To consider the attached report (Parts 2, 3 and 4).

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 22 April 2015.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Mr Jackson, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised the following concerns:  why had KCC Highways allowed a road through footpath ZR617?; proposed dwellings would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area; would prefer to see single storey dwellings as this would reduce concerns about overshadowing; insufficient parking proposed; too many properties for the site; out-of-keeping with the area; would prefer cream weatherboarding not black; the 14 metre high leylandii left on the site was dangerous and should be removed; and concerned that the soakaway would not prevent flooding.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum: That condition (12) be delegated to officers to re-word to include wording explaining that native trees were being planted to improve the ecology of the site.  This was seconded by Councillor Barnicott.  On being put to the vote the addendum was agreed.

In response to a query, the Senior Planner drew attention to condition (3) in the report which required the weatherboarding to be painted cream.

In response to queries about the footpath, the Head of Planning drew attention to paragraph 9.04 of the report which stated that the KCC Public Rights of Way Officer raised no objection.  The Major Projects Officer considered that erection of signs warning of children crossing would be onerous. 

Some Members considered that the leylandii should be removed from the site.

Resolved:  That application 15/500686 be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (18) in the report and the re-wording of condition (12) to include wording to explain that native trees were being planted to improve the ecology of the site and removal of the leylandii tree.

The Planning Officer drew attention to errors in the report: page 12 – reasons for refusal should be crossed out; and page 14, paragraph 2.05 – proposed house will be 500mm shorter and 800mm wider.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered it was over-intensive for the plot and would have an adverse impact on the adjoining neighbour.

A Member requested that the landscaping condition be re-worded to make it clear why native tree planting was requested.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion: That the application be refused as the scale of the development was excessive and would cause demonstrable harm to the streetscene.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 14/506863/FULL be refused as the scale of the development was excessive and would cause demonstrable harm to the streetscene.

The Planning Officer reported that an amended drawing had been received showing two parking spaces to the front, in addition to the internal garage, with a total of three parking spaces.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered the building was inappropriate in scale to the site and would cause demonstrable harm to the streetscene.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on grounds that it was inappropriate in scale to the site and would cause demonstrable harm to the streetscene.  This was seconded by Councillor Lesley Ingham.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 14/506851 be refused on the grounds that it was inappropriate in scale to the site and would cause demonstrable harm to the streetscene. 

Councillor Derek Conway moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/501692/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meeting on site.

The Major Projects Officer reported that further to their comments on page 36, paragraph 7.2 of the report, KCC Highways raised no objection subject to conditions.  The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the highway-related conditions on page 42 of the report, in addition KCC Highways requested conditions to address; provision of off-site highway improvements; provision of space for construction parking; provision of car parking, including surfacing/drainage details; gradient of access; provision of sight lines and visibility splays; full highway details; and provision of access to agreed specification before any dwelling is occupied.  Comments from the Environment Agency (EA), Network Rail and KCC Archaeology were awaited.

The Major Projects Officer reported that further to paragraph 6.1, on page 36 of the report, three further representations had been received from two local residents and a third from the Chalkwell Ward councillors raising the following comments: concern about the level of neighbour consultation; queries about existing access arrangements for the site opposite; concern about how HGVs will be prevented from gaining access to Hythe Road and Springfield Road; concern about speed of traffic using Staplehurst Road and how this will be controlled to enable safe access/egress from the site; neighbours in Hythe Road were not consulted; development could result in problems both during the construction phase (noise, dust, construction vehicles, long construction hours) and once the development was finished, notably from increased traffic flow and possible subsidence to adjacent dwellings.

The Major Projects Officer reported that further to paragraph 9.7 on page 38 of the report, Kent County Council had updated their request for developer contributions and were now seeking a total of £89,734.68, and contributions were no longer sought for ‘adult social services’ or ‘community learning’.  The Major Projects Officer advised that further to paragraph 9.7, on page 38, the following payments were required: wheelie bins - £1,353.96; off-site open space provision – £15,512.40.

The Major Projects Officer also stated that the monitoring fee, amounting to 5% of the financial contributions, would also be payable.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to add a condition in respect of agreement of finished floor levels as the site sloped.  The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to approve subject to the views of the EA, Network Rail and KCC Archaeology, the imposition of conditions as set out in the report, additional conditions as described for highway matters, the levels condition, and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

The Ward Members raised the following concerns: concern that the originally proposed traffic calming measures would not be implemented and the details should have been provided at this meeting; already on-street parking problems in Springfield Road and this would be made worse; better signage at Key Street was needed to ensure 40 tonne lorries were directed down the Staplehurst Road link; need assurances that Springfield Road, Hythe Road and Staplehurst Road would be protected from 40 tonne lorries accessing these roads as local residents were already experiencing damage to vehicles as a result of this.

A Member suggested that the application be deferred to allow for detailed information on what traffic calming measures would be provided.

The Major Projects Officer stated that KCC Highways were satisfied with the proposals and that off-site traffic calming required by condition would be as approved under SW/12/0829, the previous planning permission to re-develop the site.  The Major Projects Officer read an extract from the KCC Highway Officer’s comments in which he clearly stated that traffic calming would need to be secured through an appropriately worded Grampian condition or within the Section 106 Agreement.

Councillor Ghlin Whelan moved the following motion: That the application be deferred until further information from KCC Highways is provided in relation to traffic calming measures including an assurance that 40 tonne lorries will be stopped from accessing Hythe Road, Springfield Road and Staplehurst Road.  This was seconded by Councillor Barnicott.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 14/506623/OUT be deferred until further information from KCC Highways is provided in relation to traffic calming measures including an assurance that 40 tonne lorries will be stopped from accessing Hythe Road, Springfield Road and Staplehurst Road.

The Head of Planning reported that the agent had advised that having checked with the landowner, the nearby property did not benefit from a right-of-way ie. via the proposed Plot 5 as shown on the plan.  He explained that in any case this would be a private legal matter between the two parties, and the plans were indicative only.

The Head of Planning stated that condition (16) should be amended to prevent the construction of any dwelling within nine metres of the gas pipeline to the rear of the site.  It should not refer to the curtilage of dwellings.  The Head of Planning sought delegated authority to amend the condition.

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

Mrs Nash, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Sharpe, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application. 

There was some discussion about whether the approval of the application would guarantee a resolution to ongoing issues at the site.  The Head of Planning clarified that unfortunately there were no guarantees that it would as there was no mechanism to force the applicant to enact the permission.

Resolved:  That application 14/504984/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (17) in the report and the amendment to condition (16) toprevent the construction of any dwelling within nine metres of the gas pipeline to the rear of the site.   

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Mr Taylor, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

Some Members considered that the proposed extension would impact on the setting of the listed building and welcomed the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

Resolved:  That application 14/501843 be refused.

Mrs Rush-Ryan, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Members raised the following points: the National Planning Policy Framework was clear that a prosperous rural economy should be supported; sustainable growth, including conversion of existing buildings; would cause no environmental damage; would benefit the local community by providing three jobs; real benefit to whole business of conversation that would justify acceptance, site could not be termed ‘an orchard’ as there were only 9 fruit trees left; was not a rural location as surrounded by the A2, A251 a laundry and KCC transport depot; no local objections had been received; would not impact on the listed building; site was well set back; should consider the history of the site and that this was a retrospective application and the applicant had already not complied with conditions to improve sightlines.

The motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to the imposition of a suitable condition restricting the hours of use, and a condition restricting number of courses and number of people attending.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

Councillor Henderson considered that there was no need for landscaping or hardstanding or any other conditions.  He also considered that the opening hours on the application seemed reasonable.

Resolved:  That application 14/504232 be delegated to officers to approve subject to the imposition of a suitable condition restricting the hours of use, and a condition restricting number of courses and number of people attending.

Mr Mitchell, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Flannery, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

Resolved:  That application 14/500703 be refused.

The Head of Planning reported that additional petitions had been received - a petition bearing 12 signatures from premises (pubs, restaurants, hotels and B&Bs) in and around the town centre in support of the application, relating to the “night economy” and a further four signature petition in favour of the scheme from residents.  In addition there was an online petition with 1091 signatures, calling for the Council to “reconsider a rejection for central park speedway revised start times”.  The petition was set up last year after the determination of the previous application and not in response to the current application, although a number of people had recently signed it.

The Head of Planning stated that additional information submitted by the applicant had been circulated to Members and were also tabled.  The Head of Planning stated that some of the comments made by the applicant were inaccurate and that the acoustic fence had not been constructed in accordance with either of the approved specifications.  The applicant also stated that the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) considered the acoustic fence to be “effective”, as set out in the report, this was not the case.  The fence as built was performing as expected but that was not to say that the EHO’s considered it to be “effective”.  The Head of Planning clarified that the fence did not, in the EHO’s opinion adequately mitigate the noise from the site, hence their objection.

The Head of Planning advised that following discussions with officers, the agent for the applicant had set out the principal reason the extension of time was sought, was to attract an Elite league team to compete at the site, and that in the event this occurred, the likelihood of re-runs of races being required was reduced, due to the increased expertise of the riders.  As such, a finish time of 9:10pm was likely with an additional 20 minutes required if need for re-runs of races (although this was not anticipated to be needed).  The applicant would be willing to accept a condition to this effect.

The Head of Planning reported that the agent had confirmed that although he would prefer not to, the applicant would be willing to accept a condition which triggered the late finish time only in the event that an Elite team race at the track, if Members deemed it necessary in order to allow the approval of the application.

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

Mr Marriott, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Mrs Apps, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Cearns, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Environmental Health Officer stated that whilst he had not been personally involved with the application, colleagues had confirmed that the acoustic fence did not comply with the original specification.

Members raised the following points: overarching issue was the acoustic fence irrespective of when the site was in operation; EHO considered the application would be detrimental to the health of local residents so it should be refused for that reason; do not consider the application should be approved until the trial period has ended; would benefit the town and help with the regeneration of Sittingbourne town centre; should look at other stadiums in residential areas which operated speedway and what acoustic fencing they used; acoustic fencing would never be effective as bulk and weight was the only effective barrier against noise; should allow given that the acoustic fence was recommended by the Planning Inspector and the site was an important feature of Sittingbourne; wood was not a good absorber of noise, but the acoustic fence could easily be improved; applicant was not requesting an extension of time just a different start and finish time and do not see the harm in allowing; and should support local businesses.

In response to a query, the Head of Planning clarified that the acoustic fence was built to the specification as suggested by the Planning Inspector but SBC’s EHO did not consider that it was effective.  He considered the acoustic fence in relation to this application was a ‘red-herring’ and Members needed to consider the current application on its merits.

The motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Barnicott moved the following motion:  That speedway racing be allowed between 1800 and 2110 hours on Fridays for the period of the current trial period.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/500862/FULL be approved to allow speedway racing between 1800 and 2110 hours for elite racing with an additional 20 minutes for any reruns should they be required on Fridays for the period of the current trial period. 

PART 4

Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observation of development by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.

The Senior Planner reported that Borden Parish Council raised objection.  They stated that there was insufficient evidence for the work to be carried out and that KCC had not made the information available.  The Parish Council considered that if it was to be permitted conditions relating to the movement of lorries and parking should be imposed.  They also requested that the works should not be conducted under an open-ended timescale to minimise the impact on the environmental nature of the nature reserve.

The Senior Planner further reported that a letter of objection from Councillor Gareth Randall had been received which had been emailed to Members of the Planning Committee.  She stated that an additional letter of objection from a neighbouring resident had also been received, but this did not raise any fresh issues.

Mr Baker, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the motion to raise no objection to the application which was seconded.

The Ward Member raised the following points: the site was enjoyed by many local residents; KCC had not supplied enough evidence about the likelihood of a gas leak into the local water supply; not against the application entirely but KCC had not provided sufficient supporting evidence to show that the application was necessary; KCC should host a site meeting so local residents are made fully aware of the proposals; and it would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of local residents and also on their quality of life.

Members raised the following points: could not made a decision until had been provided with the full facts on why the works were necessary; agree that KCC should host a site meeting given the considerable local interest; and need to know how much they intend to dump on the site to infill.

On being put to the vote the motion to raise no objection to the application was lost.

In response to a query, the Senior Planner stated that the report recommended a condition regarding time constraints.  The Senior Planner suggested that rather than formally raising objection, the Committee could resolve to request further information be submitted.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion: That the application be delegated to officers to register a holding objection to KCC that SBC defer the application until further information is provided by KCC, particularly in relation to the underground gas system ie how much damage there was to the pipework and evidence to demonstrate the need for the works and how much material was likely to be brought onto the site and for evidence to demonstrate the need for the works.  This was seconded by Councillor Barnicott.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/500303/COUNTY be delegated to officers to register a holding objection to KCC.  That the application be deferred until further information is provided by KCC particularly in relation to the underground gas system and how much material was likely to be brought onto the site and for evidence to demonstrate the need for the works.