 |
 |
|
|
Meeting minutes extraordinary meeting for 18 April 2011 These notes are abstracted from the original minutes-for the full and proper copy please contact the Parish Clerk |
|
||
|
|
Present: Cllrs Bailey, Blockley, Clarke, Hagens, Hemsley, Kellett, Lake, Clerk, TWBC LH, + 31 members of the public 126 Declarations of Interest: 127 Planning Applications: TW/11/00754/FUL/CP3 + TW/11/00769/FUL/CP3 Chair PB opened the meeting to TWBC LH TWBC LH advised that she would not take part in any discussion of the planning applications as she sits on TW Eastern Area Planning Committee and did not want to “fetter her discretion” but several residents had contacted her to voice their concerns. LH emphasised the importance for individuals to write in and reminded residents to use the planning refusal reasons identified in the previous application; AONB; gateway to the village and proximity to listed buildings for TW/11/00754/FUL/CP3. LH advised on the “call in” procedure and that a decision can be made by the TW Planning Officer involved without going to committee if all the statutory bodies have made representation and planning policies are not met. LH outlined the planning inspectorate process. TWBC LH left at 7.40pm Chair PB explained that the PC had no power to “call in” an application but could request a TW Borough Councillor ask for it to go to committee. Chair PB outlined the AH Borough and National strategy. ACRK conducted our village AH survey in July 2008 and if a AH development is progressed a further survey maybe required to identify the need as at 2011. Chair PB reported on how the unit number was decided: 36 identified with a maximum of 50% build – 18 units. 61% single 1 bed unit; 28% couple 2 bed unit; 11% family 3 bed unit Chair PB confirmed that all correspondence currently available on TWBC Planning Access Site had been downloaded. The applications would be considered individually. Chair PB asked members of the public to speak on TW/11/00754/FUL/CP3 SB – How have Cascade got so far with their planning applications? PB – Cascade have put in applications TW Borough wide. PC is aware of 2 plots in Benenden main. Land owned by Benenden Almshouses which has had a delay on over registration of land and the other is land behind Hortons Close which the owner has applied for private housing on and been firmly refused. Developer is trying to get AH on site but without a S106 agreement which allows the houses to remain as Benenden homes. TWBC are not prepared to accept changes to S106. The cost of the land is the key element, commercial land would not be affordable for HA to even consider. BH – Can you confirm the PC is not interested in land identified in the Cascade applications? PB – Yes that is right. PY – If there is a planning application in, why is the Iden Green Road plot for sale? PB – You can put in a planning application on any land for sale. CW – Will the PC be putting in an objection? PB – PC will put in a view but we are not part of the decision making process. SB – 2 sites for AH but Cascade have partnered with a HA yet? At what point do they have to sign up with a HA during the process? MP – I have sent the PC and TWBC a sectional drawing on how Cotton Cottage will be affected if the development goes ahead; it would sit 3ft above Cotton Cottage with a total loss of privacy. PD – I have discussed these applications. TWBC had no former knowledge of these applications and no pre-application advice was sought. PD – AH [exception sites in outside limits to built] will only be considered by TWBC if a HA is identified. Most HA have a 4yr programme already filled. TWBC have extended the response date. Please contact TW Clare Penney. PB – Cascade have made reference to the ACRK Survey then ignored the findings of the survey. 10 units in total over 2 sites – 4 x 2 beds and 6 x 3 beds do not meet the requirements. CH – New Pond Road quoted incorrectly. PB – Application quotes not in AONB, incorrect. KY – Cascade 2008 application was turned down on size are they trying to succeed with a smaller development? No lobbying this time. PB – Cascade are persistent in their pursuit for development opportunities. PC has applied for an extension of time to respond. PB asked each councillor to respond individually. RL – Applications provide more houses than survey requires; inadequate mix of dwellings; fail TWBC policy C3, C4, part of which is to protect the countryside; privacy; noise and access from 10 cars will impede on Beech Cottage. JH – appears to be running as a business without consideration of suitability to rural village. MK – no AH on board so not an exceptional site; no S106 agreement; can only be in it for monetary gain. DB – I feel strongly that PC support village homes for residents who wouldn’t be able to remain in the village without AH. I do not see how this scheme can be approved to make it worth Cascade’s while. This development would be detrimental to the gateway of I/G. JH – you don’t want it, we don’t want it. JC – No further comment. Agree with all previous statements. PB asked for a show of hands on planning application TW/11/00754/FUL/CP3 Chair PB asked members of the public to speak on TW/11/00769/FUL/CP3 SB – Is Cascade development dependant on both applications? PB – each application must be considered separately but Cascade has said 10 units make it viable. PD – I can confirm that when a planning application comes into TWBC it will be judged individually no consideration will be given to “tie” together. Please note TWBC Rural Lanes Study. All lanes in TW Borough evaluated and Standen Street is identified as a significant rural lane. EC – Is there room on that plot to build 10 homes there? PB – No. BH – I feel it is important that this application is refused as if 5 are allowed it opens the door for future development. SB – There are many reasons why this application should be refused: planning; significant earth movement; highways issues; privacy; noise; light pollution; natural wildlife habitat including badgers; grass snakes; lizards; ancient hedgerows. PB – A “view” is not protected but overshadowing and privacy do. As a PC we will endeavour to include planning policy notes from all your comments. PY – flooding issues without extra houses RL – a resident remembers the doodlebug and being part of the “rebuilding” team who claims the drainage and plumbing in Standen Street are inadequate. GW- in terms of flooding Standen Street is poor; main hole / drains blocked with sediment and leaves. KHS need to carry out a road traffic survey. The width of road is only 4 mtrs. Will TWBC liaise with Kent Police? PY – If developments are pushed through without serious consideration of infrastructure there will be flooding and sewerage issues. PB – I agree in Benenden Main the drainage is poor. KF – The development looks as if it would dominate the area given that the site is elevated too. MP – Protecting the countryside for its own sake. It has to be kept for the village. Could Cascade go to appeal then sell on the approved development? PB – S106 agreement ensures the houses remain village owned in perpetuity. PB – We met in Feb 2011 and we are awaiting revised plans with public consultation in mid 2011. PB – Yes. We need an element of AH in our village to retain our youngsters. GW – with a child starting BCEP in Sept and another one expected do we know when the new school will be built? PB – PC cannot confirm when but it is in its final stages and KCC are preparing an application for mid 2011. Cllr JC left the meeting. PG – I strongly object to the application for all the reasons in my letter and I agree with everybody’s comments. PB asked each councillor to respond individually. RL – smaller units identified by HNS; Cascade would require a minimum of 10 units to make the scheme financially viable – too many for I/G; detrimental impact on properties bordering the site; field forms a welcome open space in a fairly dense area and building on it would spoil the character of the rural lane. DB - nothing to add. JH – nothing to add. PB asked PC for a show of hands on application TW/11/00769/FUL/CP3 PY – surely there is a way of TWBC making more residents aware. PB – PC can speak to TWBC, Head of Planning, Jim Kehoe SB – should we write to local MP? PB – That is your decision. PD – Traditionally everybody within 80-90 mtrs of a planning application should be notified. KF – I am standing as an Independent Councillor for Benenden & Cranbrook. I have heard your strength of feeling and I will ensure it is called – in. PB thanked everybody for attending and sharing their views. The fact that so many residents have written in will impact on TWBC. There being no further comments the meeting closed at 8.43pm Next Meeting: Annual Parish Assembly PETER BLOCKLEY, CHAIRMAN BENENDEN PARISH COUNCIL
|
|
