Agenda and minutes

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Mrs Robertson and Thick.

The following Substitute Members were noted:-

Councillor Bradshaw for Councillor Thick

Councillor Chittenden for Councillor Mrs Robertson

Councillors Marshall and Sams indicated their wish to speak on the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/08/1766.

Councillor Naghi indicated his wish to speak on the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/1784.

There were none.

Update Report

The Chairman stated that, in his opinion, the update report of the Development Control Manager should be taken as an urgent item because it contained further information relating to matters to be considered at the meeting.

Councillors Ash and Mrs Marshall disclosed personal interests in the reports of the Development Control Manager relating to applications MA/09/1656 and MA/10/0170.  They stated that they were Members of Bearsted Parish Council, but they had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the applications and intended to speak and vote when they were considered.

Councillor Bradshaw stated that since he had pre-determined application MA/10/0170, he would speak but not vote when it was discussed.

Councillor Chittenden stated that since he had pre-determined applications MA/09/1784 and MA/10/0167, he would speak but not vote when they were discussed.

Councillor English disclosed a personal interest in the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/10/0167.  He stated that he was a Member of Tovil Parish Council and whilst he had taken a minor part in the Parish Council’s discussions on the proposed development, he had not pre-determined the application and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.

Councillor Harwood disclosed a personal interest in the report of the Development Control Manager relating to application MA/09/1784.  He stated that he was a Member of Boxley Parish Council, but he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the application and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.

Councillor J A Wilson disclosed a personal interest in the reports of the Development Control Manager relating to applications MA/10/0015 and MA/10/0130.  He stated that he was a Member of East Farleigh Parish Council, but he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the applications and intended to speak and vote when they were considered.

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

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed.

MA/08/2439 – CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO EMPLOYMENT PURPOSES AND ERECTION OF MIXED USE BUILDING TO PROVIDE STORAGE AND WORKSHOPS (CLASS B2/B8) AND ASSOCIATED WORKS INCLUDING ACCESS AND PARKING – UNIT 15, WHEELBARROW INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PATTENDEN LANE, MARDEN

The Development Control Manager advised Members that revised plans had been received and put out to consultation.  A report would be prepared for consideration at a future meeting of the Committee.

All Members except Councillors Chittenden, Paine and Paterson stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Mr Field, an objector, and Mrs Stratten, the joint applicant, addressed the meeting.

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

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

Note:  Having pre-determined the application, Councillor Bradshaw did not participate in the voting.

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Mr Blythin, for the applicant, and Councillor Naghi addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of this application be deferred to enable the Officers to seek to negotiate conditions to ensure that the height, form and mass of the development sympathetically considers the setting of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Voting:  7 – For  5 – Against  0 – Abstentions

Note:  Having pre-determined the application, Councillor Chittenden did not participate in the voting.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Mr Brown, an objector, Councillor Osborne of Lenham Parish Council (against) and Councillors Sams and Marshall addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of this application be deferred to enable the Officers to:-

·  Seek a noise assessment and any necessary mitigation measures.

·  Seek an ecological survey in relation to the adjacent pond in the south west corner of the site and any necessary mitigation measures.

·  Investigate the agricultural grading of the land.

Voting:  6 – For  5 – Against  2 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy.

Councillor Morris of Harrietsham Parish Council (against) and Mr Nottage, the applicant, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:

1.  That if the applicant had not appealed on the grounds of non-determination, the Council would have granted consent subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report with the amendment of conditions C195 and C200 as follows:-

  C195 (amended)

A proportion of the cordwood above 20cm in diameter shall be retained and stacked safely for the colonisation of saproxylic fungi.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation enhancement.

C200 (amended)

One replacement Beech tree (Fagus sylvatica), of not less than Nursery Heavy Standard size (12-14cm girth, 3.6-4.25m height), conforming to the specifications of BS 3936 Part I “Nursery Stock”, shall be planted during the tree planting season (October to February) following substantial completion of the felling hereby permitted, and be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and good arboricultural practice.

2.  That no evidence be offered to the hearing by the Council on the above basis.

Voting:  11 – For  2 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager.

Councillor Morris of Harrietsham Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

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

Notwithstanding drawing no. 08.1500.08 RevA received on 14 September 2009 and prior to the commencement of the development, amended plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing a reduction in the extent of hard surfacing and a subsequent increase in soft landscaping including tree planting at the front of the site.  This shall include details of the species, size and location of the landscaping together with measures for its protection in the course of the development and a programme for the approved scheme's implementation.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and policy BE1 of the South East Plan 2009.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Councillor Arger of Staplehurst Parish Council (against) and Mr Jones, 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:  11 – For  1 – Against  1 – Abstention

Councillors Ash, Chittenden, English, Nelson-Gracie and J A Wilson stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Mrs Bister, an objector, and Councillor Mortimer of Tovil Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That objections be raised to this application for the reasons set out in the report.

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

Note:  Having pre-determined this application, Councillor Chittenden did not participate in the voting.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Councillor Arger of Staplehurst Parish Council (against) addressed the meeting.

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

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Councillor Morris of Harrietsham Parish Council (against) and Mrs Gray, for the applicant, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of this application be deferred to enable the Officers to:-

·  Seek an ecological survey with any necessary mitigation measures.

·  Seek a more comprehensive and detailed landscaping scheme to enhance the setting of the site.

·  Discuss with the applicant the possibility of improving the design of the replacement dwelling.

Voting:  10 – For  3 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager.

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

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

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

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

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

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

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

The Chairman and Councillor English stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

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

Voting:  8 – For  1 – Against  3 – Abstentions

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

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Development Control Manager.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Development Control Manager, the Committee agreed to refuse permission.  In making this decision, the Committee considered the residential use of the land to be harmful to the open character and appearance of the countryside hereabouts contrary to policy H31 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the following reason:-

The residential use of the land is considered to be harmful to the open character and appearance of the countryside hereabouts contrary to policy H31 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  1 – Abstention

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager.

RESOLVED:  That the details of landscaping, boundary enclosures and the reptile survey be approved subject to the condition set out in the report.

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  1 – Abstention

The Committee considered the report of the Development Control Manager.

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the condition set out in the report.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Chairman said that he was disappointed by the decision to reduce the number of Members allowed to attend the Planning Summer School as it called into question the commitment to training.  He explained that, last year, there had been five places.  This year, the Officers had recommended that attendance be limited to one Member.  However, the General Purposes Group had agreed that three Members could attend.

Other Members/Substitute Members shared the Chairman’s concern, and emphasised the fundamental need for all Members to receive training on planning matters.

Prior to 10.30 p.m., during the discussion on the Chairman’s announcements, the Committee considered whether to adjourn at 10.30 p.m. or to continue until 11.00 p.m. if necessary.

RESOLVED:  That the meeting should continue until 11.00 p.m. if necessary.

It was noted that there was nothing to report at present.

6.00 p.m. to 10.25 p.m.