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.

9.30 am – SW/14/501632 (2.2) – Land between 25-27 Wells Way, Faversham, ME13 7QP

The Chairman welcomed the applicant’s agent, a representative from Faversham Town Council and 34 members of the public, the majority in objection to the application, to the meeting.

The Planner reported that the application was for the erection of a new bungalow between 25 and 27 Wells Way, Faversham, on land sold at auction.  The Planner advised that the floor area would be 65.7 square metres and two bedrooms, a toilet and wet room and a combined living/kitchen area would be provided.  There would be two off-road car parking spaces and a private garden.  The Planner explained that one of the trees in the garden would be retained and an additional two would be planted.  The site was within the built-up area, and was not subject to specific planning restraints.

The Planner advised that a previous application for a larger, L-shaped bungalow, with a 1.8 metre high boundary wall close to the public footpath had been withdrawn by the agent.  He acknowledged that local residents had considered that the proposal would set a precedent, and explained that there were nine green spaces in total, six were in front of properties, and the others were too small for development.

The Planner reported that 12 representations had been received, objecting to the proposal.  He outlined the objections which included:  loss of green open space; it would change the character of the area; pressure of parking; safety issues, as children played in this area; the proposed hipped roof was not in-keeping with other bungalows; tandem parking was unsuitable; the trees should be protected; loss of amenity space; low lying area with problem of drainage; and it was too close to the boundaries.

The Planner advised that Faversham Town Council objected to the proposal due to the loss of green space.  Kent County Council Highways and the Tree Officer raised no objection.

The Planner summarised that this was the largest of the plots that had been sold and that the others were too small to be built on.  He further advised that it would be difficult to defend on appeal.

The Agent acknowledged the concerns of local residents.  He considered the plot of land had no recreational value, and was the only one of the ones sold that was large enough to be built upon, which he considered would not raise any precedent issues.  The Agent explained that the site was larger than many plots considered for development, it was just that this one was a different shape to those normally considered.  The design of the bungalow would be similar to the existing bungalows, and would be open at the front.  The development did not conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Local residents raised the following points:  worried about setting a precedent as other plots had also been sold; this would be a change in amenity on the housing estate; this was an open-plan estate, the proposal was against the original developer’s principles; children did play on this plot of land; appeal of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 293.