Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllr Baker, Cllr McArthur and Cllr Streets

None

Meeting closed 19.32

Three members of the public spoke collectively about St Brelades Court, a residential static caravan site in Edenbridge, and stated that the owners of the site had no regard for residents and had been cutting electric cables and leaving the access blocked for hours at a time. They said they felt that no one seems to want to get involved with the site, the recreational area of which they said now had hazardous waste dumped on it, the owner had chopped down trees and bushes and laid concrete they said that they had power cuts and no water at times and the rubbish was never taken away as the waste collection lorries could not get access to the site. They said that the field behind the site also had rubbish dumped on it, which included thirty gas bottles.

Meeting re-opened 19.40

The Chairman proposed to bring forward agenda items 6.12 in view of members of the public attendance. Members,

Resolved: to bring forward to discussed before proceeding with other items on the agenda.

Resolved: the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14 AUGUST 2023 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting; pages 23/08-01/04..

None.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application and commented: 

· It impedes on the openness of the greenbelt. 

· Hilders Lane has very limited capacity to handle increased traffic flow. 

· The new properties would cause a strain on the infrastructure.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application, stating:

Building in an area of the flood plain known to routinely flood is ill advised, and housing vulnerable people there is even more ill advised.

The application would impact on the openness of the greenbelt and would have an impact on the local biodiversity.

The proposed access route raises concerns about Highways and pedestrian safety.  

Two footpaths pass through the site.

An Article 4 Notice was served on the property in 2020.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application but were concerned that the barn may be converted to a dwelling in future.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members maintain their objection to this application (as per its submission 17 July):

•   Parking is inadequate

•   Historical flooding issues on the road still not Addressed.

•   Foul-water disposal provision is not clear (“provision  unknown”).

•   Safety around traffic on bend with new driveways.

•   3 stories presented an overlooking risk and is not in keeping with the street scene.

Councillors also expressed concerns that:

•  The repeated submission of applications represented  planning by stealth.

•  The Tree officer should be advised that trees with  TPOs in neighbouring properties could be damaged with removal of fir trees on the boundary.

And maintain their objection to this application (as per its submission 15 August):

•  the SUDs report does not address the previous concerns over the ownership of the, and the number of properties already connected to it.

Recommendation: Members maintain their objection to this application (as per its submission 17 July):

•   Parking is inadequate

•   Historical flooding issues on the road still not Addressed.

•   Foul-water disposal provision is not clear (“provision  unknown”).

•   Safety around traffic on bend with new driveways.

•   3 stories presented an overlooking risk and is not in keeping with the street scene.

Councillors also expressed concerns that:

•  The repeated submission of applications represented planning by stealth.

•  The Tree officer should be advised that trees with  TPOs in neighbouring properties could be damaged with removal of fir trees on the boundary.

And maintain their objection to this application (as per its submission 15 August):

•  the SUDs report does not address the previous concerns over the ownership of the, and the number of properties already connected to it.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members objected to this amendment as overdevelopment of the site. 

The amended application represents planning by stealth. 

Members expressed concern about the resultant size of the apartments and increased number of apartments, and that the extra properties would have a negative impact on existing neighbours

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Members objected to this application and commented that the SUDs report does not address the previous concerns over the ownership of the, and the number of properties already connected to it.

Members objected to this application on the grounds that this was over development of the site, and risked causing over-looking, there was insufficient parking, and a loss of green space.

The bins store would no longer be accessible from the road so that waste management vehicles access would be more complex and disruptive, and the traffic barrier would cause a traffic overflow and interfere with the traffic on the main road.

None.

None.

None.