Issue - meetings

Ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals.

Ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals.

Ground floor rear extension and change of use from use class C3 residential dwelling to C2 residential institution designed to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five individuals.

Due regard was given to the determining issues, conditions, reasons and informatives as detailed in the report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health.  Concerns were expressed regarding the potential impact of the proposed development on neighbouring amenities, specifically with regard to possible increases in noise and disturbance, inadequate parking provision, and highway safety considerations.

It was proposed by Councillor D Keers and seconded by Councillor R Dalton that the application be refused, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

(1)          as a result of the increased comings and goings, additional parking of vehicles, staff movements, disruption and activity would result in an unacceptable intensification of the site, out of keeping with the character of this quiet residential area and harmful to neighbourhood, neighbouring amenities, in conflict with policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and Maling Core Strategy and policy SQ1 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document; and

(2)          as a result of insufficient off-street parking, the proposal would not function well over the lifetime of the development and the parking plan would not be enforceable or provide sufficient mitigation for the failure to provide the necessary off-street parking spaces.  This would amount to poor design and would be detrimental to the functioning of the development, in conflicts with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CP 24 of the Tonbridge and Malling Core Strategy, policy SQ 8 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document and the Kent Parking Standards SPD.

Following a formal vote, the proposal was supported by majority of the Committee and on the grounds that the above refusal reasons were not considered could be substantiated at an appeal, the vote taken was a recommendation only in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 Rules of the Constitution.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED for a report from the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer on the risks arising from a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health (as set out in Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 (Rules) of the Constitution).

[Speakers: Mr D Hoare, Mrs S Hoare, Mrs L Collard, Mr C Collard and Mr S Stevens (members of the public) and Ms V Costinar (Applicant) addressed the Committee in person.]