Planning Committee - Wednesday 19 July 2023, 6:30pm - Start video at 3:20:37 - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 19th July 2023 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

1 Chair's Introduction

good evening.
welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, the 19th of July 2023.
I am Councillor Bland Chair of this committee
before we get on to the agenda items, please give your full attention to the following announcements from our Clarke, Mrs. Moran.
thank you, Chair and good evening everybody in the event of the fire alarm ringing continuously, you must immediately evacuate the building at walking pace officers will escort you via the most direct available route, and no one is to use the lift.
we will make our way to the fire assembly point, which is by the entrance to the Town Hall Yard, car park and months away, and once outside a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left and no one is to re-enter the building until advice 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 be aware that any third party is able to record or film council meetings unless exempt or confidential information is being considered. The Council will not accept liability for any third party recordings
it is very important that the outcomes of the meeting are clear. At the end of each substantive item, a vote will be taken by a show of hands. Members should raise their hands to indicate their vote and keep their hands up until the count has been announced. Members requesting a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken.
Members of the public who have registered to speak at the meeting will be asked to come to the microphone at the appropriate time they will have three minutes to address the committee after which they may return to their original seat. Members of the public have registered to speak but are unable to join. The meeting will have their statement read out. Thank you, Chair
for the benefit of the recording, we are going to take a roll call.
Mrs. Cameron.
thank you Chair, expected members here this evening, Councillor Butcher Alan
present Councillor Fitzsimmons, present Councillor Johnson present Councillor Les Page Britain, Councillor Moon Brighton, Councillor Neville present Councillor O'Connell, present Councillor Osborne.
Councillor Pattison, present Councillor Pope present Councillor White president and councillor Bland chair.
one expected officers, Richard Hazel, Grove prison, Peter Hackney,
present Andrew McLaughlin nuance, present James Taylor, prison Tracy, Wagstaffe.
present.
thank you all 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.
I would like to remind everyone that this is a formal meeting of the Planning Committee. most should be no disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour, including clamping or interruptions by members of the public at this evening's meeting.
if such conduct does occur, I would go for it to sit.
the behaviour which I consider an acceptable continue, I may well consider suspending the meeting.
and if the behaviour resumes when business recommences, those responsible will be excluded and asked to leave the Council Chamber.
members of the committee should be familiar with the process,
but for the benefit of any members of the public who may be watching or attending, I would like to explain a couple of things.
committee members come across 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 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 amendment 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 before a vote is taken.

2 Apologies

item 2 on the agenda, apologies for absence, Mrs. Moran, do we have any apologies,
no apologies this evening Chair,
thank you.

3 Declarations of Interest

ITEM 3 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 had.
does any member have a declaration to make?
verbena

4 Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6)

declarations of lobbying.
members of the committee should declare at this point if they have been lobbying on any of the application.
in today's agenda.
the clock will ask each member, in turn, to state on which application you have been lobbied and if any.
and whether it is by objectors, supporters or both
misses.
thank you, Chair, Councillor Buchanan,
thank you yes, I have been lobbied for 7 F.
thank you, Councillor Fitzsimons, I too
have been lobbied for 7 A.
7, A
thank you, Councillor Johnson.
no lobbying.
Councillor Page,
I've been lobbied against item C.
thank you, Councillor Moon
applications 7, A resident against.
thank you, Councillor Neville,
I have been lobbied against at him, 70.
thank you, Councillor O'Connell, I have been lobbied against 7 C.
thank you, Councillor Osborne.
I have been lobbied against 70.
Councillor Pattison
I, too, have been looking at 70.
Councillor Pope.
I have also been lobbied against a 73.
Councillor White, no lobbying.
and Councillor Plant. I've been lobbied against seven C.
thank you, thank you Chair.

5 Site Inspections

item 5 on the agenda site inspections. members did not carry out any site visits.

6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday 17 May 2023

ITEM 6, to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday, 17th May 2023.
members are asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting or a true record of the proceedings.
please, may I remind members, that the only matter has discussion is their accuracy.
do Members have any comments to make on the minutes?
thank you.
the motion is to agree the minutes
are we agreed?
the motion is carried.

7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)

7 a) Application for consideration - 22/00296/OUT Land South Of Brenchley Road, Brenchley Road, Horsmonden, Tonbridge, Kent.

ITEM 7 report of the Head of Planning Services.
these reports are those of the Head of Planning Services.
a presentation will be provided by the Case Officer for the applications, but for those members of the public listening or attending, I would like it to be clear that the considerations, conclusions and recommendation of the report and those that the Head of Planning Services not of individual case officers,
I would like to remind members of the public that have registered to speak, that they should not use personal, disrespectful or offensive language when making their presentations.
the order of business to see evening will be
Item 7, a land of south of Brenchley Road, 7 C Grove House Grange Heymans Hill.
7 F,
74 Rus Hall High Street.
7 D 65 A Wrington Avenue Paddock Wood.
7 E
Tunbridge Wells M Oaties Centre
North Wham Road 7 B Town Hall Mount Pleasant Road 7 G Town Hall Mount Pleasant Road.
item 7 A
number 22 slash double 0 2 9 6 outline land south of Brenchley Road.
Brenchley Road Horsmonden Tonbridge Kent
page 19 of the main agenda page 3 of the supplementary pack apply.
Mr. Hazel Grove, maybe we have your presentation, please.
thank you Chair,
the first slide in the presentation shows the application site.
relative to
the western side of horseman den so it's open land at the moment there are.
sporadic. There is sporadic development from the west of the limits to built development outwards,
and woodlands on this side, and then open land and sea to the north and to the south
Sly 2 shows it in context. We shows an aerial photograph so again you can see this area here of ancient woodland, which is reverse almost of it long to springs, which National Trust land
the application site here
and then, which essentially is an open agricultural field.
with more fields around here, and then there's a very definite edge to the village here, which is the limits of built development,
and this is Brenchley Road,
which runs along the north boundary, is divided from the road by a hedgerow.
so its site photos, this is the existing
access point
onto the into land looking to the south-west so Springs is, is there on the left-hand side.
this is looking back to back towards the village.
one of the issues which is raised in the report is the need to construct a pedestrian footway between the application site and the village, and one of the issues is the encroachment of properties onto highways land, so there's just a few pictures showing showing that.
this land lies.
and
very close to the application site just to the immediate east of it.
and then in some sections the footways intact
and this is the corner,
as you as you approach the junction with fairness line.
and again, another view.
with the application site on the left-hand side and looking out towards the countryside.
this is approximately where the access point
on the on the left-hand side would be
and again another view into the site from the road.
and again.
so again, this is the site location plan.
the application is outline with only access as a matter to be fixed at this stage, the other matters, though, are reserved for future consideration.
that's reflected on this parameter plan, where the
area for the village always shown in purple and its parking area, and then areas for playspace or
undeveloped areas or areas to be left for biodiversity enhancement are around the edges and then the core area of development in the centre.
access point is, as you can see.
he's shown there towards the north-east corner.
and this is a
outline again it's it's a indie illustrative layout because layout and scale and design.
not fixed at this stage
this is the sorry this is the, this is one way in which the site could be developed.
and you'll see there is a balancing the attenuation ponds towards the south, eastern corner
and village hall, and it's parking to the north-east
and foot or footpaths proposed through to Springers just through here.
and and a core
area within the centre.
this shows the
the indicative layout of dwelling types and
how the hell again how a development could take it take a form on the site.
and then these are the general principles around which the indicative layout has been decided or been designed, so you have the green corridor at the bottom with biodiversity enhancement areas, buffers to the woodland.
on the western side
and potential emergency access routes in the north-west corner and in green corridors around the around the development. and with the enhanced footpath leading to Brit to the centre of oarsmen, then at the top as well.
obviously, with the children's play area and the village hall and its parking area.
the
application would require the rerouting of a a sewer, there's a public sewer that runs across the site, and this drawing shows the existing line of the sewer in dark dash delight lines and then the way in which it would be diverted here.
and that's primarily a matter between the applicant and Southern Water,
but it is, it is a material consideration for this application.
there are no indicative elevations of the proposed dwellings, the intention is that the
the design and the appearance of the dwellings would take their cues from
dwellings around the village, so you'll see in see there
typically in in in the village there's combination of hanging tile, painted brick and brick work,
and then in terms of works to
create the footpaths through to the village.
it's quite a detailed plan, so it is difficult to see in in enclosed detail at this distance, but the idea is that there would be enhancements to the the road around here and that the
but path would run its course along here. and the idea is that the footpaths would run through and then connect the site to the village.
this is a site which is proposed for allocation in the submission local plan, and this site layout plan, which is a part of the policy within the LP, shows.
the way in which it was envisaged that development.
what should take place on this site within the scope of that allocation, and you can see that the application that has been submitted corresponds to that in terms of the developed area within the centre, the green edges and then this area for
it's actually community uses, so the village hall, car parking and the play area.
and these are the principal constraints on the site, so, as is referred to in the report, the sites on the edge of the existing limits to built development.
it's the area of outstanding natural beauty is to the north-west.
there's an area of ancient woodland and to this side, savers the public right of way which crosses here and crosses over the road.
and the Horsmonden conservation area is this area that's just outline their
in relation to that, as has been mentioned as I've referred to earlier, this site is proposed for allocation for residential use in the submission Local Plan.
in terms of updates, the agent has submitted a further report which assesses the impact of the development upon the ancient adjacent ancient woodland, the Council's landscape biodiversity officer has previously raised no objection to the impact of this scheme on ancient woodland in its current form.
three further objections have been received from local residents, which relate to similar previously raised issues such as highways, impact and flooding, which are already dealt with in the report.
a and two slight amendments to the resolution at Part 11 of the report at page 71 are proposed.
for essentially for legal reasons, and you can see their to substitute the word secure with include at the head of the recommendation and then at part to include the words provision for the transfer of the land to the parish for the village hall and associated car parking.
in conclusion, in the absence of a five-year supply of housing councils' housing supply policies are out of date,
the NPP f requires local authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing and whilst the sites outside the LBD is not considered to be isolated,
the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance such as the Irwin be or heritage assets wouldn't be the when there would not be conflict with those policies,
the homes were identified, heritage heritage assets is considered to be at the very low end of less than substantial harm. and this is to the Milestone Cottage, which is a Grade II listed house opposite conservation area. and there would be no impact on sprinters, which is the historic park and garden to the west.
Any identified harm is outweighed by public benefits of the proposal, in accordance with paragraph 2 0 2, the MPPA
in terms of landscape harm, the site is within the setting of the alien B, but not within it. The A and B itself. It's concluded that there would be a sick, would be a significant adverse landscape and visual effect of from the development, but this will be very localised and is to be expected of any greenfield development. There are no landscape. Objections to the scheme,
the proposals would result in the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 11 of the MPPA
the proposal would deliver 68 dwellings towards the housing supply of which 27 would be affordable housing which weighs in favour of the scheme,
the scheme would make provision to meet the aspirations of the Parish Council to provide a new village hall and the indicative layout indicates a scheme could be delivered of a suitable quantum of development layout and design that would be appropriate and in keeping with the context of the site and the surrounding area and without detriment to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
and subject to the approval of a satisfactory reserved matters, it's not considered that there are any landscape, design or highway safety matters that could not be addressed and the development can be designed to prevent significant adverse impact on the landscape and heritage setting.
so the recommendation is that the proposals are acceptable, having regard to the current development plan and the LDP, which include the LDP and the policies of the submission Local Plan, as detailed in the agenda report
recommendation is to grant permission subject to the conclusion of a 1 06 agreement and conditions, thank you.
thank you, Mr. Islam Road.
we have five speakers on this item.
well, I call your name, please come to the microphone and insurance activated when you speak.
and we will have three minutes to make a statement,
our first speaker this evening in objection to the application is Mr. John Poor, a local resident, Mr. Paul.
good evening.
I live in from Andrew's Drive.
which is a row of bungalows.
that is adjacent to this site that you have a proposal to develop
from, and his drive is a group of bungalows, which is mainly.
the residents are elderly, disabled or both.
I move there because my wife has fibromyalgia.
a bungalow really suits people like May
a wife.
there's a stream that runs from the site. You're proposing your that's before you to develop. It runs parallel to form and his drive
and runs down through the village to the river Tees, and it is the main surface water drying off of the site that's being proposed and put a pond on thereby, I think that's just a token, it's it won't take the amount of surface water that drains of this site
already I've had a 7,000 pound insurance claim on my property in the last few years because we keep having major storm events. My 86 year old neighbour has had to have replaced so kitchen floor because of surface water, I've got a disabled neighbour who said more to pour through their conservatory
is a government website. it's check long-term flood risk service dot co dot of dot uk
if you look at them there and you enter in any of the postcodes of Fernandez Drive, we are in the highest category
of flood
risk from surface water.
also on that website.
if you look at there's a map.
it doesn't look like the maximum option because it shows the water runoff from the area that's been proposed to be developed, it comes straight past from, and its drive will right up next to it. already the strain that I propose, that the water would run into runs incredibly high in the winter.
what's happening, I think, is that
the government wants a number of housing and
letting sites like this which are ideal be developed just ticks a box for the
cota that you need makes a few people
very wealthy,
but in this case you will be making the risk, which already is very high, ridiculously high, to some very vulnerable people in Horsemen, then please don't allow development of this land at the moment, it's a grass field which holds gallons and gallons of water every spring we get a massive amount of water
if you develop this site, it's going to end up in four minutes drive.
thank you.
a second speaker this evening in objection to the application.
is Minister Robert Dicketts, local resident?
Mr. Baker.
Good evening
I live at Little Weald, Brentry, Road Horsmonden and my property is one of those that would be affected by this application.
I am objecting to it principally on two reasons, namely the danger to pedestrians caused by speeding traffic and secondly, there are no clear proposals as to where the additional land is through to comply with the highways and transportation requirements who's going to come from
I would refer to the highways and transportation department submission dated the 21 of April 2023. in that submission the wording states, and I quote, the proposals demonstrate a minimum carriageway width of 6 metres, together with a minimum footway of 1.2 metres
I have taken four separate measurements of the carriageway and only one was over six metres, the for measurements I took were 5.5 2 metres 5.8 8 metres 6.0 7 metres and 5.7 7 metres in the first example, this means that the KCC would look for additional land of at least 1.7 metres, including footway.
in that same submission the committee comment is made, and again I quote, the footway will be constructed on highway land, which is currently obstructed by a number of local residents in Bridgeton Road and has been for a number of years to date, KCC has not taken any enforcement actions as there have been no has, there has been no need to do so end of quote.
where is the proof that this is the case and at no stage in their submission is there any indication of how much land Department is saying has been obstructed by the residents, the owners of the properties concerned would dispute the statement by the KCC
at all stages it seems that the only requirement is for footpaths from the last property on the south side of Brenton Road to the corner with Furnace Lane, there's no mention of footpath along the whole of the front of the proposed development, all in the 30 MPH limit. which would be required in order to minimise the danger to pedestrians, both from the new site and also to the village as a whole,
I have been involved in Speedwatch for approximately 12 years and there were drawn to the sessions have been outside my property, the speed limit is 30 MPH but under Speedwatch regulations where only a large record vehicles travelling at 36 MPH or over.
we record vehicles travelling into the village I driving west to east, usually between 8 am and 11 am
on average record record between 20 and 40 vehicles travelling at 36 or over, though many additional vehicles will be travelling in excess of 30 MPH,
we have done one unofficial recording of vehicles travelling east or west and this was done outside Barston Cottage, we could not write down the cod numbers quick enough as at least 70% of the traffic was exceeding the 30 MPH limit, with the 60% being recorded 36 and over, several cars were in excess of 50 MPH and many in excess of 40 MPH, and this was near where the vehicle access to the proposed site would be except for proposal to try and reduce the speed of traffic at the junction with Furnace Lane, which is about 350 metres from the entrance to the site. There do not appear to be to appear to be any definite proposals to try and limit traffic speeds with additional footfall from or from any proposed development, they would
yes, I choose to two lines.
one final point is that we have had no engagement with the developers, even though this has been suggested are being strongly recommended by the KCC,
thank you.
our third speaker this evening in objection to the application, has Ms Amanda Chester.
Good evening,
I would like to object to the proposal because I am incredibly concerned about the pedestrian access and also about the
relocation of the Village Hall to the new site,
many of the residents, myself included, who views the village hall over many years.
would access the
Billy to
by foot, we have lots of elderly residents who no longer drive and use the village hall
by accessing on foot,
and I think it would be incredibly difficult for them to navigate an even busier Brenchley Road.
and I honestly believe the photographs she shone this evening
was shown with no vehicles, no pedestrians, it's an incredibly dangerous road
and, as a previous speaker said, people often drive in excess of the speed limit and I honestly believe there would be an accident waiting to happen.
it feels as the developers are offering.
a carrot with the building of a new village hall that village hall is used by young families by elderly people, issues desire polling station, I would like to know how many car parking spaces are going to be given and allocated to the village hall, but consideration must also be taken for the pedestrians, the people who will walk to that Village Hall and potentially put their life at risk on the highway.
thank you.
thank you.
our fourth speaker
this evening, in support of the application, is Mr. Gary Mickleburgh, Bloom pearls, Chartered Town planners.
Mr. McGlone,
Mr. Mickleburgh.
Good evening, members. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the application as amount Gary Mikel, Brian Directive, Bloomfield who submitted the application on behalf of Ross Kohn, strategic land, but the applicants and promoters for the site
we thank officers for working hard to produce what we felt was a very thorough and comprehensive report which provides a well balanced assessment of what at this stage is an outline planning application to establish the principle of development and this will consist of as, as has been said, a village hall and a community facility and up to 68 homes.
the site is already proposed allocation for residential development and included within revised limits to built development in the emerging Local Plan.
the application has been prepared to comply with local plan policies in the emerging plan, and paragraph 10 13 of the report details how the scheme conforms,
however, actually given the advanced stage of the local plan, we believe the allocations should be given more than the limited weight mentioned in the opening paragraph of the report the application is also in accordance with the made neighborhood plan for Horsemen den Parish.
the Strategic Map for the area figure 5, identifies a site for this proposed development as being within the limits to built development, furthermore, Policy 2, one of the made Neighbourhood Plan, states that development proposals for new housing that are situated within the settlement limits shown at figure 5 and which are located within safe distance of the village services and facilities will be supported.
therefore, whilst I appreciate the recommendation is in favour of the application, we felt that the balance of the recommendation being made to members should be tilted more heavily in favour, given the location of the site within the new limits to built development and the weight that can be attributed to the emerging Local Plan.
To conclude, this is an application which will help to deliver up to 68 new homes in a way that conforms with the overarching principles set out within the Council's emerging plan
and the Horsmonden Neighbourhood Plan.
the proposal includes land set aside to deliver a new village hall which should be a terrific new community facility for the village as well as associated parking space and a new play area there would also be significant financial contributions towards the cost of the delivery of this as well as towards local schools and libraries, we have worked to allay all concerns during the application this has included the provision of a public footpath. and responsibility of enforcing this has been accepted as falling within the jurisdiction of KCC Highways, not the applicant and nor Tunbridge Wells Borough Council planning department.
The scheme ensures a usable buffer space will be created to the adjacent woodland and along the site frontage. I therefore ask you to determine to approve this outline application
thank you.
thank you, thank you, Mr. Michael Burke.
our speaker this evening is borough councillor Jane March.
Councillor Mark
3, minute.
thank you, Chair for allowing me to speak and giving members
the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan for Hussman, then states a 50 metre buffer
for the by the
woodland and, in fact, in one point to one in the report. it actually states 30 metres extends into the site, but at 2.00.0 6 it actually says they're going to give us a greater.
buffer at 25 metres.
so that is obviously a point that we consider is not very good from the
parish council point of view.
the drainage feature in one point to four in the centre of the field is in fact a culvert that flows, as we have heard, into 4 Amanda's Drive, which is into the residential properties and when this heavy rain there is in fact in an increased problem with the water making its way down to the stream at the bottom of Fernandez Drive I believe in fact oil tanks were tipped over when at the last lot of flooding.
a community orchard is not something that residents have requested, in fact, with other applications they say they prefer green outdoor space, not not orchards, the footway link in are indeed p, we have actually said we would expect to have 2 metres not 1.2 metres with buckets barges and mobility scooters actually needing to pass and with a 6 metre carriageway it's the safety of pedestrians that we're really concerned about.
it's so we we really think there should be a very safe pedestrian crossing which I haven't seen yet, so thank you, Members for giving me the time to speak, thank you.
thank you, thank you, Councillor Mark.
officers do wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by speakers.
but turns on that.
it's not happening, thank you Chair just to.
I think the the sort of three three main themes that were there were coming out were in relation to the the highway safety aspects.
and as Members Members are aware, King County Council Highway Authority and
are consulted on on such applications, they're satisfied that the the access arrangements
and the Transport Assessment has been undertaken yeah is satisfactory
in in delivering.
but we are a safe and suitable access to the site
in terms of the flood risk flooding and flood risk,
there's a there's a drainage strategy that's been submitted with the application,
which indicates how how the
the the surface, water, drainage and foul drainage will be dealt with in in the reserved matters,
and I think, as number of the speakers said, in terms of the
the to the attenuation ponds as well, that strategy seeks to limit the any runoff from the site to the the right of greenfield runoff, so it will be no no greater than a greenfield runoff right that there currently is,
and that's
the subject of a number of number of conditions which had been recommended by Kent County Council's.
department.
of their their flood department, who are the Lead, Local Flood Authority for the area,
and the third aspect was was in terms of the Village Hall
and the position of the village hall on this site.
in terms of the the the the local neighbourhood development plan.
that that plan proposes a village hall, new village hall, within the within the village.
it also identifies this site as the location for that Village Hall.
the the referendum for the Neighbourhood Plan was was June this year, so
less than destined, two months ago.
and it was, as members will know, it was adopted through full Council.
I think two weeks ago, so it's a, it's a very recent plan
that the the the the Neighbourhood Development Plan group of of created
and had a referendum on for local people.
and and it has passed that one and gone through all the necessary. procedures in that regard, thank you,
thank you, Mr. Hockney.
committee, members, do you have any questions to the officers?
Councillor Pattison
thank you, Mr. Chairman,
on the highways issues and the footpaths.
clearly.
I am, I understand that the building could not take place until the Kent County Highways had cleared the obstacles on the on the footpaths and actually built
the footpath before it was actually before the houses were actually occupied is that is that the case is up to Kent Highways in essence to actually, do that bit first?
the answer is yes, I'm
just trying to find the
condition number
23, condition 23 on
page 78 of the of
the agenda.
ensures that the aspect
is delivered
and I think with the
as I say that this is
there's clearly a conflict between Kent County Council's understanding of the position and local residents' understanding of the position, but,
to be blunt, that that's a private matter between those parties,
our
remit in this is to ensure that,
however, it is delivered whether through agreement or through enforcement, but that is delivered prior to any other houses being occupied.
Councillor Moon.
thank you Chair,
I did try and raise some questions before this meeting with Murray.
as case officer that is different case officer will apologise,
have not been able to get these questions before you before then.
just three quick questions really.
the first of I notice
there was no report from selfies, Walter.
there is issues with water provision on many developments and we've seen in the bar where it's water pressure that is the problem, not necessarily water may be in the right place, but it doesn't appear to be a report from selfies water which I would have thought it was quite crucial for this development.
Secondly, in relation to
the high wage issue and the critical ness of that, relying on the residents within that area to maybe sale, some land compulsory purchase or not barren that critical aspect of the development. condition 23 does mention it, but I would have liked the cynic, more robust
that no development can take place until agreement signed agreement or financial agreement with the residents to actually widen the highway stroke to take a new. footway.
and lastly, I'm a little bit confused on the social,
affordable
housing.
on 7.6 spree stays 28 in relation to the in P P F guidelines, but on 10.66 it says 27.
so I would have still
have liked to have seen 28
within the recommendation,
thank you.
thank you, Councillor.
Mr. Hockney.
is there a missing house,
thank you to, I think
with the
with the application in outline, will we see the the the numbers on finalised, so we're looking at up to up to 68 dwellings in total
27.
of 68 is
30 39 point something per cent.
so
that's that that that was what was was put forward by the applicant, and there's a saying in our in our assessment, given the that the numbers aren't finalised.
and that the the applicant was willing to enter into the the tenure split of social rent
and and intermediate in accordance with the emerging policies.
but that was that was deemed to be acceptable, in this case, say, without the the final details of the of the the overall numbers coming forward,
if, if, at any point the numbers are going to increase, then they'd need to put in a new application in any case new full application.
so that, yeah, that's that sort of so side to it
in terms of south-east watering, to for the the water supply side, so obviously.
Southern Water consulted four for drainage and foul foul drainage,
south-east water, in terms of supply, are consulted on the local plan and the
the assessment of that, obviously which this is as a site within the Local Plan and the new emerging Local Plan. So they they would have had sight of of this site and will have made comments on the submission Local Plan prior to to go into examination. So, in terms of supply by they would be would have been engaged at that point
in terms of the the future delivery of water of for potable water, for the for the borough.
what's the third question, sorry, Councillor Moon.
the
0yes yeah, in terms of with with planning conditions, we cannot insist
that an agreement is reached between other parties, which is why it's not specified in that in that regard,
the the condition obviously requires the provision of that prior to things and because, as I say this, this sort of some some discussion to be had about whether
I think as you as you alluded to whether land needs to be purchased or indeed whether the land is in the highway authority ownership already. and so that's why we cannot be that prescriptive in that regard and we can't bind an agreement which is outside of our control,
I think thank you.
thank you Chair, and can I just come back?
the actual percentage is 40% on the NPP EP and that is 28.
so I would hope
that the developer does negotiate with the Bauer
planning office on that it may be only be one, but it could well be an extra disabled or whatever provision
may be for social housing
on the south-east, Walter.
maybe they are consulted.
that may be, it would be a good idea with all the other utilities and the climate at the moment, literally,
do it be considered that we do seek actual
representation from and then that we had visibility on this committee to see there.
opinion or whatever the new development.
at least then, we try to do our bit for the residents to ensure that utilities are looking out for their best interests. thank you
Councillor Osborne.
the German on I'd like to ask some questions about the Village Hall.
firstly, on the local plan, there appears to be more land allocated to the village hall. all of the right hand, side side of the site,
which would allow more car parking
and certainly bigger footprint for the delivery tool, so that was my first question, the second is in terms of.
I see that there's a 1 0 6 allocation of 719 pounds per bedspace, which is comes out of 175,000
of the local parish council has said the their estimate of the cost of building the tower would be 935,000, so we've got about an 800,000 deficit.
so the question was, firstly, who would
be paying that 800, where would we expect that 800,000 to come from in order to allow the village hall to be built, firstly, and secondly,
has the developer been asked to meet the full cost of the village hall, which would I would have expected to be reasonable?
Mr. Hockney.
Mr. Harris got the ban, Mr. Harrison wrote.
sorry.
thank you Chair, I think very broadly on the subject of meeting the cost of the Village Hall, the idea is that it would be funded from a sexual 1 0 6 monies from other allocated sites within Horsmonden, so
the development on Gibbet Lane has already secured funding for it
and I think he's at the Bassetts Farm
development
it which is also an allocation in the submission Local Plan is also at. yet also intended to generate.
our funding for the village hall as well.
the idea, isn't that the village hall is funded purely by developer contributions, for example, other parish councils have funded their village halls through a combination of section 1 0 6 monies
lottery grants and local fundraising, and you know that that kind of thing, so it's not.
unfortunately, not solely down to the development management process to fund that the new village hall, but a substantial part of that funding is expected to come from sexual 1 0 6 monies from either site.
ominous also within those sites, is a medical centre as well, it seems to me unlikely there's going to be sufficient money in six months to build a medical centre and a new village hall if your own charging hands and 5,000 to Bellway in respect of this development.
the Yaamin those developments would be expected to provide money towards the NHS anyway towards the the Local Clinical Commissioning Care Group, and they would be expected to provide sexual 1 0 6 monies towards the new medical centre if the the new,
if the other allocations in the submission Local Plan specify that a
a medical centre has to be provided by the developer, then that's what's expected to be provided when the application comes in and we can't really kind of.
prejudge or the outcome, or that the content of a of other applications which which haven't been submitted yet.
thank you, I just seem to me overall that the 1 0 6 contribution was very low for this number of houses, particularly some of the houses appear to be potentially build on the site was allocated as amenity space for the local community.
particularly is one and we're giving. there's over 600,016 25,000 for educational purposes, which is one of the highest contributions I've seen for this number of houses, it seems to me a very large contribution to KCC and a very low contribution for local people.
I think, just in response to that, they are the culprit that the contributions are calculated through a pre-set formula, so, for example, the education contribution is a demand from KCC, we have no control over how much they demand of us and they have their own formula for calculating that and the
yeah and it's the same with the contribution towards the village hall it's worked out based on the
rate for,
recreational facilities, which is within the current local plan, so the 790 pounds per bed spaces within policy are too, I believe.
so again, it's it, it's like
a pre-set formula for calculating.
those, though some say I agree, there is quite a big disparity between them, but that's that's how they calculated.
thank you.
Councillor Lapid,
thank you, Chair, I've got to the one, is about the social housing.
I also did the calculation for 28 houses, but it's it's only a couple of per cent.
there is a table we're on in the application word shows the waiting lists for two, three and four-bedroom and one, two, three and four-bedroom houses,
and the waiting list for the smallest houses is about 20 months, but the waiting list for the waiting time rather than for a four-bedroomed house even though there's not a big demand is 14 years
so I wondered why? it wasn't.
no an offer of a four-bedroomed house as one of the social houses on the development, considering that waiting time.
thank you,
I think, in the short answer to that is because we're looking at it from an outline application,
no, none of the size of the houses are are fixed at this point, either market war.
affordable.
I mean, if Members wish wish to attach an informative which which sort of included.
Long lock
provision of larger, affordable housing shall be considered.
as part of a reserved matters, then, then
it raises the issue with with the applicant, obviously there's no way we're not in a position where we can insist on it or condition it, because that's not that's not what's before Members tonight, but it's it raises the issue for.
the applicant and anyone.
anyone else with an interest in the site,
yeah, I was sort himself.
so.
yeah, thanks, so that's really something to do at the next stage.
the next stage of the of the
substantive application.
the the the next stage will be the the applicant, formulating their reserved matters and looking at the size of the houses where they're going to go, which ones are going to be affordable.
So if we put an informative on now, it may sort of direct them in or give that suggestion that they they that they pick that up as as part of it.
Obviously, it's
is clearly an issue across the borough because these aren't just oarsmen, Den figures
sort of borrow figures and, as Members will know, the the sort of housing housing demand for affordable housing is is high across the borough
thanks, I think I'd like to to be informative, but I think the only way I'm guessing, the only way of doing it is to.
check with.
the housing department, what the what the needs are and to make sure that feeds into the application, however, that works
I'm going to do the second one,
and it's just to do with the flood risk
I,
some of the properties have flooded already in the past.
and I know that the plan shows that the run-off of 7 litres per second or whatever is the same on the wants to develop as it is as a greenfield site, so that's fine
with the attenuation ponds and the permeable paving things like that, but it seems to me that,
it needs to be improved
for the residents that are there, it needs to be
a better quality of
flood management because it's already flooded, so if it's just the same again, it's even if it's no worse, it may flood again.
as as as part of planning and as part of the development management process, where we're not able to.
deal with existing problems,
we were we're looking at mitigation of development as as the local planning authority, so you're looking at what's proposed and is there sufficient mitigation put in place to deal with the proposal?
now it may be, and there's this the other cases within the borough that we've that, we've secured, particularly at Paddock Wood, where were we we've secured a betterment in terms of the the runoff rights
and
the most recent comments from KCC flat
authority,
took into account that the concerns that were raised with them
and lava they've attack, as a result, attached an additional condition in that regard, so
it is the authority that, in terms of the flood authority, are aware of the situation and do have it in mind when they're considering the proposals on this site.
OK, it's very helpful thanks.
Councillor Patterson, just one point arising from what Councillor Marsh said about the
because their neighbourhood plans wish to get a 50 metre buffer for the ancient woodland would be that something that could be looked again at in the
detailed stage I mean, we're not really here,
I presume saying that it can only be 25 metres or 50 metres below, but presumably we can,
when we look at that say because it has been planted, wisley is in my plan and should be followed, so would that be relevant at that later stage.
I think in terms of what we're looking at, it's
it's
obviously.
the MVP F requires a certain minimum to ancient woodland, which is considerably lower than 50 metres,
a 50 metre buffer
would go beyond the development, the developer of away area
in the submission Local Plan
that
members have
agreed through
full Council.
so it would be in conflict with that
as well, yeah, the the wording within the Neighbourhood Plan says.
muss. a buffer of 50 metres must be included to ensure that it does not damage or detract from the environment, character and landscape of ancient woodland, unless the applicant condemns straight very clearly how a smaller buffer would suffice, so in this case
the proposal has been put forward
is a buffer which I think will monitor plans.
I think it identifies that it's sort of between about 25 metres and.
30 metres in most cases to the to the boundary, the ancient woodland,
there's there's an assessment of the ancient woodland that's been put in with the application.
which, as Mr. Obama said earlier, but has been supplemented by an addendum from or from a specialist that's been looked at by our landscape and biodiversity officer, Mr. Scally,
views are also resident expert in that regard. and he has no no objections to the proposals in terms of the level of buffer.
the buffer is is often.
the it's not just the distance, it's the quality of the buffer with the the scene and whether there is additional species going in,
whether it's a planting buffer, whether it's
what type of land it is adjacent to it, so so all that feeds into
the the requirement for the buffer and the quality that it does to to protect the ancient woodland and the submissions that have been put in.
I have been considered or are deemed to be acceptable in that regard and say that neither neighborhood plan doesn't say.
50 metres in all cases, irrespective of provision, it does make that
secondary element, thank you.
May I ask a further question of the officers?
the context of this development in terms first of the boroughs Local Plan.
and second of the horsemen, then made Neighbourhood Plan.
was this site included in the
Local Plan that's been submitted to the Inspector?
that plan being in limbo.
were there any particular observations which the Inspector made in respect of that site?
that will
affect members' decision.
on this matter.
thank you Jay so the
the submission local plan included this site.
within it, within the the plan that was submitted following
the the public consultations.
the initial submission
policy,
identified this site. for development of between 80 and 100 houses.
at the point of examination.
there were discussions at the examination.
led by led by the inspectors, as Members know,
and through those discussions and that examination
the
it was, it was deemed that the quantum of development proposed in the in the emerging policy was too great at 80 to 100.
and
as a result, there were proposed modifications to reduce
the yield of the site to 70 dwellings.
and that was predominantly because of the
the area of land required for the
financial position and the and the play area
and the buffer zones for the ancient woodland.
so that.
that modification
is work was looked at with in conjunction with the inspector.
the inspector
didn't consider
that the site was unsuitable, he didn't you didn't suggest
that this the site be removed.
and for society as a whole as a result of the examination and the UN and the work that further work was done on the the quantum of development.
the emerging policy, which I think is as as
paragraph 10.1 3 of the papers,
seeks a yield of approximately 70 units.
mostly, the applications have been submitted for 68
and, to my mind, that's pretty much in accordance with it and within the within the scope of of the variability that we would expect on such a submission.
I think just briefly on your Neighbourhood Plan point the
the husband and neighbour plan is obviously a made plan and part of the part of the development plan
horsemen den Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate housing sites itself.
it hasn't it hasn't gone through the site selection process, however it does reference the three sites that are in the emerging.
local plan, so it's this site,
the site, a gibbet lane and Furness Lane, which is which
members granted planning permission for a number of years ago and is is now nearly built out
and the other the other site is the site at Bassetts Farm on the other side of the village thank you.
if, when no further questions at the offices,
Members shall we move into debate, discussion on what we had and she.
councillor Fitzsimons.
thank you Chair,
and I think
that we should all be looking at this application in the light of an overarching need for more houses, we haven't got a five-year supply.
whether that is going to continue that requirement is,
it seems, irrelevant to me, because we clearly need more houses, people have got to live somewhere.
this development is in a sustainable position, it's within walking distance of the village centre.
they have, fortunately, we haven't seen a reduction in the provision of affordable housing,
they are willing to give 40%. which I'm entirely relieved about.
what's
what make up that is, it would be great if we could have some four-bedroom houses, but Trevor and I just think we should, as a committee, we should all remember that we do need houses to be built, and we just can't I mean it's
it's a site approved.
in the Local Plan as a site for development.
and I personally.
will be
voting for this development, thank you,
would you convert that general approval into proposing the big accept the officer's recommendation?
I would chair.
cons.
and then
a second, the proposal.
Councillor Wood,
thank you
I was also say our second ex, I think we did turn down as a proposal a couple of months ago because it wasn't approved by the local plan, I think the fact that this has been in the Lake and the Neighbourhood Plan sorry, I think the fact that this is in the neighborhood plan and it seems to be positivity behind it due to that I think that's an important point to keep in mind, so I'm very minded to support this.
console look out,
thank you Chair, I just wanted to to make a few remarks if I can, about the safety in the footbath, which is concerning people currently that roads really unsafe for pedestrians because they've been for accidents in the last five years and one of them was a pedestrian being hit by a wing mirror.
so and the other one was a serious accident caused by overgrown vegetation, which is what is currently the that hedge, that's the so couple of things one is, I think that footpaths are very important, even if it's not forward it's much safer than it is now, so that's a net improvement for the than for the residents that it will join up with the footpath inside the development so you can walk to
it's relevance without going anywhere near traffic, so that's a big improvement, the average speeds that I looked up on the Transport Assessment were about 32 miles an hour, and I still think that they should be.
we come to the next stage, so they should be.
a thought given to traffic speed attenuation roundabout the 30 mile an hour limit, which is beyond where it is also, I stood in the in the proposed entrance, and I can see for half a mile in each direction. so I think that would be one of the safest.
in
ingress and egress rooms at places that are seen and know anything, I would say come to finish, the traffic thing of is that the splays and the vegetation have to be made wide enough and low enough
so that it stays safe. But I think it's I think is potentially a very safe one
and then only wanted to say something about the village hall because I went and looked at the current village hall and I might be wrong,
there are no people exercise to offer. I liked the fact that people bring the issues so that we can test them out and the village hall issue is when I went to look, I couldn't find
more than five parking spaces, so if it's gone from 5 in the current village hall to the 24 in the proposal and a footpath that links them, that's why the footpaths requirement, then it's another net gain for the village. so those are my views.
Councillor Pattison
yes, I'd like to support the motion just
providing we can add informative in that the officer mentioned about
seeking to have at least one house of four bedrooms in the affordable housing, which was,
I think, mentioned in answer to Councillor Page's point earlier on.
that's OK.
amid a philosophical point, but they
were 40% of houses, we propose
what are
affordable, are, of course house units not bets.
and the irritating thing.
but we all face it, and it is that it is a heck of a lot cheaper to build the two bedroom hat or a three bedroom house and a four-bedroom house, but it counts as a house
and it count towards the 40%. this, however, is not for public discussion, it's just me getting something off my chest, I apologise.
members
can come back on that if we did informative in, it might give them a kick in the right direction to perhaps put bigger ones in.
is that?
thank you Chair.
just reaffirm some of the comments already made,
you know there's no doubt we need more houses,
especially affordable
you look
at the Crescent White, English Norseman Day,
one bedroom 49.
2 bedroom 44
3 bedroom bulky items
4 bedroom 16
so, beyond any doubt, there is a need for housing precipitately in affordable housing elsewhere I mentioned earlier on, it should be 28,
but there has to be in the right place and it has to be sustainable, and it has to be deliverable. a reasonable why?
and I have grave concerns over the provision of the footway
from the proposed village hall. where it's gonna be a key focal point for the community, if it's built.
so it's crucial that that be provided,
and I feel that there is an element of doubt on that, because 10.7 6
KCC Highways further comment that they strongly recommend that the developer should contact the affected households and would welcome a discussion to discuss a mechanism where that can be provided, so too there are 10 residents who will be affected probably.
and to put this development to be sustainable on that basis, the footway you need their agreement, all of them
it's a bit like applying for a compulsory purchase in a way.
it's not right that developers should pay for that, and that's quite true,
but I think there is reasonable doubt
to suggest that it won't be provided by those residents who may add for or against opinions,
and on that basis I think it is not sustainable.
within the neighbourhood plan or any other local planning,
if you take the village hall, that's a good point within the Neighbourhood Plan, but it would base itself if you look at the present village hall, they do need a new one and they recognise that hence why it's in Neighbourhood Plan but I don't think they've been consulted
and you really do need a bit more detail.
when you put in the application now yeah, that's fine, it could come at a later stage with more detail, but once you approve outline, then it becomes more difficult
to object or seek changes with the submission, so I am not convinced that the development is to sustainable precipitately on the affordable housing but, you know, don't get away from the fact that other councils don't think we do need the housing, because I certainly know we do.
precipitately, social housing, when all the raw rare, it is critical in our rural areas, none of the residents can afford houses in those areas.
so any one is a platform and a win,
thank you.
one of the conditions Councillor Moon in the
in the officer's recommendation. is that none of the houses may be occupied?
until there is a shattered factory footpath connecting the site to the village.
that being so wooden about sexual mind at rest because the book developer is unlikely to build. so much as a single house.
until he knows that at some point he will be able to sell it because the put bar issue has been resolved.
thank you to the I
mean, I accept that
Ed's my question relating to the condition 23 and I looked at that and I didn't have knowledge of say that I think it should be more robust.
the specific way on 10 76 KC are asking direct dialogue with those residents.
you know there were indications in a car, hedge or
splay from a resident will help it will not the Crapser, this is the footway so yeah, I welcome that as we brought it up.
but once you agree this stage, then it's more difficult, I feel thank you.
Councillor Desmond,
thank you Chair,
I just wanted to
be clear in my mind, I think, if you have a house on the highway,
it is your duty not to obstruct the pathway, isn't it?
is that right?
I can't profess to be an expert in highway law, but it's not necessarily to do with ownership, there are highway rights that the Highway Authority will have, regardless of the only the ownership of the that, and it may be a matter of the highway authority enforcing rather than actually agreeing I don't know the detail but it's it's not simply a case of ownership.
but.
but I think it is it not, is it not right that
owners of a house should should be or have a duty of care not not to block
a public footpath?
you may well be right, but I don't know the detail, I'm afraid.
we are in uncharted territory here, accounts of his own.
Councillor Osborne.
I have to say I agree with Councillor Moon, I'm not at all sure that.
23 ensures that there is a proper footpaths in place before these buildings are constructed.
we mentioned before KCC and KCC needing to enforce their rights against 10 properties, there's no mentioning 23 of KCC, it all seems to suggest the developer Bellway comes up with the proposal, but you say that's good.
and then you can come along later on, say, sorry, we haven't been able to do that. can you now approve something else and it seems to me, therefore, that really it is Councillor Milne was saying we need out something that says before
any development can take place, we need KCC to tell us that all necessary
permissions acquisitions of land are in place so that the proper footpaths can be
added to to make
sure that the development is accessible to the town as required.
I think that I would like to refer to
Mr. Hockney for a comment on that.
thank you Chair.
the simple, simple reason why conditions are worded.
in that regard is that
conditions on a planning permission can only?
by the applicant and the and the land.
on which the development is, they cannot
be that it cannot be a condition on the Kent County Council Highways.
because they are not the applicant, so the condition has to be within the control of the applicant, which is why it's worded in the way that it is that the applicant has to submit the details to us,
we then consult King County Council and if Kent County Council are satisfied with the submissions
then we would grant the discharge of the condition.
thank you so just to clarify you're saying that unless
you have.
I fall acceptance, catkins,
mum, my watch does not a question.
who has KCC confirm that everything is in place to allow them to acquire properly the land across the 10 residences, to put the put back in place, unless that is happened, then you wouldn't be satisfied and if you are not satisfied then you don't give permission for the development to start. Is that correct
the the the condition is recommended by Kent County Council as the Highway Authority
and we will consult them and if if, if they don't,
if they don't accept the submissions, then we will not be granting the
the consent of that conditions, so it's it's within the gift of Kent County Council, then
now, whether that be through
their enforcement powers or as they allude to in, I think the paragraphs that Councillor Moore was referring to,
I know an agreement outside of formal enforcement powers which
be honest is often a lot more palatable for everybody.
then that's that's the that's the position,
but in terms of the the development and the submissions, they would all be controlled by condition 23,
which we would not approve until
the Highway Authority were satisfied.
Councillor Lupe,
I've got two little things I wanted to just check.
that was the village hall,
the town is getting the land, you're going to get some contribution to the costs from this development and a lot of other contributions from other developments in the in the town, and they also have their own existing village hall that they can sell for development.
to go towards it is a
fair thing to say.
I think I think to some extent we're looking at the
the sort of funding of a village enterprise which is beyond our scope as the local planning authority we're looking at what what is reasonable from this development, which is the
the 719 per bed space.
which equates to
a shade over 174,000 has been 130,000 already collected from the other development
the is this likely to be further development, given that there's not there's a third site within the submission local plan for horsemen den.
and in terms of additional funding, as Members know from.
I think Hawkhurst, Parish Council, have got planning permission on.
their existing
Village Hall site, which which they're looking to raise, raise funds for their new site.
I think the
the new hall up Paddock
Wood, was
part lottery funded
Councillor Pattison sci-fi knows,
I think I think there was some zum, some lottery funding for that one, so there's there's other sources of of revenue that
that people can tap into and it's not. it's not the local planning authority's role
to to
essentially create that funding in in totals, as I think Mr. Hazel Grove said earlier,
we're looking at what's what's reasonable.
and what meets the tests of the of the CIL Regulations and, in this regard, the the contribution towards adult and youth?
recreation is suitable to be used towards the new village hall, and that's that's what we're able to secure, thank you.
thank you, Councillor
Moore, it seems to be.
sorry, I was just responding to what Mr. P Councillor, the paid calls your supplementary question, I'm just going to say thank you for that
and on another another matter I'll find it ironic that they are submissions who are unhappy about the size of the footpath and they also submissions about people defending their rights to encroach upon the footpath, so it seems to be hard to achieve both.
Councillor Mowat,
thank you Chair as a point of information, as a representative of Paddock West in relation to Paddock Wood Community Centre, there was no lottery funding the term associated with that. It was purely Town Council
1 0 6 monies and managed to associate with TownCouncil and in effect we had some assistance from the borough which we welcomed and in meeting our obligations to our contractor, but certainly no lottery funding was associated with that was purely by a initiative from the Town Council and I'm sure that will be the same for Osborne,
David Parish,
thank you.
thank you, Councillor Vale.
commercial bout of good. Town Council.
councillors.
we have in front of us a proposal to accept the officer's recommendations proposed by Councillor Fitzsimmons, seconded by Councillor Richard Allan.
all those in favour.
sorry, sorry, Chair, can I just see whether the proposer
was taking on board the
informative that Councillor Pattison suggested that
the applicant, the applicant, is encouraged to discuss affordable housing mix and provision with the with the of the housing officer of the Council, potentially with a view for larger properties.
sorry.
I think I said
that in my
little outburst yeah that I would, I would welcome larger, I gotta read Joe Allen, knew he was second, that addendum as well right.
the proposal is to accept the officer's recommendation
with that addendum proposed by Councillor Pitson seconded by Councillor Bridger, Alan all those in favour, please signify.
that's 11 40.
all those against
one against her.
abstentions,
no abstentions.
I declared that that.
proposal is accepted.
Jeremy will be recorded
as against under minutes, thank
you, of course, Councillor Moon.
Grant.
it might be appropriate
for
a comfort break.
so I'll have a comfort break now, snow 20 0 2, so we'll be back at 20.07.
5, that was further comfort.

7 a) Application for consideration - 22/00296/OUT Land South Of Brenchley Road, Brenchley Road, Horsmonden, Tonbridge, Kent.

7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/00831/FULL Grovehurst Grange, Haymans Hill, Horsmonden, Tonbridge, Kent.

we move now to Item 7 C on the agenda.
23 slash Double 0 8 3 1 4 Grove House Grange, caimans Hill horsemen down, Tonbridge Kent.
Page 89 of the main agenda, page 8 of the supplementary pack
we start, as always, with a presentation from the officer, Mr. Hazel Grove, please.
thank you Chair,
so this application is to vary
two goals to remove two conditions of an existing planning permission at Growforest Grange Heymans Hill are Horsmonden so Growforest Grange is an existing caravan site that was permitted in the 1970 s. it was originally permitted for agricultural workers. and specifically fruit and hot pickers and only to be used in August and September of each year.
and with a
limit on the number of caravans on the site of six,
so the sites in very rural location,
outside the limits to build development you can see the caravans
sort of arranged around the site
at the last count, last visit of a 5 statics and there was also a touring caravan there to.
as members will have seen in the report, the agricultural holding that these this site originally form part of, was divorced from
rest of the agricultural holding many years ago.
in the 1990 s, and since then it's been occupied by
essentially friends and relatives
of the owner who
who doesn't live on the site on the to.
during sort of holidays, weekends, etc
so
that's an aerial photograph of the site.
so to some some pictures of it.
said an entrance, a typical five-bar gate entrance and a concrete parking and turning pad.
and you can see the caravans there quite clearly there's boundary hedging around the edges.
with the season fencing as well, there are three
buildings on the site. which former hop huts which are used for storage purposes and in connection with them with the existing use
the site, as you'll see in the report, has been used unlawfully for a number of years,
essentially since the 1990 s.
as I said earlier, the restriction is for
agricultural workers and fruit, or fruit and hot pickers, however.
that condition was breached and one and only in August and September condition 2 was breached in the 1970 s and an enforcement notice was issued in respect of it, and that notice remains on land.
however, it's been used
in breach of the enforcement notice for some nearly three decades now,
by at or by the owner and for essentially holiday accommodation purposes.
just some more views of the of the site.
it's just a chart which shows the
what's permitted now through a combination of the 1976 planning permission and a lawful use certificate that was granted in a this year,
so
essentially because condition 3 had been continually breached for over 10 years and there was no extent enforcement notice against it.
any person can occupy the caravans in July and August, whether they're a holidaymaker or not, and no occupation is permitted for the rest of the year by virtue of condition 2 and the enforcement notice that essentially piggybacks it,
the proposal is that for holiday accommodation and or cultural workers accommodation for the majority of the year apart from January,
because that's the month that the
applicant says it's generally not used where the site is used.
so say that's just a sort of a quick way to show how the site is proposed to be used.
in terms of updates, members have been sent a lobbying e-mail by direct neighbour of the site, in which a number of changes are suggested to the conditions at pages 1 and 2 to 1 0 3 of the agenda, and various statements are made regarding the contents of the officer report. officers have reviewed this document and are prepared to revise condition 2 in the next slide, in the interests of enforceability, however, the rest of the suggested changes are not considered to be appropriate.
as a point of clarification following the lobbying e-mail,
I just like to underlines members that the use of the site is not being changed, it's already essentially a residential caravan site
is Paris 10 15 and 10 16 of the officer report,
it's just that that use is being expanded from 2 to 11 months there's no material change of use.
and in terms of the site's sustainability, yes, it is largely unsustainable, it's in a rural location, however, is not in a location that would be deemed to be isolated, as per paragraph 80 of the NPP F and para 10 23 also explains that holiday accommodation does tend to be situated in rural and often unsustainable areas by its very nature.
and the same approach has been taken by inspectors at the appeal stage and, for example,
a site and appeal recently, at Honnington Farm in Southborough
showed the same approach by the Inspector.
the reference to exceptional circumstances at committee report 10 07 and slight to clarify that isn't a policy test in respect of this development,
it refers to applications which are an exception to the norm.
and there's no requirement for this scheme to demonstrate quite exceptional circumstances for it to comply with either the framework or the development plan.
so the revised condition to
the additional wording is in red, so the intention is, as was quite rightly pointed out by the neighbour as originally drafted, the condition would have allowed potentially allowed somebody to occupy one caravan for six weeks and then switched another caravan six weeks later.
notwithstanding, there is a restriction in there that the site should only be used for holiday accommodation, but
it could prove it could cause issues with its enforceability. so we've
in view of one of the suggestions from the local resident Weaver added that additional wording in red, which requires that a logbook detailing occupancy should be maintained and provided
to the LPA's, should we ask for it, that's a condition that serves as a requirement that we have used on conditions rather development before,
it's not one you would normally put on a
a use for holiday accommodation, but that said, there are two different types of occupation proposed here agricultural and holiday, so it's a valid approach we feel.
and yeah, so that's the that's the revision to condition 2.
in conclusion, the proposal would result in the delivery of sustainable development and therefore, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Framework, permission should be granted.
subject to other material considerations, the proposal relates to the period of time that an existing caravan site can be occupied and doesn't him propose an increase in carbon numbers, nor any further built form or any physical development on the site.
the proposal would widen the permitted occupation of an existing caravan site in a rural area which can be used by both tourists and agricultural workers, which was its original intention.
development would not have a significantly harmful impact upon the residential amenity of any neighbouring properties,
the traffic movements generated by the development can be accommodated without detriment to highway safety, and KCC Highways have not raised any objections to the scheme
and other issues which her other issues raised have been assessed and neither would warrant refusal.
the recommendation is that permission is granted with revised conditions
and
and yet the proposed will be acceptable in accordance with the current development plan, thank you.
thank you.
we have four speakers on this item.
I call your name, please come to the microphone and ensure it activated when you speak, you have three minutes to make a statement.
our first speaker this evening in objection to this application. there's Ms Claire Boydell, a local resident.
by now.
thank you Chair.
Firstly, I'd like to thank the planning officer for preparing such a detailed and lengthy report. This application does deserve time and consideration on the subject of time, whilst only seven days' notice is required for this meeting, it would seem reasonable, particularly in the holiday season, to postpone such an important hearing to permit the democratically elected Councillor making the referral to attend. Perhaps this is something that can be considered in the future.
I was surprised to read in the report that the existing planning was a source of confusion and, worse still, that this confusion was seemingly leading to support for the application. The original planning decision recalls the particulars of the application. Before then, listening, the three conditions condition 3, restricts the permission to the uses plural, for which the application is made ii those used in the state of particulars.
Those particulars do not seek to use the caravans for general use, but specifically for fruit and hop-picking machine workers. Uses should be given its ordinary meaning, covering both planning, land use and occupation.
paragraph 10 0 7 of the report is also helpful, the general thrust of policy, as it relates to residential uses in unsustainable rural areas, remains broadly the same that such uses are restricted and generally permitted in exceptional circumstances only, however, if cute confusion remains and this certainly does seem the case following paragraph 10 41 legal advice could have been obtained just before a decision is made.
the report adds further to the uncertainty surrounding this site when, in paragraph 10 16, it refers to any person being permitted to occupy the site. I appreciate the nexus between the collude but, as noted above, I submit that condition 3 stands on its own merits. If it did not, then why was it considered necessary to amend the application in May to seek its removal? The employment of the occupiers was so fundamental to the granting of the original permission that it was stated in the particulars. If any and Welsh ministers is then applied, there is real doubt as to whether this application can be brought under section 73, since that case clarifies that section 73 only enables an applicant to remove or vary a condition if the application does not conflict with the operative parts of the permission
it is important that proper consideration be given to the impact of Finney and related case law and procedure, and I invite the committee to share their views on this.
This site is an unsustainable rural site outside of the limits to built development, with no evidence provided of any benefits to the surrounding area, nor business needs that are required to be fulfilled. There is a question mark over whether the right procedure has been followed and we submit that this is not a residential property. I fully appreciate and share the applicant's desire to enjoy the peace avoided afforded by this area, but planning must look at applicable policy and the impact of the proposed permissions, and the report's recommendations would lead to a substantial loss of control of the site. A prescient concern raised by the local Paris's objections. In 1975, the council had to wrestle back control of the site then and should be wary about losing control once more. Thank you for your time
a second speaker this evening, an objection to the application, whose Mr. John Boydell, local resident.
thank you Chair, the Committee has just been asked. to ensure it is fully confident in the applicability of section 73 to this application, but if it is and to determine it, should move forward to a decision today.
I think it's paramount that the evidence in the application and the detail of the conditions is considered very carefully.
at present, four key issues on the current planning situation.
There has been no evidence base viability, study or analysis provided on holiday use for 11 months of the year. To demonstrate that the economic and community benefits of the tourism proposal outweighs the fact that this rural location is unsustainable. I inappropriate for development as the baseline position.
There has been no evidence provided either on the newly proposed agricultural occupancy condition
report reads as if commercial letting has already taken place see section 10.1 9 but no evidence has been provided, despite requests to support this. Indeed, the clued report states that a holiday accommodation was removed dot dot dot the clue. It is not submitted on the basis that the caravans have been commercially. Let
the applicant's application mainly during school holidays and weekends proposed 11 month window, that's been recommended goes well beyond what the applicant needs to continue to use the site in the manner stated in the application.
the current planning situation looks muddled and unclear and can only create difficulties enforcement which brings me on to the proposed conditions which became publicly available only a week ago
with the support of the neighbours, some of whom are here today I've circulated a mock-up of the conditions to the committee with detailed footnotes. This has been prepared in conjunction with external professional advice in summary condition 1 amended to restrict the size of the caravans to a similar size as on site now since these could be roughly doubled inside without consent, greatly increasing visual harm to the locality.
condition 2 I clarifying the holiday accommodation is outside C3, which is residential and RAS dwellings, and restricting maximum occupancy by person to six weeks a year, otherwise the maximum six week caravan limit could be circumvented by car and hopping, no pun intended condition to double I agricultural occupancy has been amended to currently working. to avoid continued occupation after a change of employment. I becoming a builder, but to continue to stay on the site for 10 months,
and I know the planning officers suggestion to incorporate a log which was done on other sites by Tunbridge Wells Borough. Council recently condition 3 amended to reflect the historic use of the site, mainly during school holidays and weekends
condition for condition for hotpants to purposes incidental to the wider caravan site. The draft of reference to residential is confusing condition. 5 should be amended to make good the removal of a number of trees back in March on the western boundary, which has reduced privacy wanting. I didn't fly because the caravans under the current situation can be moved around and ideally they should be marked on a plan as they were originally. Thank you for your time,
as for my Bill, thank you.
our third speaker of this evening, in support of the application is Mr. Gary Medel looming pearls, Chartered Town planners.
thank you, Chairman and members again.
as a teacher as a chartered town plan on behalf of the applicant, Mrs. Victoria Boswell and family.
Victoria Boswell had also intended to be a to explain the family's requirement for vacation, but she's unfortunately taking over this week
she was keen for somebody to speak, as it does seem to be some local misunderstanding about what this application is actually about,
the application site currently lawfully accommodates up to six caravans all year round but which benefit from residential use for two months of the year August and September
the original 76 permission for caravans for fruit and hop-picking machine workers had two conditions which restricted the use of the caravans.
since permission was granted, the use of the site has evolved is understood that hop-picking ceased in 1989 with the site no longer forming part of the larger agricultural, holding at Grove House Farm from the mid-nineties when it was bought by the applicant's late mother.
as detailed throughout the submitted application, the caravans have been used by persons who are not within fruitful hop-picking role for some 27 years, this has been acknowledged by the Council in a recently certified lawful development certificate and by officers in the committee report.
rural workers' accommodation itself has also evolved in the last 50 years, often being available for most of the year all year round. This application solely seeks to regularise the existing and historic use of the site, not to change the use of the site in any way which is already a residential caravan site.
There will be no new development on the site with up to six caroline's already able to be retained on the site all year round
officers of knowledge that the original conditions do not meet the six tests in national policy, which are clearly detailed in the committee report.
turning to the matter of local concerns, it's understood this predominantly relates to the use of the site being intensified. However, this is not the motive. The current residential occupation of the site has been in place for approximately 27 years at various points throughout the year. No changes are proposed to this. It's understood there has been no objections raised by local residents regarding the use of the site until this was publicised, when the recent applications,
this application seeks to continue the use in the same manner. It's been for almost 30 years by leprechaun and our family and friends.
There will even be a family occasion again on the 12th of August, which I have asked for you to know.
This site means a great deal to the families being with the ownership for many years used by generations who feel privileged to know the history of the site. No of watched area, Volvo and growers are community.
I'm asked to let you know that Victorino family are proud to have always maintained this site which they will continue to do. The respect and awareness of the needs of the community which they feel part of a clear.
it is understood some residents were not aware, the site was in regular regular use, even until this application was submitted.
so the use cannot be considered out of keeping with surrounding uses, Ings contended, it cannot be considered to amount to any harm the use of the supports site, supports a rural community and provides a holiday retreat in the countryside,
thank you,
thank you.
of all speak of the seeping is.
Councillor Jane March,
thank you, Chair, thank good evening members.
first of all, the Parish Council was actually given sight of this. planning application back in May before any potential amendments, so
what they have actually voted on was the very first proposal, but what I would like to actually speak of as a ward councillor,
that if Members are minded to approve this application,
then all the conditions and amendments as stated by John Boydell, I totally support and I would like to see these restrictions, I do understand about the tourism in the area.
I do also have issues about highways use because on in one road in on Grove Hurst, Road. that is obviously a bigger road, but the very small road going out another way is extremely potholed and very, very small, so I do think there will be some highways issues, but I support what Mr. Boydell has actually stated, thank you.
thank you, Councillor Mark.
officers do wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by speakers.
thank you Chair, one point that was raised by Mr. Boydell was the re.
alleged lack of viability and business viability studies, supporting the application
and just to make it clear to members. there is essentially a presumption in favour of new of tourism uses or expansion of tourism uses, or new tourism uses, and within both local and national policy, and there's no requirement, for example, in the national planning, National Planning Policy Framework nor within the current Local Development Plan which includes the Local Plan and the Core Strategy for viability assessments etc to support a new or expanded or whenever it is tourism use such studies are necessary.
if someone is planning to
remove tourism facilities, so for example, they may want to remove a condition that restricts the use of a holiday cottage to tourism purposes, but not for their actual provision
in terms of the agricultural occupancy condition that's proposed that condition is essentially because the
the applicant is looking to remove condition 2, it's essentially substituting the current condition 2, which is or condition 3, rather, which has just relates to fruit and hot pickers
with a broader
agricultural occupancy condition, which is the standard model condition that is published by the planning inspector.
there's no distinction in
planning procedure or law between commercial holiday.
and use and non.
holiday use,
whether it's being undertaken on a
you know by whether the occupants are friends and family of the occupier or not, it's still considered to be a tourism use.
and the allegation that the report is muddled and clear eyed is just not the case, and I'm not really certain in what regard that that's be that allegation has been made, thank you.
I hope they do have anything to.
members, do you have any questions of the officers?
in your presentation you mentioned that condition 2, did you say that it would be amended,
because my eyesight is not good enough to have
read the actual read part of it, would it be possible to just read out the amendment, thank you.
so the additional wording in red
would require that no person or persons may occupy any one or more caravans on the site for a period of six weeks or more in any 12 month period.
and in fact the next line regarding the logbook is duplicated
at the bottom, so
essentially a log book detailing each individual occupancy shall be maintained and provided within three working days of any request to provide such information by the LPA's, the other amendments is to clarify what is what counts as holiday accommodation and it does include any other residential purpose whether or not it's within the Use classes order 1987, thank you.
Councillor Pope, it's a question about the the location and size of the structures that there is is there, within this, a limitation on on moving them around and increasing the size.
thank you, Chair at the moment, knows no current limitations no. requirement for them to be stayed in a fixed to stay in a fixed position on the site,
and there's now nothing to stop them being swapped for another caravan.
then I follow that up, could good could a condition be put in that the locations and size
need to remain the same because, yeah, they could move that that there's a property to the to one side, that they could move in such a way that they become a problem and that
the locations should remain the same and the size of the caravans?
we have considered all the recommendations
and the proposed changes made by Mr. Boydell.
whilst yeah I mean one, and this issue is covered in the report as well. whilst yes a Caribbean closer to that, property would be more noticeable, I don't see that a caravan in that position would cause significant harm to residential amenity, which is the policy test with an E in one of the local plan.
because ultimately, it's a song, it's the site is in that use already, albeit just for two months a year.
the thing is single storey, so it won't overlook the neighbouring property.
and you know it's not considered that noise from residential uses would be so great
even from a caravan close to the
the boundary that we would be justified in, including a condition to that effect. members may feel differently, but
as officers and having dealt with caravan, sites of all
sizes and shapes etc in the past, it's not
it's not a matter which I feel would be a reasonable condition that would meet the six tests within the framework.
any other questions for the officers.
Councillor drama,
thank you Chair them, yes, just looking at conditions when you've got the no caravan on the ship a month, excuse me on a site should be occupied during the month of January in each year any caravan station on this site would find the caravan sites control etc etc reason to maintain the availability on the site a short term holiday accommodation and to maintain the commendation for local needs
of agricultural first forestry.
the officers clarified why Janusz, Joseph, surely that would be the least required time
for short term agricultural use or holiday accommodation 0, I was just wearing white was January, really
that's correct, that's the purpose, that's the time when the applicant identifies that the caravans are necessary and ultimately if we don't have a site that's used.
where are restrictions
where there are certain periods of the year that he can't be occupied, then
you know it adds weight to its its use and its character as a as short term holiday accommodation for agricultural workers rather than being on an unfettered
caravan site that anyone can occupy.
Councillor, No,
thank you Chair.
I welcome the comments by
Councillor and in relation to the conditions
was that was a concern of mine with the application, but if the conditions are enforced. in relation to the application,
and that it's an issue with enforcement I know, but if they are on,
I
support the application.
we occur to convert your support for the application to proposing a accept the officer's recommendation with that amendment to that condition, yes, a wheelchair,
thank you,
thank you, Councillor me.
Councillor Neville,
I will second that
counsel paid.
Murray just before we vote the this concern about the traffic on Hammond Hill, which is a narrow lane,
and it's a very long lane, but on it, if you turn right outside of the site you get to Grove Hurst Lane within about 50 metres which has a two lane road who set off a narrow lane so I've just asked I discussed with Mr. Horton this morning whether there would be some kind of informational in that it encourages people to turn right out of the gate and go straight to Growforest Road.
would then be a possible condition.
I would have thought an informative yeah won't be able to be
included in that condition because it wouldn't meet the test, but they could be an informative to the term for for anyone UCI or you using the site as holiday accommodation.
they're encouraged to
use the, I think this is, you said, turn right right out of the site entrance wasn't glance from the page.
and down on to.
to grow first line
and
sorry, if members wish to read and act as an informative and
will be with the proposer and seconder accept that additional informative agreed.
agreed.
any other.
debate or consultation.
in that case, we have a proposal to accept the Officer's recommendation subject to.
An informative
urging
those using
the caravans for holiday purposes
or leisure purposes to turn right
out of the building out of the out of the site.
sorry one, and the revised condition that master Hazel Grove now read out as part of any legal revised condition, including remit.
OK, let us proceed to vote all those in favour, please.
unanimous Chair.
thank you very much that proposal is accepted.
I really do know
Rafa.
yeah

7 f) Application for consideration - 23/01232/FULL 74 Rusthall High Street, Rusthall, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

we now proceed to item 7 F on the agenda 23 slash 0 1 2 3 2 4 74 Rush Hall High Street Russell Tunbridge Wells.
Page 134 of the main agenda, page 16 of the supplementary pack
Mr. McLoughlin nuance, your presentation, please.
thank you Chair, so I'm going to be speaking in relation to an application that is at 74 was told High Street, this application is part retrospective, with a retrospective part being a raised patio or platform with associated steps, and there is also proposed fence to be erected as well.
just discussing the location of the site, the property is located at the far end of Russell Hall High Street, as you were heading out of Tunbridge Wells, the property is situated within the limits to build development and outside of any conservation areas and for those who are familiar with West Hall High Street the last commercial unit on West Hall High Street is situated on this corner here, two doors down from the subject property which I believe is known as hospital cafe and then everything heading west out of a stall is residential.
discussing the nature of the property, it is a two storey, semi, detached house number 74 is seen at the centre of the photo here, which is the subject property you've got number 76 to the left and number 72, on the right-hand side, the property itself can be accessed from the front door and also down the side alley which leads to the rear where the area of work is in question.
now, when discussing this application, we need to talk a bit about the application's poverty history, so going back to December of last year, there was an application which was put in under the reference number seen on the screen for a prior notification for a single storey, rear extension the photos you see on the screen or taken in December of 2022 prior to that prior notification being submitted, the prior notification that was submitted was hereby approved and therefore permission was granted for a single storey, rear extension at the property.
moving on to June of this year, the single storey, rear extension in question has been completed, and you can see it in the photo here.
now, when this extension was completed, the applicant took the decision to erect a raised platform slash patio, which you can see here, and there'll be some close-up photos in a moment as well now, just for the purposes of clarification this application we are discussing today only relates to this raised platform area here it does not relate to the single storey, rear extension the single storey, rear extension has already gained approval and is not the subject of discussion for today.
now, when discussing the raised patio as we say it is retrospective. This photo has been supplied by the applicant and shows, essentially what the applicant, what the patio looks like close up. Its depth is approximately 1.2 5 metres, and the idea of it was being that the patio itself is the same level as the internal floors floor height. So when you step out of the property onto this patio, there is not one of steps heading straight down which I believe the applicant was concerned could be dangerous, so we opted to build this small seating area here, with steps running down to the side. Now the depth of this at 1.00 point to 5 metres does limit its functionality. It's a lot smaller than a lot of residential patios, you'll see, and also it's worth noting that the property has no other access to the rear, so this day away will be used as more of an entrance way to inform the rear garden of indeed being a primary outdoor residential seating area.
Now I did mention those part of this application which was being proposed, so you can see just down here on this left on this image here there is a proposal to erect a 1.8 metre high screening fence which will screen the property from number 72. The concern here being that if you to stand on this patio it would offer an unobstructed line of sight into the neighbouring property of number 72, the idea being that there's 1.8 metre high screening fence will prevent that line of sight, therefore reducing any significant overlooking from the boat from the terraced story there is a condition which is in relation to the screen is conditioned to on the application and this condition essentially states that, should the application be approved within two months of it being approved, this screen should be directed because at the time of fisting the screen was not there
just moving on to the next slide here, this is gives another wide shot of the patio in question and this photo on the right-hand side shows a few looking down towards the rear of the garden, these properties here, located on Salford Road and not significantly overlooked from the
terrace in question.
in conclusion, just to clarify, this application is once again only discussing the raised patio platform steps and screen in question, it is not discussing the new extension which has already been approved under the prior notification application here. due to the nature of the application, it is not visible from the public realm and there would not be any significant harm to the residential amenity of any neighbouring properties, it is therefore considered to comply with all relevant local and national policy policies and the application is hereby regarded suggested for approval thank you.
thank you.
we have two speakers on this item,
but I call your name has come to the microphone and insurance activated when you speak, you have three minutes to speak
as first speaker she evening in objection to the application, his Kenneth, Aunt Bell, a localist and,
my thanks.
just give me a second charge check.
it has registered, he just hasn't happened.
OK.
being made first Speaker.
second, statement in support of the application.
and is from Mr. Kazeem Kaplan and will be read out by the clock, I understand that it
may require some editing as it is considerably longer than three minutes clock.
yesterday there was a lot of. repetition in the in the statement, and so
I've had to.
and a lot of copying and pasting so.
to do what I do, I understand that we, we do have a first
yeah apologies, that's my error, so we've Mr. Thomas Cameron, speaking for Surrey, drawn together by Eric
apologies, you're speaking in objection to the application.
carry on.
thank you good evening so yeah, I'm the owner of number 72, which is the adjoining semi detached property off of 74 74,
I'm here to express my strong objections to the planning application for the construction of a raised patio with steps
and a fence to the rear of number 74, while our concerns encompass both the raised patio with steps and the fence, it is the latter that holds the most significant implications for my property.
my primary concern in all of this is the amount of sunlight entering my property, which has already been kind of severely diminished
with that in mind, I would like to first obviously provide some context on the wider picture, given the recent rear extension of which this request forms part of.
as mentioned before, I'm the neighbour and, as you see kind of our garden slopes downwards away from my houses, what you don't see from the pictures that are gone is significantly smaller than number 74
roughly seven metres in length,
this recent extension is roughly or just shy of 6 metres from their rear wall and has a height of
Dr 3.4 metres from the natural ground.
this natural ground has also been artificially raised, as you see, to facilitate this route extension. So when we actually stand on my garden, the actual height sits more like 4.4 metres, so it's obvious that nobody has taken since consideration so far, but I'm sure now you can understand that we have lost nearly all sunlight into our property and our garden
when we look out of our garden doors, as you see we are, we are met with kind of a grey wall that is completely different in appearance to our red brick houses and leaves just the kind of 1 metre at the end for any natural light and again, my primary aim is to preserve what little remaining sunlight there is entering my property
with that in mind, I ask the question why it would be necessary to have a raised patio, rather than just steps going from the back door down to the natural ground. It is important to note again that this patio and steps were not included in the initial plans for the property further reinforcing the suggestion that would be no need to artificially raise the ground previously, and I'd like to highlight that this lack of inclusion of the patio and steps was highly misleading and had they been properly included, we would have had reasons to object to the initial planning permission, as it would have shown that the extension was measured from the artificial level rather than the existing natural ground.
excuse me, I find it incredibly disappointing that no one picked up on this major discrepancy and, furthermore, had the steps have had to be included in the design, it would have made the extension longer than 6 metres, then that permitted development allows and would have required oversee full planning permission. Putting aside the fact that the raised patio and steps were omitted from the initial plans, the proposed patio doesn't appear to serve any functional purpose and by not having it it will give will help retain some of the privacy for us in the neighbouring gardens.
If, if the committee choose to disregard this and permit the construction of the patio, I would then have material concerns to the erection of a fence panel at this raised patio level. By installing this fence, the council would further diminish what little remaining sunlight there is the reach. My home that might actually sent Mr. Kaplan, the owner of number 74 text, requesting that he doesn't erect the fence even if it is permitted. he said that this has actually been requested by the council rather than himself, and he has no desire to install this fence panel if it isn't needed, I therefore request the Council to
help it time you out,
yeah I therefore request the Council to, at the very least not require a fence panel given the reasons in the context that I've just provided,
thank you, thank you.
a second contribution this evening
is from Mr. Kazeem Kaplan, whose witness statement should be read out by our clerk.
thank you Chair.
hi to everyone and my dear neighbours, I am very sorry for not being able to be at this meeting, as I had to travel abroad to see my mum because of her health condition and also sorry for my English, as English is not my first language I need to explain you my side of the story quickly without taking too much of your time.
permission for new extension area was
sorry.
tamsin
permission for new extension area was 695 centimetres long and set 475 wide we decided personally to make it smaller all around the new extension 30 to 40 centimetres to give our next-door more light and privacy, this has cost me extras, but I don't mind for my neighbour.
on the original plan are stars for, a new extension were straight steps down and this was not recommended.
this is not recommended to be saved because of the house that's my builder, recommended that I have already made new extension 30 to 40 centimeters short and plus around 50 centimetres.
step, as as shown on the plan, we decided to put stairs to the side to make it safer for young family visitors, this new way and regional plan stirs wide measurement, it is hardly any different to each other.
we have over five years for trees on my neighbour's side anyway, which even we don't need any fences I have spoken to my number 76 neighbour and other three neighbours on the site Budd Road, and they have no problems with the back entrance and stairs I need to explain.
my side of the story when we applied for new extension, my bribery had a letter from the council and they never rejected it, even though.
Even during this time, they were always kind with this, permission for new extension area was 695 centimetres long and 475 wide.
we decided to personally to make it smaller, around 30 centimetres in length and made the roof lower as well, to give our next-door more light.
our this is kind of repetitive sorry, the their stars for new extension was streaked down, and this was not safe because of the height that's why my builder recommended that I already made my new extension 30 centimeters short.
this new way or regional.
I'm just repeating here, so I'm trying to get the points in, I do understand my neighbour worrying, but they should reject the plan at first time anyway, then maybe we could find a way out of this, I have.
as spoken to this repeated,
it's just repeated.
I have lots of text messages with my neighbour, Thomas number 72, wishing me good luck with my extension. We are going to Turkey on 16th July because my mum has issues and we won't be back until the 9th of August, so I won't be able to be at the meeting held by the Council on the 19th of July. Please, I wonder if any of you could be on my side with this. If I get turned down by the Council for this application, I will get my solicitor involved as well, but I don't think we needed at the moment at this point it wasn't part of my own idea to put high garden fence to block my neighbours' sunlight. We have been recommended by the Council Planning Department. I am happy to put some strong glass panel to let sunlight through in my culture. Neighbours are part of the family and I like to keep it that way and I like to say hi to each other. Every time we see each other,
there is a huge tree blocking sunlight for all of us for two to three hours, most of the time we don't get sunlight,
I have attached a picture for your information. That's after all I can do sorry,
thank you Chair.
thank you very much.
officers, few have them a.
comments to make from either of those two submissions.
I think Mr. Hockey, sorry, I think I think they are knee.
the sort of pattern point I think.
the first first speaker and talked about was
was it was in relation to?
I think the condition to
that seeks the 1.8 high
1.8 metre high close, boarded screening fence,
on that
on that elevation closest to the neighbour
see the neighbours raised, issues that they they may.
they prefer that not to be there.
now members.
members have the opportunity having.
considered the application and considered the
the the representations, whether or not to.
to take the recommendation as on the paper's, whether to suggest a variation to that condition
to either provide an alternative method of screening or indeed
the submission of a
suction element, or whether to indeed done
delete the condition in its entirety as part of their own, their deliberations and considerations on the application
thank you.
members committee, member, to have any questions of the officers.
let's go alphabetically counter Vitor Alan.
thank you Chair.
yeah, I've got confused, so that I don't understand,
I'm not built, but I understand that these things, why
a party that isn't really a patio of that size.
has been built with Depp there at the side of these steps at the side, so we've still got a massive drop, which is dangerous if you've got kids running out dogs or anyone
and that the site has nothing sort of this is not like reading going around anything to create a safe east patio area rather than just steps dropping down,
and the my understanding regarding the screening as a slightly other question
was I thought the screening would was because,
the neighbours would have been concerned about over
you know, overlooking all the clear view, so it's print that, but actually from from what you were saying, it's more actually the blocking of sunlight blocking of natural light coming into the garden rather than a
we know being able to be able to see over
so.
if that's the case actually granting permission for it.
retrospectively, I don't know if I would, because I don't see why that's being constructed in the first place, which in itself doesn't that extend the extension itself, because it's a sort of fixed structure, I know the extension was approved and that was shorter.
I don't know if I'm making any sense, it's all a bit confusing my head, basically why is it there, why can't they just be steps, surely it's just as dangerous, so why approve that when it's not fulfilling its duty and
also doesn't sound like from it actually dropping the screening would be a good idea,
I'll stop waffling, thank you.
so just to clarify a few points. At the time of the site visit which was of June this year, the internal to the extension was still under construction. So I know what you're looking at. The moment appears to be a completed extension. However, certain aspects of it had been done, but there was very much still internal building work going on in the site. Hence the screen which is shown on the proposed plans hasn't been constructed. With regard to the question regarding to its need, the need is that the applicant block the need of it isn't really relevant in the discussion application apologies, if I'm waffling here.
basically, the applicant made the decision that what he thought was safest was have this small canoe steps would be it raised patio area to the rear, the property which would then lie down off the left, the idea being that a one-step straight down would potentially bore me more easily to fall down, but that's a decision that was made at that time now just to follow on from your second point in relation to the screen, so local policy test E, and one has two concerns in this instance, one of which would be overlooking the idea being that if you were stood on this rear patio it would offer signs getting the correct photo up
if you are still on this rear patio, it would offer a relatively unobstructed view down into the neighbouring property at 72 and that overlooking was considered to be more harmful than any overshadowing effect which we raised the screen nobody, the first speaker today has essentially raised a question to that and that would be a matter I'd invite the Committee to discuss further.
also the challenge next.
expenditure is,
I think, what a Clarke
sorry.
sorry, Chair yeah, just to just to add to
the points made, I think the
for consideration are members should be focused on the the sort planning merits of the of the scheme
rather than.
making a personal view as to what is or isn't safe or is or isn't the safer option,
that's not the role of the local planning authority
in relation to people's private individual properties,
where we need to look at it in terms of the the the planning merits of the of the case and I would suggest that in this in this case
the the key planning considerations are that of
overlooking and,
potential, overshadowing or loss of daylight in relation to the neighbouring properties, those are the key planning considerations to four members to to look at, thank you.
councillor Fitzsimons.
thank you Chair.
if we're looking at those considerations, I would have thought before they gave permission for the whole extension they should, that should have been considered, but that's history.
I just think that is a balmy, I know it's not a planning.
consideration, but I do think that's a barmy little development
that and I can just
I just can't see.
I just defies belief, really,
I think, and I think if the problem is light into the neighbours, I think we should put a condition that the
screen is not put up
and that is the only way round this
madness.
Councillor White.
thank you, and I was just wondering he'd chosen to call it a patio, because it kind of looks a bit like a path, but by calling it a patio implies that they might actually use it and stand on it, and I just wondered whether that was an officer decision or whether that was the applicant who accorded patio
and I guess my other question related that is are those actually windows or those glass doors because again if they're doors then it implies they might come out there and stand there and use it as opposed to it actually being a pathway down into the into their garden.
no, thank you just in response to that, so the application proposal to quote, is raised patio and steps brackets retrospective and then construction, the fence, the fence being the screen, which we've mentioned here, so they refer to themselves as a patio, these doors that you see here these do lead internally inside the property.
into the recently completed rear extension, but I think a thing to note, and if I go back to one of the earliest slides, I think this shows at best.
so the property itself has no other access to the rear garden, except through those what we'll call patio doors, and so the idea being that yes, you could stand on it, but its primary function or its while its use is limited by its depth and it will be the only main access into the rear garden the only alternative way without using that patio and steps would be to go out the front door down the side passage and into the side gate, so it's essentially both.
yeah, thank you, I understand that, but I guess
it's a question in my mind between it's not just steps and that was it something that could be used for different functions, which would perhaps changes the extensive extension and means that people can be up there and using it for socialising or whatever.
Councillor Lib, Peck.
I'm not sure if we'd questions or discussion always get this confused, but questions or questions in that case.
if the
steps are within the original footprint of the application or partly within the original footprint.
can you just confirm that that's true, and also can you confirm that neither
72 nor 74 actually want a boundary fence, it's only
a planning consideration from the council.
to get it right.
so yes, I believe that from the original submission for the rear extension it has been dropped in by, I believe, about 30 centimetres. However, the patio and steps in question have a depth of about 1 point to 1.2 5. So yes, they're partially within it, but they have extended beyond what that original maximum extent of the rear extension would be.
In relation to the second question, these drawings, you see, on the right are taken from the submission, so the application as it was presented within the
application within the submitted documents did have that 1.8 metre high fence in question ourselves, as the Council took the view that that 1.8 metre high fence would prevent any harmful overlooking into the neighbouring property and we believe well we believe that the actual overlooking cost from that will be more harmful than the overshadowing. However, as I say, the first week today has questioned that which is a say matter I'd invite to discuss
constant position.
the question would are obscure glazed
panel, instead of the close boarded fence panel both
protect privacy and presumably allow a bit more light and the neighbour's garden would that not be a solution?
potentially, yes, it's a matter that I say would be open to discussion.
can you somebody has the microphone on,
sorry, could we put that substitute the condition to for obscure glazed panel fence that it could become a cannibal, obscure glazed panel bins,
would that be something that we could do?
so the two ways forward for that condition, if we are looking to amend it, somehow would be just to remove the condition altogether, essentially this would mean that the application became solely retrospective, so the fence would then be taken out of the equation or we could change it some form of obscured glaze my response that is obscure glaze is not going to be as transparent as nothing.
so there is a few to be taken with that one,
listen to the first speaker, Dave requested that it will be removed in its entirety rather than half obscured glazed, and that is a matter that could be discussed, but
if we're referring
back to the first speakers request, the request was to for it to be removed in its entirety.
I have a question, please.
is that patio illegal double development?
in terms of the the lawfulness of the patio, that's
the the patio wall, raised platform or access road route, as I think Councillor White alluded to be, it is the the matter that Members are considering tonight, so that's the that's the the proposal in front of you it's it's the retrospective element.
obviously, we are also considering the proposed element which which may or may not be a.
a
a screen on the side, and so in terms of the
in terms of the raised, raised platform patio area it, it does not have consent at the moment, and that's what the application is is is for in that regard.
I
council level.
I believe you are asking if it was there in building regulations, if that right.
so again, I think you were asking if the patio and steps complied with building, making Blair's,
I'm asking what I was asking, I hope, where the what what patch here itself was illegal development to which we had given permission, I think I've heard the answer that it isn't
that's what we can say.
the whole patio.
and what the officers proposal is, as I understand it, is to condone be illegal development and
although some access from it.
2, to permit the retrospective application.
thank you,
Councillor betrayal
Councillor Pope first.
thank you.
it seems to me that this so-called patio,
it hasn't been approved when we've been asked to approve it today, and I'm not convinced that we should approve it, because it goes right up to or close to the boundary and gives.
view the that the ability for that the people who live in this property to view next door. so I put my my thoughts are or advice would be to that that actually, I think part part of the patio should be removed, so only provides access to the doors.
and doesn't the left-hand part die in departure should not be there and that would actually deal with, would it not deal with quite a lot of the the the issues we've got, and then the fence wouldn't be required, which the next-door neighbour doesn't want either?
would that be I mean that would basically be, I guess,
rejecting this planning application is that correct?
officers.
do this?
and
the proposal in front of members is to
retain the raised platform
patio,
whether you want to call it
rather than approve it in part on and refuse it in part.
one, so it's it's kind of an either or that you essentially that you need to take, there's not, it wouldn't be a condition, for example, that said, notwithstanding the submitted plans,
X part
of the patio shall be removed within it.
certain dates at a certain time period from the decision notice would probably fail the six tests of conditions because it conflicts with the description of development.
so I'm afraid it's either acceptable in its current form or is not, but what I would say is members do have the option if they want to to defer the application to a later date, if they feel that is appropriate and then ask the applicant,
to amend the plans, but
that's that that is one option that is open to members.
can I just briefly come back because I've seen this happen before where something's being built, and they've been asked to amend the plans and then it was approved, having the actual building being amended, and I think in this case I think part of the patio the end part of the far in from the steps shouldn't be there should be removed.
and then it should come back to committee for approval, then so, as partial removal is what I would recommend, which which means rejecting this with sort of advice, that this is how you should deal with it.
Councillor Petra,
thank you Chair.
just for my own.
trying to work out whether this
should be approved or, I think Councillor Pope's got a good thoughts, a recommendation
for that height drop if anyone's got their engineering heads on
how it will help because the drop from the door on a point 2 5 1.2 5
while
to pass.
0sorry so from from ground to door I yeah, so if you if there were to be steps constructed rather than a one a
pathway, patio hedge, getting out what would be to make a safe, so it wasn't a half drop how far out would steps need to go to create a
a site, a safe for people you know?
trips, basically, the
if that makes sense.
thank you Chair, I don't think we can't really provide advice on that, I think that's probably a matter for the Building Regulations and in any event it's not the proposed is not the scheme that's in front of members to determine at the moment.
thank you, yes, just wondering,
Councillor Johnson.
yes or
again, very.
silly question, I just just need to ask.
if that wasn't the concrete and it was decking would that need planning approval
would yeah sorry, yes,
it would be a raised platform over 300 mills that would require planning permission.
I think we've moved imperceptibly into debate.
Councillor Moore.
give us some wisdom, thank you Chair.
I
actually
agree with the
the neighbour number 72,
they originally looked at the application.
the patio ii steps was not on the original application.
so they actually did not object, and that's reasonable because as the process.
subsequently.
erection, respectively the patio has been built stroke extension
and with steps
and.
the principle and when you look at that, that's why we had planning applications, and that's where we hope not to get to a point of
enforcement. we have respected planning application and I feel probably that's where we are, regrettably,
and I think any solution
has to be
brokered with
in the first instance number 72.
because I don't think they should be responsible, maybe for an application, it may well have been flawed. and on principle, they were looking at what they were looking at,
but any solution should actually taken account their views
and their.
reaction to how it will affect them,
overlooking
etc with that patio,
so my immediate
view is to actually be against
conditions could be put in,
but even if you look at even a condition of a screen,
is going to be no truer Jan to their outlook in her back garden whatever and as a result of the retrospective application so my and purely on the planning part of that
in principle I'm against retrospective planning applications.
but I do look at everyone and look at on their merit, because enforcement can be more difficult, etc than having a re submission application,
but on this instance.
I will be against support of the residents number 72,
thank you.
Councillor Wood,
thank you, I am going to say I agree with Councillor Main and but I think there is quite simple solution, I think they had promotion steps, they'd bought Patti out, they ship patio should go and they should stick with the original steps and so I'm going to support and say I don't think we should prove this retrospective application
forms will ruin are you proposing that we reject the officers' recommendation?
yes, armchair quite unusual, thank you.
Councillor Pope
seconding,
I will second that yes.
Councillor White.
console,
sorry, I'm
I probably won't
vote against the application, but I think definitely the condition of the fence should go,
nobody wanted.
and I think, because the extension is actually 30 centimetres
shorter than it would have been if he'd gone the whole width that he had planning permission for it, and I can see why those steps are safer because the going straight out rather than going like that is safer for kids, so I can see that I can accept that and I think the compromises to accept the retrospective planning application for the steps and remove the fence from the discussion. Is that's something we can do? That's my proposal counter-proposal
concept plans RosPil I'd like
to second
Councillor Page's proposal iv, accept
to accept Councillor with the proviso that our number 2 is deleted.
so the conditions recommend agent minus 2 minds the fence.
OK.
construct consequential and then Councillor Simmons.
thank you Chair.
personally, my thoughts are on this,
this isn't a lawful development due to the fact that the either causes severe overlooking,
and the only way of resolving the overlooking is to cause
overshadowing
blocking, right,
block, blocking off, in which case I don't think it would have been approved if it had come up before being built because of those two issues they would have been roughly applied against so I think it should be refused and recommended as Councillor Pope had previously recommended to recommendations put in place to the owner to or to the applicant to resubmit something
of a more suitable nature that isn't going to either have severe overlooking
or overshadowing impacts.
on the on the neighbours, thank you.
conservation zones,
thank you Chair,
I am very much against the screen, but I'm also aware that perhaps the people at the
the couple that lived at number 72 may not always be there, you know they may sell, and then somebody else come along and say Well, they're overlooking, and I want to screen to we've made a condition of planning that there is no screen.
I think that's the.
that's the
sort of internal debate the members members need to have in terms of the the recommendation.
they they need to consider whether they believe that a screen is necessary to prevent overlooking, or whether, indeed, they think well, the depth of the the patio area at 1.00.2 metres is
insufficient to.
to have have an area to generally enjoy, and
dwell on and spend time on that.
a a screen is is is not necessary in that regard, so that's the in terms of the screen and whether to think.
keep condition to
as as the recommendation or as Councillors location, Osborne have have put forward the recommendation without condition to
that's the that's the consideration and as a sites it's a, it's a balance, one way or the other it is, I think is Councillor White spoke spoke about earlier.
it
the development front members tonight for consideration is not what one would typically consider to be a patio, it's not of
a scale where you would.
put out a lot of furniture or a barbecue area because it's not, it's not big enough,
so in that regard, the the dwell time on that area is going to be limited, I think, is as.
Andrew said earlier that the
it's its limit, its function is limited by size
so that society, that's the
that's the consideration, thank you.
Councillor White, thank you and just I don't know if this is possible, but could you could you make it a condition that the person it numbers or who were whoever was living at number 72, were able to choose whether they wanted to screen or not, so someone else moved in and did want the screen they could have that.
unfortunately, not, although we won't be able to to have a condition which
which required them to check with within China, obviously there is ivy that they did be
looking to
discuss things with their neighbours in any cases, as many do, and to do with heights of hedges and heights of fences on boundaries
that the people generally speak. to each other, about
Councillor Moon.
thank you, Chair, if you look at the retrospective application, is beyond any doubt that the occupiers of number 72 are being asked to accept the mitigation for a flawed application.
and that's clear, and I think within the planning
that is.
too much for them to maybe have on their shoulders
because they clearly object to it
in the second instance, as a retrospective are, as I said,
you know. most people in these situations and the applicant actually says he wants to get along,
so that's a fundamental principle there, and there has to be
a discussion that suits all parties, and that can only be done by objecting the application.
because then there will be.
not so much onions on number 72. and I don't think it comes out that clear within
the application that the
applicant has made that point so yeah, it's regrettable and I understand that we can have amendments to it, but the the only real ways to step back and regrettably, start again.
I think,
if I may contribute, one of the things that
I think we ought to bear in mind is that.
if we go back to the bomb maps of the but that showed that
the gardens of the two properties.
the garden of the applicant is long.
stretched quite a way done.
the garden of number 72 is short,
it has already been shortened, at least on one side, by the extension which has been ranted legally. and there isn't much.
isn't much left of it, but isn't?
isn't that
isn't walled?
my number 74.
the
the basic fault, it seems to me, lies with the
the decision of the applicant and his builder.
to go far beyond the scope of the original planning, application and bill this so-called pack yet.
and we are now going through all kinds of contortions involving discussions over an obscure glass, but as this.
would fencing versus, well, let's not do anything about it at all.
the root of the problem lies in the existence of that package,
clearly there needs to be some way of getting out of the house,
but it doesn't need. it doesn't need a.
a patio like that, and I'll say why my inclination is to.
to refuse the application.
against the recommendation of the offices
and get the owner, this had to be sensible, reduce the size of that patio, so the doesn't about.
number 72 that would have to be we we can't make up a design on the hoof here and the Planning Committee.
but you then go back and think about it start again and get it right and do what you had permission to do.
Councillor felt, I'll second excited that's largely what I was trying to say is, I think we need to send it back and they need to amend the build.
b
the first proposal we have in front of us, I mean.
councils are do we think they are ready to vote on this week, we we've talked to to
talk to to death.
sorry, thank we voting on all three, will there be an option for the three options being put before us?
2, I think I think those two
options, yeah, I think there's two two proposals that have been put forward, I think the first proposal,
which which I believe was proposed by Councillor Moon, seconded by Councillor White,
and that was to refuse the application
on the grounds of.
is that the the the patio would lead to significant harm to the residential amenity of the adjoining occupiers?
and then.
the second proposal, which was put forward by Councillor Les Page and seconded by Councillor Osborne, was to accept the recommendation on the papers with the deletion of condition 2,
which required the
boundary treatment to be put up.
I think thank you.
the first proposal was to reject,
but by Councillor Moon, seconded by Councillor Blake.
title
neither one of those proposed in time sequence wants to regret the past, the first proposal that came up was.
as a lawyer, when you need one.
I think.
happy with taking the
have on first taking me up to approval for iDevice.
somsa legal officer.
abandon this.
it seems safest to take do, but first boat.
to accept the officer's recommendation, with the proviso that we delete
section 2
condition 2, no, that's that's the proposal by Councillor Les Page and seconded by Councillor Osborne
and that's yeah, that's the the first vote for amendment
to Councillor Moon.
thank you, Chair, with with respect, the first proposition was do reject,
proposed by me and seconded, I think that should go to the vote and all those that supported the second resolution.
at the opportunity to vote against that, if it's lost, then the second proposition should be taken.
recommendation but ultimately works both,
but both which will take place, but you'll have to pay.
if we take the vote to accept the officer's recommendation with the provider.
we will have a vote on that, if that fails correct, we will then move to
the second proposal, which is to reject the officers' recommendation,
I comes out the same way.
with respect,
I put the proposition first, so I think it should be called, as I hear you say,
it depends how you might perceive an advantage,
with the second proposition
being put, where we're grown up some, I think we can work.
I think most of us have decided which way we're going to bet,
and I do I think if the legal officer was here, she would recommend in the past if the officers' recommendation goes first and then if, even if there's an objection to it, that goes second, the officer recommendation on the report goes first.
I accept that you signed off the recommendations
from the opposite way,
while Bonucci's counter to that
first is to accept the officer's recommendation with the deletion of condition 2.
all those in favour of accepting the officers' recommendation.
that's too far to
all those against.
that's 9 chair
all those abstaining.
one dissenting.
that motion then fails we move to the
second proposition is that we reject the officers' recommendation, that
a loss where we were who proposed that Councillor Councillor Moore, Councillor White
excellent,
with no conditions.
except get yourself sorted, like all those in favour of rejecting the officers' recommendation.
that's 10 chair.
all losing against.
want to check
any abstentions.
no.
the officers' recommendations are therefore rejected, I'm sure to say.
and
we will hope for.
a better outcome next time, I'm sure there will be a next time.
and I haven't been able.
who better
thank you.

7 f) Application for consideration - 23/01232/FULL 74 Rusthall High Street, Rusthall, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

item 7 D 23 slash double 0 8 5 7
Laura 65, a ringtone Avenue Paddock Wood Tonbridge, Kent Page 1 0 4 of the main agenda, page 10 of the supplementary back Mr. Taylor, your presentation, please.
thank you Chair.
this application is a lawful permanent certificate, so effectively does asking for confirmation of the council works that require planning permission. for a dropped kerb to enable access to the front garden which will form a new driveway.

7 d) Application for Consideration - 23/00857/LAWPRO 65A Ringden Avenue, Paddock Wood, Tonbridge, Kent.

so the site is situated to the south-west, the centre of Paddock Wood.
and occupies a corner plot where goslings meet ringing Avenue.
it's just another view, so the hardstanding replace that grassed area to the right hand side of the path.
and would consist of permeable resin.
as outlined in the report,
the works are considered to comply with the relevant legislation within the general permitted development order, and the recommendation is to grant the issue of a lawful and certificate proposed,
thank you.
concert, do you have any questions that the office have?
councillors who wish to debate this important issue, cancel and move.
thank you Chair.
in relation to the application and the any comment I'd like to make is that where the proposed dropped kerbs to go on to the drive?
you have focused closed, you aren't ringed in Avenue the Golding's and Colgate Road opposite, so there are three main.
residential roads within that raised drive
another concern is that vehicles coming off.
the drive, reversing will be reviewed, be a potential hazard, but I do recognise there's no KCC comment Highways on the application.
in relation to that,
so that's the only concern I've got and on the application.
Councillor Pope.
a lot of them have dropped curbs, but I see the next door neighbour has one,
and I think if the the the the point raised by Councillor Moon, although valid, I think, visibility there looks good,
I think the only reason it's here is because Tunbridge Wells Borough Council so own some of the some of the land I think we should proceed to vote to approve.
k Councillor Pope proposes that, except the officer recommendation concept patrol Alan quickly.
second, that place.
there being no further debate, shall we, but all those in favour of accepting the officers' recommendation.
that's 11 for chair
all those against.
against her.
abstaining
like one abstention.
that recommendations therefore accepted accepted.
right.
item 7 E

7 e) Application for Consideration - 23/01048/FULL Tunbridge Wells MOT Centre, North Farm Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

23 slash 0 1 0 4 8 4 Tunbridge Wells emote centre, North Palm Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent
PAGE 1 0 9 on the main agenda, page 13 of the supplementary pack
Mr. Hazel Grove, your presentation nice,
thank you Chair. This application is for the construction of a new be a storage facility
on land, at the time, as well as in the city centre in Tunbridge Wells in hybrid rooms.
and that's the site outline, you'll notice that the land, generally the areas to the south are residential in nature, whereas to the north you've got the Chapman Way Industrial Estate. and there are other industrial units and uses to the to the west she got the hillock, Baldwins Lane, and there are also industrial uses opposite
adjacent to the train line,
there's an aerial photograph of the site, so in the centre of this
towards
the centre, you've got the existing M O T centre, which is the the long building running.
north-west, south-east,
then an area of land pockets of land around the middle which has been used for vehicle storage slash parking for many, many years and then, as a former oil depot at the northern end, which has been removed
and the site was used for parking and vehicle storage unlawfully up until June when that you ceased
this is a view of the site from Chapman way, so from the north, from the junction of an industrial estate.
see at the moment, it's sites quite open,
no the view looking north
and say the existing M O T Centre building is in the in the background there.
looking south is where the all distribution depot was sited previously.
buildings
proposed to be demolished
from the south, there's a block of nine flats which was granted permission some years ago and which hasn't, as you can see by the photo, has now been completed.
yeah, I think it's yet to be occupied
and another view
also showing the sort of height disparity between the
the floor, grow at ground level of the application site and the bank, that's to the to the west.
so these are the existing buildings.
there's a view in profile
showing the building in relation to the block of flats next door.
this is the proposed building, so
it's, as you can see, significant, quite a large, quite significant, building,
it's got the scheme includes landscaping around the perimeter was at that moment there's a complete absence of landscaping on the site.
parking areas to the southern end,
and
there would be
parking
provision has been agreed by KCC Highways, as has the
additional vehicle movements on the North Farm Road.
this is the building elevations.
so you can see from the east and the south.
and north and the west.
so this is quite an, I think, an important view shows the way that the road slopes down
towards the towards the north and the way that this building is designed to step down in height from the new block of flats next door.
the storage use will be spread over
of partly part three part, four floors of the building split level due to the drop in heights and ground level.
and the floor plans as a storage facility, it's not only very much inside it,
so it's generally open and.
with a provision for staff facilities on the ground floor.
as well as cycle parking and refuse storage, etc
and this plan I unfortunately the numbers aren't really discernible from this distance, but it shows the drop in heights and there is quite a significant drop in height across the site, but members will already have seen that from the proposed cross sections,
and this is the essentially the landscaping plan which shows.
essentially, a landscape enhancements.
around the perimeter of the site and towards the eastern or western corner,
and also the
reconstruction and reinstatement of the footway where necessary
outside the site frontage.
and these are some CGA images so again looking north.
and from and in looking
south.
there are no updates for members.
the recommendation the proposal would result in delivery of sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Framework
there'll be significant economic benefits arising from the development. one must be has just been blown.
thank you, Mr. Hazel Grove, that's a heavy evening.
there were no speakers on this item.
committee members, do you have any questions of the officer?
no.
committee members, shall we move on into debate and discussion.
Councillor White.
and I was going to say, and it's pretty goshi, that old, empty building and not very nice thing to say, I think this is a much more much more,
it looks like a much better solution, so sort of tidy up the site provides storage which people assume they have business case and people want that,
so I think it's that I think it's a great idea and I'm happy to propose it.
check the offices.
anybody wishing to second Councillor Pattison, you wish to second, I wish to second guess I agree with what Councillor White said.
any further discussion members.
let us proceed whereby.
but proposition is proposed by Councillor White seconded by Councillor Pattison MBE accept the officer's recommendation all those in favour.
unanimous Chair.

7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/00807/LBC Town Hall, Mount Pleasant Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

councillors, we now move to Item 7 be.
23 slash double 0 8 0 7 LBC Town Hall Mount Pleasant Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent h 84 off the main agenda, page 6 of the supplementary pack and Mr. Hazel Grove is going to do it again,
thank you, Chair, I'll be quite brief with this one.
Town Hall.
so there's just a plan buildings, grade II listed
amongst many others in the town centre.
the requisite aerial photograph
issues are that the corridor
leads to the gallery, that you access from the side the main entrance down the front is riddled with them and
there needs to be some kind of solution to. combat the damp
the proposal is for essentially a new membrane and
plaster boarding over that
wall, which requires listed building consent because its works can affect the character of a listed building.
but those works are proposed in order to try to alleviate the issue.
They have the support of the principal conservation officer,
subject to condition
they consider to be proportionate and wouldn't harm. The significance of the listed building and recommendation is to grant listed building consent, subject to conditions. Thank you,
councillors, any questions for the officer.
not.
Councillor Burke. it is, is this going to resolve the damp problem?
we will have that's the intention, yes.
not anybody wish to speak in favour of this proposal.
Councillor Roger Allam
and yes, thing, definitely sorts out the dam, I'd like to propose we accept the those recommendations, thank you, Councillor Michael
Gove got there first, I
would like second federally
right, thank you, but what before is to accept the Officer's recommendation proposed by Councillor Bridger Alan seconded by Councillor Neville all those in favour please show.
as a unanimous Chair.
item 7 G
that
recommendation is accepted

7 g) Application for Consideration - 23/01546/LBC Town Hall Mount Pleasant Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

item 7 j 23 0 1, Bible 6, listed Building consent Town Hall Mount Pleasant Road.
Royal Tunbridge Wells account page 1 39 of the main agenda, page 19 of the supplementary pack Mr. Hayes' grave.
thank you, Chair, sorry, another Town Hall application.
as the general, the purpose of this application follows the permission was granted for the change of use
of the majority of the building to a co-working.
scheme and earlier this year
so those are the already permitted plans for the change of use application, which show the areas outlined in red that will remain in the borough council use and the remainder being in the use of a co-working company
again you can see on the
the upper floor, St John layout,
a lower floor at ground-floor rather.
this is the first floor
and again this the plans of the the roof office.
so what this application is actually for is listed building consent to create some internal partitions within the Town Hall again as before, with the previous application at their works that affect the special character of the listed building, and so in a and as such, they require listed building consent.
one partition is proposed there outlined in red
this is in the basement in this room on the far side of the building,
and further partitions are proposed in August, the old finance hall and other rooms along these wings in his corridor here, and one is this office here.
the conservation officer Principal Conservation Officer is satisfied with the application they don't consider, it would result in any harmful impact to the listed building and would sustain its significance, it will allow the reuse of the building within the town centre for flexible working purposes,
and the recommendation is to grant subject to condition, thank you.
transfers you have any questions of the officer.
councillors do wish to debate the matter.
or
vermin, whether they like to signify their approval.
Councillor Pope.
Councillor Johnson seconds,
the proposal before us
is to accept the officer's recommendation proposed by Councillor Booth. seconded by Councillor Johnson, all those in favour.
unanimous check.
there's a bit.
item 8 on the agenda of appeal decisions for noting

8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 10 May 2023 to 10 July 2023

10th May to 10th July, as set out on page of Andrew 45 of the agenda, and, if you have any questions,
ask the planning officers outside this meeting.
he said.

9 Urgent Business

9 urgent business I confirm there is no urgent business apart from getting Councillor Fitzsimons on my road to Devon.

10 Date of Next Meeting

item 10 day to the next meeting, which will be on Wednesday, the 16th of August 2023, thank you for your patience, thank Minister Hazel Grove, his patients, thank you for your time.
architect.