It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Parfitt-Reid.

RESOLVED:  That in the absence of a Vice-Chairman, and in the event of the Chairman having to leave the meeting early, Councillor Spooner be elected as Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.

It was noted that Councillor Chappell-Tay was substituting for Councillor Parfitt-Reid.

Councillor Hastie indicated her wish to speak on the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 17/504568/FULL (KCC Springfield Library HQ, Sandling Road, Maidstone, Kent).

Councillor Webb indicated his wish to speak on the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 19/501775/FULL (Stocketts, (Also Known as The Spice Lounge), 118 Heath Road, Coxheath, Maidstone, Kent).

The Chairman said that only the following applications would be considered that evening:

17/504568/FULL – KCC SPRINGFIELD LIBRARY HQ, SANDLING ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT

19/501775/FULL – STOCKETTS (ALSO KNOWN AS THE SPICE LOUNGE), 118 HEATH ROAD, COXHEATH, MAIDSTONE, KENT

19/503395/REM – LAND SOUTH OF SUTTON ROAD, LANGLEY, KENT

19/503614/REM – LAND SOUTH OF SUTTON ROAD, LANGLEY, KENT

The remaining items on the agenda would be rolled over to the adjourned meeting date (5 December 2019).

The Chairman said that, in his opinion, the update reports of the Head of Planning and Development and the updates to be included in the Officer presentations should be taken as urgent items as they contained further information relating to the applications to be considered at the meeting.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

RESOLVED:  That the items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed.

There were no petitions.

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.

In presenting the application, the Major Projects Manager advised the Committee that one further resident representation had been received that day supporting the objections summarised in the report and that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council had also confirmed that it had no objection.

Mr Brown, an objector, Mr Gill, for the applicant, and Councillor Hastie (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report with the deletion of the reason relating to the proposed parking provision.

Voting:  8 – For  2 – Against  0 – Abstentions

Note:  Councillor Harwood requested that his dissent be recorded.

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Head of Planning and Development.

Councillor Wilson of Coxheath Parish Council, Mrs Simpkin, for the applicant, and Councillor Webb (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.

The Chairman read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Parfitt-Reid, a Ward Member for Coxheath and Hunton and a Member of the Planning Committee, who had called in the application for consideration by the Committee but was unable to attend the meeting.  It was noted that Councillor Parfitt-Reid objected to the proposal on the basis that it would result in the loss of an important community asset and assertions that the restaurant is no longer viable needed to be supported by proper evidence.  The proposal did not overcome the previous reason for refusal and would be incongruous and out of scale in its setting.  The proposed block would be closer to Heath Road and adversely affected by road traffic.  Further, there was no shortage of assisted living accommodation for elderly people in Coxheath.

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 by virtue of its scale, mass and design, proximity to Heath Road/lack of setback, the proposal will have an overbearing and harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene contrary to Policies SP11, DM1, DM2 and DM12 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017.  The Committee also considered that the loss of an existing community facility within an area with limited alternative facilities will harm the existing and future character, function and sustainability of Coxheath as a larger village contrary to Policies SP11, SP13, DM17 and DM20 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

RESOLVED: 

1.  That permission be refused for the following reasons:

By virtue of its scale, mass and design, proximity to Heath Road/lack of setback, the proposal will have an overbearing and harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene contrary to Policies SP11, DM1, DM2 and DM12 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017.

The loss of an existing community facility within an area with limited alternative facilities will harm the existing and future character, function and sustainability of Coxheath as a larger village contrary to Policies SP11, SP13, DM17 and DM20 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.  That the applicant be advised of the Council’s concerns regarding the failure of the application to make provision for renewable energy generation in the development to accord with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Voting:  10 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

All Members except Councillors Chappell-Tay, Eves and Perry stated that they had been lobbied.

Councillor Taylor-Maggio of Langley Parish Council and Mr Rummey, for the applicant, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and the following additional informatives:

1.  The precise details and species used for the landscaping scheme, as required to be discharged under condition 4 of the outline consent, shall follow the Landscape Guidelines contained within the Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment Supplement 2012. 

Please note that the details submitted pursuant to condition 4 for this Phase will need to be reported to the Planning Committee for a decision.

2.  It is advised that the composite boarding to be used in the development must be compliant with Building Regulations in terms of fire safety.

3.  The ecological enhancement details submitted pursuant to condition 10 of the outline consent for this Phase shall include 'bee bricks'.

Voting:  10 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.

Councillor Taylor-Maggio of Langley Parish Council and Mr Rummey, for the applicant, had registered to speak on this application, but waived their right.

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Voting:  10 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

At 8.20 p.m., following consideration of the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 19/503614/REM (Land South of Sutton Road, Langley, Kent), the Committee:

RESOLVED:  That the meeting be adjourned until 6.00 p.m. on Thursday 5 December 2019 when the remaining items on the agenda will be discussed.

6.00 p.m. to 8.20 p.m.