Storage and distribution yard at Capel Court Yard, Capel, Tonbridge

What was proposed

The application sought to replace the 1974 agreement with a new agreement controlling the whole yard and limiting commercial use mainly to B8 storage.

“Proposal 1.20 This application proposes that the 1974 S52 agreement be replaced by a new S106 agreement, which would take effect at the point the S52 agreement is discharged. The new S106 agreement would relate to the entire yard and control the uses of all the land within it, i.e. Areas A, B, and C in Figure 2. The new S106 agreement would revise the internal layout and delineate areas where commercial uses can, and cannot, take place.”

“The area excluded from commercial use altogether would be Area E. The boundary between the commercial and non-commercial areas would be delineated by a post and wire fence.”

Officer report

The site’s planning history

The site has operated commercially for decades, with a 1974 agreement controlling part of it while another storage area became immune from enforcement.

“Soon afterwards the site also began to be used for storing scrap metal and building materials relating to a demolition / clearance business which later expanded into (what was then) an adjoining orchard, which is the green-coloured area at Figure 1 below. • These uses on the south-western most part of the land (the uncoloured area at Figure 1 below) then became immune from enforcement proceedings.”

“In March 1974, following several years’ negotiation between the LPA and the landowner to try and resolve various breaches within the green-coloured area in Figure 1, the previous landowner entered into an agreement under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 with the then LPA (Tonbridge Urban District Council) to regulate and control the use of the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended the new agreement because it would bring the whole site under control, improve landscaping and impose controls that are currently absent.

“The proposal is however to discharge the current S52 agreement with its imprecise and dated plan (which only controls half the site) and replace it with a new S.106 agreement which takes the B8 uses away from the northern boundary with Redwood Park, restricts metal cutting to the Area A (and excluding it from anywhere else) ultimately brings the entire site under detailed planning control, without increasing the B8 storage areas.”

“The use of the land and buildings for Use Class B8 (storage and distribution) purposes and ancillary activities; the latter to include officing, and within Area A, metal cutting and cleaning; • The geographic extent of the commercial (15,974m2) and non-commercial (6,685m2) use of the site; • The principal (Sychem Lane) and secondary (Alders Road) means of access to the site; • A limit on the height of material storage (2.5m above ground level) where this is the 15m of the…”

Officer report

What people said

Residents and the parish council raised concerns about noise, traffic, lighting, working hours, access, industrial activity, Green Belt effects and enforcement.

“Access cannot support expansion of site uses; • Site should be used for housing; • Additional noise nuisance; • Current use of site is unacceptable in terms of traffic, damage to nearby road verges, noise, light pollution and other disturbance; • Use of site intensified when it was sold in 2011; • Past / present alleged planning breaches and retrospective nature of application; • Contrary to Green Belt policy and impact on nearby HWNL • Breaches of Office of Traffic…”

“Capel Parish Council 6.01 Members resolved to object to this proposal. This is a very contentious site with a long enforcement history. We know there are concerns from residents about the proposed layout in the southeast of the site as well as concerns about current and future noise levels. This is a rural setting and there should be strict enforceable guidelines regarding the activities on site.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Environmental Protection raised no objection subject to satisfactory information and supported controls including the acoustic fence, noise limit and working hours.

“Mid Kent Environmental Protection 6.03 No objection to the replacement of the S52 with S106, provided that the LPA finds the supporting information to be satisfactory.”

“Scheme is generally a betterment or will have a neutral impact on the Redwood Park properties to the north and Capel Court Oast at approximately 74m to the SW; • Chimneys is located approximately 34m away to the SE.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors, the applicant, the planning agent, the parish council representative and the ward councillor addressed the committee.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the agreement necessary to regulate the site, welcomed the applicant’s voluntary approach and discussed weekend hours and future enforcement.

“- Regarding the requests from speakers for further measures to be incorporated into the recommendation relating to additional acoustic fending, reductions to the proposed working hours, and storage height restrictions, Members were reminded that this proposal has been initiated by the applicant in order to provide some regulation and control over the activity on the site.”

“- Members felt that the proposal was necessary to bring regulation and control to the site and welcomed that the applicant had brought it forward voluntarily. - It was encouraged for the owner and residents to continue to work collaboratively and have open communication.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Dawlings proposed approval, Councillor Obasi seconded it, and members voted unanimously in favour.

“Decision/voting – On the basis that members were satisfied that all relevant planning considerations had been covered within the report, a motion was proposed by Councillor Dawlings, seconded by Councillor Obasi and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the recommendation.”

Minutes