To consider the attached report (Parts 2 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 9 March 2022.

Tabled Paper added to item 2.2 on 9 March 2022.

Additional information which might be refered to at the meeting added on 10 March 2022.

Tabled Paper added to items 2.6 and 2.7 on 10 March 2022.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.  He said this was for a single dwelling in a countryside location, outside the built-up boundary of Boughton/Dunkirk.  The site was on a designated rural lane and in a special landscape area.  The Area Planning Officer displayed the proposed dwelling and traditional garden layout.  He explained that a new vehicular access would be installed through the existing wall on the eastern side.

Rob Hughes, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member said that he was undecided on 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.  He welcomed the preservation of the walled garden and the improved visibility splays at the new access point onto what he considered to be a dangerous road.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·           This was an outstanding design, and noted that it was not visible from the road;

·           congratulated the officer on a very enthusiastic report;

·           this was an excellent scheme;

·           pleased that this type of dwelling was being developed in Swale and hoped similar schemes came forward;

·           noted that the word ‘innovative’ had been removed from paragraph 80(e) as a factor, and as set-out in paragraph 8.4 of the report, the Design Review Panel stated that the design had not yet shown that they met all the paragraph 80(e) criteria;

·           there was a lot of support for the application and no objections and could not see a reason to refuse the application; and

·           this would be an improvement to what was currently on the site.

Resolved:  That application 21/503441/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (30) in the report and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Scheme (SAMMS) payment.

The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper for this item.  He displayed the ‘before’ and ‘after’ images of the bungalow, with its black cladding and corrugated sheeting to look similar to a farm building.

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 member of the Planning Committee considered the proposed finish to the building was a bit ‘brutal’ and that it could ‘stick out’ in the countryside.

A Member welcomed the new finish and thought it was an improvement to what was currently there.

Resolved:  That application 21/506401/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that amendments had reduced overlooking issues and it was now better designed.

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

A Member who was familiar with the location said there was an eclectic mix of houses nearby, some with large extensions and he considered this application fitted in well with the surroundings.

Resolved:  That application 22/500111/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.  He advised that the current condition allowed the takeaway to operate up to 9 pm Mondays to Saturdays, and this application was for a variation of the condition to allow operating up to 10 pm and for this to include Sundays as well.  The Area Planning Officer said the key issue was the impact on the residents in the flats above the premises.  The Environmental Health Team had raised concern with the extended hours sought, but had no objection for extended opening times until 10 pm on Fridays and Saturdays, and Sunday opening until 8 pm.  The Area Planning Officer also advised that the current condition had no limit on staff being present in the building, and that the proposed condition required that staff left the premises no later than one hour after the premises was closed to the public.

Mr Michael Tamsett, the Agent, 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 with some concern on the application.  He referred to breaches of the current planning conditions, with the premises sometimes open until 11 pm on a Friday and Saturday, and members of staff staying in the premises overnight.  The Ward Member said the Enforcement Team were currently investigating the breaches.  Councillor Simon Clark moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow the Enforcement Team to conduct their investigation and report back to the Planning Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 21/506021/FULL be deferred to allow the Enforcement Team to conduct their investigation and report back to the Planning Committee. 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.  He gave a brief overview and said that this would be a temporary permission for a year whilst construction of the two dwellings took place.  He said this was an appropriate, although unusual option, and would be converted back to a garage once the dwellings were completed.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, representing Upchurch Parish Council had registered to speak on this item, but was unable to due to him experiencing IT problems and not being able to join the meeting remotely.  His speech had not been forwarded to Democratic Services and as such could not be read out on his behalf.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·           In principle not against this application so long as it was limited to one year temporary permission;

·           this did not fit with the Section 278 Agreement which stated that no dwelling be occupied until the off-site highway works were completed;

·           it made sense for the self-builders to stay on site; and

·           concerned with what amenities were in place within the garages.

In response, the Area Planning Officer showed Members the floor plans of the garages which indicated a shower room and temporary kitchen which would revert back to garage use once the dwellings were completed.

Resolved:  That application 21/506357/FULL be approved subject to condition (1) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and drew attention to the tabled update for this item.  This included comments from the Environmental Health team who did not consider the increase from a six person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to a seven person HMO would give rise to unacceptable noise or disturbance.   A further representation had also been received, raising concerns already set-out in the report.  He stated that the Council had refused a similar application last year which was now at appeal.  Following that refusal, the applicant had submitted a Lawful Development Certificate for a six bedroom HMO and erection of a rear dormer window under permitted development, and this had been granted.  The new application was externally the same as the Lawful Certificate scheme approved in 2021, but internally the current proposal was to increase it to a seven bedroom HMO.  The Area Planning Officer stated that the applicant had now established a fall-back position that they could still convert the dwelling to a six Bedroom HMO in any case, so consideration needed to be given as to whether a seven bedroom HMO was now acceptable against this fallback position.  He said there was some appeal precedence on this matter where the difference between a six and seven HMO was considered to be very small and not enough to show as being demonstrably harmful.  He highlighted condition (7) which set out that no more than seven residents should occupy the HMO.

As the registered objector, Mr Andrew Newson was having IT issues, his speech against the application was read out by the Democratic Services Officer.

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 said the surrounding area consisted predominantly of two-storey family dwellings and he did not consider a HMO was required.  The Ward Member said that he would rather the building remained as a family dwelling, but if it was approved, that only two parking permits be issued to be in-line with other nearby properties.

In response, the Area Planning Officer said that it was not possible to limit the number of parking permits under the Planning Acts.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·           This application was only asking for consideration of one additional person in the HMO;

·           some concerns with this increase in terms of fire safety;

·           just one additional person might be difficult to defend on appeal;

·           one extra person was a 16% increase, and considered the developer was being greedy,

·           suggested the cycle storage be increased to seven and be a lockable cupboard; and

·           understood neighbours’ concerns but condition (6) ensured there were no more than seven people occupying the dwelling.

The Area Planning Officer said the cycle storage could be increased and Members agreed to the suggestion that they were not just a rack, but a lockable covered area.  He advised that fire safety issues were dealt with separately from planning under building regulations.  In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer advised that the housing team dealt with HMO licensing.

Resolved:  That application 22/500289/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report and an additional condition so that there be locked covered cycle storage for seven bicycles.

The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled update for this item.  This included one further condition to be added to the application to require the provision of suitable visibility splays.  He said the site was open and rural in character and the application was to retain a portacabin as residential accommodation on the grounds that there was an agricultural need for residency and the applicant identified as a gypsy and traveller.  The Area Planning Officer said the Council’s assessment had concluded that there was no essential agricultural need for accommodation in connection with the smallholding.  However, although the applicant no longer travelled due to his age, he fell within a group known as cultural gypsy and travellers and this group was not covered under the current Government Planning Policy for Traveller Sites definition or the Council’s own Gypsy policy in the Local Plan (DM10).  The Council’s own gypsy and traveller assessment recognised a need for sites for this additional group.  Taking into account this identified need, it was considered that a personal and temporary permission would be appropriate in this instance.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, representing Upchurch Parish Council had registered to speak on this item, but was unable to due to him experiencing IT problems and not being able to join the meeting remotely.  His speech had not been forwarded to Democratic Services and as such could not be read out on his behalf.

Mr Michael Tamsett, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·           Clarification was needed on the status of the applicant;

·           concerned with noise and fires and how they would be monitored;

·           smoke from the site could blow across the railway line causing visibility issues;

·           with reference to paragraph 8.4 of the report, considered the applicant did have a viable business as their living requirements might be low;

·           realistically, the permission could last longer than five years; and

·           from the pictures, the application did not appear to have a huge impact on the surrounding area.

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that noise and fire issues came under the Environmental Health team.  He said there was a test applied to agricultural dwellings and the bar was quite high.  This test asked if there was an essential need for someone to reside on the land on a continuous basis and was the business viable as an agricultural business?  An agricultural advisor had looked at this and concluded that the applicant did not meet the bar.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that officers were happy with the supporting statement from the applicant in terms of his gypsy and traveller status.

Resolved:  That application 19/505263/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report, plus an additional condition to require the provision of suitable visibility splays.

PART 5

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

·                Item 5.1 – Copper Beeches The Street Hartlip

DELEGATED DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.2 – Land Situated at 61 Newton Road Faversham

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.3 – 1 Ashberry Close Faversham

DELEGATED DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member congratulated officers.

·                Item 5.4 – Rides House Warden Road Eastchurch

DELEGATED DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member endorsed the decision and said that local plan policies were in place for a reason.

·                Item 5.5 – Little Owens Court Farmhouse Selling Road Selling

DELEGATED DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

Members congratulated officers on the dismissed appeals on delegated decisions.