To consider the attached report (Parts 2 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 16 August 2017.

Tabled papers for Items 2.3 and 2.4 uploaded Friday 18 August 2017.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Mrs Rebecca Foad, 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: disappointed that the Parish Council were not present to explain their objections to the application; there were parking problems in the locality but the property’s garage could not be used as a garage, so seemed common sense to allow for living accommodation; would not lead to an increase in noise levels; and was wholly acceptable.

Resolved:  That application 17/503447/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

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

A Ward Member raised no objection.

Resolved: That application 17/502743/FULL be approved.

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled update which had previously been emailed to Members. 

The Chairman, also a Ward Member, raised concern about the dilapidated state of the site and the access from Union Street.

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

Resolved:  That application 17/501755/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled paper, which had previously been emailed to Members, and which included responses from the Environmental Protection Team Leader (EPTL), the Kent County Council (KCC) Public Rights of Way Officer (PROW), the KCC Principal Archaeological Officer, KCC Minerals Planning, and the Housing Services Manager and Highways England (HE).  The paper also made reference to an additional highway condition, the adoption of the open spaces on the site by the Council, and two corrections to the submitted report.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the Council’s Green Spaces Officer had requested a ten-year commuted sum of £37,292 developer contribution for maintenance of the greenspace on the site.

Parish Councillor Clive Simms, representing Borden Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mrs Patricia Knott, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Mr David Williams, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Chairman asked Members if they had any questions.

In response to queries from Ward Members, the Major Projects Officer explained that the existing location of the footpath was a suggested route to show one way that the proposed 50 dwellings could be provided.  The current layout plan was an illustration and Members should note the application was still at outline stage.  At the reserved matters stage Members would be able to ensure the footpath was properly integrated into the estate.  The Major Projects Officer explained that it was not practicable or appropriate to include full responses from all consultees within the Committee report, but he and the Case Officer had made an honest attempt to include the main points raised by HE.  He stated that HE had no fundamental objections to the proposal but wanted to understand how the developer contribution of £51,000 would work with other developer contributions to fund improvement works at Key Street.  He advised that he believed that officers could work together with HE to resolve these issues and ensure that the highway improvements were provided.  With regard to air quality concerns, the Major Projects Officer explained that whilst close to the A249, the site was not within an Air Quality Management Area so no modelling of air quality had been carried out. 

The Major Projects Officer referred to conditions (23) and (24) in the Committee report which related to restrictions on demolition and construction times at the site, and a programme of dust suppression and were requested by the EPTL.  The vehicular access required the provision of a gap in the existing landscaping and would be set well away from the bend in the road.

In response to queries from Members, the Major Projects Officer advised that there was the option for the open space to be maintained by a management company, as an alternative to adoption by the Council.  The affordable housing rate for Sittingbourne was 10% so the maximum of five units being provided was correct.  The Major Projects Officer explained that the parking provided was on the indicative layout to demonstrate how 50; units could be provided on the site, but was not for approval under the current application.

Ward Members spoke against the application and raised comments which included: the Council’s Local Plan recommended a minimum of 30 units and the developer was requesting up-to 50; an increase of 66%, does this mean the Local Plan was not worth the paper it was written on; this was not a suitable site; access onto Chestnut Street was completely inappropriate, it was often blocked on one side by parked vehicles which offered poor visibility so access onto it was not suitable; concern that the most pertinent points raised by HE were not included in the Committee report; how could the relevant mitigation measures be provided if the application was rushed through; it had not been proved that there would be no impact on air pollution; 50 units was far in excess of what was considered appropriate at the Public Examination of the Local Plan; was an isolated site; was a rural site so the affordable housing level should be 40%; concerns that if the footpath moved to the back of houses to the rear of Pine Lodge Care Centre, their security could be compromised and hoped that they would be consulted first; need to consider flood risks from the stream located under Key Street; and we have not received a response from KCC about brick earth and would be concerned about making a decision until this had been resolved.

Members raised points which included: The Council’s Local Plan had approved a minimum of 30 units, for the developer to request 50 units was a serious issue and we should not allow; clear objections from HE; the developer should be made aware that the suggested arrangements for the PROWs were unacceptable and that we would require a high quality landscape scheme if approved; the developer should be asked to provide a study on air quality; the site was not in Sittingbourne so the affordable housing rate of 10% did not apply; the increase in vehicle movements if approved would have a considerable impact on air quality; and appropriate mitigation measures were required following the realignment of the footpaths.

The Major Projects Officer noted concerns that the number of units was increased to 50, however the density would be 25 units per hectare which was still low compared to other developments in Swale and offered good space for soft landscaping to mitigate landscape and residential amenity impacts.  A condition could be imposed to ensure a buffer could be provided between the development and the gardens of existing dwellings.

The Development Manager suggested that as there were a number of items and information not provided, Members may want to defer the application.  This was agreed by Members.

A Member requested that this information included comments raised by Members, in relation to the increase to 50 units.

Resolved:  That application 17/500727/OUT be deferred to allow information on outstanding issues to be provided.

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

Resolved:  That application 17/503326/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – 15 Pearl Walk, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.2 – 25 Meadow Rise, Iwade

APPEAL DISMISSED