Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting held on
Tuesday 5th February 2018
Wateringbury Village Hall – immediately after the Parish Council meeting
Cllr M Wells (Chairman)
Cllr D Marks
Cllr F Fielding
Cllr L Simons
Mrs S Cockburn – Clerk to the Council
Cllr R Roe
3 members of the public
- Apologies for absence – Cllr R Tripp
- Declarations of Interest/Dispensations – none
- Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting held on 8th January 2019 to be approved for accuracy
- Planning Applications
Storage of caravans outside of the season; erection of a portacabin to provide recreational room for seasonal workers, and provision of car parking spaces for workers.
Home Farm Red Hill
Wateringbury Parish Council object to this application for the following reasons:
1 The proposal is on a site in the Green Belt with a presumption against development unless there are special circumstances. The proposed development does not satisfy any of the exceptions required in NPPF 2018.
2 The reference to Agricultural buildings in the Design and Access Statement does not apply to caravans or portacabins for residential use during agricultural processes which require seasonal workers. These would have been housed locally before for work on this farm and without a justifiable intensification of the process (which in itself could require planning permission) the provision of residential use caravans cannot be deemed an appropriate form of development within the Green belt.
3 The application appears incorrect as submitted and is therefor misleading as the Design and Access Statement suggests that one parking space per caravan would be adequate and seven caravans are shown on the plan in the application. However, the Statement also proposes provision for ten parking spaces which would indicate the provision of ten caravans. There appears to be no valid evidence for the adoption of the ratio of one parking space per eight berth caravan and without evidence there is potential for massive vehicle movement within the season and visible detriment to the Green Belt. Clarification is needed as to the actual caravan numbers and capacity approval sought (80 or 56 persons). Surfacing for parking and the effect on surface water disposal would need to be considered. As the portacabin is NOT an agricultural building the applicant is being disingenuous in suggesting that it and the parking spaces are an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt (D&AS 6.2)
4 The proposal admits that the caravans will be permanently located to avoid the costs of disconnection. However this is not a reason for overriding the requirements of the NPPF and any breach of the GPDO or conditions will be difficult to enforce and has the potential to create what could be a precedent for very poor virtually permanent caravan accommodation.
5 The provision of a permanent serviced portacabin for entertainment and recreation is not a special circumstance and does not comply with NPPF exemptions. The space for male and female toilets and recreation if permitted does not appear adequate and could be vulnerable to the need for considerable extension.
6 The application gives no information as to waste disposal from between 56-80 workers. As peak use of the caravans is suggested during the summer details of storage and retrieval are essential to any decision.
7 The proposal, its use and vehicular servicing thereof would unacceptably affect the visual and environmental amenities of the occupants of Orchard Cottages by the introduction of development not complying with the NPPF.
The Kings Hill Applications 18/03031 and 03032
The Parish Council is very concerned as to these proposals on the basis of compliance with Policy designed to prevent inappropriate development and subsequent practical issues in the implementation of an approval within the Planning System if granted. Our concerns re both the above are as follows:-
We are not aware that these sites have been removed from a Green Belt designation. As such the exceptional circumstances required and NPPF guidance compliance to allow permission will not have been properly addressed. For these sites to be promoted within the adoption policies they would surely have to be assessed as available and take second place to other promoted sites not adopted, before being considered. The need for numbers of units within the government policy plan period, should not override the need to comply with the existing plan requirements such as Green Belt reinforcement if relevant
The LPA are aware of the Parish Council’s overriding concerns re pollution, safety and environmental standards for the parish and any such proposed developments to the east of Kings Hill would in due course exit towards Wateringbury Road, either directly or indirectly, exacerbating the well known situation re traffic and pollution at and/or through the A26/Bow Road crossroads. 18/03032 proposes access to Wateringbury Road with its 40 units and should be resisted as the expected levels of traffic have not yet reached their peak, awaiting the completion of developments such as generated from Hermitage Lane to the east. We do not believe that access conditions restricting other sites to the north east of Kings Hill such as that served from Pikey Lane would be enforceable and it would be prudent to not consider any new development which could increase levels by designating access to or from highways connecting to the villages responding to consultation re these proposals.
It is essential that the results and assessment of the current monitoring of the levels at the crossroads are completed before any further development, other than that which has been fully assessed within stringent environmental requirements, is permitted. Any development discharging traffic to the A26/Bow Road junction which could intensify or exacerbate the current level should not be permitted and this would apply to the above proposed developments.
Retrospective: Replacement shed with new shed (3.675m x 2.4m) on existing hard standing base
Mill Pond Cottage 36 Mill Lane
Comment : No objection
The meeting closed a 9.30pm