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.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

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.

10am – (2.3) 41 Windsor Drive, Sittingbourne, ME10 1UN

11am – (2.5) 100 Station Road, Teynham, ME9 9TB

PRESENT:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Andy Booth (Chairman-in-the-Chair), Richard Darby, James Hall, Mike Henderson, Nigel Kay and Ghlin Whelan.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:  Councillor Roger Truelove (Ward Member).

OFFICERS PRESENT: Paul Gregory and Jo Millard.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Bobbin, Roger Clark, Mike Dendor, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern and Prescott.

The Chairman welcomed the applicants, applicants’ agent, members of the public, and the Ward Member to the meeting.

The Planner introduced the application which sought planning permission for the erection of a detached single storey annexe at the back of the rear garden of 41 Windsor Drive, Sittingbourne.  The proposed annexe would be 3.8m in height with a pitched roof, 2.6m to the eaves with a footprint of 9m in width and 5m in depth.  The Planner explained that the proposed materials would be rendered walls, cement roof slates and white uPVC windows and doors, and internally the annexe would provide a lounge/diner, bedroom and shower room.

Mr Baker, the applicants’ agent, advised that the design of the annexe was in accordance with Council guidance.

In response to a question from the Ward Member on why the proposed annexe was so far away from the main residence, the owner explained that the drainage system had dictated the position of the proposed annexe and

whilst his mother required daily support, she also needed her independence.

Local residents raised concerns which included: height of building too tall; building may block light; may set a precedent; overlooking issues; public footpath not referred to on plans; clarification of permitted development rights; adjoining owners letters not received; why was a spare room required; and why was there no kitchen?

Members then viewed the rear of the property with officers, and viewed the site from the adjoining neighbour’s property.

PRESENT:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Andy Booth (Chairman-in-the-Chair), Richard Darby, James Hall, Mike Henderson, Nigel Kay and Ghlin Whelan.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Lloyd Bowen (Ward Member).

OFFICERS PRESENT:   Jo Millard and Andrew Spiers.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Bobbin, Roger Clark, Mike Dendor, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern and Prescott

The Chairman welcomed the applicants, applicants’ agent, members of the public, and the Ward Member to the meeting.

The Planner introduced the application which was an outline application with all matters reserved for future consideration, for the erection of a two-storey dwelling with parking to the rear, on land immediately to the north of 100 Station Road, Teynham.  He added that amended drawings had been received on 4 October 2016 which showed the proposal to include two new replacement off-road parking spaces immediately adjacent to the property, for the use of the existing property, thus reducing the application site.

The Planner advised there had been six letters of objection, as highlighted in the report, which included the following points:

·        visual amenity issues;

·        out-of-keeping with the area;

·        parking and highway safety issues;

·        possible removal of trees;

·        overlooking issues;

·        light issues; and

·        invasion of privacy.

The Planner advised that Teynham Parish Council had objected to the proposal having a terracing effect on the streetscene, setting a precedent, and parking and access issues.

The Planner explained that the site was considered to be located in a sustainable central location with access to services, facilities and transport options and the principle of the proposal was therefore acceptable.  He said that whilst the indicative drawings did provide some intention of the future proposals, the design and style of the house were matters to be considered under a reserved matters application.

The Ward Member highlighted the existing issues of access into Amber Close, adjacent to the site, and considered the application would have an impact on the streetscene as there were no other detached properties in the immediate vicinity. 

The Agent pointed out the unusual scale of the plot of garden to 100 Station Road, reminded the meeting that there was already an existing rear access to the site in Amber Close and that the current application was in outline.

Local residents raised concerns which included:

·        ‘open’ aspect of area and sight lines compromised;

·        other applications in the area previously refused;

·        nearby property already had current planning permission for similar proposal;

·        fear that parking area at rear will not be used;

·        access to emergency vehicles already difficult without additional vehicles;

·        safety of children playing in area compromised;

·        additional visitor parking; and

·        privacy and overlooking issues.

A Member sought confirmation of the boundary and highlighted the design of the narrow road.

Members then viewed the site from the garden of no.100 Station Road, Teynham.