Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2007 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

The Committee agreed to hold a training session provided by the Environment Agency on Thursday, 29 March 2007 and to hold a site tour of the route of the proposed Rushenden Relief Road on Monday, 23 April 2007.

RESOLVED that permission be granted to the application subject to conditions covering amongst other matters annual waste throughput; vehicle numbers along with a restriction of 16 movements during the morning peak hour; a condition restricting HGVs to using the Sortmill Road access only; and dust and odour control measures.

(1)       Mr J B O Fullarton made a declaration of personal interest as he had previously given his views on the proposal at a meeting of Broadstairs and St Peter Town Council.  He took no part in the decision-making process.

(2)       RESOLVED that permission be granted to the proposal subject to conditions, including conditions covering the standard time limit; the development being carried out in accordance with the permitted details; external materials being submitted for approval; a scheme of landscaping, its implementation and maintenance; protection of nesting birds; an archaeological watching brief; and hours of working during construction.

(1)       The notes of the site meeting held on 10 October 2006 had previously been circulated to Members of the Committee.

(2)       RESOLVED that permission be granted to the proposal subject to conditions, including conditions covering the standard time limit; the development being carried out in accordance with the approved details; the development being removed from the site should it cease to be used; and the turbine being completely finished in Dark Squirrel Grey, RAL 7000.

(Mr M J Northey was present for this item pursuant to Committee Procedure Rule 2.24 and spoke).

(1)       The Acting Head of Planning Applications Group tabled an amplified recommendation and late representations from Mr S Bax and Mr G Jeffrey.

(2)       The Acting Head of Planning Applications Group reported the views of a Governor of Barton Court Grammar School in support of the proposal.

(3)       Mr S Bax and Mr G Jeffrey addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposal.  Their presentations were complemented by written representations and photographs.  Mr R Slater from the Governing Body of Barton Court Grammar School spoke in reply.

(4)       Mr A R Bassam moved, seconded by Mr T J Birkett that the amplified recommendation of the Head of Planning Applications Group be agreed.

(5)       Mr J A Davies moved, seconded by Mrs PAV Stockell an amendment that the 1.8m high rail fencing be extended along the entire length of  Pilgrim’s Way to its junction with Spring Lane.

Amendment carried by 10 votes to 1 with 1 abstention

(6)       On being put to the vote, the amended motion was carried by 10 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions. 

(7)       RESOLVED that:-

(a)       permission be granted to the proposal, subject to the extension of the 1.8m high rail fencing along the entire length of Pilgrim’s Way to its junction with  Spring Lane and to conditions, including conditions covering the fence being finished in dark green in its entirety (including all posts and fencing components); the implementation of the landscaping scheme as proposed during the first available planting season, and its maintenance over a three year period; the rest of the development being carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and the final fence alignment along Pilgrims Way being repositioned in those places where it would otherwise impede access for vehicles with right of access to enter and leave adjacent residential properties; and

(b)       the applicants be advised that both schools should adopt formal letting procedures, which would allow for formal recreational use of the site by the local community.

(Mr N J D Chard was present for this item pursuant to Committee Procedure Rule 2.24 and spoke).

(1)       The notes of the site meeting held on 13 March 2007 had previously been circulated.

(2)       Mr J F London moved, seconded by Mr R A Marsh the motion set out in (3) below.  This was carried with no opposition.

(3)       RESOLVED that:-

(a)       permission be granted to the proposal for a temporary period of 5 years subject to conditions, including conditions limiting the hours of use to 8.00 am to 6.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays, 9.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays and no use on Sundays; and setting the maximum noise levels to be experienced by the neighbouring properties; and

(b)       the applicants be informed of the Committee’s view that it would not be minded to extend the temporary period beyond the five years specified.

(1)       Mr N Bullett and Mr N Heilpern addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.  Mr Bullett’s presentation was accompanied by a diagram and photographs of the access to Meadows School.  Mr I Campbell from KCC Property spoke in reply.

(2)       Mr J A Davies moved, seconded by Mr J F London that the recommendation of the Head of Applications Group be agreed subject to the installation of a “Give Way to Oncoming Traffic” sign inside the site and to further discussions being undertaken with the County Council’s and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s Conservation Officers with a view to reducing the height of the kerb to as close to 20 mm as possible.

Motion carried unanimously

(3)       RESOLVED that permission be granted to the proposal subject to further discussions being undertaken with the County Council’s and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s Conservation Officers with a view to reducing the height of the kerb to as close to 20 mm as possible and to conditions, including conditions covering the installation of a “Give Way to Oncoming Traffic” sign inside the site; the standard time limit; the development being carried out in accordance with the permitted plans; timescale for the urgent implementation of the development to address the breach of planning control; works to address the uneven verges and to correct the level imbalance between the kerbs and grassed areas; and a scheme of landscaping, its implementation and maintenance. 

(Mr N J D Chard was present for this item pursuant to Committee Procedure Rule 2.24 and spoke).

(1)       Mr D S Daley made a declaration of personal interest as he had taken part in many discussions on the application.  He addressed the Committee in his capacity as local Member but took no part in the decision-making progress.

(2)       The Acting Head of Planning Applications Group tabled a revised scheme, which had been prepared to address the recommendation in the Committee papers. She informed the Committee of the views of Maidstone Borough Council objecting to the proposal and suggesting conditions in the event that permission were to be granted.  She also reported that Jacobs Landscaping had deemed the new scheme to be acceptable in landscape and visual amenity terms.

(3)       Mr J F London moved, seconded by Mr R A Marsh that permission be granted to the revised scheme subject to the conditions set out in the report and by Maidstone Borough Council.

Motion carried by 11 votes to 1 with 1 abstention

(4)       RESOLVED that permission be granted to the revised proposal subject to conditions, including conditions covering the standard time limit; the development being carried out in accordance with the permitted details; a scheme of landscaping, its implementation and maintenance; measures to protect those trees to be retained; details of the surfacing of the car park; details of external lighting; the implementation of an archaeological watching brief; protection of nesting birds; protection of bats; biodiversity enhancement; safeguarding of the car park; hours of work during construction; compensation planting for each tree that is removed with native and other appropriate trees; an amplified Woodland Management Scheme; special drainage measures; and an investigation of the feasibility of creating a Local Nature Reserve.

RESOLVED to note reports on items dealt with under delegated powers since the last meeting relating to:-

(a)       County Matter applications;

(b)       Consultations on applications submitted by District Councils or Government Departments;

(c)        County Council developments;

(d)       Detailed submissions under Channel Tunnel Rail Link 1996 (None);

(e)       screening opinions under Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 (None); and

(f)         scoping opinions under Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 (None).