PADDOCK WOOD TOWN COUNCIL
The Podmore Building, St Andrews Field, St Andrews Road
Paddock Wood, Kent, TN12 6HT
Telephone: 01892 837373
paddockwood-tc.gov.uk
MINUTES of the Planning Committee held on Monday 1st July 2024 at 7.45pm at the Day Centre Commercial Road
PRESENT: Cllr C Williams (in the chair)
Cllr D Dray, A Mackie, R Moon, D Sargison
IN ATTENDANCE: E Small, Deputy Clerk
Cllr D Kent
APOLOGIES: None
PE16 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: None
PE17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the meeting held on Monday 17th June 2024 at 7pm were APRROVED.
PE18 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
Application details can be found at twbcpa.midkent.gov.uk/online-applications. Add the numerical part of the application number e.g., 20/12345 into the search box and the application will come up.
| Application | Address | Proposal
|
Comments |
| 24/01353/
FULL |
10 Northdown Close Paddock Wood Tonbridge Kent TN12 6UN | Two-storey rear & first-floor side extensions | Suspended standing order for residents to speak
Concerned residents, Mr and Mrs Elliot explained they have submitted a comment on the TWBC portal to refer too, but in summary: · Concerned the application is an overdevelopment of the site, hugely overlooking their property with 13.5m from ground floor extension to their property and 15m from the first-floor extension to their property. · It is another affordable property taken from the market as it goes from a 3-5 bedroom property. · The environmental Agency report clearly states the application should be refused on the grounds of the property sitting in flood zone 3, with no flood risk assessments
Standing orders reinstated
Cllr C Williams proposed, Cllr A Mackie seconded:
Object on the following grounds: · The property is in flood zone 3. The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 173, footnote 59) states that a Flood Risk Assessment must be submitted when development is proposed in this flood zone. As there is not one and the NPPF states in point 165 ‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future)’. This reason alone is sufficient for refusing planning permission. Please also refer to the environment Agency report who echo the same concern. · Overdevelopment of the site. The application proposal is a large addition to a small plot that is surrounded on both sides and the rear of the plot. The proposed extensions may affect all neighbouring properties lighting throughout the day as well as creating some concerns with overlooking, especially into the rear property’s windows due to the proximity of the proposed development. · The tree in the neighbouring property may be affected by the build as the application is to go right to the boundary. Can TWBC Tree Office advice on this? · There is no information on how the applicants plan on protecting the current wastewater which will appear to reside under the proposed ground floor extension. · The proposed development will be out of keeping with the properties in this area · With the growth of the property, has the need for additional parking been considered?
Carried unanimously.
Committee members request the application be called in if necessary. |
| 24/01522/
FULL |
12 Sword Street, Paddock Wood, Tonbridge, Kent, TN12 6FW | Erection of conservatory | Cllr C Williams proposed,
Cllr R Moon seconded:
No Objection.
Carried unanimously |
| 24/01426/
FULL |
11 Morgan Way Paddock Wood Tonbridge Kent TN12 6FS | Single storey rear extension | Cllr C Williams proposed,
Cllr D Dray seconded:
No Objection, subject to the management of surface water being in place.
CARRIED 3 in favour, 2 against. |
| 24/01530/
TPO |
Land At Mascalls Farm Badsell Road Paddock Wood Tonbridge Kent | Trees: 3x DEAD ASPEN (within G29) – Remove; DEAD WILLOW (75) -Remove; DEAD ASH (18) – Remove | Cllr C Williams proposed,
Cllr D Sargison seconded:
Object on the grounds that there is no tree surgeon report to confirm these trees are dead. There are also no photos to refer too. Overall, this is a very basic submission. Town Council recommend the TWBC tree officer inspect the trees. Unsure why the 5 trees being removed are only being replaced with 4. Can this be explained? If permitted, will the replacement trees have TPOS on them?
Carried unanimously |