Agenda and minutes

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

J. A. Wilson.

It was noted that Councillor Butler was substituting for Councillor J. A. Wilson.

Councillor D Mortimer indicated his wish to speak on the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application MA/14/0279.

Councillor de Wiggondene was in attendance for the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application MA/13/2091.

There were none.

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

Councillor Harwood stated that he was a Member of Boxley Parish Council, but he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions relating to application MA/13/2063, and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.

Councillor Hogg stated that since he had pre-determined application MA/14/0279, he would speak but not vote when it was discussed.

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

Councillor Paterson requested that the following words be added to the resolution contained in Minute 347 relating to application MA/13/2099 (Springfield Park) after the first word “That”:

“, the Committee being minded not to refuse,”

Councillor Harwood said that during the discussion on application MA/13/2099, he had suggested that should Members be minded to grant permission, delegated powers be given to the Officers to negotiate with the applicant to seek to overcome concerns expressed by local residents about the proposed pedestrian link to Moncktons Lane as this had been closed for some time and was in close proximity to residential property, and there were concerns about possible anti-social behaviour.  He would like reference to be made to this within the commentary part of Minute 347.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed subject to delegated powers being given to the Democratic ServicesOfficer in consultation with the Head of Legal Services to amend Minute 347 as they consider necessary to take account of Councillor Harwood’s suggestion relating to the footpath link to Moncktons Lane and Councillor Paterson’s concern regarding the amendment of the resolution to include the words “the Committee being minded not to refuse”, as well as the earlier reference to that vote.

There were no petitions.

MA/13/2099 - ERECTION OF CLASS A1 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (WITH ANCILLARY CAFE), SUPPORTING RETAIL (A1-A3), DOCTORS' SURGERY (CLASS D1) AND ASSOCIATED SERVICING, CAR PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENT - SPRINGFIELD PARK, ROYAL ENGINEERS ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT

The representative of the Head of Planning and Development said that this application would be reported back to a special meeting of the Committee to be held on 8 May 2014.  Some Members expressed the view that the Officers’ report to that meeting did not fully address the reasons for deferral.

MA/07/2133 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF A FIVE STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF 52 STUDIO APARTMENTS AND 24 ONE-BED FLATS WITH 38 UNDERCROFT PARKING SPACES AND 22 EXTERNAL PARKING SPACES WITH VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM HART STREET TOGETHER WITH LANDSCAPING - LAGUNA MOTORCYCLES SITE, HART STREET, MAIDSTONE

The representative of the Head of Planning and Development informed the Committee that negotiations were continuing in respect of this application.

Councillors Ash, Butler, Chittenden, Hogg and Mrs Robertson stated that they had been lobbied.

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

Ms Heinz-Clark, an objector, Mr Newman of the North Loose Residents’ Association (against) and Councillor D Mortimer (against) addressed the meeting.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission.  In making this decision, Members felt that the proposal would result in a poor design and unsatisfactory appearance to the extension contrary to policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposal would result in a poor design and unsatisfactory appearance to the extension contrary to policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Voting:  7 – For  5 – Against

Note:  Having stated that he had pre-determined this application, Councillor Hogg did not participate in the voting.

Councillor Paterson stated that she had been lobbied.

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

Ms Monk, the applicant, addressed the meeting.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission.  In making this decision, Members felt that the proposal, by virtue of its bulk and poor design, including the over large dormer windows, would overwhelm the character of the original property and appear visually intrusive and incongruous in the street causing unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  This was contrary to policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000, the advice given in the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance – ‘Residential Extensions’ and paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposal, by virtue of its bulk and poor design, including the over large dormer windows, would overwhelm the character of the original property and appear visually intrusive and incongruous in the street causing unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  This is contrary to policy H18 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000, the advice given in the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance – ‘Residential Extensions’ and paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Voting:  8 – For  5 – Against  0 – Abstentions

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

Councillor Pyman of Headcorn Parish Council (against) and Mr Woods, 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.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

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

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

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

Note: 

Councillor Moriarty was not present during consideration of this application.

Councillor Nelson-Gracie left the meeting after consideration of this item (7.35 p.m.).

Councillor Butler stated that he had been lobbied.

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

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

Voting:  10 – For  0 – Against  1 – Abstention

Note:  Councillor Moriarty was not present during consideration of this application.

Councillor Chittenden stated that he had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.

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

Ecological enhancements that can be built into the fabric of the buildings should be sought where possible under any reserved matters application.

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development.

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 Head of Planning and Development.

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 Head of Planning and Development setting out details of appeal decisions received since the last meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

The Chairman introduced Poppy Brewer who had recently joined the Democratic Services team.

6.00 p.m. to 7.55 p.m.