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.

09.30 am – 2.2 14/503846 - 349-355 Leysdown Road, Leysdown, ME12 4AS

10.30 am (approximately) – 2.1 SW/14/0423 – R/o 124 Chaffes Lane, Upchurch, ME9 7BG

11.30 am (approximately) – 2.7 14/505307 – Mombasa, Whitstable Road,  Faversham, ME13 8BD

PRESENT:  Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Adrian Crowther, Mike Henderson, Lesley Ingham, Bryan Mulhern (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Prescott and Tony Winckless.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Pat Sandle.

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Katherine Bescoby, Martin Evans, Andrew Jeffers and Alun Millard.           

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott, Mark Ellen, Sue Gent, Peter Marchington and Ben Stokes.

The Vice-Chairman (in the Chair for this meeting) welcomed the applicant, agents, Leysdown Parish Council representatives and members of the public to the meeting.  He outlined the format that the site meeting would take and asked the Planning Officer to introduce the item.  Layout plans and drawings were displayed by the applicant’s agent.

The Planning Officer drew attention to the amended plans, which would soon be available to view on-line.  There were minor changes to the southern elevation of Plot 2, but no fundamental changes to the application.

In introducing the item, the Area Planning Officer advised that the Almshouses proposed were designed to reflect the chalet style dwellings in the area; the Council’s policy was to develop brownfield sites; and Kent County Council (KCC) Highways were happy with the proposed parking and access arrangements.

Mr Collins, the Applicant’s Planning Agent, advised that he had been asked to audit the scheme and had also considered the previous appeals.  He considered the application was in character with the area; was of good quality; and made the most of the site.  In respect of concerns raised about privacy and parking, he advised that the proposal did meet the standards expected.

Brenda Hardman, representing Leysdown Parish Council, raised concerns about parking overflow on the main road; congestion along Danes Road; and overlooking and loss of privacy, in particular from the double storey building, as the local area was mostly bungalows.

Geoff Partis, a member of Leysdown Parish Council, advised that he had lived in the area for 40 years and lived 3 doors away from the site.  He expressed concern about road safety, referring to statistics of deaths along the road and outside his property, and showing photographs of accidents.   He considered that whilst this might not be a planning objection, this needed to be considered in particular to the speed of the traffic.

Councillor Pat Sandle, the Ward Member, advised that the site did need to be redeveloped however questioned why family homes were being proposed, when there were no facilities; local schools were full, the area was deprived and there were no jobs.  She also expressed concern about parking, as it was likely that some houses could have 3 or 4 cars, being in a rural area.  KCC had refused to reduce the speed limit in the past.  She suggested that more could be done, in terms of parking, and a layby should be provided as well.  Councillor Sandle also asked whether the petrol tanks had been removed.

Local residents were then invited to speak.  Questions and concerns were raised regarding the number of parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 519.

PRESENT:  Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Adrian Crowther, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Prescott and Tony Winckless.

OFFICERS PRESENT:   Janet Dart, Martin Evans, Andrew Jeffers and Alun Millard.           

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott, Mark Ellen, Sue Gent, Peter Marchington and Ben Stokes.

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

The Planning Officer introduced the item by noting the site access would be off Marstan Close. The site was within the built-up area of Upchurch, and currently formed part of the rear garden to no. 124 Chaffes Lane.  It had a frontage onto Marstan Close, which the proposal sought to utilise for vehicular and pedestrian access. The proposal allowed for 2 parking spaces and 1 visitor space with a small turning area.  The proposal was assessed as being acceptable as it blended in well with the surrounding area, it could not be overlooked and did not overlook other properties.  The conservatory at 3 Marstan Close was 5 metres away and could not be overlooked.  There would be no overshadowing.

Mr Clayton, the Agent, showed the footprint of the bungalow.  He advised that the parking had been altered following KCC Highways advice.  The bungalow would be occupied by the daughter of the owners of 124 Chaffes Lane.

Mrs New and Mrs Denny, representing Upchurch Parish Council, asked if the area currently fenced off from the property formed part of the owners land.  Mr Harrell confirmed that it did.

Mr Harrell, the owner, explained the land had right of access to Marston Close for 10 years.  He stated the garden was too big for him.  When the road was originally built there should have been two bungalows on the site but they were not built.

Cllr Winckless asked for further clarity on the footprint of the proposed bungalow, Mr Clayton showed him where the walls would extend to.

Cllr Mulhern asked if the existing garage was the property of the owners and if the shared drive would cause problems.  Mr Harrell advised it was owned by a close relative and that they and the intended occupiers of the proposed property were happy with the shared access.

Local residents were invited to speak.  Questions and concerns were raised about the impact of traffic to Marstan Close and if emergency vehicles would be able to access the area.  The KCC Highways Officer advised it had not been assessed as a problem as it was only one additional house.  Originally KCC Highways did object due to lack of turning space, but the plans had been amended to include a turning area.

Local residents also expressed concerns about the impact an extra property would have on the drains as they were old and had previously become blocked.

Members then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 520.

PRESENT:  Councillors Adrian Crowther, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern (Vice-Chairman in the Chair), Prescott and Tony Winckless.

OFFICERS PRESENT:   Peter Bell, Janet Dart, Martin Evans, Andrew Jeffers, Alun Millard and Andrew Spiers.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott, Mark Ellen, Sue Gent, Peter Marchington and Ben Stokes.

The Vice-Chairman (in the Chair for this meeting) welcomed the applicant, agents, and members of the public to the meeting.  He outlined the format that the site meeting would take and asked the Planning Officer to introduce the item.  Layout plans and drawings were displayed by the applicant’s agent.

The Planning Officer noted the site was located within the built-up area boundary of Faversham, just outside the town centre.  The site was located within the Faversham conservation area and was at present a vacant plot.  However, the site previously hosted a bungalow named ‘Mombasa’, which was granted conservation area consent for demolition in 2005.  The site was at present covered in sparse vegetation.  It fronted directly onto Whitstable Road, and was roughly rectangular in shape.  It was surrounded on three sides by existing structures; to the west was part of the adjacent retirement homes scheme, part of the complex of sheltered housing, and to the east was St Saviour’s Church, a grade II Listed ‘tin church’.  Previously permission had been granted for 3 terraced houses in 2007 but they were not built and that permission had since lapsed.

The proposal was for the construction of a trio of three bedroom houses.  They would front onto Whitstable Road, facing the park opposite.  The houses would be on three floors, with gables, thus making them two and a half storeys in height.  Each property would be served by a private garden, and there would be off-road parking for five cars in total.  Vehicle access would be from the rear of the site, via Cyprus Road.  The parking area would be screened from Whitstable Road by landscaping and a wall.

The Planning Officer advised there have been 4 letters of objection and summarised the objections.  Faversham Town Council recommended refusal, stating that the proposals were out of scale with the neighbouring buildings.  The County Archaeologist and Environment Agency had no objections.  In summary, the officers considered the proposals were in accordance with national and local planning policy.

Mr Brouard, the Agent, pointed out a number of different styles and heights of buildings that would fit in with Faversham’s architecture, and that the proposals demonstrated economic and environmental viability.  The tree provided a visual gap between the church and the development.  The materials  to be used were of a high standard.

Local residents were then invited to speak.  A resident advised that the road had been laid against the foundation of the church and was concerned the vibration may make it fall in and that it also caused damp.  He drew attention to the current problems with neighbours from Church House which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 521.