Agenda and minutes

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

It was noted that Councillor Garten was substituting for Councillor Holmes.

Councillor Webb indicated his wish to speak on the report of the Head of Development Management relating to application 22/505947/FULL (Burford Farm, Redwall Lane, Linton, Maidstone, Kent).

There were none.

There were no urgent items.

Councillor English stated that he was a Member of Tovil Parish Council.  However, he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on application 23/500374/FULL (13 Saltwood Road, Tovil, Kent) and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.

Councillor Munford stated that he was the Chairman of Boughton Monchelsea Parish Council.  However, he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on the following matters and intended to speak and vote when they were considered:

Application 23/500949/FULL – Oast Cottage, Boughton Lane, Boughton Monchelsea, Maidstone, Kent

Application 23/500671/FULL – 24 Meadow View Road, Boughton Monchelsea, Maidstone, Kent

5004/2023/TPO – 71 Church Street, Boughton Monchelsea, Maidstone, Kent

The following disclosures of lobbying were noted:

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

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 April 2023 be approved as a correct record and signed.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2023 be approved as a correct record and signed.

There were no petitions.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

The Head of Development Management advised the Committee that the Planning Inspectorate had recently dismissed an appeal against refusal of application 21/504236/FULL for redevelopment of buildings on the site (including Grain Store, Implement Store, Granary and Threshing Barn) and erection of 6 no. dwellings including associated works and parking.  The main reason for refusal, and the Inspector agreed, was that the proposal was clearly contrary to Policy SP17 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017, and there was a need to be consistent in decision-making.

Councillor Heaton of Hunton Parish Council, Mr Powell, for the applicant, and Councillor Webb (Visiting Member) addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report with the informative set out in the report.

Voting:  9 – For  4 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

With the Chairman’s discretion, Mr Masters addressed the meeting in the Parish Council speaker slot in support of the application.

Mr Morris, the applicant, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Voting:   10 – For  1 – Against  1 - Abstention

Note:  Considering that his interactions with the applicant might give rise to an appearance of bias/predetermination, Councillor Garten spoke on the application but did not vote.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report with delegated powers to the Head of Development Management to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  1 – Abstention

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report with delegated powers given to the Head of Development Management to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  1 – Abstention

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

RESOLVED:  That the Lawful Development Certificate be granted for the reason and informatives set out in the report with delegated powers given to the Head of Development Management to be able to settle or amend the reason in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

During the discussion, it was suggested that a review be undertaken of Vinters Park as a lot of protected trees and hedgerows have been removed and not replaced over the years to the detriment of the landscape.

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

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

Mr Gorolov, an objector, and Councillor Hemsted of Tovil Parish Council addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:

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

The amendment of condition 5 (Landscape Scheme) to require a standard double staggered native hedgerow (such as Hazel) along the road frontage and condition 6 (Landscape Implementation) to extend the timescale for replacement landscaping from five years to ten years; and

The explanation for the strengthening of the landscaping conditions being the importance of the corner plot and the need to soften the impact of the proposed development within the street scene.

2.  That consideration be given to protecting the hedgerow once in place.

3.  That delegated powers be given to the Head of Development Management to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  9 – For  3 – Against  1 - Abstention

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

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

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management concerning Tree Preservation Order No. 5004/2023/TPO which was made to protect a large-sized Oak tree located in the southeast corner of the rear garden of 71 Church Street, Boughton Monchelsea.  It was noted that one objection had been received to the making of the Order.  However, it was considered that the tree was of significant value, providing extensive visual amenity to the local landscape as well as biodiversity and ecological benefits.  The permanent protection afforded to the tree through the Tree Preservation Order would ensure that only appropriate and necessary works are carried out.

RESOLVED:  That Tree Preservation Order No. 5004/2023/TPO be confirmed without modification.

Voting:  13 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

The Head of Development Management informed the Committee that Mr Phil Gower, Landscape Officer (Arboriculture), would be leaving the employment of the Council the next day and took the opportunity to thank him for his services and approach to the role.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.

RESOLVED:

1.  That permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report with the amendment of the first informative (Air Quality) to be the same as that recommended by the Environmental Protection Team.

2.  That delegated powers be given to the Head of Development Management to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions/informatives in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  12 – For  0 – Against  1 – Abstention

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management setting out details of appeal decisions received since the last meeting.  The Head of Development Management advised the Committee that some of the appeal decisions reflected the lack of a five-year land supply for Gypsy and Traveller sites and the need for a more sophisticated suite of policies on design quality.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

6.00 p.m. to 8.35 p.m.