Agenda and minutes

Members are reminded of their obligation under the Council’s Code of Conduct to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and Other Significant Interests in any matter(s) to be considered or being considered at the meeting. These are explained in the Code of Conduct on the Council’s website at Code of conduct for members – Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (tmbc.gov.uk).

Members in any doubt about such declarations are advised to contact Legal or Democratic Services in advance of the meeting.

For reasons of transparency, Councillor Mrs M Tatton advised that at the time of the application, she was the Parish Clerk for Teston Parish Council who were one of the consultees on application TM/22/01570/OA (Land North East and South of 161 Wateringbury Road).  However, as she had not been involved in any decision making regarding the Parish Council’s response, this did not represent either a Disclosable Pecuniary or Other Significant Interest and there was no requirement for her to withdraw from the meeting or to not participate in the debate. 

Councillor Mrs M Tatton and Councillor R Roud advised that they were members of East Malling and Larkfield Parish Council. 

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of Area 2 Planning Committee held on 15 January 2025.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting of the Area 2 Planning Committee held on 15 January 2025 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments to Minute No AP2 25/4:

·        The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the Designated Heritage Assets of Huntley Cottage, 122 Waterbury Road, East Malling and adjacent barn, Ivy House Farm and the East Malling Conservation Area especially in relation to the landscape harm and less than substantial harm to the non-designated heritage asset of Belevede Oast Farm.  These adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the public benefits proposed by the application. The proposal would therefore be contrary to paragraphs 215 and 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF), Policy CP1 of the TMBCS and Policy SQ1 of the MDE DPD 2010.

·       The ecological mitigation measures proposed would not adequately protect the protected species on the site sufficiently to give confidence to the Local Planning Authority that the sequential tests for mitigation had adequately been applied sufficiently that a conclusion cannot be reached to assess the direct impact.  The proposal was therefore contrary to paragraph 193(a) of the NPPF and Policy NE3 of the MDE DPD 2010.

Glossary of abbreviations used in reports to the Area Planning Committee (attached for information)

Any supplementary matters will be circulated via report in advance of the meeting and published to the website.

Decisions were taken on the following applications subject to the pre-requisites, informatives, conditions or reasons for refusal set out in the report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health or in the variations indicated below.  Any supplementary reports were tabled at the meeting.

Members of the public addressed the meeting where the required notice had been given and their comments were taken into account by the Committee when determining the application.  Speakers are listed under the relevant planning application shown below. 

Outline Application:  All matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 52 residential dwellings, including affordable housing, open space and landscaping, roads, parking, drainage and earthworks.  New access to be formed from Wateringbury Road.

Outline Application: All matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 52 residential dwellings, including affordable housing, open space and landscaping, roads, parking, drainage and earthworks.  New access to be formed from Wateringbury Road.

Further to Minute AP2 25/4 of the meeting held on 15 January 2025, the Committee considered the above application with the report of the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer set out in Part 2 of the agenda (Minute No 25/14 refers).  Members continued to express significant concern in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding listed buildings and non-designated heritage assets, the harm to the landscape and the East Malling Conservation Area.

Councillor M Tatton proposed, seconded by Councillor R Roud that the application be refused for the following reasons:

(1)        The development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Designated Heritage Assets of Huntley Cottage, Ivy House Farm and Barn, and to the setting of the non-designated heritage asset of Belvedere Oast, contrary to policy CP1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 213 of the NPPF.

(2)        The development would cause less than substantial harm to the East Malling Conservation Area, contrary to policies CP6, CP24, SQ1 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 215 and 220 of the NPFF, and contrary to the East Malling Village Conservation Area Appraisal.

(3)        The development would cause harm to the distinctive and historic landscape character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies CP1, CP6, CP24, SQ1 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 187 of the NPPF.

(4)        The development was unsustainable, the site being outside the confines of East Malling with limited sustainable and active travel options that could reasonably meet the needs of all residents from the development which in turn would lead to an unacceptable reliance on the private motor car. As such the development was contrary to policies CP1, CP2, CP25 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 115 and 117 of the NPPF. 

(5)        The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) that they have applied the sequential test relating to protected species, with the prioritisation of avoidance over mitigation and, lastly, compensation.  As such, the LPA cannot be sufficiently confident that development in accordance with the submitted Parameter Plan would adequately protect protected species on the site and immediately adjacent to it.  The proposal was therefore contrary to policies NE2 and NE3 of the MDE DPD 2010 and paragraph 193(a) of the NPPF.

(6)        The development, by virtue of the height of the access road and difference in land levels in proximity to the boundary of no. 51 Wateringbury Road would result in overlooking and loss of amenity to the occupants of that property that cannot be satisfactorily ameliorated by landscape proposals.  As such, the development was contrary to policies CP1 and CP24 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 135 of the NPPF.

RESOLVED*:  That the application stand DEFERRED for determination by Full Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item AP2 25/11

To receive and note any update in respect of planning appeals, public inquiries and hearings held since the last meeting of the Planning Committee.

The report setting out updates in respect of planning appeals, public inquiries and hearings since the last meeting of the Planning Committee was received and noted.

The Chairman to move that the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting during consideration of any items the publication of which would disclose exempt information.

There were no items considered in private.

However, Members had regard to the report of the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer set out in Part 2 of the agenda.

(Reasons: LGA 1972 – Sch 12A Paragraph 5 – Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings).

This report provides legal advice on the consequences of taking decisions against the advice of officers.

(Reason: LGA 1972, Sch 12A, Paragraph 5 – information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings)

At the meeting of the Area 2 Planning Committee held on 15 January 2025 consideration of the application was deferred for a report from Legal Services on the risks arising from a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health (as set out in CPR 15.25, Part 4 (Rules) of the Constitution) (Minute AP2 25/4 refers).  The report of the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer provided an assessment of the risks arising from a resolution to refuse planning permission and advised that any such resolution would be a recommendation only and the matter would stand deferred to be considered and determined by Full Council (Minute AP2 25/11 refers).

RESOLVED:  That the report be received and noted.