To consider the attached report (Parts 1, 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 13 September 2017.

Tabled paper for item 2.4 The Old School, Dunkirk was published on Friday 15 September 2017.

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

The Area Planning Officer explained that the recommendation was for a split decision with three of the signs being recommended for approval and the roof mounted sign being recommended for refusal.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for a split part approval and part refusal and this was seconded.

A Ward Member supported the officer recommendations and agreed that the roof mounted sign would have a detrimental impact.

Resolved:  That application 17/503041/ADV be part approved and part refused as follows:

Consent granted for 1 x internally illuminated wall-mounted sign; 1 x non-illuminated wall-mounted sign; and 1 x pole-mounted sign subject to conditions (1) to ( 10) in the report.

Consent refused for 1 roof-mounted sign for the reason set out in the Committee report.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

A Ward Member raised no objection. He raised concern that the Parish Council were not in attendance to support their reasons for refusing the application.

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer considered that two replacement trees were adequate.

Resolved:  That application 17/503438/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

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

A Member raised concern about possible damage during construction to the hedging between the boundary of the site and the public open space area.  He asked whether a condition could be imposed to protect the area.

The Area Planning Officer stated that it would not be possible to impose a condition requesting this.  Any harm caused to the hedging would be a private legal matter between the owner of the open space and the developer.

A Member raised concern that the Parish Council were not present to support their reasons for refusing the application.

Resolved: That application 17/503660/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

This application was withdrawn from the Agenda.

The Area Planning Officer referred to the statement received prior to the meeting from Dunkirk Parish Council raising objection to the application which had been tabled for Members.

The Chairman allowed a three minute recess for Members to read the document.

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

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

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth. 

Resolved:  That application 16/506316/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Area Planning Officer reported that, currently vehicles travelling along Rooks Lane towards the A2 had priority over those leaving it.  The matter of whether this could be reversed had been raised by local residents, and it had been suggested that this development should contribute towards the cost of doing so.  Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had advised that they did not consider the development proposed gave rise to a need to alter the priority of traffic in the road.  Nonetheless, if Members were minded to approve the scheme, condition (7) on page 50 of the Committee report, relating to the highway works shown on the drawings could be amended to include widening the highway and including a footpath.

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included: the highway proposals did not address the access issues; inappropriate site due to the access onto the A2; unsatisfactory proposal; was an unpleasant brownfield site in a pleasant area; thought all brownfield sites had been allocated in the Local Plan; if allowed would be setting a dangerous precedent; acknowledge that if approved there would be about 60 car movements per day at the site, but that was a lot less than the 100 plus car movements created by Keycol Hospital before it closed; this was a windfall site and should be approved; would improve the current poor state of the land; and it was a good use of the site.

A Member requested that the application be delegated to officers to discuss with the developer whether native species could be provided to protect the ecology of the area. 

In response to queries from Members, the Area Planning Officer reported that they could impose a condition requiring a landscaping scheme to be provided or the applicant could provide an amended landscaping scheme.  The site had not been discussed during consideration of the Swale Local Plan as it had an outstanding planning permission on the site, but that had now expired. 

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

Resolved:  That application 17/502156/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (21) in the report, amendments to condition (7) as minuted, and officers to liaise with the developer to ensure native planting was provided, or as an alternative, that a condition requiring a revised landscaping scheme be imposed.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer advised Members that the site location plan between pages 55 and 56 of the Committee report included land not within the application site, specifically the strip next to no. 8 The Tracies, he apologised for the error.

The Area Planning Officer clarified that in terms of the number of representations, 32 had been received, but all of those were from eight addresses, rather than 32 separate addresses.

The Area Planning Officer reported that he had discussed the application with Environmental Health, and they advised that four units would not give rise to a material increase to the volume or nature of traffic on the A2 or through the Newington Air Quality Management Area, and as such no air quality assessment was required and they raised no objection.  The Area Planning Officer further reported that he had not received comments from the KCC Ecologist, and if Members were minded to refuse the application, he sought delegation to determine the application in light of their comments once received.

Parish Councillor Sue Brewster, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mrs Pamela Nelson, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Darren Shaw, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members spoke against the application and made comments which included: a “ridiculous” site to put houses; the site was not included in Swale’s recently approved Local Plan so should be refused; was on best and most versatile (grade 1) agricultural land which, whilst a small area, could be used as a small holding; the owner of the land needed to recognize we do not want this land built-on; unfair of the agent to say that the Council had deliberately held back the application, they could have appealed if they had wanted to; Callaways Lane was an undesirable access; and this was not a good site for development.

Resolved:  That application 15/508683/OUT be refused for the reason outlined in the report.

PART 5

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

·                    Item 5.1 – Land onsouthsideof Hall House, Tunstall

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member considered that the appeal had only been dismissed due to the diligence of officers in visiting the site and keeping good notes of the activities on the site.

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

·                    Item 5.2 – Unit 5, OakwoodFarm, Ruins Barn Road,Tunstall

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.3 – 2Woodstock Cottages, BroadOak Road, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.4 – 13 Wises Lane, Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

·                    Item 5.5 – Costs application in relation toAppeal Ref: APP/V2255/C/16/3163374 Landat HolywellLane,Upchurch,Kent

COSTS REFUSED

·                    Item 5.6 – LANDAT NEW RIDESFARM, LEYSDOWN ROAD, EASTCHURCH

APPEAL ALLOWED

A Member raised concern that the decision had caused grave concerns within the parish of Eastchurch.  He considered that the Inspector had let the Council and the local community down by allowing the application.

·                    Item 5.7 – Excelsior House,Ufton Lane,Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED AND COSTS REFUSED

A Member welcomed the comments made by the Inspector that “the Council was not bound by the view of Kent County Council ….” in paragraph four of the costs decision.

·                    Item 5.8 – Courtenay House,London Road, Dunkirk

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.9 – New Orchard Farm,Upper Road,Rodmersham

APPEAL DISMISSED