It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Greer.

There were no Substitute Members.

Councillor Batt indicated her wish to speak on the exempt report of the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration regarding the Section 106 Agreement entered into in relation to the residential development adjoining and conversion of the former Oakwood Hospital site.

Councillor Mrs Blackmore indicated her wish to speak on the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/0510.

Councillor Verrall indicated his wish to speak on the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/0675.

Councillor Vizzard indicated that he was attending the meeting to listen to the discussion on the exempt report of the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration regarding the Section 106 Agreement entered into in relation to the residential development adjoining and conversion of the former Oakwood Hospital site.

MA/09/1098 - Erection of detached barn and 3 no. polytunnels - Land south of Marden Road, Staplehurst

The Committee considered the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager recommending that this application be withdrawn from the agenda because a question had arisen over its validity in terms of a possible discrepancy in land ownership.

RESOLVED:  That agreement be given to the withdrawal of application MA/09/1098 from the agenda.

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.

Councillors Ash and Mrs Marshall disclosed personal interests in the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/0760.  They stated that they were Members of Bearsted Parish Council, but they had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the application and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.  Councillor Mrs Marshall added that although she had been contacted about problems associated with the development which had commenced at the Nethermount site nearby, she had not pre-determined this application.

With regard to the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/1073, Councillor Ash stated that, as Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, he had been involved in the discussions regarding the change of use of the premises.  Since he had pre-determined the application, he would speak but not vote when it was considered.

Councillor Harwood disclosed a personal interest in the report of the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy relating to Tree Preservation Order No. 7 of 2009.  He stated that he was a Member of Boxley Parish Council, but he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the making of the Tree Preservation Order and intended to speak and vote when the matter was considered.

Councillor Nelson-Gracie stated that since he had been advised that he had pre-determined application MA/09/0675, he would speak but not vote when it was discussed.

Councillor Paine disclosed a personal interest in the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/0976.  He stated that his mother lived in a property next to the application site.  He would speak but not vote when the application was discussed.

With regard to the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/1073, Councillor Paine stated that he used to be a member of the Maidstone Youth Forum.  However, the change of use of the premises at 34A High Street, Maidstone to a Youth Café on the ground floor with offices above was progressed after he ceased to a member.

Councillor Paterson disclosed a prejudicial interest in the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/0976.  She stated that her husband was a Trustee of the Howard de Walden Centre and a mortgagee of the property. 

RESOLVED:

1.  That the exempt Appendix to the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/0510 be considered in public but the information contained therein should remain private.

2.  That the remaining items on Part II of the agenda and the associated exempt update reports of the Development Control Manager be taken in private as proposed. 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed.

Councillor Nelson-Gracie stated that he had been lobbied.

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

Mr Bull, for the applicant, and Councillor Mrs Blackmore (in support) addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reason with the informatives set out in the report as amended by the urgent update report:-

The scale of the proposed dwelling is not justified by the functional requirements of the associated agricultural enterprise and inadequate details of the costs of the development have been submitted.  The shortfall between the funding available for the development and the income the unit can sustain, and the likely costs of the proposed dwelling given its excessively large size would affect the continued viability of maintaining the property for its intended agricultural use, potentially leading to pressure in due course to lift the occupancy condition contrary to PPS7.  To permit the development would therefore result in the erection of an unjustified dwelling in the open countryside which would cause visual harm to its character and appearance, and thus be contrary to the provisions of policy ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and policy C4 of the South East Plan 2009 and PPS7.

Voting:  10 - For  1 - Against  0 - Abstentions

Councillor Harwood stated that he had been lobbied.

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

Mr Wise addressed the meeting on behalf of the applicant.

RESOLVED:

1.  That subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, in such terms as the Head of Legal Services may advise, to secure the following:-

·  The provision of a minimum of 40% affordable housing in accordance with the adopted Development Plan Document on Affordable Housing;

·  The provision of the sum of £34,650 to contribute towards the upgrade, improvement and renewal of Maidstone’s amenity space and play equipment to be spent within a one mile radius of the site;

·  The provision of the sum of £22,186 for contributions towards the additional demands placed upon the youth and community facilities, libraries and adult education facilities within the locality by virtue of the granting of this permission; and

·  The provision of the sum of £21,240 for contributions towards the additional demands placed upon the Primary Care Trust (West Kent) by virtue of the granting of this permission.

the Development Control Manager be given delegated powers to grant permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, the additional condition set out in the urgent update report and the following additional informative:-

Consideration should be given through the choice of materials to lightening the appearance of the flat block, and making it appear less artificial, possibly through the use of additional fenestration.

2.  That the Ward Members should be consulted prior to the discharge of the conditions relating to hard and soft landscaping, materials and additional fenestration.

Voting:  11 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

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

Mr Bingham, an objector, Councillor Ethridge of Bearsted Parish Council (against) and Mr Atkinson, for the applicant, addressed the meeting.

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

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, hedgerows and boundary planted areas on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development in conjunction with the details required pursuant to condition 8, 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.  The submitted details shall include inter alia full consideration of the protection of potential slow worm habitats in and around the marginal boundary areas during construction.  The approved protection measures shall be implemented before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.  Nothing shall be stored or placed, nor fires lit, within any of the areas protected in accordance with this condition.  The siting of barriers/ground protection shall not be altered, nor ground levels changed, nor excavations made within these areas without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: No such details have been submitted and in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality, the safeguarding of existing trees, hedgerows, boundary planted areas and potential slow worm habitats to be retained in accordance with policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough- Wide Local Plan 2000 and PPS1 and PPS9.

Voting:  5 - For  5 - Against  1 - Abstention

The Chairman then used his casting vote in favour of permission being granted.

Councillor Nelson-Gracie stated that he had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager.

Mr Bayliss, the applicant, and Councillor Verrall, in support, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the reason set out in the report.

Voting:  9 - For  0 - Against  2 - Abstentions

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

Mrs Gowens, an objector, and Councillor Osborne of Lenham Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That subject to no representations raising new issues being received as a result of the outstanding statutory site notice, the Development Control Manager be given delegated powers to grant permission subject to the condition set out in the report.

Voting:  11 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions 

Councillor Nelson-Gracie stated that he had been lobbied.

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

Councillor Brown of Yalding Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

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

Voting:  11 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager.

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

Additional Condition

Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing no.3130/01revJ, the development shall not be commenced until a revised scheme of landscaping for the Bircholt Road frontage in substitution for the currently proposed shrub planting (but not the indicated tree planting) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The submitted details shall provide for the provision of a hedge comprised of beech or privet or yew.  The plants shall be planted in double staggered rows 300mm apart and at 450mm centres and comprise whips (60-90cm in height).  In addition, details showing a 450mm high fence/barrier to the roadside front of the hedge as a means of protection shall also be submitted.  The Carpinus betula trees indicated on drawing no. 3130/01revJ shall be a minimum of Heavy Standard nursery size when planted.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development pursuant to policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

Additional Informatives

You are advised that consideration should be given to the provision of landscaping within the parking areas to break up and soften the visual impact of the extensive areas of hardstanding proposed.

In submitting the details of surface water drainage pursuant to condition 7, you are advised that consideration should be given to the use of SUDS drainage techniques and the use of rainwater harvesting to reduce the extent of surface water run-off from the site.

Voting:  11 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions

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:  11 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions

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 and the additional conditions set out in the urgent update report.

Voting:  9 - For  1 - Against  1 - Abstention

Having disclosed a prejudicial interest, Councillor Paterson left the meeting whilst this application was discussed.

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

RESOLVED:  That subject to the expiry of the consultation period on the additional 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.

Voting:   9 - For  0 - Against  1 - Abstention

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager.

RESOLVED: 

1.  That condition 4 be removed from planning permission MA/08/1156 and replaced by the condition set out in the report.

2.  That the informative set out in the report be included on the decision notice.

Voting:  10 - For  0 - Against  1 - Abstention

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

Councillor Osborne of Lenham Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

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

Voting:  9 - For  0 - Against  2 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy concerning Tree Preservation Order No. 7 of 2009 which was made under Section 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to protect a Walnut tree located within the grounds of Valley Park Community School.  It was noted that one objection to the Order had been received within the statutory 28 day period from the making of the Order.

RESOLVED:  That Tree Preservation Order No. 7 of 2009 be confirmed without modification.

Voting:  11 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager setting out details of an appeal decision that had been received since the last meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager setting out a suggested response to the Order that, should planning permission be granted to Kent International Gateway Limited, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposed to make under Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to authorise the stopping up of bridleways and the diversion of a length of footpath located on land to the west of junction 8 of the M20 motorway.  It was noted that alternative bridleways would be provided.

RESOLVED:  That the following objections be raised to the proposed Order:-

a)  The proposed replacement bridleways for KM81 and KM82 would be subject to considerable disruption and disturbance during the construction of the development thus affecting the amenity and enjoyment of their users and potentially their safety and thereafter by the visual impact of a large warehouse building prior to the maturing of any mitigating landscaping.

b)  No details have been given of how the users of the replacement bridleway for KM82 would be able to safely cross the rail siding connecting the warehouse to the existing Maidstone East-Ashford railway line.

c)  No details have been given of how the users of the replacement bridleway for KM81 would be able to safely cross the watercourse located approximately 60m to the west of Water Lane, immediately south of the M20 motorway. 

d)  The users of the proposed diverted footpath KH131 would be subject to considerable disruption and disturbance during the construction of the development thus affecting the amenity and enjoyment of users and potentially their safety.

e)  The proposed route of the diverted footpath KH131 would run along roadways within the site that would be utilised by a considerable volume of Heavy Goods Vehicles and other traffic and adjacent to the proposed inter-modal transfer area thus potentially affecting the safety and amenity of users.

f)  No indication is given of how the security of the site as whole has been considered in the proposed routing of diverted footpath KH131 which would appear to allow access to all areas of the site. 

Voting:  11 - For  0 - Against  0 - Abstentions 

The Chairman announced that arrangements had been made for the tour of planning sites to take place on Wednesday 16 September 2009, commencing at 9.30 a.m.

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

Arising from its consideration of various applications at the meeting, it was:-

RESOLVED:

1.  That the Cabinet Member for Regeneration be requested to consider the development of a policy on the provision of gardens (and a corresponding minimum size threshold).  Such a policy is operated by the London Borough of Bromley and could provide a valuable tool to protect this Borough’s most attractive and leafiest residential neighbourhoods.

2.  That the Officers be requested to report back to a future meeting of the Committee on the position with regard to the work being undertaken on behalf of the Local Development Document Advisory Group regarding polytunnels and their impact.

RESOLVED:  That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information for the reasons specified having applied the Public Interest Test:-

The Committee considered the exempt report and the exempt update report of the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration setting out details of the issues and outcomes arising from the Councillor Call for Action concerning the continuing problems in securing completion of the outstanding requirements of the Section 106 Agreement entered into in relation to the residential development adjoining and conversion of the former Oakwood Hospital site at Hermitage Lane/St Andrews Road, Maidstone.

The report included details of the recommendations made by the Regeneration and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee as a consequence of the Councillor Call for Action and of the action taken by the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration in an effort to ensure that the outstanding issues were brought to as rapid a conclusion as possible.  It was noted that letters had been sent to the developers indicating that legal action would be taken by the Council if they failed to comply with its requirements within two weeks of the date of such letters.  One of the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was that bonds should be applied to Persimmon Homes developments in future.  However, the Committee indicated that it would support any negotiating attempts by Officers to (acting lawfully) require all developers to enter into bonds in relation to Section 106 Agreements.

RESOLVED:

1.  That the course of action set out in paragraph 1.5.5 of the exempt report of the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration be endorsed and that the Director of Prosperity and Regeneration be given delegated powers to take any further decisions to resolve the outstanding issues in respect of the Section 106 Agreement relating to the residential development adjoining and conversion of the Oakwood Hospital site.

2.  That the Officers be requested to submit a progress report to the meeting of the Committee scheduled to be held on 24 September 2009.

3.  That the Committee supports any negotiating attempts by Officers to (acting lawfully) require all developers to enter into bonds in relation to Section 106 Agreements. 

Voting:  11 - For  0 - Against   0 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the exempt report and the exempt update report of the Development Control Manager examining whether, following concerns expressed by Members and local residents, there were grounds for a legal challenge of the Inspector’s decisions in respect of appeals made against two enforcement notices issued by the Council in relation to development at Martins Gardens, Lenham Road, Headcorn.  The report included details of Counsel’s opinion on the matter.

RESOLVED:  That it be noted that there are no grounds for a legal challenge of the Inspector’s decisions in respect of appeals made against two enforcement notices issued by the Council in relation to development at Martins Gardens, Lenham Road, Headcorn.

6.00 p.m. to 10.05 p.m.