sw/11/1413 (2.8) - the three palms, greyhound road, minster

sw/12/1414 (2.9) - the pear tree, greyhound road, minster

sw/11/1415 (2.10) - blackthorn lodge, greyhound road, minster

sw/11/1430 (2.11) - the hawthorns, greyhound road, minster

sw/11/0420 (2.17) - ivy gate, greyhound road, minster

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mark Ellen, June Garrad, Mike Henderson, Roger Truelove and Ghlin Whelan.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Richard Allen, Rob Bailey and Kellie Mackenzie.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr John Stanford and Mr Peter Jenkins (Brambledown Residents' Association), Mr Peter MacDonald and Mad Mike Young (Minster Parish Council), Richard Darby (observer), Mr John Burke (observer, representing Gordon Henderson Member of Parliament's (MP) Office), Mr Noden, Mr and Mrs Leggett (local residents) and Mrs Brazil (applicant).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Mick Constable, Pat Sandle, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.

sw/11/1444 (2.18) - moor organics, nichol farm, deerton street, teynham, nr sittingbourne

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bobbin, Andy Booth, Mark Ellen, June Garrad, Mike Henderson, Roger Truelove and Ghlin Whelan.

OFFICERS PRESENT: David Ledger, Kellie Mackenzie and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr R Castle and Mr K Castle (Supporters), Mr Holmes-Ling (Agent), Mrs Osmer, Mrs Taylor, Mr and Mrs Rubinstein, Mrs Watkins, Mr and Mrs De Wall, Mrs Watkins, Mr and Mrs Whittaker, Mr and Mrs Siminson, Mr and Mrs Finch, Mr and Mrs Mannering, Miss Mannering, R G Stevens, Mrs Saward, Mrs Boulter, Ms Hogben, L West, Mr Beach, Mr and Mrs Gooderham, Mrs Saffrey, Mr and Mrs Jennings, Helen Hatswell, Anna Bock, Miss Butt, Mrs Butt, J Norton, Mr Steel, S Butt, Mrs Gavenhill, Mr Burgess and Miss Bonds (local residents, all in objection), Councillor Lloyd Bowen (Ward Member), Mrs K Prescott (Lynsted and Kingsdown Parish Council), Mr Brian Sharman, Chris McIlroy and Mr Thorpe (Teynham Parish Council), Mr John Burke (observer, representing Gordon Henderson MP's Office) and Mr Richard Darby (observer).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Mick Constable, Pat Sandle, Alan Willicombe and Jean Willicombe.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

sites listed below

SW/11/1413 (2.8) - THE THREE PALMS, GREYHOUND ROAD, MINSTER, SW/12/1414 (2.9) - THE PEAR TREE, GREYHOUND ROAD, MINSTER,
SW/11/1415 (2.10) - BLACKTHORN LODGE, GREYHOUND ROAD, MINSTER
SW/11/1430 (2.11) - THE HAWTHORNS, GREYHOUND ROAD, MINSTER
SW/11/0420 (2.17) - IVY GATE, GREYHOUND ROAD, MINSTER

The Chairman advised that applications 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11 and 2.17 would be considered together given the similarity of the proposals.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the proposals which were for five separate retrospective applications for varying numbers of residential caravans at Blackburn Lodge, Pear Tree, Three Palms, Ivy Gate and Hawthorns, all in Greyhound Road, Minster.

The Area Planning Officer stated that the sites were in an unsustainable location and therefore not suitable for permanent permission. However, under the new Government policy - Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, Swale Borough Council (SBC) needed to provide a rolling five-year supply of available and appropriate sites. He advised that there was no prospect of the Council being able to do so in the short-term, and therefore the Council would be unable to provide alternative sites for the applicants to relocate to, should permission be refused. He considered therefore that a temporary permission of four years should be granted.

Mr MacDonald (Minster Parish Council), raised objection to the applications. He reminded Members that there had been numerous applications for caravans and permanent dwellings in Greyhound Road over the years, all of which had been refused as the proposals went against the planning policies of SBC.

Mr MacDonald considered that approving the applications, just because they could not be defended on appeal, was not a good enough reason. He stated Government requirements for gypsy sites stated that they should not be overbearing or dominate the local settlement community, but these proposals clearly did. He stated that the proposals should be refused as they were not supported by the local community, failed to meet the policies set by SBC and the sites were in an unsustainable location.

Mr Stanford (Brambledown Residents' Association), raised objection to the applications. He stated that the policies set by Swale Borough Council to protect the local countryside were still in force and should be adhered to. Mr Stanford raised concern that since the applicants had encroached on the land no enforcement action had been taken against them. He added that Greyhound Road had previously been ruled out of the Small Gypsy Sites Initiative as it was in an unsustainable location. He further added that local residents were not against gypsies, and had supported a smaller gypsy application nearby, however they could not support these sites due to their size and spread which was dominating the local community instead of integrating with it.

Local residents raised the following concerns: there were now more caravans in Greyhound Road, than properties in Elmley Road; the definition of encampment was transitory, but these caravans, outbuildings and hardstandings would be permanent; infringed on the settled community and if the settled community did the same, they would be prosecuted.

In response to queries the Area Planning Officer stated that the proposal was not in a flood risk area or within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). He also advised that aside from the bus stop, local amenities were more than 2 kilometres away.

Members then toured all five sites with Officers.

sw/11/1444 (2.18) - moor organics, nichol farm, deerton street, teynham

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for the erection of one 1.55 kw wind turbine at Nichols Farm. The turbine would supply electricity to farm buildings. The proposal was almost 50 metres tall and would be approximately 500 metres from farm buildings, the nearest residential property would be old Nichol Farmhouse owned by Mr and Mrs Taylor.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the applicant's report about the effects the proposals was likely to have on the SSSI considered that no significant impact was likely. The Area Planning Officer stated that the site was within an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV), and explained that this was a local designation, not a national one.

The Area Planning Officer further reported that Teynham Parish Council, Natural England, Kent Highway Services and Kent County Council's (KCC) County Archaeological Officer raised no objection. The Head of Service Delivery also raised no objection, subject to conditions to control noise during construction and operation.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England (Protect Kent) (CPRE) raised objection to the proposal and considered the key issue was the balance between likely damage to visual amenity and the reduction in fossil fuels.

The Area Planning Officer stated that in addition to the thirty four letters of objection noted in the report several others had been now been received raising concerns which included: concerns about impact on the local landscape; would dominate the Marshes at Luddenham and Saxon Shore Way; modelling could only look at scenarios; solar panels would be better; issues from shadow flicker; detrimental effect on St Mary's church; danger of blades falling; contravenes local policy; must be alternatives; applicants wind plan was not efficient; risk to birds and bats from flying into blades; would be tallest structure in the vicinity and no pre-application consultation with residents.

The Area Planning Officer further stated that nine letters of support had been received raising comments which included: have an obligation to reduce carbon dioxide and would be not be any different than a traditional windmill.

The Area Planning Officer explained that the National Planning Policy Framework had been published in March 2012 so the previous planning policy statements and guidance should be disregarded. The new guidance stated that local authorities should consider the local benefits when considering such applications.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Swale's Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal Supplementary Planning Document concluded that the area was a "moderately sensitive landscape", and that pylons and higher ground could be viewed from marshland. He further reported that Swale's Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development Study had concluded that the potential for renewable energy within Swale was extensive and supported ambitions for 30 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and that in addition Swale had signed up to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change.

The Area Planning Officer concluded that a balance of needs versus harm to the landscape and noise issues was needed. The site was not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or SSSI and policies in the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 did not preclude such development in the location. He did not consider that the proposal would result in significant harm to the area.

Mr Holmes-Ling (Agent), explained that they had carried out a lot of studies and noise surveys to ensure the best location for the turbine. He invited residents to visit a similar proposal which had been permitted at Forresters Lodge, Dunkirk. Mr Holmes-Ling explained that it was a relatively small turbine which would assist Nichols Farm in becoming sustainable and support it's production of organic fruit juice. He explained that the solar panel option had not been taken as it would not generate the amount of electricity needed.

Mr Sharman (Teynham Parish Council) stated that they raised no objection but were aware of the concern it was causing local residents. They were concerned that it may set a precedent, and considered solar panels would be a better option but appreciated that it would be difficult to achieve the necessary levels of electricity with that method. They also considered it may be intrusive but accepted it had to be on higher ground in order to generate enough power.

A Ward Member noted the depth of local concerns and raised concern that the proposal would dominate the area and have a detrimental impact on the local landscape.

Mr Blandon (CPRE (Protect Kent)) spoke against the proposal. He explained that they recognised the local landscape was manmade but had issues with the proposed turbine. They considered that the benefits of the proposal did not appear to outweigh the damage that it would have on the local landscape area and could not support the proposal.

Mrs Kay Mannering, spoke on behalf of many local residents. She raised the following concerns: there had been a substantial shortfall in the assessments undertaken for the proposal; the impact that the turbine would have on the surrounding area had been grossly under-estimated without being challenged by planning officers; a full public consultation was needed; if approved, residents would formally challenge the application; due to the quantity and complexity of the proposal would ask that no decision was made until we have had further time to complete a more detailed submission; should refuse the proposal on grounds that due process had not been complied with and went against local plan policies; wind speed measurement taken at Mockbeggar Farm showed actual wind speeds at 4.5 m/s below those recorded on the national data base at 6.1 m/s; has been widely proven that wind turbines were the least efficient form of renewable energy and cost between three and nine times the amount of conventional energy; had the agent obtained actual field results, the Planning Committee should insist that actual field trials were conducted; query the applicants assessment about the impact from construction vehicles and asked that a further carbon footprint assessment be undertaken as there was concern that local roads would be damaged by HGVs; seek assurances that no further pylons would be required in the vicinity; The Design and Access Statement showed access via an adjacent residents property; the proposal would only benefit one person; component angle/bearings and the sun elevation details over a 12 month period should be provided to residents so they can understand the impact shadow flicker may have on adjacent properties; Ramblers Association need time to assess the impact the proposal would have on the safety of people using the footpath; a Grade I church would be adversely affected by the proposal and SBC's Conservation Officer does not appear to have been consulted; would have detrimental impact on bats, badgers and birds; CPRE object but the officer report implies they support the application; outlined a recent case at Hemsby where plans for wind turbines were rejected as they could harm the character and appearance of the area; no watching brief to comply with the local plan has been supplied and the blade tip measurements supplied to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were incorrect, and they need to be re-consulted to ensure no unsafe situations arise from MoD aircraft using the air space.

In response to a request from the Chairman, Mrs Mannering agreed to forward the full statement of objections to Members of the Planning Committee.

Other local residents raised the following further concerns: anger that many residents that would be directly and adversely affected by the proposal had not been consulted by SBC; benefits of wind turbines were not clear; who would be funding the proposal; Committee report was biased towards the applicant; would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of residents in Deerton Street; would be visible through gaps in local hedgerows; many inaccuracies contained within the applicant's statement about the size of the wind turbine; trees would not screen the turbine during the winter months due to no foliage; applicants had not carried out noise/visual assessments from the Old Nichol Farmhouse which was the closest dwelling to the proposal; would have an adverse impact on local wildlife; would set a precedent; would have an adverse impact on views from the north Kent marshes; need for the proposal had not been demonstrated by the applicant, only that they wanted the turbine; wind turbine was purely a money-making exercise and would encourage other local farmers to do the same; local residents do not want the proposal; wind turbines were not sustainable and had been shown not to generate enough electricity; risk assessment to Health and Safety Executive standard on shadow flickering and the effects it would have on illnesses such as epilepsy was needed; local residents had been fair to the farmer over Heavy Goods Vehicles accessing the site so the farmer should be fair to local residents; disappointment that Teynham Parish Council raised no objection and approximately 38 local residents had attended the site meeting demonstrating the level of concern local residents had about the proposal.

Members then viewed the site with Officers and also viewed the site from properties in Deerton Street, Luddenham, Teynham Street and Conyer Road.