Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Riordan and M Thompson.

Councillor Russell was present as Substitute Member for Councillor Riordan.

Councillor Field was present as a Visiting Member for item 15 (24/503497/FULL – Plot 8 Eclipse Park, Sittingbourne Road, North, Maidstone, Kent).

24/505135/TPOA - Tree Preservation Order application: (TPO 1 of 1954)  T1 - Silver Birch - Fell to ground level and root grind. T2 & T3 - 2 x Silver Birch - Fell to ground level and root grind both, plus additional stump under Hornbeam. T4 & T5 - 2 x Lime - Crown raise to 5m (area 4). T6 - 1 x Thuja - Reduce from 9m to 5m, next to bench 71. T7 & T8 - 2 x Oaks - Crown raise to 5m and remove deadwood next to Frank Underhill bench - Vinters Park Crematorium, Bearsted Road, Weavering, Kent

This application was withdrawn from the agenda as the decision had been made already and the works carried out.

Note: Councillor Harwood entered the meeting during consideration of this item (6.02 p.m.).

The Chairman stated that he intended to take the update reports of the Head of Development Management, any verbal updates in the Officer presentations and the Appendices attached to the amended agenda as urgent items as they contained further information relating to the applications to be considered at the meeting.

Councillor Cox stated that, since she was a friend of the applicant, she would not participate in the discussion and voting on item 18 (23/504619/FULL – Morry House, Morry Lane, East Sutton, Maidstone, Kent).

Councillor Jeffery stated that whilst the proposed removal of a chimney from an existing admin/office block at Vinters Park Crematorium had not been considered by the Cabinet, as Leader, the building was technically within his portfolio, and he would leave the meeting when application 24/505048/FULL was discussed.

The other Cabinet Members present at the meeting (Councillors Cox, Harwood, Summersgill and S Thompson) confirmed that they had had no previous involvement in Council application 24/505048/FULL (Vinters Park Crematorium, Bearsted Road, Weavering, Kent) and intended to participate in its determination.

Councillor Spooner stated that he was a Member of Bearsted Parish Council.  However, he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on item 23 (24/504933/FULL – 2 Hill Cottage, Roseacre Lane, Bearsted, Kent) and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.

Councillor S Thompson stated that he was a Member of Boxley Parish Council.  However, he had not participated in the Parish Council’s discussions on item 15 (24/503497/FULL – Plot 8 Eclipse Park, Sittingbourne Road, North, Maidstone, Kent) and intended to speak and vote when it was considered.

The following disclosures of lobbying were noted:

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

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2025 be approved as a correct record and signed.

There were no petitions.

24/503344/FULL - CHANGE OF USE OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION ON THE UPPER FLOORS OF THE BUILDING TO A 7-BEDROOM HMO (SUI GENERIS) FOR 10 OCCUPANTS - THE GEORGE, BENOVER ROAD, YALDING, MAIDSTONE, KENT

24/501418/FULL - ERECTION OF A 3-BEDROOM ATTACHED DWELLING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND ACCESS - 8 ORCHARD PLACE, COXHEATH, MAIDSTONE, KENT

The  Head of Development Management advised the Committee that he had nothing further to report in respect of these applications at present.

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

Councillor Trzebinski read out a statement on behalf of Ulcombe Parish Council.

Councillor Diamond entered the room during the discussion on this application and addressed the meeting on behalf of Ulcombe Parish Council.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Development Management, the Committee resolved to refuse permission.  In making this decision, Members were mindful that the application site is part of a wider site with some plots approved by a Planning Inspector at appeal and some dismissed.  The plots that were dismissed by the Inspector, including this one, were dismissed as a grouping.  The reason given for dismissing all of the grouping was that the development has a poor site layout and has resulted in a significant and harmful change in landscape character.  Members considered that this should form the basis of the reason for refusal.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused and that the Head of Development Management be given delegated powers to finalise the reason for refusal based on the issues summarised above and referencing the appropriate Local Plan Review policies.

Voting:  8 – For  3 – Against  1 – Abstention

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

Councillor Diamond had already addressed the meeting on application 24/501759/FULL on behalf of Ulcombe Parish Council which had the same objections to this application.

Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Development Management, the Committee resolved to refuse permission for the same reason as that for application 24/501759/FULL.  This being that Members were mindful that the application site is part of a wider site with some plots approved by a Planning Inspector at appeal and some dismissed.  The plots that were dismissed by the Inspector, including this one, were dismissed as a grouping.  The reason given for dismissing all of the grouping was that the development has a poor site layout and has resulted in a significant and harmful change in landscape character.  Members considered that this should form the basis of the reason for refusal.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the same reason as that for application 24/501759/FULL with delegated powers given to the Head of Development Management to finalise the reason for refusal referencing the appropriate Local Plan Review policies.

Voting:  7 – For  3 – Against  2 - Abstentions

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

When introducing the application, the Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that she wished to amend the first sentence of the second recommended reason for refusal as follows:

The development, by virtue of its scale, design and layout, would result in a development that would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside hereabouts that falls within the Low Weald Landscape of Local Value; and any associated material benefits would not outweigh the identified harm and there is no justification to depart from the Local Plan.

Councillor Eastwood of Boughton Malherbe Parish Council and Mr Tomlinson, for the applicant, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report, as amended by the Senior Planning Officer when introducing the application, with the informatives set out in the report.

Voting:  9 – For  1 – Against  2 – Abstentions

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

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

Voting:   12 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

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

When introducing the application, the Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that one neighbour representation had been received since the agenda was published but this did not raise any new issues not already covered in the report.

Councillor Field (Visiting Member) and Mr Hawkins, for the applicant, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of this application be deferred to:

Seek cross section plans between the site/development and the houses to the north to show the relationship/impact;

Work with the applicant to see whether there is potential to lower the building to lessen its impact on residential amenity and the local area;

Seek images of the development in views towards the Kent Downs National Landscape (KDNL) from Bearsted Road to understand the impact of the proposed development on the setting;

Explore the possibility of strengthening the landscaping to make it denser;

Seek to negotiate a change in the colour of the cladding (more muted colours) to lessen its impact and graduation in the colour (with the darkest colours at the bottom) to visually break up the mass of the building;

Seek not to have 24-hour use of the self-storage building because of concerns about noise and lighting overnight; and

Seek to mitigate light spillage on the KDNL and the nearby ancient woodland and ecology.

Voting:  11 – For  1 – Against  0 – Abstentions

Note:

The Chairman invited the applicant to liaise with Ward Members during the deferral process.

Councillor Jeffery left the meeting after consideration of this application (8.00 p.m.)

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

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

Voting:  9 – For  0 – Against  1 – Abstention

Note: Councillor Russell did not participate in the discussion or the voting on this application.

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

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

Voting:  10 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

Note: Having stated that she was a friend of the applicant, Councillor Cox did not participate in the discussion or the voting on this application.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management.  When introducing the application, the Graduate Planner advised the Committee that she wished to amend proposed condition 3 (Roof Tiles) to specify that any necessary replacement roof tiles shall match the existing.

RESOLVED:  That permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, as amended by the Graduate Planner during her introduction of the application, and that delegated powers be given to the Head of Development Management to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions and/or informatives in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Voting:  11 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

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

RESOLVED:  That subject to submission of a plan showing additional biodiversity enhancements (two integral bee bricks per building), the Head of Development Management be given delegated powers to approve the discharge of conditions 3, 5 and 7 in relation to planning permissions 22/501405/FULL and 22/505747/FULL.

Voting:  11 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

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

Voting:  11 – For  0 – Against  0 – Abstentions

See Minute 266 above.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management setting out details of appeal decisions received since the last meeting.

Arising from the discussion, the Head of Development Management undertook to circulate to Members details of the key changes set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

6.00 p.m. to 8.25 p.m.