To consider the attached report (Parts 1, 2, 3 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 13 January 2016.

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

The Area Planning Officer reported that following discussions with KCC Ecology, he thought that the Council should impose a further condition requiring that an owl nesting box be provided.

Mr Dylan Winder, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Colin Jones, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation that prior approval was not required and this was seconded.

A Member requested that two owl nesting boxes be provided.  The Area Planning Officer agreed to include this.

At this point Councillors Prescott, Andy Booth, Sue Gent and Roger Clarke declared a non-pecuniary interest as they knew Mr Jones the applicant.  Following legal advice from the Locum Solicitor, they advised that they would speak on the item but not vote.

In response to queries the Area Planning Officer reported that that barn was part of the farm and that as far as he was aware the building was structurally sound.

Resolved: That prior approval is not required for application 15/509602/PNQCLA and that a condition be imposed requiring the installation of two owl boxes.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation that the Head of Planning Services and Head of Legal Services be given delegated authority to enter into a Section 106 Agreement for application SW/14/0045 which was seconded.

A Ward Member asked officers to include within the Section 106 Agreement provision of bus stops and bus shelters and that within the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan it be included that construction traffic be not allowed to park in Love Lane.

The Development Manager reported that the discussions as part of the Section 106 Agreement were at an advanced stage and he was not sure whether it would be possible to include the bus stop and bus shelter provision.  He noted that the Construction Traffic Management Plan was included as a condition to the application, so the request for no construction traffic to park in Love Lane could be included.   

A Member considered that it was important that both of the Ward Member’s points were included as the Section 106 Agreement had not yet been signed-off.

A Member raised concern that it had taken so long for officers to be aware of the incorrect minute.

Resolved: That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning Services and Head of Legal Services to enter into a Section 106 Agreement for application SW/14/0045 and officers discuss with the applicants provision of any bus stops and bus shelters and an amendment to the Construction Traffic Management Plan condition to include reference that no construction traffic be allowed to park in Love Lane.  

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Planner reported that the applicant drawings and paragraph 8.03 of the report did not reflect the fact that there was a side extension to number 73 Cliff Gardens.  However, the proposed decking would project 4 metres to the rear of the neighbouring extension and there would be a 1.6 metre gap between, which still accords with the Council’s extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance and would therefore have an acceptable impact on residential amenity.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He was disappointed to note the comments of Minster Parish Council which were not consistent with comments they had made on similar applications.  He considered the proposal would cause significant overlooking to neighbouring properties.

Councillor Andy Booth moved a motion for a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/508479/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

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

A Member raised concern that he was aware that local residents had not been consulted on the amended drawings.  He considered that the proposed increase in the height of the roof would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property. 

The Chairman moved a motion from the Chair to defer the application so that local residents and the Parish Council could be re-consulted about the amended drawings.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

There was some discussion about whether local residents should have been re-consulted and the Planner checked the drawings and advised that as the proposal was 600mm taller than that originally proposed local residents and Parish Council should have been reconsulted.

On being put to the vote the motion to defer the application was agreed.

Resolved: That application 15/507706/FULL be deferred to allow local residents and the Parish Council to be re-consulted about the amended drawings.

The Planner reported that the reason for referral to the Planning Committee within the report should also refer to the fact that Councillor Lesley Ingham requested the application be reported to the Committee.

Mrs Angela O’Neill, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  She stated that there was currently only executive housing on the Kingsborough estate and properties were staggered with no overlooking.  She considered that the proposal would impact on the streetscene and cause significant overshadowing to a neighbouring property.  She noted that similar developments had been refused permission on the estate.

Councillor Lesley Ingham moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by the Chairman.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

In response to a query the Planner advised that he was aware of a similar application granted planning permission on the Kingsborough estate and agreed to provide details of this for Members.

Resolved:  That 15/506728/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.   

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

Resolved: That application 15/507323/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

Resolved: That application 15/507328/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Planner reported that delegation was sought to approve the application subject to amended plans being submitted to reflect the existing site layout that was to be retained.  He explained that condition (3) needed to be amended to refer to two touring caravans and condition (8) needed to be amended to refer to the General Permitted Development Order 2015, instead of 1995 and reference to Policy T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan Development Order 2015, instead of 1995 and reference to Policy T3 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 needed to be removed from the reason for condition (8).

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

Ms Maria Faraone, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: this was not a similar application to those considered at the last Planning Committee meeting on Thursday 17 December 2015 for Greyhound Road as permission had expired in 2011 and queried why no enforcement action had been taken; applicant had provided factually incorrect information; there were no places for travelers to go and the Council did not have a policy on Gypsy and travelers; needed to consider the welfare of the young children; have established that Greyhound Road is not suitable as a gypsy and traveler site; we were advised by the Head of Planning at the last meeting that the Council should have a gypsy and traveler plan in place within one year so should support this application; we would not approve permission for a house at this site so should not approve a caravan; do not believe the Council would be able to allocate the sites within a year and we need to resolve the problem now; and the applicant knowingly moved onto an unsustainable site with four children.

In response to queries, the Planner read out paragraphs 1.03; 9.11 and 9.12 of the Committee report for Members.  He also read out a statement from the Head of Planning about the Council’s policy on gypsy and travelers: ‘We do not have a certain policy position yet - awaiting inspectors report by the end of the year, noting the approach put forward by the Council following the revised PPTS appeared to be supported by the Inspector (or at the very least no one was objecting); in a years time we should be in a much stronger position with an agreed policy position to determine the application without the need to resort to a further temporary permission noting as it stands in principle the site is not considered acceptable; this approach would also reflect the Council in taking a balanced and prudent approach to enforcement giving ample time to the current occupiers of the likely position they will be facing in a years time, stand us in good stead for any potential enforcement action and prosecution that may be taken’.  The Planner also advised that he did not know where the applicants had lived prior to moving to Greyhound Road and that the Council would be able to refuse any future application after a year as the applicant would have had fair warning to find somewhere else to live.

Resolved:  That application 14/504681/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to amended plans being submitted to reflect the existing layout which was to be retained and conditions (1) to (8) in the report including amendments to conditions (3) and (8) as stated above.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Mr Peter Howard, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved a motion for a site visit from the Chair.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

Some Members considered that a site visit was inappropriate as the application clearly went against Council and national policy and they supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

CouncillorMulhern withdrew the motion for a site visit.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

Resolved: That applications 15/50613/FULL and 15/506814/LBC be refused for the reasons stated in the Committee report.    

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

·               Item 5.1 – Hope Cottage, Oad Street, Borden 

Appeal Dismissed.

·               Item 5.2 – 61 Horsham Lane, Upchurch 

Appeal Part Allowed, Part Dismissed.