To consider the attached report (Parts 2 and 3).

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 8 November 2017.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reported that there was an error in the description of the application on page 1 of the report.  It should have included retrospective planning permission for the conversion of the garage.  He advised that neighbours had been re-consulted on this basis.  Minster Parish Council objected to the application as set out in the report.

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

Mr Steven Moon, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the fact that part of the application was retrospective.  He acknowledged the comments in paragraph 8.04 of the report, and supported the application.

Resolved: That application 17/502419/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The two applications were considered at the same time.

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

Mr Kapoor, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member explained that he had previously had concerns with parking provision on the application site.  Following the statement from the applicant, he supported the application.

Members raised points which included:  concerned that the listed building had not been sympathetically updated in the past; welcomed the re-development and the potential to smarten up that part of the street; this gave the building a new lease of life; it would provide homes; needed to realise that parking was sometimes not practical; the building should be de-listed; and concerned with parking, but it did meet the County parking standards.

A Member stated that the sentence in paragraph 8.10 should read: ‘…unrealistic to remove this element….’.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer advised that previous works on the building had been done over a period of time, prior to the current applicant’s ownership.  He considered that in terms of the building being listed, its value was minimal.  It would be unfair to serve an Enforcement Notice on the current owner, and impossible to get evidence for a prosecution on the previous owner(s).  However, he advised that over-time the building could be improved, and this application facilitated a small start to the improvement.

Resolved:  That application 17/503778/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

Resolved:  That application 17/503779/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Chairman reported that a long document had been sent to Members and this had been considered by the Planning Lawyer as lobbying, about which there was no guidance in the Constitution.  It was suggested by the Chairman that Members should not consider the content of the document, which had been circulated very late, and had not been copied to Planning Officers. 

The Area Planning Officer reported that there was an error on the Planning History, noted on page 16 of the report.  It stated that application 16/502762 was refused, but it had been withdrawn, with the reasons for refusal being included if an application had have been made.  The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that this was not an application for planning permission, but an application for a determination as to whether prior approval from the Council was required for the use of the buildings as dwellings, similar to a reserved matters application.  The principle of the use was granted by the General Permitted Development Order, subject to specific details to be scrutinised by the Council. Members could only consider transport and highways impacts, noise impacts, contamination risks on the site, flood risks on the site, whether the location or siting of the building made it otherwise impractical or undesirable for it to be used for residential purposes, and the design and external appearance of the buildings.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the contamination risks on the site would be addressed by a proposed condition.  KCC Highways and Transportation had no objection to the application.  There would be no significant noise impact, the site did not lie in an area at risk of flooding, and the design and external appearance of the alterations to the buildings were acceptable.  He advised that there was no significant evidence as to whether the location of the site made it impractical or undesirable, as set out in the report.  As such, the Area Planning Officer considered that Members had very limited opportunity to determine that prior approval should be refused.  He further advised that the application could not be deferred or considered by the Planning Working Group.  The deadline for a decision was 27 November 2017, and if a decision was not reached by then, the application was deemed to have been approved.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Hartlip Parish Council had withdrawn their objection, and a Ward Member had also withdrawn his request for the item to be considered by the Planning Committee.  KCC Highways and Transportation advised that they stood by their comments on the previous application as set out in paragraph 7.02 on page 22 of the report.

The Area Planning Officer acknowledged that Members had received a long additional document from a Ward Member, who was also a near neighbour, to the application site.  He outlined some of the points that had been made by the Ward Member:  the proposal would harm highway safety and convenience, including details of visibility splays; refuse collection queries; the width of the access track; the site formed part of an agricultural tenancy; and there was an adjacent equestrian use.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the majority of the issues raised were dealt with in the KCC Highways and Transportation comments at paragraph 7.02 on page 22 of the report.  The bend of the road was in favour of the site; the level of traffic expected from the three additional dwellings would not be significantly worse than if the site was put to its lawful agricultural use; the length of the track, together with the level of activity expected meant that it was unlikely that two vehicles would meet precisely at the access point; and there was not an issue of highway safety when vehicles met along the length of the access track.

The Area Planning Officer further advised that refuse collection was not an issue of highway safety, and the fact that the site and access track was in close proximity to an equestrian facility was not relevant to the determination of the scheme.  The applicants had provided details to confirm that the application site was not the subject of an agricultural tenancy.  The owners of the buildings in the application had the right to use the access track as recorded by the Land Registry.

The Area Planning Officer concluded by stating that there was nothing in the additional paperwork which amounted to a reason to determine that prior approval should be refused.

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

Mr John Burke, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Mark Hall, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

In response to highways issues raised by the objector, the Area Planning Officer referred again to the comments made by KCC Highways and Transportation in paragraph 7.02 of the report.  He advised that regulations stated that the Council could require information from the applicant that was ‘reasonably required to determine the application’.  He explained that detailed highway access, impact and risk information had not been requested as KCC Highways and Transportation had advised that these aspects were acceptable, i.e. it was not reasonable to request this information.  A request to widen the track could not be implemented as the access track was outside the control of the applicants.

The Chairman stated, following discussions with the Planning Lawyer regarding the procedures set out in the Constitution, that it was his intention that there would be no discussion and he would move the item straight to the vote.

Resolved:  That prior approval is required and is granted under reference 17/504563/PNQCLA subject to condition (1) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that this application was in response to an appeal against non-determination and Members needed to determine what decision they would have made had the appeal not been submitted.

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

A Ward Member supported the officer recommendation, and considered the whole of the Isle of Sheppey was at risk from flooding.

Members raised points which included: this was over intensification and overdevelopment of the site.

Resolved:  That had an appeal against non-determination not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate application 16/505002/FULL would have been refused for the reason stated in the report.

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

Parish Councillor John Stanford, representing Minster Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  He raised the following points:  the proposed building was not much bigger than the existing one; it was not possible to make the main house invalid-friendly; this would not have a negative impact on the public view of the building; and it would not have an effect on the local area.

Members raised points which included:  this was not visible from the road; ‘replacement’ was the important word on the application; the applicant could not adapt the main house; not much different to what was on the site already; the annex was not overbearing; understood the issue of annex/separate dwelling; a condition could be added that it remained as an annex to the main house; this appeared to be a separate dwelling; if it was a separate dwelling there would be more conditions; inconsistency with paragraphs 8.02, 8.03, 8.04, 8.05 and 8.07 in the report; and this could be converted into a separate dwelling.

In response to the comments, the Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the Planning History on page 34 of the report.  He explained that there was not an issue of inconsistency.   There had not been an application for the conservatory on the site, it had possibly been built under permitted development rights, unlike the annex which required planning permission.  Paragraphs 8 etc above dealt with separate, not comparative issues.  Any conversion of the annex to a separate dwelling would require an application for change of use, and it would need its own private amenities, and be 21 metres from the main dwelling, and as such did not meet the standards of a residential dwelling.  He added that there were concerns with the level of facilities in the proposed annex, which officers considered excessive for ancillary accommodation.

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

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion:  That the application be approved subject to the standard conditions that were normally applied.  This was seconded by Councillor Ken Ingleton.  After further discussion, the Proposer and Seconder agreed to add ‘to include a standard condition to require the annex to remain as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling, and not lived in as a separate dwelling’.  In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer stated that it was more difficult to make the permission a personal permission.

Resolved:  That application 17/504171/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to the standard conditions that are normally applied, including a condition to require the annex to remain as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling, and not lived in as a separate dwelling.

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

One Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  He explained that it met the tests on policy, except that it had not been properly marketed.  The other Ward Member explained that he would support the application if the marketing evidence did not support its use.  In the absence of that evidence, he stated that he would vote against the current application, in accordance with policy.

Members raised points which included:  it met the tests in the Local Plan this site was not going to be rented out as industrial/commercial use; and it was a sensible location for housing.

In response to comments, the Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 8.01 – 8.05 in the report which indicated that evidence was not there to show that the site had been marketed adequately.

Resolved:  That application 16/508521/FULL be refused for the reason stated in the report.