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 February 2022.

Additional information for Item 2.1 published 9 February 2022.

Tabled paper for Item 2.5 published 10 February 2022.

Additional information for Item 2.5 published 10 February 2022

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report.  He reported that the applicant had submitted an amended floorplan relating to a minor amendment to one of the house types which swapped the location of the toilet and a storage cupboard on the ground floor.  He considered the amendment was acceptable and did not alter any of the considerations within the report.  The Senior Planning Officer further reported that the reason stated in the report for imposing condition (13) was incorrect and should read “In the interests of visual amenities”.  He showed Members the proposed layout, streetscene drawings and details of the proposed house types.  He also explained that off-site highway works, including footpaths along Scocles Road had been secured under the outline planning permission.

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

Parish Councillor Dolley White had registered to speak on this item but was unable to as she was experiencing technical issues joining the meeting remotely.  She had not forwarded her statement to Democratic Services so it could not be read out on her behalf.

A Ward Member who was a member of the Committee spoke against the application.  He raised the following points:

·         Concerned about the width of the road on which buses were not able to pass safely;

·         Policy A21 of the Swale Borough Local Plan suggested widening the Scocles Road frontage across the site but noted that was not planned as part of the application;

·         Policy A21 also suggested a portion of the site be allocated for self-build and he considered it was a shame that there was not the option to self-build;

·         There was a lack of health care provision on the Isle of Sheppey;

·         considered that the proposed footpaths were not wide enough; and

·         the location was inadequate for the proposals. 

In response to a question from a Member, the Senior Planning Officer showed photos of Scocles Road along the site frontage and from the north and south of the site.

Resolved:  That application 21/501908/REM be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (14) in the report, with the approved drawing number to be updated to reflect the amended floorplan in condition (1) and the amendment to the reason for imposing condition (13) as minuted.   

The Planning Contract Officer (Majors) introduced the report.  She advised that Kent County Council (KCC) were seeking an additional contribution of £183.67 per dwelling, which had been agreed by the applicant and recommended that it be included as part of the Section 106 Agreement.  The Planning Contract Officer (Majors) gave a brief overview of the application and showed Members relevant site layout plans and photographs of the site.  She stated that the application was located outside of the settlement boundary and fell within an Important Countryside Gap, and noted that usual policy would be to refuse applications in such locations.  However, the site was within a sustainable location within walking distance of local amenities and transport links, and there was an absence of a five-year housing land supply.  She referred to the appeal decision for a similar application at Bartletts Close, Halfway, Sheerness which was set-out at Appendix I to the report.  The Planning Inspector had approved the application and considered that whilst the site was outside the settlement boundary and within an Important Countryside Gap it was acceptable.  As part of the presentation, the parameter plan and the details of the access were shown.

Parish Councillor Dolley White, representing Minster-on-Sea Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Simon Braysher, an Objector, spoke against the application.

James Delafield, 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 against the application.  He raised points which included:

·         Considered the application was extremely different to Bartletts Close as it was low lying whereas this site was on the brow of a hill and could be viewed from a distance;

·         concerned about the proposed KCC highway improvements at Halfway traffic lights where it was proposed to make the fourth arm of the lights one-way, and aware that the scheme had received significant local objections following the public consultation;

·         concerned that the site access was located at the brow of a hill;

·         KCC had removed the road as a gritting route as the road was not passable in the winter;

·         there was an established thick treeline between the school and the site; and

·         concerned about the potential impact to the south downs reservoir which was located immediately to the left (west)of the site. 

Councillor Cameron Beart moved a motion for a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

In response to highway concerns, the Senior Development Planner (KCC Highways) said that access to the site was 50 to 60 metres from the brow of the hill, and at 30 mph the stopping distance required was only 43 metres, so the access was well away from the brow.  He explained that the access would be like any other junction onto a residential estate and typical of many in the area.  The Senior Development Planner reported that the requirement for the Halfway traffic lights junction scheme had been approved as mitigation for the development at Belgrave Road and Barton Hill Drive, Minster, and that it would be reported to the Swale Joint Transportation Board on 28 February 2022.  He outlined the scheme for Members which it was hoped would allow an extra 300 vehicle movements per hour through the junction improving traffic flows along Queenborough Road and Minster Road.  He stated that if that scheme did not go ahead, the impact from this application at Highfield Road would only generate about eight movements an hour so there would still be no reason to refuse this application as the impact on the Halfway traffic lights and on local traffic flows generally would be minimal.  

On being put to the vote the motion for a site meeting was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 20/505921/OUT be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report and outlined the application for Members.

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

A Member commented that it was “farcical” that the Council were still considering these applications when it would not matter by the end of February 2022.  He raised concern that the Council had done nothing about other caravan parks that had not applied for the temporary permission.    

In response to a question from a Member, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that from 1 January 2023 government guidance allowing parks to remain open January and February would no longer apply.

Resolved:  That application 21/506426/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report and outlined the history of the site and adjacent developments for Members and showed photos of the site.  He said that the site sat just outside of the built up area of Minster.  The Area Planning Officer referred to paragraph 1.4 of the report which set-out the reasons why a previous application at the site for five two storey dwellings had been refused by the Planning Committee in 2020, it had also been dismissed on appeal and the decision in full was set-out under Part 5 of the agenda pack.  He explained that the Appeal Inspector considered the site was well located in terms of access to facilities but was critical about the size and scale of the proposed dwellings and the relationship with the surrounding area.   The current application which proposed bungalows had significantly reduced the scale and height of the development by 2.3 metres and 3 metres and had a much better visual appearance with the neighbouring development.  The proposed bungalows offered different types and choices and were also wheelchair friendly and accessible.  The Area Planning Officer stated that as the Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing supply officers considered that the harm caused by the development had been reduced and that any harm did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.

Parish Councillor Dolley White, representing Minster-on-Sea Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

In response to a question from a Ward Member, the Area Planning Officer drew attention to page 128 of the report which confirmed that an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 had been undertaken which concluded that any adverse impacts could be suitably mitigated.    

The Ward Member, who was also a Member of the Planning Committee, spoke against the application and considered that a lot of the concerns raised about the previous application remained and considered that the proposal was too large for the site and would adversely affect the semi-rural nature of Minster.  

Councillor Elliott Jayes moved a motion for a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Darby. 

Some Members spoke against the site visit and considered that the site had not changed since the Committee last visited the site.

On being put to the vote the motion for a site meeting was lost.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         Had not been any change to the previous application and did not consider the site was suitable for the proposed development;

·         concerned about the right-hand turn out of the site onto Chequers Road;

·         referred to the appeal and did not see how the Council could refuse the application;

·         the roof levels were now below the adjacent development and the two-storey appearance had been the Planning Inspectors main concern;

·         bungalows were much needed;

·         there were a lot of applications coming forward just outside of the built-up area but the Council had no five year housing supply so was not in a position to oppose such applications;

·         referred to paragraphs 9 to 14 of the appeal and considered the Planning Inspector had made it clear any development on the site would have a level of impact on the countryside and considered there were still issues about whether the site was acceptable for housing; and

·         applauded the applicant for listening to Members concerns.

In response to a question from a Member, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that there was a footpath from the development which linked to the adjacent site.

Resolved:  That application 21/505878/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (28) in the report.

The Major Projects Officer introduced the report.  He drew attention to the tabled update which had previously been circulated to Members and been published on the Council’s website.  The Major Projects Officer said that the application was in outline with all matters other than access reserved for future consideration for an application for up to ten dwellings.  He stated that officers considered the application to be acceptable in principle as the Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the site was sustainably located and was adjacent to the built-up area boundary of Teynham which had a good level of amenities and a main line railway station.

The Major Projects Officer also stated that he was aware that Lynsted Parish Council had contacted Members directly about highway implications, particularly for Lynsted Lane.  He considered the issues they raised were dealt with fully within the report and that as the development was for only 10 dwellings would generate limited traffic movements and that the application would deliver improvements to Lynsted Lane.   The Major Projects Officer reported that a 1.5 metre pavement would be provided between the site and the A2 and a proportionate scheme of traffic calming was proposed to regularise intermittent issues of parked vehicles disrupting traffic flows on the lane.  He further reported that three car parking spaces for existing residents’ vehicles were proposed.  The Major Projects Officer concluded that officers considered that outline permission should be granted mindful that it would be tightly conditioned and a Section 106 Agreement to secure developer contributions as set-out in the report would be secured.

Parish Councillor Julien Speed, representing Lynsted with Kingsdown Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mrs Williams, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Sam Sykes, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

Councillor Mike Dendor moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 21/502609/OUT be deferred in order that the Planning Working Group can meet on site. 

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – 69 Borden Lane Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.2 – 13 Hempstead Lane Tonge

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.3 – 22 Ospringe Street Faversham

LISTED BUILING ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DISMISSED

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT APPEAL PARTLY ALLOWED

DELEGATED DECISION

• Item 5.4 – Land at Pond Farm Pond Farm Road Borden

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.5 – Rear of 91 / 93 Chaffes Lane Upchurch

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.6 – Jays Wood Canterbury Road Boughton Under Blean

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.7 – Danedale Stables Chequers Road Minster

            APPEAL DISMISSED

            COMMITTEE DECISION

            A Member congratulated the Committee who had gone against the officer recommendation to approve the application.

• Item 5.8 – The Old Bindery, Throwley Forstal

            ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEAL DISMISSED

          A Member welcomed the decision.

• Item 5.9 – Churchmans Farm Stalisfield Road Ospringe

TWO APPEALS DISMISSED

          DELEGATED DECISION

In response to a question from a Member, the Development Manager explained that the item was a complex case and referred to Prior Approval and Permitted Development Rights.  Both properties fell under Class PNPA (Light Industrial to a dwelling) use but they had no rights for any external alterations to be made such as inclusion of additional windows.  He explained that on this basis the appeal had been dismissed as it did not provide adequate natural light to all habitable rooms. 

A Member praised officers in respect of all the appeals that had been dismissed.