Issue - meetings

18/504086/FULL - Little Spitzbrook Farm, Haviker Street, Collier Street, Kent, TN12 9RG

Meeting: 14/03/2019 - Planning Committee (Item 308)

308 18/504086/FULL - CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL BARN TO SINGLE DWELLING WITH RETENTION OF PART FOR USE AS AGRICULTURAL STORE, LAYING OUT OF PRIVATE GARDEN INCLUDING ERECTION OF A WOODSTORE, TWO CAR PARKING SPACES AND DRIVEWAY, THE INSTALLATION OF A SOLAR PV ARRAY (TWO ROWS) AND FLUE ON SOUTHERN ROOF SLOPE, TWO HEAT EXCHANGE UNITS AND LANDSCAPING (PART RETROSPECTIVE) AND 18/504501/FULL - CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL BARN TO SINGLE DWELLING WITH RETENTION OF PART FOR USE AS AGRICULTURAL STORE, LAYING OUT OF PRIVATE GARDEN, TWO CAR PARKING SPACES AND DRIVEWAY, THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PV ARRAY ON SOUTHERN ROOF SLOPE, LANDSCAPING (PART RETROSPECTIVE) - LITTLE SPITZBROOK FARM, HAVIKER STREET, COLLIER STREET, KENT PDF 158 KB

Additional documents:

Committee Report, item 308 PDF 282 KB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the reports of the Head of Planning and Development relating to applications 18/504086/FULL and 18/504501/FULL.

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

The representative of the Head of Legal Partnership provided advice on the decision making process in relation to these applications. The representative of the Head of Legal Partnership explained that there were two applications before the Committee and there had previously been a grant of prior approval. The Development Manager would set out the differences between the prior approval and the two applications. The policies which were relevant to the determination of these applications were set out in the Officer’s reports, and it was his advice that the Committee determine the applications as they were by reference to the relevant policies.

The Development Manager then explained the differences between the prior approval and the two applications before the Committee. The Development Manager advised the Committee that the two applications needed to be assessed in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. It was the Officer’s conclusion that the applications did not accord with the Development Plan, the key policies being SP21 and DM31.

Mr Cox, the applicant, and Councillor D Burton (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED: That

1. Application 18/504086/FULL be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Voting: 9 – For 1 – Against 0 – Abstentions

2. Application 18/504501/FULL be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Voting: 7 – For 2 – Against 1 – Abstention

Note:

1. Councillor Harwood entered the meeting during the Officers’ presentation on these applications (6.10 p.m.), but sat in the public gallery and did not participate in the discussion or the voting.

2. Following the determination of these applications, reference was made by the Chairman to the desire on the part of Members for further discussions to seek to achieve a solution to the situation which has arisen.