To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 April 2015 (Minute Nos. to follow).

1.     14/502582/FULL – Freesia, Grovehurst Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2RB

2.     14/505395/FULL – 17 Dane Close, Hartlip, Kent, ME9 7TN

3.     15/500955/FULL – Land at Rear of Seager Road, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 2BG

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 April 2015 (Minute Nos. 603 – 606) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the inclusion of Cllr Mulhern’s apologies.

14/502582/FULL Freesia, Grovehurst Road, Sittingbourne, ME10 2RB

The Major Projects Officer reported that further to concerns raised by a local resident that some residents had not been made aware of the date of the site meeting, records of the consultation carried out had been checked and all those who had commented on the application had been invited to the meeting.  In addition, the two neighbours who had suggested they were not informed of the site meeting had been written to in order to clarify the situation.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

A Ward Member raised concern that plots 3 and 5 would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of ‘The Spinney’.  He was also concerned about the impact the access to the site would have on Grovehurst Road.

The Major Projects Officer advised that the site was allocated for housing in the Local Plan and he did not consider that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjoining dwellings.  Kent County Council (KCC) Highways raised no objection to the scheme following receipt of amended drawings.  The Major Projects Officer explained that the Section 106 Agreement dealt with standard issues (in accordance with Local Plan policy) and that no affordable housing would be provided at the site.

In response to a query about access for wheelie bins, the Major Projects Officer stated that the plans showed that there would be a gap in the fence ensuring that the vehicle access was maintained.

There was some discussion about the retention of the boundary wall.  A Member suggested that a replacement brick wall should be provided to improve the appearance of the site.  The Major Projects Officer suggested that officers be delegated to work with the applicants to ensure a wall, rather than a fence, was provided.  This was agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 14/502582/FULL be delegated to officers to approve, subject to conditions (1) to (23) in the report and discussions with the applicant to ensure that a replacement brick boundary wall was provided.

14/505395/FULL 17 Dane Close, Hartlip, Kent, ME9 7TN

The Planning Officer reported that Councillor Wright, a Ward Member, had submitted a letter raising objection to the application and that this had been emailed to Members of the Planning Committee.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered the extension was too large and bulky for the site.

Members raised the following points: was a fairly large extension but was well to the rear of the property; the southern part of the estate was blocked by two large houses so it was not an ‘open’ estate; and nobody had a right to a view.

In response to queries from a Member, the Planning Officer confirmed the height of the roof eaves level was 3.5 metres.  He explained that steeper roofs were a traditional design feature and considered lowering the ridge height would result in an inferior design.  The loft space proposed was normal.

Resolved: That application 14/505395/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

15/500955/FULL Land at rear of Seager Road, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 2BG

The Major Projects Officer reported that the applicant had confirmed that the unconsented culverts had been removed from the site and this was accepted by the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board (LMIDB).  The LMIDB therefore removed their objection provided that the Council was satisfied that the revised proposal included for surface water to be restricted to no more than 7l/s/ha, a standard requirement, with on-site storage provided to accommodate the 1 in 100 year rainfall event +30% to allow for the predicted effects of climate change, and that maintenance of the surface water drainage (SuDS) was ensured for the lifetime of the development.

The Major Projects Officer noted that at the meeting on 2 April 2015 he had recommended that a further condition be added to require details of the foul and surface water drainage to be submitted.  These details would then be reviewed by both Southern Water and the LMIDB and at that stage could ensure that the requirements of the LMIDB were met.

The Major Projects Officer reported that an additional comment had been received from a local resident, on behalf of the residents’ association.  They remained unconvinced that the sewage system would be able to cope with the additional waste from the development and noted that the existing pumping station dated back to 1935.  They considered its failure would have devastating affects on properties and residents and asked for additional and detailed information with regards to the sewerage handling equipment.

The Major Projects Officer further reported that a second additional letter from a neighbour had also been received suggesting that the timing of the site visit was inappropriate and questioned what Moat Housing were going to do to rectify the discrepancies between the approved development and the scheme as built.

The Major Projects Officer stated that in his previous update he had confirmed that Southern Water raised no objection to the proposal noting that the developer would upgrade the existing pumping station to cater for the additional load.  With regards to the request for additional information, the detailed design of the foul and surface water drainage would be required by the additional condition as previously mentioned.

The Major Projects Officer stated that KCC had reviewed their requirements for community contributions based on the current need.  They now requested that the developer pay a total of £177,680.55 - £116,000 for primary education, specifically a new school at Thistle Hill and, £1,680.55 for additional book stock for Sheerness library.

The Major Projects Officer advised that he had asked the applicant to confirm whether they were to pay these contributions noting that they were asking for £8,690.57, more than they did under the 2010 application (SW/10/0050).  In addition, the costs of the other contributions, namely children’s play equipment, the provision of bins and the monitoring fee, had increased resulting in a total additional contribution of approximately £13,000.  The Major Projects Officer advised that the applicant had responded and he read this out for Members.

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the Committee report which stated that it was hoped that the future residents of the development may be able to access the alleyway behind the Seager Road properties via the gates that would eventually provide access through the development to the Southern Water Pumping Station.  The Major Projects Officer stated that he had received communication from a local resident stating that this was a private access owned by the residents of Seager Road.  The Major Projects Officer had no evidence to either support or refute this claim but considered that encouraging access onto a potentially private access was not appropriate.  The applicant had therefore confirmed that the Southern Water gates would be locked with access only allowed to Southern Water employees as would have previously been the case.  The Major Projects Officer did not consider that the loss of this access would fundamentally undermine the scheme.

The Major Projects Officer stated that a letter had been received from the applicant responding to Committee’s concerns about the development.  This was tabled for Members.

The Major Projects Officer concluded by seeking delegated authority to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the report, the additional condition for foul and surface water drainage, and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised the following points: had never seen so much dissatisfaction amongst local residents; the developer and Moat Housing were ‘taking the mickey’ out of the local residents; the reduced size of the garages would lead to on-street parking; and proposed conditions relating to sewage may help but note that the LMIDB were originally against the application.

In response to a query, the Major Projects Officer stated that officers were not saying that no harm had been caused, but that in his professional opinion on-balance this application would not cause unacceptable impacts and that the application should be supported.

Members raised the following points: appalled and concerned that a major developer had done this; had caused so many problems in Seager Road; about time that the Planning Committee stood up for local residents; would set a precedent for other developers to do the same and the Planning Committee would become known as a Committee with no backbone; should refuse and the builder be made to build to the original plans (as approved under SW/10/0050); detrimental to residential amenities of local residents; had a significant impact on properties in Seager Road and the developer should reduce by 5 or 6 feet; impact on local residents was sufficient reason to refuse the application; starkly different to what was approved, developer must be made to lower height of the buildings; this was due to a design fault by the architect and as such not the fault of Swale Borough Council’s (SBC) Planning Committee; dwellings were intrusive, overbearing and too dominant on either side of the site.

The Head of Planning reminded Members that they needed to consider the application in terms of any additional impacts arising from the proposal in comparison to the originally approved scheme.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

At this point the Head of Planning used his delegated powers under Part 3, Part 3.2, 3.2.1 (Planning Committee) of the Constitution to ‘call-in’ the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application would be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee on 21 May 2015 when the Head of Planning would advise Members of the prospects of such a decision if challenged on appeal and if it becomes the subject of an application for the award of costs against the Council.