To consider the attached report (Parts 2, 3 and 5).

 

The Council operates a scheme of public speaking at meetings of the Planning Committee.  All applications on which the public has registered to speak will be taken first.  Requests to speak at the meeting must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 31 March 2021.

 

Additional information added on 1 April 2021 which might be referred to at the meeting.

PART 2

 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

 

2.1       REFERENCE NO - 21/500138/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of part single, part two storey side and rear extension including Juliet balcony, together with roof alterations to create first floor with front and rear dormers.
ADDRESS115 Sterling Road Tunstall Sittingbourne Kent ME10 1SW
WARD Woodstock	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILTunstall	APPLICANT Mr & Mrs K Reardon AGENT Woodstock Associates

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and showed Members the proposals.

 

Parish Councillor Louisa Roberts, representing Tunstall Parish Council, spoke  against the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

A Ward Member, who was also a member of the Planning Committee, spoke in support of the application and agreed with the speaker that the windows to the side of the extension should be obscure glazed to mitigate any privacy issues with the neighbouring property.

 

Members raised the following points:

 

·         Welcomed the installation of obscure windows to the side of the extension;

·         concerned with the extent of the extension in relation to the neighbouring property;

·         acknowledged that a precedent had been set along the street with other dormer extensions; and

·         concerned with the Juliet balcony and the potential risk of overlooking.

 

The Area Planning Officer responded to concerns with the Juliet balcony and confirmed that the rear window was above the standard distance of 21 metres from other houses to the rear.  He considered the addition of the Juliet balcony would not increase the potential for overlooking.  He also explained the distances between the proposed extension and the neighbouring property.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/500138/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report, plus an additional condition to ensure that there was obscured glazing in the side windows to reduce the potential for overlooking.

 

 

 

2.2       REFERENCE NO - 21/500293/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL First floor side/rear extension together with roof alterations.  Erection of a detached garage.
ADDRESS32 Hales Road Tunstall Sittingbourne Kent ME10 1SR
WARD Woodstock	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILTunstall	APPLICANT Ms J Hook AGENT Richard Baker Partnership

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and showed Members the floor plans and explained that the footprint of the existing property would not be increased.  He indicated the site on a location plan and said that it was adjacent to Hales House, a Grade II Listed Building.  The Area Planning Officer reported that an email had recently been received from a local resident in support of the application, and they had noted that there were similar extensions already in Hales Road, and they welcomed the design of the extension.  The Area Planning Officer added that the distance between the application site and Hales House was over 25m, and so was in excess of the required standards.

 

Parish Councillor Vivien Rich, representing Tunstall Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee considered the proposed extension to be a good one.  He asked whether the proposed extension would be visible from Hales House?  The Area Planning Officer showed photographs of the site, and explained that as there was quite a lot of vegetation between the two properties, and they were over 21m apart, there was unlikely to be a privacy issue.  He confirmed that the extension was no higher than the original property, but was a bit longer.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Area Planning Officer indicated the boundaries of Tunstall Conservation Area and the Important Local Countryside Gap.  He advised that the bungalow was in the built-up area and the extension was being built on existing foundations.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/500293FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

 

 

 

 

2.3       REFERENCE NO - 20/505884/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Partial demolition of existing extension.  Erection of part single storey, part two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and part ground floor, part first floor side extension with balcony.  Erection of a detached double garage, as amended by drawings 2011-PP01 Rev B, 2011-PP05 Rev A and 2011-PP09 Rev A.
ADDRESS1 Rhode Common Cottages Rhode Common Dunkirk Kent ME13 9PT
WARD Boughton And Courtenay	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILDunkirk	APPLICANT Mr Brian Wicks AGENT Brian Wicks Architects

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and showed the proposals to extend to the left and right of the pair of cottages.  He drew Members’ attention to page 42 of the agenda which showed the replacement house, and the proposed alterations to the existing cottages.

 

Parish Councillor Jeff Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

The Ward Member, who was also a Planning Committee member, agreed with the registered speaker.

 

Members said the design was in-keeping with the neighbouring property and the proposal would improve what was currently there.

 

Resolved:  That application 20/505884/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

 

2.4       REFERENCE NO - 20/503637/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Change of use of auto showroom and workshop (Sui generis) to a banqueting hall, with food processing and distribution (Class D2 and B2), including the creation of a mezzanine floor and alterations to fenestration. Change of use of 2no. residential bungalows (C3) to guest accommodation (C1) associated with the banqueting hall, including the erection of a single storey rear extension and loft conversion, including 2no. rear dormers and installation of 4no. rooflights to front. Erection of a wedding gazebo to rear of bungalows.
ADDRESSMedway Autos, Christine And Muriel  London Road Upchurch Sittingbourne Kent ME9 7PD
WARDHartlip, Newington And Upchurch	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILUpchurch	APPLICANT Solid Rock Holdings Ltd AGENT Fuller Long Planning Consultants

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and showed Members the site including the 64 car parking spaces, a coach pick-up and drop-off, two taxi-drop-off, and seven disabled parking bays to the front.  He also showed photographs of the existing site, including the two bungalows which would be utilised for guest accommodation.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

Members spoke in support of the application.

 

Resolved:  That application 20/503637/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report.

 

2.5       REFERENCE NO - 20/504922/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of 2no. pairs (4 in total) of three bedroom semi-detached dwellings with associated access and parking.
ADDRESSLand At Thorn Hill Road And Knoll Way Warden Sheerness Kent ME12 4NZ
WARDSheppey East	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILWarden	APPLICANT Gemma Nash AGENT S Graham Architects Limited

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and showed Members the proposed scheme.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

Members raised the following points:

 

·         This used to be overgrown and was not maintained, happy that there were to be houses on the site;

·         concerned with the development size and the lack of residential amenity space;

·         it was in an unsustainable location; and

·         in favour of developing the site but concerned that the proposed dwellings faced onto Knoll Way where the road narrowed, with potential visibility issues to one of the set of dwellings.

 

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the garden sizes were 10m deep.  He acknowledged that the settlement of Warden was not one of the most sustainable in the Borough, but it was within the built-up area, and so it was acceptable in principle.  The Area Planning Officer said it was unlikely that there would be a significant issue where the road narrowed. The properties had a fairly wide frontage and were open in character.  The road was unmade, so vehicles were unlikely to be travelling at speed.

 

Resolved:  That application 20/504922/FULL be approved subject to the receipt of a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) payment and to conditions (1) to (13) in the report.

 

2.6       REFERENCE NO - 20/505817/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a single detached dwelling with associated car parking and driveway.
ADDRESSLand To The Rear Of 343 Minster Road Minster-on-sea Sheerness Kent ME12 3NR
WARD Sheppey Central	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILMinster-On-Sea	APPLICANT Mr L Halsey AGENT Michael Gittings Associates

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and showed Members the site and explained that access to the proposed property would be between Nos. 343 and 345 Minster Road.

 

Andrew Street, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

A Ward Member, who was also a member of the Planning Committee, spoke against the application.  He acknowledged that a precedent had been set, but spoke against back garden development and considered the application to be over-intensive.

 

A Member said the garden was extensive, a precedent had been set and if the application went to appeal, it was likely to be overturned.

 

Resolved:  That application 20/505817/FULL be approved subject to the receipt of a SAMMS payment and to conditions (1) to (12) in the report.

 

2.7       REFERENCE NO - 21/500059/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Conversion of existing integral garage to a bedroom.
ADDRESS30 Carnation Crescent Sittingbourne Kent ME10 4RY
WARD Woodstock	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL N/A	APPLICANT Ms Roxanne Sheppard AGENT Richard Baker Partnership

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/500059/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

 

2.8       REFERENCE NO - 21/500134/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Change of use of residential garage to provide a cattery.
ADDRESS10 Stangate Drive, Iwade, Sittingbourne Kent ME9 8UH
WARD Bobbing, Iwade And Lower Halstow	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILIwade	APPLICANT Mrs Karen Scholfield AGENT

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee spoke in support of the application.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/500134/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

 

PART 3

 

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

 

3.1       REFERENCE NO - 20/505910/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a side extension and 2no. dormer windows to existing garage to create an annex.
ADDRESS3 Brecon Chase Minster-on-sea Sheerness Kent ME12 2HP
RECOMMENDATION Refusal
WARD Minster Cliffs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILMinster-On-Sea	APPLICANT MrCyrous Loghmani AGENT Deva Design

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that Historic England had been consulted due to the site’s close proximity to Minster Abbey, but they did not wish to comment.  He showed the existing and proposed garage, and said the existing garage was set-down from the level of the street, but the proposed extension was substantial and harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

 

Mr Cyrous Loghmani, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

A Ward Member, who was also a member of the Planning Committee, spoke against the application and considered the garage itself could be converted into an annex, rather than building above it.

 

A Member thought the road was lined with trees and as such questioned why officers considered the dormer windows would spoil the street scene.  The Area Planning Officer explained that it was not intrinsically the dormer windows that were the issue, but the height and bulk of the proposed roof.  He said the orientation of the extension would make it visible from the street, and that although the existing trees provided some screening, they would need to be removed to allow the extension to go ahead.  This loss of trees compounded the bulk and scale issue.

 

Members raised the following points:

 

·         The application would make a drastic difference to the streetscene and was unacceptable;

·         against the annex as designed, the applicant should come back with amended plans;

·         acknowledged the slope of the application site, but the proposed extension would be imposing to the neighbouring bungalow; and

·         suggested decreasing the roof space to make it less imposing.

 

A Member suggested a condition be added to re-plant some trees and lower the roof line so that it was more acceptable.  The Area Planning Officer explained that a landscaping condition could be imposed, but there could not be a condition amending the plans.  Amended plans would need to be submitted in any new planning application.  The Area Planning Officer added that if the current garage space was utilised as the annex, there was enough space on the site for the vehicles that would be displaced from the garage.

 

Resolved:  That application 20/505910/FULL be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.

 

 

 

 

3.2       REFERENCE NO - 21/500110/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Section 73 - Application for variation of condition 12 (occupancy restriction) pursuant to SW/05/0118 for - Conversion to one 3 bed holiday home and ancillary parking.
ADDRESSThe Old Stables Old House Farm Old House Lane Hartlip Sittingbourne Kent ME9 7SP
WARDHartlip, Newington And Upchurch	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILHartlip	APPLICANT Mr Jay Laville AGENT

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which was to delete the occupancy condition on the holiday let.  He said the site lay within the countryside.

 

In the absence of Lynda Stacey, a supporter, her speech in support of the application was read-out by the Democratic Services Officer.

 

Melanie Rose, spoke on behalf of the Applicant, in support of the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

A visiting Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

 

In response to points raised by the Ward Member, the Area Planning Officer referred Members to pages 106 and 107 of the report which set-out examples of conversions to dwellings.  He said caution needed to be taken in terms of the comment that the building was already there, and it was not a new building, as this could apply to every holiday site.  The Area Planning Officer said that evidence need to be provided that the building was not viable as a holiday let.  He advised that it was marketed for a very short time in 2020, and a specialist estate agent had not been submitted.

 

A Member said there was a lack of marketing evidence here, the Committee could not go against the Council’s policies, and there was a demand for holiday lets in the area and this was likely to increase.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/500110/FULL be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.

 

3.3       REFERENCE NO - 21/500414/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of part single, part two storey rear extension with internal alterations.
ADDRESS21 Bobbing Hill Bobbing Sittingbourne Kent ME9 8NY
WARD Bobbing, Iwade And Lower Halstow	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILBobbing	APPLICANT Cassie Burton AGENT APX Architecture LTD

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and showed the one storey and two storey elements of the application. The block plan indicated the relationship between the application site and the neighbouring property at No. 23 Bobbing Hill.

 

In the absence of Samuel Pengelly, a supporter, his speech in support of the application was read-out by the Democratic Services Officer.

 

Marc Stelfox, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

 

A visiting Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

 

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee spoke in support of the application.

 

In response to a Member’s question, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the attached property was No. 19.  He referred to the neighbours at No. 19 Bobbing Hill’s application for a similar extension, but which had not yet been received by officers.  He explained that the application at No. 21, could not be based on the unseen application at No. 19.  The Area Planning Officer explained that extensions to both dwellings could be applied for at the same time, under one application.  He added that he was unaware of the Applicant’s personal circumstances.  There was some discussion on the way forward.

 

Councillor James Hunt moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred and officers work with the applicants of both Nos. 19 and 21 Bobbing Hill, and look at both applications side-by-side and bring forward the two proposals simultaneously, bearing in mind a reduced impact on No. 23 Bobbing Hill.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor and on being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/500414/FULLbe deferred and officers work with the occupiers of both Nos. 19 and 21 Bobbing Hill, and look at both potential developments simultaneously, bearing in mind a reduced impact on No. 23 Bobbing Hill. 

 

 

 

 

 

PART 5

 

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

                                                                                                                                                    

 

• Item 5.1 – 30 High Street Sheerness

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

A Member considered the decision to be disappointing, and that it set a strange precedent where a garden could be extended behind an existing property.

 

• Item 5.2 – Land at the corner of Seasalter Road and Monkshill Road Graveney

 

NON-DETERMINATION

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

• Item 5.3 – Swale Way Great Easthall Way Sittingbourne

 

NON-DETERMINATION

 

APPEAL ALLOWED / COSTS REFUSED

 

A Member said that it was important to note that no costs had been made against the Council, and he welcomed the scenario of an application being refused, with no subsequent costs.

 

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning committee raised some concern with some sections of the report for this item and agreed to meet with the Planning Lawyer outside of the meeting to discuss further.

 

• Item 5.4 – School Farm Oast Graveney Way Faversham

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

• Item 5.5 – Starwood Scarborough Drive Minster

 

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

A Member considered this was a good result.