Agenda and minutes

Venue: at the site listed below.

Contact: Democratic Services, 01795 417330 

Items
No. Item

158.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

Minutes:

No interests were declared.

159.

17/502213/FULL Mill Farm House, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 7XA

10am – 17/502213/FULL Mill Farm House, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 7XA

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed the applicant, Parish Council representative, and members of the public to the meeting.

 

The Planner introduced the application which sought part retrospective planning permission for the erection of a two-storey outbuilding.  He explained that the original building had been two-storey, but part of it had collapsed, leaving one-storey, which was unfinished.  The eaves height of the original two-storey structure had been 0.8 metres in excess of the eaves height now proposed.  The Planner reported that the outbuilding would be two-storeys high, with garages and storage at ground floor level and office space, a kitchen and a shower room at first floor level.  There would be an external staircase and balcony on the northern elevation.  The building would measure 16.5 metres by 6 metres, 4.3 metres to the eaves and 7metres in overall height with a pitched roof. There would be four garage doors and four rooflights on the western elevation.  On the northern elevation, a pedestrian access door and window would be located on the first floor, accessed by the external staircase.  At the southern elevation, a pedestrian access door and window would be located at ground floor level with a large window and Juliet balcony at first floor level.

 

Miss Jane Bastow, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She explained that the original application, commenced in 2001, had been for a larger L-shaped building.  Building had commenced, but due to personal reasons had then halted.  She stated that she had been given contradictory advice as to whether that application was still ‘active’ and had considered that, as the current application was for a smaller building, she was allowed to proceed with the construction.  Miss Bastow stated that the trees on the adjoining border, which would have helped to shield the building, had been removed.

 

Parish Councillor Rosewell, representing Upchurch Parish Council, spoke against the application.  He raised points which included:  this was excessive, compared to the rest of the site; it was obtrusive due to it being the highest point in the area, and could be seen for miles; it was not in-keeping with the village and was too large.  He also questioned the use of the building, and considered it to be excessive for a home office.  In response to a question, the Planner explained that the application should be considered as a completely new application. 

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He explained that the application needed to be sensitive as the application site was positioned on top of a hill, and could be seen from many directions, including a nearby footpath.  The Ward Member considered the two-storey aspect was inappropriate, especially in relation to Mill House.  He queried the exact use for the building, and suggested that a one-storey building would be preferable.  The Ward Member explained that after considering design and visual impact; privacy; access; and landscape impact, the application showed demonstrable harm.  If a two-storey building was granted, careful thought needed to be given to the materials  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.