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 – 1.1 14/502582/FULL Freesia Grovehurst Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2RB

10.15 am (approximately) – 2.3 14/505395/FULL 17 Dane Close, Hartlip, Kent, ME9 7TN

11.15 am (approximately) – 2.4 15/500955/FULL Land at Rear of Seager Road, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 2BG

PRESENT: Councillors Barnicott (Chairman), Sylvia Bennett, Bobbin, Derek Conway, Sue Gent, Mike Henderson, Prescott and Ben Stokes. 

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Rob Bailey, Martin Evans and Kellie Mackenzie.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth and Peter Marchington.

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

The Planner introduced the application which was for demolition of the existing bungalow and the construction of 15 new houses with a new access road at Freesia, Grovehurst Road, Sittingbourne.  The Planner reported that the site was allocated for 16 dwellings within the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 and would provide a new vehicle access in the centre of the site with a terrace of three dwellings to the north and two detached dwellings to the south.  The road led to a cul-de-sac where nine dwellings were provided with one detached dwelling close to the existing garages.  There would be a separation distance of 3.5 metres between Plot 5 and ‘The Spinney’, the closest dwelling to the application site, a second access would also be provided at this point.  Plot 6 was 15 metres to the rear of The Spinney and would be screened by the existing garage.  The parking spaces and visitor/shared parking spaces suggested complied with Kent County Council (KCC) Parking Standards and KCC Highways raised no objection to the proposal.  The Planner reminded Members that the application had been unanimously approved at the Planning Committee on 12 March 2015.

Mr Biring, the agent, explained that they had liaised closely with Swale Borough Council’s (SBC) planning officers and KCC Highways to ensure that local resident objections were resolved.  Mr Biring stated that with regard to concerns about the removal of the boundary wall they were ‘relaxed’ about whether it should remain or be removed.  Mr Biring explained that in terms of design they had tried to ensure that the proposed dwellings fitted in with the surrounding streetscene. 

Local residents raised the following points: one access road would be safer than the two proposed; owner of 25 Grovehurst Road objected to removal of the boundary wall as it clearly marked the boundary; the deeds for adjoining properties in Grovehurst Road showed that they had two parking spaces each; plots 5 would have a serious detrimental impact on the amenity of The Spinney, blocking light to their study, a bungalow at this plot would be better; proposed dwellings at the front of the development should be the same height as existing properties in Grovehurst Road; and concerns that it would have an adverse impact on the already busy local road network.

In response to questions, the KCC Highways Officer stated that any new access had to have a dropped kerb to ensure flush passage through for pedestrians.  One access would be better, but this may not be practical and was a logistical issue for the applicant.

In response to a query from a Member, the agent stated that a wall would be provided to ensure there was a steady  ...  view the full minutes text for item 604.

PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Sylvia Bennett, Bobbin, Derek Conway, Mike Henderson, Prescott, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Rob Bailey and Kellie Mackenzie.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Sue Gent and Peter Marchington.

The Chairman welcomed the agent, Hartlip Parish Council representative and members of the public to the meeting.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application for a two storey rear extension and erection of outbuilding, comprising double garage and store at 17 Dane Close, Hartlip.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the existing garage would be replaced with a new garage and small wet room, with a store in the roofspace at the rear of the dwelling.  The plans originally included within the garage a gym area but this had been removed.  Following receipt of amended plans, the garage would now have a fully hipped roof.  The Area Planning Officer stated that the two-storey extension would project 3.5 metres to the rear and would be 3.8 metres wide and 6.7 metres high to the ridge of its roof. 

The Area Planning Officer reported that four letters of objection had been received as set out in the Committee report.  The Area Planning Officer considered that the width and scale of the proposal was appropriate for the site and that overshadowing and overlooking would not be an issue as the proposal was set a reasonable distance from the closest dwellings. He reported that the site was not within the Hartlip Conservation Area and that at its closest point was in excess of 100 metres from the application site.  The development would not therefore have an adverse impact on the setting of the conservation area.

Mr Baker, the agent advised that the ground floor of the garage would be used for parking and the first floor for storage.  He advised that the roof pitch and building materials would be similar to those of the main house.

Mr Addicott, representing Hartlip Parish Council, spoke against the application.  They considered it would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents.  They also considered it would have a detrimental impact on the ‘openness’ of Dane Close.  The Parish Council also considered that as Dane Close was surrounded by the conservation area the proposal would impact on it.  Mr Addicott provided maps for Members showing the designated Hartlip Conservation Area.

Local residents raised the following points: not all adjoining properties had double garages; would destroy the visual amenity of Dane Close; why was a wet room needed; loss of view from no. 4 Dane Close; needed reassurance that the garage would be used for parking as there were already problems with illegal parking on the footpath; was not in-keeping with the visual amenity of the area; and would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of no. 16 Dane Close.

Members then toured the site with the officer, agent and applicant.

PRESENT: Councillors Barnicott (Chairman), Sylvia Bennett, Bobbin, Mick Constable, Derek Conway, Mark Ellen, June Garrad, Mike Henderson, Prescott, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Adrian Crowther.

OFFICERS PRESENT: James Freeman, Kellie Mackenzie and Jim Wilson.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Sue Gent and Peter Marchington.

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

The Major Projects Officer introduced the retrospective application 15/500955/FULL which sought to regularise changes made to application SW/10/0050 for 35 dwellings comprising 27 houses and 8 flats.  He reminded Members that there had been a Planning Working Group at the site held in late 2010 to consider the original application.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the retrospective application dealt with the following differences to the approved scheme namely: the houses were 1.44 metres higher to the ridge; the flats were 2.1 metres higher to the ridge; the eaves to the houses were 1.7 metres higher; the window design had been altered; balconies had been removed; the houses were 1 sq metre smaller in footprint; the arrangement of the integral garages had been altered making them narrower; the internal layout of the ground floor had been altered to remove a toilet and utility room; and the footpath link between the site and Beckley Road had been omitted.

The Major Projects Officer stated that the mix of dwellings remained unchanged and foul water and sewage discharge would not be affected.  KCC Highways raised no objection.  Further correspondence had been received since the 2 April 2015 Planning Committee raising points including: drainage problems; timing of the site visit; breaches of planning control; public right of way implications; and in-filling of water ditches.  The Major Projects Officer stated that further correspondence from the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board was awaited.

The Major Projects Officer considered that the application should be approved subject to the conditions set out in the committee report and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

Mr Mineham, representing Ubique Architects (the agent), explained that they had submitted the application to deal with changes made to the scheme and their impacts.  He considered that of the ten or so alleged breaches the most critical were the ridge height issues but considered that the others had now been resolved.

Mr Ings-Wotton, representing Moat Housing (the applicant), stated that the development was included within Swale Borough Council’s Local Plan.  He added that Moat Housing worked closely with SBC and the local community to ensure that much needed affordable housing was provided.

Several statements raising objection were read out by local residents.   The Chairman agreed that these would be forwarded to the Planning Committee and also included with these minutes.

The following further objections were raised by local residents: private householders would have to comply with the Building Regulations, so Moat Housing should; Southern Water stated that there should be no dwellings within 15 metres of their pumping station and there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 607.