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 19 July 2017.

Tabled paper for Item 2.4 published Friday 21 July 2017.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

Mr Dan Finch, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A Member was disappointed that no representative from Rodmersham Parish Council was present.

Resolved:  That application 17/501750/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Development Manager advised that officers had sought and received clarification from the applicant regarding size and need for first floor accommodation as proposed, due to appropriate size for wheelchair access and other mobility aids and business needs of application as an Local Exhaust Ventilation engineer.

The Chairman moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Miss Jane Bastow, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, representing Upchurch Parish Council and Mr Brian Evans, an objector, did not speak.

Resolved: That application 17/502213/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Senior Planner reported that KCC Ecology raised no objection following submission of an ecological scoping survey provided that two conditions were added relating to clearance of the vegetation on site and measures for doing that, and measures for ecological enhancements.

The Senior Planner further reported that KCC Highways and Transportation raised no objection.  The Senior Planner considered that condition (10) would cover the points they had previously made on the upgrading works proposed to Eastern Road.

The Senior Planner advised that the scheme had been amended during the course of the application, and the siting of units 5-8 had been pulled back into the site slightly (by around two metres).  This amended layout was the scheme that the main report was based upon.  The Parish Council and neighbouring properties should have been notified of this amendment, but due to an administrative error this was not carried out until earlier that week.  As a result, the recommendation was amended to give officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the conditions outlined in the Committee report, no fresh issues or objections arising from the re-consultation process, and to the two additional conditions as requested by KCC Ecology.

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

Mr Andrew Street, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application and raised points which included; the Isle of Sheppey needed more bungalows; was a nice windfall site that would fit in well; disappointed that the Parish Council were not present; applaud the applicants for negotiating with officers; in-keeping with the local area; demonstrable benefit for the area; good design; needed to add a condition to ensure it was for local residents; concern that off-site mitigation would not be sought due to the practicalities of securing payment, and officers should look at a more appropriate way of providing this.

Resolved:  That application 17/501981/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (15) in the report, no fresh issues or objections arising from the re-consultation process, and to the imposition of the two additional conditions as requested by KCC Ecology.

The Development Manager referred to the tabled item, which had previously been emailed to Members, and set-out Newington Parish Council’s reasons for withdrawing their objection to the application.

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

Resolved:  That application 17/501702/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (18) in the report.

The Development Manager reported that the plan reference number stated in conditions (3), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of the Committee report was incorrect, it should read MI/09/132.03 (and not 0.2).

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

The Ward Members raised comments which included: was not the best use of the building; was not in a sustainable location; would improve the site; visibly better than the Greyhound Road site; and this was a windfall site.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: site was currently an “eye-sore”; proximity to the road was a concern; would provide a balance between the settled community and the gypsy and traveller community; need to ensure consistency in relation to sustainability as we have refused other applications not so far from services as this application; the site had been subject to much enforcement action and fully support the application.

In response to a query from a Member, the Development Manager advised that this was a brownfield site and that this scheme was similar in size to the one approved in 2006.

Resolved:  That application 15/502694/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (15) in the report, and the amendment to the plan reference number for conditions (3), (8), (9), (10) and (11) to read MI/09/132.03 (and not 0.2).

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

Following a query from a Member, the Senior Planner showed photographs of the site and stated that the footprint for the garage was the same as that already approved.

In response to further queries from Members, the Senior Planner confirmed that the approved garage measured 3.5 metres tall, the proposed garage would be 5.1 metres tall, but as the base of the garage had been set 600mm down from the original site level of the site, it was effectively only a metre taller than the approved garage. Condition (11) restricted the insertion of windows or roof lights in the garage, and related to the roof in its entirety.

Resolved:  That application 17/501888/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Mr Craig Brawn, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

Ward Members raised points which included: would look better from the front; did not consider it would have a big impact on the area; there was a whole variety of property styles along Drake Avenue; and noted that the neighbours had not submitted any objections.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: considered it would have no major impact; was not a policy issue; and did no harm.

The motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Andy Booth 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 17/500104/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to the imposition of suitable conditions.

The Senior Planner reported that two further letters of objection had been received, mainly raising points already covered in the Committee report.  One further issue that had been raised was that the proposed age restriction of 55 would apply to persons who may still be working for another 11  or 12 years prior to state retirement.  The Senior Planner stated that he did not disagree with that point.

The Senior Planner further reported that another issue raised was that units should be designed to lifetime homes standards. 

Mrs Allyson Beerstcher, an objector, spoke against the application

Mr Mick Drury, the Agent, 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 points which included: was a small scale development and satisfied that there was a demand; the Parish Council were in support; was a well thought-out scheme; hope the community orchard was not just a “sweetener”; should impose a condition that local residents had first refusal; these type of homes were needed; would be against our policy; need to see the 2009 rural housing survey for the village mentioned in the Committee report to be able to make a decision; wrong location; Parish Council had previously objected; could produce a more up-to-date rural housing survey; would significantly alter the countryside gap; need more windfall sites like this; would not do demonstrable harm; should increase the age limit to 60 years as the retirement age was increasing; need to find a way via the Section 106 Agreement to ensure first refusal for local residents; need a “rock solid” commitment to provide the community orchard; outside the settlement boundary; contrary to the emerging Local Plan; failed to comply with Policy ST3 of the emerging Local Plan; and if we ignore our own policies then the development would “creep out”, we need to protect these boundaries.

The Senior Planner stated that the 2009 rural housing survey referred to in the Committee report related to a planning application for affordable homes in Breach Lane in 2008.  He had seen the survey but there was nothing within it that suggested a need for retirement housing in Lower Halstow and the information was out-of-date as it was prepared in 2008.

The Head of Planning stated that it was clear that the application was not in accordance with local planning policy.  If Members were minded to approve the application, then clear exceptional reasons would need to be given.  However, Members needed to be mindful that these reasons would set a precedent for other similar developments. 

Resolved:  That application 17/501505/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 – Land at Homestall Road, Newnham

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

• Item 5.2 – Land adj  1 Fairview Cottages, Frinstead Rd, Milstead

APPEAL ALLOWED

·        Item 5.3 – Hope Cottage, Oad Street, Borden

APPEAL ALLOWED

• Item 5.4 – Evaluna, Plumpudding Lane, Dargate

APPEAL DISMISSED