councillor Mooney,
secondly, okay.
Councillor Councillor Pais, we get a secondary or you want to speak, you know I was going to say something but yeah then in fairness
I don't want people to know.
I was just going to say that.
I would trust the
planning officers on this one because we're doing our own planning and I think Gypsy Traveller community is marginalised in society, now there's not a huge a huge demand for places, but I'll be happy to support it on that bit.
thank you, anybody else would like to speak.
Councillor Joanna,
yeah, it's just, so I totally support this, there are two new pictures, it's only right that there are two new means he blocks to make sure that they're sufficiently catered for some infilling support, thank you.
thank you OK, so we have a motion proposed by Councillor Fitzsimons and seconded by Councillor Moon.
as correct
were those in favour, please show.
get this one right.
to call upon.
thank you.
so that motion that application is approved,
7 d) Application for Consideration - 23/00999/FULL - 1 Orchard Close, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent
so we move on to the last item on the item 7 Item 70 she's 23 0 0 9 9 9 4 1 Orchard Close Royal Tunbridge Wells, which is on page 84 of the main agenda, and page 11 of a supplementary pack,
Mr. McClarty, whom nuance your presentation please.
thank you Chair, so tonight we're gonna be discussing the erection of a new dwelling on an orchard closed as part of an infill development.
now just begin with to discuss the location of Orchard Close, you can see it, it has been in the high rooms area at Tunbridge Wells, this image on the right-hand side shows a slightly closer up few, you've got Burke and Road which runs down to the right and then you've also got or to close which comes off as little cul-de-sac on the left-hand side for reference if you are heading from Tunbridge Wells out to the north Farm Industrial Estate you will pass the site on your left-hand side shortly after passing the Robin Hood pub.
so moving on to what the site looks like at the moment, so currently there is a row of four terraces at the site, and the idea is that this row of four terraces, it will become a row of five terraces with the terrorism question going on the left-hand side of that row you can see below which will then border between the existing road terraces and the space that separates it, from Burton Road as you can see from the site location plan on the left-hand side with the area outlined in red as being the area given to the new dwelling
just leaving it a bit further, you can see how he got the existing relationship there with the four terraces on the right-hand side, and then you've got what is currently open ground on the left, the idea being that the new terrorists will be built within the open ground. for reference, the Gamage sites at the back of the proceed currently retained by number 1, and there was a separate access to that which is off Birkenhead Road on the left-hand side.
with regard to how the development will look, so the photos at the top of the drawings at the top sorry, that is what is currently in place and they move up with the drawings below so where it says existing front elevation number 1 existing that is the same property and then you've got to propose being added on the left-hand side down there, essentially it resembles the same character and form as the existing dwelling, it's just being pushed one out to the left, as I say becoming aware of five terraces instead of a row of four.
that can also be reflected in the floor plans, as you can see, you've got the existing floor plan at the top, which shows the existing dwelling, and you can see how they've got the new dwelling being added on to the left-hand side they are not 100% identical, the new dwelling that is being created is about 20 centimetres thinner and because of that there was one less window on the rear elevation but in terms of character and overall form they are very compatible.
just finishing up with a few photos of the site. this has taken at the end of the existing drive of number 1 and the area of hardstanding and grass to the left of the photo to the left of the dwelling Surrey is where the property is going to be located and, as you can see, currently it's just being used as an area of lawn which is separate to the rear garden of number 1. The question which I'm going to answer now, what's happening to the hedge? The boundary between the actual site and Balkans Road is currently defined by it as well established hedge. There is no intention to remove that hedge. There is a gap of approximately 1.7 metres between the centre line of that hedge and the minimum. The maximum extent of the proposed dwelling, which is more than sufficient for the hedge to retain as it is currently
just finishing up with a few more photos this photo on the bottom left, she can see the garage there which is being retained as part of number 1, and we've got a wider shot looking from the back as well.
just to give you a bit of context on the site, the bottom photo, you can see the property on the left-hand side. the property on the right is number 10. Orchard Close, that's had some very similar developments occur, albeit not a new dwelling, it's had a two storey, rear extension, but is comparable in terms of its size and also the driveway and dropped kerb that exists at number 10 is identical essentially to the one that is being proposed at the subject dwelling,
in conclusion, the 2 bedroom Delon that's being proposed is situated in an incredibly sustainable location, it's not deemed as being visually intrusive and it conforms with all local policy and is therefore recommended for approval.
thank you.
we we had one speaker on this item, but she hasn't appeared
so, committee members do have any questions for the officers, Councillor Moon.
thank you Chair.
it relates to the referral of this application, whose, because it's owned by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council,
what part of the proposal application does the borough on.
yes, good question, so the road and the pavement is owned by the Borough Council and because there's a dropped kerb being created part of the application site, which is the red line going over the dropped kerb is within the boundary, and that is the only part of the application site which is part of Tunbridge Wells. The main dwelling in the land within it is all outside of our ownership just the pavement and the road was and is within our ownership.
can I just come back on that then, so the dropped kerb
will have to be an application with KCC or the borough.
KCC so it considers part of the application, but they will have to apply to KCC once this has been agreed, but assuming it's approved they will then have to go on and apply to KCC,
where the last one obvious is to borrow being paid for that.
adjustments of the footway. to have access.
that that's a matter which is outside of our remit as the or as the local planning authority,
no doubt property colleagues are
watching with interest.
thank you, Councillor White.
thank you, and I just wondered what number one thought about this, because I don't see they're gonna have to have their roof taken off and it's changed when the NYU wallets built next to them, and that's something that
I am I presume that they haven't complaints so I'm guessing they're finding it, but it's just a single school, they're gonna have to have a lot of issues, a lot of challenges for them.
I believe they are the applicant, so the blue line which you can't see it very well, but the blue line, which shows the application ownership in circles number 1 and number 1, A the red line, is what will become the land, which is part of one A which will then essentially become separate to the ownership of number 1. but essentially, number 1 is the applicant
that that was kind of what I guess.
embryo embryo scrutiny questions.
and I'm just going to.
recommend that we approve it, if I may propose that we recommend you, Councillor Brigid Alan, where you go to second.
yes, I'm happy to second.
nobody else wanted to say anything.
so we move to a vote, then, so we put a motion to adopt the officers' recommendation proposed by Councillor Pope, seconded by Councillor British Alan all those in favour, please show.
thank you, Chair, that is unanimous.
the application is therefore approved.
item 8.
8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 10 July 2023 to 4 August 2023
appeal decisions relating 10th of July to the 4th of August 2023. These are set out on pages 92 to 93 of agenda. If any Members or any questions relating to these appeal decisions, they should be raised to the Planning Officer outside the meeting
9 Urgent Business
10 Date of Next Meeting
item 9. It's urgent business. I can confirm there was no such a and no such business and item 10. The dates for the next meeting is on Wednesday, the 13th of September 2023. The meeting is now closed. Thank you for your attendance
- 1 Chairs Introduction, opens in new tab
- 2 Apologies for Absence, opens in new tab
- 3 Declarations of Interest, opens in new tab
- 4 Declarations of Lobbying, opens in new tab
- 6 Site Inspections, opens in new tab
- Minutes , 19/07/2023 Planning Committee, opens in new tab
- 8 Reports of Head of Planning Services, opens in new tab
- 23 01445 Brokeswood Lodge FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 01445 FULL - Brokeswood Lodge, opens in new tab
- 23 01542 Cinderhill Wood FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 01542 FULL - Cinderhill Wood Caravan Park, opens in new tab
- 23-01616-FULL - 15 Lurkins Rise FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 01616 FULL - 15 Lurkins Rise, opens in new tab
- 23.00999.FULL - 1 Orchard Close - FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 00999 FULL - 1 Orchard Close, opens in new tab
- Appeal Decisions for Noting Committee 16 August 2023, opens in new tab
- 10 Urgent Business, opens in new tab
- 11 Date of the Next Meeting, opens in new tab