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 - 2.4 15/501692/FULL - 30 Woodside Gardens, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1SG  

The Vice-Chairman in the Chair welcomed the members of the public to the meeting.

The Planning Officer introduced the application which was for the demolition of the existing garage and erection of a side and rear extension.  The side first floor extension would have dormer windows and rooflights to the north and south elevations.  The Planning Officer advised that the roof would be converted from hipped to gable, and would not increase in height from the original.  The side extension would project 4 metres to the side and 5.8 metres to the rear to form an L-shape.  There would be no windows to the side of the property.

The Planning Officer reported that 13 letters of objection had been received, with comments as noted in the report.  He advised that the proposals were in accordance with the Local Plan.  The Planning Officer considered there would be limited overlooking because of the oblique angle of the property and there being no windows to the side of the proposed extension.  Parking at the premises was in accordance with the current adopted Kent Parking Standards.

Local residents’ comments included:  the angle of the property would mean that the dormer windows overlooked neighbouring gardens; the side wall/width of the property would abut the original line of garages and would be very high; it looked unsightly; privacy issues; 4 metres was a long way for extension to come out to side; would look out of proportion; potential of more cars at property, with resulting parking issues; this was a peaceful and quiet area with two-bedroom bungalows, did not want to lose this; would be looking onto large side wall; overbalanced; this would result in a house adjoining a bungalow; French door to rear of property was only 32 inches from the adjoining property bedroom window; potential damage to adjoining property during construction; proposal would attract larger number of residents to the property, with associated noise and disturbance; this was over-bearing; would prefer velux windows on the property; and no objection to the property being developed, but not happy with the design.

In response to a question, the Planning Officer reported that the minimum rear-to-rear separation of properties was 21 metres and he confirmed that there was a minimum distance of 23 metres to nos. 48 and 50, and 33 metres to no. 28.

Members then toured the site and neighbouring properties with the officer.