Agenda and minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Boughton and Prendergast.

The following Substitute Members were noted:

Councillor M Burton for Councillor M Boughton

Councillor Butler for Councillor Prendergast

Councillor Harvey indicated her wish to speak on the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 16/508284 – Land adjacent The Mews, Buckland Lane, Maidstone, Kent.

Councillor Perry indicated his wish to speak on the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 17/500175 – Land adjacent South Cottage, High Street, Staplehurst, Kent.

Councillor Springett indicated her wish to speak on the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 16/506795.

There were none.

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

With regard to the report of the Head of Planning and Development relating to application 16/506795 (164 Ashford Road, Bearsted, Kent), Councillor Spooner confirmed that whilst previously he had spoken in support of the proposed development in his former capacity as Chairman of the Bearsted and Thurnham Society, he had now reassessed the representations made and other evidence put forward, and would speak and vote, having an open mind.

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

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

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

Councillor Stancombe of Sutton Valence Parish Council addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:

1.  That subject to the expiry of the newspaper advertisement and no material new issues being raised, the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the report, and the additional condition set out in the urgent update report, with the amendment of condition 10 (Landscaping) as follows:

No development shall take place above slab level until a landscape scheme designed in accordance with the principles of the Council's landscape character guidance has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall show all existing trees, hedges and blocks of landscaping on, and immediately adjacent to, the site and indicate whether they are to be retained or removed.  It shall include a planting specification, a programme of implementation and a 5 year management plan.  The hedgerows marked for retention on the landscape scheme, which shall include the hedge at the front of the site, shall be retained in perpetuity subject to written consent from the Local Planning Authority should any changes be requested.

Reason:  In the interests of visual amenity and landscape impact.

2.  That the Officers be requested to investigate whether a Tree Preservation Order can be made to protect the hedgerow boundary fronting the A274.

3.  That the Council’s representative on the Quality Bus Partnership be requested to raise with Arriva the issue of the location of the bus stop the other side at Warmlake due to the impact on traffic flows and visibility at the crossroads.

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

During the discussion on this application, Councillor Cox, the Vice-Chairman of the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Transportation Committee, said that he would take forward the issue of this growing hamlet and access to public transport and other services.

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.

Mr Van Der Spuy, an objector, Mr Bedford, for the applicants, and Councillor Springett (Visiting Member) 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, and the additional conditions set out in the urgent update report, with the amendment of condition 6 (Landscaping) to incorporate the following (the precise wording to be finalised by the Head of Planning and Development in consultation with Ward Members and Councillor Harwood):

·  Submission of a landscape scheme and management plan for the entire site encompassing the maintenance of well-structured woodland within the site;

·  Replacement of previously removed log piles and the retention and reuse of cordwood;

·  A long term (not 5 year) management plan;

·  Landscape scheme should address the need to provide replacement trees for those proposed to be removed and those that have already been removed;

·  Species should include guelder rose; and

·  Where proposed, new trees should be at least semi-mature.  The scheme should include the retention and regular pollarding of Tree T8.

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Chairman stated that he had been lobbied.

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

Mr Wise, for the applicant, and Councillor Harvey (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the reason set out in the report amended as follows

The proposed development and associated domestic accoutrements  would be detrimental to the character and visual amenities of the area representing an undesirable consolidation of, and extension to, an area of built development in the rural area outside the defined urban boundary and due to the cramped nature of development in comparison to the surrounding properties would be out of character with the character and appearance of this small rural enclave located close to the urban area of Maidstone, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, National Planning Practice Guidance 2012, Policies ENV6 and ENV28 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and Policies SP17, DM1, DM3, DM4 and DM34 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan Publication May 2016 (Submitted version).

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

All Members except Councillors Butler, Cox and Harwood stated that they had been lobbied.

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

Councillor Buller of Staplehurst Parish Council and Councillor Perry (Visiting Member) 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 development had a significant adverse visual impact on the conservation area and adjoining listed building contrary to Submitted Local Plan Modifications Policies SP18, DM1 and DM4, Staplehurst Neighbourhood Plan Policy PW4 and Section 12 of the NPPF.

RESOLVED:

1.  That permission be refused for the following reason:

The development has a significant adverse visual impact on the conservation area and adjoining listed building contrary to Submitted Local Plan Modifications Policies SP18, DM1 and DM4, Staplehurst Neighbourhood Plan Policy PW4 and Section 12 of the NPPF.

2.  That the Officers be requested to approach the applicant to discuss a suitable alternative boundary treatment.

Voting:  8 – For  4 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development setting out details of appeal decisions received recently.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

The Chairman said that he had no announcements other than to welcome Councillors Spooner and Vizzard to the Planning Committee.

6.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.