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.

Item 5on the Agenda –Councillor Clive Goddard declared a ‘Other Significant Interest’ on the grounds that the company he works for has been undertaking work at the Royal Victoria Hospital and is the applicant of Application 20/0690/FH.

Item 5 on the Agenda – Councillor John Collier made a ‘Voluntary Announcement of Other Interests’ on the grounds that his son-in-law works with the applicant.

Item 6on the Agenda – Councillor Field made a statement of explanation to make clear he was not related, nor had ever met, Mr John Field, a local resident. 

Item 6on the agenda - Sue Head (Principal Planning Officer) made a Voluntary Announcement of ‘Other Interests’ on the grounds her husband was a director of RDA Architects.  

To consider and approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2021 were submitted and approved. The Chairman’s signature would be added to these minutes as approved. 

To receive and note the minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2021 were submitted and approved. The Chairman’s signature would be added to these minutes as approved.  

Councillor Philip Martin was in the Chair for the following Item.

Conversion of the existing care home to 13no. 1 and 2-bed residential flats; erection of a new building to contain 6no. 2-bed flats; and associated landscaping works.

Conversion of the existing care home to 13 no. 1 and 2-bed residential flats; erection of a new building to contain 6no. 2-bed flats; and associated landscaping works.

Having made a declaration of ‘Other Significant Interest’ under Item 5 on the Agenda, Councillor Goddard left the meeting and therefore did not participate in any of the discussion or voting.       

The declaration made by Councillor John Collier of a ‘Voluntary Announcement of Other Interests’ under Item 5 on the Agenda had been noted.

           The Case Officer – Committee Services, read the following to the meeting: 

           A statement from Mr and Mrs Graham, local residents, setting out their reasons as to why they opposed the application. 

           A statement from Mr Paul Reynolds, a local resident, setting out his reasons as to why he was opposed to the application.

           A statement from Mr Paul Thomas, on behalf of the New Romney Town Council, setting out the concerns of the Town Council, should the application be approved. 

A statement from Mr Leo Griggs, the applicant, which set out his reasons as to why the application should be approved.

Following discussion:

Proposed by Councillor Ian Meyers

Seconded by Councillor Jackie Meade; and 

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused on grounds which included a need to demonstrate that the loss of the care home was acceptable under the requirements of policy HB11 of the Places and Policies Local Plan.

 (Voting:  6 For; 5 Against; 0 Abstentions)

Taking into account the reasons for refusal, the Chief Planning Offer was granted delegated authority by the Committee to draft the exact wording of the grounds for refusal.  

8.00 PM – Councillor Goddard returned to the meeting and took the Chair.

Erection of 2 three-bedroom dwellings and associated parking.

Erection of 2 three-bedroom dwellings and associated parking. 

           Having made a declaration of ‘Other Significant Interest’ under Item 6 on the Agenda, Sue Head (Principal Planning Officer) left the meeting during the course of the discussion on this item.        

          The Case Officer – Committee Services read to the meeting a statement byMr John Field, a local resident, setting out the reasons why he was opposed to the application. (Mr Field had submitted a video which was shown to the Committee but because of the sound quality his statement was also read out)

          Mr Jeff Lawrence spoke on behalf of the Dymchurch Parish Council via a video link. In this statement, Mr Lawrence set out the grounds on which the Parish Council objected to the application.   

           Following discussion:             

           Proposed by Councillor Georgina Treloar 

Seconded by Councillor Jim Martin; and

That the application be refused on the grounds that the flood risk posed by the development of this site did not outweigh the wider sustainability issues. Also, the development would have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties, in particular No. 109 Hythe Road.  

(Voting: 6 For; 6 Against; 0 Abstentions)

As the vote was tied the Chairman exercised his casting vote against the proposal to refuse the motion. 

THIS MOTION FELL.

Following further discussion:

Proposed by Councillor Ian Meyers

Seconded by Councillor Mrs Jenny Hollingsbee; and  

RESOLVED

That consideration of this application be deferred in order to allow discussions to take place with the applicants on an additional planning condition being imposed, which would require the development to be served by pumped drainage, discharging to the Willop Basin.

(Vote: 7 For, 1 Against; 4 Abstentions)

Outline planning application for the redevelopment of the former Smiths Medical site for up to 97 dwellings (Class C3), up to 153m² of offices (Class B1) and up to a 66 bed care home (Class C2) with all matters reserved for future consideration except access.

Outline planning application for the redevelopment of the former Smiths Medical site for up to 97 dwellings (Class C3), up to 153m² of offices (Class B1) and up to a 66 bed care home (Class C2) with all matters reserved for future consideration.

           In introducing this item, the Principal Planning Officer said that since the publication of the Committee report, the application had been revised and therefore all details were now reserved matters for future consideration.

           The Case Officer – Committee Services read to the meeting a statement from Mr Alistair Hume, the applicant’s agent, setting out the reasons why he believed the application should be approved.       

Following discussion,

Proposed by Councillor Jim Martin   

Seconded by Councillor Mrs Jenny Hollingsbee; and  

RESOLVED

That outline planning permission for this application be granted as detailed in the written report by the Chief Planning Officer, and also the update provided at the meeting. 

(Vote: 10 For, 2 Against; 0 Abstentions)

This report considers the appropriate action to be taken regarding the change of use of the land and operations that have taken place on the field adjacent to Martinfield Cottage Old Romney. A planning application was submitted for the residential use of the land for four gypsy families but the necessary information required to validate the application was not supplied. As such planning permission has not been granted for the use of the land or any of the operations. Serving of an Enforcement Notice is recommended.

This report considered the appropriate action to be taken, regarding the change of use of the land and operations that have taken place on the field adjacent to Martinfield Cottage, Old Romney. A planning application has been submitted for the residential use of the land for four gypsy families, but the necessary information required to validate the application was not supplied. As such planning permission had not been granted for the use of the land or any of the operations. Serving of an Enforcement Notice was recommended.

Proposed by Councillor Jim Martin.   

Seconded by Councillor Gary Fuller; and  

RESOLVED

(i) To receive and note report DCL/20/52.

(ii) That an Enforcement Notice(s) be served requiring the cessation of the residential use; the removal of the caravans/mobile homes and associated materials and paraphernalia; removal of the hardcore; and the reinstatement of the grass.

(iii)  That the Chief Planning Officer be given delegated authority to determine the exact wording of the Notice(s).

(iv) That the period of compliance with the Notices be twelve (12) months, and;

(v) That the Assistant Director - Governance, Law & Regulatory Services be authorised to take such steps as are necessary, including legal proceedings to secure compliance with the Notice. 

(vi) That following the recent submission of a planning application, if the application is valid no action will be taken on serving the Enforcement Notice until the application has been determined and an Enforcement Notice will not be served if planning permission is subsequently granted.

(Vote: 11 For, 1 Against; 0 Abstentions)

Some planning decisions are subject to legal agreements requiring developers to make financial contributions to the Council and Kent County Council (KCC) to provide for on and off site infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development, under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Some developments for which planning permission is granted are also subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Although separate to the S106 process, the purpose of CIL payments is also to ensure developers make an appropriate financial contribution to mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure.

The adequacy and effectiveness of the procedures and controls relating to S106 agreements was first reviewed by the East Kent Audit Partnership in 2014 with a follow up review in 2018/19. The original report recommended that the position regarding planning obligations that involve financial contributions should be reported to members on an annual basis. Following the introduction of CIL in 2016 the report now also includes CIL contributions.

The CIL and Enforcement Team Leader submitted a detailed report setting out the background behind seeking developer contributions through S106 and CIL and provided summaries of the monies received and where they have been spent in the interests of transparency.

             RESOLVED

That the report and its appendices be noted.

All agreed. 

This report considers the appropriate action to be taken regarding the use of the camping and touring caravan site at Elham Valley Holiday Park (also known as Goldpark Leisure Caravan and Camping Site) for the siting of residential caravans and campervans. Planning permission has been refused, and an appeal dismissed, for a residential static caravan on the site and a recent application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for the siting of static caravans for permanent residential accommodation has also been refused. The report recommends that an Enforcement Notice be served to require the cessation of the residential use and the removal of the caravans, vehicles and items associated with the residential use of the land.

This report considered the appropriate action to be taken, regarding the use of the camping and touring caravan site at Elham Valley Holiday Park (also known as Goldpark Leisure Caravan and Camping Site) for the siting of residential caravans and campervans. Planning permission had been refused, and an appeal dismissed, for a residential static caravan on the site and a recent application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for the siting of static caravans for permanent residential accommodation has also been refused. The report recommended that an Enforcement Notice be served to require the cessation of the residential use and the removal of the caravans, vehicles and items associated with the residential use of the land.

Proposed by Councillor Philip Martin,  

Seconded by Councillor Mrs Jenny Hollingsbee; and  

RESOLVED

 (i) To receive and note report DCL/20/51.

 (ii)  That an Enforcement Notice(s) be served requiring the cessation of the residential use and the removal of the caravans, vehicles and items associated with the residential use of the land.

(iii) That the Chief Planning Officer be given delegated authority to determine the exact wording of the Notice(s).

(iv) That the period of compliance with the Notices be twelve (12) months; and 

(v) That the Assistant Director - Governance, Law & Regulatory Services be authorised to take such steps as are necessary, including legal proceedings to secure compliance with the Notice.

(Vote: 10 For, 0 Against; 2 Abstentions)