To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 30 October 2014 (Minute Nos. 318 - 322) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 30 October 2014 (Minute Nos. 318 – 322) 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.

Councillor Ted Wilcox declared an interest in items 2.1 (Hand Car Wash, Standard Quay, Faversham) and 2.3 (Land east of Love Lane, Faversham) as he had already spoken and voted on these matters at Faversham Town Council.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 November 2014 (Minute Nos. to follow).

SW/14/0516 (2.7) – Land adj. Cedar Lodge, Whybornes Chase, Minster, Sheerness, ME12 2HZ

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 November 2014 (Minute Nos. 334 – 335) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

SW/14/0516 (2.7) – Land adj. Cedar Lodge, Whybornes Chase, Minster, Sheerness

The Senior Planner advised that two further letters of objection had been received which raised issues already noted in the report.  She also advised that the Agent had submitted two additional drawings which showed a block plan and street elevation of the proposed semi-detached houses, together with the detached house, which had already been approved.

In response to a question raised at the Planning Working Group Meeting, the Senior Planner advised that the breakdown of properties along Whybornes Chase between Queenborough Drive and Wards Hill, were 10 detached houses; eight detached bungalows; five detached chalet bungalows; and two semi-detached houses.  The Senior Planner further advised that condition (4) in the report needed to be amended to include indigenous species in the landscaping scheme.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

A Ward Member explained that he had no objection to the detached house that had been approved, but raised concern with the overall scale of the two proposed semi-detached houses.  He stated that generally houses along Whybornes Chase had a reasonable gap between them and these were too close to adjoining properties; there were detached houses in the vicinity and the road narrowed at this point.  The Ward Member suggested the proposal was too large in scale for the plot; was not in-keeping with the street scene; it was completely out of character and design; and a bungalow/chalet bungalow would be more appropriate.

On being put to the vote the motion for approval was lost.

Councillor Andy Booth moved a motion for refusal on the grounds of the proposal being too large in scale; overintensification; and not in-keeping with the street scene.  This was seconded by Councillor Adrian Crowther.

Members made the following comments:  do not agree with refusal, proposal was only two storeys and did not overlook; no overshadowing; there was space between proposal and neighbouring properties; no grounds to refuse; the street had a mix of dwelling types;  the proposal was overintensive; and it would have an adverse affect on residential amenity.

The Head of Planning advised that the proposal would not affect residential amenity.

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

Resolved:  That application SW/14/0516 be refused on the grounds of it being too large in scale; being too close to the boundaries of the plot; and not in-keeping with the street scene.

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 19 November 2014.

Tabled Paper added 28 November 2014.

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

The Senior Planner reported that the Applicant had submitted a phasing plan which showed the phasing for the construction of the housing development.  She explained that the linear park could not be implemented as one operation as there needed to be access to that area for drainage work throughout the construction phases.  A base for the linear park could be started, but would not be able to be completed until the housing was completed.  The Senior Planner drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper which set out the recommendations, with Option A in each case being the officer recommendation.

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

The Chairman moved the recommendations in turn and these were seconded.  Members were invited to comment on each recommendation.

9.01- that the phasing should be altered in line with the applicant’s request:

Phase A – residential units

Phase B – Mill site public realm

Phase C – Leisure building and Waterside Park

Phase D - Museum and Heritage Building

A Ward Member acknowledged the reasons for the linear park’s delay in completion, but considered that most of the linear park could be put in place before the last house was constructed and that work on the linear park should start before the final house was completed.  He considered that as it had been stated that available funding for the museum and heritage building was highly unlikely, that this was a ‘non-starter’ and he considered the leisure building should be an assured part of the process, not ‘quite possible’ as noted in the report.

Members stressed the need to complete the development as soon as possible.

On being put to the vote the recommendation was agreed.

9.02 - that the Council accepts a phased payment of the education contributions; 50% prior to occupation of 25% of the dwellings and the remaining 50% prior to occupation of 75% of the dwellings.

In response to a question, the Senior Planner confirmed that the recommendation was within the Planning Committee’s remit.

On being put to the vote the recommendation was agreed.

9.03 – Either:

Option A: that there should be a review of the Viability Appraisal  prior to the occupation of the final dwelling to be occupied on site and any additional profit should be used to fund a commuted payment for additional affordable housing to be provided off-site.

OR

Option B: that there should be a review of the Viability Appraisal  prior to the occupation of the final dwelling to be occupied on site and any additional profit should be used to fund all or part of the Heritage Initiatives Contribution (up to a maximum of £215,000.00).

A Ward Member spoke in support of Option B; he was in favour of any additional profit being used on-site rather than fund housing off-site.

Members made the following comments:  additional affordable housing was needed; the rate of affordable housing on the development was appalling; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 357.

To consider the attached report (Sections 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 19 November 2014.

PART 2 - Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Senior Planner reported that three additional comments had been received which raised similar issues already set out in the report.  Additional comments, not noted in the report were: how was it known that the noise can be contained?; the Environmental Team were taking the Applicant’s word on issues relating to the proposal; and the structure was contrary to regulations for a conservation area.

Ms Taylor, on behalf of the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval which was seconded.

A Ward Member explained that he had some reservations with the application.  He considered that vehicles going in and out of the premises, even if the car wash area was enclosed, would still generate noise.  He considered there were environmental issues.

In response, the Environmental Health Officer stated that the proposed canopy would contain noise from the jet spray and also contain any over-spray.  He explained that vehicle egress was a separate matter.

The Ward Member considered the noise of vehicles arriving and leaving the premises would be detrimental to local residents and that the proposed use as a whole was a disturbance within the conservation area.

The Senior Planner advised that vehicle egress noise disturbance could not be taken as being unacceptable, as the existing use of the site was semi-industrial.

A Member from an adjoining ward spoke against the application.  He raised the following points: it was not known how much noise reduction could be achieved; waiting vehicles would have their engines running; noise from car spray and vacuum cleaner; this was not a suitable location for this type of activity; was adjacent to important listed buildings and in a conservation area; the previous use did not have continual activity; increase in traffic flow; and this would not preserve or enhance the area.

Members made the following comments:  it was regretful that there were no acoustic values within the report; concern with noise levels from spray and vacuuming; condition (8) stating doors in the wash building were to be closed prior to vehicle cleaning was impossible to enforce; and concerned with water pollution.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved a motion for a site meeting, this was not seconded.

On being put to the vote the motion for approval was lost.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion for refusal on the grounds that there was no guarantee that the noise issues would be addressed and the building did not preserve, enhance or protect the conservation area or the curtilage of the listed buildings.  This was seconded by Councillor Bryan Mulhern and upon being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 14/501373 be refused on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 358.