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 Chairman ensured that those present at the meeting were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 April 2018 (Minute Nos. 633 - 640) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 April 2018 (Minute Nos. 633 – 640) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the addition of the following words: ‘….and discussion had not been allowed.’ to Minute No. 639.

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 Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

Councillor Andy Booth declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.5, 18/500667/FULL, 1 – 4 Beaumont, Davey Close, Faversham and item 2.6, 18/500688/FULL, Land south of 4 Beaumont, Davey Close, Faversham, as he received remuneration from Kent Fire and Rescue.  Councillor Booth left the Chamber whilst these applications were considered.

Councillor Cameron Beart declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.7, 18/500834/FULL, 193 High Street, Sheerness, as the applicant was a friend of his.  Councillor Beart spoke on the item and then left the Chamber.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.7, 18/500834/FULL, 193 High Street, Sheerness, as he was employed in the brewery business.  Councillor Mulhern spoke and voted on the application.

Following Annual Council on 16 May 2018 it was confirmed that membership of the Planning Committee remained the same, except for Councillor Roger Clark being replaced by Councillor Mike Dendor.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 May 2018 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider application 17/504618/FULL, 6 Park Avenue, Sittingbourne, ME10 1QX

Tabled paper added 29 May 2018.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 May 2018 (Minute Nos. 660 – 661) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

17/504618/FULL - 6 Park Avenue, Sittingbourne, ME10 1QX

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to the tabled paper which responded to some of the matters raised at the site meeting, and he clarified the measurements of the proposal, and the chronological order of matters related to the application.  He reported that two further letters of objection had been received, which included matters already noted in the report, plus comments on the existing balcony, which was not part of this application, and concerns that the new extension would be used as a balcony.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the condition in the report would prevent this from happening.

The Area Planning Officer read out a statement from a Ward Member who objected to the application.  The Ward Member raised concern with the development proceeding without permission, the extent of the amendments, the increased height of the roof, and increased pitch of the hips, and the increase in bulk of the roof.  The Ward Member explained that this was unauthorised construction, it was over-intensive and overbearing and he urged Members to refuse the application.

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

Members raised points which included:  not as concerned with the increased height of the roof, as with the rear extension; it was not possible to stop the home-owners from walking over the roof of the extension, and it being used as a balcony; overlooking issues; no issue with the application, except that it was retrospective; the development looked reasonable from the street; any overlooking would be minimal from the extension roof; there was no material reason to refuse the application; there was still more building work planned on the development which would bring it closer to the boundary; and it was overbearing and caused overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

The Area Planning Officer acknowledged Members’ concerns with the potential of using the extension roof as a balcony, and explained that enforcement action could be taken if the condition on the application was not adhered to.  He suggested that a condition could be added to require installation of opaque screens to the balcony, prior to its first use, and their retention thereafter.  The addition of the condition was agreed by Members.

On being put to the vote, the Chairman was required to use his casting vote.

Resolved:  That application 17/504618/FULL be approved subject to condition (1) in the report, plus an additional condition for the installation of opaque screens to the balcony, prior to its first use, and their retention thereafter.

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 23 May 2018.

Tabled papers added 29 May 2018.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered it to be overintensive and explained that it was on a narrow site, on a curve in the road, and this would cause safety issues, as the development could result in more cars being parked on the road.  A second Ward Member agreed that it was dangerous, and also acknowledged that some garages were not large enough for modern cars and therefore not used to park vehicles in.

Members raised points which included:  potential safety issues if the application led to parking on the curve of the road; residential capacity of properties was being expanded, without consideration of resulting parking issues; two vehicles would not fit on the driveway; and there needed to be sensible provision of parking for the house.

In response to a question, the Development Planner, Kent County Council (KCC), Highways and Transportation explained that this development was outside the remit of being considered by his Team.

The Planner explained that the hardstanding was five metres wide, and provided parking for two vehicles, which was within KCC parking standards.

Resolved:  That application 18/501317/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer explained that there were a couple of minor errors in the report.  In paragraph 2.05, the proposed hours should read 7.30am to 11.30pm, and a slight error in condition (2) relating to a drawing number.  The Area Planning Officer explained that there were substantial changes in levels between the site and the adjacent dwellings, and advised that the Environmental Protection Team Leader was happy to provide information to Members on noise mitigation measures.

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

Mr Gibson, an objector, spoke against the application.

Adam Cundale, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Vice-Chairman moved a motion to defer the application to allow officers and the agent to negotiate a more detailed application.  This was seconded by the Chairman.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered in principle that the application was not acceptable, and it was intensive activity right next to a residential area.  He spoke against the opening times being until 11.30pm.  The Ward Member explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

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.

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

Resolved:

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 5 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:

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

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

To consider the attached report (Part 6).

The Planning Enforcement Contractor introduced the report which set out the current status of investigations, where formal enforcement action to issue Notices had been agreed.  These had been listed into four categories: previous notices complied with; notices currently at appeal; notices within compliance period; and cases ongoing.

Members welcomed the report and praised the Planning Enforcement Team for the pro-active approach they were taking on enforcement cases.  Members made comments on some items within the report which the Planning Enforcement Contractor agreed to look into further.

Resolved:  That the report be noted.

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

The meeting was adjourned from 9.33pm to 9.40pm.