Agenda item

Planning Working Group

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 30 October 2017 (Minute Nos. to follow).

 

To consider applications:

 

17/502405/FULL – 5 Park Avenue, Sittingbourne, ME10 1QX

 

17/502909/OUT – 47 Brier Road, Borden, ME10 1YJ

 

Minutes:

 

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 30 October 2017 (Minute Nos. 303 – 305) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

 

17/502405/FULL – 5 Park Avenue, Sittingbourne, ME10 1QX

 

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

 

Following the site visit, Members raised points which included:  the new dwelling and garden would be very small; tandem parking would not work on this application and there would be two entrances out onto a narrow road; this was garden-grabbing; the application was too large for the site; the dwelling would be overbearing on the surrounding properties; although the proposed dwelling appeared to be ‘squeezed in’, the existing garden was long; the size of the garden for the new dwelling was adequate and met Swale Borough Council’s (SBC) requirements; did not consider the new dwelling was overbearing to other properties; and there had been no objections on planning grounds.

 

Resolved:  That application 17/502405/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (14) in the report.

 

17/502909/OUT – 47 Brier Road, Borden, ME10 1YJ

 

The Development Manager reported that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had advised that re-location of the lamppost would be through an application to them, and this would be at the applicant’s expense.  KCC Highways and Transportation had also requested an Informative on the highway issues at the site.

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application and made the following comments:  the site visit indicated that the proposal was unrealistic;  the entrance to the property was awkward; this was not a sensible location for a house; the new dwelling would overlook other properties, and would have a negative impact on No. 45; this was overdevelopment and it had an overbearing nature; and there were clear planning grounds to refuse the application.

 

A second Ward Member spoke against the application and made the following comments:  there was local discontent for the proposal; it would have a negative impact on parking in the area; the topography was unsuitable for the development; it would have a negative impact on nearby properties and the highway; this was an unsuitable location; and it was overbearing.

 

Members raised points which included:  did not consider it to be overbearing, as once the land had been cut into, this would lower the height of property; this was not a parking area, it was a turning circle; concerned with cutting into the earth, with the resulting potential flooding risk; and a condition could be implemented to address flooding issues.

 

In response to a question, the Development Manager advised that there was not a potential flooding risk from the proposed development, but a risk of water run-off.  He reminded Members that this was an outline application and advised that drainage issues could be addressed by way of an appropriate condition.

 

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

 

There was discussion on the valid reasons for refusing the application.

 

Councillor Nicholas Hampshire moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds that the sub-division of the plot was not in keeping with the surrounding area which was made up of large gardens, and it was unsympathetic and contrary to policies CP4 and DM14 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

 

On being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was won.

 

Resolved:  That application 17/502909/OUT be refused on the grounds that the sub-division of the plot was not in keeping with the surrounding area which was made up of large gardens, and it was unsympathetic and contrary to policies CP4 and DM14 of the Swale Borough Local Plan.