Transcript

Thank you. Are you ready Victoria? Okay, good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this meeting of the Area 2 Planning Committee. For the benefit of those watching on your YouTube channel, members of the committee are present in the chamber and these members will be voting on proposals this evening. Other members of the council are also in attendance and are participating via MNS teams and can take part in any discussion, ask questions, but cannot vote. Your attention is drawn to Agenda Item 1, which sets out the guidance on how meetings will be conducted, including the ground rules. Before we start with the formal business, we will confirm the attendance of voting members by doing a roll call. Over to you Victoria. Thank you. Mr Palmer. Present. Would you just move to say a few more things? I just moved to say. Oh, cancelled. Oh, two of them. It's just been called. Present. Councillor Crisp. Present. I am here. Councillor Hudson. Present. Present. Councillor Lai. Present. Councillor Lark. I'm here. Thank you. Mr Round. Panna. Present. Mr Tatton. Oh, I'm here as well. Councillor Taylor. Present. Thank you. Now I'd like the officers present in the chamber to introduce themselves. Hello, Hannah Parker, Development Manager. Mariah Brown, Senior Planning Officer. Victoria Freeham, Democratic Services. OK, public speakers. Members of the public, applicant and/or agent wishing to address the planning committee are present in the chamber or participating online, but we do have people in the chamber. Will be invited to speak at the appropriate time. Speaking limit of three minutes for each application continues to be applied and public speakers are unable to participate in any discussion of the application. Sorry. Decorations of interest. Anybody? No? OK. Minutes of the last meeting, 21st of February 2024. Can we confirm a correct record? And I have-- OK. There has been a supplementary information report that has come through this afternoon that people should be aware of. We only have one application to consider this evening. That is land between Birchfield and Mid Kent Nurseries, Ashes Lane in Hadlow. Report is going to be given to us by Mariah and Hannah will be listening. So over to you, Mariah. Thank you. The application before us is for three detached dwellings with double garages. This is illustrations of an aerial photograph which shows the site. This is taken from the Council's GIS. The red dotted lines are public footpaths and you will note that a public footpath bounds the rear of the site. The front of the site are areas of protected trees. The site itself lies in the green belt and in the countryside. This shows the layout of the three detached dwellings and garages. Notice that access comes from Ashes Lane. This is a view of Ashes Lane, either side of the site entrance. Again, leading into the site, the site itself, the site taken towards Ashes Lane. This is the footpath to the rear of the site. The site has been previously ‑‑ we refer to it previously as a brickwork site. Although I understand that there was also a manufacture of enameled items. There's no structures remaining at the site. But this is evidence to prove that there was once buildings on site, although this is all that now remain. The layout of one of the proposed dwellings. The large building you can see is an existing glass house west of the site. If members wish me to re‑show any of those photographs or slides. Obviously you've read the report. I'd like to draw your attention to the supplementary report. We received additional correspondence from the agent. I'd like to draw your attention to the three items that the agent has raised and would like you to consider. The first concerns the definition ‑‑ sorry, the limited infilling of a village and the agent makes reference to an application elsewhere in the borough. The second item that the agent would like to draw your attention to is a suggested planning condition that could potentially be put on to meet passive house standard. And the third comment, my report having consulted with the landscape officer. The landscape officer has some concerns about potential future pressures on the mature trees within the site close to the proposed dwellings. However, the agent would like it to be known that this has been designed on purpose to retain the trees and to maximize the landscaping within the site. I'd just like to say that this is not ‑‑ future pressures on trees is not a recommended reason for refusal. >> Okay. We have one person who wishes to speak to this application. Mr. Michael Rogers. You have three minutes. And from the moment you start. >> Thank you.

Right in. Testing. How's that? Okay. Thank you, area two subcommittee for allowing me to speak tonight. Four years scrutiny by every expert, not one single objection from environmental protection, highways, ecology, parish council, above all, residents and neighbors. It's a brown field site, normally allowing for limited infilling. It lies between the detached dwellings as Maria has said, glass houses and barns of mid‑ Kent nurseries which the owner is intending to develop. I don't want to harm the green belt in any way, this is an appropriate use of a brown field site that cannot be used for my livestock or my cultivations. This is a grassed over derelict site as you can see as that knowledge ‑‑ that's actually in the call for sites. No structures are above the ground but the brick footings as you can see are there and detritus from the industrial uses are spread across the site. It's spurious to contend that Pittswood is not a village and there's no definition of a village that exists in this context. The Powder Mills was considered a village in TM 19 01226 despite there being no community facilities. Ash's Lane no longer has a shop, blacksmiths, engineers, three squirrels, but there is a pub there and a pulse wood golf course and that offers sport, recreation and dining. Two of the largest employment sites in Hadlow are on Ash's Lane, hundreds of people work at the glass houses at Hewlow farms or the businesses at North Thrift Farm. The layout of the site is dictated by the desire to retain the trees at the front, these are protected by TPOs. There are a number of existing properties that do extend back from Ash's Lane, development is not all linear. The planning officer did indicate in the original response that if guaranteed, passive house standards would demonstrate very special circumstances. I can assure you this standard will be met. This could be conditioned on approval, requiring passive house compliance prior to and on completion of the builds. Sunbridge and Moreland Borough Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing at present. Planning inspectors in considering the need for housing have accepted that where an increase in housing is proposed, this should contribute towards very special circumstances. I agree. I'm permitted to put large agricultural barns, grain stores, pack houses and that goes with the heavy incumbent, heavy traffic use that would use Ash's Lane. I've also been approached to sell the site and I couldn't guarantee that that site would be used for less agreeable purposes. We need rural housing. I've been a farmer on Ash's Lane and Hadlow for 40 years. I've always protected the rural environment. I believe it's possible to build on brownfield sites in the Greenbelt without harming it. And this object, this application meets all the key objectives in Regulation 18 of your local plan consultation document. It would be a flagship development that we could all be proud of and I welcome your support. Right, okay. This is obviously recommendation for refusal. Called in by Councillor Lark, would you like to speak to this first? Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. This application is unusual and has led me to think very seriously how I would approach it. I've visited the site and it's basically a relatively small piece of unusable grass area that as Maria has said has been occupied by brick and tile works and where old type China bottles were made. The foundations of the old buildings are still in place and the ground is littered with remnants of the previous occupancy. And it's therefore against agricultural protocols to permit animals to even graze on this land. Neither can the land be ploughed or tilled because of the brickwork still within the ground. This application or its previous iteration has been around for some time and it's apparent that the applicant has done everything asked of him to amend the plan to answer any concerns by the statutory consultees such as KCC Highways, particularly with reference to the entrance onto Ashes Lane. There have been no objections to the plan. In fact, there is one response that is, sorry for the English, positively positive and suggested it should be treated as a brownfield site. And with this idea, I completely agree. It's unfarmable either for arable due to remediation work and size and not able to be grazed. Hence it must be good for something. MPPF Para 150 states, amongst other things, local authorities should plan to enhance the beneficial use by improving biodiversity and improve damaged and derelict land. There are ponds to be installed and the land will certainly come into better use. Under Para 153, it stated that substantial weight is given to harm to the greenbelt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal and it is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I believe they do so outweigh. However, the key to this issue is whether this can be deemed to be infilling in a village. Para 154 of the MPPF has exceptions and subsection E states that limited infilling in villages is acceptable and G states that limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use, subject to it not having greater impact on the openness of the greenbelt than the existing bed of element or cause substantial harm to the green belt. I firmly believe this is the case here. It's merely a redundant parcel of dead land within an existing row of houses. Immediately next door is Mid Kent Nurseries where there is, as we have seen, a substantial and redundant glass house. Last week it was announced that a number of changes to permitted development rights for agricultural type buildings was to take effect from the 21st of May, 2024. This follows a consultation with the department for leveling up housing and communities in summer 2023. Under this rule next door would look to sail through under PDR when it comes to the glass house. The applicant removed the buildings from the site in question for safety and environmental reasons, and is he now to be penalised for doing so? The actual site itself is only to contain three houses that are certainly eco-friendly and potentially passive houses, and I use that phrase very carefully, and the existing trees are to remain apart from one oak and one cherry that are in poor condition. This surely displays someone who is not solely driven by profit margins, but who wish to see a redundant and useless piece of land being brought into better use. The applicant has an excellent history of land management, and he and his family have been working the area for many years. This site is just an unloved piece of land amongst other dwellings, and is it not better to bring it back into full use with three dwellings with good eco-credentials and make the surrounding better? For those who are concerned we might be setting a precedence via the green belt, I'm a firm believer that all applications are treated the same, i.e. on their own merit. Hence my reasoning here. scale numbers have to diversify to survive, and this is I believe the case here and I would urge the committee to look favourably on the application. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? Or Hannah, would you like to come back and answer some of the points? Just by way of clarity, there were objections from both KTC Ecology and Kent Highways, and those have now been successfully overcome. The applicant is correct, no objection, and did not. As has been said, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a village. There are some pointers that might help when reaching a conclusion, but also it's looking very carefully at the layout of the existing ... how those dwellings fit in. Not only in terms of character, but thinking carefully about whether it is. That would be my advice. Okay, Councillor Taylor? Thank you very much, Jane. I must admit I do like the design of this. I like the eco-credentials, I like the layout, but for once I find myself grudgingly, very grudgingly agreeing with the officer's recommendation. This is Greenbelt, and Greenbelt needs no other ... I can't think of the word for it. It just has to be open. It doesn't have to be pretty, it doesn't have to be pliable and plantable, it just has to be open. And James is right, every application needs to be treated on its own merits, but there is an implied precedent. Our Greenbelt is attacked, being under attack right across the borough, and if we agree with the use of Greenbelt on one side, we're going to be expected to agree to use of Greenbelt on other areas. So I wouldn't support an approval. Thank you. Councillor Coughlin? Thank you. It would appear to me that the biggest mistake on this site was to demolish the buildings that were unsafe. Had the buildings remained in place, of course, then that remains as a brownfield site. And certainly when I looked at it from point of view of Google Maps earlier, looking at the way it would work, I thought actually, this looks quite sensible. And knowing that the foundations are underneath that ground, as has been said, it can't be ploughed, it can't be grazed, it's pretty much useless. And looking again at what is there, it looks like some fairly poor quality grass. So it would be difficult to say that there's huge biodiversity on that site. Now, I appreciate that development would eliminate some of that site in that respect. But of course, we have the need to gain biodiversity, hadn't we, under the new planning legislation. And I believe that's been offered by the applicant. I agree with Mike, it is difficult. It is in the Greenbelt, but it was a building site. It was a place with buildings on it. I would hate to have to go and farm that, I really would. And so I'm finding myself on the other side of the fence to Councillor Taylor. Thank you. Thank you. I think the decision we got to make is it is Greenbelt and there's no question about that. So if it is Greenbelt, if you wish to pass it, you've got to see if there's any exceptions that you can come through. The limited infilling of the village is something that would need to be decided. I'm afraid the Passive House is not an exception that's in the NPPF that could be used for that, although it is a lovely condition and something we want to encourage in our new builds. I'm afraid it can't be used as an exception according to the NPPF. So yeah. Anybody else like to come back on them? Councillor Betz. Thank you, Chairman. Again, I agree with the comments made by Councillor Coffin and Councillor Taylor. It's a sort of balancing act, this one really. But I am looking at the definition of limited infill. And whether it's a village or not a village, it does sort of steer one to being a judgment call here. So bearing in mind, it is a judgment call. I think when you take into account all the history on this site, the fact that it was a yard site, there were buildings there before, and maybe with a bit of hindsight, they shouldn't have been taken down. So technically speaking, it was a built on greenbelt area anyway. And taking into account what you can do with that area or can't do with that area, which is limited, taking into account we are not meeting our housing supply. I'm sort of balanced in favour of maybe going forward with this one. And what really does tick the box with me is the detail in the eco provision of the houses. Passive house standards is no easy standard. I know in here it says you can't use justification or certainly for special circumstances to overcome greenbelt development. But nonetheless, passive house standard is an exceptional standard. And with that, not only with that, but there are also exciting grasshorse heat pumps, the supply of energy, which is great, and obviously PV. So I think with all that in mind, and the history of the site, that I'm minded to be in favour of the location. Thank you. Anybody else like to comment? No? Would you like to come back, Hannah, or can we go to a vote? Well, I just want to clarify that I think someone mentioned biodiversity net gain. This application was submitted before the 2nd of April, 2023. So biodiversity net gain 10% is not a statutory requirement for this application. I just want to reiterate the exceptions which have been listed in the report. And if we talk about previously developed land that you don't have, it should then not have a greater impact on the openness of the greenbelt than existing development. And the existing development in this case is a greenfield. So members should have that in mind, exception J. If we're going to go to a vote, a motion will need to be put forward first, I think, and then I can advise. championing? Yes, I would propose that we move to a vote to approve the application as submitted, plus conditions obviously which will come out in the thing, whether we have a passive house or not, I'll leave that to the planning officers. They're far better at that than I. So I propose, thank you. A seconder? Councillor Mat mum, second. Can I just clarify the reason for overturning the officer's recommendation? I think I outlined it all in my report. This was an industrial site. It's unfarmable, unworkable. And as alluded by the applicant, he's already been approached to sell. And with other parcels of land in Hadlow parish, there are certain groups that do buy up pieces of land and that would not help our five year land housing supply, certainly. But I think that the fact it's been previously developed and everything and it's a redundant piece of farmland, that is absolutely why. Thank you. And not the village issue, as you, I do. I did quote about infilling in the village. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. That was sort of a key point. I know that was, no, that's fine. That's fine. Yes. It was a key point, yes. Reason has been given, yes. Okay. So could we go to a vote? Oh, sorry. Waving in the thing, Councillor Coughlin. Thank you very much. It's semantics, that's all. I think at one point this piece of land was called a field. It's actually got lots of concrete underneath it. It's the last thing I'd call that piece of ground. Building site, I guess. Yeah. Victoria, could we go to a vote please? To banks. Against. To Betts. Approve. Coughlin. Call. Prove. Mr Harman. Call. Mr Hudson. Call. Mr Lark. Call. Prove. Mr Tanner. Call. Mr Tatton. Against. Mr Taylor. Against. Oh, sorry. I was calling. Sorry. Call. Thank you. Eight in favour. That has been carried. Obviously, we're probably going to put some conditions on this planning, which we can delegate to the... Yes, the conditions we said that, the conditions will be delegated to officers. Could I just say that I would like to see some conditions regarding the passive house and also I understand it in the application there is like ponds and wildflower meadows and I'd like to see some recognition that they need management over a certain number of years. Yes, conditions are delegated to officers, but they'll be shown to the chair before the decision is issued. And it's also, sorry, it should be subject to a Section 106 agreement as well, which the agent has already agreed to the contributions as outlined in the report as well. That probably should have been said before the vote was taken. Okay. Are that okay for you yourselves? Thank you. That is our only application we are considering this evening. So I call this meeting to a close at 802. Oh, sorry, I apologise. I actually had them highlighted on my... A big piece. We have done quite well on the appeals. Yes, we have. We have three out of four where the inspectors came down on being dismissed. So we are actually doing quite well on the appeal front from the planning department. And the costs, do we know any idea of costs on the one that we didn't? Costs haven't been submitted yet on the application. I wouldn't necessarily say what cost amount in, but, you know, costs haven't been submitted yet and just to confirm. Okay, so I haven't missed anything. I don't have any part twos or urgent items. So it's now 804. Thank you. [ Silence ]