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 26 April 2017.

Tabled paper for item 2.5 17/50097/FULL 1 Hever Place, Sittingbourne published Friday 28 April 2017.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum:  That the standard hours of construction condition be imposed.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

The Area Planning Officer stated that it was not usual to impose such a condition for a household alteration and advised against imposing this condition.

Discussion ensued and Members agreed the addendum.

Resolved:  That application 17/501100/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report and the imposition of the standard hours of construction condition.

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

A Member raised concern that the Parish Council had called-in the application but were not present at the meeting.  Another Member disagreed that this was a matter for concern.

Resolved: That application 17/500701/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

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

Resolved:  That application 17/500660/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Senior Planner reported that further comments from the agent for the scheme had been received.  These were tabled and had previously been emailed to Members.

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

Resolved:  That application 17/500947/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report.

The Senior Planner reported that 10 further representations had been received, following submission of amended plans (the original plans were incorrectly scaled).  The majority of their concerns were already covered in the Committee report, but they raised the following additional concerns:

• The latest plans only show 2 parking spaces;
• Residents pay a management company to look after the grounds around the development what would happen if vehicles start parking here?;
• The site was on a busy pinch point on the road;
• People with learning difficulties require a greater degree of monitoring;
• The use would generate a greater number of vehicles, including staff and emergency vehicles, than would be the case under a conventional dwelling;
• It would impact upon the character of Iwade as a peaceful village; and
• The developer was trying to put this through as a dwelling, and then change the use to a care home.

The Senior Planner reported that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had no objections in respect of parking and highway impacts, on the grounds that the application was for a dwelling and provided suitable access and parking for such use.  He advised that Iwade Parish Council had stated that their previous objections, as detailed in the report, still stood.  They also commented that the statement referred to the building as a dwelling, but it would be a commercial enterprise, and reiterated their request for a site meeting.

The Senior Planner further reported that the applicant had submitted a further statement setting-out that the application was for a dwelling to be occupied by up to four young adults living as a family unit, with care from support staff.

The Senior Planner advised that the objections received related primarily to the proposed occupation of the building, but Members should be clear that the application was for a dwelling, in Class C3 use, and the proposed occupation fitted within that category.  Any use outside of that scope would have to be considered by officers if or when it arose, and potential enforcement action should not cloud the debate. 

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included: was a commercial use not residential; there were already issues with a similar property in the village; parking would only be required for the care workers; the Parish Council had objected in relation to parking and site entrance concerns, but the parking provision had changed and there was now a garage and parking provided; this development clearly falls within Class C3 of the definition of a dwellinghouse; and we should support the application as there were not enough mental health care and social care properties available.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Roger Clark.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5) a recorded vote was taken on the motion to approve the application and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Cameron Beart, George Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mike Whiting, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Mike Henderson, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Tina Booth and Ghlin Whelan.  Total equals thirteen.

Against: Councillors Mike Baldock, Roger Clark, Richard Darby and James Hall.  Total equals four.

Resolved:  That application 16/508446/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report.

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

Members raised the following points: the application was very similar to the one refused at the site in January 2017; and if allowed we would see development creep along the road along a popular green open space.

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

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion:  That the application be refused for the same reasons that the previous application had been.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth. 

Members attention was drawn to page 69 of the Committee report which set out the two reasons for refusing the previous application which had been considered at the 5 January meeting.

The Senior Planner advised against including reason (2), as the amenity space provided would be in excess of 10 metres which was the Council’s minimum standard.

The Locum Planning Solicitor suggested that the reason should include reference to the Council’s emerging Local Plan.

The Proposer and Seconder of the motion to refuse the application agreed to both of these amendments.  On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 17/500436/FULL be refused as the proposal to introduce an additional dwelling onto the plot would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene and would constitute over-intensive development giving rise to significantly harmful levels of overlooking and an overbearing impact upon neighbouring properties.  This would be contrary to saved Policies E1 and E19 of the Council’s adopted Local Plan 2008 and Policies CP4 and DM14 of the Emerging Swale Borough Local Plan “Bearing Fruits 2031” Proposed Main Modifications 2016.

The Major Projects Officer reported that an amended drawing had been received showing an additional pedestrian access from the Sheppey Way.

The Major Projects Officer reported that KCC Highways and Transportation raised no objection, noting that there was no new access being created onto a classified road, and it was not likely to generate significant numbers of vehicle movements, so expected the Local Planning Authority to assess the highway impact of the application. 

The Major Projects Officer stated that delegated authority was sought to approve the application subject to the amendment of condition (3) to refer to “suitable fencing or other tree protection measures”.

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

Councillor Mike Henderson stated that lime trees were not suitable in residential areas and requested they be removed from the list of native trees to be planted.  He asked that silver birch be considered as an alternative.  This was agreed by Members.

A Member raised concern that secure fencing was not being provided where the site backed-on to housing (on the north-east boundary).  He also asked that the application be delegated to officers to approve, subject to consultation with the Parish Council and Ward Members.

The Major Projects Officer stated that fencing, such as close-boarded fencing, was susceptible to vandalism and would need to be maintained by the Council, and hedging would add value to the biodiversity of the area.  He advised against including consultation with the Parish Council and Ward Members as this could delay commencement of the use.

Resolved:  That application 16/508492/REM be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report and an amendment to condition (3) to refer to “suitable fencing or other tree protection measures” and that lime trees be removed from the list of native trees to be planted and referred to on the proposed layout and that silver birch be specified instead. 

The Major Projects Officer reported that KCC Highways and Transportation raised no objection subject to imposition of the following conditions: Provision of parking facilities prior to commencement of work on-site and for the duration of construction; provision of measures to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the highway; and provision and permanent retention of secure, covered cycle parking facilities prior to the use of the site.

The Major Projects Officer advised that two further letters of objection had been received.  The majority of their concerns had already been covered in the report, but they raised the following additional concerns:

• Structural concerns in respect of the differing ground levels and potential for subsidence at their property;
• Additional strain on local services;
• Additional traffic on A2 through Newington;
• Contrary to the advice of PPS7 (this policy only applied to Northern Ireland);
• Inadequate sightlines proposed leading to front-to-front overlooking with existing houses on A2; and loss of light to existing houses on A2.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to approve the application subject to conditions as outlined above and mentioned in the Committee report, and the signing of a suitably-worded Section 106 Agreement.  The Major Projects Officer also sought delegated authority to agree amendments to condition wording and to enter into the Section 106 Agreement as required.

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke on the application.

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

Members considered the application and raised the following points: appalling that this was a retrospective application and the building had already been demolished; nicely designed scheme on a brownfield site; concerns about parking as the KCC Parking Standards did not allow for tandem parking; there were already serious air quality issues at the site, so the buildings should be set further back from the street; should not make a decision on the application until the outstanding appeals had been considered; the Council’s Enforcement Officers needed to ensure the site was monitored, given the history of the site; would add character to the area; and look forward to the Council adopting their own Parking Standards.

In response to queries from Members, the Major Projects Officer stated that KCC Highways and Transportation had carefully considered the application and raised no objection on parking grounds, noting that the site was within a sustainable location.  With regard to concerns about the closeness of the dwellings to the street, the Major Projects Officer noted that the site was within a Conservation Area, and that development on the back edge of the pavement was a key characteristic.

Resolved:  That application 16/506166/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (23) in the report, the imposition of the further conditions as requested by KCC Highways and Transportation relating to:  provision of parking facilities prior to commencement of work on site and for the duration of construction; provision of measures to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the highway; and provision and permanent retention of secure, covered cycle parking facilities prior to the use of the site.  The signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement and to agree such amendments to condition wording and wording of the Section 106 Agreement as may be required.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the Environmental Protection Leader had considered the details, including the proposed street lighting, and raised no objection.

The Major Projects Officer further reported that amended plans and a section through the main spine road had now been received.  These showed a very minor refinement to the details to enable the roads proposed under this application to connect with the building proposed on Unit E.  The Major Projects Officer emphasised that this was purely an application relating to the approval of reserved matters details, relating to internal roads within the industrial estate and planning permission had been granted, following a positive recommendation by the Committee at their July 2016 meeting, for the construction of up-to 46,000 square metres of industrial and storage and distribution space on the wider site, which extended to approximately 19 hectares.  The decision notice, which was subject to 39 conditions, giving a high degree of control over the details of the buildings and landscaping among other things, was outlined in pages 120 to 129 of the Committee report.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to approve the application, subject to the conditions set-out on page 118 of the Committee report, including the amendment of condition (1) to refer to the amended plans.

Mr Trevor Grain, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Chris Hall, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

Ward Members raised the following points: many residents of the Great East Hall estate were not aware of this development; the infrastructure promised at the site had not been provided and it was shameful the way local residents had been treated; the Northern Relief Road (NRR) would never be built; Swale Way would not be able to cope with the additional traffic; should defer the application for a site meeting; the application had already been approved and welcomed the employment growth the application would bring to the area; and the access onto the site was not acceptable and should be reconsidered.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: sympathised with local residents and with regard to the NRR, the best thing to do was to lobby Ministers for funding; it was deceitful for developers to use completion of the NRR to sell properties, when KCC had stated there was no economic argument to provide it; the roundabout at Grovehurst Road onto Swale Way would not be able to cope with the increase in traffic; HGVs using a distributor road would not work; bunding and landscaping should be provided as a buffer between the industrial site and residential areas; if we did not support the application then traffic would back-up within the site; the developer stated the application would create hundreds of jobs so surely the East Hall Farm developer could not then claim that a shop on that estate would not be commercially viable; the issues on the Great East Hall Farm estate and completion of the NRR were not the fault of the applicant; and no development should take place here until the NRR had been completed.

Resolved:  That application 16/508231/REM be delegated to officers to  approve subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report and the amendment of condition (1) to refer to the amended plans.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Senior Planner requested delegated authority to impose a further reason for refusal, relating to layout with particular reference to the proposed rear fences abutting the highway and the developments consequent negative impact on the character, appearance and openness of the area.

Mr John Bailey, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, representing Upchurch Parish Council, spoke in support of 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: supported the application as it was a sensible place for dwellings and on a brownfield site; the Parish Council raised no objection and we should support local people; and welcomed this ‘windfall’ site’. 

The Senior Planner reminded Members that there was still a “live” objection from the Environment Agency and suggested Members may want to defer the application until a Flood Risk Assessment had been carried out.

In response to a query from a Member, the Senior Planner stated that the site was predominantly brownfield.

A Member considered the scheme unacceptable, and noted that the Council had refused similar proposals previously.

Councillor Cameron Beart proposed a site meeting.  This was not seconded. 

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

Councillor Bryan Mulhern proposed the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow a Flood Risk Assessment to be carried out.  This was seconded by Councillor Roger Clark.

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

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed the following motion:  That the application be approved subject to no issues being raised by the Environment Agency.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Whiting.

On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

At this point the Locum Planning Solicitor advised Members that the delegated authority should be given to officers to impose relevant standard conditions to the permission.

The Proposer and Seconder of the motion to approve the application agreed that delegated authority should be given to officers to impose relevant standard conditions be imposed.  This was agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 17/500825/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to no issues being raised by the Environment Agency and the imposition of the relevant standard conditions.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – Fruit Store, Wrens Hill Farm, Wrens Hill, Norton

APPEAL ALLOWED

• Item 5.2 – Land adjacent white Timbers, Painters Forstal Road, Painters Forstal

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.3 – Owens Court Farm, Owens Court Road, Selling

Members raised points which included: it was clear that there were no reasons to refuse the application, and the Committee needed to be careful when going against officer recommendation; and consider that not enough evidence had been provided by officers at the Appeal Hearing. 

The Area Planning Officer stated that the fact that there was no evidence to refuse the application was not a failing of officers.

APPEAL ALLOWED AND FULL COSTS AWARDED AGAINST THE COUNCIL

• Item 5.4 – 2 Kings Road, Minster

APPEAL ALLOWED

A Member was disappointed that officers had not submitted evidence to support its case.

• Item 5.5 – 9 London Road, Newington

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.6 – Land at Ellen's Place, High Street, Newington

APPEAL ALLOWED

• Item 5.7 – The Paddock, 76 Horsham Lane, Upchurch

APPEAL DISMISSED