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 1 February 2017.

Following the agreement of the Chairman an urgent Item has been added to the agenda on 25 January 2017.  Please see item 3.3 below.

The following tabled papers were published on 6 February 2017:

2.8 – 16/507789/FULL Howt Green, Sheppey Way, Bobbing

2.10 – 16/507298/FULL Land at Rushenden Road, Queenborough

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Parish Councillor Jeff Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

In response to a point raised by the speaker, the Area Planning Officer stated that whilst a condition had been applied to the original permission of the property to ensure the garage was kept available for parking, in his opinion sufficient parking would still be provided.  The Area Planning Officer advised that if Members were minded to refuse the application for lack of parking, officers would not be able to defend on those grounds at any subsequent appeal.

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

A Ward Member raised no objection.

In response to queries from Members, the Area Planning Officer stated that in principle it was preferable to have a garage when designing a property, however parking was still provided, and there was a risk of harm with any new development.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the footprint of the integral garage would not change.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: why do we add conditions to applications if all we are going to do is ignore them; would be ‘insignificantly’ harmful; and would not be detrimental to the area.

Resolved:  That application 16/506840/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved from the chair a motion for a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Bobbin.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Mr Matthew Garvey, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Resolved: That application 16/501552/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He acknowledged that the developer had provided more parking, but noted that the area was densely populated and a further 9 apartments would be over-intensive development.  He considered that any development at the location would have a detrimental impact on parking in the area. 

Members considered the application and raised the following points: unsure of the reasons for providing two extra office parking spaces; the residential amenity area was so small, was it worth keeping?; Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation raised no objection and we would not be able to defend refusal on parking grounds at any subsequent appeal; and the applicant could have reduced the number of apartments and offices to provide more parking spaces.

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer advised that condition (11) of the Committee report restricted the use of the ground floor to offices.  It would not be possible to impose a condition preventing applications for a change of use, and each application had to be considered on its own merits.  The Area Planning Officer stated that there was not enough space within the amenity area for another parking space, and recommended it be retained for amenity purposes.

Resolved:  That application 16/507575/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (13) in the report.

The Major Projects Officer reported that, whilst not clear from the report, amended plans had now been received showing Building 2, the hay store, re-located further from the site boundary with the M2, to achieve a minimum gap of five metres.  The amendment was required to safeguard visual amenity particularly for views from the M2, providing sufficient space for a strip of native planting to be implemented.

The Major Projects Officer reported that Highways England had been consulted as the application site adjoined the embankment to the motorway.  The Major Projects Officer sought authority to approve the application, subject to no objection being raised by Highways England, and to conditions as set out in the Committee report.

Mr Richard Baron, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Ward Member stated that he had no issue with the layout, however Ospringe Parish Council had requested condition (8) be ‘tightened-up’ and be amended as follows: ‘The hereby approved buildings shall only be for the storage and use of agricultural materials and machinery strictly for the farming activities at Willow Farm’.  The Ward Member supported this as he considered that it would ensure the buildings would not be able to be used for any other use if the hay business was not successful.  Members agreed to this amendment.

A Member requested that a condition be imposed requiring the installation of solar panels to make the site more sustainable.  The Major Projects Officer stated that the Council would not be able to reasonably enforce this, but could ‘politely’ suggest  that the applicants considered installing these.  

Resolved:  That application 16/504755/FULL be delegated to officers to approve, subject to no objections being raised by Highways England to the amended plans, conditions (1) to (8) in the report, and an amendment to condition (8) to read: The hereby approved buildings shall only be for the storage and use of agricultural materials and machinery strictly for the farming activities at Willow Farm.

The Area Planning Officer reported that a further nine letters of objection had been received, mostly covering points already covered in the Committee report, with the following fresh issues raised: strain on sewer/water drains; additional traffic exiting onto Queenborough Road, hindered by parked cars in connection with the shop; and loss of wildlife through removal of trees.

The Area Planning Officer advised that they had consulted Southern Water and sought delegation to approve the application subject to no objection from them, and any appropriate additional conditions they may suggest.

Mr Oliver Maroney, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

A Ward Member raised the following concerns: Western Avenue was already used as parking ‘overspill’ by people visiting the nearby cemetery and would not be able to cope with this development; the access at this site comes out on a corner; would cause overlooking, could use obscure glazing but who would want that in their kitchen?; and would have an adverse impact on residential amenity.

Councillor Cameron Beart moved a motion for a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 16/508023/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.

Mr Timothy Ball, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Ward Members spoke in support of the application and raised the following points: welcomed the application as currently residents have to travel off the Isle of Sheppey for dementia care; fully supported the application; and the application was a good example of cooperative working between the applicant, Borough Council and Parish Council. 

Members raised points which included: welcomed this desperately needed facility; the Parish Council could put-in a Traffic Regulation Order to KCC for yellow lines, so should not delay the application for that reason; if the application created more bed space and local jobs then welcomed it; and congratulate officers and the applicants on a great scheme.

Resolved:  That application 16/505788/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that comments had been received from the local engineer at Southern Gas Networks.  They raised no objection, but provided information about precautions that must be taken for any operational development that was close to the high pressure pipeline.  Specifically, they noted that no mechanical evacuation was permitted within 3 metres of the pipeline.  The caravans would be 23 metres from the pipeline, and as such, the development would not affect it and would be in compliance with the requirements of Southern Gas Networks.

Mr Thomas Ogden, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included: would be virtually impossible to monitor the proposed 52 weeks of the year occupancy; should be a retrospective application as the mobile homes had already been sited; the mobile homes were not visible from the road so would be difficult for officers to enforce the 52-week occupancy; needed to ‘tighten-up’ the condition restricting the occupancy of the site; the applicant already had permission on the site for the mobile homes so did not need to re-locate them; local residents considered the site was used 12 months of the year, not 5 as stated; how would condition (5) be enforced?; properties opposite looked straight into the site and the 3 metre high fence already there was detrimental to their visual amenity; any planting would need to be evergreen to reduce the visual impacts of the proposal; condition (5) could easily be enforced; a clear reason had been provided by the applicant for the application, which would allow them to operate their business effectively so should approve; would not cause any significant issues; and needed to ensure fast-growing vegetation was planted to screen the site.

In response to queries, the Senior Planning Officer advised that Permitted Development Rights existed for agricultural workers and condition (5) of the Committee report restricted the use of the site for seasonal workers.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that planting would be provided in front of the proposed fencing.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the applicant had re-sited the mobile homes as they hoped to locate a cold store on the original site, she explained that that application was item 2.8 on the agenda.  She confirmed that there were 32 caravans on the site, and reminded Members of the recent appeal decision for these caravans which allowed them to be sited on this site, albeit in a slightly different position.

Resolved:  That application 16/507788/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report.

Mr Thomas Ogden, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the tabled update, which had previously been emailed to members of the Committee.  The Senior Planning Officer reported that the views of KCC Highways and Transportation were awaited and requested delegation to approve the application, subject to them raising no objection. 

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included: there should be a condition imposed to restrict the hours of use; and there were other industrial units within the locality, so there would be more HGV movements than suggested.

The Chairman asked officers to liaise with the applicant about restricting the hours of use.

A Member raised concern that no officer from KCC Highways and Transportation was attending the meeting to respond to any highway queries.

A Member raised concern that there was no condition to restrict the acoustic level and ensure that a suitably designed acoustic enclosure was installed.  Councillor Andy Booth proposed the following additional condition: That the ambient sound levels currently observed are not increased’.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that condition (10) in the Committee report referred to the submission of an Environmental Noise Management Report, which would require details of enclosure, types of chillers to be used and noise levels.

There was some discussion about where the noise levels should be measured from, at this point, the Senior Planning Officer suggested that Members may wish to defer the application to seek clarification from the Council’s Environmental Health Team about whether such a condition could be imposed.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern, moved from the Chair, the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow officers to seek clarification from the Council’s Environmental Health Team about the imposition of a condition to ensure the current ambient levels were not increased.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

Resolved:  That the application be deferred to allow officers to seek clarification from the Council’s Environmental Health Team about the imposition of a condition to ensure the current ambient levels were not increased. 

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised points which included: fed-up with developers using affordable housing as a way to gain planning permission only to say further down the line that this would no longer viable; and the Council should not allow affordable housing options to be lost in this way.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: nonsense to say that it would not be viable to provide affordable housing; when the application was submitted affordable housing was viable and it still was; the £31,000 for off-site affordable housing was ‘derisory’; affordable housing may have been viable 9 years ago, but the viability assessments must suggest this would no longer be viable option; if the developer was not able to develop and provide affordable housing at this site then they should ‘move-on’ or the Council should force them to provide it.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that in 2008 when the application was first submitted the housing market was at its peak.  She explained that the site was an ‘eyesore’ and had significant contamination and groundwater issues, which may have not been factored into the original application. 

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds that the affordable housing was needed.  This was not seconded.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion: That the application be deferred to allow officers to advise the developer to either provide affordable housing or more than £31,000 for off-site affordable housing, and that it could not be dependent upon their profit margins.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

A Member requested that details of the viability assessments were provided when the application comes back to Committee for consideration.

Resolved:  That the application be deferred to allow officers to advise the developer to either provide affordable housing or more than £31,000 for off-site affordable housing, and that it can not be dependent upon their profit margins. 

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled update which had previously been emailed to Members of the Committee.  He drew attention to paragraph 11 of the update which set out the views of KCC Highways and Transportation.  He explained that KCC Highways and Transportation had reviewed the application and proposed 13 amendments to the layout.  The applicant had satisfied 11 of these amendments.

The Major Projects Officer therefore requested officers be delegated to approve the application subject to revisions to the Section 106 Agreement to account for the loss of one unit; an additional condition requiring the provision of the retaining wall and maintenance strip before the first occupation of any of the dwellings facing the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board (LMIDB) watercourse, pre-commencement; conditions to allow preparatory works to begin; amendment to condition (28) boundary walls, to reflect the locations where boundary walls are agreed; amendment of condition (30) bin stores, to add ‘before the first dwelling is occupied’ to the first sentence; and the 2 minor amendments to the road layout as requested by KCC Highways and Transportation to address their two outstanding views.

Mr Marcus Wilshere, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Ward Members raised points which included: local residents were disappointed about the lack of a marina; local residents were also concerned about the lack of parking for the houses fronting First Avenue; pleased to see the applicants had considered the views of local residents; proposal had been a ‘long-time coming’; and concerned that the railway line [now disused] could become a road, as part of subsequent development at Queenborough and Rushenden.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: welcome the application; shame about the lack of marina, but there was still time for this to happen; consider this to be a ‘watering-down’ of a huge attraction for the area; could not blame developers for the lack of marina; and would prefer hedging to brick walls where relevant.

A Member stressed the need for the height of the buildings to be no more than 8.2 metres as set-out in the Committee report. 

In response to queries, the Major Projects Officer agreed that brick walls may not be suitable in some areas of the development and agreed to liaise with the applicants about this to ensure appropriate boundary treatment was provided.

Resolved:  That application 16/507298/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (30) in the report; revisions to the Section 106 Agreement to account for the loss of one unit; an additional condition requiring the provision of the retaining wall and maintenance strip before the first occupation of any of the dwellings facing the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board watercourse; pre-commencement conditions to allow preparatory works to begin; amendment to condition (28) boundary walls, to reflect the locations where boundary walls are agreed; amendment of condition (30) bin stores, to add ‘before the first dwelling is occupied’ to the first sentence; and the further 2 minor amendments to the road layout as requested by KCC Highways and Transportation.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

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

Resolved:  That application 16/508010/FULL be refused for the reasons stated in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that an additional letter of support had been received from the neighbours, who objected to the reasoning in the report, and who stated that they waived their rights under the Swale Borough Council adopted policies and all other policies mentioned.  They also stated that as the properties faced south, there would be no significant loss of light.

Mr Cook, the Applicant, 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 raised the following points: note that the Committee report stated the extension would not harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and would not harm the streetscene; officers had recommended refusal due to the impact to No. 40 Yeates Drive, however the occupiers of No. 40 raised no objection; and the Council should help young families to remain in their homes where possible.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: would support the application if it could be confirmed that the occupiers of 40 Yeates Drive raised no objection, suggest deferring the application for confirmation of this;  needed to consider planning regulations and supported refusal of the application; reasonable development of a home which we should accept; borderline application and it seemed that the officers had been harsh in recommending refusal; and there was a clear reason in the Committee report to refuse the application.

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer advised that the application did not fall within Permitted Development Rights as it projected 3.8 metres past the rear of No. 40 Yeates Drive, Sittingbourne.    The Area Planning Officer confirmed that a letter of support had been received from the occupiers of 40 Yeates Drive, however impact on adjoining properties should be fully considered, regardless of who was currently living there. 

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

Councillor Mike Dendor moved the following motion: That the application be delegated to officers to approve, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 16/507503/FULL be delegated to officers to approve, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions relating to commencement of development and details of suitable materials.

The Chairman introduced the item which he had agreed could be added to the agenda as an Urgent Item.

Parish Councillor Steven Harvey, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

Members considered the application and raised the following points: would cause major landscape and visual impacts to the area; more reasons to refuse could have been provided; nice development but in the wrong place; and access to the site would be dangerous.

Resolved:  That application 16/505861/OUT would have been refused for the reasons stated in the report had an appeal against non-determination not been submitted.

PART 5

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

·                    Item 5.1 – London Road, Newington

APPEALS DISMISSED

Members welcomed the decision and noted that the Committee had, in respect of the second, smaller development only, gone against officer advice which had been to approve the application.  Members thanked the Ward Members and the Council for the Protection of Rural England for their vital support at the Appeal Hearing.

·                    Item 5.2 – Land and building between 2 and 4 Acorn Street, Sheerness

APPEAL ALLOWED – COSTS REFUSED

·                    Item 5.3 – 25 Meadow Rise, Iwade

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.4 – 25 Preston Grove, Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED