To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 September 2015 (Minute Nos. to follow).

15/503738/FULL 9 Woodside, Dunkirk, Kent, ME13 9NY

To approve the Minutes of the Reconvened Meeting held on 21 September 2015 (Minute Nos. to follow).

15/502716/FULL Breach Farm Paddocks, Land North-east of Breach Farm Bungalow, Breach Lane, Upchurch, Kent, ME9 7PE

15/500819/FULL Land adjoining Driftwood, Imperial Drive, Warden, Kent, ME12 4SE

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 September 2015 (Minute Nos. 211 - 214) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the inclusion of Councillor Andy Booth’s apologies.

15/503738/FULL 9 Woodside, Dunkirk, ME13 9NY

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

Resolved:  That application 15/503738/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Minutes of the Reconvened Meeting held on 21 September 2015 (Minute Nos. 220 - 222) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the inclusion of Councillor Mike Baldock’s and Councillor Andy Booth’s  apologies.

15/502716/FULL Breach Farm Paddocks, Land north-east of Breach Farm Bungalow, Breach Lane, Upchurch, ME9 7PE

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

The Senior Planner reported that Kent County Council (KCC) Biodiversity had no objection to the application, subject to information regarding any potential for reptiles on the site.  He drew attention to the tabled report and specifically to condition (2) which sought to secure the required survey and any remediation works prior to occupation of the site.  The report also provided details of recent changes to the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

KCC Archaeology had no objection. KCC Highways had clarified that they had examined the right location, and still had no objection.

The Senior Planner reported that Newington Parish Council and Upchurch Parish Council objected to the application.  The objection from Newington Parish Council had previously been sent to Members.  The Senior Planner outlined the following comments from Upchurch Parish Council: this was a large plot of land which could lead to further applications; the access was very poor; concern over what the remaining container would be used for; and concern that there was a plan to erect an amenity building.

The Ward Members spoke in objection to the application and made the following comments: new gypsy and traveller policy stated that a person who leaves a nomadic life was not defined as a gypsy, but it appeared that the applicant wanted to live at  the site; this should be a temporary permission, as noted in paragraph 5.04 in the report for 3 September 2015; if this was approved, conditions should stipulate that the dilapidated buildings on the site were removed; landscaping was not a ‘cure all’; position of buildings on the site made them very visible to local residents and from Breach Lane; the container’s orientation needed to be changed; landscaping on other sites had not addressed being able to see what was on the site; buildings would become more visible in winter months, evergreens were not native; acknowledged that the applicant had owned the site for many years; do not want  to see the site expanded further to this application; this was harsh on the landscape; this application should have gone through the agricultural/farming route; inequality between what was permitted for gypsy and travellers compared to the settled community; there were numerous sites now in rural areas around Newington, the rural aspect had changed; would prefer a temporary permission; different orientation of buildings was needed and needed to bear in mind that landscaping was not effective.

Members made the following comments:  concerned with traffic on local roads near to the site, they were very narrow, and more traffic should not be encouraged; visual impact of the site from Breach Lane, and beyond; sloped site made the site visible; subtle landscaping was needed, so it was not obviously attempting to conceal the site; this had a visually detrimental impact on the surrounding area; this had scored highly on the methodology; this application was dated prior to the new policy, and the applicant did travel; the site needed to be as tidy as possible, with only one container on it, painted so that it blended with the landscape; an option to mitigate the site standing out so much would be to lower the high ground, rather than vice-versa if necessary; this was not an unreasonable site; other buildings were a long way from it; sites needed to be found, and this was a good one; and site was open, on raised ground.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved a motion to add a condition to alter the colour of the static caravan and container to blend in with the countryside.  Councillor Bobbin supported the option of lowering the site, rather than raising it, if it needed to be flattened. These was agreed by Members.

In response to the comments above, the Senior Planner advised that the recent changes to the gypsy and traveller policy did not affect the determination of the application; it was a good site and it had met the required test.

Resolved:  That application 15/502716/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report and additional conditions to alter the colour of the static caravan and container to blend in with the countryside, and the option of lowering the site, rather than raising it, if it needed to be flattened.

15/500819/FULL Land adjoining Driftwood, Imperial Drive, Warden, ME12 4SE

The Senior Planner advised, in response to a query raised at the site meeting, that the refused 1996 scheme included a significant part of the site that had been allocated as a play area. He explained that this bit of land did not form part of the current application site.

The Senior Planner reported that additional letters of objection had been received.  Issues not already set out in the report included: the consultation process had not been carried out properly, the Senior Planner confirmed that it had; parking issues, and the impact on access for emergency vehicles; the highway network was inadequate; distances from neighbouring properties were lower than the standard 21 metre ruling; and measures to avoid overlooking did not seem to be applied on this application.  The Senior Planner advised that the measurement was related to rear-to-rear distances and he stated that the proposed dwellings fronting Imperial Drive were more than 21 metres from the dwellings to the north.  He further advised that the terrace was in excess of 20 metres from the dwellings fronting Cliff View Drive. The distance from Whitecaps to the proposed terrace was 10 metres.  He advised that due to the angle between the dwellings, overlooking was unlikely to occur, and this was also relevant between Driftwood and the proposed terrace.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

Ward Members made the following comments:  this was overintensification and overlooking, particularly the terrace; this was unsuitable for the site; the plot was large enough for three houses, not five; this would have a negative impact on highways; overcrowding; access for emergency vehicles was at risk; insufficient parking; affect on residents’ privacy; and it was large and unnecessary.

In response to a question, the KCC Highways Officer explained that as this was an application for only five dwellings, accessed from an unclassified road, this did not meet the criteria whereby KCC Highways would be consulted on the application.  He added that he considered five additional dwellings was not likely to have a material impact on the volume of traffic on the highway network.

Members made the following comments:  this was not a particularly large site, could not see how five properties would fit on it, three houses would fit better; the roads were already busy in the area; parking issues; insufficient parking, so cars would park on the road; the development was not in keeping with other houses in the area; and the area was poorly serviced by public transport.

In response to a question, the Development Manager confirmed that the 1996 application had a ‘slither’ extra of land in addition to the site for this application.

On being put to the vote, the motion for approval was lost.

The Head of Planning advised that any reasons for refusal needed to be specific planning reasons, that identified a demonstrable harm, such as impact on streetscene etc.

The Development Manager advised that the 1996 refusal was dismissed on appeal because of the impact on the land to the east of the site.  He explained though that this application did not encroach on the play area.  He suggested that the form of the development could be a reason for refusal, i.e. terracing was different to other development in the area.

Discussion ensued on the reasons for refusal.

A Member suggested that officers and the applicant negotiated further to get a resolution.

The Head of Planning advised that to reduce the amount of dwellings on the site would mean having a further planning application submitted; this one needed to be determined first.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved the following reason for refusal: That the application be refused on the grounds that it was overrintensive compared to neighbouring properties; it gave rise to overlooking; it caused demonstrable harm to the street scene; and it was not in keeping with neighbouring properties, and was out of character, with the surrounding area.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth and on being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/502716/FULL be refused on the grounds that it was overintensive compared to neighbouring plots giving rise to overlooking; demonstrable harm to the street scene; and it was not in keeping, and out of character, with the surrounding area.