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.

09.30am – 2.3 14/505542/FULL – 1A Saxon Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8QA

10.30am (approximate) – 2.7 14/505472/FULL – 66 Park Drive, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1RD

11.15am (approximate) – 2.4 14/505351/FULL – Dane Works, Crown Quay Lane, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3HU

12.15pm (approximate) – 2.10 14/502557/FULL – Moordean, Oak Lane, Minster-on-Sea, Kent, ME12 3QP

PRESENT:  Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern (Vice-Chairman), Ben Stokes and Ghlin Whelan.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:  Councillor John Coulter (Ward Member).

OFFICERS PRESENT: Philippa Davies, Claire Dethier and Andrew Spiers.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott and Adrian Crowther.

The Vice-Chairman (in the Chair for this meeting) welcomed the Agent, Faversham Town Council representatives, Ward Member and members of the public to the meeting.

The Senior Planner introduced the application and stated that it was for the restoration and extension of no. 1A Saxon Road, Faversham to form a one 1-bed and one 2-bed flat, and the demolition of the existing building in the yard with the construction of two 2-bed semi-detached dwellings with associated amenity and parking spaces.  The Senior Planner explained that 1A Saxon Road would be extended sideways to the boundary of the site, providing a first floor extension, with a gap at ground level to provide vehicular access to the rear of the site.  Paint would be removed from the front elevation of 1A, timber sash window frames would be added and the roof tiles replaced with slate.  There would be a seven metre rear garden, three parking spaces, a turning space and a bike shed.  The two additional properties would be low maintenance finish, with solar panels to reduce the carbon footprint.

The Senior Planner reported that three letters of objection had been received, plus one with neutral comments.  She outlined the objections which included:  loss of privacy; unauthorised access; lack of sight lines especially for cyclists; the development did not meet criteria of the Local Plan.  The neutral points included that the warehouse had outlived its useful purpose.

The Senior Planner reported that Faversham Town Council had raised objection.  They considered the development would cause overlooking, and it was not deliverable as the applicants did not control the access to the site.

The Agent provided an overview of the application.  He explained that the ridge height was lower than it was previously; solar panels would be added to reduce the carbon footprint; and windows at the side were to be at a high level on the ground floor, with most glazing being at the end of the property to avoid any overlooking issues.

A Ward Member considered there was too much being added to the site, with the reliance on the access at the rear of the properties, on Stone Street, which was historically to be used only in emergencies.  He considered the proposed application was damaging the interests of residents on all sides of the site.

Local residents raised the following points:  concerned with access to the site; there was access onto Saxon Road, the access onto Stone Street was not necessary, except in emergencies; the plans showed a gateway which did not exist; the pathway was through a private garden; clarity was needed on the access and the parking; overlooking issues; proposed floor-to-ceiling windows directly overlooked the neighbouring property; and the pedestrian use of the access was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 580.

PRESENT: Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern (Vice-Chairman), Prescott, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey and Joanne Hammond.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott and Adrian Crowther.

The Vice-Chairman (in the Chair for this meeting) welcomed the applicant, agent and members of the public to the meeting. He outlined the format that the site meeting would take and asked the Area Planning Officer to introduce the item.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the application for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow in the rearmost portion of the garden of 66 Park Drive, with vehicle access from Roseleigh Road.  The plot would measure approximately 31m deep x 9.2m wide, with the bungalow sitting roughly central on the site.  He outlined the measurements for the bungalow and advised that it included two parking spaces to the front of the property with a third within an integral garage.  He referred to the six letters of objection received, as set out in the report.  

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that Kent County Council Highways and Southern Water had raised no objection and comments were awaited from the Council’s Environmental Health Manager.  He outlined the reasons for the recommendation for approval and considered that the proposal complied with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on minimum rear-to-rear separation distances.

Local residents were then invited to speak and made the following comments in objection to the application: residents on either side of the property would have their view spoilt; concerns about overlooking; proposed dwelling too close to the boundary of the neighbouring properties’ fences; large gardens were part of the attractiveness of the area; loss of privacy; traffic concerns; cars will not be able to pass safely and it will be a dangerous access; loss of light; security concerns; noise and disruption to neighbouring properties; scaffolding will be intrusive; flooding concerns for neighbouring properties as the soakaway was not fit for purpose; and general safety concerns.

Members then toured the site with the officer, the applicant and the agent, also inspecting the site from Roseleigh Road.

PRESENT: Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Andy Booth, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern (Vice-Chairman), Prescott, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey, Paul Gregory and Joanne Hammond.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott and Adrian Crowther.

The Vice-Chairman (in the Chair for this meeting) welcomed the applicant and representative from Lebus International, agent and member of the public to the meeting. He outlined the format that the site meeting would take and asked the Planner to introduce the item.

The Planner outlined the application for an extension to the existing industrial unit which would measure 11.5m in length and 15m in width, 5.5m to the eaves and 8.7m in overall height.  A small section of mezzanine floor was proposed, 3.3m in length. He advised that one letter of objection had been received and summarised the grounds for objection as set out in the report.  He addressed each of the objections in turn, noting that the Council’s Environmental Health Manager had raised no objection subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions, and Network Rail had also raised no objection to the application.

The applicant made the following comments: the company were regularly surveyed by their insurers to ensure that they were compliant with Health and Safety and noise regulations; the proposal would enable the business to increase productivity and employ one or two additional members of staff; the noisiest part of the production line would be moved further away from the neighbouring residential building; and no outside work was undertaken.  He also confirmed via the Works Manager that forklift truck movements were on average not more than 2.7 hours per week.  In response to a question, the applicant confirmed that the extension would be used for fabrication and welding and the mezzanine floor level would be used for storage purposes.

A local resident spoke in objection to the application and circulated impressions of the new structure to Members to demonstrate the view from his rear garden.  He considered that the extension would have a significant impact on their view.  He also considered that the ridge height was not significantly different from the existing building and it would therefore be an imposing structure at the rear of the garden.

Members then toured the site with officers, the applicant and agent and viewed the site from the rear garden of No.1 St Michael’s Road.

PRESENT:  Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Andy Booth, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern (Vice-Chairman), Prescott, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winkless.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Rob Bailey and Philippa Davies.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott and Adrian Crowther.

The Vice-Chairman (in the Chair for this meeting) welcomed the applicant, Minster Parish Council representative and members of the public to the meeting.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which was for the conversion of part of the existing garage to an accessible bedroom and en-suite, with dayroom, as an ancillary use to the main building, to also include a utility room.  One of the two car ports would be in-filled, an external wall to the front elevation and an internal wall would be constructed.  There would be two rooflights on the southern roof slope and one on the northern roof slope.  The Area Planning Officer explained that a Lawful Development Certificate had been issued for the use of the dwelling house as a residential care home for six people.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Minster Parish Council had objected to the application.  Their views, along with the views included within six letters of objection were outlined in the 12 March 2015 Planning Committee report.

The Area Planning Officer explained that the plans for the existing garage were acceptable, as the use was as an ancillary to the main dwelling.  He explained that a window to the southern elevation had been deleted, and replaced with a rooflight.  The Area Planning Officer considered the garage was not in a prominent public vantage point, the proposals were of a small scale nature and would not have an adverse effect on local residents.  He also explained that it would not harm the amenity of local residents; the traffic generated would not be significant; there was sufficient parking on site, and he stated there were no planning objections to the application.

The applicant advised that the parking area would be extended on the site, sufficient for the use of the site and there would be no parking on the road.  She explained that the clients would be involved within the local community and make use of the local facilities.  The applicant further explained that the utility room would be for the use of the six residents, there would be two washing machines and one tumble dryer.  She explained that she had tried to take account of neighbours’ comments throughout the process.

The Minster Parish Council representative explained that the Parish Council considered the conversion of the garage to be a step too far.  They had welcomed the community project, but suggested the clients would be isolated at this location. The representative also considered that the amenity and privacy of local residents would be affected, specifically from any noise nuisance near the boundary; he stated that the annex was too close to the boundary of other properties.

Local residents raised the following points:  drainage relating to the application will go across neighbouring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 583.