The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park.  Nobody must leave the assembly point until everybody can be accounted for and nobody must return to the building until the Chairman has informed them that it is safe to do so; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Chairman ensured that those present at the meeting were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 December 2017 (Minute Nos. 384 - 389) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 December 2017 (Minute Nos. 384 – 389) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

Councillor Ken Ingleton declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of Item 2.6, Bayshore, 84 Scarborough Drive, Minster, as the applicant was a friend of his.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 December 2017 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider application 17/505562/FULL – Gladstone House, 60 Newton Road, Faversham, Kent ME13 8DZ.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 December 2017 (Minute Nos. 418 – 419) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

17/505562/FULL – GLADSTONE HOUSE, 60 NEWTON ROAD, FAVERSHAM, ME13 8DZ

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the County Archaeological Officer had advised that no precautionary conditions were required for the application.  Two further letters from neighbouring residents who objected to the application, had been received.  One objector had stated that the application would have a domino-effect and this would worsen parking issues.  The other objector had submitted photographs which showed the views from their property and had stated that the openness of the urban view would be lost.  Together with the view of the conservatory already there, and the height of the proposed annexe, this would result in overshadowing at both ends of their garden.

Following the site visit, Members raised points which included:  the proposed annexe was too large for the garden, and for the location; happy that a condition would ensure the annexe remained as a separate dwelling to the main house; the nearby area consisted of a miss-match of buildings; did not consider this modest annexe would do any significant harm; could not see any relevant planning reasons why the application should be refused; and the use of the annexe would increase the pressure on parking.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised concern with the use of the annexe and its height which he considered would result in a shadowing effect on nearby properties.  The Ward Member considered the building should be used as a garage and that the application would set a precedent.

On being put  to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

There was discussion on the valid reasons for refusing the application.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds of demonstrable harm to the amenity of adjacent properties, due to it being overbearing, the loss of parking, and the building should remain as a garage, and the height should not increase.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

Further discussion took place on the reasons for refusal.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern (Chairman) withdrew his proposal, and moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow further discussion between officers and the Ward Members.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth (Vice-Chairman).

On being put to the vote, the motion to defer the application was won.

Resolved:  That application 17/505562/FULL be deferred to allow further discussion between officers and the Ward Members. 

To consider the attached report (Parts 2 and 5).

The Council operates a scheme of public speaking at meetings of the Planning Committee.  All applications on which the public has registered to speak will be taken first.  Requests to speak at the meeting must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 3 January 2018.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Mr Keith Covey, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Kingsley Hughes, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

Members raised points which included:  acknowledged that there was a huge demand for housing, but the proposed properties were positioned too close to each other in an area with both substantial dwellings and gardens; this was out of character with the area; overcrowding; the proposal caused demonstrable harm and impact on the character of the area; happy to support an appropriate development; Lynsted had a Design Statement and this should not be ignored; affordable housing was needed; there was a demand for housing, but it needed to be in the right place; increased traffic movements; this was not in the Local Plan; setting a precedent; this was unacceptable infill development; the site was not sustainable; pedestrians used the local roads, additional traffic would make this more dangerous; concerned with the mitigation measures for this size of development, outlined on page 9 of the report; replacing four houses with one was out of keeping with the area; there were no footpaths; clarification was needed on how close the proposed development was to the Conservation Area and the village boundary; this was a ‘dead-end’ so not likely to be a lot of pedestrians; needed to remember that this was an outline application, with only access details being sought on this application; three dwellings would be preferable to four; and there were enough housing sites in the Borough already.

In response to questions, the Area Planning Officer advised that the nearest shop was two miles away, and there was also a nearby school, pub and church; the site was within the built-up area and was not classed as being in the countryside or within the Conservation Area.  He explained that the development met guidelines within the Local Plan for this type of infill development.  This was a thriving community and it was sustainable.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was looking at the access element and the proposed layout had not needed to be on the application.  He explained that the views of the Committee, in terms of the amount of dwellings on the site, could be taken back to the developer.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds that it was unacceptable with four houses, it was over-intensive for the village, it would constitute  ...  view the full minutes text for item 424.

To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following item:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 5 and 7.

5.    Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

7.    Information relation to any action in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

Resolved:

(1) That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 5 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:

5. Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

7. Information relating to any action taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

To consider the attached report (Part 6).

The Major Projects Officer explained that contrary to the report, the application was for a total of 39 dwellings, of which 33 (not 34) would be new build.  Further to the viability of the development, as noted on page 69 of the report, he explained that the financial contributions that the developer had agreed to pay were £10,959 (£281 per dwelling).  He explained that officers considered the application to be a strong scheme, which would secure a long-term use of the listed building, and the removal of the poorly designed 1960s extension.  He further explained that officers were happy in the light of the two viability assessments that had been carried out, that the viability of the scheme had been properly assessed.  He stated that it was regrettable that the whole amount of contributions (£141,102.24) could not be secured, but stated that it was an acceptable, enabling development, and would bring the special building back into a productive long-term use.

The Conservation and Design Manager provided some background to the application and explained that the building continued to decay.  The applicant had provided a robust viability statement, outlining the minimum they could achieve and simultaneously have a scheme that did not harm the listed building or its setting.  If the scheme was not supported, the building would potentially sit on the Buildings at Risk Register for an additional number of years, with further deterioration, and a possible increase in restoration costs in the future.  He explained that it was in a poor condition, especially in relation to the roof and the interior, with lots of broken glass and removed fireplaces, and that these problems would likely exacerbate without some timely intervention.

The Conservation and Design Manager explained that the Council had powers that could be used to address some of the issues with the building.  These measures included an Urgent Works Notice or Repairs Notice being served.  There was clear guidance on enabling development to secure the future of a significant building such as this one.  He explained that there were no subsidies available from any other source to get the building back into use.  The Conservation and Design Manager concluded by stating that the number of units proposed had been reduced, trees on the site would be retained, as well as protecting what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 426.

The meeting was adjourned at 8.23pm and reconvened at 8.30pm.

At 10pm Members agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders in order that the Committee could complete its business.