The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park.  Nobody must leave the assembly point until everybody can be accounted for and nobody must return to the building until the Chairman has informed them that it is safe to do so; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Vice-Chairman in the Chair ensured that those present were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 November 2016 (Minute Nos. 999 - 1005) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 November 2016 (Minute Nos. 999 – 1005) 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.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the member might be predetermined or biased the member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

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 28 November 2016 (Minute Nos. to follow).

16/506618/FULL 41 Windsor Drive, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1UN

16/506288/OUT 100 Station Road, Teynham, Kent, ME9 9TB

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 November 2016 (Minute Nos. 1028 – 1030) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:  That the apologies be amended to include these three Members only: Councillors James Hunt, Ken Ingleton and Bryan Mulhern.

16/506618/FULL 41 Windsor Drive, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1UN

The Planning Officer reported that two additional letters had been received, one asking for a copy of the minutes and the other saying there were trees within the adjacent school site and that the application site could not be seen from public land. 

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

Resolved:  That application 16/506618/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

16/506288/OUT 100 Station Road, Teynham, Kent, ME9 9TB

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised the following points: would have an over-bearing impact on the area; the open aspect of Amber Close would be lost; would set a precedent for similar developments in the area; unfair on local residents; and would have an adverse effect on the character of the area.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: concerns about visibility onto a busy road; access to Amber Close was already difficult; highway concerns due to lack of visibility; would have an overbearing effect on the area; parking concerns as residents would have to park in a line rather than side-by-side; vehicles would have to reverse out of Amber Close which was unacceptable; and the area was designed as an ‘open area’.

In response to queries, the Planner advised Members that this was an outline application, therefore details about fencing to be provided would be considered as part of any Reserved Matters application.

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

Members suggested various reasons for refusal and, upon further discussion with the Planner, withdrew matters which were not considered sufficient grounds for refusal (i.e. highway and parking issues).  Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That the application be refused as it was an inappropriate area for housing, contrary to the open-plan nature of the estate, would have an overbearing effect on the area, would be detrimental to the streetscene and character of the area and have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of occupants in Amber Close.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.

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

Resolved:  That application 16/506288/OUT be refused as it was an inappropriate area for housing, contrary to the open-plan nature of the estate; would have an overbearing effect on the area, would be detrimental to the streetscene and character of the area and have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of occupants of Amber Close. 

To consider the following application:

15/510565/FULL, Hand Car Wash, 15-21 Key Street, Sittingbourne

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 7 December 2016.

The Planning Officer drew attention to paragraph 7.07 of the Committee report and advised that the application was for consideration of an attenuating fence and canopy only; the hours of operation were not part of this application.

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

Ward Members raised concerns which included: spray into neighbouring gardens was unacceptable; disappointed with the amount of time taken by officers to consider local concerns; caused environmental issues; suggest two further conditions, one to ensure the acoustic fence was erected within a certain period of time and another requiring that the effectiveness of the fence was considered after six months of being erected to ensure it was fit for purpose; appreciate they had permission for a car wash but this does not give them ‘carte blanche’ to affect local residents; the Council had a duty to ensure the operation of the car wash did not impede local residents; and the proposal would not alleviate all the issues at the site.

In response to queries from a Member, the Planning Officer confirmed that two letters of objection had been received.  He was aware however, that the Council’s Environmental Health Team had received several complaints from local residents about the site.  He confirmed that a condition requiring that the fence be erected within six months of the permission could be imposed.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following amendment:  That a further condition be imposed requiring the erection of the fence within 6 months from the date of permission.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart. 

On being put to the vote, the amended motion was carried.

Resolved:  That application 15/510565/FULL be approved subject to condition (1) in the report and the imposition of a further condition requiring the fence be erected within 6 months from the date of permission.

To consider the attached report (Parts 2, 3, 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 7 December 2016.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

The Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised the following concerns: highway safety; dispute paragraph 8.02 of the Committee report which stated the roundabout has clear visibility, it did not because of the vegetation on the roundabout; the roundabout was already dangerous and this will further impact on highway safety; the roundabout was not on a main road; and if approved should be on a temporary three year basis to enable highway safety to be monitored after that time.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: the Council should have a policy approach on this type of application; unacceptable to add to the ‘visual clutter’ on the roundabout; will make it more difficult for pedestrians to cross safely at this point; should refuse on highway safety grounds; should consider the concerns of local residents; did not seem sensible to have adverts on a roundabout; adverts make a roundabout look untidy; signs were so small how would motorists be able to view the signs in any case?; these signs were a distraction to drivers; and note that the sign will be lower than the foliage but consider the foliage to be a danger as it also obscured motorists’ view.

In response to concerns from a Member, the Planning Officer stated that KCC Highways and Transportation had not provided any evidence to support suggestions that the roundabout was dangerous. 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following amendment:  That the application be approved on a temporary three year basis and that highway safety at the site was reviewed after that time.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

On being put to the vote, the amended motion was carried.

Resolved:  That application 16/507069/ADV be delegated to officers to approve on a temporary three year basis to allow highway safety to be reviewed after that time and to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

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

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following amendment:  That the application be approved on a temporary three year basis and that highway safety at the site is reviewed after that time.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

There was some discussion about whether Borden Parish Council had been consulted and the Development Manager stated that for the avoidance of doubt the application could be approved subject to receipt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1063.

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

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 5, and 7.

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

6.   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  16/501080/OPDEV – unauthorised works to roof and windows of 1 Preston Street, Faversham

The Planner stated that he was happy to report that the property owner had replaced the offending tiles and windows with appropriate materials following discussions with officers.  The Conservation Officer was satisfied that no further action need be taken.

Resolved:  That no further action be taken.

6.2 Former Wood Yard, Horn Hill, Milstead

Resolved:     That an Enforcement Notice pursuant to the provisions of Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, requiring that the mobile home be removed from site within 6 months of the notice taking effect.

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

6.3  SW/09/0613 – Plot 67, Larch End, Thistle Hill, Minster

The Development Manager reported that the developer had confirmed the mitigation measures to be undertaken as outlined in the Committee report.

Discussions ensued and Members agreed that the two offending side windows be blocked up.

Resolved:  That 2 metre high fencing with climbers be planted adjacent to the rear boundary of the site within the planting season (i.e. at the latest within 4 months) and the two flank side windows be permanently blocked-up within the next 2 months.

At 10pm Members agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders in order that the Committee could complete its business.