To consider the attached report (Sections 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 4 January 2017.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Mr Graham Addicott, representing Hartlip Parish Council, 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.  He considered it would set a precedent, and effect visual amenity.

Members raised the following points:  concerned with this application; this caravan did not look like it was a touring caravan; this was contrary to the original condition on the application; difficult  to reconcile that some agricultural buildings were deemed not fit for the countryside, but this seemed to be acceptable, needed to be consistent; the caravan should not be used in the evenings; it seemed that the applicant was contravening the condition as there was external storage on the site; question the meaning of ‘amenity facility’; was the caravan being used for overnight stays?; this was the ‘thin end of the wedge’; caravan was atrocious, resulting in visual harm; this was a very visible site; and would be happier if this was short-term.

The Development Manager explained that in terms of the use of the caravan, there had been no evidence of overnight stays, and no complaints had been received, and therefore nothing was being investigated by the Planning Enforcement Team.  He explained that the application was for a small caravan, and the amenity use was for the stable worker to use for rest/tea breaks.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the wording of condition (8), outlined on page 6 of the report, was no longer the wording that was used for this type of condition, and that the word ‘prior’ was no longer included.  He advised that the condition could be amended to make the permission temporary, and he sought delegated authority to do this.

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

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion to refuse the application on the following grounds: that reasonable conditions were imposed on the application site nine years ago in relation to no external storage etc. in the interests of visual amenity of the area, and this application should be refused for the same reasons.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth and upon being put  to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was carried.

Resolved: That application 16/500861/FULL be refused on the grounds of the harmful affect on visual amenity of the area.

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

Resolved:  That application 16/507616/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

Resolved:  That application 16/507617/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

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

A Ward Member supported the application.

Resolved:  That application 16/507561/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

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

Discussion ensued on whether the site should have two semi-detached houses on it, or one detached house.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that two semi-detached houses had already been built, and this was an application for a 4-bedroom detached house.

Members raised the following points:  this was back-garden building; it was not in-keeping with the streetscene; there were overlooking issues; 4-bedroom houses were needed; and the resulting amenity space was not adequate.

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

Councillor Cameron Beart moved a motion to refuse the application on the following grounds:  That it was not in-keeping with the streetscene, it was overintensive, giving rise to overbearing impact on the existing dwellings; overlooking was unacceptable; and it was harmful to residential amenity by virtue of the reduced garden size to one of the approved dwellings.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

The Area Planning Officer gave details of the depths of the two existing semi-detached gardens which were 10.5 metres, and 15.5 metres down to 9.4 metres; the standard was 10 metres.

Resolved:  That application 16/506927/FULL be refused on the grounds that it was not in-keeping with the streetscene, it was overintensive, giving rise to overbearing impact on the existing dwellings; overlooking was unacceptable; and it was harmful to residential amenity by virtue of the reduced garden size to one of the approved dwellings.

The Area Planning Officer explained that the two applications noted as ‘pending consideration’ on page 35 of the report had recently been approved.  He reported that the applicant had agreed to a Unilateral Undertaking to restrict occupation of the building to holiday accommodation only.

Mr John Collins, the Agent, did not speak.

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

In response to a statement, the Locum Solicitor advised of the importance of having a Unilateral Undertaking as this would make it easier for the Council to control future use of the property, via injunction, rather than enforcement action.

Resolved:  That application 16/507130/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report, and to the receipt of a satisfactory Unilateral Undertaking to control future use of the property to holiday use.

A Ward Member supported the application.

Discussion ensued on how the sign compared to others in the area and whether it should be hand-painted or not.

Resolved:  That application 16/507299/LBC be approved subject to condition (1) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled papers, one from the Chief Executive Officer of the Stour Academy Trust in support of the application, and the other from the Locum Solicitor which provided advice on referral, following an objection by Sport England, to the Secretary of State.

Mr Paul Sharpe, the Agent, 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:  dual use would help the school; Sport England’s comments were unsound; should not refer it to the Secretary of State; could we ensure that the parking aspect continued?; and considered that the points raised within the legal advice meant that referral to the Secretary of State was not mandatory.

The Area Planning Officer suggested that officers could be given delegated authority to impose a condition that stated that the use for car parking was ensured.

The motion to approve the application was put to the vote and lost.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That the application be approved, without referral to the Secretary of State and delegation given to officers to add an additional condition to ensure use for car parking was maintained.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth and upon being put  to the vote, the motion was agreed.

 Resolved:  That application 16/507289/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report, without referral to the Secretary of State and an additional condition to ensure that the car parking use would be maintained.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the Environmental Health Manager raised no objection to the application, subject to standard conditions requiring a contamination survey, hours of work and dust suppression.  Southern Water raised no objection, subject to a standard condition regarding submission of foul and surface water disposal, and standard informatives advising the developer of their responsibilities with regard to water pipes and connections to the sewerage system.  The Area Planning Officer sought delegated authority to approve, subject to these additional conditions and informatives.

Mr Eric Pryjemski, 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 15/508514/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (18) in the report and to the additional conditions and informatives requested by the Environmental Health Manager and Southern Water.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer advised that additional documents for this application had been emailed to members of the Planning Committee.  The documents had included a covering letter, stating errors and omissions in the report, and a Sound Insulation Testing Report, dated 2011.  In response to this report, the Environmental Health Manager had stated that this still resulted in residential units being located adjacent to industrial buildings with issues of adverse noise impacts from two incompatible uses, and this was unadvisable.  The documents also included supporting letters from each of the occupiers of the units, and occupiers of nearby sites, including mention of the occupied units helping in the reduction of crime levels, which the Area Planning Officer advised was anecdotal.

Mr Catmur, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  He considered it to be in a sustainable location, and not viable for holiday lets, that no alteration was required to the building, there was plenty of car parking and the Environmental Health Manager’s concerns had been addressed.

In response, the Area Planning Officer reminded Members that the Environmental Health Manager had raised objection to the application.

Members raised the following points:  this seemed to be planning through the ‘back door’; was there proof that holiday lets had been marketed?; supported the application, the area was sustainable, and it added to the community; do not welcome retrospective applications; and there was a shortage of holiday lets in Swale.

Resolved:  That application 16/506159/FULL be refused for the reasons stated in the report.

Mr Oosterhof, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and stated that the site had been turned down for housing twice already, and it was outside the village envelope.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the application site was outside the village envelope in both the current, and emerging Local Plan.  He advised that it was an unsustainable location and there were no mitigating benefits.

Resolved:  That application 16/507038/OUT be refused for the reason stated in the report.

PART 5

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

·                    Item 5.1 – Water Meadow, Primrose Lane, South of Motorway, Bredgar

APPEAL ALLOWED

·                    Item 5.2 – Land at Seed Road, Newnham

TWO ENFORCEMENT APPEALS DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.3 – Land at Church Farm, Sheppey Way, Bobbing

APPEAL DISMISSED AND COSTS REFUSED

·                    Item 5.4 – 60 – 63 Preston Street, Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED