To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 October 2014 (Minute Nos. 280 - 286) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 October 2014 (Minute Nos. 280 – 286) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 21 October 2014 (Minute Nos. to follow).

SW/14/501632 (2.2) – Land between 25-27 Wells Way, Faversham ME13 7QP

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 21 October 2014 (Minute Nos. 292 – 293) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

SW/14/501632 (2.2) – Land between 25 – 27 Wells Way, Faversham

The Planner brought Members’ attention to the tabled paper outlining issues raised by an objector at the meeting.  He advised that there had been a further email from objectors, raising concern with setting of precedent of loss of open spaces which were defined within the National Planning Policy Framework.

A Ward Member spoke against the proposal.  He explained that the openness of the estate was part of the original good design and the proposed bungalow would damage the visual and residential amenity of residents.  He further explained that the land was not left over land, but an integral part of the design, with no garden fences or walls.  There were 26 grassed areas in total within the estate, and he had concerns that the proposal would set a precedent.  The Ward Member explained that the current properties were set back from the pavement by 20 feet; the proposed bungalow would be four feet from the pavement.  The green spaces provided recreation space and the openness enabled visibility to vehicles.  He referred to the new Local Plan, to be adopted in December 2014 and he outlined areas within the Plan which he stated would provide further substance for not approving the proposal.  He considered there were reasons in both the old Plan and the new Plan to retain the estate as it was.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion for refusal on the grounds of the harm to residential amenity in respect of loss of open land, loss of recreational area, loss of general amenity of open space, and loss of amenity of an excellent design, and the potential for overlooking/overshadowing.  This was seconded by Councillor Bryan Mulhern.

Members made the following comments:  precedent would be set for encroaching onto green spaces; the estate was nicely laid out; the ‘infill’ of the bungalow would have a tremendous impact in the near vicinity and the estate as a whole; makes a nonsense of the original design; the estate was in a good condition and residents were proud of it as it was and the proposal was unacceptable to the residents.

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

Resolved:  That application SW/501632 on the refusal on the grounds of harm to residential amenity in respect of loss of open land, loss of recreational area, and loss of amenity of an excellent design, and the potential for overlooking/overshadowing.

To consider the following application:

SW/ 14/0399 - Old Sittingbourne Mill and Wharf (Morrisons)

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the application will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 29 October 2014.

The Major Projects Officer referred to paragraphs 9.05 and 9.09.  He explained that the affordable housing percentage figures had been amended to reflect the change in the mix of tenures, to affordable rent and intermediate.  This resulted in five affordable housing dwellings being proposed, which was 3.33% of the total, not 7.5% as set out in the report.

A Ward Member considered that the linear park (paragraph 9.08) must be completed before the housing commenced.

Another Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee, raised the following points:  the situation had been going on for two years now, there needed  to be a resolution; there were problems with dust/litter and flooding; the revised Section 106 agreement paid little heed to the local residents; SBC had reputation for being a ‘soft touch’ in terms of negotiation on affordable housing figures; and accepted some of the developer contributions being offered in paragraph 9.03, but not all of it.

Councillor Ghlin Whelan moved a motion that the suggested phasing should not be accepted; tree planting and green spaces should be at the top of the list, landscaping should commence in the early phase, i.e. before the occupation of the housing, to allow buffer zone to get established; car parking plan should be implemented before the housing phase commenced; accept education phased payments; the heritage centre should be a commitment from the start as it was an integral part of the original application; accept the 7.5% affordable housing, the 70/30 split on affordable housing/shared ownership, the monitoring fee, and the payment offer for wheelie bins; and delivery of the linear park should not be delayed.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

In response to a question regarding the phasing, the Major Projects Officer considered the offer from the developer was reasonable, and it had been endorsed by the Council’s viability consultant.  Further alterations would have implications on costs and viability.  With regard to the linear park being implemented prior to the housing, he explained that there was a condition which addressed this already.  He advised that it was not possible to materially alter some of the other aspects set out in the report.

Members made the following comments:  we owe it to residents to get this resolved; this needs to be revised; appalled by reduction in provision of affordable housing, difficult to believe that developer could not provide more; land needs to be developed as soon as possible; earlier provision of the car park management plan would not make a difference to costs; and provision of the linear park was critical.

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer advised that the reduction in profit margin from 20% to 15% for the developer was on the gross development value, i.e. the sales margin, rather that on capital returns.  He advised that the car park management plan phasing could be looked into further.  In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer advised that an earlier challenge had not been made to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 321.

To consider the attached report (Sections 2, 3 and 4).

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 29 October 2014.

PART 2 – Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended.

The Planning Officer reported that English Heritage (EH) had objected to the original siting of the shed, polytunnel and potting shed on the northwest corner of the site, due to the impact on the scheduled monument.  The Agent had consequently submitted amended plans which changed the siting from the north west corner to the eastern corner, alongside the road.  EH preferred the amended layout and no longer objected to the proposal.

Kent County Council (KCC) Highways raised no objection to the revised layout.

The Planning Officer sought delegation to approve subject to an amendment to condition (8) in the report to read ‘The office building shall be re-positioned to the south-eastern corner of the site within three months of this decision’.

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

Mr Burke, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application; he considered the proposal to be too large being next to a heritage site.

The Planning Officer reported that EH had considered the proposal would have limited impact on the scheduled monument and that they would monitor the site.

Resolved: That application SW/14/0204 be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report, to include amended wording to condition (8) to read ‘The office building shall be re-positioned to the south-eastern corner of the site within three months of this decision’.

Members made comments which included:  disappointed with the proposal in relation to the work that had been undertaken at the facility; provided no benefit to the site; ten years was a long period of time for ‘temporary’ permission; there should be permanent buildings on the site, not temporary; alter the condition so that it stated that a permanent building be provided within ten years; and not in favour of any renewal permissions that may be requested.

The Area Planning Officer advised that it was not possible to request that a permanent building was to be provided within a condition.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum: ‘That a seven-year temporary permission be approved, with the intention that this would not be renewed’.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

The Area Planning Officer suggested that a letter be written to the Applicant, stressing preference for permanent buildings on the site.  He added that any application for renewal of permission had to be treated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 322.