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/14/0516 (2.7) – Land adj. Cedar Lodge, Whybornes Chase, Minster, Sheerness, ME12 2HZ

The Chairman welcomed the applicant’s representatives, a representative from Minster Parish Council and four members of the public to the meeting.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was for the erection of a pair of two-bed semi-detached houses.  The houses would be 7.5 metres high to the ridge, 11.4 metres wide and 9.5 metres deep.  He explained that the external materials included face brick at ground level and composite weatherboarding at first floor.  No side windows were proposed and the rear windows would be high level.  Parking would be undercroft tandem parking for two vehicles at each property.  The Planning Officer explained that the rear gardens to the properties would measure between 12.5 metres and 15.5 metres deep and 6.5 metres wide and 1.8 metre fencing would be installed.

The Planning Officer also explained that Cedar Lodge would be redeveloped to provide a detached house in place of the existing bungalow.

The Planning Officer reported that four letters of objection had been received with comments already included in the Planning Committee report dated 30 October 2014.  Minster Parish Council had objected to the application, their comments, noted in the report, included: the application was not in-keeping with the street scene; lack of parking; and privacy issues.

The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was in the defined built-up area, and was of acceptable scale and design.  There was a wide variety of properties on the street so the proposed properties should fit into the street scene.  He explained that the next door property to the south was higher than the proposed properties and he considered this change in levels, and the proposed fencing would address any potential overlooking.  Parking was in-line with the usual standard recommended by KCC Highways.  The Planning Officer acknowledged the comments from Minster Parish Council and stated there was no formal consent required for the removal of trees and that any damage to the road was a private matter.  He considered the proposed application was in a sustainable location.

A representative from Minster Parish Council added that the proposal would not fit in with the street scene; it was out of character; it was too close to other properties and the tandem parking was inadequate.

The applicant’s representative explained that there were already semi-detached properties on Whybornes Chase; acknowledged that the school run was already an issue; the proposed properties would be in-keeping with the updated neighbouring property; and properties in the vicinity had been developed from bungalows to houses.

Local residents made the following comments:  close proximity to existing dwelling; noise issues; proposed fence was lower than that already existing; the road was busy, especially during the school run; tandem parking raised highway safety issues; the proposed dwellings would not fit in; tandem parking did not work; problem with visitor parking; this was a busy road; this was a pretty setting and the houses were being ‘squeezed’ in; and a single bungalow would be better.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 335.