To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 July 2015 (Minute Nos. 88 - 93) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 July 2015 (Minute Nos. 88 – 93) 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 Mike Baldock noted that the Sittingbourne Society had made comments on some of the applications.  Councillor Baldock stated that whilst he was a member of the Sittingbourne Society, he had not been involved in any discussions with them about any of the applications.

Councillor Mike Baldock, as also being a member of Kent County Council (KCC) Planning Committee, declared an interest on item 4.1 (15/503584/COUNTY)  Councillor Baldock left the room during consideration of this item.

Councillor Richard Darby declared an interest with regard to item 4.1 (15/503584/COUNTY) as he was a member of the Halfway Houses Residents’ Association.  Councillor Darby took no part in respect of this item.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern, declared an in interest in respect of item 2.2, as he worked for Shepherd Neame.  Councillor Mulhern left the room during consideration of this item.  Councillor Prescott, as Vice-Chairman, took the chair for this item.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 July 2015 (Minute Nos. to follow).

15/500330/FULL – Keycol Farm, Keycol Hill, Bobbing, Kent, ME9 8NA

Tabled paper uploaded 28 July 2015.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 July 2015 (Minute Nos. 99 – 100) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

15/500330/FULL – Keycol Farm, Keycol Hill, Bobbing, Kent, ME9 8NA

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

The Senior Planner reported that following a request by a Member at the site meeting she had contacted Kent County Council’s (KCC) Archaeological Officer for his comments on how potential archaeology should be treated at the site now that most of the ground work had already taken place.  He was clear that had archaeology been found during engineering works, the advice would have been to record it and leave it in situ. He also considered that undertaking an archaeological investigation now would therefore be pointless because any archaeology would have already been disturbed.  He advised that imposing a condition to require a programme of archaeological work for any further groundwork was the best course of action.

The Senior Planner reported that KCC Highways had been requested to comment on road traffic accident records along this stretch of the A2 and were also asked to comment on why this proposal was different to the previous planning applications for development using the same access in the 1980s which were refused on highway safety grounds.  They had provided a detailed response which had been tabled for Members to read in full.

The applicant’s agent had sent various reports to, and by, the United Nations and Council of Europe in respect of their position on gypsy site provision in the UK.  The Senior Planner noted those reports were printed some years ago, the most recent being 2009.  The advice contained within the committee report on pages 60 and 61 in respect of the need to consider the Human Rights Act and various other acts was current and correct.

The Senior Planner reported that one additional letter had been received from a neighbour which reiterated objections already raised by local residents.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  That a landscaping condition be imposed.  The condition to include that the laurel bushes be removed from the site.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

The Senior Planner stated that a landscaping condition was already suggested and drew attention to condition (6) of the report.  She suggested that removal of the laurel bushes could be included within that condition.  This was agreed by Members.

A Member raised the following concerns: lapse response by KCC we should not be bound; how would officers monitor and enforce conditions?; should wait to hear from Bobbing Parish Council before considering the application; cohesion between gypsy and settled community and would upset the balance of the local community; and would allow overlooking of residents gardens.

In response to a query from a Member, the Senior Planner stated that it would not be fair to consider any other potential traffic that may or may not use the site as a consequence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

To consider the attached report (Parts 2, 3, 4 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 22 July 2015.

Tabled paper uploaded 28.07.15.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer clarified the application for Members.

MrLamoon, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Conservation Officer stated that, without exception, officers would always recommend wooden sash windows on a property that was within the Article 4(2) part of Faversham conservation area.  However, Swale Borough Council is also bound by Government Guidance and SBC’s own policy to improve and enhance the character of the conservation area and he considered the proposed windows would be an improvement.

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

Members considered the application and raised the following points: concern that exceptions kept being made to the Article 4(2) Direction; did not consider this to be an improvement; other residents had gone to a lot of trouble to install timber so why should this be allowed; have to listen to officers and raise no objection when improvements were trying to be made in a conservation area; and would be more appropriate if any colour other than white was to be used.

Resolved:  That application 15/503737/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Vice-Chairman took the chair for this item.

The Vice-Chairman in the chair moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

Members welcomed the application and raised the following points: micro-pubs generally did not have problems with anti-social behavior; and people tend to walk to this type of establishment, so parking would not be an issue.

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer clarified the procedure that would be taken in respect of condition (2) sound insulation.

Resolved:  That application 15/501851/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

The Conservation Officer introduced  the application and did not consider the minor improvements proposed would  have an adverse impact on the church, whilst allowing them to meet their disabled access objectives.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Historic England raised no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following item:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

1.    Information relating to any individual.

2.    Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

3.    Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). See note below.

4.    Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and any employees of, or office holders under, the authority.

5.    Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

6.    Information which reveals that the authority proposes

(a)  To give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or

(b)  To make an order or direction under any enactment.

7.    Information relation to any action in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

Resolved:

(1) That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:

1. Information relating to any individual.

2. Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

4.  Information relating to any consultation or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and any employees of, or office holders under, the authority.

5.  Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

6. Information which reveals that the authority proposes:

(a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or

(b) to make an order or direction under any enactment.

7.  Information relating to any action taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

To consider the attached report (Part 6).

6.1 ENF/MIN/27/07 – construction of driveway and access at land adjacent to Sud Regarde, Elm Lane, Minster

Resolved: That an Enforcement Notice be issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, requiring the removal of the driveway and reinstatement of the land to its former condition within 6 months of the Notice taking effect.

That the Head of Planning and the Head of Legal Partnership of the Council be authorised to prepare and serve the necessary documentation, including the precise wording to give effect to this decision.

ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE

At this point there was discussion about when the planning enforcement schedule would be considered.  Some Members explained that at the recent meeting of the Policy Development and Review Committee officers had explained that Members would soon be able to access details of all enforcement cases in their wards online.

Some Members still considered that the enforcement schedule should be considered at Planning Committee every three months.