To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 4 January 2016 (Minute Nos. to follow).

15/506410/FULL – 90 Scrapsgate Road, Minster-on-Sea

15/503681/FULL – 177 Wards Hill Road, Minster-on-Sea

15/506114/FULL – land adjacent to 27 Waverley Avenue, Minster-on-Sea

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 4 January 2016 (Minute Nos. 412 – 415) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

15/506410/FULL – 90 Scrapsgate Road, Minster-on-Sea

The Planner advised that a request was made at the site meeting for details of a housing needs survey for Minster.  Officers had investigated and no such survey had been carried out.  Furthermore, at the site meeting the applicant had handed their response to objections to the presenting officer which included; comments refuting the claimed loss of light; that drainage would be dealt with appropriately; that the garage would remain, therefore not creating a parking problem; and comments not relevant to the determination of the application including the applicant’s intention to keep the property; clarifying that the dwelling was not a bungalow; that local tradesmen and businesses would be used; comments on a land dispute; and the applicant’s desire to improve the appearance of the property.

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

A Ward Member thanked Members for attending the site meeting.  He stated that there was a necessity on the Isle of Sheppey to cater for its aging community and therefore a need for bungalow-style housing.  He considered the proposal would have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and cause demonstrable harm to the streetscene.

Members raised the following points: not keen on bungalows being converted; problem was that the dwelling was set back further than those either side of it; will change the character of the streetscene and be out of keeping; and would increase overshadowing to the neighbouring property.

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

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion: That the application be refused as it would cause overshadowing, loss of privacy, be over-bearing, and cause overlooking to neighbouring properties.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

On being put to the vote to the motion to refuse was agreed.

RESOLVED:  That application 15/506410/FULL be refused as it would cause overshadowing, loss of privacy, be over-bearing, and cause overlooking to neighbouring properties.

15/503681/FULL – 177 Wards Hill Road, Minster-on-Sea

The Planner reported that an accurate streetscene elevation had been provided.  As shown on the revised streetscene drawing, the property on plot 1 would be approximately 1.75 metres above the ridge height of No. 16 (as opposed to 1 metre as stated in paragraph 8.04 of the report) and the property on plot 2 would be approximately 0.9 metres above the ridge height of ‘Lyndale’ (as opposed to 0.6 metres as stated in paragraph 8.07 of the report).  The Planner further reported that Condition (2) would need to be amended to delete reference to the inaccurate streetscene elevation drawing number PL13 and refer instead to amended streetscene elevation PL14.

The Planner advised that Minster Parish Council now raised no objection, subject to parking being provided both behind, utilising the existing access, and to the front of the dwellings, and to the glass panels of the handrails of the front-facing Juliet balconies of both properties being obscure glazed.  The Planner considered that there was no requirement to condition the retention of the existing access and the associated parking space to the rear of the property because the parking spaces to the front of the proposal and the integral garages provided sufficient parking spaces.  The obscure glazing of the balcony handrail glass was also not required given the separation distance of approximately 25 metres between the balconies and the dwellings to the south-west fronting onto Clovelly Drive.

The Planner reported that Kent County Council (KCC) Ecology had advised that the proposed development had potential to result in ecological impacts.  A preliminary ecological appraisal was required, along with any recommended specific species surveys.  The ecological appraisal must include an internal and external bat scoping survey as the house may have suitable features for roosting bats.  All surveys must be carried out prior to determination of the application to ensure that all relevant material considerations were addressed in making the decision.  The surveys should also include ecological enhancements to be incorporated into the development.  The Planner sought delegation to approve the application, subject to the submission of these surveys, no subsequent objection from the KCC Ecologist and any appropriate additional conditions they requested and the amendment to condition (2) to amend the inaccurate drawing number.

A Ward Member stated that it was unfortunate that the applicant had only just submitted accurate drawings.  He explained that there was a risk that there would be significant water run-off due to the steeping nature of the site.  The Member considered that the proposal would exacerbate flooding problems on the un-adopted road.  He also raised concern about the impact on neighbouring properties and loss of habitat for wildlife.

At this point a Member requested that substantial officer updates should be tabled for Members.

Members raised the following concerns: removal of vegetation at the site would make the current drainage issues worse; gullies had not been put in; design and appearance of the proposed dwellings had been sympathetically dealt with; concerned about the increase in height; do not consider the proposal would cause major ecological damage; would cause flooding and overlooking to neighbouring properties; drainage would not be a problem as soakaways could be put in; and existing vegetation was untidy and needed removing.

In response to queries, the Planner advised that the Committee could request a surface water drainage condition which he read out for Members.  The condition would expect that water should be retained on the application site.

Some Members considered that they would prefer to see details of any proposed drainage before agreeing to a condition.

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

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion:  That the application be refused as it would cause overlooking due to its proximity and would have an adverse impact on the current drainage system and a surface water drainage condition would not be appropriate in this case.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.

There was some discussion about whether drainage could be given as a reason for refusal.  Some Members considered it would be dubious to include this as part of any refusal.  In response, the Development Manager confirmed that issues relating to land drainage were a technical issue which could be addressed by a suitable planning condition.  A Member also felt that it would be difficult to justify overlooking as a reason for refusal given that Wards Hill Road already overlooked Clovelly Drive and there were only two properties not subjected to overlooking in the area.

In response to a query, the Planner advised that the proposed balconies would be 25 metres from the nearest properties in Clovelly Drive.  He advised that the standard distance allowed was 21 metres.

A Member considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on parking and should also be included in any reason for refusal. 

The Chairman stated that the proposal did offer parking whilst other properties in the vicinity did not. 

The Locum Solicitor suggested that a reason for refusal could be scale and massing of the proposal.

Councillor Andy Booth agreed to amend his original motion to: That the application be refused as it would have a detrimental impact on adjacent properties due to its scale and massing and overlooking.  This was agreed by the seconder of the original proposal Councillor Prescott.

On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

RESOLVED:  That application 15/503681/FULL be refused as it would have a detrimental impact on adjacent properties due to its scale and massing and overlooking.

15/506114/FULL – Land adjacent 27 Waverley Avenue, Minster-on-Sea

The Planner reported that KCC Ecology considered that the development had the potential to have ecological impacts on birds and reptiles.  Whilst no ecological appraisals were required, it was recommended that the submission and implementation of a biodiversity method statement for the site clearance was secured by condition and the works overseen by a suitably experienced ecologist.  Ecological enhancements in the form of bird nesting boxes and native species landscaping should be secured by condition.  The Planner sought delegation to approve the application subject to these further conditions.  KCC Highways had confirmed it would not seek to have the road made-up to adoptable standards and any damage to the road during construction would be a private legal matter.  Furthermore, he sought delegation to amend condition (11) to refer to the General Permitted Development Order 2015 rather than 1995; to replace the word ‘district’ with ‘local’ in condition 13; and to correct the numbering of the conditions which was incorrect in the report. 

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised the following points:  the proposal would be ‘shoe-horned’ between the two existing properties; would cause overlooking to the neighbouring property and their swimming pool; detrimental impact on wildlife; considerable adverse impact on the unadopted road with heavy goods vehicles breaking it up; officers advised that repairs to the unadopted road would be a civil matter and this is a concern especially as there were many elderly people living in the vicinity; overbearing; overshadowing and adverse impact on the lifestyle currently enjoyed by adjoining properties.

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

Members raised the following points: already granted permission so do not see how we can now refuse as an over-development of the site; concerned about overlooking, particularly for the property which had the swimming pool; and most new developments were ‘shoe-horned’ between other properties.

The Planner stated that the proposal was identical to that approved in 2011, so it would be difficult to defend refusing the application at any subsequent appeal.  A Member considered that the Committee should not be bound by a decision made four years ago.

In response to a query, the Planner confirmed that the swimming pool at the adjacent property was there in 2011.

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

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion:  That the application be refused as it would cause demonstrable harm to neighbouring properties due to its scale and massing, and, as a result, their quality of life.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.

RESOLVED:  That application 15/50611/FULL be refused as it would cause demonstrable harm to neighbouring properties due to its scale, and massing, and, as a result, their quality of life.