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 March 2017.

Tabled paper published on 6 March 2017 for Deferred item 2 16/507789/FULL Howt Green, Sheppey Way, Bobbing.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

Mrs Klaire Lander, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: disappointed the Parish Council were not present to defend their reason for refusal; congratulate officers and the applicant on a subtle and sympathetic application; and shame that the application was not in two parts as consider the extension acceptable, but not the outbuilding.

Resolved:  That application 16/508465/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

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

Mr Ian Mynott, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: disappointed the Parish Council were not present to defend their reason for refusal; and congratulate the applicant for engaging in dialogue with officers.

Resolved: That application 16/506511/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Doddington Parish Council were in support of the application but had requested that the mast be disguised.  The Parish Council were concerned that the mast would be a lot higher than the surrounding trees and considered that a tree disguise would soften the look and blend-in.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the applicant’s agent had responded to the Parish Council request and considered: the lattice structure created a permeable structure allowing views through the installation; the monopole single column structure would appear more incongruous from distances; and the galvanised colour would be considered the most appropriate with the antenna and headframe blending-in with the colour of the sky.

The Area Planning Officer stated that he did not consider the mast would be an issue and if the mast was disguised as a tree it would look out of place, particularly as the nearby trees were deciduous.  He considered the mast was well-sited and of a good design.

Mr Dominic O’Connell, 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 raised no objection.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: design was the best they could have; would provide a vital service for rural communities; and hope we do not have an application in three years time to increase the height of the mast due to the growth in trees.

Resolved:  That application 17/500511/TNOT56 be approved.  

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

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, Upchurch Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Raymond Hammer, an objector, spoke against the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised points which included: did not object to the land being developed, but access onto Oak Lane was a concern; a resident had carried out a survey from 8.30am to 9.30am and there was seven times more vehicle movements in Oak Lane than in Wallbridge Lane during the same period; highway design was an issue and there was insufficient traffic management; speed was an issue; cars had difficulty passing in places and used the footway to do so; visibility sightlines an issue; consideration of traffic calming; and should delegate the application to officers to alter the access so it comes out onto Wallbridge Lane.

There was some discussion about whether the application should be deferred to allow KCC Highways and Transportations views to be presented to the Committee.

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

A Member asked that a representative from KCC Highways and Transportation attend the site meeting.

Resolved:  That application 16/506986/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Senior Planner reported that the Council’s economic development team had confirmed that they supported the application as it would enable the business to operate more efficiently, and contribute to the safeguarding of jobs in the Borough.  The proposal also brought the whole operation in the Borough rather than split between Swale and Medway, which was positive for the Borough.

The Senior Planner further reported that information had emerged from the applicant regarding the roof covering provided which would consist of two layers of PVC fabric with an air gap between, to provide thermal insulation.  Air would be blown into the gap and this would require the use of plant/machinery.  The Environmental Health Team were satisfied that such plant/equipment could be designed to prevent noise outbreak, subject to control via a condition.  As such, a further condition was proposed to control the specification and location of the plant/equipment, and any mitigation necessary to insulate against noise outbreak.

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

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, Upchurch Parish Council, spoke on the application.

Mr Ian Ward, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Ward Members raised points which included: had some sympathy for the applicants, however noise from the site was already having a detrimental impact on residents in Hartlip, particularly those in Mill Lane and Dane Lane; applicants needed to take some responsibility for the parking problems in the local area; landscaping inappropriate and consider the HGV parking and detritus left behind was mainly from the adjacent IPL site, but encouraged applicant and IPL to work together to resolve.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: concern that the landscaping plan for the site had not been carried out or enforced; concern about creeping intrusion into Hartlip; needed to ensure that adequate landscaping was provided; considered this was a modest application; needed to apply the same diligence in relation to the acoustics condition as for the Howt Green, Bobbing application; should support this local business; hopefully result in a reduction in HGV movements; Antolin were a good company and should be welcomed; and lorry parking and litter was not the responsibility of the applicant.

Resolved:  That application 16/508208/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (8) in the report a condition to control the specification and location of the plant/equipment, and any mitigation necessary to insulate against noise outbreak.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that comments from KCC Highways and Transportation had been received.  They requested conditions requiring that parking was allocated for the properties fronting onto Glebe Lane, and also that cycle parking was provided for each property.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that conditions (7) and (9) already covered these matters.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that Members were asked to consider the slight variation of condition (21) which referred to the method of disposal of foul waters.  She proposed that it was amended to allow demolition to take place before the submission of details was required.  This was in-line with the wording of a number of the other conditions for this application and would allow the site to be cleared soon after the application was determined.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the site was currently a health and safety hazard and attracted anti-social behaviour, and removing the building and securing the site would help to address this problem.

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

Mr Roger Spencer, an Objector, spoke against the application.

In response to a request from the speaker to remove the beech hedging along their boundary, the Senior Planning Officer reported that she had spoken to the applicant’s agent about this matter.  They had advised that they would try to avoid the removal of the hedge, but if this was necessary they would consider erecting a 1.8 metre closeboarded fence, rather than a wall. 

The Lawyer – Team Leader (Planning) suggested that management of the hedge could be included within a landscape condition if approved. 

Members considered the application and raised the following points: welcomed KCC Highways and Transportation request for parking; welcomed the affordable housing; the hedging should be retained; needed to ensure the height of the buildings was adequately conditioned and monitored; and half of the properties should be for social rent and half for equity share.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum:  That 30% affordable housing be provided.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.  On being put to the vote the addendum was agreed.

A Member requested that if officers were not able to secure 30% affordable housing, the application should be reported back to Committee.

Resolved:  That application 16/507706/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (23) in the report, (where necessary) tidy-up the conditions to vary condition (21), to allow demolition to take place before the submission of details was required, to include a landscape management condition, such condition to ensure the management of hedging and, with further delegated powers being given to officers to secure a Section 106 Agreement to include contributions towards primary and secondary education, libraries, off-site open space, NHS, bins, Special Protection Area mitigation and 30% affordable housing (if less than 30% then report back to Committee) and a monitoring and administration fee.

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

Mr Paul Sharpe, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Ward Members raised the following points: the problem was not the storage of grain but the highway problems along the Lower Road: considered the application was acceptable to local residents; where would the farmer be getting the materials to build the bund?; and needed to ensure that the lorries used for building the bund were wheel-washed as there were already issues at Brambledown with mud on the road from agricultural vehicles.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that condition (6) of the Committee report sought to control mud on the road.  She was unsure where the applicant was getting the materials from to build the bund.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: good to support the local economy; movement of lorries at night was a concern; noise mitigation measures were in place for the farmhouse, but not for the single house along Lower Road; the Rural Consultant had advised that there was no need for the development as the farmer could use their other storage facilities; lorry movements at night were minimal on the Isle of Sheppey; and the site access onto the Lower Road needed to be widened to allow HGVs to negotiate the site.

Resolved:  That application 16/506716/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (14) in the report.

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

Mr Paul Sharpe, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Resolved:  That application 16/507030/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

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

Mrs Mary Smith, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised the following points: the site was within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) which was essentially a country park; nothing against the applicant but they had ignored enforcement action and just keep appealing and playing the system; if this was a member of the settled community it would not be allowed; seems like one rule for one and one rule for another; there were five traveller sites in the area and each one is illegal; and needed to relocate to more appropriate official sites.

Members raised the following points: the applicant stated they had been on the site for 10 years, but they only applied for temporary permission in 2010, this showed that planning enforcement had not been doing their job; there were other more obtrusive gypsy sites in the Borough; should treat all areas of the Borough equally in terms of gypsy and traveler provision; this site did not have a substantial impact on the AONB, if this was a brick-built building we would not allow this and it was essentially the remoteness of the site which was an issue;  and unsustainable location.

In response to a comment from a Member, the Senior Planner drew attention to paragraph 8.18 of the Committee report which confirmed the gypsy status of the applicants.

Resolved:  That application 16/505471/FULL be refused for the reason stated in the report.

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

Resolved:  That application 15/509545/FULL be refused for the reason stated in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that he had received an email from the new Clerk to Ospringe Parish Council stating that they had considered the application at their meeting on 5 October 2016.  The Area Planning Officer read out the relevant minute from that meeting for Members which raised the following points: we strongly objected to the application; the design and access statement was vague and unclear and factually incorrect in parts; the site was an unsustainable location, being remote from facilities which the occupants would be expected to want to access; the proposed access was situated at a dangerous and inappropriate location and would have event less sightline facility than the original entrance; and concerns that significant construction works had already been carried out on the part of the site adjacent to the Newnham Valley Road.

The Area Planning Officer further reported that the applicant’s agent had sent him a copy of the Appeal Statement for the gypsy and traveler site at Greyhound Road, Minster, Isle of Sheppey.  He confirmed that officers had received the decision on 21 February 2017.  The Appeal Inspector had granted permission on a permanent basis for three of the applicants on that site and did not consider that the Council had demonstrated that it had a five-year supply of sites. 

The Area Planning Officer noted that the Brambledown site was not in an AONB and that the Council were in a position to demonstrate a five-year supply of sites.

Mr Joseph Jones, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

In response to queries from a Member, the Area Planning Officer confirmed the following: Swale had no green belt land; the site was not within a sustainable location; the special circumstances in relation to the family members’ health issues had been carefully considered; and if a member of the settled community had wanted to build a brick built property at the site they would not be allowed.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: the speaker claimed this was affordable housing, putting two caravans on the site could never be considered an affordable housing option; a reason we lost the appeal for the Greyhound Road site was that we had no legal representative, are we setting ourselves up to lose again?; legally should we have access to the confidential information relating to the health issues of the child?; the family had come onto the land with no notice; site was in a prominent location within an AONB; we have taken enforcement action but the applicants have ignored this; and page 217 paragraph 2.05 of the Committee report states that the child with the health issues did not react well to change, should we jeopardise the health of this young child by moving them.

The Lawyer – Team Leader (Planning) stated that with regard to the confidential information in relation to the health issues of some of the family members, he was aware that other Local Authorities would have provided this information on blue paper.  However, officers had viewed and assessed the information and summarised this in the Committee report and considered national policy and human rights and considered the application should be refused.

The Area Planning Officer stated that on page 218, paragraph 2.06 of the Committee report, officers had tried to give a flavour of the health issues of the child, but the full details could be circulated to Members.  He stated that whilst officers had considered this information fully they did not consider that it overrode the harm that would be done if the application was approved.

The Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered that the system was being played.

Resolved:  That application 16/507020/FULL be refused for the reasons stated in the report.

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

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer stated that whilst this application was not in an AONB, officers were confident that the Council had demonstrated the five-year supply of sites and would be able to defend any subsequent appeal on that basis.

Resolved:  That application 16/503982/FULL be refused for the reason stated in the report.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, Upchurch Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

Mrs Klaire Lander, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Ward Members spoke in support of the application and raised points which included; would cause no harm to the local landscape; seeks six houses where three already exist; and would make good use of a brownfield site.

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

At this point the Development Manager used his delegated powers listed under Part 3 (Responsibility for Council Functions) of the Council’s Constitution for the Planning Committee to ‘call-in’ the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee were minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

PART 5

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

·                    Item 5.1 – 36 The Glen, Minster

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.2 – FCS Trade Sales, Horsham Lane, Upchurch

APPEAL DISMISSED 

·                    Item 5.3 – 1 Old Half Acre, Blind Mary’s Lane, Bredgar 

APPEAL DISMISSED