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 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 – 17/504618/FULL - 6 Park Avenue, Sittingbourne, ME10 1QX

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

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which set out amendments to a previously approved scheme, which included an additional single storey rear extension, increased roof height provision of the flat roof element, increased pitch of hips, additional front and rear facing roof lights, and provision of pitched roofs over the front facing bay windows.

He explained that the two-storey extension to the east of the property had not been built yet, and that the facing materials had been changed from brick to render.   He also outlined the approved measurements, plus the additional proposed measurements, as outlined in the report, and as subsequently amended.

The Area Planning Officer considered the alterations to the scheme, plus the increased bulk of the extension did not give rise to harm to visual and residential amenity.  He explained that there were already a number of white rendered properties along Park Avenue, that the property was set back from the highway, so was not too prominent, and the pitched roofs above the bay windows were a better design.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the objections that had been received and advised that the rear balcony had not required planning permission, and the nearest property to the site was 49 metres away.  He added that a condition would prevent the flat roof of the currently proposed rear extension being used as a balcony, and although the increase in the pitch to the hip on the western side did have some impact on the adjacent property, it was not substantial enough to refuse the application.

The Applicant advised that he had made the recent changes to the application for structural reasons, and that the balcony had been on the original scheme. The balcony on the new scheme was smaller in size than that on the original scheme, and would have solid walls to reduce overlooking.

A Ward Member spoke against the application and considered the change in the roof pitch should have been included in the original application, not amended later.  He explained that it was unreasonable that there had been two years of on-going work on the development, constructed differently to the original plans.  The Ward Member explained that the structure of the building meant that it had become an extremely imposing property, and there were concerns with both the height and pitch of the roof.

The owner responded by stating that the height of the building was lower than the original plans.  He explained that construction had commenced in March 2017, and that build issues had come along later, which was why amendments had been made.

Local residents raised points in objection to the application which included:  overlooking from the proposed balcony; the property should have been built to the submitted plans; the pitch of the roof was too steep/high; overlooking; the extending angle of the hips and roof should match, but they did not; the roof was 30 cm higher  ...  view the full minutes text for item 661.