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 interest were declared.

10am – 15/503342/FULL 16 Stiles Close, Minster-on-Sea, Kent, ME12 2TQ

The Vice-Chairman in the chair welcomed the applicants, the applicant’s agent, and eight members of the public to the meeting.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which proposed a two-storey side and single storey rear extension at 16 Stiles Close, Minster-on-Sea.  He explained that the two-storey side extension would match the depth and height of the dwelling, with a gable end, no first floor flank windows, and project approximately 3.6 metres to the side of the dwelling, abutting the side boundary of the site with rear boundaries of nos. 10 and 12 Appleford Drive.  The two-storey extension would, at its closest point, be approximately 11.5 metres from the rear elevation of no. 12 Appleford Drive, and 11 metres from the rear elevation of no. 10 Appleford Drive.  To the rear of the application site, the proposed two-storey extension would be 14 metres from the blank elevation of no. 15 Stiles Close.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the single-storey rear extension would project approximately 1.7 metres to the rear, and would be approximately 7 metres wide, with a pitched roof (maximum height 3.6 metres).

The Area Planning Officer further reported that the plans had been amended since the application was submitted.  The application originally sought consent for a two- storey-side and single storey front extension.  The front extension had been deleted and the single-storey rear extension added to allow more parking to the front.  Consequently parking for two vehicles was shown to the front of the dwelling.

The Area Planning Officer advised that 10 objections had been received, as set out in the report and the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 11 February 2016.  Minster Parish Council also raised objection as set out in the report and minutes.  The Area Planning Officer explained that one further objection had been received since the Planning Committee meeting, setting out that the result of the application was a fait accompli, and that officers providing advice and seeking amendments to planning applications was highly dubious in a free society and should not be tolerated by anyone that valued democracy, that the planning system was explicitly unfair and biased, and was being driven by the desire of whomever or whatever instigated this policy to the detriment of society as a whole, and Stiles Close in particular.

The Area Planning Officer stated that in terms of material considerations, the key issues were the principle of development, the impact on residential and visual amenity, and the impact on highway safety and convenience.  The site was located in the built-up area where development was acceptable in principle and although the site was in an area at risk of flooding, any harm in this respect could be dealt with by conditions, as set out in the report.  The design of the proposal was considered acceptable, also as set out in the report.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the design of the proposal was considered acceptable, as set out in the report.  In terms of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 537.