Planning Committee - Wednesday 11 October 2023, 6:30pm - Feedback Tab - Start video at 1:34:14 - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
1 Chair's Introduction
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
2 Apologies
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
3 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
4 Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6)
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
5 Site Inspections
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 13 September 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 a) Application for Consideration - 23/00436/FULL The Forum, The Common, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01919/FULL Broomlands, Broom Lane, Langton Green, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Slide 1
Agenda item :
7 a) Application for Consideration - 23/00436/FULL The Forum, The Common, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 a) Application for Consideration - 23/00436/FULL The Forum, The Common, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/02338/TPO The Trinity Theatre and Arts Centre, Church Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Agenda item :
7 d) Application for Consideration - 23/02349/FULL Calverley Grounds, Mount Pleasant Avenue, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 e) Application for Consideration - 23/02027/FULL 1 Littleworth Cottages, Etherington Hill, Speldhurst, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 5 September 2023 to 2 October 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 e) Application for Consideration - 23/02027/FULL 1 Littleworth Cottages, Etherington Hill, Speldhurst, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 5 September 2023 to 2 October 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
9 Urgent Business
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
10 Date of Next Meeting
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
could he?
welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, the 11th of October 2023.
I'm Councillor Bland.
1 Chair's Introduction
before we get on to the agenda items, please give your full attention for the following announcements from our Clarke, Mrs. Moran.
thank you, Chair and good evening everybody in the event of the fire alarm ringing continuously, you must immediately evacuate the building at walking pace officers will escort to be the most direct available route, and no one is to use the lift, we will make our way to the fire assembly point which is by the entrance to the Town Hall Yard car park on Monsoon Way and once outside a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left and no one has to re-enter the building until advised that it is safe to do so.
this is a public meeting and proceedings are being webcast live online and 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, 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. Thank you Chair,
thank you for the benefit of the recording we are now going to take a roll call, Mrs. Moran, thank you Chair expected Members here this evening, Councillor Page Britain, Councillor Noon, Councillor Neville.
present Councillor O'Connell, present Councillor Pattison, present Councillor Pope present.
Councillor Blanche,
thank you and expected officers here this evening, Jennifer Beadman.
present Peter Hockney present in Charlotte, open present and for the benefit of the recording we have Councillor LB Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning with us this evening, Chair, thank you.
thank you.
members of the Committee should be familiar with that process.
but for the benefit of any members of the public who may be watching, I would like to explain a couple of things.
committee members come from wards across the borough.
and although they may have local knowledge.
when they make planning decisions, they must consider each application in the context of the whole borough area.
committee members have had their agendas for over a week.
how has have and have had the opportunity to study these and to clarify any issue with planning officers?
so, although members of the public might wonder why some matters were 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 come to the substantive items on the agenda this evening.
the officer will set first set out the report.
I will then ask any speakers to address the committee before we then move into member discussion.
at the end of the debate, I will try and summarise the Committee's view, and the members should ensure that any proposals or actions are correctly captured before a vote is taken.
2 Apologies
ITEM 2 apologies for absence, Mrs. Moran, do we have any apologies yesterday we have apologies from Councillors Brits', Alan Fitzsimons, Johnson Osborne and White this evening.
3 Declarations of Interest
declarations of interest.
members of the Committee should declare at this point if they have any declarations of pecuniary or significant other interests or if they have fettered their discretion and need withdraw from the meeting while a particular application is had, does any member have a declaration to make?
Councillor Noon and Councillor Pope, thank you, Councillor Moon, for thank you Chair.
I'd like to declare an interest on any agenda item 7, I, the forum, and I will leave the meeting and that was discussed.
thank you, Councillor Pope.
thank you Chair.
I am declaring an interest on 70, or at least I wanted to make you aware that I I have related interest. I am a trustee of the friends of Calverley grounds, a charitable organisation set up to raise money for the playground cabinet venture grounds, which was built in 2017 on the old bowling green at the back of the public park. The charity and friends group is largely dormant but still holds money, most of which is restricted to being spent on children's play, equipment and associated things. We occasionally provide funds for repairs and recently agreed to help to fund a drinking fountain close to the playground. I'm also a resident of Mountfield Road, a cul-de-sac, which has an entrance to Calverley grounds. At the end of the road. My house is 50 to 60 yards from the park entrance. I have no personal financial interests in the public park. I don't have a view of the public park
sorry, my interests are already making fair and well considered decisions for the planning authority and for the community I contacted are legal and they said that as long as I would give a fair and objective decisions, I could remain in the meeting.
Blanco Councillor Pope.
declarations of lobbying.
4 Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6)
members of the Committee should declare at this point if they have been lobbied on any of the application on today's agenda.
Clarke, who asked each member in turn,
the state of which application they have been lobbied if any, and whether it is by objectors, supporters or both, Mrs. Moran, thank you, Chair Councillor Page.
no lobbying Councillor Moon,
no lobbying, Councillor Neville.
no lobby in Councillor O'Connor.
I have been lobbied neutrally it wasn't for or against its on the
Calverley grounds out Mum, just getting the reference, I think it's 7 F, I think, 70 7 days, OK, but if it wasn't for or against, but it was related to the length of the planning permission somebody suggested that it shouldn't be for five years, it should be for one year
OK, thank you, Councillor Pattison, no lobbying, Councillor Pope, I have also been lobbied on seven days, the Caballé grounds application, again it was, it was not.
specifically for or against, but for an adjustment in the timings.
thank you, Councillor Plant, no lobbying.
thank you Chair.
5 Site Inspections
site inspections, members did not attend any official site visit, but if any members completed any site visits of their own.
no.
6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 13 September 2023
item 6, to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday, 13th of September Members are asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting, are a true record of the proceedings. I remind Members that the only matter for discussion is the accuracy. Do members have any other comments
members, the motion is to agree the minutes, all we agreed.
the motion is carried.
7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
reports.
these reports of the Head of Planning Services.
a presentation will be provided by the Case Officer for the applications, but for members of the public listening, I would like it to be clear that the considerations, conclusions and recommendations of the report are those of the Head of Planning Services north 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 representations that I am sure that is not necessary.
the order of business this evening will be item 7 be broom lambs,
followed by 7, A 7 C 7 D and 17.
7 a) Application for Consideration - 23/00436/FULL The Forum, The Common, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01919/FULL Broomlands, Broom Lane, Langton Green, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
so we move immediately to item 7, be room lands.
Broom, Lane Langton Green Tunbridge Wells Kent 23 slash 0 1 9 1 9
full application.
Page 23 of the main agenda, page 5 of the supplementary pack, apply miserable your of your presentation, please, thank you Chair.
so I'm I'm just showing here the site plan for the proposal, which is this square in question here.
just showing it in relation to the main property Broomlands, which is over here on the left side.
this is an area of image of the site, just a few bits I wanted to point out, so these are some residential properties on.
Homewood ridge to the north, with their gardens backing onto the field, I just wanted to show also the level of screening and trees around the site as well.
I put this in here because there has been a bit of a question about whether there is a public footpath to the bottom of the site, so this shows the local public rights of way.
the closest one being this one down here, as you can see, is that it's a bit of a distance from the site, there's a question about this track here and I think it is used by the public, but it's not an official public right of way.
I've just put that out there to explain that.
I just some photos of the site now, so this is one looking to the
the boundary of the rear gardens of the residential properties, as you can see, there are some trees and some hedging here.
again, this is just looking to the corner of the site, just showing the level of screening.
this is looking down to the bottom of the site, so where there is a a track that leads to Broome Farm, but again it's the private track.
this is just to look into the boundary between the site and the historic park and garden of Brooklyn's.
and this is a photo from the track at the bottom of the field, looking back up to where the proposed solar panels are.
so again, this is just showing the array of the solar panels in the corner of the field.
some elevations of the proposed solar panels.
so in conclusion, it is considered that the harm to the Green Belt is outweighed by the benefit benefits of renewable energy, there is considered limited harm to the A and B in surrounding landscape due to the level of screening to the site, and there's an acceptable relationship with the listed building and the historic park and garden of Broomlands.
and it's because if there's no harm to the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties.
therefore, the proposal would be acceptable having regard to the policies of the Core Strategy, the site allocations plan saved policies of the tumbled Wells Borough Council Local Plan and the policies of the submission Local Plan, and, as detailed in the agenda of report, the officer is recommending that the application application is granted.
subject to the conditions set out in the agenda, thank you.
thank you miserable.
we have six speakers on this item.
well, I call your name, could you please come to the microphone?
and it ensures activated when you speak, you have three minutes to make your statement.
our first speaker objecting to the application is Mr Roy Wheeler.
so much of the focus has so far been on the impact on the area of outstanding natural beauty, nature conservation and fire risk, which are all material planning issues and already included in the paperwork submitted by the parties to date, however, the key issue that has not been addressed is the inappropriate development of Green Belt land and we note that neither the applicant nor their agent has addressed the site's greenbelt status.
the planning committee reports that states that both visually and spatially the development would result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt and paragraph 1 5 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework of 2021 states that, when located within the Green Belt elements of many renewable energy projects, will comprise inappropriate development.
and it because it goes on to say that developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed and in this case the applicant has made no attempt to even demonstrates or reference any very special circumstances. There has been a near identical application in 2019 and the Tunbridge Wells. Council rejected application 18 stroke 0 3 9 4 7 stroke, full for 60 panels on High Weald green belt land, and this decision was supported by dismissal on appeal at the national level, and that's case reference number W stroke for triple 0 2 6 4 and the grounds for dismissal grounds for dismissal without a the proposal would constitute inappropriate development and that very special circumstances could not be demonstrated purely by the renewable energy benefits of the proposal and be the detrimental impact of the proposal to the openness of the Green Belt and the character and the appearance of the A and B outweighed the benefits of the proposal, and the decision also states that such proposals should not harm the intrinsic character or appearance of the area, whether or not the proposal is prominent or in public view, and the appeal mentioned that the wider environmental benefits of the solar proposal that could constitute of GCN was not applicable, as the proposal would generate energy for a single landowner with no wider benefit
there is also a second precedent at national appeals level, also rejecting solar panels on green belt land, and that's application number Z 4 7 1 stroke W stroke 22 stroke 3 2 double 9 4 1 0 furthermore, neither of these appeal sites have the heritage designation as a historic park and garden that this site is afforded.
we hope that the committee will feel reassured that, in rejecting this application, that they are basing their decision on the attention of the applicable planning rules.
and in line with the precedent set by previous appeals decision.
thank you.
thank you, Minister below.
us all second speaker objecting to the application.
is Penelope Wheeler?
you have to lobby before the meeting.
in addition to the points raised previously, this proposed land is designated as historic Park and Garden. The applicant has used the current compendium of historic parks and gardens as a reference, but has incorrectly interpreted the heritage status of this site. Instead, I draw your attention to pages 3 and 4 of my handout. These show official planning documents from the Tunbridge Wells, Local Plan, Inset Map 7 of the existing Plan 2006 and Inset Map 33 of the emerging plan 2021. You can see very clearly here from the Quay and the land here, which I've highlighted for you, that the land in question is clearly labelled as historic Park and Garden. The land is, in fact, a non-designated heritage asset and is therefore afforded significant protection rights, both nationally and locally. Policy 8 and 11 of the Local Plan 2006 and s t r 8 and Ian 5 of the emerging plan specifically address proposals affecting such a historic park or garden. They state that proposals will only be permitted where there is no significant harm caused to its character, amenities or setting. Furthermore, they seek to ensure that any development concepts and enhances its character. The proposed solar installation would introduce an entirely utilitarian feature metal work, the size and scale of a large bungalow into an otherwise unspoilt open wildflower. Meadow. Such development would most certainly harm the character of this historic field. It would neither conserve nor enhance it, and it could therefore be considered in direct breach of local policy. The applicant's agent has provided a list of previously approved solar panel applications. These can all be discounted as an unrelated to installations that are also on Green Belt land, nor within historic parkland
we hope that the Committee today will feel confident in rejecting this application, which is on land outside the boundary of existing development and subject to severely restrictive planning designations, including its location within the Green Belt without a VSC demonstrated is within the High Weald A and B a historic park and garden and within the setting of a listed building this planning balance has already been demonstrated both within the borough and nationally as shown by appeal decisions W slash for triple 0 2 6 4 and A P slash 0 4 7 1 8 slash w slash 22 slash 3 2 9 9 4 1 0 I really hope you will consider our objection. Thank you so much for your time.
thank you very much.
all for Speaker and supportive of the application is Mr Warren harmed.
I'd like to discuss four main areas, the first the reason for making the application and the positive impact it would have on the environment, the two largest codices of CO2 emissions in the UK are household and travel. We have an opportunity to mainly eliminate the CO2 emissions from the movement's estate and to provide clean renewable energy for the cars that we use. The approval of this application would result in the saving of approximately 247 tonnes of CO2 over 20 years. This is an unprecedented opportunity while we conduct major renovation works to the yesterday.
anyone that doesn't have their head in the sand will be fully aware of the impact of climate change that has there'd been extreme climate events in Europe and around the world in the last year, and it was 43 degrees in the UK last year. Extreme climate events are becoming more regular and unless radical change is implemented straightaway there will be catastrophic implications. I'm pleased that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council would acknowledge that there is a climate emergency and are supportive of this application, and it's disappointing that some of our neighbours on Homewood Ridge have their heads in the sand and have put self-interest above the positive impact this would have on the wider community.
a further point I would like to make is that the comments made by some of the ng diapers would lead you to believe we were building a multi-storey car park on the field. We are in fact building a non permanent structure. The panels can be removed in the future at the end of their lifespan, provided the government gets their act together and starts to generate enough renewable energy. The Parliament notes are not permanent structures and the impacts they would have on the A and B. NB and landscape has been significantly overstated by many of the respondents. The second point I would like to discuss is the detailed consideration that went into the planning application. Extensive discussions took place with Tunbridge Wells Borough Council prior to the application being submitted, where we looked at various locations for the solar panels, it became apparent that placing the panels in the historic gardens and parkland was not a viable option. We therefore placed the panels in the side field, which is not in the historic parkland or garden and try to locate the panel was in a position they would cause the least visual impact with neighbours and the landscape, despite this being not being the optimum location to generate power.
the field naturally slopes away and the top of the panels would be approximately at ground level when the neighbours' gardens, this will mean that the panels will not be visible from neighbours' houses and only visible from the bottom of the long gardens, however we all prepare to grow a hedge or trees along the northern boundary of the field to reduce any visual impact further.
the third point I wanted to address was many of the incorrect and misleading points raised by individuals that objected to the planning application the fields were the panels would be relocated is not in the historic garden and parkland, as confirmed by the paper produced by historic England and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council the solar panels will not be visible from any public position The fill to the east is private land, and the pathway at the bottom of the field is private land for use by Brunel and behind farmer. I'm going to have to stop you there for Albion level three minutes should I do the final paragraph
you've got room for about 10 words, OK, the final point I'd make is that the majority of the households that responded to this application provided comments in support of the application, the only objections were from residents of Homewood Ridge, it's there from Clegg quite a high and so he is in favour of the application thank you.
our fourth speaker in support of the application.
as Ms Catherine Hamed.
after five long years of designing and planning reunions, as at the start of a once, in a generation restoration and renovation project, we want to breathe new life into a Grade II listed house untouched since the late 70s, to make it fit for family life in 2023 and beyond.
we love the heritage of not just our property but also the wider landscape and setting as the current custodians of this building and estate, we fully recognise our responsibility to preserve, restore and enhance the house and the estate as a whole we accept the inevitable limitations of our Grade II listing such as the inability to install double glazing but strongly feel the weight of the wider responsibility we all have in respect of the current climate crisis we are reusing as much of the original material from the house as possible removing stones and roof slates by hand in order to preserve and reuse them.
to miss the opportunity to make Broomley significantly more sustainable just during the period of work seemed to us to be completely delinquent.
the current planning application for solar panels in the field adjacent to the house is the result of long consultation with the architect numerous sustainability experts and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council planning, given the inevitable thermal inefficiency of an old house that cannot be fully modernised due to its listed status. All are agreed that the best solution is this one. Given the constraints of the listed building the surrounding historic gardens and parkland directly to the south of the house, I would need particularly to address some of the objections as follows. This application is wholly within planning policy and there are many examples of similar sized solar projects being agreed by Tunbridge Wells in the area of outstanding natural beauty. The suggestion that the field is within the movement's historic parkland is inaccurate, as can be verified on the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council website. There is no visual impact from any public land or right of way
the neighbouring field, the path and the woodland are private land and only ourselves and Broome Farm have right away neither Broome Farm nor the landowner have objected cited, the solar panels has been specifically chosen to minimise the visual impact there'd be much better in the middle of the field they are off to one side next to some very tall trees that will screen that will shade them in the afternoon.
the invertors will not be situated in the field, but rather in the basement of our house, there was the suggestion that there might be some noise, that will not be the case.
any suggestion of financial gain is disingenuous. This is going to cost 70 to 80,000 pounds to install, and it's going to take the best part of a decade to repay. If we're lucky. In the current environment, we all have a responsibility to do what we can to reduce. Our carbon emissions become more self sufficient. The events of the past 18 months in terms of the global extreme weather events and the energy crisis only serve to underline this and the public benefit derived from private households investing their own hard earned post-tax income and reducing their impact on the national grid and the environment is real and meaningful. We believe that our proposal offers a forward-looking compromise between the preservation of the historic rooms, housing estate and the urgent need for us all to become more sustainable and contribute towards net 0. We truly hate. The Planning Committee can support this goal
thank you.
or to speak up in support of the application is Ms Catherine Oliver.
I am a local resident who is concerned about the environment, but I am also concerned about the need to encourage and facilitate families who wish to live in maintain and preserve the historic and listed properties in Tunbridge Wells, this committee is very familiar with the need to balance competing aims, the need to preserve historic buildings on the one hand with the need to embrace modern technology and energy efficiency on the other in 2023 it is difficult to see how you can have one without the other, as the only way historic estates like this will survive as if their owners are allowed to maintain them in a way that is energy efficient and cost effective.
I note that the Planning Committee report was supportive of the application and I understand that today's meeting has been convened for three reasons which I would like to comment on in turn, the first reason is that this is said to be unusual and an issue which raises new questions for the planning department, however, it's difficult to see that this is an unusual application given there are 14 examples of similar applications for solar panels being granted within the area of outstanding natural beauty.
but even if that were correct, it's all the more reason for this committee to move with the times and send a clear and positive message that this type of application will be allowed, this type of project is entirely in accordance with the Council's own declaration of climate emergency and its stated aim to reach carbon neutrality and Tunbridge Wells in 2030 to not permit a local resident to further the exact aims that the council has set for itself and is encouraging for its residents would seem to be entirely inconsistent.
especially given your own planning officer's recommendation. The second reason is the effect on the conservation area and area of outstanding natural beauty. The area in question covers the entirety of the High Weald and is over 1,400 square km, including most of Tunbridge Wells and large parts of the Rest of Kent, Surrey and Sussex. This 120 metres square installation is a very small part of that area and is in fact not even 10% of the 1,500 square metre field in question, and it advances a legitimate aim for the wider good. It is consistent with the High Weald Management Plan, as this scheme would be in a sensitive location and is of a small scale, not significantly harm the scenic beauty of the landscape. Specific concerns about green belt are dealt with comprehensively already in your report paragraphs 10 14 to 10 21, concerns about the impact on historic parkland are dealt with as comprehensively at paragraphs 10 22 to 10 25 of your report and a distinction is made to the previous application, which was not allowed at Growforest at paragraph 10 38 of your report. So those matters have already been properly considered. The final reason is this is a complex planning application with further complex views,
of course, this committee will be sensitive to those who feel they will be most affected, but it seems that there will be no impact in terms of loss of light loss of privacy and no significant impact from glare.
and any impact on the outlook will be kept to an acceptable minimum and the concerns raised by the Parish Council in relation to the
the public footways are unfounded, many thanks.
as our sixth speaker in support of the application, this was the Simon Sharpe.
good evening.
Simon Sharpe architect for the works at ruminants and also agent for this application, working on behalf of Warren and Catherine Haynes, we welcome the report prepared by the Planning Officer which recommends this application be granted, I am speaking today to provide some additional context and an explanation for why we believe the field mounted panels and the most appropriate sustainable strategy for this project.
ensuring listed buildings can be sustainably managed is a challenge, but given the power draw of the estate, not one we think we should shy away from. Some people have questioned why heat pumps were not chosen, but from our consultation with specialists, we ascertained that they alone would not be well suited to this project. Without increasing insulation and airtightness of the existing building. Significantly implementing measures required to achieve this would be invasive and would detrimentally affect the character of the listed building. Solar panels are therefore a good option to significantly reduce the site's dependency on the grid and fossil fuels over a 20 year period oakum energy. Have I have estimated? These panels will save 250 tons of CO2, which is significant
the setting is, however sensitive the Bruins Estate comprises a large Grade II listed dwelling stables and outbuildings set within historic parkland which is scheduled within the Kent compendium of historic parks and gardens the building and parkland therefore contribute positively to the landscape and wider setting from pre-app discussions with the Planning Department we understood that ad invisible panels onto the roof was unacceptable to the conservation officer and following consultation with panel suppliers, we also added ascertained that there would be insufficient area to provide output for the house.
we therefore investigated ground mounted panels, but anywhere within the curtilage would be detrimental to the setting, and it would not be acceptable to add anything within the huge historic parkland itself.
the position chosen in the nearby field is therefore the closest, suitable location to the dwelling that provides adequate space.
some objectors have misunderstood the intention and believe that these panels are industrial or commercial in nature. However, this is not the case, we are not proposing to cover the whole field and panels. Only a small proportion will be utilised with the rest retained in its current use. The field is very well screened from all public views, as noted by the Planning Officer and Planning and the Panel's position on the edge of the field will further reduce the impact on the A and B. The path to the south cited as a reason to object by some residents is not a public footpath and there was no public right of way.
we understand the residents of Homewood Ridge have concerns about the visual impact of the proposals, but as the site falls away from the houses and there was good visual separation between the dwellings to the panels, we think the impact will be minimal to alleviate their concerns, the applicant is happy to agree to a planning condition for additional planting to screen from their gardens. On balance, we believe that any impact on the A and B is offset by the positive contribution to sustainability and therefore that the application should be granted thank you.
thank you.
officers do wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by speakers.
thank you Chair preserver, thank you, yes, I just wanted to say about the historic park and garden, so, as shown in the 2010 review of the Ken compendium, the site, it used to be included in the historic park and garden but in the 2010 when it has now been removed, so the boundary for it is actually.
here, so anything on this side is an insight and I think on this side is outside of it, so I think that trees actually form the boundary there, the other point I just wanted to make was there's reference to a refused application which was also in the A and B and the Green Belt,
there were considered quite different applications between the two, and the refused application was considered to have more like an open grassland that was more had longer views and the cone in the country in landscape and would be more visible from public viewpoints.
but it's also reminded that we need to determine each application on its own merits, so we'd go determine the application here in front of us, rather than comparing it to another one, I think that's all I wanted to say thanks.
members do have any questions of the officers.
officer Councillor Patterson,
obviously he's got greenbelt designation, so the exceptional circumstances to build it has to be demonstrated, I presume those are to do with the
type of energy and the ability to actually keep the house, as it is, or always protect its listed building status and provide it with energy, as that is that a fair summary or by k or so yes, it out in the agenda. I have recognised that there would be moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt, which is what we're trying to protect, but it's considered that take into account the
while the environmental benefits of the proposed solar panels it was considered to outweigh this and then represent the
very special circumstances, which is why it is now considered acceptable.
Councillor in level.
thank you, I just have a question about the transfer of energy into the house, because it's a listed building, I can't see how a the storage of energy and the I think the words is a regulator, where that is putting how that doesn't create noise and and how that's more securely put under those terms could you,
let me know, please.
I am, as far as my understanding is the
potential noise, creating elements of it are gonna be within the property so away from other residential properties, that's what is not considered to be an issue of noise creating, but that's all I've read it only more about it.
chair, if I could just add to that it's yeah, I think in in paragraph 10.3, for I think talks about the inverter is the is the the noise generating element and obviously if that were to be,
next to the the panels, then the there could be some noise from that the inverter used to be located within the dwelling and the the panels will serve, and that's why, while why that's now acceptable.
Councillor Lübeck,
it seems to be one of the main issues is the is the potential loss of amenity on Green Belt to A and B, but in one of the conditions it says details of proposed fencing around the site shall be submitted to and approved now I haven't seen any fencing on any of the other documents but the owner I think it was Mr. Wheeler one of the speakers that he would be prepared to put a heads-up, so can you explain to me about the reference to fencing?
so in the submitted supporting documents, there was reference about having fencing around the solar panels, because I believe that the rest of the field, I think it currently gets used for grazing a few times a year and they intend to continue that grazing and the rest of it, so they want to put fencing around it to protect it. But no details of it was submitted, which is why I put the condition on to make sure that we get suitable fencing for that area. But I am I've also have a
condition 5 is for a landscaping scheme, so we can get that additional planting around it to improve the visual and Ian visual impact from neighbouring properties.
thanks.
Councillor Pope, thank you Chair, I am unaware of the Pennbury Road Grove host or application that went into 18 and lost appeal.
in 2020 the I I, it's one of the it's one of the things playing on my mind is, I know I know that the actual property on the site and it's it's not.
overlooked, so I struggle to understand how how that or application.
has been refused and and yet this one here.
we're looking to why recommendation is to approve.
it's like I I I don't think what I can understand is the the the the one that was refused and failed at appeal, I can't see that it's overlooked, or it's it would be visible to anyone else, so I'm just interested to understand I know you've suggested that we shouldn't look at that as a reference but there again,
I feel that we do need to consider it in the way we make the decision on this one.
so you have to apologise because I don't have the details of that application in front of me, but I did have a look at the appeal statement for that one and had a look at the context of the site from aerial images and our mapping system and from what I could see that there was more prominent views in longer so longer views of the site from high ridges where hey, I think it's more screen because of their planting and the trees all around the site
I mean, I haven't been to the site of the oven, so I haven't got the best comparison, I was just using what it said in the Inspector's report.
thank you, Chair, just to then just to add a bit of detail, but I will, I will continue to say this application needs to be determined on its own merits, not as a as a compare and contrast, but in terms of the other one,
or just read a couple of lines from the landscape.
landscape and biodiversity officer on the on the last application at Grove House.
where he says the proposed proposed development is in an elevated position.
overlooking a valley and open countryside to the south, the direction the panels would we fight will faces the the High Weald landscape trial is on a ridge to the south, so there is there were views across from an important public public right of way which which caused the landscape and biodiversity officer to object to that application. You'll see from the papers that he has no objections to this. This application,
obviously in terms of.
Mr Scully's professional and specialist view on matters of landscape and, in particular the A and B. We, as officers, sort of hold those in in quite high regard, and I know Members in their deliberations give them quite significant weight, so in terms of the the basic differences, the that that that is one of the significant ones ruin, thank you.
Councillor
it's to come back to the point raised by Councillor Pattison, I just wanted to clarify about the very special circumstances I'm looking at para 10.1 4
and it does mention that they can include the wider environmental benefits, is there any guidance in the MPP F about the degree of environmental benefit or is it any environmental benefit is a reason for very special circumstances?
it's a matter of judgment for the for the decision maker, so I think if you if you have a look at paragraph 10.18.
it gives some context to two very special circumstances in there, and particularly the last sentence that the categories of what constitute very special circumstances are not closed in order to qualify as very special circumstances do not have to be rarely occurring, so it's it's a, it's it can be.
a mix of benefits I know Members previously have given given some weight to public benefits they've given some weight to.
housing supply to sought medical sort of linkages all on other developments within the Green Belt and, and it's it's looking at the level of harm created to the openness and, as a result of that harm, what very special circumstances do you consider, as decision makers are needed to outweigh that harm now, now our judgement in this report is the is the level of harm to the Green Belt and to the openness whilst there is harm, by virtue of the inappropriateness of the development and the the impact on the openness, we consider that level of harm to be relatively low and have concluded it as a moderate harm in the report.
and therefore the corresponding requirements of very special circumstances.
do not have to be tremendously high to out by that that level of harm it wouldn't you wouldn't be, for example, expecting the
the Arrieta to to power the town of Tunbridge Wells in order to overcome the level of harm that's been identified, you've got to you've got to make that balance as to how much or how or how much how many very special circumstances are required to outweigh the harm, and that's that's where we've looked at that balance and and concluded as such.
I note that they're removable solar panels, so at the end of their life they can be taken away, does it set any sort of precedent for development, a different sort of development on that particular site?
we we will consider the requirements of condition 7 is as being so particulars, particularly significant if a development of of an alternative use came along, so obviously we would rue, we would look at that and say Well, yes, there's some development on the site at the moment but once it stops being used for solar panel and for the generation of energy,
then that that is removed and you are essentially dealing with a greenfield site in the
in the Green Belt, an annual NB, so that would be the baseline of any any future application, but in terms of in terms of sought deliberation and the application, it's not or isn't is a focus on on what's proposed and what's in front of Members not might be.
what what might be considered at some point in the future boss as a possibility?
Catherine on the page, I've got a question about the power generation,
it seemed to me that adding them all up the power requirements of the house have grown over time as the just swimming pool and things like that is it correct to say that the
that the current plans for maximum generation of power is
a little bit over the recurrent requirements of the House.
because it just seems to me that if there are further developments on the house, then it won't be sufficient, there will be things like that coming along, so is that correct that I'll get that correct?
I think in yeah, in terms of the
numerical provisions that set out to in 10.19 in terms of the
I think that that deals with the current consumption.
of the
electricity from by the house.
and again it shows that the the prospective generation would or would exceed the current current usage, but I think, as the speakers said, there are.
there are proposals which already have planning permission to do works to the house and various outbuildings and extend the house which might which are highly likely to increase the annual consumption, so there will be a, I think, the the intention is that it sort of future proofs the the generation requirement particularly if there are one,
electric vehicles that are that are going to be used as well.
thank you, Councillor Pope, thank you Chair.
was there a discussion when the planning application was being put through about the height of the solar panels like they are going to be fenced off?
away so that I think the sheep or sheep, as I believe, a grace in the field, I many solar farms.
have grazing actually amongst the solar panels is a reason why it's separate is up, was that something that was discussed?
no, it wasn't, it was just mentioned in the supporting document that they were intended to put panels around it, hence the condition, and therefore the details of them I mean if they choose not to put the fencing up and they don't have to comply with that condition.
thank you.
members shall we move into debate and discussion?
nobody liked to.
feet of Councillor Moon.
thank you Chair.
I made various observations when I looked at the application, one of the main ones was 13 were against 13 4, so the arguments on both sides were valid, but counter the other side's shall we say.
but the one thing that really came across was item 10, with the appraisal.
and that's 10.0 1 that's right at the beginning of the report.
where the National Planning Policy Framework is mentioned on paragraph 1 5 2, where it states won a valuable contribution to cutting green emissions, gas emissions is a high priority, and that's probably.
actually more so than it was when the P P P F was created.
and it says on to
approved the application if the impacts are acceptable, and I think if you look through the report.
I think they are acceptable, even though there is a balance between benefit and something that is counter to that, the other aspect I looked at in close detail was at the 13 against residential amenities, then the main items error mentioned on 10 dot to 7.
which mentions a loss of privacy, loss of light and loss about look.
now made to know that the panels will be located at the end of neighbours gardens which are at least 70 metres in length now, if you look at the photographs that were presented at the beginning of the presentation, I did know there were trees and normally you would not add trees within solar panels, but it does restrict restrict your generation, but I did note that so again Nasa Baffour.
to the residents and their amenities, so overall, looking at that.
I could see no reason to object to the application
but I did consider both for and against, thank you.
EcoCash removed.
Councillor Pat
thank you Chairman, I think the issue here is way the Barnett better benefits of the scheme against the the harm.
and nothing in terms of the benefits, clearly we need, as several speakers have said, to be aware of the need to produce renewable energy.
pounds that will come even more so in the future, and if the harm here seems to be perceived to me pretty minimal, I mean there, I is some damage to the green belt, one corner of a field.
I have low, I've seen a lot of solar farms a lot bigger than that I've still got planning permission, so I can't really see that that's a.
the really big issue, and also the the effect on the air of outstanding Easterbrook area of outstanding natural beauty, is also very limited, so yes, there is some harm, but I don't think it outweighs the benefits, and so I am happy to propose the officers recommendation Mr. Chairman,
sorry, Councillor Battle from you're proposing that we accept the officer recommendation, indeed, thank you.
Councillor Mowat,
the motion is seconded by Councillor Mowat.
Councillor Les beg thanks I just wanted to to think about the the visual amenity because.
firstly, our the defence is an issue for me that it hasn't been brought forward up until now, secondly, I thought that the
that the owners offer to provide hedging.
would be helpful, and I wondered whether we should have an information about.
consulting with the local residents about the sort of screening that would that would be acceptable to both parties, first of all.
thank you.
Mr Hockney, would you care to comment on having an informative on that in terms of the
that the hedgerow that that would be covered by condition 5, requiring
the landscaping scheme and what what we would seek from that would essentially be to plug any gaps in that northern northern boundary.
along the
along the boundary with the the closest residents in that regard, so that's what we would be seeking from the in terms of submissions of of applica, of condition discharge, we we would not consult on those there's there's no requirement to consult analysis under the legislation so,
but Ma members of the public are able to make representations on condition discharge applications if they register for notification, so no, they are able to view them and comment on them, but we would not, we will not put site notices up to to comment on those but in terms of the condition it would be covered by that.
and I think again in terms of the fencing.
so again, any any, I think, is, as Ms Overend said it, it's it's a question of it, if there is fencing proposed, then it needs to be submitted to us and any fencing that would begin going up, we would expect it to be sought with traditional stock fencing for swimming for which you'd see across agricultural.
thank you.
Councillor Pope.
thank you.
if I might make what of my lodge concerns was, was the this other application, it was turned down and I've revisited it, I looked at it in preparation for this and I've had another look, and I can see the location was a much more visible plot on that site that you would be able to see from a distance so in terms of it I think this site as much it would be much less visible and and largely.
hidden by by trees and and and out of sight for those properties that are just to the north.
I you would probably not really notice them at all, even if he could see through a gap, because the actual
panels are facing away, pointing at the sky to the south, rather than reflecting.
and towards the properties.
I have a slight concern, which I'm not sure it should, I should be particularly worried about I.
it would seem to me sensible to actually if group sheep graze in the fields that it was designed, that the sheep could graze underneath.
if it's fenced off, they'll have to be grass-cutting every so often to keep the grass and whatever plants, whatever over other plants, grow under control, so that the panels are fully operational and not not being shaded.
in terms of the impact on the flora, fauna and the and the land, I looked at at the the installation details, the scruples have a very low impact, they're not sitting on concrete basis and the fact that there is a
condition to remove the panels if they are out of use, I can see that you can actually clear the site and it will have had a minimum of very small impact actually on the field, so that justice, a summary of where I am,
as I have moved from being very own undecided to to actually feeling that the previous application actually is too different or very different in terms of impact, that said, I'm probably heading towards being more in favour of accepting this.
Councillor level.
thank you initially, I was slightly hesitant to just just wave this through because mention of solar panels and but I can see the applicant has gone quite some way to.
making sure that the impact is as minimal as possible to the neighbours and to the environment, and I am are also aware that in our borough we are, we have so many properties.
of this.
status that face an energy problem that we we.
I commend how this has been addressed actually one, and I'm glad that we've got the reassurance that it can be returned to green belt.
when the solar panels have reached the end of their life, so I'll be supporting this application, thank you.
Councillor Les boots on I'm also minded to support her, but I've only got one one comment lift, and that is about the local versus the wider public benefits of of action of the generation of park, as this is going to support, one beautiful house is not going to support the wider area.
but obviously any reduction in any power consumption will help nationally, but also related to that is the as Councillor Wootton pointed out, 13 for 13 against, but the 13 against were very close neighbours and the 13 for.
we're more spread out or further away from the property, and I'm really just wondering how that weighs up.
summing up what I think biggie the committee has discussed and the questions is asked on had answered from it from the officers
the fact is that this does harm to the Green Belt, a matter of fact doing anything mountain mate of the Green Belt is harmful and the same for the area of outstanding natural beauty so that we don't paralyze the country, or at least those bits at that.
particularly in our borough, fall into either of those reclassifications, there is mitigation permitted if we feel that the
public benefit.
outweighs the absolute harm to the Green Belt and the air on bay and at the harm to the neighbouring public and the general public.
from this particular development.
dance, the balance we are having to strike in our own minds, we have it had various precedents named and.
and discussed, but they are not precedents in those homes that we have to pay attention to them.
interesting advocated that this is to be decided on its own merits.
I think on summarising accurately what Members have said and I think it's probably now time to move to a vote on.
Councillor Parkinson's proposal to accept the officers, recommendation and
Councillor Les pages, Councillor Moons, Councillor Booth, secondly, of that ocean.
members, are we ready to vote?
all those in favour, please show.
that's the unanimous check.
I declare that I am a bit that motion is passed and the officer's recommendation is accepted, thank you.
7 a) Application for Consideration - 23/00436/FULL The Forum, The Common, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
let's keep going charges for the benefit after recording as Councillor Moon declared an interest in this agenda item and has said that he'd need to leave the meeting while it's discussed would allow time for Councillor Gruen to leave the Chamber Councillor Mowat, and we will this year thank you Chair.
as well, thank you.
good evening.
item 7, A 23 slash double 0 4 3 6 FULL Bill forum, but Common Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent page 15 of the main agenda on page 2 of the supplementary pack.
has begun.
or presentation, please, thank you very much.
this is an application for the retention of the temporary light at installation, with frame on the building called the Forum on the common and Tunbridge Wells.
it's a recommendation for approval, the reason why the application is coming before you is because the temperatures Borough Council are the freeholder owners of the building.
this is the application site.
I think we all know where it is, this is a 26 and this is Castle Road where they have access to bring the equipment for the music venue.
this is a photograph of the light installation which has been at the site for 10 years.
you'll see from the report that there was a temporary permission for six months.
and that was given in 2013, and then there was a temporary permission for three years and then expired and 2017 because it was overlooked.
by the
uses of the building.
this shows the rear of the building and you can just see the light installation here.
when you're travelling from the Crowborough direction to Tunbridge Wells, this is the building and you can see that it's just screened by existing vegetation coming the other way you can see it.
more photographs from Google Maps.
this is standing at the bottom bottom of from Chapel Place.
sorry, this is from Chapel Place that one was Frampton.
the shows are profound riches, which has actually Beck lit and written on the structure, which is a lightweight aluminium structure.
three and a half metres high.
you can just see it here.
and here and here.
it's a curved building, so there looks a bit odd at the moment, but you can see where it is in relation.
it's on both sides of the roof and then.
Peter Clay, you can see the conclusion to my report. The proposal maintains the openness of the Green Belt, it's in a highly sustainable location adjacent to the town centre, although it is Green Belt land. This is quite an urban part is right next to the
pantiles and the shopping centre.
the art installation does not have a detrimental impact.
on this part of the town centre and the proposal preserves the significance of the conservation area.
and it is considered that there is no harm to the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties also see in the report that we've had no complaints, the Environmental Health Officer said there has been no complaints and a recommendation of approval, thank you.
thank you.
I think we have no speakers, almost white Members would like to ask any questions from the officer.
right.
I have one quick question, which is probably a repeat how long as the installation beamer?
in total and title at a near.
it's been there 10 years.
thank you.
members, shall we move into into debate?
Councillor Patterson, on the basis that he's been there nearly 10 years, hence you know, I've got these papers, I hadn't noticed it.
our proposed approval, I believe they give you haven't allegedly titled the proposal.
but OK, I accept we accept that you are proposing the acceptance of the officer's recommendation.
I saw counselling unpaid first, just as I'll spare you my opinion on the artwork, but I can't see anything in the application that requires refusal, so I'll be happy to second that Councillor medicines.
Councillor Pope, you have a.
I was derogate, has just suggested, we move on to the vote, saying is that we've got a proposer and a seconder.
I think I completely agree, it's been there for 10 years, doing no harm to mountain or beast, let us proceed to our vote, all those in favour.
See unanimous check.
the motion proposed by Councillor Peltzer, some seconded by Councillor Les Page, is accepted.
thank you,
thank you Chair just going to pose for five minutes, I will give time for Councillor Moon to rejoin the meeting so.
7 a) Application for Consideration - 23/00436/FULL The Forum, The Common, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/02338/TPO The Trinity Theatre and Arts Centre, Church Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
23 slash 0 2 double 3 h TPO tree preservation order, the Trinity Theatre and Arts Centre Church Road.
Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Page 35 of the main agenda, page 8 of the supplementary back and Ms O'Byrne, you will present again.
thank you Chair.
so this is just a map of the site showing the
TPOs, on the 26 data site.
you can see there is quite a few there.
this is an area image of the site, which again just shows you the number of trees there.
this is a photo of the trees to the front.
sorry, the trees add to the left of the car park.
and another photo of the trees to the front of the property onto the pavement there.
so the proposal is, to a few bit straight-sided, to reduce the overall canopy of the Persian ironwood by 1.5 metres, to remove the dead low branch on the false Acacia, reduce the holy stem growing in which is growing into an oak tree and to prune a Yewtree.
the works are considered necessary to retain the trees and a good management into shore into ensure a safe environment.
the replacement trees are not considered necessary due to the existing green appearance of the site and a no sorry, appearance or nature of the site.
so it wasn't considered necessary to condition to put them back, there's no further updates.
the conclusion that the proposed tree works are in the interest of good culture and will not negatively affect the local landscape due to the sensitive levels of tree works, and therefore it's the recommendation is to permit the proposed work as described in the application, thank you.
thank you, committee members, do, rather than a question of the officer.
committee members, could we have anything to say?
no.
summing up them.
this is the sensible preservation, all existing trees, none are being felled, none have to be replaced.
for the health of the trees and the safety of the public and
Will Councillor Neville Light, I would like to propose the nation he also inevitably proposed the acceptance of the officer's recommendation.
Councillor Page, I am allowed to seconded, but you also have to be allowed to sack a bit the motion is to accept the officer's recommendation proposed by Councillor Neville, seconded by Councillor Page.
all those in paper.
that's unanimous chair.
thank you very much for that motion is passed.
7 d) Application for Consideration - 23/02349/FULL Calverley Grounds, Mount Pleasant Avenue, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
everybody OK to carry out.
item 7 D 23 slash 0 2 3 4 9, FULL Calverley grounds Mount Pleasant Avenue Royal Tunbridge Wells, page 39 of the main agenda, page 10 of the supplementary pack
Ms O'Byrne, again your presentation, please.
thank you Chair.
so this is an application for part of La Calverley grounds to provide an observation will for a period of 5 weeks per year until the year 2028, which will run alongside the existing ice rink that is gets placed upon the site around every Christmas, so this just so shows you the location of the will.
this is where the red line is here, as you can see, here is where the current ice rink location is.
just a few photos, so this is a photo looking down onto the site the forest will be located approximately here.
ice rink is currently on goes on this site here.
just another photo on the same ground level, so it would be located in this area here.
and this is just a view into the entrance of the Calverley grounds and where you PR would be able to see the various will in this sort of location.
so does another site plan showing the
where the observation will will be located.
in yeah, this orientation.
elevation of the wheel,
the elevation again from the west.
and visual photographs that have been sent from the sort of brochure from the company that will be providing it.
just a couple of updates since the publication of the agenda, two additional representations have been received and one was from the CEO of Royal Tunbridge Wells together, who was supporting the application, and we had another one from historic England who did not wish to comment on the application and wanted to leave it to the Council conservation officers to make comments.
so the site is within the limits of built development in a highly sustainable location, there is no objection in principle to the proposed observation will the development would respect the context of the site and is not considered to be harmful to the historic park and garden the setting of the listed buildings the streetscene or the wider conservation area which it falls in?
the ice rink has been a popular and successful enterprise in Tunbridge Wells for the last seven years with associated social, cultural economic benefits, and it is considered that the addition of the observation wheel will enhance this, and any potential significant impacts on the amenities of nearby dwellings can be satisfactorily mitigated by the conditions in the agenda.
therefore, the proposals are considered to comply with the policies of the Core Strategy, the site allocations plan, the saved policies of Tunbridge Wells, Local Plan policies and the submission Local Plan.
as detailed in the agenda, and the officer recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the agenda, thank you.
thank you officers.
thought again, Councillors, do you have any questions of the officer?
Councillor Mowat,
thank you Chair, I'm sure this is a question.
in relation to the wheel and the vulnerability of high winds that can occur might be a registered, show notice of
of light climate change etc will there be a risk assessment manager on site to ensure that it shipped to operate the wheel during the length of it proceed toward hoping to run the five weeks it's just it's just really not got that we should add that implies or a condition that is in place to enjoy its site if you look where it's located the folding overall could be quite considerable within that area of the entrance into the park.
and the number of people visiting the ice rink, which probably will be more than the wheel.
thank you.
so when I spoke to are.
events, events, manager here, Tunbridge Wells, Borough Council. Regarding whether this was gonna, create any jobs, she explained to me that, with the the will actually comes with operators, so I can only assume that they will be trained in how to use their will and when it is safe to use it, etc. But I haven't had any confirmation of that, I don't know Mr Hockney wants to add anything
yeah, I'm ready just to sort of enhance that parentage, it is a matter which
to allow our operations team has considered them with the essentially the the wheel comes with specialist operators and they will be fully trained in.
when when it should or should not, be operated, and I think that that go that sort of level of operational.
assessment and consideration is is probe, probably outside of the planning remit for us as the Borough Borough Council, in terms of the the local planning authority, but obviously as as in terms of the Borough Council as landowner and
sort of
associated operator, then that would be a matter for for that arm of the Council in terms of consideration, but I mean we could we could put an informative on to ensure that that there is a the is adequate.
adequate consideration given to to operational and.
and
structural sturdiness for I'll find better words for the EU informative if members wish.
I just reiterate that if you go on walking in the Lake District, we get a web report where you go out and that's you know from the night before it that seemed placed an unhappy, more than happy, thank you.
Councillor level.
thank you, I'm not sure if it's quite question or not, but in in terms of your conversation, when it was about creating jobs, I'm assuming that the hiring of the facility and the staff there were all included in an insurance package in order to for it to go ahead as an operation is that right.
so, yes, that would be correct, yes.
Councillor Pope and the only thing that I would like to bring up is.
would it be possible to add a condition to ensure that the park is returned to the state it was in before the wheel was the one thing that I know so noted, I think, in one of the comments that have been submitted, that that area can turn into a lake and the ground can be very soft so I don't think there's a condition that is about returning the ground.
to how it should be.
I was at 3.00, I looked through them and keep David sorry.
if his condition 3.
OK, I don't think it's actually listed as a condition to
I right OK, it isn't a diagram, it's just not specifically in the text.
yes, so conditioned free says that the development should be carried out in accordance with the submitted landscape management restoration details, as shown on the drawing number, I can't quite zoom in here, but there is some text on that drawing up there which says that it should be returned.
in fact, I can't read or quite read the wording there, but it is essentially returned to how it was before there were was in place.
thank you.
thank you, would it be better to actually lift the text and include it as a condition, so it's absolutely clear I did look at it in the diagram, but I think it would be better to actually spell it out in the condition.
in terms of the oversee the requirements, so I think the that there are areas obviously I think Michigan was in terms of that that writing him in blew it it says through the while remediation in area under the observation wheel or green and brown shaded area see notes and then that the notes go on to talk to two paragraphs in terms of their their requirements so I think in in this case it would be.
better to.
approved the the date that the plan detail rather than.
potentially or assault more unwieldy.
and potentially unclear condition
thank you.
sorry, I just don't want to say, the actual plan that's been submitted does have the notes on it, I basically crop this to fit onto the slide and if you're wondering where the nights are.
Council Councillors, I, I think, removed from question to debate.
do we have a Councillor Pope, I just wanted to say one thing where, where several, I think, several people, at least one person, is said to stated that they should be given a licence for one year, not the five years, and that I think can be dealt with politically if there's a problem with it, we can say it's not going to happen again, but I think on the planning permission basis, I think I would be happy to approve this but,
as I am so close to the site, perhaps I shouldn't.
propose
Councillor level.
I would like to that proposed to accept the officer's recommendation to approve the application, and I hope the visitors of Tunbridge Wells have a wonderful time.
and is therefore the full five years proposed or or good point, I believe I would also I would say that it would be for the one year or hopefully for next year.
do we have a seconder to cut councillor level?
so can I just clarify Councillor, never you said one year there is the 5 years as per one year.
OK.
so.
thank God that broke stop.
Councillor level, you're you're proposing.
an amendment to the officers recommendation that the licence for this device be restricted to one year in the first instance is that correct.
I think I was looking at the quickest way round this, but I'm happy I want to propose to accept 5 years providing that we can come back if there are any problems.
after
could you help me out Councillor Pope?
I think the the as as as a vote, the Council can decide not to run it again in future years, even if the planning permission is for five years, and I think that is how it would probably work, so if something, if it if there was a large amount of damage to the parcel or it wasn't successful or some other reason we could decide not to not to continue in future years,
Askew escorted him, we need to be, we need to bear in mind that in order to restrict
a permission to a temporary period, there needs to be sound planning reasons for that that there aren't planning reasons to restrict it to a single year, the the the five years would then tie it into the current temporary permission for the ice rink, so that's the reason that it's still 2028 and as Councillor Pope said in terms of,
whether the Council, as a as an operating body, decides to.
go go through the the the wheel this year next year and for five years or just this year, or not at all, that would be an operational decision for the Council rather than the decision of the local planning authority, so OK so that the motion is as Councillor Neville said to accept the officer's recommendation as is for a period up to 5 years which we understand could be.
not renewed, or indeed not even started by the Council for.
on planning reasons.
okay, is there a seconder for that ocean?
Councillor Paterson is on a second.
the motion is to accept the officer's recommendation proposed by Councillor Neville.
seconded by Councillor Pattison,
all those in favour.
that's the unanimous choice.
to your microphone,
and therefore the proposal is accepted.
light
7 e) Application for Consideration - 23/02027/FULL 1 Littleworth Cottages, Etherington Hill, Speldhurst, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 5 September 2023 to 2 October 2023
7 e) Application for Consideration - 23/02027/FULL 1 Littleworth Cottages, Etherington Hill, Speldhurst, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
70% of
item suddenly 23 slash 0 2 8 2 7 4 1 Little Worth cottages, Etherington Hill, Speldhurst Tunbridge Wells, kept page 49 of the main agenda and page 13 of the supplementary pack Meersman who are doing a really long shift tonight, but will you please make your presentation?
I once again thank you, Chairman.
so yeah, just a site plan here, showing the location of the property in question, it just shows the the distance of it from outside the limits to book development of Speldhurst.
the here.
some photos of the site, this is showing the streetscene to the front of the property and it just shows the level changes of the road height increasing.
this is to the rear of the property, looking towards the neighbour to the north.
again, this kind of shows the height difference this is the neighbours shed on the boundary with their property behind.
this shows the principal or elevation of the property, both existing and proposed the proposal is for a first floor extension over the existing garage, as you can see, this will create a a pitched roof over the cat slide.
this shows the side elevation, both existing and proposed.
and the rear elevations there again, showing existing and proposed the materials for the extension are proposed to match with the existing property.
and just the plans there showing the extension will create two bedrooms.
while the proposal would result in a volume increase, which is over the guidelines in Policy H 11 of the Local Plan, it has been assessed that the extension would retain the existing character and context of the site, it would preserve the openness of the Green Belt of which it falls in,
it would preserve the character of the A and B, and it would know only it would have an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring residential properties.
the recommendation is to grant the planning permission subject to the conditions that are set out in the agenda, thank you.
thank you.
opposite Members do have any questions for the officers.
Councillor Les pay, I'm sorry, I've got one which we had a.
planning application recently on the same property which we approved, and we just want to know if, if we decide to approve this planning application, what happens to the other one does that still exist, there was that automatically deleted.
that that would still be extent, the last last one members determined was the parking space.
to the front of the dwelling, so that that permission would still be able to be implemented alongside this one, so they would die with both run together.
no thanks.
other any similar developments.
nearby.
similar extensions.
putting me on the spot there, Councillor impact, I think they're there, there are other extinctions within the the area.
in terms of this site as well, there's been there's been previous history on on the property to have have extensions, and again I think that was set out in the report, and this would.
yeah, this would be an on top of the side extension that was approved under the 2013 planning application.
any questions Councillor Pope, I presume the only reason this has come to committee is because it's a member of the Council.
is that correct?
yes, that is correct.
members, should we move into the into debate?
Councillor Mowat, thank you Chair, but the one concern I've got, sorry, it's the proposed extension does exceed the 50% enlargement noted in the Policy H 11 of the Local Plan.
and because of the comments already just made on fulfil that maybe that should be more white, maybe on this application.
because we accept our applicants have to abide by policy and this is sound mitigation.
to go against that.
thank you.
although any exceptions are exceptions frequently made to this 50% row.
of the 50% rule in this, in this case, is to secure the the openness of the Green Belt, in this case in particular, so with the with the majority of the extension been above existing footprint of the of the dwelling, that's why that in this case the
that the strict
numerical calculations are not sufficient to to warrant refusal.
obviously, in terms of if, if you were to look at this, I numerical volume calculations as a as a
as a sort of as a hard road, then one may decide to erect a flat roof extension because you lose the roof volume, so it's the, but that that's clearly not a particularly attractive design solution, so there are balancing elements to to that and, as I say in this case because,
the majority of the
of the built form he is, or is an existing footprint of the of the dwelling, there isn't a or harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and that's why permission is recommended, so it is very much a case by case basis.
I'm sorry that's the reasoning why why it's acceptable in this case, thank you.
sorry, I just wanted to add something I note that the
originally submitted under this application was a larger extension and the case officer negotiated with the agent and have has actually got it reduced, I think by 6%, so it is actually a smaller scheme that will than what was originally submitted as well.
no, thank you for raising the point because I think in these particular circumstances.
clearly, we need to be aware that we're not just rubber stamping this if that, indeed, our intention to to agree that we have considered the 50% rule.
how it applies in this case and decided Paul Goodwin sufficient reasons that.
the openness of the Green Belt will not be affected by it, so thank you for raising that point.
anybody care to propose.
yes, I've noted that there were no local representations on this at all, so I would like to support the officers recommendation.
OK, so, Councillor alcohol is.
proposing that we could share the officers' recommendation in full.
Councillor Parkinson, nobody else is going to seconds of other will, second, our second motion, so the proposal, high Councillor recall, seconded by Councillor Pakistan to accept the Officer's recommendation in full is before us all those who paper.
that's six for check.
against none against abstain on one abstention.
that would be noted, thank you.
very well, I declare that the motion is.
accepted.
where have we got to right?
8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 5 September 2023 to 2 October 2023
item 8 on the agenda appeals decisions for noting September petals September 2023 to 2nd of October 2033, set out on page 56 and 57 if you have any questions.
sorry, can I just add something on the on the the first appeal on their at 72 Camden Road, the appeal was dismissed, there was an application for costs by the appellant against the Council.
which was dismissed, but there was also a costs application that we made against the appellants.
and that cost decision was allowed, so just as a as a matter of clarification or on that, thank you.
I think that's the equivalent of the planning officers gay.
thank you.
pages 56 from 57 of the agenda.
any questions about these appeal decisions, Robert, raised with planning officers outside the meeting urgent business, I confirm there is no urgent business.
9 Urgent Business
10 Date of Next Meeting
date over the next meeting is on Wednesday, the 8th of November 2023.
although I am sorry to say that not present at that meeting will be Peter Hockney, who is sadly leaving us for pastures new, I agree, how could he?
but
mounds, because I do with a balanced couple of day, Peter we'd like to thank you very much all these years.
fathers are.
usually quite idiotic questions, some reminded us that every planning decision must be agreed on its own beds.
we know the speech now, we will forget it immediately, you leave, but that will be possible else, but thank you very much indeed on behalf of this committee and there are many previous purpose committees for all the work you have done, thank you.
thank you Chair, it has been a pleasure for nine years.
thank you very much,
the meeting is now closed, thank you all the yoga tablets, thank you Chair.
- 1 Chairs Introduction, opens in new tab
- 2 Apologies for Absence, opens in new tab
- 3 Declarations of Interest, opens in new tab
- 4 Declarations of Lobbying, opens in new tab
- 6 Site Inspections, opens in new tab
- Minutes , 13/09/2023 Planning Committee, opens in new tab
- 23.00436_The Forum_ FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 00436 FULL - The Forum, opens in new tab
- 23 01919 FULL Broomlands - FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 01919 FULL - Broomlands, opens in new tab
- Trinity Theatre 23 02338 TPO FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 02338 TPO - Trinity Theatre, opens in new tab
- 23 02349 FULL Calverley Grounds - FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 02349 FULL - Calverley Grounds, opens in new tab
- 23-02027-FULL - Littleworth Cottages FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 02027 FULL - 1 Littleworth Cottages, opens in new tab
- Appeal Decisions for 5 September 2023 to 2 October 2023, opens in new tab
- 10 Urgent Business, opens in new tab
- 11 Date of the Next Meeting, opens in new tab