It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Mrs Marshall, Paine and Mrs Robertson.

The following Substitute Members were noted:-

Councillor Marchant for Councillor Mrs Marshall

Councillor Vizzard for Councillor Mrs Robertson

There were no Visiting Members.

There were none.

Update Report

The Chairman stated that, in his opinion, the update report of the Development Control Manager should be taken as an urgent item because it contained further information relating to the applications to be considered at the meeting.

Councillor Ash disclosed a personal interest in the reports of the Development Control Manager relating to applications MA/09/0576 and MA/09/0787.  He stated that he was a Member of Bearsted Parish Council, but he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the applications and intended to speak and vote when they were considered.

Councillor Ash also disclosed a personal interest in the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/0671 by virtue of being a Member of Bearsted Parish Council and a member of the Madginford Hall Management Committee.  He stated that although he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the application, he had been present, and joined in, when the application was discussed by the Hall Management Committee.  He would leave the room when the application was considered.

Councillor Marchant stated that, with regard to the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/0671, the children living in his Ward attended the Primary School located within the complex containing the application site.

Councillor Vizzard disclosed a personal interest in the reports of the Development Control Manager relating to applications MA/09/0997 and MA/09/0998 by virtue of being an executive member of the Maidstone Museums Foundation.  He stated that he wished to reserve his right to speak but he would not vote when the applications were considered.

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

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Mr Rendina, for the applicant, addressed the meeting on this application and on associated application MA/09/0998.

RESOLVED: 

1.  That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for determination with the recommendation that listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report as amended by the urgent update report.

2.  That the reason for recommending that listed building consent be granted is that the proposed works are considered to preserve the building/setting of the building and its special architectural and historic features.

Voting:  11 - For  0 - Against  1 - Abstention

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Mr Rendina had already addressed the meeting on behalf of the applicant.

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report as amended by the urgent update report.

Voting:  11 - For  0 - Against   1 - Abstention

All Members except Councillor Marchant stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Mr Newton, an objector, and Mr Aldridge, for the applicant, addressed the meeting.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Development Control Manager, the Committee agreed to refuse permission.  In making this decision, Members felt that the proposed development, by virtue of its bulk, form, materials and lack of verticality and detailing would prove overbearing, incongruous and unrelated to the existing and historic built form of the area, and as such would not represent good design.  The proposal would therefore prove detrimental to the character and setting of the adjacent listed buildings, and Conservation Area as a whole, and as such would be contrary to PPG15 and policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009.  The Committee also felt that the proposed development would fail to respect the prevailing grain and pattern of development within the area by virtue of the lack of rear garden space together with the parking area to the rear failing to be design led, and as such the proposal was considered to be contrary to PPS1 and PPS3 and policy T4 of the South East Plan 2009. 

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reasons:-

1.  The proposed development, by virtue of its bulk, form, materials and lack of verticality and detailing would prove overbearing, incongruous and unrelated to the existing and historic built form of the area, and as such would not represent good design.  The proposal would therefore prove detrimental to the character and setting of the adjacent listed buildings, and Conservation Area as a whole, and as such would be contrary to PPG15 and policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009.

2.  The proposed development would fail to respect the prevailing grain and pattern of development within the area by virtue of the lack of rear garden space together with the parking area to the rear failing to be design led, and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to PPS1 and PPS3 and policy T4 of the South East Plan 2009. 

Voting:  9 - For   0 - Against   3 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager.

Councillor Sams of Harrietsham Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

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

Voting:  12 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Councillor Ethridge of Bearsted Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:

1.  That subject to the expiry of the consultation period on the amended plans and the receipt of no representations raising new issues, the Development Control Manager be given delegated powers to grant permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, as amended by the urgent update report, and the following additional informative:-

You are advised that the impact of the development at the boundaries of the site should be softened by the use of appropriate high quality landscaping in conjunction with the required reptile mitigation measures and that and boundary enclosures should reflect the woodland edge location, but should include hedgerows to the front garden areas to supplement the proposed ragstone walls.

2.  That the details to be submitted pursuant to conditions 5 (landscaping), 7 (boundary treatments) and 10 (reptile survey and reptile habitat mitigation measures) must be reported back to the Planning Committee for approval.

Voting:  9 - For  3 - Against  0 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Mr Amondson, an objector, and Councillor Ethridge of Bearsted Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

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

2.  Within 3 months of the date of this permission hereby granted, the balustrading as detailed on drawing no CB2306.02 REV A received 11 May 2009 shall be installed and subsequently maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and to safeguard the privacy of existing and prospective occupiers, pursuant to the advice in PPS1.

Voting:  6 - For  5 - Against  2 - Abstentions

Chairman’s casting vote for approval

The Chairman and Councillor Marchant stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, as amended by the urgent update report, with the amendment of condition 6 and an additional condition as follows:-

Condition 6 (amended)

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, using indigenous species, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and a programme for the approved scheme's implementation and long term management.  The scheme shall be designed using the principles established in the Council's adopted Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Guidelines and the submitted details shall include the provision of hedgerow type planting to soften the site boundaries.

Reason:  No such details have been submitted and in the interests of the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with PPS1 and policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

Additional Condition

10.  The cordwood arising from the felling of the Silver Birch tree shall be located within the site in a location and quantity to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority prior to the felling of the tree.

Reason:  In the interests of ecology and bio-diversity pursuant to policy NRM5 of the South East Plan 2009 and PPS9.

Voting:  6 - For  2 - Against  3 - Abstentions

Having disclosed an interest in this application, Councillor Ash left the meeting whilst it was considered.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

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

Voting:  12 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions

All Members present stated that they knew Councillor Ms Williams, the applicant.

Councillor Ms Williams disclosed a prejudicial interest in the application by virtue of being the applicant.

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager.

The representative of the Head of Legal Services advised Councillor Ms Williams that since she had a prejudicial interest in the proposed development, and Mr Hicks would be making representations on her behalf, she should withdraw from the meeting whilst the application was being considered.

Mr Hicks addressed the meeting on behalf of the applicant.

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

Voting:  12 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager setting out details of appeal decisions which had been received since the last meeting.  With regard to item 2 of the report, the Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that the appeal against the decision to refuse application MA/08/1136 had been allowed, and not

dismissed as stated.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

It was noted that there was nothing to report at present.

Arising from the Committee’s consideration of various applications at the meeting, a Member expressed concern about inconsistencies in the way in which conditions were worded.  The Cabinet Member for Regeneration, who was present at the meeting, said that he would look into the matter.

The Chairman announced that the Officers were working towards including a caption on all photographs displayed on the website describing the view and where it was taken from.

6.00 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.