Planning Committee - Wednesday 8 November 2023, 6:30pm - 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
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/02664/HYBRID LLand North Of Birchfield Grove Hawkhurst Cranbrook Kent
Share this agenda point
Slide 2
Agenda item :
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01870/FULL Spring Farm, Colts Hill, Five Oak Green, Tonbridge, Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/02411/FULL 47 Hopwood Gardens, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 03 October 2023 to 25 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.
good evening.
1 Chair's Introduction
welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee a Wednesday, the 8th of November 2023.
uncomfortable, blonde Chairman of this committee,
before we get on to the agenda items, please give your full attention to the following announcements from our clock, 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 Munson Way and once outside attack 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 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, 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 and, 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 at 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. Thank you for the benefit of recording. We are going to take a roll call, Mrs. Moran, again,
thank you, Chair, expected Members here this evening, Councillor Britta Alan present Councillor Johnson.
present Councillor Page.
Britain, Councillor Moon, present.
Councillor Neville
present Councillor O'Connell, present Councillor Osborne, present.
Councillor Paterson present Councillor Pope present Councillor White present, Councillor Fitzsimons, Chair Vice Chair.
Councillor Blond Chair present, thank you and expected officers here this evening Murray Bolton.
Emma Franks, Carlos Hone present.
Andrew McLoughlin nuance present, David Scott-Lee present Tracey Wagstaffe.
thank you, and for the benefit of the recording we have Councillor LB Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning with us this evening, thank you Chair.
thank you.
members of the committee should be familiar with the budget.
for the benefit of any members of the public who may be watching, I would like to explain a couple of things committee members come from wards across the borough and, although they may have local knowledge when they make planning decisions, they must consider each application in the context of the whole borough area.
committee members have had their agendas for over a week.
and have had had the opportunity to study these and to clarify any issues with planning officers, so, although members of the public might wonder why some matters are not discussed in more detail at the meeting.
it may well be that Members have already asked these questions
and obtained satisfactory answers,
when we come to the substantive items on the agenda this evening, the officer will first set out their report.
I will then ask any speakers to address the committee before we move into member discussion.
at the end of the debate, I will try and summarise the Committee's view, and members should ensure that any proposals or actions are correctly captured for for a vote is taken.
2 Apologies
Mrs. Moran, do we have any apologies for absence, no apologies this evening Chair?
3 Declarations of Interest
declarations of interest.
members of the Committee should declare at this point if they have any declarations of pecuniary or significant other interest.
or if they have fettered their discretion and need to withdraw from the meeting while a particular application is heard, does any member have a declaration to make?
Councillor Neville.
thank you Chair, prior to becoming a member of the Borough Council, I posted a comment on the Birchfield Road application on the portal online, which may be perceived as a pre determination of my decision on the matter.
so you will excuse yourself before the debate on that particular application, I certainly well, thank you.
Councillor Patterson,
thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have fettered my discretion on Item B Spring Farm cable.
I will withdraw from the meeting after this discussed by would like to speak as a local member and on behalf of Cable Parish Council.
thank you, Councillor Patterson.
declarations of lobbying item 4.
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.
in today's agenda, the clock will ask each Member, in turn, to state on which application they have been lobbied if any, and whether it is by objectors, supporters or both.
Mrs. Moran.
thank you Chair, Councillor Britta Alan.
thank you, yes, I've been lobbied against agenda item 7 8 who have been lobbied for agenda item 7, be thank you.
thank you, Councillor Johnson, yes, I've been lobbied against 7 A and 7 B against 70 against OK, thank you, Councillor Les Page, I've been lobbied against CYP Now, thank you, Councillor Moon.
the agenda I
to residents against and from rydon, homes for.
agenda B
4
so just.
item 7 8, and for item 7 be right, thank you, Councillor Neville.
I have been lobbied against item 7 A and lobbied for set item 7 a
thank you, Councillor O'Connell.
I have been lobbied against 7 A, and also for 7 A and for 7 be thank you, Councillor Osborne, I have been lobbied for and against Sylvinho and for seven be thank you, Councillor Pattison, I have been lobbied for against 7 0.
thank you, Councillor Pope, on 7, A I've been lobbied for and against, and on 7 B I've been lobbied for, thank you, Councillor White.
I have been lobbied for and against 7 A.
thank you, Councillor Fitzsimmons,
you have got your microphone.
I have just told him I'd been lobbied for and against 7 A and for 7 B.
thank you, Councillor Bland, I've been lobbied for and against item 7 A and 4 Item 7 B.
thank you thanks Chair.
5 Site Inspections
ITEM 5 site inspections.
members had the opportunity to visit the site of application.
sir, on Item 7, A Land north of Birchfield Grove Hawkhurst, Cranbrook, Kent, you may tell which Members attended by their webbed feet.
have any Members complete, conducted or completed any site visits on their own?
no.
item 6.
6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated
to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday, the 11th of October 2023 Members are asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting are a true record of the proceedings.
May I remind Members that the only matter for discussion is the accuracy do members have any other comments?
thank you, the motion then, is to agree the minutes are we agreed agreed, thank you, the motion is carried.
7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
ITEM 7 reports of the Head of Planning Services, these reports are of the others that the Head of Planning Services, a presentation will be provided by the Case Officer for the application, but for those members of the public listening, I would like to be clear that the considerations, conclusions and recommendations 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 that I am sure that sound necessary, the order of business this evening will be, as per the agenda.
7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/02664/HYBRID LLand North Of Birchfield Grove Hawkhurst Cranbrook Kent
and the first item on the agenda item 7, A 22 slash 0 2 double six for hybrid land, north of Birchfield Grove, Hawkhurst, Cranbrook, Kent.
to be found on page 16 of the main agenda.
on page 3 of the supplementary pack.
this is belt, your presentation, please.
thank you Chair.
ITEM 7 A relates to a hybrid application planning application for land north of outfield, grave podcast
the site comprises 13.7 5 hectares of land to the north-east of the village of Hogarth to the south side is Birchfield Grove, a relatively modern housing development of 26 dwellings.
the Hawke House Primary School is located to the south.
West,
and Tesco store to be.
further to the south west.
the entire site is washed over by the A and B, and the LBD runs the limits to both development run along the western boundary and to the south side.
there are listed buildings in the wider area and to the north of the site, which includes White Cottage up to the north and Fowlis House, and Lodge and Birchfield and coach house to the south-east of Birchfield Grove.
here is an an arrow shot with the the red planning application outline.
we can see the access to the south where it is proposed to gain access to the new development.
at present is shown to be in agricultural use and there are areas of ancient woodland to the north and to the north-east
there are mature trees throughout the site and along the boundaries as it can be saying, along the south-east boundary, and there have been, in particular, three mature trees and just north of what is proposed to be the medical centre Land levels dropped down from the south towards the north.
and there's a gentle undulating through the site.
the other point of night is the public right of way to the east.
w c 1 8 7
there are also residential properties on the western boundary, and White Lane runs along the northern side of the site.
this is a designated rural line.
moving on to and some images of the site, yes, we did say today in the rain a little bit drier on these images.
but this view is taken from the southern on the northern side, sorry and what we can see here is the Park Cottages and the residential properties.
that on the western boundary that back onto the site back onto the application site.
with their gardens and the the windows facing to the side.
so and also we'd see nine of the dreamt dropping levels from south to north, but also across the site, there are gentle undulations.
this photo is taken further back in the site, but we can just see how the boundary of the site to the north in particular is.
it is trade, and again we can just see those park cottage dwellings in me at the rear of the shot.
this image is looking from the south towards North.
into the upper fields that would be a part of the country park.
the image we see now is the existing field gate on the northern side that is of white line.
this is proposed via an access will have a look at the plans in a moment or with the site proposed to be and access and the emergency access with pedestrian cycle links.
and the other point of note, with this particular image is that this Felgate has been in use by vehicles and, as set out in the report, it is accepted by the Tree Officer that there will be some impact as existing.
moving on to the southern side of the site, and this slide relates to the existing access at Birchfield Grove that currently serves the the 26 dwellings.
and
we can see within the report.
as there has been much discussion about the visibility splay in this location, the splays run along the frontage of the site and the there is a highway, controlled land and applicant controlled land along the site frontage with Rye Road.
also of note is the existing strapped him and
at greenery that we can see their impacting on the feasibility.
so moving on to the an image which shows the
the footpath, which is to the east of the site.
that footpath that I referred to earlier, w c 1 8 7, that runs along the eastern boundary and runs north and south, to north and then just branches away from the application site, but is in close proximity approximately in the middle of the site.
I am just to give some context as well, this image is taken from within sight, looking back up towards at the dwellings in Birchfield Grove, so we can see that there is.
existing development on the boundaries,
and then the next slide again so shows in the very background we can see that there is one we saw on site today, the Tesco's store can be seen, and I think probably a bit clearer in the next photograph so slide 12 we can see in the background there the the roof of the Tesco saw so there is a presence of development on the boundaries.
moving on to the application itself and the application has been submitted in hybrid form, with the full element of the scheme being the country park is proposed to the north north-east.
this would be some 8.8 4 hectares and will increase public access to the land and provide a country park and space, and also connections that we will see shortly into gives opportunities to connect into surrounding footpaths and public rights of way to the east.
and also proposing, then the outline elements as the medical centre, which is to the south east of the site.
which is to then, and it is of note that this is actually allocated in the proposed to be allocated in the emerging plan.
the purple land that we see on the slide is the safeguarded land for the school.
that's 0.3 of a hectare.
and then the what appears as a sort of grey orange is the residential, and the residential element is to comprise 70 up to 70 dwellings, with 40% affordable housing in a mix that's in accordance with the emerging plan at 60 40 split in favour of a social rent.
and the proposals.
include just moving on to the medical centre.
the, as I set out in the report and the history of it, is that this is proposed to be allocated under Policy.
all AJ 5.
the
and will probably go into it shortly, but the medical centre is.
a very much needed facility in Hawkhurst, and he's identified in the infrastructure development plan, and the I d p, the policy itself is set-up set out within my report of the requirements of that policy, but he is in the emerging plan and it does give emphasis on the impact on trees and trees ought to be south side and the east side.
and
so moving on then to the medical centre is accompanied by by a
a Design Code that takes into consideration the the parameters and the site and its context it's envisaged there'd be a two storey building at these images are for illustrative purposes only.
but this is what perhaps we could expect to see is a and image church's this with two storeys and providing the necessary consulting rooms.
and space required for the medical centre and with 52 parking spaces.
the proposal also in outline ace for the for the residential element, the residential areas are broken down into character areas following discussion with a specialist officers and the are considered to better relate and to the edge of settlement.
into this particular location.
the again is supported with a
design code
for character areas, including a parkland edge, and that takes consideration also of a boundary treatments front boundary treatments the parkland agencies to the
right the sort of red area which will relate better to the parkland edge, but also the countryside edge.
the
the blue in the middle nets White Lane, and that includes the emergency access that I touched on earlier with where the existing field gate is, this area is looking at more active frontages, the the central area has been reconsidered again, these are illustrative but show what can be developed with a central area that can also accommodate and perhaps adds features once the proposals are worked out.
the and then the denser elements of the residential are to the western boundary, the residential Lane area, and to the centre of the site and centre of the residential element.
and these areas would be would have denser residential.
unit and would relate to the the western boundary.
in this case, where there is existing residential development.
onscreen now is the route hierarchy, and the proposals are to increase the access to the public rights of way to the east, so Jane linkages to the East to pick up the with the
public Rights of Way
but also to installer emergency access, but with a pedestrian cycle link and also a potential link to Park Cottages to the west.
the main access would be taken from Birchfield Grove and coming into the site along central Central Road.
Sue me she just sets out as, as I said, the residential is illustrative only, but it does show what could be achieved on the site.
and the next slide shows the country park.
and the sort of potential route around the the country park, limiting the access to the north, but the space would be available route through routes through to the to the east.
the final details for the planting in the country park would be a secured by condition.
so Ganges Shang, shiny the potential layout.
we've flat.
improved central green area and improved spaces and.
active frontages onto the green area, taking opportunities and the
thing of note, as well as the ability to accommodate the development and to retain the buffer to the ancient woodland and to the north side.
moving onto just some.
impacts a report set out a
in-depth, the impact on the the landscape and the iron bay and the applicant has looked at the impact of the proposed scheme by looking at wire-framed and the visual impact from a distance, the first slide members do have, I have a copy.
relates to where those had been taken from where those points have been taken from, and the first is viewpoint 10, which can be seen which is from the the North and the the slides that Members have before them to show there is a or the
development can be just glimpsed within the the wooded trees with limited visual impact.
viewpoint 11 is taken from the north-west and similarly.
the
the blue from the wireframe can just be seen.
just just below the horizon of the trees, and that this to be, it shows also that the scheme will not break free break the horizon, the last guy sky.
he viewpoint.
13 that has been taken from the North East.
and similarly limited of impact visually, but also that we can see some development on the
in the background and the development would be seen against.
the existing trees and they there's development in the in this view and just viewpoint 14 from the north.
again, very much very much further north.
and a limited visual impact.
the this is a slide and a viewpoint taken from from the east on the public right of way does I include a winter view.
and it can be seen that the
that these are the the wireframe demonstrates the the housing will be set down.
the medical centre can be seen in the the blue outline that.
is on slightly higher land, but the the residential being set down and
making use of those slopes.
as part of the proposals the
been a number of concerns dealt with through the with k Kent County Council Highways Team and the
slideshows the proposals for a crossing and crossing is a crossing which a number of schemes have been have sought to.
also provide, in terms of off-site works, required to serve a number of schemes and most notably the the Cocteau development.
further south in Hawkhurst.
and so the proposal would be to to relocate basalt and to install the crossing.
and that between the Dickens' way and all things road, I will have an update at the end in this respect.
also in terms of highway works, the
there has been a discussion with Kent County Council Highway saying about the need for.
speed to reduce speeds on the road.
and again these comprise off-site works, but the potential that there is potential to put him work to the highway, to reduce speeds at the existing speeds and to alert drivers to the approach to Hawkhurst.
this would be.
secured through the it would be part of the section, the section 2 7 8
but also secured through condition the mover there is a a mover proposed for the crossroads and the puffin crossing that a similar to other schemes.
and would be proposed to be installed by this game, if not provided at that point, however, as I say, I have got an update to come back on that this just sets out some of the constraints so clearly and visually.
the I ran through in terms of where the site easing context with the limits to build development, which is on the west and south side, and the ancient woodland that is within and adjacent to the site.
and the TPO trees and clearly sets out where the
the public rights of way are to the east and to the south side.
so that concludes the slides I do have some updates.
to provide members with the first being that members have been provided with the an amended set of conditions and choose to highlight that's been after discussion with the applicant and a review of the conditions.
the
following main changes have been made, which is to include a single list of approved plans for condition to condition 3 to be.
has been adapted to relate solely to the Country Park condition, 9 has been include, the high-priority has been included for the medical centre.
and condition 30 has been changed to be prior to commencement of any phase.
so this recognises, prior to commencement of development in any phase a detailed scheme for ecological enhancements, then recognises the the phasing.
and there is an additional condition 42 at the end, which is a requirement, the Lead Flood following discussions with Lead Flood Authority.
they have requested the condition and to relate directly directly to the reserved matters element.
and in terms of a short update from Southern Water.
I have set out in the report an update of proposed works
and Southern Water have been able to come back and and confirm that they they are as indicating the report aware of issues with the treatment works to the North, in addition to the details in the WRU set out in the report.
they proposed to be on site in January, adding to the primary settlement tank.
and there will be following that 12 months.
additional monitoring following a
other works that could be included also.
or the
infiltration reduction, but so aligning that and later improvements are being looked at.
and there is a programme now proposed for the end of the end of March 2025, but it is something which has been considered by Southern Water, considering the committed development as well.
two additional comments have been received that really cover points that have been addressed in the report.
and the car club and the bus shelter that has been agreed.
following discussion with the applicant and the economic services manager that Assam will be provided to the car club to provide a car club and the cost of a bus shelter say, the recommendation needs to approve, subject to the amended conditions,
and to the contributions and requirements in section 1 0 6, set out in section 11 of your reports.
with the addition of the 25,000 pounds towards the car club and the 15,000 towards the Bashiqa, thank you Chair.
thank you.
Minister, Hope, thank you, if I might just ask Mr scholars come in on one of the updated comments that we received from members of the public, I think they're going to be speaking this evening anyway, but Mr Scully has an update on uncertain matters with regards to natural England if that's OK.
would you describe this Scottish jobs so that we have a landscape and biodiversity biodiversity officer, thank you.
thank you, Chair and concerns were raised with the Council by a resident in July 2023 about the number of ecological works and and matters in relation to the application, in particular the habitat on site, the applicant was asked to respond to those comments and did so in a report dated 2023 August 2023 having reviewed those comments I didn't I thought that that had addressed the points satisfactorily made no further comments on the application the resident has,
approached natural England to sheet to have the site entered onto the national England inventory for woodland, pasture and parkland as a priority habitat.
and they informed us of that yesterday, through an e-mail when they received the decision, obviously from natural England at the earliest opportunity.
and they ferry the resident very kindly provided the contact with that to England and forwarded the e-mail, and in that e-mail natural England have confirmed they are indeed able to add this site as wood pasture and parkland this change won't be immediate, we are currently looking to incorporate the would pass from parkland inventory into the prior to a habitat infantry which is where new additions would be published.
from my discussions and e-mails exchanged with natural England, our understanding is that the identification of the habitat is based on desktop information only, and to be included on the inventory there is no requirement for a site visit.
decisions are made by natural England the best available evidence at the time, but those positions are open to review if new evidence comes to light or is presented to them in the future.
based on the current information provided to natural England and their desktop studies, they considered the site to be with pasture and parkland for the following reasons, there are veteran trees in close proximity to each other.
one tree has a large diameter girth and three other ever-greater girth and 4 metres, indicating a certain level of antiquity in those trees there is also early Ordnance Survey mapping showing parkland on the site and some of the veteran tree locations correspond with map evidence indicating a minimum of 100 150 years old, this evidence meet natural England's criteria for appearing above, which is stated as saying she was appearing on our desk mapping showing parkland and the presence of three veteran trees that are less than 250 metres apart.
the identification of priority habitat is not the same as an irreplaceable habitat which is ancient woodland, pasture natural England have also confirmed to us that, in their opinion, the available historic evidence does not confirm the presence of ancient wood pasture and parkland habitat.
natural England do not normally consult local planning authorities on any entrance to the entries to the priority habitat inventory, but have stated those decisions are subject to review if new evidence comes to light the criteria that natural England use a desk-based study is different to the UK priority habitat.
the definition description published by the JNCC and Defra, which is far more detailed and descriptive natural England, have confirmed they will receive whatever information we have on the condition of the site.
and I will be contacted in applicant psychologists to coordinate a response to natural England to provide the evidence that we do have. It is worth noting, firstly, that the veteran trees are all outside the area to be developed and are protected on site, as is the ancient woodland, is also worth noting that Councillor Ferry aware of the presence of the ancient woodland and veteran trees, as well as the remnant parkland landscape. That's been covered in many reports and discussions about the site. The provisional ancient Woodham inventory, the borrowers updated by work carried out by the Borough in partnership with us in 2007 and the local list of historic parks and gardens for the borrowers, updated in 2010. Neither the studies identified the site as wood, pasture or sufficiently intact to meet the inclusion merit inclusion on the list of historic parks and gardens
it is also worth noting that the site has been subject to numerous surveys and assessments for plan-making since 2010 as well as being the subject of a planning appeal by public inquiry in 2013 14, in addition to the presence of ancient woodland and veteran trees which are outside the development area, the site is laid to pasture which has identified a species poor semi, improved grassland and improved grassland. You will have seen that for yourself if you went to site and indeed from the photographs tonight as a Fairy Evans ward and it is very poor quality in terms of grassland habitat.
I personally have visited the site on numerous occasions since around 2011 and at different times of year, and I found no reason to question the assessment submitted by the ecologist.
Even if one.
accepts the site qualifies as would pass from parkland such habitats can vary considerably in quality and condition in all my visits, so I have never considered site to be anything other than remnant parkland, with poor quality, semi-improved grassland, and would not myself suggests that it meets the JNCC DEFRA description.
whilst Members should note the nature of the natural England inventory and indeed note the changes have not yet been made to the them entry and may be subject to review, it may be prudent to consider what the implications of the habitat being included on the infantry,
the inventory is a list published.
by the government, our priority habitats under section 41 of the natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, has amended its the BAP habitats, essentially that were you which may have heard of.
and these are nice lists our habitats, which the secretary of state's opinion or principal importance for the purpose of conserving and enhancing biodiversity, the government advises public bodies that this list is to help them meet their biodiversity duty and to be aware of biodiversity conservation in their policy and decision-making, the MPPA f refers us to footnote 61 and the Circular 06 2005 biodiversity and geological conservation.
which confirms that these habitats are a material decision in planning decisions.
and the MPPA sets out how planning must deal with biodiversity in section 15 and in particular, paragraph 1 80 addresses planning applications.
and says that, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting resulting from development cannot be avoided through locating alternative sites, less harmful impacts adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.
in relation to the paragraphs in the mppa f the detailed evidence submitted to the Council with the application on habitats and ecology, the Council has assessed that the evidence has concluded the application will provide biodiversity net gain in excess of the policy requirement considerably in excess.
with specific regard to would pass from parkland, the application includes significant areas of land that is to be restored to parkland character, and just thinking back to those photographs you could see areas where there was mature trees which are the parchment character and they are outside the development footprint essentially,
and some of the land will now be available for future Grayshon future grazing, and thus offers enhancements for trained areas of landscape, as well as mitigation and compensation for any loss and those areas of restored parkland within the scheme. Consequently, the Council has, in its decision, treated habitats present as materials consideration, as required by policy and guidance and based on the details Site Pacific evidence available. I do not think that the inclusion on the natural England provisional infantry of priority habitats would alter the Council's approach to biodiversity or landscape. In this case, I think the matter has been properly considered and those scheme has taken the right approach based on the quality of the appetites and the scheme has been put forward
thank you.
thank you.
our first speaker, we have 10 speakers.
on this item.
when I call your name, please come to the microphone and insurers activated when you speak, you will have three minutes to make your statement.
our first speaker this evening in objections in objection to the application, is Ms Nancy Davis, a local resident.
do you think I am a professional ecologists with 20 years of ecological consultancy experience, I am a chartered ecologist and a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the ecological appraisal submitted with the application has not identified the main habitats on site, assessed its biodiversity value or impacts of the scheme if approved, the development will lead to the significant loss of irreversible habitat, namely wood pasture and parkland.
as of this week, natural England, a statutory non nature conservation organisation have agreed that the site is wood, pasture and parkland, based on the information supplied in the applicant's own planning, submission specifically the arboricultural ecology and heritage reports.
there'll be updating their party habitat inventory and maps accordingly, I have forwarded NaturalEngland confirmation of.
in this case, to the case officer and a landscape and biodiversity officer.
would posture and parkland is a priority habitat and listed under section 41 of the natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 6 and deemed an irreplaceable habitat akin to ancient woodland according to the MPPA f irreplaceable habitats are those which would technically be very difficult or take a very significant time to restore we create a over place once destroyed, taking into account the age uniqueness, species, diversity and variety.
it's important to note that this habitat is more than just trees, some of the key elements on site of the wood, the open grown veteran trees, notably oak and sweet chestnut, supporting significant deadwood, the pasture in his case grassland which has been historically grazed and the parkland the star of the site was historically part of Fowler's pot this type of habitat but some of the UK's most rare and threatened species, including specialist fungi in the deadwood wax caps and grassland and nearly 2000 invertebrate species dependent on deadwood, which overtime helped to create hollows of the trees for nesting birds and roosting bats it makes it one of our most biodiverse habitats.
under paragraph 180 of the MPPA it states that LPA's should refuse development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats unless they are wholly exceptional.
exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists, exceptional reasons include, for example, nationally significant infrastructure structure projects and not residential developments, in addition, given the habitats present on site, it is impossible for the proposed development ever deliver biodiversity net gain let alone a 10% gain in line between the 12 Borough Council's emergency policy.
to conclude, the site is wood, pasture and parkland natural England agree this is a priority habitat as set out in legislation and an irreplaceable habitat, and its loss cannot be justified and M P P F and therefore respectfully this application should be refused.
thank you.
also, I can speak of achieved in in objection to the application is administrator, Derek L Gregory, a local resident.
Mr Gregory.
thank you, Minister, Jan.
well, I believe a couple of photographs, so I haven't got slides, the Councillors can just look at passing along while I'm talking 40 you know, they're allowed to submit any sort of snow, you're not able to submit any additional photos at this time it will just be your statement.
I haven't got I can't put pictures up no.
right okay.
this is the Council's policy, exactly what it is we're talking about.
Councillor Brett drama.
OK, can you turn your microphone off, please, those four seconds?
I believe the photo I just caught glimpses of the thing that was already being submitted via e-mail to the Planning Committee.
and is in the deck which the officer has presented, is my lobbying area as part of lobbying, sorry, it's part of lobbying, I don't know whether it makes any difference that you should always think like Surrey Institute.
so let me try and explain why we're being so stuffy and obsolete.
as it might seem to you.
any pictures on presentation items.
need to be pre-approved pre-diabetic so that we can be absolutely sure that they are completely authentic and are shared by both sides.
it's a necessary precaution, and I'm sorry if you're disappointed, but we cannot show your pictures.
without previewing them and pitting them into everything that we have done.
most bike staff, do you know, I agree, that's that's our procedure?
having said that, Mr. Gregory.
would you like to give us your three minutes please?
sorry, Mr. Gregory, if you if you press your microphone again, it will go on the red light will come on.
Rydens plan to build 70 houses, a two storey medical centre and a 50 vehicle car park in an area of truly natural beauty has met overwhelming objection by the locals who know this area better than anyone, and yet rumour has it that planning department councillors, developers and doctors see this application as a done deal surely not.
surely you're still listening to your electorate.
the developer, by submitting this application shortly before a new Local Plan, comes before Council is manipulating the system, the government's Mayor of London Camden Council, amongst others, previously boundless developer from contract bids, is our council comfortable that it has done the appropriate due diligence on Rydon?
69% of TW VC is categorised as A and D, leaving 31% for developers to choose from to make up the marginal shortfall to the borrower's new housing quota.
Hawkhurst Village has already fulfilled its quota, it should not be on the list for new developments, here's why one Hawkhurst is 100% within the A&E, so it has poor transport links, no train station and clogged roads.
three Flimwell crossroads is already over capacity,
and 4 in 2022.
Hawker sewage works made 49 illegal discharges over a combined period of 735 hours, that sewage Lincoln is the community for 30 days and nights, the infrastructure is already overwhelmed with us another 70 households.
national Planning Policy Framework states that major development should only be permitted in an A and B in exceptional circumstances. The developer is cynically using the inclusion of a medical centre as his exceptional circumstance Trump card, the doctor's investigation of 12 potential Hawker sites for its new medical centre is neither independent nor credible. They just don't come with the same sweet pill as the deal offered to them by Ryan Hawker's cottage hospital. For example, has land available with opportunities for co-location of services? It is 800 metres further from the traffic pinch points of the Hawkhurst crossroads. Finally, let's consider the view of the local community. Some 200 objections, led by Hawkhurst Parish, Council versus only 7 letters of support, including one from the doctors that sweet pill again, hawkers residents do not believe 70 extra houses on the high ridge. An acceptable price, particularly when viable alternative locations are available in 2014 Inspector refused a similar applications due to its detrimental impact on the character appearance to Gregory. Could you finish our central and scenic beauty at the A and B. Nothing has changed on cubist McGregor eggs 3 minutes thank you. Thank you.
in objection to the application is missing.
Mr Loren spokesman, a local restaurant.
if the Committee were to agree the recommendation from officers to grant the application, this would run counter to a number of questions, including the following one, the appeal decision of the Inspector in 2014 who rejected a similar application and make clear that protection of the A and B outweighed other considerations importantly this was also at a time when TW B C was unable to meet its housing targets to the submitted Local Plan admits any allocation of housing on the site 3, the conclusions of the Inspector on the submitted Local Plan who said that the site should be removed from the plan as it was incapable of delivery because of the medical centre could not be built without planning permission for the houses.
for the conclusions of the High Weald A&E unit, which clearly states that the exceptional circumstances test in para 1 7 7 of the MPP F has not been met, the unit also makes clear that the application is contrary to several objectives at the High Weald I and N B management plan as it would constitute a significant suburban, icing and uncharacteristic incursion into the rural setting of the settlement.
and harming the landscape, character and natural beauty of the Ayam B. Finally, they point out that the application is also contrary to MPP F. Para 1 7 6 because it fails to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the High Weald A and B. This consultation document carries little reference in the officer's report and recommendation.
5, The medical centre, throughout the planning committee report, there are frequent brief references to the site being the only site in Hawkhurst for a medical centre this requires challenge.
Even the doctor's own assessment of sites concluded that this was the preferred site, not the only site other than a reference to review work at the time of the local plan assessment. No effort, no way of evidence is presented, let alone an independent assessment as to why this is now considered the only site. There are alternative sites, most notably the community hospital 6 Highways. The application would generate increased congestion in Hawkhurst. This is inevitable, and the arguments are well rehearsed. That said, some of the statistics in support of the application are not realistic, given that the vast majority of a new homeowner homeowners will be commuting end or on the school run. It is quite unrealistic to suggest that the proposed 70 houses, which means close to 140 extra cars, will only generate an extra 7 morning peak time journeys on the framework crossroads, all of which would need to pass through the already heavily congested, hopeless Grove Road, and this is in addition into the traffic generated by the medical centre and, lastly, mitigation if the application were to be granted, it is extremely important that robust mitigation methods measures are provided to those local residents who would suffer substantial adverse effects as per the report. Thank you, Mr Gove.
our fourth speech of this evening in support of the application, is Peter radii of D M H Fela Stallard on behalf of the applicant.
good evening, Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Peter Rania from Dermot Stallard, as you've heard, the proposed development seeks to provide a comprehensive package of benefits, meeting the needs identified for Hawkhurst by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and by the Neighbourhood Plan.
as part of the proposed development, the site, the proposal seeks to provide 70 new homes ranging from one bedroom upwards.
New housing which the borrower desperately needs, given the national housing crisis and the affordability pressures in the south-east, which are strong and persistent.
the Council is not able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and the shortfall in delivery of housing does mean that this proposal should be given particular weight and particular strength to that in terms of the affordable housing, when making your decision.
the Local Plan, as drafted, is clear that greenfield development, including land within the A and B, will be required to meet future housing needs, indeed, it is positive news that next week members will be considering the inclusion of this application site in the final version of the Local Plan in response to the Inspector's recommendations.
with respect to visual impact, the proposal would round off the edge of Hawkhurst, without significant harm to the wider A and B. The proposed development is designed to sit well.
at the edge of the settlement, with a soft edge to mitigate the proposed built form in highway terms.
national Highways and Kent County Council raise no objection and the scheme would deliver benefits to Hawkhurst crossroads, complemented by speed reduction measures which will benefit all highway users. There are additional key benefits, a new medical centre and the additional benefits coming from the ability to enhance the offering with a larger surgery. This is the only site suitable for the new medical centre, additional land for the expansion of the school, which will mean that in the future, the primary school can function as a two form entry school without compromising space for pupils'. Outside nearly nine hectares of land will be laid out as a country park, with public access to the existing public rights of way network across the eastern part of the site, and this will be available within 12 months of completion of the residential development, with all routes available for the public to use
importantly, the scheme will deliver biodiversity net gain in excess of 40% and irreplaceable habitats, do not include the pasture land, only ancient woodland and veteran trees, the development closely accords with the with the NP, in that it seeks to provide development in sustainable locations close to existing facilities, boost the supply of housing support and enhance the rural economy, protect trees and enhance biodiversity, thank you Mr Rania, thank you, thank you.
our fifth speaker this evening, in support of the application, is Dr Clive doing on behalf of the doctors of Hawkhurst.
Dr doing.
Good evening, everybody.
my name is Clive during Dr during a resident of Hawkhurst for 41 years now and a general medical practitioner in the area for 38 years.
now, some seven years ago, I set about uniting the two medical practices in Hawkhurst as a means of trying to future-proof medical care for our village, in doing so, I recognise the need for all medical and ancillary staff be working under the same roof, especially as neither of the current premises could be developed further.
having evaluated several available sites around the village, it became obvious a central position north of Birchall Grove would prove best for the convenience of our patients, this would allow the less fortunate of our patients living locally, easy access to medical services.
the Birchfield Grove site will allow majority of outpatients to walk to their new surgery, negating the need to add to the general traffic through Hawkhurst the surgery will act as a focus within the village for medical and social needs.
our objective is to provide better access to general medical services for patients and enhance the provision of care in our locality, recruitment and retention of qualified staff to general practice is at an all-time low we are hoping that a new build surgery will bring doctors and nurses in training to the village and encourage a new generation of medics to work in Hawkhurst over their professional lifetime, this would be in contrast to the present trend for newly qualified doctors and nurses to be leaving the National Health Service to go abroad.
I am here to ask you to consider what is at stake this evening if you do not allow this development to proceed, Hawkhurst residents will be under the threat of losing all medical care in the village.
a retired partner wishes to sell his majority stake in his surgery this year with no new premises. Thousands of patients would be outward without a practice to visit, and the secondary site in the village which we have would not be able to meet the needs of the extra demand. Please give this application a green light to go ahead and you will at least guarantee the security of general practice in Hawker's for its future, and I urge you all please to support this application. North of Birchfield Grove, thank you. Thank you, Dr doing
all six speakers evening in support of the application is Mr Peter belter, a local resident.
Mr Pelton.
good evening.
I am a local resident in Hawkhurst, I don't want more houses in Hawkhurst, but that's where everybody starts, nobody wants new houses, regrettably we don't have a choice and use the Committee have to exercise the judgment of Solomon.
we need the medical centre.
the Hawkhurst community hospital doesn't work, it's too far away.
we need new people in the village.
the site is comfortably tucked in the upside of the medical centre and the school is extremely important, the village needs to be kept alive, we need to support the local businesses, and, for those of us who are not in the first flush of youth, we need to go to the Dr from time to time.
the reality is nobody wants houses, but we don't have a choice.
I've looked at Mr Scully's report, I noticed that he refers to 22 listed matters, the report 12 positive 10 neutral, Mr Scully 7 positive 3 negative 12 neutral it's on a knife-edge, and I urge you to accept and to pass for the benefit of Hawkhurst, thank you.
thank you, Mr belter.
all seven speaker,
this evening, in support of the application is Dr Frank van der Blas MLC, GP Weald View medical practice forecast.
Dr Barbara plus, thank you.
thank you Frank 100 plus I'm a senior partner at Weald Few medical centre and I've been working there as a GP for the last 27 years.
I truly believe in the future for the NHS, but I am afraid that currently we cannot provide the best possible care for our patients in Hawkhurst.
that is mainly due to the fact that we are having to work from two inadequate and out of date buildings with poor accessibility and insufficient space, and because we are unable to recruit new doctors instead having to rely on locum doctors which negatively impacts on continuity of care, I would like you all pleased to be aware that I am extremely concerned that if we are unable to build a new surgery it will become impossible to sustain the provision of general practice in Hawkhurst, we have explored many sites.
for a new building and we have found a proposed location to be both the best accessible and the most viable option Cottage hospital doesn't work, it is too small. Our current partnership was formed two years ago by the merging of two existing Hawkhurst practices. The purpose of this merger was to secure the future for primary care in Hawkhurst, for patients and through efficiency of scales, and by enabling to build a new premises. As most of you will be aware, there is a national shortage of general practitioners, and this is especially affecting rural communities. We have been unable to recruit a new partner since the retirement of Dr Blundell just over a year ago and, furthermore, two of the three remaining partners, including myself, will retire in the next three years.
that needs to be able to recruit new partners is now urgent and critical. The most immediate issue affecting the partnership is the fact that our recently retired partner, who is the majority stakeholder in one of the two buildings history, have noticed on railroad practice, meaning that it is due to close in October 2024, leaving over half of our patients with nowhere to go. There is, however, hope we believe that, with the new building and the space and opportunity that this will afford us, we will be able to attract the next generation of doctors and nurses and other primary care team members. We envisage providing more appointments aided by allied health professionals such as paramedics, clinical pharmacists and GPs associates, as well as being able to train
GP, registrars and practice nurses.
we would also be able to provide their patients with an extended scope of local services such as physiotherapy counselling, social prescribing such a practice would give our patients a much improved surface and experience and pose an attractive proposition for potential new partners and other team members, but most importantly it will give us the best possible chance to prevent 10,000 patients in Hawkhurst and the surrounding area from losing their primary care services.
so these plans for a new surgery are a true opportunity to improve general practice in Hawkhurst and to secure its future.
the alternative, sadly, is its demise, so I urge you please, to approve this proposal.
thank you not abandoned that.
our eighth speaker this evening is Ms Claire Eskom, on behalf of Horgoš Parish Council.
thank you.
Hawkhurst, Parish Council has consistently opposed any development of this highly sensitive site. It's not just the housing that concerns us. We objected to its allocation for the medical centre due to the impact on the A and B and what we consider and still consider to be highly inappropriate and dangerous dangerous access arrangements. The Iowan Bay is projected due to the special characteristics of the landscape. This application would actively harm those very characteristics
the Iron Bay is one of the best surviving medieval landscapes in north-west Europe comprises ridges and valleys, clothed in with an intricate mosaic of small fields, surrounded by hedges and abundant woods, hence the importance of the A and B management plan which aims to protect this distinctive historic landscape and the land based economy which has shaped it.
paragraph 10.7 1 of the committee report refers to policy H D 1 B of Hawkhurst and D P, which requires schemes to demonstrate how they meet the objectives of the A and B Management Plan, the response from the A and B unit shows that this application is contrary to objectives relating to settlement, historic field patterns and agricultural use.
it scant consolation to read in paragraph 10.3 7 that, despite concerns in relation to the A and B management plan, the scheme has improved policy HT 1 B, requires the application to meet the objectives not just to be better than it was when first submitted,
paragraph 10.4 2, of the committee report recognises that the land is currently in agricultural use and that this counts against the development.
however, the conclusion appears to be that because it is separated from other agricultural land and segregated by woodland, this lessens its value. However, this is precisely the historic field pattern that is a characteristic of the A and B in this application. The conversion of the fields to a country park is actually exacerbating the harm, as opposed to mitigating it. There's no question that this development will have lasting adverse impacts on the A and B, so it's contrary to paragraph 1 7 6 of the NP as it fails to conserve and enhance the scenic beauty of the AONB furthermore, the professional officer, the professional officers of the A&E unit, argued that there are no exceptional reasons to justify this development. Deciding on a planning application ultimately requires a judgement about what is important in our opinion the protection of the A and B landscape should be given the utmost weight.
I hope that the comments you hear tonight will persuade you to refuse this application, however, if not, please add a condition that makes the actual construction of the medical centre a prerequisite for any development on the site were all too familiar with the proposed infrastructure not being delivered once the housing has been built, thank you.
thank you.
our minds speak.
online speak of this evening as Borough Council Councillor Beverley Palmer, but Hawkhurst from Sandhurst.
Councillor Palmer has provided a statement which Councillor level will read out from the
speaker's Place, thank you very much.
thank you Chair.
Hawkhurst does need a new medical centre at, as the current facilities for doctors' surgeries in the village are separate and no longer fit for purpose.
but we do not need another 70 houses, this is, after all, the old site 64, which was refused by TW B C, and refusal was upheld by the Inspector at that time.
however, if the committee is minded to approve this application, then the following concerns and issues need to be addressed and taken into consideration before making their decision one medical centre, as I understand it, the area set aside for the new medical centre will be handed over to the NHS for the build but what guarantee or assurance to behalf that the medical centre will actually be built?
to sewerage this is a serious issue for the village, already the Whitby waste water company uses tankers to remove waste from the village as the pipe work and infrastructure is not adequate for the houses we already have, there has to be a planning condition included for this application that new sewerage systems must be put in place for this site, including the medical centre before any houses are actually built on the site.
three transport, stroke highways, the traffic lights at Hawkhurst are already well over capacity, and this development will only add to the issues we already have.
the proposed move, a controlled junction works were part of the application for the Gandhara site to mitigate the number of traffic movements for that site, so this will actually have Woolies' actually have any further benefit.
however, if the committee is minded to approve this application, those move a controlled junction, works on the Rye Road side of the junction and the proposed controlled crossing works between All Saints and Dickens Way must be part of the planning condition to ensure that all the works are completed before the houses are built in conclusion,
too often in Hawkhurst, we have been promised that infrastructure will be completed to find that the developer completes the build, and then we never see the improvements that were part of the conditions for planning approval. This must not be allowed to happen for this site, hence it is imperative that if this application is approved by the Committee, that the conditions are included for the sewerage and transport improvements to be completed before the houses are built
thank you.
thank you, Councillor Neville, on behalf of Councillor Palmer, Councillor level, you are also speaking on your own behalf, thank you go for it.
the TW B C Local Plan allocated a site for a medical centre only in Hawkhurst the Inspector previously throughout the Birchfield site due to scale and dominance, housing pressure and overdevelopment of Hawkhurst. Village has created huge infrastructure problems Hawkhurst has absorbed a vast percentage of housing increase in recent years by comparison to its neighbouring villages. The current Hawkhurst N D P preference is for small scale development. Large scale development should only be supported, as required by the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy.
the exceptional circumstances clause in para 1 7 7 of the NPP f has not been met, as is evidenced by the High Weald A&E unit.
rydon. Homes known for their build of the Grenfell towers are selling the land aside for the medical centre at a nominal fee, laying a road and instructing utilities to link up. They are not building a medical centre for Hawkhurst. There is a claim that all other potential sites have been exhausted. However, the possibility of the alternative site at the community hospital on the High Street has not come to a full conclusion. It is merely not the current GPs preferred site. The community hospital is owned by the charity Hawkhurst Community Hospital League of friends. It is there to serve the community and exactly for this purpose, unlike Birchfield access is good and suitable for a medical centre with the consent and support of the neighbouring residents nearby who have said that they would enjoy the traffic calming that would be put on the main road
bus networks are already in place, with a bus stop right outside the hospital.
access would be very straightforward for ambulances from the main road and for all the 90% of registered patients who currently drive to the Hawker surgeries, patients come from surrounding areas of at least 14 villages, it is claimed that Birchfield is a central location for a medical centre but it is not over and above the community hospital at Birchfield all that traffic including ambulances would be directed through private residential area of Rye Road which experiences gridlock every day more than twice a day, not so at the community hospital site.
funding for the medical centre has to come from elsewhere, it is not secured, which means we are faced with the prospect of 70 more homes, adding to our existing needs of a secondary school repair and expansion of drainage and sewage, highway safety, mitigation of traffic impacting in our official air quality management area loss of rare species, irreplaceable habitat and a negative impact on the ancient woodlands and a medical centre, thank you.
thank you, Councillor rebel.
Shepherd, just for the benefit of the recording, would ask Councillor Neville to leave the room, thank you.
committee members, do we have any questions for the officers?
I wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by other speakers.
thank you, yes, Chair, there's there's a lot to go through, probably so we will give the best shot of trying to tick off a lot of the queries that were raised.
I think a lot of the concerns are to do with the medical centre itself and its provision within the village, certainly reference was made to the Local Plan and the Inspector's initial findings letter, and quite rightly, there was concern raised by the Inspector about the deliverability of the medical centre on its own.
and he does feel that the medical centre is undeliverable when the basis of the discussions that were had on the Local Plan hearings.
and does say that, as a result, it should be deleted from the plan, however, he does go on to say also that the outcome of deleting the allocation is that no sites would be identified for the necessary medical centre and in order to make the Plan sound, the Council should therefore give consideration to how the necessary facilities can be provided so,
it is left it to us to understand and work out how the medical centre actually can come forward, so to that end, we, as officers, have obviously considered the planning application, and there's a vast amount of information that's been submitted with that application, in particular a
review of the cottage hospital undertaken by the relevant parties, but also a review of 16 other sites across Hawkhurst, to look at appropriate other sites other than this particular site, however, none were found to be available or appropriate in regards to the the mention of the cottage hospital taking on the site.
certain facilities would need to me be moved away away from that facility so, as per the review that was undertaken, the physio extension would need to be moved.
which would disadvantage people who need that, furthermore, the the sites, if the Dr surgery was to go to the cottage hospital, it would be fairly remote, I appreciate that some people feel that that is still connected to the town but the proposed site, the subject of this application is very much closer to the town centre and very much closer to a lot of the the dwellings and occupants who would use it.
so the reviews I'd been undertaken by officers, and it's felt that the the Birchfield site is the appropriate site for it, because it is the only one that will be delivered in terms of the the caucus and a Neighbourhood Development Plan, it is quite clear that the the the residents acknowledge that a better practice is required.
however, the the Neighbourhood Plan doesn't really go in into any detail about where that might be located, so but not the the residents have highlighted that a strong desire to retain the medical centre within the parish, so whilst precise location it hasn't been identified, there is a strong desire for it to be accessible and,
consolidated Local Care within the village itself, so officers have gone to, I would say, great lengths as part of this planning, application consideration, but also the papers that have been put to Members for the Local Plan and its progression, and it is felt that this is the most appropriate site for the for the centre if I pass over to my colleagues to talk about some further details in particular about conditions if that's OK,
thank you, and yes, there are a number.
it points to to gateway,
I think just that was taken them, maybe from the top, obviously the report does set out housing need comment made about a forecast performance quota, the
application must be considered on its merits, and that's the way that the application has been considered and addressed in the report the application considered on its merits, in terms of the the contribution of the the housing and the various benefits of the medical centre, safeguarded land and the country park.
I now set out in the report the housing supply as of April is a worsening picture of 4 point 2 3 2 9 2 3 years to 9 years.
heaven
compared to when this application first came in, I think in terms of sewage I updated members of where Southern Water are and therein they are aware of capacity issues, they have said that the tankering is three times a week and as set out in the report but they have given us some more detail in terms of the
time to go, and so I feel that has been been addressed in terms of highway safety.
initially, concerns were raised by National Highways, but the applicant submitted additional information regarding the trip generation trip, jet distribution and assignment, and the highway safety analysis and in relation to the Flimwell junction.
at that note was being re reviewed and the National Highways raise no objection, so we have no objection from them.
the crossroads was also.
raised and the again time has been spent.
holidays, KCC, Highways and have spent considerable time considering this application.
and they confirm that the physical works to the junction have been addressed, any concerns that they've raised and the to section 2 7 8 agreement would secure those notwithstanding and secure the lever and the crossing, and I did have an update that I was going to come back to but it is understood the pedestrian crossing has been installed and it's waiting for the traffic light hits to come in and be fitted.
apparently, there's been a delay and in terms of the
the mover there has been some, there has been 10 quick acceptance and there's been some work on getting tenders, so those those elements of the highway works going through the junction would be continue to be secured through through this application and as requested by KCC Highways, but considerable work seems to have been taking place in terms of the
progress made on implementing those elements the
it was also raised about the level of development, but
the
the junction, the modelling and the junction is, as submitted in the Transport Assessment, the impact on the crossroads takes into account committed development, this includes the Cocteau site and the Tandon site.
and the application site itself.
reference was also made to the previous previously refused scheme that went to appeal, which was a 2000 and 13 reference I believe, and that is capital key differences, there is the access the
the history.
it set out at the start of the report and in 2000 sorry, the 13 0 0 14 application, the difference there was.
120 dwellings and the access was.
the Inspector family access harmful as well, that didn't come off of.
Birchfield Grove, as proposed in this case, birth went considerably further east, creating a new access.
the Osana on in terms of highways, the matter of the difficult access to by road.
was bought up through Birchall yourself.
and again, KCC Highways raised no objection in that respect, looking at the existing visibility splays, they are satisfied that the
the applicant and highway land between the two
that the visibility splays can be maintained on the site frontage,
concern was raised about the medical centre not coming forward and then so, turning to the conditions.
the conditions are set out in such a way that includes.
condition.
a condition.
5, which would seek details of the phasing and timetable for the entire site.
for the dwellings and medical centre in the country heart, so in that respect, the we would the there would be control future control am saying that the medical centre is to be the land is to be provided to the doctors.
and
furthermore, that would be secured through the Section 1 0 6 the wording of that can be prior to well within.
I had some wording, but let me just get it.
well, within 3 months of prior to commencement of development, we could seek that the the the land for the medical centre and the safeguarded land for the school that those are offered to Kent County Council and to the medical centre there wouldn't be unusual in a section 1 0 6 2 set out the the brief terms for that and to ensure that that,
that secured.
just as a smaller note.
that was talked about the funds as well towards medical Centre, but there have been some contributions.
to to this purpose already there, notably through the Highgate Hill Cocteau.
contributions.
so there are sums that have already been secured on other sites that that would persistent, bringing bringing the medical centre forward.
the end in terms of conditioning the
sewerage less waste that has been requested on in some cases.
Southern Water had not made that request on this occasion and, as I said, I have outlined what improvements are are proposed in that respect and then I think the
in terms of air quality, that was also touched upon.
the
environmental Health Officer, A satisfied with the report and that the scheme wouldn't be detrimental to air quality in regards the crossroads.
and that has been addressed.
in paragraph 1 4 3
and it concludes there is no reasonable basis to object on air quality grounds.
and the reductions in the energy levels have all have been demonstrated.
and that the
the annual mean concentrations for new residential receptors are likely to be well below national objectives.
and they then, just to also raised it within the conditions we've got a number of conditions that.
sounded conditions, Environmental Health would be looking at that would compliment Air Canada, Air control, air quality in terms of
EV charging, for example, and air quality measures, as set out in.
condition.
we've got a breach of condition 36 and.
sustainable energy measures, air quality mitigation for each phase and the condition 37, thank you, Chairman.
Mr Scully, coming as well on some of the landscape matters that were raised.
thank you.
Mr Scott, thank you very much.
shadow speakers did refer to the sites as having irreplaceable habitat, and I just wanted to remember to be absolutely clear that in terms of the habitat of wow wood, pasture and parkland the site, natural England would consider it to be a site of a priority habitat, they've made absolutely clear to me the available historic evidence does not confirm the presence of ancient woodland, pasture and parkland habitat.
I, the irreplaceable habitat, is not irreplaceable, habitat, irreplaceable habitat is ancient woodland on site, not the pasture, and just to reiterate again that the key features in relation to
the Department habitat and the veteran trees and the ancient woodland are all being retained, protected and enhanced through the through the scheme.
there was also a number of references to the 2014 founders Park appeal, I'm the only officer who I think he was involved in the appeal and two members who don't know me, I'd I'd been the landscape officer since 2000 and had been involved in this site and all the work that's been done both at appeal applications and Local Plan work over that time.
and reference was made that nothing has changed since the 2014 appeal, and that's not true, a lot has changed since that time, a lot of work has been done in relation to this air into this site and you'll see my original comments on the application I set out some of that history about the site in particular we did a landscape assessment, sensitivity study around the whole of Hawkhurst and we looked at the the the different areas around Hawkhurst, and that sensitivity study was generally high around Hawkhurst, but for this particular site was medium higher journey areas as medium high also for the local plan work, we did a detailed landscape assessment of proposed sites by Hankinson Duckett Associates and that confirmed that this area of if it was developed would have a medium to low impact.
on that side.
but also what's changed in that time is about the issue of exceptional circumstances should people have raised in relation to the comments today and Oby unit, the NB Unit provide advice to us on landscape matters in relation to there, and maybe they do not have to address things such as,
affordable housing, housing, no community facilities, etc so those are matters that are as a planning authority we have to take account of. We also have to take account of Inspectors' decisions and are an important Inspector's decision in relation to this area and to exceptional circumstances in terms of the ano be was the Cocteau decision, which everybody will now is the land east of Highgate Hill, which has got consent through appeal, and if you look at the differences between these two schemes, that scheme was for 171 dwellings. This scheme is for 70 dwellings that scheme had no medical unit on it and it had no school land on it.
it had open space of just under 3 hectares, this scheme has got open space of nearly 9 hectares, and so you can see things like housing supply and things like that were different as well in the inspector, came to a decision about exceptional circumstances and the impact on the AONB being consented that scheme, because a lot of the detailed work done on AONB matters this applicant has also done a lot of work. You'll have seen the revised application, which sought to meet the comments about impact on the ano be so we got to a point where we felt the scheme has greatly improved in terms of response to the AONB, and, on balance, is that balanced argument about the effects, the positive and negative, so I just wanted to make dose date, points clear and respond to the points that people have raised in speaking
I think you misled Skelly anything more from the officers.
members.
Councillor Moon.
thank you Chair just two questions, can you just confirm how many social housing housing association units will be provided on site within the 28 affordable housing quota?
the second question is who actually enforces or monitors the 42 conditions on the application.
because?
that is an issue in the application, with the number of conditions being put on prior to it being put to this committee, thank you.
thank you Chair, and in terms of the number of affordable units the acne is providing a 40%.
contribution as per the emerging plan, that's 28 units, and that'll be split in favour of 60 40 per cent for the social rent 60% of the 40.
cent so 60% of the 28 units will be social rent.
you actually showing him within the 28.
60% will be housing association council houses.
now it would be usual to for the applicants get on board a registered provider as they do on other sites, other application sites.
yes, and the social rent is 60%.
but we'd been effect with the application and national guaranteed.
the section 1 0 6 will secure those units.
OK, sorry, sorry to labour this point, but I think when you look at certain issues with the housing waiting list in orca, she is 161.
and I think it's a big issue in relation to the housing that that allocation is met by the developer and provides evidence of housing associations that they've had discussions with, to provide that that number.
it is usual for isn't well, it's not unusual that those conversations are held with the development for them to start to make enquiries with a number of registered providers and the
the council's housing officers are also able to assist with that and that discuss through the section 1 0 6 and sometimes following those conversations do take place, but the in this case in the section 1 0 6, does secure.
that affordable housing.
in terms of the enforcement, did you want me to cover that the so there are again, yes, a number of conditions and which wouldn't be unusual for for this site, usual processes for the applicant to submit discharge of conditions when the scheme and in this case as well there will be reserved matters so some of these conditions,
relate to the reserved matters, to follow for the outline housing and medical centre, and so we would receive him reserved matters an and conditions discharge applications, and they would be monitored in and assessed in the normal way, thank you.
sorry, in respect to that last question, you rely on the developer to monitor his own, try to abide by the conditions during the application or to ensure that the application meets those conditions.
Mr. K, Missika home sorry.
on a site of this scale, there is obviously a number of conditions, some of them are pre-commencement that need to be discharged, which we have to get agreement from the developer on which we have done.
hence why this this has been slightly revised for the meeting today.
but the trigger points in section 1 0 6 will also trigger section 1 and 6 monitoring officer, reviewing the conditions as well, so it's.
a two way kind of process, the development knows that they must discharge certain conditions at certain times, and we will look at the trigger points in the section 1 0 6 4 certain conditions as well.
thank you.
Councillor White.
thank you, and I just want to sit clear in my head about the medical centre, and I understand that the developers will have to build it, but they always think gifting the land, I just think, do we have guarantees from KCC that it's actually going to definitely go ahead or is that something that's still sort of up for discussion?
thank you, so the legal agreement will time to it, as Mr Bolton has set out that the land would transfer to the CCG at the appropriate time, so as response set out that could be three months post commencement, then it would be incumbent upon the CCG to go through the necessary process so it will require a reserved matters planning application in order to get consent for the building itself and then they would fund that but we as has been set out we have already collected some funds towards the the building itself from other schemes within the area.
thank you, I just one more question how much his son Vanessa, some funds is that quite a lot are we still talking quite a small amount of it?
thank you Ann the.
copped Hall, Highgate Highgate Hill scheme is 68,724 and then there are also sums from Whitehouse the Whitehouse scheme.
and east of hard note.
the slightly smaller sums, but in the region of 28,000 well 28,476 and a 6,168 and 18,000 where in fact it would be easier to give you the title 53 1 4 9, has been collected from those earlier schemes.
with the Highgate Hill cocktail will be in the most recent to towards the health centre and
I believe that is also towards the it can be used towards commissioning services, thank you.
Council proposal.
thank you, Minister, and action was a very similar issue to Councillor White's, it was just the the about condition 5 and the phasing I mean, presumably once the
developer hands the land I went to the CCG, the CCG make a separate planning application to the detailed planning application for their houses made by the developer.
at what and who is slightly worried, yeah, we've got some money from the CCG, the CCG have got, but we have no guarantee that they're going to actually proceed and actually construct the centre and worries that perhaps the houses are built and a year or two later we still haven't got to send a medical centre, is there any way of linking in terms of condition 5, the construction of both together, despite the fact both presumably will have different planning applications in their motion?
this is an independent process, so the condition is there to ensure that the
the land is handed over, as will the section 9 6 of a legal agreement would be binding for that land to be handed over, but it will nevertheless be down to the CCG to prepare a planning application to resolve the reserved matters for the the scheme outline consent.
is covered by this application and then for them to progress clearly from the speakers, the local doctors there is an evident need for this doctor's surgery to come forward very quickly, so it's our understanding that wouldn't be something that would take too long to come forward.
if I may as well be them through the application, it's also of note in the comments from the CCG they reported that in 2019 will medical practice appointed a third-party developer to take site forward, and there's been an agreement in principle to develop plans for the new medical centre between the CCG with the doctors.
and the site options and Appraisal has been submitted and supported for the preferred site, which is the site at Birchfield Road thank you.
thank you Chair.
it is still on the medical centre, I want to understand why the housing was taken out of the Local Plan, the submission local plan and only the medical centre was included and why the inspector is saying that's undeliverable because I have to say I am uncomfortable with the link between the medical centre and the housing is clear that Hawkhurst needs a medical centre, but it seems that the only way they can get it is if they also agree to more housing, so I'd just like to understand the link more.
sorry.
thank you.
so, just to go through the history of the regulation, I think site, which is one of the early stages of the plan making process.
the site was allocated for a doctor's surgery, plus 100 dwellings, then further to that.
there was some revisions made to the Local Plan so that the draft Local Plan Regulation 19 stage removed the requirement for housing on that site and just security as a medical centre.
that was on the understanding that.
that the the the site could come forward without housing now through interrogation at the Local Plan hearings, as clearly not been the case, and the Inspector who has responded to the Local Plan, as has made that quite clear. So, as I said earlier, we we've undertaken quite a rigorous approach to reviewing 16 other sites to identify whether or not they could come forward, in particular at the time. I think King Joseph Playing Field was looked at as well, but they've just not been possible to come forward. They're not either available or suitable for this type of centre, and so the options available to the Council from a local plan perspective are to remove the site entirely. But, like I said, the need is very acute, so we've we've done what we can to assess other sites and have identified that this would be the appropriate site for it to come forward on, so we could either remove it or do it as part of a local plan review, which is something that the officers are identifying as a likely outcome should members go ahead with a recommendation in the local plan? Reports have been published, but, given that the the need is so acute and that this planning application must be considered on its own merits, we do feel that there are exceptional circumstances
in place that would allow the the recommendation to be for approval and for this to be an approved scheme.
thank you Chair.
just to clarify the review process, whether it's sort of a set of criteria who's who provided the set of criteria who has carried out the review because I just want to say several speakers have mentioned the cottage hospital and now seems to be an opinion that that could be a suitable locations and just keen to understand the process of reviewing the possible sites, thank you so as officers of the Council and the Planning Department which undertook a review of sites that had been promoted or what seemed to be available as part of the Local Plan production so,
go through the list, but obviously the site was one of them, the Hawkhurst Cottage hospital was another, but we've.
review reviewed that.
discussions were undertaken in May 2023 with the Kent Health NHS Foundation Trust which in the case of the long-term future for the hospital may be uncertain but NHS estates are reviewing all sites is not considered to be suitable at this stage due to the location outside of the settlement one mile from the crossroads and is not currently available Oxford earlier or another independent review was by done by the applicants themselves or submitted with the application which identified that certain facilities would need to be moved off site that would disadvantage other people.
as Gulf Cup was in the Local Plan for a significant amount of houses and that was removed, as well as obviously significant previous planning history refused on appeal, part of the site could be considered suitable for development, however timelines and developer aspirations around 9 so no doubt they would expect some form of housing and the the amount of housing that was in that allocation at early stages was upwards of, I think it was 400 so there is a significant amount of housing welfare Cockthorpe sites again that's now got consent for for housing.
the hole that was there is not available in a wide site no longer is available due to the committed scheme King George 5th Playing Fields planning permission has been granted on site for community facilities, the site is not considered large enough now to accommodate GP surgery in addition to the community hall,
Tindon Fields.
significant planning history again on the site and previous appeal decisions refusing development on site due to landscape impact, so it is not considered to be suitable for those reasons, All Saints Church as well, so it's no longer available white tray store, obviously the site is not available.
a woodland hall and land northern part of the site is no longer available as it has been redeveloped for residential, the southern part of the site is not suitable for the GP practice, slip Mill Road, so Philpott's cross, sir, so it's not considered suitable is remote from the village centre Harnick South also down a rural lane so not considered acceptable.
Harnick North.
again, for the same reasons, too far from the village centre similar to the cottage hospital gills Green Park.
not considered suitable or accessible for GP practice, it's not viable, was too far from the centre again March's Field.
increased traffic movements would probably be a problem along the narrow rural lane is allocated for longer-term economic use in the submission of plan as well.
Land Highgate Hill not previously considered but assessed as part of the Local Plan production work sites in multiple ownership. So it would be difficult to bring forward again it's A and B so landscape, character issues with regards to their and Hawkhurst Pace Farm again similar matters with regard to A and B sensitivities, so the works being undertaken by Council officers, we've gone through a lot of the work that was undertaken in the preparation of the Local Plan to assess each of those sites and none have come up with with a side that's available or suitable for this. This medical centre
are you comfortable with that answer?
I mean, does it resolve your your question, I have got a slight concern about the issue of location, because if the bus was at 90% of residents drive to the doctor's, a location like the cottage hospital doesn't seem to be.
too far away, and it's on a number of bus route, so I'm still slightly concerned about that issue, but you've obviously undertaken the or the officers have undertaken the detailed assessment, so that's just me questioning him, but I I can't you know I can't question the detail work that you've done so thank you.
area.
Councillor Blake, thank you, Chair, I've got just a couple of questions, one, as I've had very many figures bandied about about additional traffic movements from about seven to 100, so I'd like some clarity, please, on your predicted traffic movements and how it would compare with between lorries, and because because we all have lots of deliveries now I wanted to check on whether it was with ambulances and fire engines were supposed to have access from that gate from Watts Road, so that's that's one question and the other one is all the pictures. All the beautiful pictures are taken in the daytime
and I just knew I couldn't find reference to the docks guys.
policy because England's dock, most of the time.
that?
thank you Chair.
yes, so the
the Atkins spent some considerable time.
with going backwards and forwards with.
KCC, Highways.
and looking at the matter of.
the
junction movements through Rickhuss junction.
but essentially they are the sum the the movements are as set out in the
a Transport Assessment and the the Highways Officer is satisfied that the movements taking into account, as I set out earlier, the
they committed development and the developments have been approved, so they are happy with the junction movements through the Hawkhurst junction, and they have agreed the scope of.
how the modelling has been looked at, they haven't asked for foul modelling after we had discussions with officers and with the outcome in regards to the committed development.
so satisfied with the movements in terms of
ambulance and fire, there is a couple of points on that.
we've got a condition asking for servicing deliveries, etc to the medical centre, so as a standalone it should be able to take those deliveries and provide car parking on site, obviously it's in outline at the moment, but it is showing 52 parking spaces but also will have to show unloading and loading through the submission of conditions and in terms of dark skies on passage to Mr Schelling, thank you.
yes show there is a condition for lodging condition 35 because of external lighting, there was no legal requirement to light new development and we normally try to work with a particular parish or a council to.
agree a scheme of lighting.
and we would normally take the view that it was should reflect the existing context, so if there is no street lighting at the moment, there would be generally no street lighting, however, there are factors that need to be taken into account, such as if the doctor's surgery is operating in evening hours it will need some lighting for safety and so on, but the conditions and the policies we have are to minimise lighting should only be the minimum necessary we make sure we use flat luminous.
light always coming down and at the minimum, necessary and quite low levels of light.
as well, so it has some hope that it gets considered a lot of detail at the detailed stage.
thank you.
any other questions of the Oxford.
thank you Chair.
just clarification about the country park mean what what actually makes something a country park, and what are the arrangements for maintaining it as a country park for the future?
I don't like the term country park and I always tell applicants not to use that word and you would have seen the difference between the original scheme submitted and the final scheme submitted that withdrawn from putting loss to pass sooner and end some of the fields are retained because we don't want them to be general amenity use they're therefore important for the biodiversity for the landscape, containment and the integration so the the the area closest to the development as you can see, there will be the main amenity area and contains a play space but the three fields to the north and east,
primarily about conservation and landscape, and we've got a condition 31, which is the landscape and ecological management plan, and you'll see that's quite detailed, and so it's also they have to submit reports by competent professionals and ecologist to show how they're delivering all the biodiversity they've said they're going to deliver and so we can control how it's maintained and we'll have a detailed document submitted to us assets exactly.
what's happening to this hairdryer, what's happening to this particular grassland and so on, and it'd be managed by a management company funded through the development, and we'd be able to monitor that and work through reports that they submit.
Councillor Pope.
thank you Chair.
traffic.
I think there's the colourful Highgate Hill development, there was a lot of discussion about traffic, the traffic at the junction with the traffic lights is can be pretty awful at times.
and there were mitigation is being made, I think, changing the timings on the lights, but you know this is another development, there's gonna be more traffic.
I I I I and no doubt there will be further developments that that will also impact some of these junctions I I, I struggled to to understand how we can keep building and we're not affecting or significantly affecting the the traffic on the roads and particularly at difficult junctions what what is happening to mitigate the additional traffic I I don't fully understand it because we we hear the same things again and again.
thank you Chair this scheme, with within section 1 0 6 it would secure the the MoU that and the puffin crossing that.
ensures that at the improves the traffic flow through through the junction and Highways have confirmed that they would reapply this, this is the same or similar scheme to that a capsule, and, as I was setting out earlier, the it's understood that that act is under way to bring about these improvements and that the that,
all the modelling takes into account.
the installation of
the mover and the puffin crossing with the Committee development with this site and we've Cocteau, and with the townland site.
but I am not, and I guess the for the traffic modelling is, is beyond me, it's.
it's an art, but I still question the additional traffic that will be the thank you.
Councillor Johnson.
go into the traffic side, did I hear you say earlier, there's going to be difference, the right speed, controls and speed cameras I may have missed had when I was justice.
sorry.
yes, there is again a condition and the benefit would also have to.
secure section 2 7 8 work, so agreement from Highways,
and to undertake the works, but the conditions at 22 and 23, so these really are sort of seeking again that comfort the that the works are timely.
so 22 refers to the
the the mover and the puffin crossing,
and timescale for implementation, but we know that that is likely to be or expected to be on the way, but we will be securing it through condition and
it'd be have a plan in the section 1 0 6 in terms of the
the speed, reducing measures those will be secured via condition 23 that will still need that will need highway approval through the 2 7 8 agreement, in reality, the condition and the agreement with Highways under that agreement usually are worked on simultaneously, but also it gives the
adds standards and specification to be implemented in accordance with the the approval, but also.
timetable timetables for implementing
yeah so timetable for 22, but for 23 the the starting point indicatively would be those shown on the plan listed, but includes.
sort of edge of carriageway markings at the gateway.
enhance, upgrade, village, sign and consideration of for relocating the the village sign closer, but those are still 4 for final agreement, the package was required and will be agreed with in conjunction with Kent County Council Highways.
thank you, yeah, because, of course, with all the extra hours and everything and the traffic.
again, it's another, it's almost the safety aspects if it goes ahead, obviously that's more important than.
you know, yeah, the medical centre, we don't want it really in use that much ref.
accidents or anything, but if that's being taken care of
thank you, Chairman.
my understanding of what was said is that the expectation were we to turn this application down, and the that decision to be appealed that the impression again was that the likelihood was that an inspector would on appeal overturn.
our objection and grant planning permission, in which case we, if we were to turn it down, it would be appeal, the Inspector would support the developer and we, as a Council, will have spent money defending an appeal, which we think we're unlikely to win, would I be right in saying that,
bus 1.
can obviously never come to an absolute conclusion that the view that the Council loses would be the the balance of probability would be that an inspector.
would an appeal grant the application?
May I intervene here, but?
we we, we all know that we have to.
judge the application on its merits.
freestanding I like some legal advice, please, but I think that it would be improper for us to.
grant an application to us that if we didn't, it would go to appeal that we might lose and it would cost us a lot of money, I'd appreciate those backstops comments on.
what I've just said.
sorry, every case has to be considered on its merits, but there have been some considerations of some some examples of some appeals.
that had been in the the the Committee report, and I think probably the Head of Planning Services needs to just clarify and comment on that.
thank you Chair.
I think, as you said, there's now absolute conclusion that we can sort of provide members with regards to the appeal, but certainly the Cathedral Avenue is a direct comparison is fairly recent, it went to a public inquiry so it took time and costs for the Council, but nevertheless we defended
the refusal, which was a committee overturn, so officers had recommended an approval, but it was overturned by committee, but we defended that, but it was allowed on the basis that exceptional circumstances had been met for that scheme, so it was 71 dwellings. There was a historic landscape benefits. There was biodiversity net gain for what that scheme didn't have was the additional matters that we've been discussing today with this application. So in terms of the the medical centre, it's clear from representatives today that there is a definite need for that in Hawkhurst is identified in the Neighbourhood Plan. Neighbourhood Plan. Obviously, there's lots of different policies within it, but CM 3 does identify that the replacement of existing GP surgeries in a single
facility will be supported, but it doesn't go any further, it doesn't identify with it where that will be, the council's local plan does try to do that, but there are significant exceptional circumstances we feel with regards to this application because it has a medical centre and the school expansion as well as the housing and the affordable housing.
thank you.
Council, shall we move into debate?
Councillor Bridger Al
thank you, Chair N.
looking at everything weighing up the and I completely understand the environmental and ecological issues, but the fact that this seems like the developers take on a lot of work and looked into this very detailed and looking at various issues with it.
the thought of hawkers losing its medical facilities if, if the medical centre isn't developed is so appalling, it will be.
devastating for local community, delete its local services, plus the addition of affordable housing and within that affordable housing, social rent, housing as well.
for me and and educational space, and keeping and biodiversity in keeping the area in keeping it managed and maintained and, as Mr Skelly has said.
having a proper maintenance plans managing looked after I'm for those reasons I think they massively.
outweigh the negative sides, and so for me on I'm happy to support this application, I would like to propose that we do, thank you.
I am happy to second repudiation.
I can't keep my light on, I'm gonna have to just hold it up.
thank you.
I too will be supporting this scheme, and I just wanted to first of all thank Ms Bolton for the most amazing, comprehensive report, it does take a lot of reading.
the reasons that I want to support the scheme is.
the affordable housing is something which we cannot.
we cannot ignore it, it's desperately needed in this borough and.
the
the amount of housing for social rent, I think, amounts to about 17 units.
which I think is brilliant, so although its 70 houses got 17 units within that space for social rent.
the medical centre, it's quite clear that we have to find a space with medical centre, because up in a community like Hawkhurst cannot be left without a medical.
provision.
I also from the
when you read them in the report, how the land lies.
it's quite it's sometimes quite hard to imagine and when we got to the
site today, and we trudged to the top of the rich it, it sits very nicely in the landscape because it's actually tucked away, and if you look at the line of the actual development, it's really in, in line going north to south, it's pretty much all in.
line with Birchfield Lane, the entrance and it's and.
it's the limit of.
a built development is the west, the western, and it just fits in nicely with all that so.
I think I'd also like to thank Mr. Scully for his very
very adequate report, it's quite nice to hear from him, so I hoped everybody can agree with me on that.
until a low pitch.
thank you Chair, I think I'll be voting in favour of this, but I want to just make people aware of some of the reasons why I think it is a good development and will actually be good for 4 August in spite of the downsides of A&E and that because first of all I agree with Councillor for terms of the developers obviously worked very closely with the Borough Council and done one and it has really been considered and done what it can to fulfil what the Council is asked for, I think
the issue with the school is that
a very small country, schools are not viable necessarily and are closing down in Kent, and the children are being put to hub schools, and the advantage of this is that there will be space in the newest new area for for the school to become two form entry and I'm hoping that officers will correct me if I'm wrong.
two form entry, and even then, if the school is larger, the amount of area that they will have will be more per pupil than it is now, so the existing pupils' and the newspapers will benefit and the school is more likely to remain open.
I think they are trying to OK him, added a 40% of 70 and I've got 28 families who are potentially who need social housing, we've had 10 years or more underprovision, there are now 1,400.
a shortfall of social houses as far as some of the e-mails I've received Loving against, the proposal have pointed out that the
the requirement for a five-year housing plan may be changing, but that doesn't affect the demand, the demand is there or whatever the target is, so that's the next thing.
I also think that, as far as the GP is concerned, the GP surgery was concerned. If there is any risk that Hawkhurst loses its GP services locally, I think that would be a disaster for the town and people are getting older. The current surgeries are not accessible. There'd be a I've read that the plan is to have a much bigger range of nurse specialist services that they can't deliver. Currently, so I think not just it's not just talk has been enabled, people will benefit but many people. I'm sorry, I've got a long list. I'm also concerned with the online thing that the footfall in shops in Hawkhurst, I mean, I don't have personal experience of this, but they will at least be 70 more families, who can very quickly walk to walk to Hook, walk to Hawkhurst, shops,
and I'm hope I was actually going to ask about the quality of the footpaths into Hawkhurst, whether there would be suitable for cycling that was going to ask that and I I think this, it's not, it says how much in the in the isoHunt section 1 0 6 it says how much per household is being offered but if you add them up there's 371,000 to the secondary school 31,000 to the Cranbrook Hub,
70,000 to improve the bus service and the more people who own Hawkhurst, I'm afraid they're more likely to you, OK, you are to have a bus service.
and send pupils' are woefully underfunded by KCC and there's a contribution to send send as well I like the fact that it's not there haven't put the social housing all in one corner to make a little surgeon, social housing ghetto, they've done what's called Pepper Pot and so that social housing is nicely mixed all around and I read about there.
compliance with BREEAM standards, and I think the compliance is extremely high, so I'm happy with over that there was an information that I might like to raise, and that is the parking for 52 cars at the medical centre, and the specification say that the footpaths will be resin bonded gravel but the car park spaces will be tarmac.
and I just would like considering consideration to be given to having the car parking spaces also permeable with something like resin bonded gravel, if it's just a consideration.
and I'm done, thank you.
are you proposing that as a
an additional condition to
the proposal from Councillor Butcher Alan, I think it will just be an informational at this point.
if if they're specified in one of the plans in the decision notice is securing that, what I would say is that you can get permeable tarmac now, so it is available as a product which allows the the surface water to drain through it, so I would think that tarmac has probably been chosen because it's a high traffic area and vehicles are using it rather than pedestrians so isn't formal hardwearing.
OK, thank you, I still think consideration should be given by the builders to making sure that that tarmac matches permeability or balances it with the amount of traffic.
because it's just a car park, so anyway that's all, thank you thanks for the extra information about it.
Simon, you wanted to say something, yes, thank you Chair first, stop I'd like to say this application is under extra sectional circumstances without any doubt.
there were 492 documents in this application and about 195 were objectors.
200 odd double objectors and seven for so you'd like to bear with me when I make these comments, having looked at a lot of those documents, we my comments.
I've already raised two questions about the.
social housing and the conditions as regards the social housing.
if you take into account the 28 dwellings put forward, 60% would be raped, 15% would be intermediate and 25% would be first time homes, so not the social housing I would expect from the new development within Hawkhurst, as I've already mentioned.
the waiting lists rule because it is 161 if you took in the borough waiting list over a certain number of years, and it's overheat Android you have probably you were looking at.
4 2 4 2 bedroom homes, you're looking at 3.00 years, 6 months were waiting lists and for 3 bedroom house looking for seven years, 5 months within that waiting list. So when the argument was put forward, we are producing initial application. Considerable affordable housing. I would question that in relation to social housing, as what you know in my era as Councillor houses within Hawkhurst
I looked at 2.00.0 1 with the proposal.
and it states quite clearly IRA nibby washes over the whole site, not my words, that's in the application, so there's a sort of confirmation there is is in sectional circumstances, but to dot ocean the land was gifted to the medical practice by rydon homes.
one was sold to the doctors for a nominal fee now, as I understand it reading through the objections specifically Hawkhurst Parish, Council, there was no consultation with the local community within that location being sought by maybe the doctors within Hawkhurst, and if you're looking at trying to go forward with the hawker starved of funds that would have been,
given that you would necessarily do that as a developer.
as regards the issues that haven't been actually mentioned, much is that the Southern Water capacity wastewater is questionable and some of the deliberate on that will not be into 24 25, and I have concerns which Southern Water's ability to deliver, and we've seen that across the borough,
also, as regards water supply in Hawkhurst in two institutions over the last 18 months, two years there's been outages in Hawkhurst, particularly may be in that area.
staffing is a question there also, I was concerned that when you read through the application it's quite clear that there appears to be that's the only place we can have the medical centre is at Birchfield Grove.
it's mentioned King George to faith.
the community hospital site and no fridge, no, I don't live in Hawkhurst.
have to consider across the borough and after considered comments made and now from local residents offering nos alternatives. Now they are real alternatives, some of the ones that were already mentioned obviously were not suitable if you ask anyone in orcas I'm sure they would say certainly not suitable, and Harry orchis parish council would say that as well,
one major concern I've got is how the housing has been prior to this, with the Sub Pre-Submission has taken out and only then having a medical centre, and we didn't use application Sunday day.
it's not just the medical centre, it's the 70 houses that go with it, and when you look at the application and all the issues involved, that's a big contradiction.
Bear with me.
there are issues within KC Highways 7.5 4 7 5 5 in relation to speed restrictions and the methods should be required before commencement on site, and they actually do ask for more speed surveys before that goes forward and I'm assuming that as part of the condition already within there I did mention the wastewater and I think a tanker goes there.
three times a week to take the wastewater away, which were any any area.
would be.
exceptional and should be considered.
as you got, Wales again with the hours in Nice have already mentioned that in relation that I don't find you, affordable housing is enough.
one final part of this is 10.20 and I'm going to read the sale.
because I think this is the statement at 10.00 3 5 that I think really needs to be challenged.
it is evident that the proposals would come compose a meaningful and significant contribution towards the Council's housing land supply.
Fair Common, including affordable housing provision.
which would be 28 on this site, and I make the point again, there is a waiting list of 161 applicants, provide safeguards land for the primary school but importantly would deliver a new doctor's surgery.
the proposals are, and are conditioned to be sustainable, are considered to be containable, development, form a social perspective.
to impact on residents in Hawkhurst.
for me.
there is a social impact, if you go through all the comments, all the issues involved is there is a massive social impact on this site, and its unfortunate debate is drifted into the need for a community centre.
that's already there, and it's already been agreed, it wasn't part of the housing in the first instance.
so I am minded to vote against the application on those issues.
that I've mentioned, and I've read through, I do believe it's not a sustainable development and one final thing in relation to lighting.
we have a contradiction here, we have a conflict here, if you have a new development, any new development must have a certain amount of lighting to sustain safety for residents at night.
when they're moving about within Hawkhurst or anywhere else, and the police make submissions in relation to that, so there will be an impact in launched in the area, there will be an impact within the new medical centre in direct contribution to maybe a country park right next door and the effect on wildlife, thank you.
to Councillor Noon, Councillor.
have executive pay, then I wasn't sure whether I reserved my right just to make a few comments, but I just wanted to to back up my second thing.
I was particularly taken really by the
the testimony from from the two
doctors on both of whom appeared to have been residents of hawkers for a long time, I think Dr Düring said that he had.
lived in the in the in August for 41 years, so I think these are both people, not only you have background in in looking after the residents of Hawkhurst, but also understand that the town and I was particularly taken by one comment which I wrote down from Dr June, where he said that he thought that this development would be particularly beneficial for the less fortunate of our patients living locally, and I think in looking at this application, I accept that there have been a 195 objections, but there are 10,000 patients
who are served by this medical practice, and I think by moving the practice to the new site and existing the existing site, is further away from the town centre than the new side.
as Dr during has said, we are helping those less fortunate patients living in Hawkins, thank you.
Councillor Ward,
thank you and I'll just be quiet, but I wanted to say I think I'm very much minded to support this as well, I rarely agree with, I think for me you have to weigh up the pros and the cons, I feel the prayers are coming out stronger than the Commons at the moment I was very taken by the resident who talked about the fact that we need new life coming into the village and I think that's absolutely right and I think this application
as much as I is slightly uncomfortable being referred together, I think he will do goodwill of a community with a Dr surgery at the school and all the extra traffic and the extra sort of life that will come to the village, so I think can think again and very much minded to support it just wanted to explain why.
Councillor Paterson
thank you, Mr. Chairman, I was quite struck by one of the early speakers who said that the in some ways this is the judgment of Solomon that and I'm sure those of us who were on the site visit this afternoon with our wet feet,
I appreciated the landscape and appreciate the beauty of it, even though it was mostly covered in rain, and so we have to weigh up the damage, it's not a loss of the landscape that has damaged the landscape.
as opposed to the gains that we will hawkers could see from the
the the school space, the doctor's surgery, the the
the the country parks, not the right word, but we know what I mean and the social housing or that the housing I should say, and the question is, how do we make that judgment and I think that the most persuasive piece of evidence that we've had today was was the reference I know we were on corresponded to judge ourselves by by colour from inspectors judges, but the the capital scheme seems to me quite a close similarity, and in that case it seems to me there were less advantages to the such scheme than there is to this one and therefore I feel myself thinking we're actually. In that sense, the balance is probably in favour of development because
if I sat back, I think probably the damage to the A and B is there, but it is being mitigated and the the the the the benefits are clearly evidence of the community as the borrowers of wholesale, I'll be supporting the recommendation or the officers' recommendation in the motion thank you.
Councillor, thank you Chair, this is an extremely, very, very difficult decision, I'm minded to vote against it because I'm thinking it is a n, be okay, you can approve major development in exceptional circumstances, but I have serious concerns about the infrastructure, the sewage that's been mentioned, the impact on the highways,
also, I do welcome the percentage of affordable housing in the scheme, but I feel very uncomfortable that the medical centre we seem to be presented with a situation where approved the scheme and Hawkhurst get some medical centre if we don't approve it it doesn't and to me that doesn't seem right I don't feel that we should have to approve 70 houses in order for the people of Hawker staff, adequate GP provision, so it's a very difficult decision but I'm not very comfortable in supporting it.
I think, be the general.
the general sense I have from everybody's comments.
is that were this just an application for a medical centre, we'd all go hurrah.
the debate would take five minutes and we would accept almost regardless.
worth a, but that's not what is before us.
the application, we have ties the medical centre to the 70 additional houses, and that's what we have to weigh up.
the pressing need for a medical centre in Hawkhurst is self evident.
it's underserved at the moment.
Even with the gallant efforts of all of our practitioners.
it is tough and they can't get enough staff and they can't get enough room.
given that we need that Hawkhurst needs a medical centre.
is the hook.
on which this debate is dangled, which, if they go to the right way, ran 70 houses, 70 houses and you'll get your medical centre as the deal.
it seems overriding this is the
the knowledge which?
any inspector at an alternate appeal would.
take into account is that we have a pitiful 4.2 years housing supply.
and the 70 houses would make a substantial contribution.
to
moving that number along in the right direction.
it's it's a very difficult decision and I would respect anybody who finds themselves on.
on the negative side, but I for one would propose to vote in favour of the application.
Councillor Richard Allen,
thank you Chair, I am just following up from what you're saying that it's 70 housing, including affordable and social housing, and so often we have developers coming along who aren't putting.
sometimes any or nothing, because it's not financially feasible for them, so it may not be as much social and affordable housing as we want, but it is better than passing through an application with none at all, and it's so important, thank you Chair a very fair point.
thank you, can I just.
make confirmation that the proposer and seconder are in favour of the list of circulated revised planning conditions.
so yes.
Councillor Peter Alan A
just to confirm this is in favour of the officer's recommendation.
for being enjoyed in favour of the officer's recommendation, as proposed, yes.
confirmed yes.
Councillor Johnson, 4.
Councillor paid form, Councillor Moon against
Councillor O'Connor against.
Councillor Osborne 4.
Councillor Patterson 4
Councillor Pope 4.
Councillor White 4.
Councillor Fitzsimmons, 4.
Councillor Bland, Bull.
thank you Chair, that's nine for and 2 against I declare that I declared on the officers recommendation is agreed and approved, thank you for your your time on patients.
it has been suggested that a short comfort break would be appreciated by many people, so let us reconvene in.
five or so minutes took a short break and we'd be back at 21.21, thank you.
yeah
7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/02664/HYBRID LLand North Of Birchfield Grove Hawkhurst Cranbrook Kent
item 7 b, 23 slash 0 1 8 7 0 4 Spring Farm Colts Hill, 5 0 Green Tunbridge Cat Badger 168 with the main agenda.
Page 7 of the supplementary pack, Ms facts, your presentation, please.
thank you Chair, and this application is for the erection of a one, one dwelling, one, three bedroom, dwelling, integral garage, vehicular access and landscaping.
the existing site location is shown on the screen and it shows the broadly L-shape section of land located to the east of the Mainstone Road, the southern boundary abuts the Crittenden Road.
the land is under the Billups, agricultural fields with trees, mainly around the boundaries, and within the western half of the site.
the policy context shown shows that the western boundary is within the including the access is within the Green Belt.
and the southern boundary abuts the A and B, there is some ancient woodland to the south on the south-eastern corner, with with the south-eastern corner buffer.
to the A and B encroaching onto the site.
so a few photos of the site now that this shows the proposed access shared with Spring Farm and which is the access off Mainstone Road.
this photo shows the view to the north of
from of the Mainstone Road from the access.
this photo shows a view of the crichton road junction and shows the southern boundary of the site, and you can see here the change in levels.
with the trees about trees,
this is a photo taken from within the site to the north for facing to the north-east.
now have some, the site layout is shown here, this shows the proposed dwelling is to be located broadly centrally to the and served via an access drive which leads east and then.
south to a turning area.
the proposed house is has is sunk into the ground with.
a green roof, solar panel, solar panels on the roof and a terrace area, there is the ground floor, there is a bedroom accommodation, bedroom and bathrooms, and on the lower ground there is the living accommodation with a double garage.
some elevations of the scheme show the rear elevation with glazing faces east over the over the LA landscape, the south is a side elevation.
and
the west is, the front, can have no front elevation facing over to the Maidstone Road, and then the north side elevation shows the garage entrance is the landscape master plan.
so the the application seeks planning permission for development of a detached new dwelling on open countryside not previously developed, the proposal is located outside the limits to built development of any settlement in an unsustainable location where future residents would be relying on a car to access services and facilities, the design is not considered to be of exceptional quality or truly outstanding architectural quality and does not seek to raise the standards of design would generally furthermore,
it would not significantly, and hence its immediate setting and be sensitive to the divine and characteristics of the local area, in accordance with the MPP f paragraph a t e
the proposal fails to conserve and enhance the rural landscape and setting of the Area of outstanding natural beauty, and similarly it would not would have more than a minimal impact upon the landscape character of the locality.
overall, the proposal would not amount to special circumstances to overcome the unsustainable location or identified harm.
the recommendation is to refuse the planning permission based on the reason given within the report as detailed.
thank you.
thank you.
our first speaker in support of the application is particularly ginger, the applicant.
I would like to clarify our reflexes on the recommendation of refusal for our planning application. The choice to apply it for develop on a new dwelling, I suppose, is for was following a site visit with a planning team in 2009 to we have demonstrated that location is sustainable and is not isolated, and I will share these examples of how we've achieved to mitigate these objections in previous applications. The Highways referred to sustainability, however, stated that if two vehicle charging points and covered bicycle storage were incorporated into the design, there would be no objection. This was included in the design changes in the Highways, responded on the 6th April 2023 with no objections. Assuming the requirements were made, a condition
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01870/FULL Spring Farm, Colts Hill, Five Oak Green, Tonbridge, Kent.
in previous applications, the urban design on the 25th of January 2022 stated that the design, in her view, was appropriate to the location and was convinced the design process was credited to discrete setting. They also wrote that there wasn't any need for us to reference bonds, or any other items are within the black timber cladding as that was sufficient not to the permanent materials. There was concern over Reg Stone being used when reapplying the red stone was removed and Kentish, Brit included, as replacement. The officer confirmed on the 22 of March 2023 that there was no longer any objection but suggested a condition on the external materials would be made. Landscaping by those biodiversity has also been reviewed and acted upon in the same manner. Here are a few examples of changes made to mitigate the objects additional bat surveys were undertaken to substantial surveys already completed. The office are predicted to help St Nick gain would be achieved and confirmed on the 3rd of May 2023 that it would be that it would be policy compliant. Grassland was physically tested by our ecologist Brindle Green, along with the landscape enhancements resulting resulted in a 14.6 net gain. It was suggested by the officer that the condition of long term management of the landscape to ensure outcomes were achieved, which we would fully support. All other departments had no objections throughout all applications with reference to the property being isolated, although it's outside the LBD, it is not open countryside, it has immediate neighbouring properties, some circa 36 houses within 500 metres, the site has existed, network of local footpaths, leading directly to fibre green and to Paddock Wood. Without the need to walk alongside roads which could be breached within a short time on foot or bicycle, these means not not. Every journey would need to be made by car, which is sustainable. In terms of energy transport. We will install sustainable technology to minimise the need for utility to slug water and electricity and to maximise the efficiency of the home solar thermal solar. PV, with battery storage, will be some of the equipment used to, and we aim to be sustainable of grid as much as possible and minimise our carbon footprint. This site does not encroach on A and M P, nor does it affect its visual impact. The design is discreet and secluded, as supported in the urban design. As initial comments, the refusals have continually stated that the site is the Metropolitan Green Belt. It is not. The MGB map does show green, shading Longsight edge and the road. However, I confirm this is the highways verge
I have copied the map if you wish to review we are also committed under this.
planning to restore in the hottest hubs to their local cultural heritage.
thank you Chair.
thank you, thank you for your beautiful timing.
the second speaker in support of the application is Mr Mark Jones, the agent for the applicant.
to follow on from from these comments are my starting point is, is it is Atkins, belief, as the site is a sustainable site based on them pdf policy. We have a starting point in the housing delivery figures which triggered the tilted balance of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Even though it's only one house that is still triggered, the NP also goes on to talk about rural sites and the benefits the wider rural economy and social being. This site is served by nearby settlements. It can provide economic benefits and social benefits to those. As has already been pointed out, and shown on the officer's report, the site is an isolated and is located close to other development, the nearby development being of a spacious nature. Similar to the proposal, it has also been noted in appeal cases throughout the country to admit held that the social and economic benefits of development in rural areas doesn't mean the site has to be in the same settlement as the other economic developments it can be served by settlements nearby, as is the case here
therefore, it is our contention that it is a sustainable form of development based on the 2021 MRP will also highlight the self-build aspect. The council has an obligation to provide self-build properties which this development is. That obligation has now been enhanced with the levelling-up and Regeneration Act which breached Royal Assent recently where there is now almost a duty to support such proposals coming through and this proposal meets the requirements that the Council needs to meet on top of that and it's standing on its own that it is a sustainable form of development which is acceptable, there are numerous other benefits the biodiversity net gain exceeds the policy requirement of the Council
is a high quality design with exceptional landscaping and ecological basis, and they have formed the basis of the design rather than the other way around, the design of the house is built around the landscaping.
from the viewpoint of any harm the site and the levels are set down, you saw from the officers falter that it raised on the southern boundary, the development will be set down, there will be inevitable if any view from the A&E and, in our opinion, no impact whatsoever on the A and B and the site is outside the AONB. The access is the only part within the Green Belt it exists, there is no new development within the Green Belt.
it's a high quality game. It seeks using environmental and energy saving methods to reduce CO2, there are a number of benefits. On top of the presumption for sustainable development, we would encourage the Council to support such a proposal, which will does make a positive contribution to this part of the countryside in this location. It doesn't set an undesirable precedent. The opposite side of the road is Green Belt, where development would be resisted, and the road to the south forms a hard boundary which would make it difficult to justify similar arguments further. South
with that in mind, we contend that the development is acceptable and we would respectfully ask the Councillors to support this proposal and grant a self-build house or a local resident to stay within their community, thank you Chairman.
thank you.
our third speaker this evening is Barbara Councillor Hugh Patterson, Councillor for capable.
thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on my behalf and also on behalf of Caple Parish Council, who considered this.
application three or four months ago and
supported it
and so the first issue, I think he's one of policy in terms of policy that the report was was, I have to say, rather vague on the Metropolitan Green Belt, it suggested the entrance to the site is in the MGB,
but it's I think, incorrect this is actually the verge the route, the road verge, that's the boundary, the MGB, in fact, is one of the very few properties in Cable Parish, that's not in the MGB, we can count count them on the figures of of two hands, I think.
so the the the there's no therefore need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, it's not the MGB, therefore presumption should be in favour of development unless necessary, the reasons why development shouldn't take place.
also, as has been put at previous speakers, a new saw from from from one of the pictures the A and B is is also on the other side of the road, there is clearly no view of this property of Mary NB because if you look at Crittenden Road junction the the the landscape is lifted up, there's a kind of very old Caroline of trees with with with a huge amount of of.
soil underneath it, which actually stops you've seen anything beyond them, so it's completely shelter from the I and but he said there can be no impact, it no visual impact on the A and B whatsoever.
the previous speakers have dealt with sustainability, clearly it's sustainable in terms of energy consumption, and although the the argument in the papers says that it wouldn't be sustainable in terms of transport that most journeys will be made by car, there is no attempt to look at the Highway, sorry the the footpath network and there's a footpath that runs across the A 2 2 8 through the houses and our oldest road you could get to the delicate pub in about 10 minutes' walk from the front from this site.
and there's also similarly a footpath that runs directly on the other side of the property down towards Paddock Wood. Well, that's walking, it's not driving cars, and so I think there are there's definitely justifiable reason to say that the actually transport wouldn't always be by a car and, as I said, there'd be the adjoining adjoining settlements are not very far away from front from this. This property, I think it's a high quality design. I mean, obviously that's a matter of opinion, whether it's high quality outstanding or whatever, but it's certainly an attempt to actually kind of, or adapt itself to landscape and not impose itself in the landscape and actually yeah using modern technology to sustain itself in terms of of solar panels and water retention. So I think it's a very, very good plan and certainly the Parish Council
we've got net biodiversity gain, which again the Council is in favour of, I think the figure is 14 and a half per cent.
and so it's sustainable, it's a self-build property and I've just run out of time, thank you very much,
just for the benefit of the recording, will wait for Councillor P Harrison to leave the room.
officers do wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by the speakers.
thank you Chair in in regards to this particular application, the history of the site is set out in in the report and it identifies that it has been.
two refusals already on this site for very similar reasons my sites for the most recent one.
in May of this year, so if I just turn to the specific parts of the report.
in page.
177 paragraph 10 point I want it details why that application was refused. Now, from our perspective, the the dwelling there was refused is pretty much the same as the one before us today, other than, as Mr Ginger set out the change in materials from a ragged stone element to red brick. So in terms of the officer position, it is, it remains the same. This is an unsustainable location, it is isolated, is not within the limits to built. Development is not even near it. Yes, the dwelling has some characteristics that would call it sustainable design, certainly with solar panels and PV charging. However, the sustainability argument goes one step beyond that and it needs to be in close proximity to services. So from our perspective, it is an unsustainable, isolated location and the mppa f test is that design must be exceptional. It's not that it must be good or very good. It must be absolutely exceptional and whilst this is a good design
we do feel that it doesn't meet the high bar required to meet the tests under the NPP F to make this acceptable.
councillors, do you have any questions of the officers, Councillor Richard Ol?
thank you Chair them, I was just on statements Adam Taggart scheme this, but I'm just if you're now referring us back to looking at 2.00 previous applications, I had refusal and on all very last application that we considered, we were told we need to look at the case in hands rather than on previous previous applications. I was just wondering where the difference lay with this application, that we're referring back to previous refusals rather than just looking at this case enhanced specifically and
sorry, second Leeds that so they've changed it. Obviously this is the red brick as well and may be charging well from where it stands at the moment we are saying it is a good proposal. What, in your sort of expert opinion, would make it an exceptional build to move it up, what sort of what type of things could be added or tweaked or change to make an exception? Thank you. Thank you
thank you Chair.
so, in terms of the previous application and the merits of the case, are sought position, that application was separate from the appeal decisions that we make a reference to, because that was why there was a set distinction, but what you still must have regard to and is a material planning consideration is a planning decision on the same side on the same building and it's that how you interpret policy and implement policy so to make a deviation on what is essentially the same application.
I think we would be earning in terms of the implementation of that policy.
in terms of the design and making exceptional quality standards, I'm I'm not gonna be designing that in this forum, certainly we're happy to have ongoing discussions about this in terms of the exceptional quality, but we were, we would expect certainly, or an enhanced design as as to what is being proposed today.
Councillor Bridger again, thank you, yeah, just coming back on that one, say them how safe they've looked at the refusals from sorry, this is my ignorance of this element, if they've looked at the were the reasons for refusal before and have looked to address many of those with this application, albeit yes, it's in the same place
would that not act to counteract?
the refusal if they've been significantly addressed.
but I don't think I have that is an unsustainable location in the first instance, which is outside limits the will to build relevant, so it's an isolated dwelling, so that's the first test, the second is that it needs to be exceptional ones, it's exactly same over most couple of changes as the previous refusal so it hasn't moved on far enough for us to recommend repo approval.
Councillor
can you just clarify for me what makes it an unsustainable location, thank you.
so locates outside the limits to build development by quite some margin so limbs to build relevant, confine the the the built urban area essentially of villages and towns.
whilst there are occasions where a development adjacent and the Minister boo to build the element could be acceptable, this is quite far removed, therefore it's isolated, I think, the argument about it being very well screened, obviously the photos, the identify that but if you were to allow dwellings on sites such as this because they have hedges around them you would have houses littering the countryside,
I, in my mind, unsustainable with to do partly with car usage, and there has been a suggestion that there are footpaths that could be used to reach nearby towns, is that relevant?
it is relevant, but it is quite some distance, so whether or not it is realistic is a matter for debate.
Councillor Les Pegg,
I know that Ms Diana has explained it quite carefully, but I feel a little bit uncomfortable I feel a little bit constrained to vote in a particular way because of the way the previous planning application was, so it's a different committee and has different views, but now we seem to be constrained to vote on the provoked the same way as the previous application was because it hasn't been sufficient change so I'm not quite sure
I correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think it was an officer decision was made to the earlier cases.
it hasn't been before Committee,
until now.
that's correct, so the the previous decisions were dedicated decisions have been called in by.
Ward Councillor Anne Patterson, hence whilst in front of members, but the interpretation of policy and the implementation of the policies.
recommended in exactly the same way, so we're using policy in the same way in terms of how makes reference to the location and the quality of the design, so that is the same as the previous decision.
catheter betrayal.
thank you, OK, and could someone just clarify, for me the difference with self-build planning permission for self-build properties as opposed to not self-build, because I'm not, I'm not sure about that, you know that definition, what that means.
self and custom build are all types of weddings that are essentially bespoke for the resident who is going to live in their that can be built by themselves or they can be built by a third party specifically for that person, usually when it's a single dwelling you know a backland site or an infill development generally, we would say about 50% of those coming forward are customer or self-build developments.
sorry, I mean what the other speakers for saying that there's a difference within permissions for self-build, and I didn't understand what that difference was with him, planning permission no.
there's a requirement to support customer self-build from central government in pdf, so the Council does that by having a an online register of custom self-build but also acknowledges lacks said the
a large proportion of single dwellings which are butland or infill are generally customer self-build, that's just the nature of work, how they come forward rather than being a volume housebuilder, for example, who's building a huge amount of houses to a set formula they wouldn't be specific or bespoke to a particular person whereas the smaller,
numbers of individual dwellings usually are.
sorry, just one follow-up question, I promise, and so that this would be classified as self build them in underneath circumstances as its bespoke in its to the area and set down from an environmentally set would that not qualify as to support something.
yes, it would appear, aside from the the speakers, that it is being designed specifically for the applicant, so it would be customer or self-build.
thank you to you, given that we say or you're saying that the site is unsustainable, so it will never that will never change, so the only basis for approving a building is if it's truly exceptional or outstanding, but that's very much a judgment, what factors would make a building truly outstanding or exceptional so that it would get permission?
what would say something like so outstanding, something that is exceptional or something that is very notable, rather than necessarily being just very good, it needs to be exceptional, maybe in the use of materials, it's form our response to the local landscape or the topography of the sides, and we feel that this this particular design doesn't.
there are no other questions of the officers shall we move into discussion?
Councillor Birch, her album, thank you very much Chair, so I think that Chatterbox this evening and I feel a bit torn with this one because looking at it.
I want to prove it really and I call myself and get sort of quiet innovation over the
it is putting in the vain, has changed red brick, and it's got the green top roof and the terrace and yes, it has been refused before I.
I'm not clear, I'm not an interior designer, although I might watch chatting with the people who built their own health, is what makes something exceptional.
but it looks like it's been very sensitive to the landscape as well, but I know under planning you've got to look at planning law and you can't just look at something of whether you like the look of it and the events it and I appreciate if it is outside the area of build,
and it isn't considered exceptional, although I still don't feel like if any had any clear understanding, and that is a from what I feel from it, it's a sort of mood thing, it's not as if you can go it has to be fully returning X amount of energy to the community, so I appreciate from what I'm being told under that I should refuse it under planning law and I understand what you're saying where
houses could pop up in the Hilton, there is a low shop, but I think it looks like quite a good Bill, it seems that everything else seems to fit in and.
I just if it was exceptional, but I don't feel like I've been going from any grounds why this one isn't exceptional so.
I know from I'm very conflicted as he can still, I should be, I should be turning it down because it's not fitting within planning law, but I don't feel like I've got enough reasoning within that law, particularly or planning routine or regulations say to turn it down, so I'm quite reminded to prove it whether I can or whether I can't actually because actually it doesn't fall under planning regulations, thank you.
I would support the officers' recommendation and I think the comment by the Head of Planning would essentially if we approve development of this tie, it's almost open season in the countryside, for people to come along and build Lodge Houses outside limits of built development.
so to me it's quite clear.
open and close case that we can't create an exception and the precedent which could allow houses at this time to be built throughout Tunbridge Wells, so I
I am happy to propose to propose the supporting the officer's recommendation.
Councillor Fitzsimmons.
thank you, Chair, as far as the design is concerned, whether it's exceptional or not, it's a subjective.
judgment, and I would always bow.
to the planning department on that, they see a lot more of this sort of thing than we do as far as I'm concerned, it's not unsustainable.
situation and
you might be able to walk to the pub in 10 minutes, but that pub is also in the middle of nowhere, I do happen to know it.
so I would like to second Councillor Osborne.
OK.
decision proposal, thank you
bales Fisher wishing to make a contribution. Councillor Moon, thank you Chair some of the comments already echoed, I think, the real issue areas within the officer's report, each the reference to the restrictions on build within that area and
it is quite clear that it would be, as the comment already made and are now seem very well and living, and it would, it would be good, be open season, we did in that area and the pressures of new building a future et cetera, et cetera, so I think I support the officers,
recommendation to refuse I do look at the I didn't look at the two other refusals and they were obviously history decisions that's not meant to influence is to give us background on this application as regards exceptional quality, build or whatever.
that's known by the applicant, some may be, there is scope to step back and review that in relation to the comments made by the officers, but in the first instance I support the officers.
if I could make a contribution that.
nothing and nothing in the world is going to make this a sustainable site, I appreciate Councillor Parsons' brave attempt to make a 15 minute walk to the nearest pub.
a sustainable argument, but
I don't take it really true.
it wasn't an portrait of Rebecca, I don't think it's accurate.
so, given the will, sustainability argument falls, the one in front of us has to be outstanding design.
and, as some of you have said, outstanding is is a subjective judgment.
the applicant has been moving towards exceptional.
with the various applications.
I recall.
a application which were outside Hawkhurst, which went through similar agonies of rejection after rejection, after rejection until.
both the landscaping and
that the building itself.
took your breath away.
I am not prepared to delegate aesthetic judgments to the officers begging their partner.
I am quite brave enough to say, Look, this is a good design.
but it is not a great design and it's nearly there.
but it needs a bit more that will make us catch our breath and say yes.
nailed it.
and I hope.
I hope that a brilliant design could come forward.
it would enable us to approve, without almost without debate will know, when we say it, I suggest.
I, too, am inclined to accept the officers recommendation, but with encouragement.
he hasn't been put off by our negative attitude so far with encouragement to the applicant, and he goes that extra step and find something that takes our breath away.
shall we move to a vote now, Councillor Page would like to?
don't worry, I'm just I'm going to win if it's to do with the main factor left is the exceptional quality of the design.
firstly, I think.
it's probably not for the officers or for the committee or almost to make those decisions.
to get somebody else is.
opinion first, secondly, it's interesting to me that some of the some of the concept development ideas.
looked to me like they would turn out to be much more interesting design than this one, they are concept, development ideas, look really interesting, so perhaps a different, as you say, bringing something forward that could be exceptional, I might be prepared to support it.
yes.
we have a proposal in front of it.
proposed by Councillor Osborne, seconded by Councillor for the seventh, to accept the officer's recommendation and
to turned out the application.
all those in paper, please raise your hands.
that's nine for two all those against.
none against.
abstentions.
two abstentions to obstetricians right so the officer's recommendation is accepted.
thank you for your time.
here we go.
item 7 C 23 slash 0 2 4 1 1 4 47 topless Gardens Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent Page 187 of the main agenda, page 10 of the supplementary pack Mr. McLoughlin nuance, your presentation, please.
thank you Chair, so yes, we're gonna be talking in relation to property known as 47 Hopwood Gardens, the matter we're going to be discussing is the erection of a bike store to the front of the property, as well as some landscaping work to the rear, which predominantly befalls around the creation of two raised decking areas, sorry, Andrew, can you just say yes,
so, just for the benefit of the record and Councillor P Harrison as rejoins, which will increase.
so yes, just cover that again we're going to be talking in relation to 47 Hopwood Gardens, the matter which is going to be discussed is the erection of a bike, store to the front of the property and some landscaping work to the rear, which predominantly revolves around the creation of two raised decking areas.
just with regards to the location of the property, it is situated in the north of Tunbridge Wells, and that photo on the right just shows you a bit more of assumed in image.
it's quite important here to highlight the landscape of the property, the rear garden which, where most of the work is being discussed, slopes very steeply away to the rear.
I'll stop short of calling it a cliff, but it's not far off and the rear of the garden is covered by a tree protection order, however, it does not factor into the application as they were not trees would not be affected from the front of the property it looks like this the bicycle store I've just given that I mentioned up on the right-hand side, but it would tuck into the right-hand side underneath those two windows. The height of it comes to about 100 120 centimetres which is quite similar to many bike stores or bin store shall see in such residential settings.
moving away from the front of the property we're going to become in cost to the rear, the garden does enjoy quite a bit of plantlife at the moment, so I appreciate some of these photos might be a bit difficult to make out so I tried to colour-code the arrows with the colours which are surrounding the photos.
but essentially the top patio is up here and in the garden folks slopes very, very steeply away before there's a flat area down at the bottom as well, the map is currently showing the proposed layout because I think it's a bit easier to interpret.
just the more existing garden photos this read, our you see on the left is taken in what I'm going to call the mid-terraced, and then the Blue Arrow was taken at the upper terrace which is situated at the very top of the garden.
now, with regards to the landscaping works, that's been proposed, as I say, is revolving around the creation of two terraces, both of which are currently in existence to some degree.
I refer to them as upper terrace and lower terrace, and you can see how they relate to the map here.
and just a bit more of a close-up of the image you can see, we've got the upper terrorists, we're gonna be talking about here, which is directly adjacent to the property, and then you've got the lower terrace situated approximately halfway down the garden.
so the proposed upper terrace you can see there is currently some raised decking in place, I understand that this is to be removed and replaced with a new terrace which will be slightly higher with the floor level of the new terrorists sitting roughly level with this rear doorway here and we will have a cafeteria underneath which I understand is going to be used as children's play space, but there's no significant harms raised from this in regards to visual amenity and the high level fence here means that no concerns have been raised in relation to neighbouring privacy.
so just moving down to the lower terrace, so the lower terrorist is currently hidden behind this patch of foliage, but there's a close-up photo here, this terrorists, you see, will be extended slightly over the lip so you will get a slight overhang on the terrorists which facilitate space for there to be a raised chair hanging underneath and you can see that a bit better in this CGI image from here and in the pre-existing pergola structure, there's one already in place by belief is gonna be
reinstated once the terrace is created and there's a screen over onto the right-hand side of the terrace which blocks any direct overlooking into the neighbouring garden.
just a couple more photos now of the lower terrace, this has stood directly on it, and kind of shows a few that you already have out towards the rear, and then this is still a bit further down looking back up as a terrace you can see that same crosswalk there and the CIA image kind of gives you an image of how he's going to look once again sloping very steeply up towards the house.
just to summarise, the recommendation is to grant there has been no significant concerns raised in relation to the visual impact of the proposal, nor impact to our western should amenity there's been no comments made for or against the application of any kind, and therefore it is recommended for approval, thank you.
thank you.
I think there are no speakers on this item.
we have a Speaker.
on split, waiting very patient.
Councillor Liz Ashton.
where you have a Speaker, I mistake.
can I stayed at home? Thank you, thank you, Chair, I'll be, I'll be very brief, we are just speaking in support, obviously, of application, just initially with a bike store, so just declare I mean it was very clear in the report anyway, but it will be below the ceilings with windows, so I don't believe it will be even that visible from from the the street, but it should be in keeping with the locale and allow us access to bikes at the front of property.
and the garden.
that was quite quite sobering a view of the wildness of my garden, the Andrew, it's now that winter's comments is a little bit clearer and easier to see the, as, as mentioned, the main kind of areas concerned with weather, with the decking the the adjacent property added at the top of
a top decking the there is a sort of significantly grown or fencing, which protects the neighbours next door from overlooking and further down the lower decking.
will extend over and allow more viewing of the of the garden, but it is an overgrown unused section of that that garden and I've spoken, you know both sets of neighbours and the they're perfectly.
finally, as I have not registered any objections and Planning, Port say.
and thank you for your report very well put together, thank you.
7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/02411/FULL 47 Hopwood Gardens, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
thank you.
o
officers, do you have any response to our?
the Speaker has said no response.
do you have any questions of the officer?
Councillor Mowat, thank you Chair just one question on relation, I read the application, there was reference slight reference to a loss of privacy for number 49, and now there is no objection, but can you just clarify that the conclusion there is no loss of privacy for number 49?
thank you, yes, so just to clarify that point a bit further.
so the decking which I believe the dimensions is 3 metre squared, and it does read as being about 2.4 metres above ground level, the reason that read so high is because of the sloping nature of it, and the terrace is already in place and if you were to overlay that new terrace onto the existing terrace you're only talking about protruding it further by about 1 metre.
there is a screen on the right-hand side which will block the direct view towards the neighbouring garden, but there would be a slight view offer towards the rear garden of the neighbouring property, however, that can ought to be somewhat overseen, admittedly through some dense foliage at the moment and there's no few offer directly towards the house or what we would call primary living space or the primary outdoor residential amenity space which is directly adjacent to the rear of the property.
so the test is significant, increase in overlooking, resulting in significant harm, and this fails that test in sorry, it fails the test and that there is now regarded to be a significant increase in harm, caused some increased overlooking.
thank you that that is the only concern references made that there could be some clearing on site that may change that.
loss of privacy in number 49, but I'm sure the applicant would take that on board and hopefully the comments that are made unshared as a condition that it should be borne in mind. Thank you sorry just to follow up on that there is a screening fence which is proposed on the right-hand side already, so we haven't felt the need to add that through the condition given is already in the approved HRA, it's already in the plans recommended for approval.
Councillor Pope.
yeah, just a question about would a bike store of this size, and decking of this nature normally come to a planning comes from a planning application, or is is this to just ensure that nothing is incorrect in installing these?
so I believe the question is, would it normally fall within permitted development rights and the answer is almost but not quite the bike store is situated at the front of the property. If it was situated down the side, then it wouldn't require planning permission and it wouldn't be part of the application. Certainly the terraces to the rear normally raised decking areas wouldn't constitute planning permission. However, because of the sloping nature of the ground, it does mean that in this case, there are too high off the ground to be able to fall and permit the development. Hence it had to come through as a full planning application
Council, shall we move to debate?
Councillor Wood, well I feel it's fantastic and I have to say I'm very envious of your garden and.
I would be very happy to propose that we accept the officer's recommendation.
I have visited the site, but I'm happy to second the proposal.
secondly, the motion to drop route, yes.
with the addition that you have to be very.
speaking as a gardener who probably neglects more than garden, we ought to be very brave to put the before up on the screen.
a committee to look at, I think, it looks like great, I think it looks like a great jungle.
as Donald tagged, but all those in favour of accepting the officer's recommendation
that's the unanimous chair.
as application is therefore accepted.
right.
8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 03 October 2023 to 25 October 2023
item 8.
appeal decisions from noting 3rd of October 2023.
the 25th, 23 of October county gradually three years are set out on pages 193 of 94 of the agenda, and, if any Members should have any questions relating to these appeal decisions taken general regime of the planning officers after the meeting urgent business.
9 Urgent Business
10 Date of Next Meeting
there is no urgent business, can we go home that certainly that day to the next meeting is on Wednesday the 6th of December 2023, thank you for your patience and attendance, thank thank you, thank you.
- 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 , 11/10/2023 Planning Committee, opens in new tab
- 8 Reports of Head of Planning Services, opens in new tab
- 22 02664 HYBRID Land North of Birchfield Grove FINAL, opens in new tab
- Birchfields Appendix A, opens in new tab
- Birchfields Appendix B, opens in new tab
- 22 02664 HYBRID - Land North of Birchfield Grove, opens in new tab
- 2301870FULL Spring Farm Colts HIll FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 01870 FULL - Spring Farm, opens in new tab
- 23.02411.FULL - 47 Hopwood Gardens - FINAL, opens in new tab
- 23 02411 FULL - 47 Hopwood Gardens, opens in new tab
- Appeal Decisions for Noting Committee 08 November 2023, opens in new tab
- 10 Urgent Business, opens in new tab
- 11 Date of the Next Meeting, opens in new tab