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 3 January 2018.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Mr Keith Covey, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Kingsley Hughes, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members raised points which included:  acknowledged that there was a huge demand for housing, but the proposed properties were positioned too close to each other in an area with both substantial dwellings and gardens; this was out of character with the area; overcrowding; the proposal caused demonstrable harm and impact on the character of the area; happy to support an appropriate development; Lynsted had a Design Statement and this should not be ignored; affordable housing was needed; there was a demand for housing, but it needed to be in the right place; increased traffic movements; this was not in the Local Plan; setting a precedent; this was unacceptable infill development; the site was not sustainable; pedestrians used the local roads, additional traffic would make this more dangerous; concerned with the mitigation measures for this size of development, outlined on page 9 of the report; replacing four houses with one was out of keeping with the area; there were no footpaths; clarification was needed on how close the proposed development was to the Conservation Area and the village boundary; this was a ‘dead-end’ so not likely to be a lot of pedestrians; needed to remember that this was an outline application, with only access details being sought on this application; three dwellings would be preferable to four; and there were enough housing sites in the Borough already.

In response to questions, the Area Planning Officer advised that the nearest shop was two miles away, and there was also a nearby school, pub and church; the site was within the built-up area and was not classed as being in the countryside or within the Conservation Area.  He explained that the development met guidelines within the Local Plan for this type of infill development.  This was a thriving community and it was sustainable.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the application was looking at the access element and the proposed layout had not needed to be on the application.  He explained that the views of the Committee, in terms of the amount of dwellings on the site, could be taken back to the developer.

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

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds that it was unacceptable with four houses, it was over-intensive for the village, it would constitute demonstrable harm to the character of the area and it was an inappropriate development for the area.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

On being put to the vote the motion for refusal was won.

Resolved:  That application 17/505194/OUT be refused on the grounds that it was unacceptable with four houses, it was over-intensive for the village, it would constitute demonstrable harm to the character of the area and it was an inappropriate development for the area. 

Miss Reay, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

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

Councillor Andy Booth (a Ward Member) proposed an amendment: That wording on condition (4) in the report be amended to read…..’no windows, roof windows, dormer windows, or doors shall be inserted or enlarged in the first floor of the extension hereby approved’. This was seconded by Councillor Nicholas Hampshire.

On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 17/505728/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report, with an amendment to the wording of condition (4) to include ‘or doors’, as above.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Teynham Parish Council had noted the amended drawings but had not changed their original concerns.

The Environmental Health Manager had no objection to the application and recommended conditions relating to construction hours, dust suppression and noise mitigation during construction as outlined in conditions (8) and (9) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer explained that a near exact scheme to this one had been approved in 2012.  The only change was the position of the car parking spaces for easier manoeuvring.

Mr Hari Johnston, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members welcomed the application.  In response to questions, the Area Planning Officer explained that the change in the position of the car parking spaces would not block the entrance to the flats.  He explained that the existing shop would be demolished, and a new one built, as in the application.

Resolved:  That application 17/504179/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (15) in the report.

The Senior Planner acknowledged the additional information which had been provided by the property owner, and had been circulated to Members.  The information included photographic surveys of the Village Hall car park, and a letter from the GP.  The proposed surgery was less than 200 metres from the car park, and the surgery would serve local residents in accordance with NHS recommended opening hours.

Parish Councillor Richard Palmer, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

Members raised points which included:  endorsed and welcomed this application; this was long overdue in Newington; this would decrease the pressure on GP surgeries in other villages; concerned that the space in front of the premises would be used as a car park unless there were restrictions; this was a dangerous part of the A2; and this was not increasing GP provision, as it was taking provision away from Kemsley.

In response to a question, the Senior Planner explained that Clinical Commissioning Groups were not a standard consultee.  He further advised that restrictions on parking on the shop frontage could be looked into further.

Resolved:  That application 17/504062/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to discussions with the Applicant in regard to potential parking restrictions being put in place on the shop frontage and to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that there were some discrepancies with the adjoining footpath in that what was on the ground was different to what was on the definitive map.  The definitive map indicated that footpath ZP533 went straight through the neighbouring bungalow.  There was also a footpath on the ground, but this was not shown on the definitive map.  The Area Planning Officer explained that this footpath needed to be extinguished and that a condition was not required, as the footpath could be extinguished by a separate process after the application had been approved.

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

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

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

The Chairman advised that one of the Ward Members raised no objection to the application.  The other Ward Member, who was a Member of the Planning Committee, did not object to the application but had concerns with the footpath issues.

Members raised concern with the land being purchased knowing that there was a footpath running over it, and the resulting complicated issues from that.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer advised that there was an opportunity for Members to feed into comments, if the footpath application went ahead, to the Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Officer, in the process of getting the footpath extinguished.

Resolved:  That application 17/504664/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Senior Planner reported that six additional letters of objection had been received, not all of which were material planning matters. 

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

A Ward Member stated that the Planning Committee had requested changes be made to the application, but there was no difference to this application.

Members raised points which included:  not happy to approve in its current state; there was a clear steer at the last meeting; the changes would not make a difference anyway, the screen did not need to be higher; was happy to approve it last time; and could accept screening with minimal gaps to address any concerns regarding wind resistance.

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

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds of its overlooking and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties leading to demonstrable harm to the residential amenity and quality of life for those residents.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Darby.

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

Resolved:  That application 17/505078/FULL be refused on the grounds of its overlooking and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties leading to demonstrable harm to the residential amenity and quality of life for those residents.

This item was considered in closed session.

PART 5

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

·                     Item 5.1 – Brook Hall House, Waterham Road, Hernhill

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                    Item 5.2 – Land on the west side of Spade Lane, Hartlip

Appeal A:      APP/V2255/C/16/3165246

Appeal B:      APP/V2255/C/16/3165247

Appeal C:      APP/V2255/C/16/3165248

Appeal D:      APP/V2255/C/16/3165249

Appeal E:      APP/V2255/C/16/3165250

Appeal F:      APP/V2255/C/16/3165251

Appeal G:      APP/V2255/C/16/3165252

Appeal H:      APP/V2255/C/16/3165253

Appeal I:        PP/V2255/W/16/3165245

Appeals A and B      ALLOWED – ENFORCEMENT NOTICE QUASHED

Appeals C to H         NO FURTHER ACTION - ENFORCEMENT NOTICE QUASHED

Appeal I                      APPEAL DISMISSED

·                     Item 5.3 – 100 Station Road, Teynham

APPEAL DISMISSED AND COSTS REFUSED

COMMITTEE REFUSAL – AGAINST OFFICER RECOMMENDATION