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.

9.30am – 14/500338 – 165 Minster Road, Minster-on-Sea, ME12 3LH

The Chairman welcomed the applicant and 2 members of the public to the meeting.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was for an extension at Oakdene, 165 Minster Road, Minster a residential care home for people with dementia.  The Planning Officer explained that currently the care home had 21 bedrooms and the application would provide 6 additional individual bedrooms with ensuite facilities so that all the residents would have their own bedroom. 

The Planning Officer advised that the development proposed two separate elements.  The first element proposed a first floor rear extension to the original building which would be 6.1 metres in depth at its maximum, but where close to the eastern boundary it would be 4.3 metres in depth and set in 1.4 metres from that flank wall to reduce the impact on the neighbouring property.  Two side facing windows were proposed.  The second element proposed a large single storey extension at the rear of the site measuring 21 metres in width, 5.25 metres in height and set 0.6 metres to 2.2 metres from the rear boundary.

The Planning Officer reported that no further representations had been received following the Planning Committee on 20 November 2014.

Mr Whiting, the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal and raised the following points: the development would allow all residents to have their own bedroom and en-suite facilities; would enlarge the existing day space area for residential activities including provision of a hairdresser; would not lead to an increase in the number of residents at the home; outdoor garden area would be retained; proposed windows would all be inward facing; windows on side elevation would be obscure glazed; extension would allow a shaft-lift to be installed; and Kent County Council (KCC) were requesting that care homes ensure that residents had their own bedrooms so there was a risk that the care home could be de-registered if the proposal was not approved.

Local residents raised the following concerns: part of the application site was within flood zone 3; feels like an intrusion; would break-up the current peaceful residential nature of the area; too close to the boundary of 71 Darlington Drive; no confidence in the drawings online as no measurements were provided; loss of tree; would cause overlooking; increase in noise; adverse impact on the residential amenities of the area; overdevelopment of the area; and height of the extension was unacceptably high.

In response to queries from Members, the Planning Officer reported that the height measurements provided were to ridge height.  The Planning Officer agreed to check whether the Environment Agency had been consulted with regard to flood zone 3, but noted that the rear part of the site, where the single storey extension was proposed, fell outside of flood zone 3. She confirmed that nos. 69 and 71 Darlington Drive were the properties affected by the single storey rear extension.

Members then toured the site with officers.