Issue - meetings

18/506657 - Land West Of Loder Close And Westwood Close

Meeting: 30/05/2019 - Planning Committee (Item 18)

18 18/506657/FULL - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 53 NO. TWO, THREE AND FOUR BEDROOM TRADITIONAL TWO STOREY HOUSES AND APARTMENTS INCLUSIVE OF 40% AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUDING PROVISION OF FOUL PUMPING STATION, OPEN SPACE WITH ECOLOGICAL POND, PLAY AREA AND LANDSCAPING WITH VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS VIA LODER CLOSE OFF HAM LANE, LENHAM - LAND WEST OF LODER CLOSE AND WESTWOOD CLOSE, HAM LANE, LENHAM, KENT pdf icon PDF 246 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

All Members stated that they had been lobbied.

 

The Committee considered the report and the urgent update report of the Head of Planning and Development.

 

Mr Jerrett, an objector, Mr Street, for the applicant, Councillor Walmsley of Lenham Parish Council and Councillors T and J Sams (Visiting Members) addressed the meeting.

 

The Chairman read out a letter from Mrs Shellina Prendergast, County Council Member for Maidstone Rural East, asking the Committee to consider how a S106 agreement could be entered into to secure funding for Lenham primary school provision if it was minded to grant permission.

 

During the discussion on the application, the Major Projects Manager advised the Committee that proposed condition 10 which required the submission of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan should be modified to request measures to ensure that the open spaces including the play area are protected in perpetuity.

 

RESOLVED:  That subject to:

 

(a)  The prior completion of a S106 legal agreement in such terms as the Head of Legal Partnership may advise to provide for the Heads of Terms set out in the report; and

 

(b)  The conditions and informative set out in the report as amended by the Major Projects Manager at the meeting,

 

the Head of Planning and Development be given delegated powers to grant permission and to be able to settle, add or amend any necessary Heads of Terms and conditions in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

Voting:  10 – For  0 – Against  3 - Abstentions