Agenda and minutes

Members of the committee should declare any interests which fall under the following categories*:

a)    disclosable pecuniary interests (DPI);

b)    other significant interests (OSI);

c)     voluntary announcements of other interests.

Councillor Miss Susie Govett declared a voluntary announcement in respect of applications Y17/1390/SH, Y17/0327/SH and Y18/0361/SH as she is ward member for New Romney and her daughter attends one of the primary schools mentioned in report DCL/18/14. She remained in the meeting during discussion and voting on these items.

Councillor Michael Lyons declared a voluntary announcement in respect of application Y18/0361/SH as he is known to the applicant. He remained in the meeting during discussion and voting on this item.

Report DCL/18/14 - Outline planning application for the erection of up to 117 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access from Ashford Road.  All matters reserved except for means of access.

Report DCL/18/14 - Outline planning application for the erection of up to

117 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable urban

drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access from Ashford Road. All

matters reserved except for means of access.

Pauline Reynolds, local resident spoke against the application. As a member of the Rolfe Lane residents association she informed that the development does not conform to the Core Strategy policy CSD8 for New Romney and is unacceptable due to the lack of spine road and the impact on junctions and roads in an area already congested.

She informed that the bus service to this area is unacceptable due to the lack of routes to Ashford Hospital and other towns and any additional traffic movement in the area would make it extremely difficult and dangerous for residents. A build-up of traffic would be felt in Rolfe Lane and Fairfield Road.

Members discussed the application and raised a number of issues, mainly those highlighted below:

·         Lack of spine road and connectivity to neighbouring development;

·         S106 monies and how much will be provided;

·         Traffic calming measures proposed inadequate;

·         Public transport is already poor in the area so contrary to saved policy TR2 – provision for buses in major developments;

·         Protection of the countryside;

·         Lack of infrastructure – this should be in place before any new development is considered;

·         Ashford Road turning point is too busy now and would become a danger to road users;

·         A259 access is already dangerous;

·         Lack of medical facilities – surgeries are already struggling;

·         Healthcare contributions insufficient

·         Core Strategy being ignored;

·         School Contributions - St Nicholas School will miss out with contributions being taken out of New Romney;

·         Highways England should be studying this application in more detail;

·         Emergency access – how will this be managed and is it sufficient;

·         Loss of improvements to playing field for St Nicholas School

Although some changes to the previous application have been made some members did not consider the application should be rejected, particularly not because of a lack of spine road and medical facilities, the second of which is not a planning consideration. 

Officers made it clear that there is an aspiration to have the road connectivity to the other site in the area but this is not currently possible due to the ownership of the land in question. KCC have a lease agreement with the local school and this is a long-term arrangement.

Members noted that affordable housing contributions have been agreed.

Members also noted that all contributions listed within the report have been agreed by the applicant and although the contributions are being sought for Greatstone Primary School this has been raised by officers with KCC and continued conversations will take place if members resolve to grant planning permission.

:

Proposed by Councillor Russell Tillson

Seconded by Councillor Michael Lyons that

planning permission be refused  due to lack of internal link road connectivity to the neighbouring site which is one of the criteria of Core Strategy policy CSD8,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Report DCL/18/15 provides information on the erection of 8 dwellings.

Report DCL/18/15 - Erection of 8 dwellings.

Ian Bull, applicant spoke on the application.

Proposed by Councillor Dick Pascoe

Seconded by Councillor Philip Martin and

Resolved:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report, and any additional conditions the Development Management Manager considers necessary.

(Voting: For 7; Against 5; Abstentions 0)

Report DCL/18/16 - Outline application for the erection of 6 houses with matters of scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration.

Report DCL/18/16 - Outline application for the erection of 6 houses with

matters of scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future

consideration.

The Planning Team Leader updated members in respect of the acoustic assessment informing that a report had now been received informing of a low risk of disturbance from the neighbouring farm. Officers had not had a chance to discuss the result with the environmental team, once this had been done any necessary changes to the proposed condition would then be made.

Andrew Wellstead, local resident spoke against the application.

Helen Whitehead, applicant’s agent spoke on the application.

Proposed by Councillor Russell Tillson

Seconded by Councillor Michael Lyons and

Resolved:

That outline planning permission be granted subject to the conditions at

the end of the report and that delegated authority given to the Development Management Manager to agree and finalise the wording of the conditions and add any other conditions that she considers necessary.

(Voting: For 9; Against 3; Abstentions 0)

Report DCL/18/17 details the erection of 3 sheds (resubmission of planning application Y17/0305/SH).

Report DCL/18/17 - Erection of 3 sheds (resubmission of

planning application Y17/0305/SH).

Briony Kapoor, applicant spoke on the application informing that the site was organic and not a commercial venture.

The sheds already on site hold farming tools and equipment and the additional space is required for more of these and food stock for the animals on the site. They will also provide shelter for the donkeys. The farm is supported by Historic England due to the nature of the site and archaeological interest.

Although members were of the opinion that the sheds already on site should not have been built until planning permission had been granted it was felt that there is a need for them and that they will weather in time.

The archaeology of the site is of interest for visitors and therefore should be enhanced and protected and the applicant should be encouraged to promote this.

The majority of members agreed that it was the start of something good for the site and agreed with the siting, scale and colour of the sheds. Members considered the development meets the criteria of saved Local Plan policies CO1 and CO5 as it maintains and enhances the landscape; and the criteria of saved policy CO18 as it is necessary for agriculture and appropriate in scale, siting and materials. They considered the public benefits of the visitor attraction outweigh the impact on the scheduled monument and overall they welcomed the development.

Proposed by Councillor Len Laws

Seconded by Councillor Mrs Jenny Hollingsbee and

Resolved:

1.            That planning permission be granted as the development maintains and enhances the landscape; is necessary for agriculture; the siting, scale and materials of the sheds are in keeping with the surroundings; and the public benefits as a visitor attraction to that part of the marsh outweigh the less than substantial harm to the heritage asset. As such the development is in accordance with saved Local Plan Review policies CO1, CO5 and CO18 and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         To delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to authorise the necessary conditions.

(Voting: For 11; Against 0; Abstentions 1)