Minutes (now attached) - Democracy and Standards
Transcription
Minutes (now attached) - Democracy and Standards
Public Document Pack Please ask for: Cheryl Clark Direct Dial: (01892) 554413 E-mail: [email protected] Your Ref: Our Ref: Date: 7 April 2015 Dear Councillor PLANNING COMMITTEE - WEDNESDAY, 8TH APRIL, 2015 I am now able to enclose, for consideration at the next meeting on Wednesday, 8th April, 2015 the minutes of the previous meeting that were unavailable when the agenda was printed. Agenda No 5 Item To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 25 March 2015 (Pages 1 - 12) Cheryl Clark Democratic services Officer Encs This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE Wednesday, 25 March 2015 Present: Councillor Mrs Soyke (Chairman) Councillors Noakes (Vice-Chairman), Backhouse, Mrs Cobbold, Elliott, Dr Hall, Patterson, Scholes, Sloan, Smith, Mrs Thomas, Tompsett, Ward and Webb Officers in Attendance: Tim Archer (Principal Planning Officer), Cheryl Clark (Democratic Services Officer), Jane Lynch (Head of Planning), Mark Stephenson (Principal Conservation Officer), Peter Hockney (DM Team Leader), Jo Smith (Lawyer) and Charlotte Oben (Planning Officer) Other Members in Attendance: Councillors McDermott and Lockhart APOLOGIES PLA146/14 Apologies for absence were recorded from Councillor Weeden. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PLA147/14 Councillor Mrs Soyke declared a ‘significant other interest’ with reference to application 14/506664 as she was related to the applicant. She would therefore leave the chamber and the Vice-chairman would take the chair while the application was considered. DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING (IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTOCOL FOR MEMBERS TAKING PART IN THE PLANNING PROCESS, PART 5, SECTION 5.11, PARAGRAPH 6.6) PLA148/14 No declarations of lobbying were made. SITE INSPECTIONS PLA149/14 The Chairman advised that a brief site visit had been undertaken earlier in the day in respect of application 14/501788 for a new Committee Member who had not previously had the opportunity to view the site. The Chairman had also taken the opportunity to re-visit the site. TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 11 FEBRUARY 2015 PLA150/14 RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 11 February be recorded as a correct record, except that the words ‘allegations of’ be replaced by ‘apparent’ in paragraph i of the Committee Member Discussion in respect of application 14/503849. APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/501788 - LAND ADJACENT THREE WINDS, NORTH ROAD, GOUDHURST PLA151/14 Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 14/501788 and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr Archer, Principal Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation. Updates and additional representation – Since publication of the agenda Page 1 Agenda Item 5 2 report, the presenting officer advised that 3 additional conditions were proposed. There were no new representations. Registered Speakers - There were 2 members of the public and a Parish Councillor, who had registered to speak in accordance with the Constitution rules (Procedure at Meetings of the Area Planning Committees). Summaries of their views are provided below: i. Mr G Young, a partner at Farrells, architects and urban planners, spoke in support of the application and his main points were as follows: The design by Sir Terry Farrell in December 2002 was inspired by the site and his understanding of the local vernacular as well as details of his own house designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens. Mr Young had worked with Sir Terry, his team and the Council’s planning officers at length to refine the design to achieve the current proposal. The proposed house was discretely set down within the site and repositioned with a frontage to the east in line with houses on North Road so that open views to the west were retained. The curtilage had been reduced to enable greater retention of the rural landscape to the west. The proposed external materials of local brick, tile and timber would be used in conjunction with innovative materials involving lower carbon emissions than standard building materials. In summary the resulting design incorporated exceptional and exemplary architecture and landscaping to significantly enhance the setting. ii. Mr I Bull, a Chartered Town Planner and Development Consultant, spoke on behalf of the applicants and his main points were as follows: He also confirmed the application to be the culmination of 18 months of dialogue between the relevant parties resulting in a development of exceptional quality and innovative nature which would complement and enhance the character and visual amenity of the area. The officer set out the policy context and concluded that the application fully met the criteria set out in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The proposal was supported by the Parish Council and 14 letters from local residents. There was only one resident objection and no objections otherwise from official consultees. He particularly drew attention to the supporting comments and conclusion from the Council’s Urban Designer as set out in appendix B of the report. iii. Councillor Harris, Chairman of Goudhurst Parish Council spoke in support of the application and his main points were as follows: They considered the superior design and landscaping would enhance rather than detract from the surrounding valley. Currently outside the Limits to Built Development (LBD), they would support the re-drawing of the boundary to include only this building. He also endorsed the views of the Borough Council’s Urban Designer. Page 2 Agenda Item 5 3 The Parish Council fully supported the principles and reality of the AONB and did not consider that this proposal would cause a precedent to other development. Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers: i. Councillor Tompsett asked whether the comments relating to unsightly buildings were relevant in planning terms. Mrs Lynch advised that any existing buildings would always be considered, whether derelict or not but their loss in this case was not an issue. ii. Councillor Dr Hall asked about the use of the new cement free material and Mr Archer confirmed that this would be used for internal floors and walls with traditional clay bricks used externally. iii. Councillor Dr Hall asked how officers defined the difference between enhancing and significantly enhancing the setting. Mrs Lynch explained that it was a matter of professional judgement by officers having taken all relevant matters into consideration and for members to consider accordingly. iv. Councillor Dr Hall also asked whether the energy efficiency and carbon neutral elements were of greater importance than all other issues such as design. Mr Hockney reiterated and expanded on Mrs Lynch’s previous comment that each of the key elements had been considered fully and weighing these up overall they considered there was a significant enhancement. Members of the Committee might disagree but that was a decision for them to make. v. Councillor Mrs Thomas asked about comments from KCC Highways, which were to be verbally reported to the Committee. Mr Archer confirmed that he had spoken with the KCC Highways Officer who had confirmed that the access arrangements and their comments were unchanged from those of the previous application. vi. Councillor Mr Thomas also asked where there was more detail of the 3 extra conditions. Mr Archer advised these were not shown on the agenda but would ensure: 1. use of the new cement free product; 2. inclusion of the sustainability credentials put forward in the application; and 3. that the home reached code 5 for sustainable homes. Committee Member Discussion: i. Councillor Tompsett referred to the comments of the Council’s Urban Designer that although code 5 or 6 for sustainable homes was laudable it was not exceptional in itself and queried whether this should therefore be taken into account as part of an exceptional site. Mr Hockney advised that whilst this alone would not have been sufficient, this together with all the other architectural, innovative design elements and enhancements, weighed in favour of the proposal. Mrs Lynch also referred to the conclusion of the report and the iterative process culminating in meeting the criteria of paragraph 55 of the NPPF. ii. Councillor Webb recalled the discussions when he sat on the previous Committee and the application was refused that Sir Terry Farrell had said that he did not usually undertake residential properties. In respect of the current proposal Councillor Webb stated that it was contrary to Core Policy 1 and outside the Limits to Built Development (LBD). There had been suggestions that the LBD could be re-drawn Page 3 Agenda Item 5 4 iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. more sensibly but they had already been through that and the boundary was where it was. The key considerations were unchanged and he referred to paragraph 10.04 and he thought the proposal failed on being truly outstanding or innovative. He referred to paragraph 10.05 that said that the proposal was not truly outstanding and to the paragraph 10.25 quoted by Mrs Lynch but this did not confirm the proposal to be truly outstanding. He referred to paragraphs 10.04, 10.05, 10.12, 10.19 and 10.23 and he still thought that in spite of the 18 months dialogue there was little difference from the previous application. He was aware of other truly amazing designs that had been refused because they were outside the LBD. He therefore proposed refusal of this application and it was seconded by Councillor Dr Hall. Mrs Lynch clarified that although Councillor Webb had referred to paragraph 10.05, this had referred back to the previous proposal not being truly outstanding and was not a comment relating to the current application. Councillor Mrs Thomas pointed out that Goudhurst Parish Council supported the proposal and their Chairman had spoken to endorse their view. Planning Officers also supported the application and she therefore proposed approval and this was seconded by Councillor Backhouse. Councillor Ward thought that Councillor Webb’s views would probably be right if this was a new build in the countryside but he thought it was beneficial in this case as it would be replacing dilapidated buildings and would result in an improvement to the countryside even if it was not truly outstanding in itself. On balance he would therefore support the application. Councillor Dr Hall recalled that it had been suggested last time that the applicant should wait for the review of the Core Strategy when the LBD might be re-drawn. In the meantime, however, this proposal remained outside the LBD and it was mainly for this reason that she had previously supported refusal. She drew attention to comments repeated in the agenda report, where officers accepted that this was a finely balanced decision and therefore it could go either way. The proposal would still have an impact as admitted by officers in paragraph 10.19 and she disagreed over the weight given to the matter of carbon neutrality bearing in mind the problems in this respect worldwide. Finally she did not consider clearing the countryside of an eyesore was a relevant reason for approval in this case because the sheds were so low anyway that they were not visible behind the hedge. Councillor Noakes noted that a considerable amount of work had been put into this application and he strongly supported approval. He corrected the report that indicated that the site was not served by a footpath and advised that there was a quick route, albeit very steep, directly between North Road and the High Street. Councillor Mrs Soyke also supported the application. Her visit earlier that day had reminded her of the steepness of the slope and from the plans she considered that the proposal would sit well down within the site and would barely be seen from the opposite side of the road. She also considered that the plans she had seen online had been very interesting and innovative and although it was difficult to be categorical in terms of design, taken altogether she supported approval. As Chairman, in respect of the first motion put forward for refusal, Page 4 Agenda Item 5 5 Councillor Mrs Soyke asked Councillors Webb and Dr Hall for their reasons. Councillor Webb advised that no special circumstances had been established and the proposal and materials were not truly outstanding. The proposal was contrary to CP1, outside the LBD and the site was not allocated under policy H6 for new development. The countryside needed to be protected and would not be enhanced but the proposal would cause visual harm. Mr Hockney summed up their reasons as being similar to the previous reasons for refusal except that Councillor Webb wished to specifically add that the proposal was not truly outstanding. ix. Decision/voting – The first motion for refusal proposed by Councillor Webb and seconded by Councillor Dr Hall was put to the vote but the motion was lost. Subsequently the motion proposed by Councillor Mrs Thomas and seconded by Councillor Backhouse was put forward and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation. RESOLVED - That application 14/501788 be approved subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report. APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/505961 - 28 WATERDOWN ROAD, ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS PLA152/14 Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 14/505961 and this was summarised at the meeting by Mr Hockney, Team Leader and illustrated by means of a visual presentation. Updates and additional representation – None. Registered Speakers - There was one member of the public who had registered to speak in accordance with the Constitution rules (Procedure at Meetings of the Area Planning Committees). iv. Mr J Rigby objected to the application on behalf of Mrs L Hall, who was the adjoining neighbour to the property. He asked members to reject the application and his main points were as follows: The first issue was overlooking and the proposed fence of 1.5m (he thought this equated to 4½ ft or 5½ ft) but it was significantly less than the existing 6ft 6inch fence. With 4 young children Mrs Hall valued their privacy and it was of particular concern to her that anyone standing on the patio next door would be able to see into their garden and also into their dining room. The officer did not mention that the fence was 6 inches away from the patio and it was clearly evident that the impact of water accumulating beside the patio at the base of the fence was also causing the fence and posts to deteriorate. Although he did not consider that a 1.5m high fence would be sufficient privacy wise, they were also concerned that as the garden faced north it was already quite dark and the fence would Page 5 Agenda Item 5 6 cause an increased loss of light and overshadowing. Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers: vii. Councillor Webb asked how long the existing 6ft 6in fence had been in place. He also queried the issue over shading when the existing 6ft 6in fence would cause more shade than the proposed new fence. Mr Hockney thought from its appearance that the existing fence seemed to be over 4 years old and would have been immune from action even if had been over the height allowed by permitted development rights. At 6ft 6inches, however, it equated to 2m and might have been considered permitted development. He also clarified that the 1.5m fence would run along the patio and would be higher by about 40cm or 1ft 4inches at the far end compared with the existing fence which dropped down as it followed the ground level. He referred to the cross section diagram which illustrated the proposal. viii. Councillors Webb, Dr Hall and Elliott were all concerned over the waterlogging issues and questioned the possibility of a condition to mitigate the accumulation of water. Councillor Elliott asked about the direction of sloping, run off and suggested a gutter to deal with surface water drainage. Mr Hockney indicated there might be some run off but there already appeared to be a gutter. He further explained that except for the issue over the height of the patio, the application did not require planning permission and a condition in respect of drainage was not really relevant. He suggested, however, that an informative might be applied for the neighbours to liaise and investigate and seek a solution. But this would not be compulsory and the planning system could not address all concerns. ix. Councillor Elliott also raised concerns over shading of the neighbour’s garden by the fence and Mr Hockney repeated and expanded on his previous explanations with reference to the slides from the presentation. x. Mr Hockney also confirmed to Councillor Ward that the ownership of the fence was not a planning consideration but a civil matter and to Councillor Mrs Thomas that some of the bricks in the picture were just darker in colour and not mossy due to damp. xi. Councillor Sloan also asked about the fence, sloping to the west and how the patio and fence totalling 2.5m would appear from the neighbour at no. 30. Mr Hockney displayed the slide showing the view from the patio and indicated that there was no real change in levels but Councillor Sloan suggested that the neighbour would therefore be considerably overlooked. Mr Hockney explained that was why the 1.5m fence had been added as a condition to mitigate against the overlooking whilst not significantly affecting the shading. Committee Member Discussion: x. Councillor Webb agreed with the officer assessment and recommendation and proposed approval. Councillor Scholes seconded the proposal subject to inclusion of the informative proposed and this was also accepted by Councillor Webb. xi. Councillor Elliott, however, was not happy with the situation of the patio, which he thought was intrusive. He proposed refusal and this was seconded by Councillor Dr Hall. Decision/voting – The first motion considered was that proposed by Page 6 Agenda Item 5 7 Councillor Webb, seconded by Councillor Scholes and the vote taken confirmed approval of the application, in line with the officer recommendation and with the addition of the informative as discussed. The second motion that had been proposed was therefore redundant. RESOLVED - That application 14/505961 be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report and an additional informative as set out below: Additional Informative The applicant should investigate the issue of water collecting between the patio and the neighbouring property and find a solution. APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/506757 - 2 BAKERS CORNER, LADHAM ROAD, GOUDHURST PLA153/14 Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 14/506757 and this was summarised at the meeting by Peter Hockney, Team Leader and illustrated by means of a visual presentation. Updates and additional representation – None. Registered Speakers – Councillor Harris, Chairman of Goudhurst Parish Council had registered to speak in accordance with the Constitution rules (Procedure at Meetings of the Area Planning Committees). He reiterated the Parish Council’s support of the application and confirmed that the new building was a positive improvement. Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers: None. Committee Member Discussion: No further issues were raised. Decision/voting - A motion was proposed by Councillor Dr Hall, seconded by Councillor Elliott and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation. RESOLVED - That application 14/506757 be approved subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report. REPORT FOR INFORMATION - BUILDING PRESERVATION NOTICE - CRANBROOK ENGINEERING WORKS/HOSPICE IN THE WEALD, STONE STREET, CRANBROOK PLA154/14 Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of a Building Preservation Notice (BPN) and Miss Smith confirmed that this was before members for information only: the Page 7 Agenda Item 5 8 decision having already been made. Consequently there would be no debate or voting on this item. The report was introduced and summarised by Mr Stephenson, the Principal Conservation Officer. Updates and additional representation – Since publication of the agenda report, the presenting officer advised that English Heritage had visited the site the day before the Committee meeting and would be compiling a report ready for consultation with the owner and the Local Planning Authority. Registered Speakers – Councillor Rook, the Chairman of Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council had registered to speak on this agenda item, in accordance with the Constitution rules (Procedure at Meetings of the Area Planning Committees). Councillor Rook advised that the Parish Council were dismayed by the BPN as it put the whole town regeneration project into disarray. He hoped matters would be resolved quickly so that proposed development in Cranbrook could move forward and not leave a deteriorating situation akin to that of the ‘Providence Chapel’. He indicated that the Parish Council, the Cranbrook Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CCAAC) and local residents saw no merit in preserving the building. He quoted from the comments of a former TWBC Conservation Officer that, in summary, the buildings and spaces concerned had very little historic or architectural merit, such that they did not make a positive contribution to the Cranbrook Conservation Area, nor to the setting of neighbouring Listed Buildings. Additionally, the former Conservation Officer had been more concerned about damage to adjacent buildings during the period of demolition. Councillor Rook also quoted from a recent email from a local trader who was disappointed that development of the new Cranbrook Community Centre might be affected. Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers: Councillor Scholes asked what the next steps were as a consequence of the BPN. Mr Stephenson explained that the building would be protected for a period of 6 months as if it were a Listed structure. TWBC had asked English Heritage to provide their report as soon as possible following their site inspection. This report would be subject to a 21 day consultation period, following which it would be updated with the consultation responses and sent by English Heritage together with their recommendations to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for decision. Definite timescales could not be predicted but in spite of a request to expedite matters, it was unlikely that the outcome would be known for at least 4 to 5 weeks. Councillor Dr Hall asked who would be consulted and Mr Stephenson confirmed it would be the owner and the Local Planning Authority. RESOLVED - That the report be noted. APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/506525 - 52 OATFIELD DRIVE, CRANBROOK PLA155/14 Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 14/506525 and this was Page 8 Agenda Item 5 9 summarised at the meeting by Mr Hockney, Team Leader and illustrated by means of a visual presentation. Updates and additional representation – None. Registered Speakers – None. Matters of Clarification by Officers, Committee Members’ Questions to Officers and Committee Member Discussion: xii. Councillor Patterson wondered whether there was any alternative means of accessing the house if this retrospective application for the steps was refused. Mr Hockney mentioned that objectors had suggested that the steps could have been better built at a right angle to the door but he did not consider this would make much difference. xiii. Councillor Backhouse proposed approval and this was seconded by Councillor Patterson. xiv. Councillor Mrs Thomas asked whether the steps and rail had been built specifically to cater for a disabled occupant. Mr Hockney was not aware that this was the case but advised that Building Regulations required any access to be able to accommodate the needs of any future occupier. xv. Councillor Dr Hall considered the steps were ugly and pointed out that the Parish Council had recommended refusal. She referred to their reasons, which were set out in paragraph 7.01 of the agenda report. She would not support the application. xvi. Councillor Webb referred to paragraph 10.09 of the agenda report, he also did not consider that the steps encroached on the public footpath and Mr Hockney confirmed that was correct. Mr Hockney added that the bottom 4 steps were part of the permission granted by the previous application and it was only the upper steps that had not been approved. There were therefore few alternatives. xvii. Councillor Elliott advised that he would rather have seen parallel steps. Having ascertained that the boundary treatment as shown in the illustrative picture was a fence, he suggested that the visual impact of the wooden handrail on the steps would be less pronounced if it was stained the same colour as the fence. Mr Hockney advised that an informative could be added and this would be more appropriate than a condition. He also advised in relation to the orientation of the steps, that rather than considering alternatives, the application should be assessed as proposed. xviii. Councillor Sloan asked how the situation relating to the steps had arisen and Mr Hockney explained that previous applications had been refused by the Committee. The property had only recently been constructed, however, following permission granted at appeal but there had been no indications of ground level outside the entrance door available to the inspector as part of that process. xix. In view of the officer’s comment that the application should be assessed as it stood, Councillor Elliott proposed refusal of the application for the applicant to resubmit an application with steps parallel to the building. This was seconded by Councillor Dr Hall as she considered that abutting the pavement they caused a potential obstruction to the disabled and were not in keeping with the street scene. xx. Councillor Mrs Thomas referred to the agenda report which confirmed there was no adverse impact or harm from the steps and she would Page 9 Agenda Item 5 10 xxi. therefore support the application. Councillor Patterson pointed out there would be difficulties in refusing the application when the bottom steps already had planning permission. Decision/voting – The initial motion had been proposed by Councillor Backhouse and seconded by Councillor Patterson and the vote taken was to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation but with the additional informative as suggested by Councillor Elliott. The second motion that had been proposed was therefore redundant. RESOLVED - That application 14/506525 be approved subject to the plans and conditions as set out in the agenda report and the additional informative as set out below: Additional informative The applicant should stain the handrail a dark colour to match the boundary fence. APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 15/501007 - 7 VALLEY ROAD, RUSTHALL PLA155/14 A Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 15/501007 and this was summarised at the meeting by Miss Oben, Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation. Updates and additional representation - Since publication of the agenda report, the presenting officer advised that a further representation had been received from Rusthall Parish Council and their comments were as follows: i. The extension to the original house did not seem sufficient in size to become a separate dwelling. ii. It was over intensive land use. iii. No additional parking for had been allocated for the development. iv. The garden area could have been more equally divided. Registered Speakers – None. Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers: None. Committee Member Discussion: No additional matters were raised. Decision/voting – Councillor Webb agreed with the officer report. He proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor Scholes and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation. RESOLVED - That application 15/501007 be approved subject to the plans and conditions as set out in the agenda report. Page 10 Agenda Item 5 11 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/506664 - 2 STONE CROSS COTTAGE, ASHURST ROAD, ASHURST PLA156/14 Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services submitted a report in respect of application 14/506664 and this was summarised at the meeting by Miss Oben, Planning Officer and illustrated by means of a visual presentation. Updates and additional representation – None. Registered Speakers – None. Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions to Officers: Councillor Dr Hall asked whether the house was a period property but Miss Oben confirmed it was not. Committee Member Discussion: Councillor Webb referred to paragraph 10.02 of the agenda report and agreed that the proposal was both modest in size and in proportion and consequently he supported the proposal. Decision/voting - A motion was proposed by Councillor Backhouse, seconded by Councillor Elliott and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation. RESOLVED - That application 14/50664 be approved subject to the plans and conditions as set out in the agenda report. DATE OF NEXT MEETING PLA157/14 RESOLVED – That the next Planning Committee meeting take place on Wednesday 8 April 2015, at 5pm. NOTES: 1. Councillor Mrs Soyke left the meeting during consideration of application 14/506664. 2. The meeting was adjourned at 6.30pm for 10 minutes after consideration of the Building Preservation Notice. 3. The meeting concluded at 7pm. Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank