Issue - meetings
18/501181/FULL Land South Of Redwall Lane, Linton, Kent
78 18/501181 - VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 10, 16 AND 17 OF APPLICATION 16/508659/FULL (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF B8 WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH ANCILLARY OFFICES, DOCK LEVELLERS, ACCESS, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING INCLUDING THE CREATION OF NEW WOODLAND AND ATTENUATION POND) - LAND SOUTH OF REDWALL LANE, LINTON, KENT PDF 311 KB
- 18/501181/FULL Committee Report, item 78 PDF 161 KB
- 18.501181-Urgent Update, item 78 PDF 48 KB View as HTML (78/3) 20 KB
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.
The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that a further letter of objection had been received, the main points being:
· Questioning the conclusion that the principle of the development was established as the Committee had made its decision on the basis of original condition 10 which it was now proposed to amend;
· Expressing concern that the report did not refer to improvements required to increase capacity at Linton Crossroads and that no reference was made to the cumulative impact on traffic due to the recent grant of planning permission for a new medical centre in Heath Road; and
· Commenting that the report contained no traffic statistics and there was a failure to recognise the impact of the development beyond the immediate locality.
Councillor Cresswell of Linton Parish Council, Mr Allen, for the applicant, and Councillor Fermor (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.
During the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that permission be granted subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report, as amended by the urgent update report, with the amendment of the noise conditions to require compliance with BS4142 at all times, and that Kent County Council be asked to be a signatory (by way of a Deed of Variation) to the HGV routing requirements of the S106 agreement for application 16/508659, which would apply to this permission, as this is not enforceable by the Local Planning Authority. It was also suggested that priority should be given to signage in regard to any mitigation from the Traffic Displacement Contribution (section 5 of Schedule 2 to the S106).
An amendment was moved, seconded and carried that consideration of this application be deferred to enable further negotiations with the applicant regarding the redrafting of condition 10 (formerly 9) to specify a time limit in months when the up to 32 in or out movements is permitted (for example, 1 November to 31 May) with a lower threshold for the months outside this time frame.
RESOLVED: That consideration of this application be deferred to enable further negotiations with the applicant regarding the redrafting of condition 10 (formerly 9) to specify a time limit in months when the up to 32 in or out movements is permitted (for example, 1 November to 31 May) with a lower threshold for the months outside this time frame.
Voting: 6 – For 5 – Against 1 – Abstention