REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING AT 7.30pm WEDNESDAY 19thJUNE 2019 IN THE COMMUNITY CENTRE.
PRESENT Cllr. A Walmsley, Chairman presiding.
Cllrs. M Ballard & J Britt.
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Cllrs. M Cockett, C Huggens, R Greenwood & A Ratcliffe.
M McFarlane (Clerk & RFO)
2. DISCLOSURES AND CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA None received.
3. PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
Demolition of existing garage and replacement of rear extension to 25 Beacon Road, and erection of 2no. semi-detached dwellings.
25 Beacon Road Lenham ME17 2HJ
We wish to object on the following grounds:
- Proximity of the drop kerb/parking to the Beacon Road/ Ham Lane junction. Adding two three-bedroom properties would possibly generate 6 vehicles which may congest the junction.
- Lack of clarity on rainwater harvesting in the D&A statement (only reference is to permeable surfacing).
- The security barrier for the Lenham Freight flow depot at the bottom of the garden to number 25. This will mean continuous night and day noise from the lorries stopping and revving up to move off.
The previously approved application for this site 18/500602 was considered as “just acceptable” we consider that doubling the parking problems so close to the junction is unacceptable.
TPO application to crown thin one Hawthorn by 20%; Crown reduce height of one Hawthorn from 25ft to 20ft and spread of tree (garden side only) from 1.75ft to 1.5ft.
No objection – we in fact welcome hedge maintenance.
Installation of air source heat pump (retrospective)
Saxon Warrior Pharmacy The Square Lenham ME17 2PG
It is disappointing that this is a retrospective submission/application – highlighting the disregard for the due process which the owners have for the listed building they occupy. This is yet another minor issue that has been noted. However, with the given approval of the conservation area officer – the need and justification is accepted. We would question the quality of the installation. Our main concern is the visual barrier proposed – and particularly the flimsy nature of the current installation. We would have expected to see a far more robust baffle which is also capable of providing some acoustic benefit to the adjacent property windows which are clearly close – this will be particularly important when the bearings start to wear.
In conclusionwe would consider that this installation is acceptable but onlyon the provision of a suitable robust acoustic baffle around the roof mounted units.
Cllr. M Ballard reported that KCC were suggesting that perhaps up to 6 dwellings could be occupied from the Paddock development site prior to the creation of the Traffic Island. It was agreed that on safety grounds LPC should continue to object. We understood the problem being created by the A20 works embargo, but the TRO application should have been made 18 months previously as suggested by LPC to the developer.
4. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN REPORT
Cllr. J Britt reported the recent planning consultation meeting held with the representatives of Countryside who will develop the land to the South and West of the William Pitt field as well as the land to the West of the Loder Close development. He stated that it had been an extremely professional presentation showing much regard to the requirements of the Neighbourhood Plan.
As such there had been little comment from the LPC Cllrs. present, though issues such as the proposed community orchard perhaps instead being or at least incorporating allotments had been put forwards.
The initial development being proposed would be to the South of the William Pitt Field running down to the Railway alongside Old Ham Lane. The developers intended to incorporate land drainage leading to Swales next to the railway embankment and they considered that this would eliminate or at least alleviate the current flooding on Old Ham lane at the Northern side of Smoky Bridge.
The new proposed Roadway from the Jones Homes site near the A20 down to Smoky Bridge was noted – this would mean that Old Ham Lane from the William Pitt Field down to Smoky Bridge would become a cul-de-sac.
The main issue was still the question of how to ensure the development monies for Lenham Infrastructure were to be provided. He noted however that MBC planning managers were now warming to assisting with the presentation and justification required to be submitted by KCC in respect of the Primary School, this is a positive first step.
5. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
No correspondence received.
The meeting closed at 8.15pm