To consider the attached report (Parts 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 12 October 2016.

PART 2

 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

 

2.1    REFERENCE NO -  16/505980/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Proposed conversion of detached double garage block to annexe with 2 No front pitched roof dormer windows and 3 No Velux windows to rear. (Resubmission of 16/503457/FULL) as amended by drawings received on 22 September 2016.
ADDRESS Dornywood 6 Morgan Kirbys Garden Sheldwich Kent ME13 0LG
WARD Boughton And Courtenay	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Sheldwich, Badlesmere And Leaveland	APPLICANT Mr David Morgan AGENT Essan-K Planning Ltd

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that Sheldwich Parish Council had originally objected to the application, but following the submission of amended drawings, the Parish Council had withdrawn their objection.  He reported that there had been some discussion from the applicant in response to objections from both the Parish Council and the neighbour.  The Parish Council had had a Special Meeting to discuss the application and had highlighted some inaccuracies to some of the objections from the neighbour, as follows: there were already two windows in the applicant’s lounge that faced towards the neighbour at a 25metre distance; there would not be a great deal of overlooking from the new dormer windows as the neighbours lounge windows were largely concealed behind 2 metre high hedgerow planting; the affected window was a guest bedroom, with the master bedroom further way and at a different angle; the distance between the proposed annexe and the neighbour was approximately 45 to 50 metres, and the dormers would be lower in height than existing first floor windows minimising any overlooking issue; there would not be light disturbance because of the separation distance involved; and only one or two lower boughs of the silver birch tree would need to be removed, which would not significantly affect the overall appearance of the tree.

 

The neighbour had welcomed the decrease in size of the dormer windows, but considered it still looked like a two-storey extension.  They considered it was not-in-keeping with the surrounding area and it was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

Mr David Morgan, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke and acknowledged the difficulty and complexity of the issues raised throughout the application process.

 

Councillor Bobbin (Ward Member) moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.

 

Members were shown photographs of the setting and considered the distance from neighbouring properties to the application site did not raise an issue of overlooking.

 

On being put to the vote, the motion for a site meeting was lost.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/505980/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

 

2.2    REFERENCE NO - 15/505213/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL   Part retrospective application for the importation of waste material and engineering operations to form landscaped bunds, construction of a 3 metre high Gabion basket stone wall, change of use of land and construction of van and HGV lorry park, access and construction of a roadside transport café for A3/A5 uses plus 24 hour WC and driver wash and shower facilities.
ADDRESS Land adjacent to Thanet Way, Highstreet Road, Hernhill, Kent ME13 9EN
WARD Boughton and Courtenay	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Hernhill	APPLICANT P&S Property Services (South East) AGENT Mr. John Burke

 

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

 

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper.

 

Mr John Burke, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

A Ward Member acknowledged that a series of small lorry parks was needed, but considered this was not the right time as there was outstanding assessment work, to be carried out by the Environment Agency (EA), on the waste material that had been taken to the site.  Another Ward Member agreed, and stated that the EA needed to clarify their position on the site, before a lorry park could be agreed.

 

Members raised the following points:  welcomed a lorry park;  the EA should have taken action a long time ago; the status of the land needed to be sorted before permission for a lorry park was given; suggest defer until the legal issues were completed; not convinced this was the right location for a lorry park; the EA needed to resolve the legal issues at the site; this should be refused; this was an ideal place for a lorry park; it would be helpful to have all the facts of the legal case in order to make a decision; and this would be a benefit to Faversham and the surrounding area.

 

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to condition (4) in the report which required a human health risk assessment of the land prior to development, and also outlined a mitigation scheme.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/505213/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (25) in the report.

 

2.3    REFERENCE NO -  16/506601/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Front elevation improvement works to replace the existing aluminium double glazed windows with sash PVCu units to replicate the original look of the dwelling
ADDRESS 69 Ospringe Road Faversham Kent ME13 7LG
WARD St. Ann's	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT Mr Roy Trute AGENT

 

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

 

Resolved:  That application 16/506601/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

 

2.4    REFERENCE NO -  16/503847/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Alterations and part first floor and new second floor extension to provide 13 residential apartments with new residential access. New timber shop front to existing ground floor retail premises.
ADDRESS 10 - 11 Market Street Faversham Kent ME13 7AA
WARD Abbey	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT Classicus Estates AGENT Taylor Roberts Ltd

 

The Major Projects Officer reported that the Environmental Protection Team Leader raised no objection to the application.  He advised that condition (6) in the report dealt with construction hours, and any potential asbestos would be dealt with by an Informative, rather than by a condition.  The Conservation Officer raised no objection to the application, which would be located within Faversham Conservation Area.  The Major Projects Officer advised that the wording to condition (8) (joinery details) needed to be amended in light of the Conservation Officer’s comments.  Three further conditions were required in respect of rooflight details; details of the shop front and various other constructional details.  The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to approve the application subject to the conditions in the report, the above amendments and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

 

Mr Britnell, the Agent, waived his right to speak.

 

A Ward Member welcomed the proposal.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/503847/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report,wording to condition (8) to be amended, and three further conditions in respect of rooflight details; details of the shop front and various other constructional details and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

 

2.5    REFERENCE NO - 16/505653/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline application for the erection of 2 no. 3 bedroom Semi-detached houses with all matters reserved for future consideration
ADDRESS 82 Church Lane Newington Kent ME9 7JU
WARDHartlip, Newington And Upchurch	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Newington	APPLICANT Mrs Deborah Greene AGENT

 

The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled papers from the Applicant.  He provided an update from KCC Highways and Transportation on highway matters, as many of the local residents had been concerned with traffic issues on Church Lane.

 

KCC Highways and Transportation had the general view that developments up to five properties would not generate sufficient numbers of traffic movements to warrant any particular concern.  He reported that this additional property was likely to generate one additional traffic movement during the AM and PM peak hours.  Over 24 hours there were likely to be eight to twelve traffic movements from two dwellings.  The proposed two dwellings was likely to generate 0.5% to 0.8% of the traffic movements on Church Lane, and the single dwelling was likely to generate 0.25% to 0.4% of traffic.  The Area Planning Officer advised that these percentages were well within the daily variances, and had no material impact on the highway network, and were not high enough to warrant refusal of the application, and the cumulative impact was not severe.

 

Mr Stephen Harvey representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

Mrs Sonya Kendall, an objector, spoke against the application.

 

Mr Paul Greene, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

Members raised the following points:  concerned about back land development; this was over-intensification; the traffic movements would increase by 20%; this would add to congestion on Church Lane; this had gone beyond what Church Lane could cope with; it was important to consider cumulative increase in traffic; ‘enough is enough’ now on Church Lane; there was a gridlock situation on the Lane; needed to retain gardens and stress their importance with regard to wildlife, and as a green corridor for bio-diversity; and the option of a large garden was lost if the application was approved.

 

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

 

Discussion ensued on the reasons for refusal.  The Locum Solicitor advised that the Committee was not bound by advice from KCC Highways and Transportation, but there needed to be evidence to go against their advice.

 

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the motion for refusal, and after much discussion the following grounds were moved:  That the application be refused on the grounds that due to the location of the site and the likely scale of the development proposed in comparison to the size of the plot, it would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, and the cumulative effect of the increase of traffic on Church Lane giving rise to harm to highway safety and convenience.  This was seconded by Councillor Bryan Mulhern and on being put to the vote, the motion was won.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/505653/OUT be refused on the grounds that due to the location of the site and the likely scale of the development proposed in comparison to the size of the plot, it would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, and the cumulative effect of the increase of traffic on Church Lane giving rise to harm to highway safety and convenience. 

 

2.6    REFERENCE NO -  16/505663/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline application for the erection of 1 detached 2 bedroom bungalow with all matters reserved for future consideration.
ADDRESS 82 Church Lane Newington Kent ME9 7JU
WARDHartlip, Newington And Upchurch	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Newington	APPLICANT Mrs Deborah Greene AGENT

 

The Area Planning Officer reminded Members of the points that KCC Highways and Transportation had made on the application above.

 

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

 

Mr Stephen Harvey representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

Mrs Sonya Kendall, an objector, spoke against the application.

 

Mr Paul Greene, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Members raised the following points:  happy with this application; this was more in-keeping with the area; highway issues were not an issue; this could end-up being a three or four bedroom chalet in the future; there was a need for more bungalows; could there be a condition to keep it as a bungalow; not as concerned as the previous application, but this would still add to the traffic; did not support this; there was still an issue with the traffic on Church Lane; would want  to see the detail of the application come to Planning Committee to ensure footprint was not the same size as the two semi-detached houses in the previous application; and still had a problem with building in a back garden.

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that the application was for a two bedroom bungalow and that would not change.  He advised that Permitted Development Rights could be removed to ensure that the bungalow could not be converted to a chalet bungalow, and an additional condition could be added to prevent rooms from being built in the roof.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/505663/OUT be approved subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report, and an additional condition restricting the development to single storey only, preventing rooms from being built in the roof.

 

2.7    REFERENCE NO - 16/505709/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL First floor & single storey extensions.
ADDRESS 89 Scarborough Drive, Minster-on-Sea, Kent, ME12 2NQ
WARD Minster Cliffs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Minster-on-Sea	APPLICANT Mr & Mrs McKinley AGENT Alpha Design Studio Limited

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application and considered it would cause demonstrable harm to the neighbouring properties.

 

Members raised the following points:  this was too large; it had an overbearing impact; issue of overlooking; and the design was appalling.

 

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

 

Councillor Andy Booth moved a motion for refusal on the grounds that the application caused demonstrable harm to the quality of life of those residents in the adjoining properties.

 

The Area Planning Officer explained that it needed to be clear what the harm was and who was harmed by it.  In response to Councillor Booth adding overlooking issues to the reasons for refusal, the Head of Planning Services advised that overlooking could not be considered as a reason, unless it was direct overlooking, not because of a blank wall, and clarification was needed on which property was being overlooked.

 

After further discussion, the reason for refusal was amended to be: that the application caused harm to the residential amenity of nos. 87 and 91 Scarborough Drive by virtue of overlooking from the proposed balcony, and the proposed design was out-of-keeping with the character and appearance of the streetscene.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Darby and upon being put to the vote the motion was won.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/505709/FULL be refused on the grounds that the application caused harm to the residential amenity of nos. 87 and 91 Scarborough Drive by virtue of overlooking from the proposed balcony, and the proposed design was out-of-keeping with the character and appearance of the streetscene.

 

2.8    REFERENCE NO -  16/504460/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Change of use from Care Home (Class C2) to House of Multiple Occupation (C4) with minor internal alterations
ADDRESS Mill House, Salters Lane, Faversham Kent ME13 8ND
WARD Watling	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT MrsRenuha Francis AGENT Lusher Architects

 

Mr James Lusher, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

Resolved:  That application 16/504460/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

 

2.9    REFERENCE NO -  16/505747/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing garage and front boundary wall, removal of existing ash tree and erection of a one bedroom dwelling with integral garage and associated external works as amended by drawings received on 27September 2016
ADDRESS 184 - 186 The Street Boughton Under Blean Kent ME13 9AL
WARD Boughton And Courtenay	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Boughton Under Blean	APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Payne AGENT Edgington Architectural Services Ltd

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that Boughton Under Blean Parish Council raised no objection to the application.  Following re-consultation on the revised design drawings, four additional representations had been received, which raised issues similar to those already noted in the report.  The Area Planning Officer reported that a letter of support had also been received, which included the following points: the property was not for commercial gain; it was in-keeping with the village; and it would not affect visibility or surrounding properties.

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application and considered it did not fit-in with the streetscene or the Conservation Area.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/505747/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report.

 

2.10    REFERENCE NO -  16/506520/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a detached garage/store/office as amended by drawing 2603/1 Received 12 September 2016
ADDRESS Norwood Cottage Eastchurch Road Eastchurch Kent ME12 4HP
WARDSheppey East	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Eastchurch	APPLICANT MrEngin Selcuk AGENT Richard Baker Partnership

 

The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 2.02 and 9.07 in the report with regard to landscaping, and increasing the existing hedgerow.  He sought delegated authority to add additional conditions to secure this.

 

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

 

Resolved:  That application 16/506520/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report and additional conditions to secure hedgerow planting.

 

2.11    REFERENCE NO -  16/505299/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline application for the erection of a 60 bed care home with amenity space, car and cycle parking, associated development, landscaping and access (Approval of Access details being sought)
ADDRESS Coleshall Farm Ferry Road Iwade Kent ME9 8QY
WARD Bobbing, Iwade And Lower Halstow	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Iwade	APPLICANT Middlefields Limited AGENT DHA Planning

 

The Major Projects Officer reported that the reptile survey was still awaited, as were comments from Southern Water.  He advised that there was an error on page 116 of the report, paragraph 2.03, which should read ‘the building would be located at least four (not 10) metres from the centre line of existing poplar trees on the southern boundary of the site’.

 

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to re-consult with KCC Ecology, once the reptile report had been received and impose additional conditions if required, and any conditions required by SWS.                                          

 

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

 

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer explained that the Tree Officer would comment on the trees and landscaping at the site at the reserved matters stage.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/505299/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (21) in the report, to re-consult with KCC Ecology once the reptile report had been received and impose additional conditions if required, and to impose any conditions required by SWS, and subject to a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

 

2.12  REFERENCE NO -  16/505541/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Conversion from B1 offices to a mixed use of A2 offices and 9 one bedroom residential apartments with external alterations
ADDRESS Excelsior House, Ufton Lane, Sittingbourne, ME10 1JA
WARD Homewood	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL	APPLICANT Wildwood Ltd AGENT Alpha Design Studio Limited

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that KCC Highways and Transportation recommended parking standards for this type of dwelling in a town centre location was a maximum of one space per dwelling.  He further advised that nil parking provision could be acceptable as well due to the existence of waiting restrictions and the controlled parking zone.  The 66% provision proposed was in-line with other developments in the area, and he explained that the four spaces for the office use could be used by residents overnight if needed.  He considered that the type of housing and the location, where not all residents might have vehicles, 100% parking allocation was not needed.

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He explained that this was a very congested part of Sittingbourne, and that local residents could not believe what was being proposed.  He explained that vehicles from the site would be forced into parking on neighbouring streets; he did not consider that residents would park in the town centre, as suggested in the report.  The Member raised concern with the impact on residential amenity.

 

Members raised the following points:  needed to consider the impact on local residents; did not understand that car parking spaces were not needed because site was classed as town centre location; people were likely to have cars, even when they were in a town centre location; the size of the site was big enough to allow parking; this should be turned down; and suggested the design was changed, with less landscaping and more spaces for parking.

 

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

 

Councillor Ghlin Whelan moved a motion to refuse the application on the grounds that there was insufficient parking for residents, and the office use which would result in an increase in on-street parking, harmful to the amenity of residents.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock and upon being put to the vote the motion was won.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/505541/FULL be refused on the grounds that there was insufficient parking for residents, and the office use which would result in an increase in on-street parking, harmful to the amenity of residents.. 

 

2.13 REFERENCE NO – 16/501726/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL   Change of use from B2 Industrial use in the form of redundant steelworks to port related uses (sui generis) including demolition of buildings (except for the former military hospital, former fitness centre, former billet packing building, former stores and stores maintenance building and part of main former Thamesteel building), construction of new paved surfaces and a new vehicle access and bridge spanning the A249 to the existing Port to the west, reconfiguration of railhead, boundary treatment and landscaping and associated works (amended description).
ADDRESS   Former Thamesteel Site, Brielle Way, Sheerness, Kent ME12 2AE.
WARD	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL	APPLICANT Peel Ports Ltd AGENT N/A

 

The Major Projects Officer reported the following responses by the applicant to points raised in the Committee report:  the New Policy Regen 3 (the Port of Sheerness: Regeneration Area) had not been mentioned in the report; the Sheerness Port Master Plan details Peel Ports intention for the land over the next 20 years; condition (9) should refer to drawing WDK-SI-A-000-013 Rev P13, not P11; and condition (23) should list all the approved drawings.

 

The Major Projects Officer reported that the Economy and Community Services Manager welcomed the job creation offered through the proposal, and the possibility of further potential for jobs in conjunction with other development under the Port of Sheerness Masterplan.

 

Delegated authority was sought to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in the report; and the amendment of conditions (9) and (23), with the latter setting out the list of approved plans.

 

Mr Paul Barker, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

Members raised the following points:  welcomed the benefit to the local economy; the site was a mess at the moment, it was important to add landscaping as this was the main entrance to Sheerness; it was vital to secure the old listed hospital, and to ensure its condition improved and did not deteriorate further; it was important to have hedging and landscaping on the site and to achieve biodiversity; the site was in need of regeneration; it was important that there were conditions to address dust/noise/vibration; requested a condition to secure access to the site via the hospital; and concerned with loss of cooling ponds by them being infilled.

 

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the site plans which showed bunds on key parts of the frontage of the site which would be landscaped.  He advised that there was scope to include the points that Members had raised, within planning conditions.  In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer advised that the condition of the land in terms of any toxicity, had been looked into by environmental consultants, and planning conditions were in place to address any contamination.  He advised that the Environmental Health Team were happy with this approach.  In response to a question about access to the listed building, the Major Projects Officer explained that condition (12) in the report addressed this.

 

The Head of Planning Services advised that the cooling ponds were not Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/501726/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (23) in the report, and the amendment of condition (23) to set-out the list of approved plans.

 

PART 3

 

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

 

3.1    REFERENCE NO -  16/500006/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a new detached two storey dwelling and garage
ADDRESS 106 Scrapsgate Road Minster-On-Sea Kent ME12 2DJ
WARD Minster Cliffs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Minster-On-Sea	APPLICANT Mr A Brooks AGENT Anderson Design

 

Mr John Peto, on behalf of the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

Members raised the following points:  the street was diverse, this would fit-in with the streetscene; and the site was a mess at the moment, this would enhance it.

 

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application and considered it utilised the open space in an appropriate and considered way.

 

The motion for refusal was put to the vote and the vote was lost.

 

Councillor Andy Booth moved a motion to give delegated authority to officers to approve the application as it complemented the surrounding area and was a valuable utilisation of the space, along with appropriate conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart and on being put to the vote the motion was won.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/500006/FULL be delegated to officers to approve with appropriate conditions. 

 

PART 5

 

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

 

·                    Item 5.1 – 16 Stiles Close, Minster

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

·                    Item 5.2 – Brook Farm, Butler Hill, Dargate

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·                    Item 5.3 –  Land adjacent to 27 Waverley Avenue, Minster

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

·                    Item 5.4 – 177 Wards Hill Road, Minster

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

·                    Item 5.5 – 19 South Road, Faversham

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·                    Item 5.6 – Lamberhurst Farm, Dargate Road, Yorkletts

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·                    Item 5.7 – 16 Hawthorn Road, Sittingbourne

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·                    Item 5.8 – Glenlodge, Queenborough Drive, Minster

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

·                    Item 5.9 – 6 Meadow Rise, Iwade

 

APPEAL ALLOWED