Contact your Parish Council

Agenda and minutes
Venue: Town Hall, High Street, Maidstone
Contact: Debbie Snook 01622 602030
Link: clickhere for webcast channel
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Young.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Notification of Substitute Members Minutes: It was noted that Councillor Parfitt-Reid was substituting for Councillor Young.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Notification of Visiting Members Minutes: Councillor Round indicated his wish to speak on the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 22/501606/FULL (Ringles Gate, Grigg Lane, Headcorn, Ashford, Kent).
Councillor Springett indicated her wish to speak on the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 22/500345/FULL (8 Nethermount, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Items withdrawn from the Agenda Minutes: There were none.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Urgent Items Minutes: The Chairman said that he intended to take the update report of the Head of Planning and Development and the verbal updates in the Officer presentations as urgent items as they contained further information relating to the applications to be considered at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Disclosures by Members and Officers Minutes: Councillor Brindle said that, with regard to the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 22/502289/REM (Kent Medical Campus, Newnham Way, Maidstone, Kent), she was a Member of Boxley Parish Council. However, she had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the application and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.
Councillor Perry said that, with regard to the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 21/506207/FULL (Staplehurst Service Station, High Street, Staplehurst, Kent), he was a Member of Staplehurst Parish Council. However, he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the application and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.
Councillor Spooner said that, with regard to the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 22/500345/FULL (8 Nethermount, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent), he was a Member of Bearsted Parish Council. However, he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the application and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Disclosures of lobbying Minutes: The following disclosures of lobbying were noted:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Exempt Items Minutes: RESOLVED: That the items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minutes of the meeting held on 26 May 2022 Minutes: RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 May 2022 be approved as a correct record and signed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Presentation of Petitions Minutes: There were no petitions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Any Questions on Notice from Local Residents Minutes: There were no questions from local residents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Any Questions on Notice from Members Minutes: There were no questions from Members.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minutes: 21/503150/FULL - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF 3 NO. HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED AMENITY SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS - THE OLD FORGE, CHARTWAY STREET, EAST SUTTON, MAIDSTONE, KENT
21/506664/FULL – DEMOLITION AND REBUILDING OF THE EXISTING BARN TO PROVIDE A 3 BEDROOM DWELLING INCLUDING REAR PAVILIONS LINKED BY GLASS LINK. RE-ROUTING AND ALTERATION OF EXISTING ROAD ACCESS TO ALLOW SEPARATE ACCESS TO HOUSE AND BARN AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING - ROSEHILL, VANITY LANE, LINTON, MAIDSTONE, KENT
The Major Projects Manager advised the Committee that both Case Officers had received and were assessing information from the applicants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Appointment of Political Group Spokespersons to Discharge Condition 3 of Planning Permission 21/503615/FULL (Vinters Park Crematorium, Bearsted Road, Weavering, Maidstone, Kent) Minutes: RESOLVED: That the following Members be appointed as Spokespersons for their respective Political Groups for the purposes of discharging condition 3 of planning permission 21/503615/FULL (The construction of surface water attenuation and settling lagoons with associated drainage, infrastructure and landscaping – Vinters Park Crematorium, Bearsted Road, Weavering, Maidstone, Kent):
Councillor Brindle – Conservative Group Councillor Harwood – Liberal Democrat Group Councillor Munford – Independent Group Councillor D Wilkinson – Labour Group
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.
In introducing the application, the Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that an additional representation had been received the previous day. It did not raise any new material issues or any issues that had not already been considered in the report.
Mr Wiseman, an objector, Councillor Buller of Staplehurst Parish Council, and Ms Jackson, for the applicant, addressed the meeting.
Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission. In making this decision, the Committee considered that:
The main apartment building is out of scale with the predominant footprint, height, and mass of buildings within the street scene and local area and it protrudes beyond the established building line with a lack of space to provide sufficient landscaping/tree planting. It therefore fails to respond positively to, or be sympathetic to, local character, and would be an incongruous building harmful to the street scene and local area contrary to policy DM1 of the Maidstone Local Plan and policy H1 of the Staplehurst Neighbourhood Plan and paragraph 130(c) of the NPPF.
In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the necessary off-site affordable housing contribution the development would be contrary to policy SP20 of the Maidstone Local Plan.
RESOLVED: That permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The main apartment building is out of scale with the predominant footprint, height, and mass of buildings within the street scene and local area and it protrudes beyond the established building line with a lack of space to provide sufficient landscaping/tree planting. It therefore fails to respond positively to, or be sympathetic to, local character, and would be an incongruous building harmful to the street scene and local area contrary to policy DM1 of the Maidstone Local Plan and policy H1 of the Staplehurst Neighbourhood Plan and paragraph 130(c) of the NPPF.
2. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the necessary off-site affordable housing contribution the development would be contrary to policy SP20 of the Maidstone Local Plan.
Voting: 13 – For 0 – Against 0 – Abstentions
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.
In the absence of a representative of the Parish Council, Mr Dowle, a supporter of the application, addressed the meeting with the Chairman’s discretion.
Mr Hodson, the applicant, and Councillor Round (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.
Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to grant permission subject to conditions to be finalised by the Head of Planning and Development in consultation with Ward Members, the Chairman of the Committee and Councillors Brindle, Harwood, Munford and D Wilkinson.
In making this decision, Members considered that despite the policy considerations, in this particular case, due to the scale and massing of immediately adjacent development, the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the countryside in this location. There would also be benefits in terms of energy efficiency, renewables and good design to which Members had afforded weight.
RESOLVED: That permission be granted subject to conditions to be finalised by the Head of Planning and Development in consultation with Ward Members, the Chairman of the Committee and Councillors Brindle, Harwood, Munford and D Wilkinson; the conditions to cover standard matters plus, inter alia:
The quality of the detailing (brickwork, doors, rainwater goods etc.). Materials (to ensure they are appropriate). Renewables (air source heat pump and/or solar PV given the remote location and sustainability being a reason for the overturn). Niches for wildlife (swift bricks in the eaves and bat tubes or bat bricks). External lighting (to reduce harm to the open countryside and protected species). The long-term protection of the front boundary hedgerow and the implementation of a new native landscaping scheme. The car parking area (materials and drainage). A sustainable drainage approach (given the intensification of development).
Voting: 11 – For 1 – Against 1 – Abstention
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.
RESOLVED: That permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Voting: 12 – For 0 – Against 1 – Abstention
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.
The Officers explained that most elements of the application were retrospective although the proposed mitigation screening had not been installed.
Councillor Springett (Visiting Member) read out a statement on behalf of Mr and Mrs Eaton who objected to the application.
Mr Bax, for the applicant, and Councillor Springett (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.
Members raised no objection to most elements of the application, namely the garage conversion, gazebo and orangery, but did not support the extended decking area. It was considered that without adequate screening, the extended decking area, by virtue of its rearward projection and height, results in a loss of privacy to No.9 Nethermount. The proposed privacy screen by virtue of its height in relation to the neighbouring site, position on the boundary and incongruous materials would be overbearing resulting in a loss of amenity contrary to Policy DM1 of the adopted Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017.
RESOLVED: That permission be refused and that the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers to finalise the reason for refusal to include the key issues cited above and to add an informative advising the applicant that the other elements of the application would be acceptable if submitted separately.
Voting: 13 – For 0 – Against 0 - Abstentions
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Head of Planning and Development.
RESOLVED:
1. That the reserved matters be approved subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report with an additional informative advising the applicant to investigate the opportunity to provide EV charging points adjacent to the main building.
2. That the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers to finalise the wording of the additional informative.
3. That the Officers be requested to liaise with the landowner to accelerate delivery of the landscaping pursuant to the outline planning permission.
Voting: 10 – For 1 – Against 2 – Abstentions
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.
RESOLVED:
1. That permission be granted subject to the condition and informative set out in the report with an additional condition to secure ecological measures appropriate to the site’s character and future.
2. That the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers to finalise the wording of the additional condition.
Voting: 13 – For 0 – Against 0 – Abstentions
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Minutes: The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development setting out details of appeal decisions received since the last meeting.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted and that the Officers be congratulated on their success at appeal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Duration of Meeting Minutes: 6.00 p.m. to 9.25 p.m.
|