Agenda and minutes

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2014 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5 pm on Friday 29 August 2014.

A written question was received from Mr Colin Willetts, Governor of Kemnal Academy.  A copy of the question, together with the Chairman’s response, is attached as Appendix 1.

Report CSD14130

Members considered a request received from the Conservative Group, for Councillor Kate Lymer to replace Councillor Melanie Stevens, as a Member of the Plans 2 Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED that Councillor Kate Lymer replace Councillor Melanie Stevens as a Member of the Plans 2 Sub-Committee.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Ward Member Councillor Russell Mellor who stated that this was a complex case and only the latest in a long-running saga dating back to 2010.  Whilst the S106 Agreement would go some way to resolve issues concerning infrastructure there was room for improvement.  Councillor Mellor urged Members to refuse the application and strengthen the grounds for refusal.

Councillor Michael agreed with the views of the visiting Ward Member and added that approval of the application would result in the loss of valuable employment space at a time when there were signs of an increase in future need.  Councillor Michael moved that the application be refused.

It was reported that the site had lain vacant for several years before the submission of the previous planning application in 2010.

Councillor Allen considered the residential scheme to be an improvement on the current use of the site however, she was disappointed to note that no provision of affordable housing was proposed.

Councillor Fawthrop pointed out that although there was a specific lack of employment North of the borough, the applicant had not attempted to accommodate enough office space.  Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Auld stated that the applicant had taken a simplistic role by declaring the provision of employment space to be unnecessary.  This view was not supported by either the Council or the Appeal Inspector.  Although the Inspector had recognised a slump in employment, the reports on which she relied had indicated a possible rise in the future.

Following a vote of 12-2, Members RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Will Edmonds of  Montagu Evans LLP who spoke on behalf of the applicant.  Mr Edmonds reported that the current application before Members had addressed previous reasons for refusal.  The Western Housing had been reduced in number and size so that the development now stood in line with the listed building.  The soft landscaping proposals had also been increased.

The scheme complied with the desired minimum amount of development and the applicant’s improvements to secure optimal viable use of the site had been recognised by the English Heritage Inspector.

As previously suggested by Members, badger surveys were being undertaken.

The Tree Officer had confirmed that the proposal would not impact detrimentally on trees within and surrounding the site.

In conclusion Mr Edmonds stated that a sum of £200k would be provided as a S106 contribution.

In response to Member questions, Mr Edmonds reported that the watching brief would identify any potential issue concerning species of flora or protected animals and each matter would be dealt with appropriately.  Whilst Tree Officers were satisfied trees would not become a problem, a maintenance regime would be put in place.

The Council had accepted that there was not sufficient value in the scheme for the provision of on-site affordable housing.  The S106 figure had been evaluated as an appropriate sum for payment in lieu of such provision.

Oral representations from visiting Ward Member Councillor Reddin were received at the meeting.  Councillor Reddin was not entirely satisfied with the proposed scheme which would result in a reduction of open space.  He preferred to see no housing to the South West of the house.  However, the reduction in the number and size of the proposed Western Housing along with its realignment with the listed building, did result in a reduction of footprint.  The development would bring a new lease of life to the area and the proposed access to the grounds would allow members of the public to view an important heritage building.  In conclusion, Councillor Reddin considered it would be a shame to pass up an opportunity to see Hayes House restored to its former glory and was content for the application to be approved.

Ward Member Councillor Arthur commended the applicant’s effort in addressing previous concerns by organising public displays and discussing the application with members of the public.  He was pleased to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Councillor Arthur moved that the application be granted; this was seconded by the Chairman.

RESOLVED that LISTED BUILDING CONSENT be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the condition set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

Report DRR14/086

The National Planning Policy Framework specified that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements.  In line with this policy, Members considered the five year supply position for the Council from 1 April 2014-31 March 2019 which concluded there was a suitable five year housing supply in the Borough.

The Chairman stated he was satisfied that the figures indicated in the report complied with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor Fawthrop reported that around 24 units in the Petts Wood area had continued to be out of use for over six months and were currently being refurbished.  He asked why the units had not been utilised and why they had been excluded from the current identified figures.  The Chief Planner agreed to look into this matter and drew attention to a list of tabled corrections to the report.

RESOLVED that the five year housing supply position for 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019 (including corrections as tabled) be agreed.

(Report to follow)

Report DRR14/088

The Government’s “Technical Consultation on Planning” was published on 31 July 2014 and sought views across a range of issues built upon the recent planning reforms.  Members were requested to agree the Council’s response to the consultation which ended on 26 September 2014.

The Chairman outlined the report and considered that the officer responses to the consultation adequately reflected past views of the Development Control Committee with the exception of one or two which could be strengthened.

Councillor Michael stated that whilst the responses concerning permitted development rights addressed the majority of Member concerns, she suggested that the answer to Question 2.15 (paragraph 3.18, page 7) should be ‘No’ as the Authority preferred to retain control of such issues.

Councillor Fawthrop reported that new powers restricting parking should be put in place and suggested that the response to Question 2.16 (paragraph 3.19, page 7) should be begin with the word ‘Yes’.

Referring to Question 2.18 (paragraph 3.21,page 7), Councillor Michael emphasised the need for strong control over the installation of solar PV up to 1MW on the roof of non-domestic buildings and for Members to retain the ability to refuse applications where an installation would result in an impact on visual amenity. 

RESOLVED that the Council’s response to the Government’s “Technical Consultation on Planning” be agreed subject to the following amendments:-

1)  The wording in response to Question 2.15 (paragraph 3.18), to be replaced with:- ‘No – LPAs should retain control as such development could have highway or retail impact implications which should be properly assessed.’.

2)  The response to question 2.16 (paragraph 3.19), should begin with the word ‘Yes’ followed by the wording set out in the report.

3)  The response to Question 2.18 (paragraph 3.21), should begin with the wording ‘No - there should be consideration……’ followed by the wording set out in the report.