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 – 15/503738/FULL 9 Woodside, Dunkirk, Kent, ME13 9NY

10.30am (approximately) – 15/500819/FULL Land adjoining Driftwood, Imperial Drive, Warden, Kent, ME12 4SE

11.45am (approximately) – 15/502716/FULL Breach Farm Paddocks, Land North-east of Breach Farm Bungalow, Breach Lane, Upchurch, Kent, ME9 7PE

The Chairman welcomed the applicant and a representative from Dunkirk Parish Council to the meeting.

The Planning Officer introduced the application which was for a single-storey wraparound side and rear extension, within the built-up area of Dunkirk.  The street already had properties that were extended and an earlier application for a much larger extension was withdrawn in 2014.  The side extension would be situated one metre from the boundary, with a width of 1.5 metres.  The rear extension would be 3 metres in depth, rising to 5.2 metres.

The Planning Officer reported that Dunkirk Parish Council had objected to the application.  They had considered that it was overly large and disproportionate to the existing dwelling.  The Planning Officer considered the proposal was not excessive, it was set back from the boundaries of adjacent properties, and policies of rural restraint did not apply in this case.

The applicant provided an overview of the proposal and outlined the benefits the extension would have to her family.   The proposals would enable them to remain in the village and it would enhance their quality of life.

The representative from Dunkirk Parish Council explained that the Parish Council had no problem with the house being extended to the rear, but considered the side extension was too close to the boundary and made the extension too large.

A Ward Member considered the rear extension was acceptable, but that the side extension was out of proportion.  The Chairman advised that the other Ward Member had no problem with the extension.

In response to questions it was confirmed that the extension would be faced in weatherboarding, to match the existing property, and there would be a one metre gap to the side of the extension, so egress from the front to the back garden was still possible.

Members then toured the site with the Planning Officer.

This application was considered at the reconvened meeting of the Planning Working Group on Monday 21 September 2015.

This application was considered at the reconvened meeting of the Planning Working Group on Monday 21 September 2015.