Resolved:

(1)          That Councillor Cameron Beart be elected Chairman for these Meetings.

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 – (2.5) 18/505929/FULL Land rear of 54-76 Oak Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 3PF

11.30am – (2.3) 19/500219/FULL 20 Hustlings Drive, Eastchurch, Sheerness, ME12 4JX

PRESENT:  Councillors Cameron Beart (Chairman), Richard Darby, James Hall, James Hunt, Nigel Kay and Peter Marchington.

OFFICERS PRESENT:   Matt Bembridge (Kent County Council (KCC)), Philippa Davies and Ross McCardle.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Ken Ingleton, Bryan Mulhern and Prescott.

The Chairman welcomed the Applicant’s Agents and members of public to the meeting.

The Senior Planner introduced the application which sought planning permission on a rectangular piece of land to the rear of 54 to 76 Oak Road, Sittingbourne.  The application was for 6no. 3 bedroom houses, arranged in two terraced blocks, with vehicular access from Oak Road.   The northern boundary of the site faced onto East Hall Farm.  The Senior Planner explained that the houses would be of a traditional design, measuring 9metres to the ridge of the roof, with eaves height of 5metres.  Vehicle access onto Oak Road would be from the existing access point to the south of the site, with pedestrian only access from the north, and the site was within the built-up area of Sittingbourne.  The two terraced blocks would have a uniform scale and mass, matching those of nearby houses.

The Senior Planner reported that 24 letters of objection had been received from local residents, and a Ward Member.  Their comments were outlined in the report.  No objections had been received from statutory consultees.  The Senior Planner considered the application to be reasonably visually attractive, with no serious amenity impact in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of light.  He advised that Permitted Development Rights would be removed so that additional new openings could not be installed to the eastern and southern flanks, to mitigate against the potential for future over-looking.

The Development Planner (Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation) explained that the existing vehicular crossover of the pavement had an historic use, and the six dwellings were expected to amount to one additional car movement every 20 minutes.  The access to the site would be widened to accommodate movement of vehicles in both directions, which would improve highway safety and prevent vehicles from waiting on the highway, and the access would become narrower further into the site to reduce vehicle speed.  The Development Planner advised that vehicle tracking had taken place and this had indicated that a fire tender, or service vehicle, could turn within the site and exit in a forward-facing position.  Refuse collection would be from Oak Road.  The parking met current adopted standards for residents and visitors in a suburban location and he considered the site to be remote enough from Oak Road to prevent any overspill parking on the highway.

One of the agents for the applicant outlined the application and explained that it was within the built-up area, was a modest development, and there had been no issues from KCC with regard to highway/access issues.

Local residents raised the following points:

·         Parking issues, especially when there were visitors;

·         loss of habitat  ...  view the full minutes text for item 584.

PRESENT:  Councillors Cameron Beart (Chairman), Richard Darby, James Hall, James Hunt, Nigel Kay and Peter Marchington.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:  Councillors Tina Booth and Lynd Taylor.

OFFICERS PRESENT:   Philippa Davies and Megan Harris.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Ken Ingleton, Bryan Mulhern and Prescott.

The Chairman welcomed the Applicant, members of the public, a representative from Eastchurch Parish Council and a Visiting Ward Member to the Meeting.

The Planner introduced the application which sought permission for the erection of a detached double garage, west of the main dwelling. The application site was within the built-up area of Eastchurch.  The building would be 6.4metres wide and 7metres long, with the eaves height 3.8metres high, and the ridge height being 6.2metres.  The materials would match the main house.  The Planner explained that upstairs would be for use by a disabled relative, and the application was a re-submission of a previous application which had been refused.  This application was of a smaller footprint and improved design, and had more appropriate fenestration.  The rear window on the first floor would be obscure-glazed and was a significant distance from the nearest property.  The annex’s habitable floor space had been reduced from 38.9m² in the previous application to 23.9m².  The annex was dependent on the main house, and was not a separate dwelling.

The Planner advised that there had been 10 objections to the application, as noted in the report.  She explained that Eastchurch Parish Council had also objected.

The Applicant gave an overview of the application and the reasons that he wanted the additional accommodation.  He explained the addition of the double garage would allow him to park his vehicles off the road, as they did not fit in the garage currently on the site.

A Visiting Member who was also a representative of Eastchurch Parish Council spoke against the application and considered it to be not-in-keeping with the streetscene.  She questioned the practicalities of having upstairs accommodation for someone who was disabled.  The Applicant confirmed that a stair lift would be installed.

A Visiting Ward Member spoke against the application and understood there was a covenant on the original dwelling preventing a second dwelling on the site.

Local residents raised the following points:

·         This looked like it would be a separate dwelling, and could be rented out independently in the future;

·         this would be an eyesore;

·         it would set a precedent, with the gaps in the spacious housing being filled;

·         loss of character of the estate;

·         more vehicles;

·         concerns on how the disabled person would evacuate if there was a fire;

·         the covenant on the house seemed to have been ignored;

·         overlooking; and

·         loss of winter sunshine to nearby property.

In response, the Planner explained that covenants were not taken into account in the planning process; and a condition would be added to the permission to state that the new building would be ancillary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 585.