Agenda and minutes

Venue: Assembly Room - Swale House. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services, 01795 417330 

Items
No. Item

59.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

Minutes:

No interests were declared.

60.

20/500490/FULL SEAVIEW HOLIDAY CAMP, WARDEN BAY ROAD, LEYSDOWN, SHEERNESS, ME12 4NB

Minutes:

PRESENT:  Councillors Tim Gibson (Chairman), Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Mike Dendor, James Hall, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington, Ben J Martin, Paul Stephen, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.

 

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Andrew Jeffers, Megan Harris, Bob Pullen and Andrew Spiers. 

 

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:  Councillor Bill Tatton. 

 

APOLOGIES: CouncillorsJames Hunt, Benjamin A Martin and David Simmons.

 

The Chairman welcomed the Applicant and a representative from Warden Bay Parish Council to the meeting.

 

The Planner introduced the application which sought planning permission for the erection of nine chalets to replace existing units.  The site was a holiday park situated on Warden Bay Road, roughly halfway between Leysdown and Warden. There were approximately 89 chalets and 90 caravan pitches on-site. Chalets were generally situated around the site perimeter and static caravans in the centre.

 

The Planner reported that no objections had been received from statutory consultees although Warden Parish Council had objected.  The Planner said that the site had planning permission for 12-month occupancy for chalets.  This situation arose from an earlier appeal decision, when the Inspector granted temporary planning permission for use of the land as a holiday park with stationing of caravans and chalets (for 10 years), and subsequent grant of permanent planning permission. Neither of those permissions imposed an occupancy condition upon chalets, and only restricted the occupancy of the caravans on site to the standard March-October period. A separate application varied the original caravan occupancy restriction to allow an extended, 10-month occupancy for the caravans only.  This was in accordance with the majority of the parks on the Isle of Sheppey.

 

A representative from Warden Parish Council outlined their objections to the application including: 

 

  • Density of siting;
  • application not in accordance with local plan; and
  • inadequate local services unable to accommodate more residential development. 

 

A Ward Member raised objections to the application in respect of: 

 

  • Close proximity of caravans;
  • inadequate local utilities and amenities; and
  • inadequate parking facilities. 

 

The site owner made the following points: 

 

  • Parking provision was made for every new unit;
  • 12 month occupation for chalets had been in place since 1963; and
  • spacing was compliant with Building Regulations provisions. 

 

Members raised the following issues: 

 

  • Increase in size of replacement units compared to original chalets;
  • consultation with Kent County Council (KCC) on economic impact of making all units 12 month occupancy; and
  • no disabled only parking spaces. 

 

Members viewed the application site with officers.

 

61.

20/500400/OUT LAND SOUTH OF CHEQUERS ROAD, MINSTER-ON-SEA, KENT, ME12 3SH

Minutes:

PRESENT:  Councillors Tim Gibson (Chairman), Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Mike Dendor, James Hall, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington, Ben J Martin, Paul Stephen, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.

 

OFFICERS PRESENT:   Megan Harris, Andrew Jeffers, Bob Pullen and Andrew Spiers.

 

APOLOGIES: Councillors James Hunt, Benjamin A Martin and David Simmons.

 

The Chairman welcomed the Applicant’s Agent, representatives of Minster-on-Sea Parish Council and members of the public to the meeting.

 

The Planner explained that the application was in respect of an outline application with access matters sought for the erection of up-to five dwellings on the land to the south of Chequers Road, Minster-on-Sea.  All other matters were reserved for future consideration.  The site lay close to the built-up area boundary of Minster (the built-up area boundary runs along the northern side of Chequers Road), and as such, was considered to lie in open countryside.

 

The Planner said that an appeal had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination which had been validated.  The Planning Committee therefore needed to decide at the next Planning Committee meeting scheduled for 17 September 2020, what their decision on this application would have been had an appeal not been lodged.

 

It was noted that no objections to the application had been made by statutory consultees, although Minster-on-Sea Parish Council had raised objections. 

 

Representatives from Minister-on-Sea Parish Council made the following points: 

 

  • Site was not part of the urban area;
  • granting permission would encourage more applications for similar developments on greenfield sites/ribbon development;
  • gain in housing to meet national targets was negligible;
  • would create merging of settlements in a countryside area;
  • adverse impact on undeveloped land;
  • Isle of Sheppey was far from lagging behind in providing new sites for residential development;
  • should maintain a countryside gap between rural and urban Minster;
  • Swale Borough Council (SBC) needed to take parish council objections seriously;
  • risk of giving green light to ribbon development between Minster and Eastchurch; and
  • appreciated Planning Committee members taking the time to visit the site. 

 

A Ward Member made the following points:

 

  • Development was proposed in open countryside;
  • development would have negligible effect on housing supply; and
  • Chequers Road contained the only speed camera on the Isle of Sheppey demonstrating that it was considered a dangerous road, and the road had recently been subject to a Speedwatch scheme. 

 

A member of the public made the following points:

 

  • No notices of planning application had been placed in Chequers Road or surrounding streets;
  • site not included in Local Plan – SBC should abide by their own Plan;
  • access to the site was dangerous;
  • tree removed to make development look more palatable; and
  • other sites on the Isle of Sheppey were far more appropriate to housing development than this one. 

 

The Applicant’s Agent made the following points: 

 

  • When Councils could not demonstrate a five year housing supply they must be prepared to consider development on sites outside of the Local Plan provision in order to meet that demand;
  • the site would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

62.

19/505353/FULL DANEDALE STABLES, CHEQUERS ROAD, MINSTER-ON-SEA, SHEERNESS, KENT ME12 3SJ

Minutes:

PRESENT:  Councillors Tim Gibson (Chairman), Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney,  Simon Clark, Mike Dendor, James Hall, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington, Ben J Martin, Paul Stephen, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.

 

OFFICERS PRESENT:   Andrew Jeffers, Megan Harris, Bob Pullen and Andrew Spiers.

 

APOLOGIES: Councillors James Hunt, Benjamin A Martin and David Simmons. 

 

The Chairman welcomed the Applicants, the Applicant’s Agent, representatives of Minster-on-Sea Parish Council and members of the public to the meeting.

 

The Planner explained that the application was for the erection of five four bedroom detached dwellings with associated garages, parking spaces and private amenity space.  The application site was roughly rectangular in shape and extended to approximately 0.45 ha in area. It was previously in use as a stables, but was currently vacant.  The development proposed a new access point to the site and a footpath with a crossover point. 

 

It was noted that no objections to the application had been made by statutory consultees, although Minster-on-Sea Parish Council had raised objections.  There had also been 24 letters objecting to the proposal and four in support. 

 

Members of the public made the following points: 

 

  • The site was not in the Local Plan so should not be permitted – SBC should abide by their own Plan;
  • development would result in the loss of highways trees;
  • lack of local infrastructure to support more residential development in Minster; and
  • would increase vehicular traffic on Chequers Road, Minster.

 

Representatives from Minster-on-Sea Parish Council made the following points: 

 

  • All points raised on the adjacent site (20/500400/OUT)also applied to this application:
  • ribbon development outside the urban area;
  • five dwellings would have no impact on housing targets;
  • site not banded by other development;
  • likely to be archeological considerations; and
  • local schools were fully subscribed this year. 

 

A Ward Member made the following points:

 

  • Outside boundary for development;
  • open countryside setting; and
  • access issues onto a very busy road. 

 

The applicants made the following points: 

 

  • Site purchased when it was in a state of considerable dereliction and a target for fly-tipping;
  • considerable investment made to improve the site including clearance and re-establishing boundary stock fencing;
  • believed the site plans were respectful and sympathetic to the surrounding area;
  • parking provisions were in accordance with Swale Parking Standards;
  • was in a sustainable location with local amenities;
  • would have a positive impact on local wildlife;
  • revised access would make it safer for pedestrians; and
  • highlighted the benefit of an extended public footpath. 

 

Members raised the following issues:

 

  • Confirmation that two trees would be lost;
  • requested details of proposed footpath and crossing;
  • more information needed in respect of topography of site and plans to raise and lower parts of it; and
  • what elements of the development would be ‘self-build’? 

 

Members viewed the application site with officers.

 

 

63.

18/506328/OUT LAND LYING TO THE SOUTH OF DUNLIN WALK, IWADE, ME9 8TG

Minutes:

PRESENT:  Councillors Tim Gibson (Chairman), Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney, Roger Clark, Roger Clark, Simon Clark, Mike Dendor, James Hall, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes,  Ben J Martin, Paul Stephen, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.

 

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Sharon Dormedy, Corinna Griffiths, Andrew Jeffers,  Andrew Spiers and Jim Wilson.    

 

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Corrie Woodford.

 

APOLOGIES: CouncillorsJames Hunt, Benjamin A Martin and David Simmons.

 

The Chairman welcomed the Applicant’s Agent and members of the public to the meeting.

 

The Senior Planner explained that the application was in respect of an Outline Application for the erection of 20 residential dwellings with access being sought.  All other matters, including design were reserved for future consideration.

 

The application site comprised of two parcels of land adjacent to each other, with the smaller parcel of land to be provided as an area for ecology mitigation and enhancement.  The site was within a developed built-up area and considered suitable for housing.

 

Ward Members made the following points:

 

  • A Survey had been carried out and many objections received with no support for the application;
  • insufficient parking;
  • proximity of site, too close to school
  • extra pressure on dangerous junction accessing the site via Sanderling Way; and
  • loss of green space currently well used by families and children.

 

A member of the public made the following points:

 

  • Proximity of site, too close to school;
  • increased risk of flooding due to drainage issues;
  • loss of green space currently well used and enjoyed by children and families;
  • owners of adjacent properties advised when purchasing their own properties, the area could not be built on;
  • insufficient parking;
  • increased traffic and congestion, especially at school times;
  • site not allocated as housing in the Local Plan; and
  • three-storey houses would overlook the school and playground.

 

The Agent advised that consultation had taken place with all consultees, including working with Iwade Parish Council and Borough Council Members and had held a public consultation event.  The site included an ecology mitigation and enhancement area.

 

The Agent confirmed the surrounding highway to the site was adopted and no other access point was available.

 

In response to a question from a Member, the Planning Officer confirmed the site was not designated as a countryside gap or open space.

 

In response to a question from a member of the public the Agent advised that the application was regarding access and an application for detailed design would need to be submitted before any building could commence in approximately a year’s time.

 

Members viewed the application site with officers.

 

64.

19/506038/REM LAND FRONTING PAINTERS FORSTAL ROAD, OSPRINGE, ME13 0EG

Minutes:

PRESENT:  Councillors Tim Gibson (Chairman), Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Mike Dendor, James Hall, Carole Jackson,  Ben J Martin, David Simmons, Paul Stephen, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.

 

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Sharon Dormedy, Andrew Jeffers and Andrew Spiers.    

 

APOLOGIES: CouncillorsJames Hunt and Benjamin A Martin.

 

The Chairman welcomed the Applicants and members of the public to the meeting.

 

The Planner introduced the report which was a reserved matters application for the detailed layout and design of a community hall.  Outline approval had already been granted.  He advised the site was situated in a field with some residential dwellings separated by a small field to the south, to the east across the road were some residential dwellings and open fields to the west.  He advised the community hall was a single storey contemporary design and appearance with a footprint of 20.5m x 12.8 m.  The roof height would be 3.6m.

 

The building would be situated 6.3 m from the neighbouring Pawley Farm and include a 5m buffer zone along the boundary with Pawley Farm.   A parking area with two electrical vehicle parking points, cycle parking, ground source heat pumps and rainwater harvesting were also included.

 

The Planner reported that the Faversham Society and West Faversham Community Association supported the application. 

 

The Planner further reported that 26 letters/emails of support and 4 objections to the application had been received.  In summary, the application was acceptable to all parties depending on positioning of the community hall on-site.

 

A Ward Member apologised for the delay in reviewing the application due to the Covid-19 situation.  Parish Councils did not oppose the Village Hall and would like Members of this Committee to take the opportunity to consider the location of the hall on the site and to reach the best outcome for the residents of the adjoining property.

 

An objector speaking on behalf of the neighbouring property advised that the owners had lived in the property for 50 years and how during that time had supported and been members of many community projects and organisations.  They were fully supportive in principle to the village hall being built but objected to the positioning of the proposed hall within the site, which was close to their property.  The objector requested the Committee considered the location of the village hall to give minimum impact to the residents of the adjoining property.

 

An objector raised concern regarding the proximity of the car park to the bedrooms of the neighbouring property and the noise pollution created by the car park during the opening hours of the village hall.

 

The Applicant’s designer advised the location of the hall had been fully assessed at the design stage and was based on findings.  Full consultation had taken place with the Planning Department and the location had been amended following comments from neighbouring residents.  A buffer zone in excess of 6m was planned.  All activities would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.