Planning Committee - Wednesday 13 September 2023, 6:30pm - Start video at 2:21:57 - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting
Wednesday, 13th September 2023 at 6:30pm
Agenda item : Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 1 Chair's Introduction
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 2 Apologies for Absence
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 16 August 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/00989/FULL High View, Grovehurst Lane, HO
Agenda item : 7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/00238/FULL W A Turner Ltd, Broadwater Lane, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Agenda item : 7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/02026/FULL 1 Littleworth Cottages, Etherington Hill,
Agenda item : 8 Planning Enforcement Report October 2022 to March 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 9 Appeal Decisions for Noting 5 August 2023 to 4 September 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 10 Urgent Business
Share this agenda point
Agenda item : 11 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.
1 Chair's Introduction
welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, the 13th of September 2023.
I am Councillor Godfrey land
before we get on to the agenda items, please give your full attention to the following announcements from our Clerk, Clark visit Mera.
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 you via 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 and Monsoon Way, and once outside a check will 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 being 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 substantive 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 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 the recording, we are going to take a roll call.
thank you, Chair, expected Members here this evening, Councillor Johnson.
present Councillor Page. Britain Councillor Neville present Councillor O'Connell, present Councillor Osborne, present Councillor Pattison, present Councillor White present, Councillor Bland Chair.
and expected officers here this evening, Emma Franks,
Peter Hockney, President Carlos Hone
Joe Smith present, James Taylor.
and we have the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, Councillor Hugo, paint with us this evening, Chair, thank you.
2 Apologies for Absence
but thank you.
1 Chair's Introduction
I would like to remind everybody that this is a formal 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, I will call her to cease.
should behaviour which I consider unacceptable, continue?
I may well consider suspending the meeting.
and if the behaviour resumes when business recommences, those responsible will be excluded and asked to leave 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 across 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.
second, councillor committee, members have had their agendas for over a week
and have had the opportunity to study these and 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 have already asked these questions
and obtained satisfactory answers.
when we comfortable substantive items on the agenda this evening, the officer will pass set out their report,
I will then ask any speakers to address the committee before we then move into member discussion.
at the end of the debate,
2 Apologies for Absence
I will try to summarise the Committee's view, members should ensure that any act, proposals or actions are correctly captured before a vote is taken.
apologies for absence, Mrs. Moran, do we have any
yesterday we've had apologies from Councillors, Pritchard Alan? Fitzsimons Moon and Pope this evening
3 Declarations of Interest
third, 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 have set up their discretion and need withdraw from the meeting while a particular application is heard,
does any member have a declaration to make?
I've seen none.
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)
for declarations of lobbying,
members of the Committee should declare at this point if they have been lobbied on any of the applications on today's agenda.
the clock will ask each Member, in turn, to state on which application.
you have been lobbied if any, and whether it is by objectors, supporters or both.
thank you Chair, Councillor Johnson,
one is that for or against
thank you, Councillor Page,
and also 70 I've been lobbied for and against.
thank you, Councillor, Neville.
item 7 A I have been lobbied in support of and item 7 be I have been lobbied in support and against.
thank you, Councillor O'Connell, item 7 B, I've been lobbied for and against
thank you Councillor Osborne 7
be for and against.
thank you, Councillor Pattison
7 before against
Councillor White 7, be for and against,
item 7 B or ambiguous
item 7 before and the gap, thank you Chair.
5 Site Inspections
ITEM 5 site inspections,
Members have had the opportunity to visit the site of applications certain B
High view grow hustler enforcement. Tonbridge Kent
6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 16 August 2023
to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday, 16th of August 2023.
members are asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting are a true record of the proceedings.
please, may I remind members that the elderly matter for discussion is their accuracy,
do members have any other comments?
thank you, the motion is to agree the minutes are we agreed?
the motion is carried.
7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
ITEM 7 report of the Head of Planning Services.
these reports are those for 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 it to be clear that the considerations, conclusions and recommendation of the report are those of the Head of Planning Services 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.
first Item 7 B High View Grove House Lane Horsemen then Tonbridge.
second item 7, A W, A Tanner, limited Broadwater Leigh, Road Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
item 7 See little worth cottages, Everington Hill Speldhurst Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/00989/FULL High View, Grovehurst Lane, HO
so the first item on the and J agenda is the item 7 B 23 0 0 9 8 9, FULL
High View Grove Hurst, Lane Horsmonden Tonbridge Kent.
these appear on page 75 of the main agenda and page 5 of the supplementary pack.
this is tracks.
your presentation, please.
this application is at Heidi on Grove Heath Lane, then planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling construction of the replacement dwelling with solar panels and associated landscaping,
this application is part retrospective in that the bungalow has been demolished and the proposed development has been substantially constructed.
the current proposal seeks to regularise the development in light of revisions to the height and the siting of the building changes which have arisen due to the accuracy of OS maps.
planning permission for a similar replacement dwelling was granted in 2022
Members are asked to consider whether the proposed design comprises the height, comprising the height of the of the dwelling, its form and siting, including a slight shift in the orientation, together with the landscaping as proposed deemed the building to be considered more obtrusive in the landscape than the dwelling which it replaced. and accords with the and whether it accords with Policy H 10 of the adopted Local Plan.
the site is situated in.
the else in the open countryside outside the limits to built development of husbands, then you can see on the slide. the
village settlement boundary.
the site lies predominantly within a rural area, but the immediate vicinity comprises a sporadic housing, characterised by large detached dwellings, with two storeys or more.
the site comprises a plot of 20 hectares with both Hurst Lane running along the front north-western boundary you can see along here.
the application site,
sorry, the application site comprises the curtilage of a detached bungalow.
these are the
plans of the original bungalow.
and to give you some context, I've got a few photos of the site and the surroundings, so this is a photo taken from within the site looking out towards the north-west boundary towards Grove Hurst Road Lane and the frontage of the site.
this is a photo taken of the property next door known as wings, which was a replacement dwelling permitted in 2010.
you can see that there's quite some changing in levels across within the area, and you can also say this property also has a double garage at the front set within the slope.
the slide shows the site towards the rear boundary, Tanglewood is a property approximately 70 metres beyond to the south.
and this is a photo of the
adjacent dwelling to the south-west
is North, Lodge is a Grade II listed building,
and you can see here the belt of trees within the site and the the lane. the driveway which serves the other other properties at Capel, Manor House, beyond the south.
this is a photo of, more recently, taken of the current proposed house, part built in most respects the application is similar to the approved into it that was approved in 2022, which allowed the existing bungalow to be demolished and replaced with a modern, enlarged dwelling set into the slope with most of the accommodation on two floors and the and a garage and storage
below ground level.
conditions were applied to secure landscaping levels and tree protection on this application and it was considered to accord with Policy aged 10.
the hey are the proposed front and rear elevations of the
application and, based on measuring the elevation plans, the height of the building is approximately 9.1 metres this is 0.7 metres.
higher than the previously approved
application in 2022,
height amendment is as a result of a change in the roof pitch in order to convert the loft space.
you can see here the side elevation and the side gable, the dashed lines show the indicate the a 2022 consent and show how it remains within the
similar footprint print to to that scheme is marginally set forward and slightly reorientated towards the north.
these are some floor plans of the scheme
and the roof plan.
so looking at the layout, the approved as approved under the previous application, the dwelling was sited on parts of the footprint of the existing bungalow, which is shown in blue here.
but would extend close to the highway and towards the front of the site, to utilise the change in levels and and put accommodation within the slope of the hill,
whilst the proposed developed dwelling would be sited marginally further forward in the site and orientated at an angle north shown here in the dash lines it would retain a considerable setback of
13 metres at the closest point to the road and remain broadly in line with the building line in frontages of adjacent dwellings.
furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be integrated within the slope, using landscaping you can see is quite considerable amount of landscaping proposed, including the barn.
bond and bank being built in front of the garage, with planting to further set the building in and reduce the reduce the.
impact of the development
from the wealth kind of
blend into the landscape.
the retention of the existing trees and vegetation along Grave Hurst Lane will be will be retained and supplemented, particularly within the western corner frontage, and also a number of trees will be proposed within the north east corner adjacent to the boundary of wings
and having reviewed the layout and grain and context of the development in the vicinity, the proposed dwelling will have larger scale to the existing dwelling or bungalow is not considered to result in harm to the character of the area.
in the immediate vicinity, there were other large dwellings and similar plots, and the building would not dominate the plot will stand out as prominent, particularly once the landscaping has been planted.
so, to conclude, the proposal
a replacement dwelling was considered to comply with Policy H 10 of the adopted Local Plan, proposed access has altered, would not be considered harmful to highway safety, the proposed dwelling is not considered to directly harm the residential amenity of any neighbouring properties, the design of the garden curtilage and the measures proposed to improve and enhance the landscape considered to minimise the visual impact of the dwelling
as well as make a long-term contribution to improving biodiversity.
so it's my recommendation, too, that the proposal is acceptable with regard to the policies contained with the saved policies of the Local Plan and the Core Strategy, and
I recommend granting the planning permission subject to conditions.
so in terms of updates, to assist Members and for clarification when the report refers to the existing dwelling, it's referring to the bungalow that existed on the land, the bungalow has now been demolished and the replacement dwelling on the site is subject to this application, this application is part retrospective as has mentioned,
the Council has received one additional letter from Lester Aldridge, Solicitors dated 11th of September setting out a number of points, and all comments are as follows. In terms of the principle of development, we have considered the matters raised in the letter and remain of the view that the application of Policy H 10 is applicable and most relevant and is the most relevant policy to determine the application
in regard to amenity opposition is as set out within the committee report with regards to impact on amenity of the neighbouring properties in accordance with EN 1
in terms of heritage with regards to heritage matters, this has been discussed with the principal conservation officer, who confirmed his view remains unchanged and is as set out in the report.
thank you, Ms Frank.
we home hub southern speakers hub this autumn.
when I call your name, please comfortable microphone and ensure that it is activated when you speak,
you have three minutes to make your.
our first speaker objecting to the application is Mr Jamie Hutchinson Colin, a local resident.
good evening is with regret I'm in front of you today and in truth I'm amazed. This has gone this far. My family have lived in Grade II listed North Lodge for nearly two decades where we have undertaken sympathetic restoration. The first point to note, as this application is unlawful, was identified in Council opinion. This point should be enough for you to reject this application. However, you also have a building where pre-commencement conditions on site levels were not agreed, so should not have started a building built in the wrong place into the wrong height 10 metres closer to the road and 2.2 metres taller than plans for floors compared to the bungalow. It replaced when supposed to be half a metre, lower, a building on which dormer windows were added without approval, a building which has external lighting without approval, a building that has different access arrangements without approval. As such, a free-for-all, resulting in an illegal large bright building that has been constructed in the wrong place, this is no accident is a deliberate play of the planning system, submit for one scheme and build something completely different. Is it any wonder that residents feel let down and support, replaced with objection? what is surprising is the position of officers to defend the scheme at every turn we had no conservation consideration and it was suggested if it's not needed, we challenged the size position, only to be told that this was fine as measured by ruler, why has it taken an independent pitfall topographical survey and the knowledge of residents to prove to officers what was obvious to all? to top it all, we now have the suggestion that this has all been caused by a mistake that's the role maps have been used and the road widened, this is rubbish, the road has not been widened in at least 20 years and surely you cannot argue I'm really sorry I have used the wrong maps, what precedent does this set we also have a suggested remedy by the conservation officer. when originally not needed, and surely only need to cover tracks.
this. The suggestion is that more trees than the answer. This is crazy. The last thing North Lodge needs is more trees. It would not allow the Kentish sandstone structure to breathe, and many trees are already encroaching and are risks due to infestation. Even if agreed, there was a real probability that this will not happen. Given trees were cut down before planning in order to get rid of bats, and the officers failed to notice. They will take years to reach the desired height and will only offer privacy for a small part of the year. Honestly, you couldn't make it up. Finally, there are so many external lights of an evening given light pollution and on some evenings a noisy background hum from a generator heat pump. Why have officers ignored all of this? I realised that one of the assessments the Committee will consider as harm. In this regard, the much taller building is overbearing and overlooks our property with loss of privacy. We also have a strong sense of injustice which has left us to consider moving from my home of 19 years, this is the home that has been done both to our home, but also how well being in the house we work so hard to restore with the Committee visiting to recognise good practice many years ago. All we ask is that the rules are followed. It's that simple. Now is the time for the committee to stop this nonsense, which will continue to next steps with ombudsman and judicial review. Reject this application, restore confidence in the planning process and request the original scheme spill. Thank you
a second speaker approved objecting to the application is Minister will call it a local resident.
as he will be aware, you are considering an unlawful application, which is seeking to now retrospectively recognise a building that is finished, is larger than allowed, is in the wrong place, and an applicant has moved in. It also now has an unapproved dormer windows and significant external lighting. How many rules have been broken
at stake is the credibility and fairness of the planning system. The original submission suggested a building that had a ridge height of 0.5 metres lower than the bungalow it was replacing statements were made that this would not exceed the height of the existing single storey dwelling would remain faithful to neighbouring dwellings, with a discreet entrance, would be of modest design and not result in a loss of features important to the character of the landscape would cause no significant adverse effect on features of conservation and would not be obtrusive. The expectation was that this building would be delivered. The building constructed has none of these requirements and displays a blatant disregard for the planning rules ordinarily, it would have been assumed, officers would have ensured that the original scheme was delivered. Why has this not happened? Why has it taken residents to fund a separate topographical survey to prove the officers that everyone locally knows? Why have officers to miss this one in a report attempts to suggest immaterial deviation. This is patently not the case, and obvious to all worse than this is that the officers' position has been to defend the building, suggesting that it is fine, even though there is clear evidence that any number of rules have been broken. Why is this why such a level of obligation from officers, when the facts have pointed out, why was there no
conservation consideration? Why have been noticed? Why has there been no site visits until after the building has been completed? Why have prior decisions on the site on amenity, conservation and landscape being ignored?
Why had the views of many residents, councillors, parish CPRE and legal opinion been ignored? None of this adds up to such a level of disregard for planning rules.
Others along Grove Hurst Lane, including recent developments of Grove Hurst and Beech Tree Cottage, have all followed the rules to ensure a building is in keeping with the environment. The latter was required to dig into the ground at great cost.
This case is a mess where the applicant has just ploughed straight on using personal personnel shortages in the planning department as a means of building something so much larger. We now have the suggestion that the wrong maps were used and the road widened residents living on the lane for over 30 years report. No change in the road width the rest of us take care to take care to follow the rules, but this case suggests don't bother just build what you want, now is the time to take action, this is not a political decision, it is simply a case of upholding the rules that we all expected to follow and bring the sorry saga to a close by insisting that due process is followed.
thank you, Minister, calling.
a third speaker objecting to the application is Minister Tony Colin, a local resident.
a good evening or chairing committee, I'm Tony Colin and the owner of wings,
I hope that you've read my objections and barrister's opinion, but I submitted and if you haven't, you need to defer your decision to read them, because your officers have not dealt with the points that he raises.
The site used to be occupied by an understated bungalow, surrounded by mature vegetation, and the planning permission granted in 2022 was permitted only because it would be a replacement building. No taller than the bungalow
the applicant didn't build the scheme granted permission in 2022. In fact, as the barrister makes clear, they could never have built that scheme due to discrepancies in the approved plans.
The bungalow is now gone, it was demolished in March 2022, and a lot of the mature greenery removed
now on. The site is a building which the council's own survey confirms is 1.7 6 metres taller at ridge height than the old bungalow and 2.2 metres taller than what was permitted by the 2022 permission. This building is unlawful. The development plan heavily restricts new development outside settlements. The only way this retrospective proposal can be allowed is if it complies with Policy. H 10, your officers have reported to you that it does, but they are wrong in law. Age 10 relates to the replacement of existing buildings. There isn't a lawful existing building on the site because it was demolished. The plan itself states that aged 10 does not apply when the existing building has been demolished,
even if H 10 does apply. The new building is more obtrusive. I prominent it's significantly taller than the old bungalow it's significantly further forward towards the road. It has a four storey facade, as opposed to the bungalow single storey, and the proposed finish is strident and bright, making the building prominent and standing out from its surroundings. the applicant says it will plant additional trees to the front of the plot, but trees take 20 years to provide any meaningful mitigation and mature screening vegetation has already been removed in terms of amenity, the two rear dormer windows in the top floor overlook my back garden destroying our family's privacy, they are highly intrusive.
the heritage officer's comments also do not make any sense how can a large new building right next door to a listed building, not have any impact on its setting?
I have legal advice that if the Committee determines this application on the basis of this officer report, then the members will have been led into error and there will be grounds for a judicial review, I urge all the Members to read my objections and barrister's opinion before voting the officers have avoided dealing with them if you need to defer your decision to read them again, I urge you to do so and if you have read them then you know you must refuse this application.
of fourth speaker,
our fourth speaker, objecting to the application,
is with the Bill
a local resident.
Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity of saying a few words in respect of this planning application. By way of background, I am a resident of school has laid in husband then and live approximately half a mile from the development in question. While we are not therefore directly impacted by the development, we are deeply concerned about the wider implications. Firstly of the Council giving consideration to such a development in this sensitive area. and secondly, the whole planning process, which has led us to this point and which has caused such significant stress and anxiety to those living in the immediate proximity of this development.
We've lived at our present address for 34 years and have worked collaboratively with tonnage Wells Borough Council Planning Department on a number of occasions over that period to develop and enhance our own property.
We have long recognised the mandate that both the Planning Department and we as residents, have in preserving the character and heritage of this particularly beautiful and highly designated area and to ensuring that any and all developments are sensitive to this overall objective. We've also recognised the transparency and, above all, the consistency of the council's planning process over this long period. Qualities that are in line with the Council's own mission statement has published on its website,
all of which I have to say, has left us as residents of the area mystified as to how we've reached the situation that we now face in respect of this particular application and concerned by the seemingly obscure and immensely drawn out planning process that has resulted in the current situation. I don't wish to rehearse or re rehearse the overwhelming arguments against this development that have already been made so comprehensively by local residents, their legal advisers and senior officers of Parish Council, but I have to save for the Council to be giving consideration to a retrospective aspect of planning application for a development that fails so spectacularly to comply with the previously approved plans that has been erected in breach of conditions, and that is of a scale and design that is wholly out of character with the surrounding dwellings is, I have to say, baffling.
in the view of many approval of this, retrospective application would set a dangerous and irreversible precedent that would inevitably give oxygen to indeed positive encouragement to those who might wish to ride roughshod over local planning rules and guidelines and game and exploit what they might perceive as weaknesses in the planning system it could, in addition expose the Council to repeated questions of consistency,
in conclusion, while we trust that, in the light of the comprehensive evidence presented to the Committee that this particular application will not be approved, we do think it's vitally important that the County Council continues its constructive planning procedures and, above all, the tight planning controls for which this Council's planning department are respected and which we all feel are vitally important to ensuring that continued responsible development of this area going forward. Thank you for your time.
thank you does to get.
our fifth speaker in support of the application is Mr Paul
Casey, who will be speaking on behalf of the applicant, mr Joe Busby.
so if you could just turn your microphone on.
thank you, Mr. Chairman, as you've indicated my name's Paul Brown, I happened to be Kasiano, a planning barrister, but actually I'm here because I'm a friend of Jo Busby's family, I'm a local Tunbridge Wells resident had been for 25 years I've known his family for 10 years or more, he's not used to speaking in public has asked me to come in his name.
I don't want to repeat things that have been said in the officer's report, but I'd like just to address some of the points raised by local residents that perhaps aren't addressed.
first of all, in terms of the objection from the owner of wings Mr. Colin, and that the legal opinion that's presented there,
sorry, I've read that opinion. I respectfully disagree with it for two reasons. The first, it is that the argument that when we can't rely on Policy H 10, it is only possible because what's in front of you today is a brand new application, but what it overlooks is the fact that the Council has previously granted permission to demolish and replace the original bungalow it did that at a time. The original bungalow was there, aged 10 was applicable, and that was the permission which Mr Barsby implemented. When the details of that scheme changed. We originally plea applied under section 73 to vary that permission or or and at that stage, the argument that we'd knocked the bungalow down already would have been irrelevant. We've only applied again for a full application because that's what officers asked us to do. The Section 73 application has not been determined. It's still before the council, it could be appealed tomorrow, if need be, we've chosen not to go down that road because we wanted to work or above work in a spirit of cooperation with officers, so that's the first reason it would be wrong, or indeed unfair. We say if we were to be penalised because we've made a full application at officers request, rather than pursuing the original section 73 that the second reason why
it doesn't help is because, even if we can't take advantage of age 10, it's an argument that that goes nowhere. You will recall in your meeting in August, you resolve to approve an application for 68 houses on a greenfield site outside the limit to build development or or at the other side of horseman den you did that because you were advised, quite rightly, you don't have a five-year housing land supply. You cannot rely on policy LBD D of LVG 1, which is the rule against development outside settlement boundaries. Exactly the same reasoning applies in this case. You therefore need, in my submission, to to look at the issues of principle. I know this is a retrospective application. There's no law against that, it's entirely legitimate. The system doesn't penalise people for making retrospective applications you have to concentrate on the planning merits this scheme. It's slightly larger than one that was before you previously, but not significantly the dormer windows at the back. Look over the back garden. They are more than twice the council's normal standards for back to back distances to protect issues such as overlooking and privacy. In simple terms, there is no substantive reason for refusal here. This is a well designed scheme. I commend it to you and I ask you to grant permission for it thank you,
is Councillor March, speaking
as parish chair.
thank you Chair, and thank you Planning Committee, I'm here as the chair of husband and parish council, and you already have the reasons in front of you and husband M. Parish, Council it recommended refusal on three points, the overdevelopment of the existing space outside the LBD, the overdominant design given the rural setting and overlooking of neighbouring properties, the husband M Parish Council considered this application and individually visited the site. We in Horsmonden tend to be a community minded group of residents and generally follow planning rules so that for fairness prevails. Therefore, when we see changes not agreed in planning conditions, we consider enforcement should be used to deal with the differences between the planning application and the actual building.
This overdevelopment of this existing space in a prominent position now offers bright upwards facing lights at night in an area of dark sky not at all conducive to a rural setting with night-time wildlife. I urge you to refuse this application, thank you.
thank you travel Mark.
all final parliamentary speaker objecting to the application is Borough Councillor Steve, but Miller,
Rachel and Horsemen Dale,
who has provided a statement, to be read out by our Clarke, Mrs. Moran.
thank you Chair.
dear committee, members, I apologise for not being able to attend in person, but I thank you for permitting me to participate, I'm sorry, I'll have to start, I forgot to put the time round.
dear committee, members, I apologise for not being able to attend in person, but I thank you for permitting me to participate by letter
Councillor J Marc and I are the two borough councillors that represent our ward, which has seen significant building work taking place mainly with our support. However, that is not the case with this application. Councillor Marsh tonight are in total agreement concerning the sizeable retrospective application, the key issue being overdevelopment. For this reason, we believe the application should be refused the original dwelling was a bungalow the replacement dwelling is a four storey house, this is completely out of character with the surrounding dwellings, namely wings and the adjacent listed building.
this retrospective application is in a rural setting Policy H 10 that says the replacement dwelling would be no more obstructive in the landscape than the dwelling which it which is to be replaced.
We would draw your attention to the scale, mass and bulk of this retrospective application in comparison to the original application that was approved in good faith by the Parish Council and this committee.
The 3 D view appears to hide the lower ground floor behind bushes, whereas the dwelling is obtrusive in the landscape, no matter how much landscaping is done, it is far more prominent than envisaged in the original application by virtue of its changed, setting the additional height of the building and the additional, not sorry, the addition of dormer windows at second floor, which is further, exacerbates this for clarity. The two reasons for refusal are
1, The proposed extension, by reason of its bulk scale, design and mass, does not respect the context of the site. The replacement dwelling would be much would be more obtrusive in the landscape than the dwelling, which is to be replaced under Policy. H 10 in the original application, the difference between the previously consented mass and the current retrospective application, with considerable extra height, additional dormers and repositioning means this property has been overbuilt.
2, The development would, as it stands, cause significant harm to the rural character of the area and to the character and appearance of the countryside. It is contrary to policies. LBD 1 EN 1 and N 2 5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Plan 2006 core policies 4 and 14 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy, 2010
the aims and objectives of the Borough landscape, character Assessment 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework, 2021. in summary, Councillor Martin and I both believe there are valid reasons to refuse this application kind regards Councillor Steve McMillan.
do wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from last April's made by speakers.
thank you Chair, obviously there's been a lot of
speakers with regard to this particular application, I think I would just like to say in terms of the the entire process, with regards to enforcement and looking at previous consents, the Council obviously deals with thousands of applications a year, so it's quite difficult to monitor every site as it comes forward as it's being constructed, so we do rely on the the requirement of plans to be implemented as they were approved and under a lot of circumstances residents getting contact with us about certain sites and that's what happened in this case, both residents and the developer, has been in contact with the Council about changes that are proposed.
as Mr Brown has pointed out, the outcome did look to revise the original consent, whilst it was still and being constructed to lawfully change the development itself.
the Council is obviously very keen to ensure that the
the planning values of the Council are upheld.
and that the planning system is supported through the work that we do.
and is under this the circumstances we undertook a planning enforcement investigation that looked at the house and from that brought it to the attention of the developer of a fresh application, is probably the best approach to take.
the development itself is, as set out in the report, marginally different from that of the original consent, but what's important about the planning enforcement systems it's not designed
to seek retribution on on people who have undertaken works that haven't got consent, it's there to mitigate harm and so new applications which are sometimes retrospective have to be considered on the merits of the case at hand and this is how officers of
considered this application and how the report has set out
and there's different ways in which enforcement action can consider.
breaches of planning control the most harmful breaches would require something potentially like a stop notice, which would stop development in its tracks.
However, following investigation, it was not considered that that was necessary in this case, but secondly, inviting a retrospective application would be the means in which to resolve this particular matter, and so that is what officers have been exploring with the applicant. It has taken some time, but enforcement sometimes does take a while to resolve,
so I just wanted to set out the parameters of how we explore this particular application with the the outcome and tried to
might not create a residents.
thank you Chair,
yeah thinking, just in terms of some of the the speakers that were
that was signed about the differences, I think one speaker said it was the the the properties 10 metres closer to the road than then approved.
it isn't whose
approximately a metre closer to the road than approved,
I think that's shown on the
elevation drawing, which has got the dotted line of the or the approved location.
I think that's the one.
yeah, so the the green dotted line is the approved position and the the solid elevation is mr
positioned, as as considered one for consideration tonight.
the matters of
conservation and heritage impact, I think we're we're we're we're points that were made by some of the
application was deemed not to have.
an impact on heritage and the heritage assets in the vicinity.
as the speaker said, this was this was raised by a number of neighbours and objectors
through the as probably the last year since the
variation was submitted,
and to that end, under this application
we formally consulted the principal conservation officer
and he assessed it and concluded that there was no heritage impact from the proposal so,
that's that's that's the position of.
our heritage speci specialist in that regard.
I think the in terms of the there was another comment about views to the neighbouring properties.
I'm not, I think we've.
those Members that were were on site today obviously view the viewed.
from the dormer windows and
could might make their own.
assessment as to whether whether it overlooked properties and I think we've got a slide.
showing the views from the
the rear dormer windows
for those for those members that weren't weren't able to to visit the site so.
societies' photographs taken from the window and so to see the property at wings,
you, you have to lean out of the window to to view, and I think that's
a key consideration when when Members are assessing impact on amenity.
whether that impact is harmful and if that harm reaches the the bar of significant harm, which is the testing policy.
do you have any questions for the officers?
Councillor Les Pegg,
can we heard from one of the
we heard from one of the speakers that the that the additional height was 1.7 metres,
I believe, at point 7 can you just confirm which one it is, please
the height, the height of the
use your microphone
must use your microphone,
sorry, as the height is 9.1 metres high, so it's 0.7 metres higher than the approved scheme.
there has been quite a lot of points raised about the lights on the outside of those part of this planning application, or it is all a different matter.
there is condition 7, which deals with external lighting
on the site, which will be applicable with members.
Grant planning permission for the development.
sorry does that people there will be no lighting, all the it will be different.
that it's required to be submitted to prior to installation.
obviously a condition cannot apply until
the permit any permission is granted.
thank you, can we and just have a go over the overlooking?
climb again, please, because I had
someone say that North Lodge was overlooked, so I went when I went to see the site today, I am satisfied that wings you really can't see you have to really look out and then there was the property in front but it is North Lodge to the right of that because I I could could we just go over that again please?
North Lodge is the is the property
face face of dwelling to the to the right.
it's obviously separated by the
the de driveway the line that runs to the
the further properties down towards the Ermanno
and the the belt of trees which are
along that boundary,
so I think if you've got the photograph, Emma of the
essence, so you'll see, yeah, the trees, their offer, obviously to the left.
if you look at the the top photo, that's the the side of the off of the neighbouring property and then the line and then the belts of trees.
and then the BBC application site
and I think we've also got a plan that shows the distances between
the boundaries, and the prop so you, it's it's just over 21 metres from the flank of the dwelling to the boundary
and about 30 metres.
the dwelling of North Lodge, you can see where the you'll see where the dormer windows are.
you, you won't be able to view to the right, because.
the the sort of front to back rich off of the of the
L shaped part of the dwelling.
would obscure those those views.
sorry, I think that deals with that.
thank you, that's why I didn't see it earlier, thanks.
thank you, and
I just wanted to have a bit more an explanation about this word obstructive Joseph, because I know I know from having read through the notes that says you know there's no specific definition for that, so that's something that we also need to make our own mind up about and whether this this this building is viewed to be obtrusive or not according to say language, annoying or straightforward or not.
but in terms of
the policy wording and
what what people refer to, either as the preamble to the policy or the policy texts so that the text preceding policy
on occasions, you will have a policy which has a specific word in it, and then the the policy text will assist in defining the meaning of that. that word,
in Policy H 10,
there is no definition, so in the absence of a definition within the policy, you look at the normal definition of of that word,
and I think we've we've repeated that within the
within the report
to inform one for days before.
yeah, so at the bottom of page 83
the last paragraph on the
and that's the that's the as the
so the definition of obtrusive and that's the assessment that Members make in terms of
what their their view on the 0 on the dwelling.
what what we've got at the moment in terms of the
the dwelling, and it's the sort of part retrospective nature is that you'll see the the house is there,
but a lot of the sort of remodelling in front of that house and in for and where the landscaping is as is not complete so,
the v. The current view is probably.
about the stockist that you that you would see, so that's let's see the position and you can see from the from the landscaping plan in terms of the contouring that needs to be done in the
the sort of re-profiling in front of that and then the subsequent landscaping, that that's all essentially proposed still, which is why the application is part retrospective and not wholly retrospective, and
I think isn't a number number of people said
Mr Home said earlier as well.
just because an application isn't is retrospective doesn't change the considerations of it that the planning system isn't there to to punish people who make retrospective applications.
the regulations allow for retrospective applications
if if that were the case, then the regulations wouldn't allow them
and that's patently or not not correct, so it is permissible to put in a a a a retrospective application
and the right regulations and guidance require us as decision makers to treat those as we would do any other application thank you.
and yes, I'm just take that point about.
the trees and one of the
speakers said that it would take about 20 years for the
landscaping to take full effect on the front, I think he meant on the front of the house I mean, is there is a valid comment, or
is there a view that's the in terms of landscaping
it spot, the impact of landscaping depends on the the size of the plants that are put in.
I think in terms of the the landscaping scheme itself,
that's been through our landscape and biodiversity
quite extensively. it has been revised a number of times during the course of the applications
to ensure that the species type
they're not only their suitability in terms of not being native species, but also their
benefits to biodiversity in terms of that enhancement have been rigorously been. examined, and this is a a landscaping scheme that will
fulfil the purpose that it's that it's intended for it will
assistance assimilating the building into the landscape, which is
the primary primary
intention of it, and also to enhance biodiversity within the site.
thank you, Chairman, I'm just returning to Councillor White's point on the lighting, which is an issue that's been raised by a number of residents, and I can understand that there is a lot of lighting on the front of the house.
Point 7 says, prior to the installation of any external lighting at the site, details should be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA now the lighting is from today's visit appears to have been installed.
is it possible, for example, for us to say that we believe that lap lighting should be an installed and a new applica and a separate application made under the terms of 7 for a different and maybe more appropriate lighting system,
if, if permitted, then condition 7 would would bite,
the the the lighting scheme would need to be submitted, and then we we would assess that lighting scheme in in
consultation with the landscape and biodiversity officer whose got particularly.
interesting in dark skies and impact on biodiversity,
if that lighting scheme is is deemed not to be appropriate, then
we would we would seek amendments to that lighting scheme now, obviously at the moment the condition doesn't bite and therefore those details haven't been submitted.
in terms of the the the question as to whether
ministers or whether, when that should be submitted, then
obviously they can't submit conditions to discharge before the conditions.
in place so that the there is no no ability for them to apply to discharge at the current time, because the application is undetermined but are at the point that those details come in and that's when we would assess those. and
yeah, there's a site without because we have no details of those lighting in terms of the the speck of those lighting or lighting details, we haven't discussed those with the landscape and biodiversity officer,
I wouldn't like to comment at this time whether whether, indeed those lights are acceptable or not because is that application and that assessment needs to be undertaken.
Brian, but I don't think we can see the lights there at the moment and the lights
come along, who is it would be deciding and what criteria would they be applying in deciding whether those lights were or were not appropriate, because what I'm hearing from the residents is they believe that the lighting is currently there isn't appropriate.
yeah, obviously I think, because
there's a lot of.
a lot of the development that residents deem unacceptable at the moment,
and I think what what we need to consider is in terms of the lighting is to
get the specifications in on that and discuss that with the specialist officer who would look at the lighting impact on
wildlife and dark skies.
so, as in the earlier debate opposite, it would make the decision on an item.
thank you Chair.
I'm trying to get clear, in my own mind, the differences between the original house that was approved and this current application we have before us
to summarise, we're saying this is one metre nearer, the road is that correct. just one litre
and is point 7 of a metre higher than was approved before,
and there are dormer windows which weren't there before.
what about the overall footprint of this property versus the original?
in terms of the footprint,
I don't think there's been a change to that
in terms of the again, I think, looking at the
the proposal, that was that was
approved in 2022.
the the application there was for a lower ground floor.
for two storeys of accommodation
with obviously a pitched roof buff now what Members have got before them today
an application for a dwelling with a lower ground floor,
two floors of accommodation with a roof above.
the roof has been key, but it has been,
or has some additional dormer windows, it so that the heights are slightly different and the position is slightly different.
but this aside, for all intents and purposes, is a single dwelling in.
pretty much the loss of the same position as was permitted in 2022,
the heights are slightly different.
and but the general makeup of the dwelling is is as approved
just to take up Councillor Osborne, points about the lighting, would it be open to the Committee if we approved this application, to put an informative on it, to suggest to the applicant that the lighting as presently installed would not comply with them?
condition 7 and that they would need to sim remove the lighting and and,
I submitted the fresh sky and lighting scheme.
I would I would advise against saying that it.
dare directing them that it's not suitable, because we
because we don't have the details for which to assess and come to that conclusion,
you may wish to put an informative on which says.
any external lighting.
to to be installed and submitted under.
condition 7 should be sensitively.
sensitively considered in terms of this location and level of illumination.
and then that
because, as a society
we can't make a conclusion whether it's acceptable or not, because we we, we don't have those data
and I think we're having the the applicants' advisers are here and obviously can hear members discussions and I'm sure we'll we'll report back that.
a revised landscape o a revised lighting scheme may well be a sensible thing to consider,
but an informative about a sensitive, low lighting scheme I think we would be OK.
is there anything you
wish to add, Ms Smith?
that was noticed.
I was just mentioning to
Peter that, if approved, it then brings that condition in to buy two, so we can enforce against
any lighting that that wasn't deemed appropriate and submitted as part of the scheme.
were you just not be odd-sounding,
I will just say.
I'm glad that was actually mentioned because
I thought that's what you meant earlier on, but so if it is approved then the bike comes in and then the lighting OK, thank you.
in Kyiv, just one more question, and I've just got my notes is writing down, as was listening to the speakers that someone says it's 2.2 metres higher, this new app this what has been built with that we're saying why, but we're saying is actually 0.7 metres higher.
sorry, that was the purpose of it
study on the on the topographical survey to ensure that
the the building as as built on site was.
year was was what Members were essentially, then considering
this, and I think one of the speakers referred to a a topographical survey which was undertaken by one of the neighbours, and that is the site, I think they they broadly correlate, but I think there's there's a lot of other
objections from from various locations who
are, and there are a wide range of.
differences which I have have either been put into objection letters.
or have been
disgusting in various phone calls
with case officer, myself and and the Head of Planning, so that's why it was it's clear to us and one of the reasons why
the application has taken
wow a while to come to Planning Committee was that we were we thought well,
we need to be very clear here because there are a wide range of.
suggestions to the heights, and that is to say that that's what that's what we've done, and we're confident in in that now, thank you.
I just wondered with the 0.7 higher, obviously
converted to feet that's 2 feet 3.5 5 9 2 slipped out, is there any possibility that's why there's been that?
confusion of 2.2
or 0.7, I just wondered if that possibly might have been more, because somebody's conversion fee that that's all.
mean metric versus of imperial.
I would say that there could be one reasons, but there's certainly been a lot of discussions, Minister, hope you said, with officers with a wide ranging variation of of differences that have been quoted, that, as well as necessary to get this independent survey done,
thank you Chair,
my understanding of the 2.2 metre figure was.
comparing that to the height of the bungalow to the now built building, is that not right?
that's correct, as is that figure above the retire of the original bungalow.
thank you for that, because the bank is that, because of the bungalow, it is set very high up on the site. so that you're measuring.
the p peak height of the bungalow.
yeah, that I think there's a number of things, the the bungalow is set further back in the side, which was on higher ground. but the original consent
at the dwelling set down within the land form and it was higher than the original bungalow the 2.2, represents what the differences between the original bungalow and the proposals under consideration now.
councillors, if you think we've exhausted day
the officers with our questioning, shall we move to the debate?
Councillor Les pig.
sorry, I wanted to go first because I first of all wanted to say it's nice to see you back Councillor Bland, and I was happy to see your health improving, I'm sure the rest of the committee thinks that as well.
it is nice to be back, thank you,
and the other thing I was going to I wanted to just say is that, in spite of what the third speaker Mr. Collins said impugned about the planning departments
capability, I think the committee probably has a high regard for the planning department and confidence in what they do even if I disagree with the proposals.
regarding the actual application, for me, the the I mean people have a bullet pump, sorry, that was about when people have lit upon the same things that I have, but my point, in my view, about the 11.7 the lighting is not so much what the lighting is like or anything else it's effectively flagrantly.
gone against condition 11.7 already, so they have broken the condition so that I found them helpful and then.
went into some detail, in fact, there's been discussion of 10.0 for the replacement development would be no more crucial in the landscape that one that's a point for C,
the advice is that if the debt is still applies so that it will be no more crucial than the landscape than the dwelling which is to be replaced, that's the officer's view. and I have to say that my view is that it is far more intrusive than the dwelling that to be replaced, and it's quite a lot more obtrusive than
the the original application, and I don't or I didn't have a chance to vote on the site visit today when I was taking my son to hospital but,
it's interesting that that house, the completed built house, is already on Google Street View, so you can see everything pretty well.
so my view is that actually
it is more intrusive in the landscape put in, which has replaced the pre, the original application is quite obtrusive.
retrospective application is a lot more intrusive, so my view is
not to be in favour of the application.
thank you very much.
dangerous ground when we're considering whether it's more obtrusive or not
is was 2.2 metres different to the building, now serve him in my interpretation that is significantly more obtrusive, and I also struggle with the measures of harm
with this building.
because when I went to visit today, I know it's a silly thing, but there's artificial grass round the back of there, and yet we are talking about a gain of biodiversity and there's gonna be a planting scheme on sandstone, and I'm a geologist I don't quite it doesn't quite sit well with me how how that works.
and I I, I also find that there is some harm that's being done to the neighbours in terms of stress and anxiety, because there has been appears to be little investment in sticking to the guidelines and the rules, which also brings the Planning Team and the Borough Council in
difficult territory too in terms of how we
have strict planning. guidelines and rules, and how we enforce that and how we apply that to areas inside the arena, be how we apply outside of the N, it'd be, and as has been highlighted by Parish Chair, a lot of residents work very hard to comply with planning regulations and be respectful of that so I'm just minded that we are putting a very difficult situation here.
I met that I interpret that as harm, I also interpret.
the dark skies issue as home as well, so it's not just the artificial grass, so it is the lighting as well, it is the 0, the over obtrusive building is overdevelopment there is, there is a, there are a lot of balls that have been dropped here and I'm very very uncomfortable with it. thank you.
I just want to go back.
this is all pretty House responds to Councillor levels, sorry just punched in terms of of the point that there that you are rising Councillor, never in terms of some elements, particularly the artificial grass. now
the development is incomplete, it's part retrospective, so
they haven't completed the patio so that that area to the rear, as you can see on the plan there is, is proposed to be a patio area
walkways all alongside the the flank, walls of the
dwelling down to a pathway along the front to the steps up to the front door, so it's not finished, so that's why artificial grass has been put down, because otherwise it would just be sort of a muddy area at the back of the
property so, I would strongly consider or strongly advise that you don't give that any consideration, because it's not part of the application before you.
one and, as I say, what this was saying, it was it's useful for members to see
development and particularly its its position within the site
and and its heights as a as a result of the the site visit, but you are looking at it in an incomplete and very stark position because they haven't completed what is on the plan.
you are determining, as the Local Planning Authority what is submitted now that submission is, is that plan up there in front of you?
so that includes a lot of additional work, which
is is not yet complete.
so that's why I would advise against
giving consideration to elements such as the lighting which, if members approve it, is, is then controlled
and the the artificial grass, which is due to be replaced with a patio when the developments complete
thank you Chair. there was a couple of other points as well, if I might come back on those, particularly in terms of overdevelopment of the site this, the site has had planning consent already, it's a single dwelling on a on a residential plot, this proposal is for a single dwelling on a residential plot, this is no way in my opinion that it would be overdevelopment. that would usually be a subdivision or multiple dwellings, which would constitute overdevelopment.
also, what is important, too, for Members to understand is that
the previous planning decisions are material, they are material planning considerations, so the the previous consent for a house on the site, which are seen on the plans with a dotted line, making it showing it smaller than what's before you today
is absolutely material Council has made a decision on that.
it was unchallenged, it was supported by residents, there were a number of residents who wrote in support of that previous application at that scale, as did the Parish Council, so that is material to the decision-making process that that is the bar where a house on this site was considered to be acceptable, we are now considering obviously a new application but the changes have been outlined to you where the previous consents considered acceptable in all regards.
I I accept on all of those.
I still have some reservation about the difficult situation that we'd been put in here, because
the Parish Council and the the neighbours were supportive, and now we've got a a sway against it because of the
deviation from the approved plans, so I just
where we haven't seen the completed development I just feel that we need to have some caution there because,
that they haven't stopped the plans so far, so what what we expect them to deliver might not actually be the case either, so I just have to put it out there, so that everybody realises that I am I'm really trying to take on board everything that you're you'll say, Heli is very, very difficult situation. Thank you
I was just gonna sort of build on what Councillor Neville said, I think we have been put in a very difficult situation here.
a couple of points I wanted to make, I personally I think it's fair enough to replace a bungalow with or without with a two storey of, I think we've got to put buried four storey house blocks in some of those are deeply built into the ground and I understand that 2.2 metres is quite a lot foot, but all I also think you know not.
I just think that's a fair and nothing to do. I don't say I think I'm expecting a bungalow to replace my bungalow isn't necessarily the right way to go.
however, I do think it doesn't sit well with me that people that a lot of this building has happened without, and we're now applying for retrospective permission, I think that doesn't feel the right way to go about things and I can understand the discomfort around that
I guess the what we are, but the permission has been granted for this and we're really only looking at a small change in that. What the original position was and I think perhaps minds have been, I understand what you're saying Councillor level, but I think perhaps the
the lack of respect of the process has swayed people against what was initially an approved application. Potentially I just wonder whether we could maybe put something in place to say Well, actually, this has to have real, proper enforcement if it was to go ahead and must have permission approved, whether we could have extra strong enforcement to make sure that that we know it really is stuck to by the letter going forward.
thank you are on
the situation that you're describing in terms of the the residents of the is not ideal far from it, and it's disappointing that we we've had to go through this process under normal circumstances we would expect
something that has planning consents to be built out in accordance with plans
but as the that the Speaker, on behalf of that can said they had to try to remedy that almost a year ago by putting in subsequent applications, and that is this is when it generated a lot of.
local interest, and this is kind of how we got to where we are today, certainly as far from ideal
that the planning system is there, as I described earlier on, about making sure that the harms are remedied, and this is what this processes certainly
this is. This is something we were aware of were about any sort of deviation from that now is obviously going to be something at the forefront of our minds
in terms of the the specific question about lighting.
If there is lighting on on-site already, it could be that that that condition is resolved within a quicker period of time so that we do get it quite promptly to to resolve whether the details are acceptable or not within, for example, 3 months, so the condition could be revised to require that detail. within that time period, so it can get resolved quickly.
May I intervene to council
this is a new application,
but it is
resentment or reserve or concern
deviations from the original plans.
we must try and put that aside.
as he said, this is a new application to be treated on its own merits.
so please, if we can, when we make our decision.
don't have those when you make that decision, don't have the reservation in your mind, well,
the applicants being a bit naughty, so we eat. it needs punishing,
that is not what we do,
this is a new application to be treated on its merits.
sorry for the lecture.
Councillor Patterson, I think you wanted to say
thank you, Mr. Chairman, you said exactly what I was about to say,
great minds obviously think alike.
the important thing
yeah, it is very rare, very rare.
I mean, obviously we can understand the irritation of of residents, but I think what we need to do is measure this application against the one that has already been granted and not really against the bungalow that no longer exists. so what we need to look at is a difference between the new application and the existing permission and ask ourselves whether the differences merit refusal, so we have a higher increase in the height of point 7 metres.
a move forward by 1 metre and
some windows at the back of the property which I am not persuaded actually amounts where we're looking of the neighbours.
personally, I mean, I can understand all the all the hostility and the the irritation about it, but I am not persuaded that I am going to to vote against this, I don't think that the changes on material enough to actually warrant refusal.
thank you, I prepared to put that in the form of a proposal to 18 elephants, if you
would like me to I would, I would also like the amendment to condition 7 suggested by the Head of Planning to be included, which was to limit it to three months, I think,
with that, with that caveat to all of that
amendment are happy to propose it.
did you also want to include the informative that I think you discussed earlier in the meeting about the lighting should be sensitive in terms
I think it's bound racism insensitive, yes, I think so.
thank you, Chairman,
I really like to agree with Councillor Pattison, I think.
a lot of the comments are very welcome on the number of local residents will come along and made their points, and it has been very, very helpful in considering this application.
I felt a lot of the comments really related to the original application. There was a certain amount of buyer's remorse that now it's been built that it's the masses too large, it's overbearing on the site, there are too many stories, but those were all elements that were in the original application as Councillor Pattison has said, really we are looking at. What are the differences and the differences are not that great, and we're talking about less than a metre, higher approximately a metre from the road and the dormer windows, and I was able today to visit the site with other members of the Committee
and look through those dormer windows and
to try as hard as I could, I found it impossible to see into the garden of wings, as it had been represented to us today, so my view is that
the changes to the original approved application are not significant enough for us to object to the new application, therefore I would like to second proposal
sorry me again,
what strikes me is that the way forward is to give other residents reassurance that.
regulations will be complied with that enforcement is in place I just want to. explore that Councillor patterson's
suggestions would meet that requirement.
yeah, so the the conditions it is proposed for amendment would
remain enforceable, they will be enforceable
we, we still have an open investigation into the site, so it is one that that's still an ongoing investigation until such time as.
officers are satisfied that there were no no breaches that that need to be resolved,
obviously, Members grant permission tonight this that deals with a great number of of the outstanding issues, but then,
after that, we would then look at the conditions that are imposed and essentially work through those
to ensure full compliance, so that's that's the the position that we would that we would follow through following a decision.
thank you, thank you,
I just wanted to to thank Mr Hone and you Chair, for making some of those things clear,
I know that it's perfectly acceptable to treat this application just like an ordinary application.
I wasn't involved in the previous one and I agree with Councillor Patterson and Councillor Councillor Osborne, those are exactly the issues that have drifted that it revolves around, but it is also a question of degree rather than
about the replacement development.
this one in comparison with the previous, has gone, as Mr home said, its material, the previous application, which was approved
my view, is just possibly slightly different that the previous application, if it had come before me, would have been pretty marginal on
approving it, and I think this has just gone over the line quite likely.
any other contributions from Members before we move to a vote.
that being so the
proposal is to accept the officers recommendations it is proposed by
Councillor Pattison, seconded by Councillor Osmo.
rider or proviso.
sorry, Chairman's our wait miles away and yeah with the amended condition 7 as.
as suggested by
Mr Howlin accepted by Councillor Patterson. to give a time limit for submission for the lighting details and the additional informative.
guide and any future submission under that condition, 7, to ensure that it is a sensitive lighting scheme.
with that in mind, let us proceed to a vote.
councillors, all those in favour of accepting the officer's recommendation as described, please raise your hands.
that's seven for two.
none against her.
that application is therefore accepted,
may I add a proviso from the Chair to.
behave yourself from now on.
we will have a small.
yeah yeah. Yesha, Yesha.
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/00989/FULL High View, Grovehurst Lane, HO
ITEM 7, A
22 slash double 0 2 3 8 for
7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/00238/FULL W A Turner Ltd, Broadwater Lane, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
W. A. Turner, limited Broadwater Lane Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent
Page 16 of the main agenda, page 2 of the supplementary pack
and Mr Hazel Grove, your presentation, please.
thank you Chair. this application relates to the W A Turner factory site on the edge of wow within Tunbridge Wells.
on the edge of the town centre.
you'll see this is the site outlined in red.
it's to the south and the
and the west of the Sainsbury's,
and little in the Homebase complex here,
there's an overflow Sainsbury's car park here.
can't see it happening.
the BT engineering site, which is referred to in the report and which is also allocated for housing is, is here.
this is a relatively recent housing development called Underwood Rise and that sits at a higher level than the application site and has a belt of trees along here, which is a designated area of landscape importance.
this is all part of the Old Schofield's estate.
his hunter's way,
and then the goodwin's, which is an infill again, not a 19 80s, infill development here,
and so Sheffield's rate goes down here and there is an access through here to the Sainsbury's supermarket site.
so again, you will see that in as an aerial photo.
to the north of the site is the Heritage Railway Line, small vary line, and you'll see the say Sheffield's estate here,
other housing here and say the Beatty site here, and this is the Sainsbury's overflow car, OK, then, with the petrol station here.
the site, the building has become something of an anomaly in its setting. Now there was a lot more industrial development round here in the past, but it's been slowly replaced by by housing and this site is allocated in the Local Plan for housing development. You'll see that the factory is very large, it feels pretty much. The whole site
varies between one and two storeys. He's been there since the 19 40s
and it's been steadily X.
gradually extended over time.
so some photos of the site, this is the view to the east along Underwood Rise, you can see the land levels rise up.
may they rise up from Broadwater Lane.
and then you can just see the edge of the application site here.
this is a view from further Olive on Underwood rises, the entrance of the BT engineering site.
so this is the the factory, the the nor the southern end of it, and with a redundant parking area, the factory has been empty for several years now.
another view down Broadwater Lane looking to the north.
very few trees on the site, but the important ones are all being retained, such as the one that you seen before in the middle distance.
a view further along Broadwater Lane looking to the north and again you'd see the the dominant form of the factory on the right-hand side.
and again, this is the far end of at the northern end.
and then it was the
a vehicle parking and loading area that was part of the part of the factory.
so to the the east of the site, you've got the St. This is the redundant overflow car park,
this part of Sainsbury's land and this photo is taken just from the edge of that car park, so you can see the difference in height differ in height levels between this
the land to the the east
and the Factory. the changes in land levels increase as you progress down towards the bottom corner here, south-east corner. the the height differential with some 7 metres between the factory ground level and the and the land at the side of it.
the petrol filling station, again, you currently see much of the site from this view.
and then this is the pedestrian access that leads to Sainsbury's from a Borough of Water Lane.
so the existing building
see there is a very large bulky structure.
and again, this is the topographical survey which shows the extent of the site coverage the building shaded grey and then the parking and circulation vehicle, turning areas around the periphery and to the north and to the west.
so this is the proposed layout, it's 94 dwellings arranged in 5 blocks of houses,
so B would be a site entrance here, which is roughly in the same position as the existing.
turning existing entrance into the site.
then you would want progress down this this spine road,
this building here is a block predominantly above a block of apartments which are for social rent as part of the affordable housing, as also we're working as a kind of working from home or hot desking type business hub in the ground floor of this building is to be the children's play area.
as he progressed through, this is the northern part of the site.
and it sort of stops here, with more dwelling houses and in the shared ownership dwellings are these four here
in the southern part of the site,
there is the second access which gives access to these dwellings and then.
sir, for essentially for apartment blocks, one here.
to hear of one here which isn't in shown fully, and this is this is a sort of a cutaway drawing, which shows the
undercroft parking for this apartment block.
so further detail, that's the more than more than part of the site.
then the southern part.
so just to run through the house, designs
so blocked to is one of the centre blocks.
a terrace of four.
he said, this would be the affordable housing. shared ownership dwellings
not four, not five. this sort of moving clockwise around the site blocks 6. the small apartment building.
box 7, which is the
socially rented apartments, and the business hub.
and then these are the dwellings on the very northern boundary.
and their nose on the the eastern boundary.
and their needs are the two dwellings that are on the
the entrance to the site into the sort of a
there'd been the Beasties' essentially mopped the entrances into the site.
leaves the apartment blocks at the southern end.
these are, via these rise to 5 storeys, and these take into account the providing land level differences.
so these were not also, there would be quite a lot of cutting into land, the Turner's factory is already partly cut into the land
as it is.
and then this would be to be the view from, and the northern elevation, north elevation of blocks 2 and 3
in the west elevation of blocks 1 and 2.
as as seen in the road.
and again, more more images of the of the apartment buildings as from the Eastern View.
so the affordable housing plan.
members will note in the report of the
the application is being through viability assessments and unfortunately it is another site where we are unable to deliver a policy compliant, affordable housing, however there are 6 one bedroom apartments provided here for social rent and
several and for houses here for shared ownership.
these were a few C G images of the proposed development, this one from this is Underwood Rise.
and Broadwater Lane.
and then within the site, looking towards the south.
the two updates there's an error in description of the mix of shared ownership affordable units at para 7 56 and 10 1 1 1 the report states it states, it's for three bedroom houses when it will, in fact be two three bedroomed and two four bedroomed.
in addition, the architects have provided a plan showing the location of the affordable housing and the development that was the plan that I just showed you.
so, in conclusion, and the absence of a five-year supply of housing,
the housing supply policies, including those related to the LBD, are out of date.
paragraph 11 of footnote 7 of the MPP f requires that,
where relevant, policies are out of date, that permission for sustainable development should be granted, where all them all other material considerations are satisfied,
the site is not within an area of particular importance that provides a clear reason for refusal.
it would result in the delivery of sustainable development and would accord with the development plan and local policy.
the proposal would remove a dated and empty former industrial building, which has a negative impact on the surrounding area,
the sites allocated in or in the current Development Plan for residential development, as it is in the forthcoming submission Local Plan
it will deliver 10 new affordable units which includes 6 socially rented
the scheme doesn't have provide policy compliant level affordable housing but the applicant has provided a detailed viability appraisal which has been independently assessed by TW BCS consultants. and thus there is considered to be sufficient justification to depart from adopted policy in this regard.
there wouldn't be any significant ecological impact,
the traffic movements generated by the development can be accommodated without detriment to highway safety, and this element of the scheme is is supported by KCC Highways,
Development wouldn't be significantly harmful to the residential amenities of neighbouring dwellings. the development can be accommodated around existing trees,
a number of units and the mixes and the mix is considered to be appropriate,
the proposal would deliver a betterment in terms of surface water runoff rates, it would secure financial contributions towards various
it's within the LBD Tunbridge Wells and she's a tier 1 settlement and in a very sustainable location, it's close to a major bus route and within walking, distance of shops, nursery recreation, ground, primary schools and other facilities and amenities.
design is, on balance, considered acceptable.
the recommendation is that permission is granted subject to conditions and legal agreement, thank you.
we have one speaker received a paper of the application.
who has provided a statement which will be read out by our Buck, Mrs. Moran?
thank you Chair. this statement is written by Stephen Ward Town Planning and Development consultants limited on behalf of the applicant urban life TBWA limited urban life is an established and experienced housebuilder in Ireland and the UK. The company has approximately 300 units under construction in Ireland and 65 units in the UK and is due to start construction of 166 units in Scotland before the end of the year. The proposed scheme of housing on Broadwater Lane was developed by a multidisciplinary design team that has engaged with the Planning Authority throughout the planning process, beginning with planning consultation in December 2020, followed by a planning application in January 2022 when the site was formally acquired. The design team has also taken part in the public consultation phases of the Local Plan process.
the turn of factory site has long been recognised as an opportunity site for redevelopment. The proposed development is fully in line with both national and local planning policy to redevelop previously developed land in sustainable locations to provide more homes so that families can meet their aspirations. This proposal to provide 94 dwellings comes at a time when the borough has significant housing need and will bring it with its social and economic benefits, including significant financial contributions. This is in addition to the on-site provision of 10 affordable housing units, including 6 social rented units. The application meets all relevant policy provisions of the Local Plan, including providing for a future pedestrian link from the application site east towards Lynden Gardens. The development has been designed such that it does not impede or prejudice the future development of the adjacent BT site.
the proposed development provides public open space and a remote working community hub for residents, who are also in close proximity to many local amenities and services, including playgrounds and Tunbridge Wells Common, taking account of the site's location, 500 metres from the primary school shopping area 1.5 kilometres from Thomas rail station and in close proximity to schools and supermarkets, walking and cycling are realistic options for future residents. The car parking provision accords with current requirements and strikes an appropriate balance between in cartilage and on-street parking provision,
the design of the proposed residential scheme by award-winning architects, response to the site's characteristics, providing an efficient density of development with mixed mix of dwelling types and sizes, including smaller residents, as well as larger 4 bed family homes. The development has been demonstrated to achieve a high quality design without negatively impacting upon existing residential amenities, while also retaining significant trees.
It is submitted that the redevelopment of this vacant factory site for much-needed housing in proximity to the centre of Tunbridge Wells will improve the residential amenities of the area and provide an attractive streetscape with a strong urban edge to Broadwater, Lane and and Underwood Rise, as well as a safe and legible residential development for future occupants. together with the redevelopment of show fields, the proposed development will make a significant contribution towards the achievement of a successful residential neighbourhood in Tunbridge Wells, thank you Chair.
officers, if you wish to make any points of clarification or correction writing from those statements.
committee members do have questions to the officers.
thank you, Chairman.
you tell us that there has been a deviation away from policy Y or TW 13, which says that.
in respect of the pipe factory.
it's allocated for approximately 100 residential dwellings, of which 30% shall be affordable housing.
can you tell me why
30 has changed to 10?
does that Hazel Grove,
thank you Chair.
C. This is set out in the report at page 54 to through to 50 8 of the agenda.
they sigh yes, I mean TV
we would, I would have thought aim for 30% provision on this site is a brownfield site and that's the figure that the submission Local Plan seeks
the application originally came in with nil, affordable housing, it went through a viability review
by our own independent consultants, who disputed the figures that were being provided by the applicant, particularly in terms of the site's
benchmark land value, which is it's it's essentially its value as a development.
back and forth between the Council's consultants and the applicant.
It was arrived that
essentially, it was determined that the development could only look viably provide 10.6% affordable housing.
Much the reason behind that is it's a brownfield site and brownfield sites are
generally expensive to develop anyway and that's recognised by the fact that 30% require affordable housing is required in the emerging plan as opposed to 40% of the greenfield with this particular site,
an extremely large
building on it, which
is for the demolition, costs will be significant,
and the site which has been in use since say since probably not long after the Second World War, will be extremely expensive to remediate and decontaminate, because there will be various.
issues with health sites being used in the past.
so the build costs and the development costs of this site are
and that's what's led to the the shortfall of affordable housing.
essentially that status, even in short.
yeah, that's an interesting explanation, although it doesn't seem to fit the information that is provided by the developer,
the developers offer originally according to the financial viability assessment report produced by samples so that they were willing to offer Section 1 0 6 0 1.1 2 8 million pounds we've accepted accepted 678,000 therefore we've essentially said
Give us 10 houses that's 450,000 pounds. so we've accepted exactly their offer,
their offer was based on a report produced by samples in November 21 two years ago, based on information in September 21, so it's two years old.
that report is
clearly out of date, is two years old, there's been huge movements in the property market, I looked through the information provided by saddles to support the evaluation of the site, so, for example, they used a residents' fail house Clarence Road Tunbridge Wells,
as one of their benchmark properties, they said that the value of a two bedroom apartment was 385,000, they have been on the market at the moment, saddles for 495,000 that's 25% higher.
if the value of these properties was 25% higher, the value of this development is over 10 million pounds more than is stated in this report,
I can't believe that being asked in this committee to rely on data that was produced over two years ago to support the fact that we're abandoning our
housing policy of having 30% as,
rather than moving to 10%.
and it's just so very quickly who are the consultants who said that this report was accepted.
as Lady as in the report that the Council's consultants for the court Dixon Searle and I undertake
our pretty much all of our consultancy work for us
in terms of taking a single
flats in a development elsewhere
as a guide as to how much you feel that bellies on this site may have increased.
I don't think that's a reliable approach to simply take one flat and say OK, fell, values of this site could have gone up by 25%, the
viability review would have packed in
recent CH, which was on the volunteers to the viability review has been undertaken as an ongoing process and included earlier this year. it would have taken into account and factored into account potential rises in
it would also have taken into account likely increases in build costs as well on costs of materials because, as we know, in the construction industry, custom materials are rising as well, it's not an exact science and that's acknowledged by officers in the report,
but it's it's a guide and it's a it's the
it's the way that applications such as this are are determined,
obviously officers don't take lightly the fact that it's under providing affordable housing, we have policies that require certain amounts, but there will be sites that cannot provide.
that cannot viably provide the full requirement of affordable housing because of the costs of developing them,
and so that's explained in the report.
if there's more recent report and then I feel we should have been shown that, rather than the September, the 1 November 21 report, also in November 20 wonderful doesn't have any dependency, so we can actually undertake an analysis. Also, how does it actually operate that the developer has purchased the site for 5 million, knowing full well that the Council's
they haven't purchased it? The value that he's given to the site is one that's arrived. That is essentially a notional value. That's derived from market values, the actual amount that a developer or now in or pays for a site
should never be used in this kind of exercise, because that kind of figure can be
influenced or affected by all sorts of other faxes.
The benchmark land value is the one which is the 4.4 million figure which is the value of the development. That's the one that is
the one that we use and the Planning practice guidance requires to be used.
yeah for point 8 is the benchmark land value, but that's very close to we're told by saddles that they actually paid ballpoint 9 5 6 4 it is not a number that we've just been invented, we've been told us how much they paid by paid 5 million pounds for the side
in full knowledge of the fact that the council's requirement was for 30% affordable housing. I feel generally, and maybe we pass out on this case, but I feel generally with not sufficiently tough with developers in terms of making sure that the policy of affordable housing is enforced. I can't see how someone can come to the conclusion that we can buy the site for a certain amount of money and then abandon the stated policy, unaffordable housing which the numbers don't seem to support. In any case, as I say, essentially, they've traded
450,000 pounds 106 money for 10 affordable houses, which is about what we normally charge where developers don't put affordable housing in, so we've accepted exactly their numbers. Those numbers are two years out of date.
and there doesn't seem to have been any update
in those numbers
which would allow us to say that 10 houses. no longer appropriate, and we should revert to our normal policy of 30.
thank you, Chair, I think, just to come back on that the Land Registry shows that the site hasn't been hasn't changed hands, it's still in the ownership of W a town, I think there may be an option on it for for that night and in terms of the story,
sorry, you'll have to use your microphone if you want to.
they say they'll pay 5 million for the site if we give them planning planning with 10 social houses, if we say no, we want 30 social houses again, and presumably they won't pay 5 million for it, they'll have to go back to the guys Halloween, so tough on you mate.
the Council, as enforcing the policy that we were already aware of, and the site is therefore worthless.
thank you, obviously your officers go through
a great deal of
consideration in putting applications together before we bring them to committee.
and ask me said, as Mr. Cosgrove said, and identified within the report, as a lot of detail in there, and I appreciate your frustration with regards to not meeting the affordable housing percentage in the plan. However, that the policies are certainly in the emerging Local Plan, allow for exceptional circumstances when sites aren't going to be viable, and I appreciate your comments about
cherry picking particular sites, which are more valuable and wanting needs to be subject to the viability testing. But it's gone through a proper process process we always use with concerns we've commissioned
developers warrant in enter into
considering a planning application unless they do this exercise in advance, so they already know what the benchmark land value is going to be of the site, hence why the figures are kind of matching up, so they're not going to
investigate planning for a site if they don't know in advance
what the level of affordable housing by might be, so that's why we are where we are officers, spent a great deal of time with the consultants challenging the applicants and have asked Mr Hazel Grove sets out increase the amount to 0 for the houses to 2 10. I appreciate you're shaking your head and I appreciate your frustration on that, but I'm just trying to explain the process.
sorry, the awkward 1.1 2 8 sexual minorities.
that's cut down to 680,000, therefore 450,000 is the amount that they've said OK, we'll slot that over into social housing, so from their point of view, it's now 680 section 1 0 6 450 social housing, by exactly what they offered originally.
we make the point that the developers won't have gone for an exercise of testing viability prior to coming to the Council, they would already have gone through that exercise before they spent money on looking to develop a scheme, so they will know the position.
could you remind us, minister, Hazel Grove, the nature of the contamination that you say the developer will have to deal with?
thank you Chair.
the land contamination surveys that were submitted with the application and which were reviewed by our environmental health officers.
they're saying it's likely that there will be oil slash fuel storage, tanks, septic tanks, drainage systems and material storage that would have contributed towards.
surplus land contamination, they can't be specific, because so much of the factory covers the site that it's
they haven't been ambulance, take detailed investigations, but those are unlikely contaminants that would be in the in soil,
along with the general fact that the thing was built in the in the 40 s and therefore standards were probably lower in terms of,
the point. land to contaminated land remediation and the way in which?
nasty things were disposed of back then, so I can't
think of a better right free.
in terms of Dixon
I lied they put the
the cost of.
essentially demolition and clean up at
almost 1.9 million
in their assessment.
can we have a question for the officers?
Councillor Les Pope.
yeah, I've got a couple of very quick ones, I misunderstood, I think well I don't understand the number of three and four bedroom houses because in the application
it seems to say 10, three bedrooms and 26 4 bedrooms making
about 35% of the 94
three and four bedroom houses which didn't seem to be the same as the slide, and I might be wrong, but I'd just like to know.
thank you, Chair an
as per para 2 I 1,
yes 10 3 bedrooms
houses and 26 4 bedroomed,
so you essentially got 36 houses and the rest being upon.
thank you, I'm gonna ask one more quick one.
I'm just interested to know in many of the development applications we've had recently, the one Essex contributions to education have gone to Bennett Memorial, and I wondered why
that was the decision when you think that they are 25% students who go to the grammar schools.
thank you Ann. KCC are the ones who request the monies for schools, as he is the education provider arm they can only,
I think, request them for schools, but
for a section 1 0 6 contribution to be legislatively compliant, there has to be an ongoing scheme that that needs to cut the those moneys able to contribute to, and I suspect the expansion of Bennett Memorial is
a scheme which is being cost, which has been costed up and which is likely to be imminent. that you wouldn't
be able to ask for monies for other schools if there was no
imminent or ongoing, or or no scheme of plans to expand them,
so that's that's generally, I think that's all KCC, the side, who which schools to ask money for.
can I just go on and come back on it very quickly.
you said KCC makes those decisions with here.
do they also make decisions on behalf of academy trusts and free schools?
the case KCC would work with academy trusts in terms of the
roll numbers of students and the likely increase of those students through development, that's either been permitted.
or development that is.
proposed as part of the Local Plan allocations, so they would look at all of those
they would look at what schools could be expanded, whether those are.
so in old money, Local Education Authority, schools and those that are academy trusts.
Work with those with those school bodies to to to come up with a solution for for expansion, thank you.
if there are no other questions for the officers, but shall we proceed to a debate?
Councillor, the level.
I'd like to thank the officers for challenging the viability
reports on this proposed development and I welcome the integration of social housing into it, and I'd like to be the proposer, please,
I'm happy to second that I think it's a very good proposal, it would be nice to have more social housing, but I understand the brownfield argument and I think we should, I'm very happy to second day.
seconded by Councillor White,
sorry, I just be just before we vote on it.
I did visit the power factory and the software, and I wonder if that could be monitored,
I will just.
for a while, I wanted to say that, compared with this
housing that we've had built in the 60 s and 70s, it's really nice that, since I've been on the Committee, we've had lots of buildings with some architectural merit that will improve the townscape rather than be a blot on the landscape so.
I'll say I do think as a cry Che.
we only get Kevin Horsley.
out of this.
for any large development.
we have been having this argument was Williams, I'll be a normal committee images by.
eight and a bit years and
for something terribly wrong, they
but well system, it seems to me,
but the system is what it is.
what do we do if we turn it down, do we
think, are going to be suddenly 30 houses produced magically from somewhere?
now not really.
but I think.
we need to.
our planning officers to
continue to strengthen their argument.
for social and affordable housing is terribly badly needed.
I know you do it already.
I do it even better.
we will chair, I think one of the things I wouldn't discuss outside of this meeting is how
we can secure that in the plan-making process in a more rigorous way.
which the report does covering in a certain element about review mechanisms
why we feel at this stage that's not something that we can
put on this particular application, but it may well be through the plan-making process, we can include a policy excellent.
let us move to a vote, we have a.
motion proposed proposed by Councillor Neville, seconded by Councillor White, to accept the officer's recommendation and follow all those in favour.
that six feature.
all those against.
you want that recorded in the minute,
the motion is therefore carried.
can you put one down to the?
my against is because of the affordable housing, social housing could that be put once they have recorded, yes girl against, for that reason, due to the lack of affordable houses OK, thank you, we thank
you because the route that we couldn't record a garage but not I think the route on account shortly.
I will check with Jo Jo Jo,
so there was a question, sorry.
we her request, but not only are
a vote against, be recorded by name, but the reason for the the vote
should be recorded as well is that.
and foreign abstention as well.
I don't see a problem with it. no,
that's fine that'll be recorded in the minutes for both. thank you,
7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/02026/FULL 1 Littleworth Cottages, Etherington Hill,
sorry about, let me start again.
item 7 C 23 slash 0 2 0 2 6 4 1 Little Wolf Cottages, Everington Hill, Speldhurst Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Page 89 of the main agenda, page 8 of the supplementary pack,
Mr Taylor, no presentation, please.
thank you Chair,
this application is for
Wandsworth cottages, are seeking planning permission for a proposed car parking space, a dropped kerb and driveway,
if you can see from that map, the size to the right of the defined limits of Spouthouse, so is itself outside the limits put development, it's also within the Green Belt and the A and B
that's the view of the property from the front and you can see there is an existing driveway there, this permission, as this application seeks to add another or another driveway where that junction is, so the site isn't itself situated immediately on the junction of Etherington Hill in Scotland, Green Road,
and an existing planning left and proposed in the right, as you can see, there's that front wall being removed to accommodate the additional driveway
and the landlord dropped down to provide access,
you see, the hedge is, gonna be removed, but the
tree is going to be retained
and that's between the existing driveway and and the proposed,
and it has some left proprietors were
it's going to be additional landscaping of the retained hedge on the right and then retaining walls around the proposed driveway and in steps leading up to the existing,
sorry to conclude, the development would retain the existing character and context of the site,
the development would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and also preserve the character of the R and B,
there is no significant harm to residential amenity and KCC have not raised any objections, so it is not considered that the development result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety
said a recommendation to approve is to grant planning permission subject to conditions thank you.
on any questions that the officer.
should we move to the debate?
Councillor Paterson are proposed the officers' recommendation.
proposed by Councillor Pattison seconded
on almost a tie, but Councillor Neville, I will second, secondly, the motion.
all those in favour, please raise your hands.
as the unanimous chair.
the motion is felt carried.
8 Planning Enforcement Report October 2022 to March 2023
October 2022 to March 23. the report set out on page 92 and 93 of the agenda
if any Members have any questions relating to this report, they should be raised with the Planning officers outside the meeting.
we have been back almost
9 Appeal Decisions for Noting 5 August 2023 to 4 September 2023
9 to contact me, that's fine.
appeal decisions fulminating 5th of August 23 2 Sports September 23 set out on pages 100 and 101 of the agenda if any Members had any questions relating to these appeal decisions, they should also be raised with planning officers outside the meeting.
10 Urgent Business
item 10 urgent business, there is no urgent business. ITEM 11.
11 Date of Next Meeting
the next meeting is on Wednesday, the 11th of October 2023,
the meeting is now closed, thank you for your time, thank you, Chairman.