Agenda item

CM/48/21/RES Land to the West of Church Lane, South of Horsemere Green Lane, Climping


4 Public Speakers


Cllr Colin Humphris, Clymping Parish Council

Katherine Stevens, Agent

Cllr Amanda Worne, Ward Member

Cllr Jacky Pendleton, Ward Member


Approval of reserved matters following the grant of CM/1/17/OUT for the erection of 300 No dwellings & a building within use class E, together with public open space, LAPs, LEAP & ancillary works, including car parking & drainage arrangements, with access of Church Lane & Horsemere Green Lane. This application may affect the setting of listed buildings & is in CIL Zone 4 (HSP2) & is not CIL Liable.


The Planning Consultant presented the report with updates. After the Public Speakers were heard the Planning Consultant was invited by the Chair to respond to any of the points raised, where she stated that the archaeological comments made by one speaker were covered on the outline application by condition 13. Members raised the following points, concerns relating to traffic on the a259 and Church Lane which were the roads either side of the location. Insufficient consultation with the Parish Council was raised, it was felt that it could be prudent to defer a decision so that consultation could address the community needs and ensure that unresolved issues were addressed, in particular the local community needs should be addressed by the developer. A motion to defer on this basis was then proposed by Councillor Bower and seconded by Councillor McDougall.


Member debate continued where additional points were raised including, the conservation officers documented in the report, the North and Northeast corner of the site, it was felt that as this was a ‘historic corner’ of Clymping that better design/plans could be developed, and that the application did not need to be ‘rushed’ through. Final comments made were in relation to secondary educational need concerns that it was felt this development would bring.


The Group Head of Planning reminded members that the application was a reserved matters application and therefore only landscape and design were the matters before members at this point. He confirmed that the application was two years into its process and had not been rushed. Conservation Officer was present at the meeting and would set out his thoughts to members. In summing up he explained that if members wanted to defer their decision, then needed to provide a clear direction to officers in terms of the action that members want them to take and subsequently bring back to them at a later meeting.


The Conservation Officer was then invited to address the committee where he provided detailed additional context and information in relation to his comments in the report. In summing up he confirmed that he had concluded from his assessment that the harm to the area would be less-than substantial for this application.


It was then commented by the Chair that she had concerns about potential flooding and the impacts to the neighbouring properties to the site that would be impacted by this. A concern regarding the ‘housing mix’ was raised as the figures documented were proving a low percentage of the type of housing that was needed for the area.


Returning to the proposer of the motion to defer, he set out to members that he believed there were only two areas that needed to be identified and addressed, these were that further negotiations and conclusion to the outstanding matters relating to LAPs and LEAPs and the potential harm caused to existing community assets were needed.


The Planning Consultant was then invited by the Chair to address the comments raised. She confirmed that the comments regarding education were covered by the S106 and a contribution had been secured for this.  The LAPs and LEAPs and the public open space, what has been provided within the application meets the S106 criteria and in some instances exceeds it. Specifically relating to the play equipment again this would be covered by the S106 and was not for consideration at this point. She agreed with the concerns raised relating to the housing mix but stated these were included within the S106. Finally in relation to the lack of consultation with the Parish, she confirmed that the last Advisory Meeting that was due to be held was cancelled due to a lack of attendance.


Before turning to the vote, it was requested that the reason for deferral be reconfirmed for the accuracy of the minutes.


The proposer Councillor Bower confirmed that the reason for deferral should read, ‘The application be deferred to allow for further negotiations and conclusion on outstanding matters relating to LAPs and LEAPs and the potential harm caused to existing community assets.’


As discussion was continued by members regarding the wording proposed, the Legal Services Manager offered a different reason for deferral based on the debate he had heard for members to consider. Members did not accept the wording provided by the Legal Services Manager.


The wording proposed by Councillor Bower and seconded by Councillor McDougall was then put to the vote whereby; 


            The Committee


                        RESOLVED that


The application be deferred to allow for further negotiations and conclusion on outstanding matters relating to LAPs and LEAPs and the potential harm caused to existing community assets.


Supporting documents: