Contact your Parish Council
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
Planning Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2014
Present: |
Councillor Collins (Chairman), and Councillors Ash, Black, Cox, English, Harwood, Hogg, Moriarty, Nelson-Gracie, Paterson, Mrs Robertson and J.A. Wilson |
Also Present: |
Councillors Newton, Pickett and Ross |
|
232. Apologies for Absence
It was noted that an apology for absence had been received from Councillor Chittenden.
233. Notification of Substitute Members
It was noted that Councillor English was substituting for Councillor Chittenden.
234. Notification of Visiting Members
Councillors Pickett and Ross indicated their wish to speak on the reports of the Head of Planning and Development relating to applications MA/13/0297 and MA/13/0298.
235. Items withdrawn from the Agenda
There were none.
236. Urgent Items
The Chairman stated that, in his opinion, the update report of the Head of Planning and Development should be taken as an urgent item because it contained further information relating to the applications to be considered at the meeting.
237. Disclosures by Members and Officers
There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.
238. Disclosures of lobbying
All Members stated that they had been lobbied in relation to applications MA/13/0297 and MA/13/0298.
239. Exempt Items
RESOLVED: That the items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.
240. Minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2013
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed.
241. Presentation of Petitions (if any)
The petition in relation to application MA/13/0297 was presented during consideration of this application.
242. MA 13 0297 - BALTIC WHARF, ST PETERS STREET, MAIDSTONE, KENT
The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development regarding this application and application MA/13/0298.
Mr Jeffery, petitioner and objector, Mr Rees, for the Applicant, Councillors Pickett and Ross (Visiting Members) addressed the meeting.
RESOLVED: That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that, had there not been an appeal for non-determination, the Committee would have refused planning permission for the reasons set out below:-
1.
The proposed development does not comply with the Council’s strategy for
future retail development in Maidstone as set out within the Maidstone Borough
Wide Local Plan (2000), or within the emerging Maidstone Local Plan (which are
consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework), which designate other
sites for new retail development and do not designate this site for such a use.
2.
The proposed development does not comply with the sequential approach
set out in paragraph 24 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and within
Policy R2 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000) as it is
out-of-centre in retail terms; and there are more sequentially preferable sites
available which could accommodate the proposed development with due flexibility
on the part of the developer.
3.
The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on
planned investment in Maidstone town centre, which would put at risk the
Council's strategy to secure new retail development on the Maidstone East site
and elsewhere within the town centre set out in the Maidstone Borough Wide
Local Plan (2000), and in the emerging Maidstone Local Plan, and is therefore
contrary to paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4. The proposed development, due in particular to the loss of the stairwell and north wing, would result in substantial harm to the Grade II Listed Buidling, which is not considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The proposal therefore conflicts with the advice gien in the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraphs 131, 132 and 133.
5. The proposed development would result in the loss of a tree that is protected by a Preservation Order (2 of 2013). The loss of this tree would have a significantly detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the locality, and would therefore fail to comply with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Voting: 11 – For 0 – Against 1 – Abstention
243. MA 13 0298 - BALTIC WHARF, ST PETERS STREET, MAIDSTONE, KENT
The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development regarding this application and application MA/13/0297.
Mr Rees, for the Applicant, Councillors Pickett and Ross (Visiting Members) addressed the meeting.
RESOLVED: That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that, had there not been an appeal for non-determination, the Committee would have refused listed building consent for the reason set out below:-
The proposed development, due in particular to the loss of the stairwell and north wing, would result in substantial harm to the Grade II Listed Building, which is not considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The proposal therefore conflicts with the advice given in the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraphs 131, 132 and 133.
Voting: 11 – For 0 – Against 1 – Abstention
244. Chairman's Announcements
The Chairman announced that the site visit to see solar farms had taken place the day before and that they had an opportunity to speak to one of the landowners which was very helpful. The Planning Officer had sent a letter of thanks to the landowner and the Chairman stated that he would also send a letter of thanks from Members.
245. Duration of Meeting
6.05 p.m. to 7.15 p.m.