There were no apologies for absence.

There were no Substitute Members.

Councillor Mrs Gooch was present as a Visiting Member for items 15 and 16 (23/501009/FULL and 23/501008/LBC – Chord Electronics Ltd, The Old Pump House, Farleigh Bridge, East Farleigh, Maidstone, Kent).

Councillor Springett was present as a Visiting Member for item 17 (22/504433/FULL – 8 Nethermount, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent).

There were none.

The Chairman said that he intended to take the update reports of the Head of Development Management 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.

Councillors English and Spooner stated that they were Members of Bearsted Parish Council.  However, they had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on application 22/504433/FULL (8 Nethermount, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent) and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.

All Members stated that they had been lobbied on item 17 (22/504433/FULL - 8 Nethermount, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent).

Councillor Jeffery stated that he had been lobbied on agenda items 12 (23/501841/FULL – 3 Chilston Road, Lenham, Maidstone, Kent) and 13 (23/501390/FULL – Hillside Cottage, Sutton Valence Hill, Sutton Valence, Kent).

Councillor Kimmance stated that he had been lobbied on items 15 and 16 (23/501009/FULL and 23/501008/LBC – Chord Electronics Ltd, The Old Pump House, Farleigh Bridge, East Farleigh, Maidstone, Kent).

Councillor Munford stated that he had been lobbied on item 13 (23/501390/FULL – Hillside Cottage, Sutton Valence Hill, Sutton Valence, Kent).

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

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2023 be approved as a correct record and signed.

There were no petitions.

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

In introducing the application, the Development Management Team Leader advised the Committee that she wished to add a condition specifying that the proposed planter shown on the plans shall be provided and retained to mitigate overlooking and reduce the useable space for the decking.  The details of which to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Mrs Eaton, an objector, Mr Bax, agent for the applicant, and Councillor Springett, Visiting Member, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of this application be deferred for one meeting cycle to enable the Officers, in consultation with Councillor Springett (a Ward Member), to seek to negotiate a compromise solution to concerns raised about the new raised decking constructed adjacent to the conservatory, the side conservatory window and the proposed privacy screen.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 - Abstentions 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

In introducing the application, the Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that he wished to amend the recommended conditions as follows:

Remove condition 8 relating to the submission of an acoustic report;

Add a condition restricting the use to the specific section of Class E relating to financial services;

Amend condition 6 (Parking/Turning Provision) to refer to specific plans submitted by the applicant; and

Add a condition requiring the bin storage and cycle parking provision depicted by the applicant on the plans to be provided.

Mr Letts, the applicant, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:

1.  That permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report as amended by the Senior Planning Officer during his introduction of the application.

2.  That delegated powers be given to the Head of Development Management to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

During the discussion on the application, concern was expressed that although the application had been reported to the Committee at the request of Sutton Valence Parish Council, a representative of the Parish Council was not present to address the planning issues they had raised.  It noted that this situation was not unusual, and it was suggested and:

RESOLVED:  That a letter be sent to all Parish Councils (a) reminding them that if they request that an application be determined by the Committee, they should attend the Committee to address the planning issues they have raised and (b) advising them that written statements to be read out on their behalf as an alternative to attendance will only be accepted in an emergency situation.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

Councillor Britt of Lenham Parish Council addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:

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

The strengthening of condition 5 (Renewables); and

The addition of a landscaping condition and a landscaping implementation condition; the landscaping condition to require the submission and approval of a landscaping scheme comprising native or near native shrub planting such as a wild privet hedge on the site frontage primarily around the perimeter of the hardstanding area to soften the impact of the development and bring benefits in terms of surface water drainage and biodiversity.

2.  That the Head of Development Management be given delegated powers to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  12 – For  1 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

Mr Harley, agent for the applicant, and Councillor Mrs Gooch, Visiting Member, addressed the meeting on this application and related application 23/501009/FULL.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of this application be deferred to enable Members to see the Conservation Officer’s assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the significance and setting of designated heritage assets, including the Farleigh Lane road bridge over the River Medway, and weigh any potential harm against the public benefits of the proposal.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

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

Mr Harley, agent for the applicant, and Councillor Mrs Gooch, Visiting Member, had already addressed the meeting on this application and related application 23/501008/LBC.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of this application be deferred in line with deferral of application 23/501008/LBC and to:

Seek further details in relation to proposed condition 6 (External Lighting) given the sensitive location of the application site from a historic landscape and riverside perspective and the evidence that red spectrum is softer and causes less harm to biodiversity than blue and green light; and

Strengthen proposed condition 7 relating to renewables.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 - Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report with delegated powers given to the Head of Development Management to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management setting out details of appeal decisions received since the last meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.