To consider the attached report (Parts 1, 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 21 July 2021.

Tabled Update for item 2.3 added 20 July 2021.

PART 1

1.1 Section 106 Year End Review 2020 - 2021

The Section 106 Monitoring Officer introduced the report which set-out the Section 106 Year End financial figures for 2020 – 2021.

Members were invited to ask questions.

A Member asked why, on page 17, Section 106 contributions had gone to a school that was located some distance, from the development. The officer did not have the answer but said that he would report back to the Member directly.

Referring to page 12, a Member said that the HSBC site large contribution was welcomed but he was disappointed that the play equipment was installed on Belgrave Road, Halfway, Sheerness and hoped that it would be installed closer to the development.

A Member was pleased to see the contributions on page 16 and sought clarification on page 19 as to whether there was a possibility of other sports being played at the cricket pitch and pavilion. The Head of Planning services agreed to find out and update members on this point.

Post meeting note:

The Section 106 officer has since advised that, in accordance with the S.106 Agreement, the Owners need to demonstrate that reasonable action has been taken to gain a leasehold interest in the Cricket Pitch land with a suitable association to use the cricket pitch land for its intended use. 

If the marketing exercise does not prove successful with suitable associations, the restriction can be relinquished and the Owners may then, with the Council's prior written agreement, put the Cricket Pitch Land to another use, which could include other sports.

Resolved: That the Section 106 Year End Review 2020/2021 be noted.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained to Members that this was in a rural location but outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and it was not a listed building. The officer informed Members that the application was a two-storey rear extension, plus an extension from the house to the existing garage linking the two buildings. He informed the Committee that the front of the house was un-changed and the link to the garage was to be fully glazed. The officer explained to Members that due to the garage being an existing building, this extension was within the 60% policy allowance.

A registered speaker, Parish Councillor Bill Harbour, representing Sheldwich Parish Council, was unable to attend the meeting. His statement in objection to 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 supported the objection from the Parish Council and spoke about the local area, including the listed buildings near the site and the impact this extension would have on them.  He felt that the size of the application was too large and the proposed windows were unacceptable.

A Member of the Committee acknowledged that this was not a listed building, but asked why there were no comments from the Conservation and Design Officer. In response the Conservation and Design Officer explained that due to other deadlines he was not able to comment on this application but would be willing to look at the application if the item was deferred to the next Committee.

Councillor Cameron Beart proposed that the application be deferred so that the Conservation and Design Officer could review the application and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

Resolved: That application 21/502251/FULL be deferred to next month’s Planning Committee for comments from the Conservation and Design Officer.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained to Members that this was a simple 1.2m single storey extension with no objections.

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

Resolved: That application 21/502802/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (2) in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and informed Members that there was no further update apart from the highlighted text confirming that the Parish Council had commented on the report at paragraph 3.2.

The Senior Planning Officer advised members that this application was seeking non-material amendments to a previous application which had been approved. The amendments related to one building and the first change was to alter the configuration of the doors and the shop fronts, the second change proposed removal of internal walls in the retail units and the final change was to re-position the stairwells.

A Ward Member spoke on the application and raised concerns on the dynamic of the retail aspect of the development. She felt that knocking down internal walls and creating a larger unit would lead to larger delivery lorries using small narrow country lanes to service the retail units, which would cause additional traffic issues. The Ward Member said that the junction leading to the site would need highway works to support the larger delivery lorries accessing the site.

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

Members raised the following points:

·         Turning into the site would be difficult and highways would need to look at the layout of the junction;

·         could the traffic impacts of the development be taken into consideration?; and

·         could a condition on the size of vehicles entering the site be put in place?

The Senior Planning Officer reminded Members that this was an application for non-material amendments and that although internal walls were being taken down, the total amount of internal floor space that had already been approved would not change. He explained to Members that the traffic impacts had already been considered acceptable by virtue of the granting of planning permission and that would remain the case all the time the application remained. With regard to a condition relating to the size of the vehicles entering the site, the Senior Planning Officer informed Members that this would not be appropriate for this application for non-material amendments.

Resolved: That application 21/502533/NMAMD be approved.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that the height oof the sign and wording had changed but officers had worked with the applicant to make sure the sizing of the sign was suitable for the area.

A Ward Member thanked the officers for working with the applicant in changing the height and size of the sign. She raised concern with the sign being present at the site for six years and felt that the developer would be able to get the development completed within six years. The Ward Member also agreed with the Parish Council’s comments around the name of the sign and felt that it should be changed to read ‘Stones Farm’ as that was what the original land had always been known as.

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

Members raised the following points:

·         Six years was the right length of time due to the amount of housing being built;

·         officers should push the developers to keep the original name of the farm as it was a shame to lose the name of the farm; and

·         condition (3) should be tightened-up to ensure the flags and sign were kept in good condition.

Resolved: That application 21/502538/ADV be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report and explained to Members that two garages were to be built to create a marketing suite for the 600-unit residential development at Stones Farm. He informed Members that once all units had been sold the marketing suite would be used as garages and parking for housing on the site.

A Ward Member spoke on the application and wanted to emphasise that the main issue with this application was the traffic signalling entering into the site. She felt that if construction vehicles were entering the site off a busy main road this would need to be signalised to prevent accidents. She pointed out to Members that the Kent County Council (KCC) Highways officer recognised that there was an issue with the junction.

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

The Area Planning Officer told the committee that KCC Highways and Transportation and the Developers were corresponding directly regarding this issue and he understood that KCC had asked that if the traffic lights were not switched on when the marketing suite was open, the developer would need to provide temporary traffic lights.

A Member of the Committee asked the Area Planning Officer if there could be a condition put in place, to require the traffic lights to be turned on before the marketing suite was opened. He responded to say that this would be possible, however it was not necessary.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following motion: That the marketing suite should not open until the traffic lights at the junction are turned on and this was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer and on being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

Resolved: That application 21/502538/ADV be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) set out in the report but to include the additional condition (7) The marketing suite hereby permitted shall not be open to the public other than at times when the traffic signals controlling the junction between A2 and the main site access to the Stones Farm development site are activated such as to control traffic movements at this junction.

The Area Planning Officer gave an overview of the application which was to convert a ground floor garage into a library. He explained that there was no public access to Belvedere Road and there would be no parking issues by removing the garage. A previous application for the same type of conversion had been granted to the next door neighbours’ property.

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

Resolved: That application 21/502153/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application. He informed Members that the developer had changed the layout of windows on the proposed application to improve the light. He advised Members that three objections had since been received, but these had echoed the same issues as the previous objections on pages 36 and 76 of the report.

John Collins, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Member of the Committee asked to see the access roads into the site and the route that construction vehicles would take. The officer presented the road plans for the vehicles accessing the site.

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

Resolved: That application 21/503249/PNQCLA be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and referred to the tabled update for this item. He explained that a Lawful Development Certificate had since been approved. The officer gave an overview of the existing plans and what was being proposed. He explained that although a garage would be lost following the conversion, the garage did not count towards parking provision in the standards as it did not now meet the space standards to house a car.

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

Resolved: That application 21/502502/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which was to extend the first floor with a Juliet balcony and a single front and side extension to create new living areas and convert the garage into a workshop and store. He presented Members with pictures of the surrounding area and explained to the Committee that the neighbouring property was higher and the extension would not overlook it. The Area Planning Officer explained that the extension would be very close to the boundary of the neighbouring property but there were no planning conditions to prevent this.

Members felt it was a shame that they could not prevent the extension from being so close to the neighbouring property, but considered that there was no reason to refuse the application.

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

Councillor Simon Clark moved the following motion: That any use of the store or workshop shall be for uses only ancillary to the use of the house, and this was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless and on being put to the vote, the motion was agreed. 

Resolved: That application 21/502172/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) set out in the report but to include the additional condition (4): The store or workshop shall be for uses only ancillary to the use of the house.

The Area Planning officer introduced the application for listed building consent and referred to the tabled paper. It was noted that an application for planning permission was also required, as the applicants were taking down the structure and removing it from the site for repair and refurbishment. That application would be presented to a future meeting of the Committee. He explained to Members that the clocktower was in a poor condition and needed to be repaired for safety concerns; the applicant would be reinstating the clocktower to the original colours and the lanterns would be functionable.

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

Resolved: That application 21/502786/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application to Members and had no further updates to give. He explained that the application had one Off Licence, Hairdressers and one unit that currently was not in use. He showed Members a photograph of the property before the shutters were installed and what the property looked like now with the shutters.

Members raised the following points:

·         The shutters that had been installed made the property look ‘ugly’;

·         concerned that if the owners were willing to change the outside, what had they changed on the inside;

·         disappointed that the Parish Council were in support of the shutters;

·         recognised that this area sometimes required shops to have stronger security but thought that the shutters were an eyesore; and

·         was there any way the Council could take enforcement action if there were changes to the inside of the historic building?.

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

During the debate the Area Planning Officer sought delegation to take any necessary enforcement action should the Committee be minded to refuse the application per the recommendation in his report.

Resolved: That application 21/501584/FULL be refused subject to the reasons as set out in the report and that delegation be given to officers to take any necessary enforcement action. 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which was to convert a holiday let into a residential dwelling and referred to a tabled update. He informed Members that in April 2021 the Committee refused an application based on the application not meeting the requirements of the Councils DM3 policy. He explained to Members that the applicant had tried on numerous occasions to let out the property but had informed officers that due to the COVID-19 pandemic he had struggled to find any business.

Lynda Stacey, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Jay Laville, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke in support of the conversion and felt that there was no evidence of the application not meeting the required tests of the Councils policies. He stated that from August 2020 – July 2021, the applicant had no bookings, but plenty of visits on their website. He considered the location of the property was not a desirable place to run holiday lets and although the Planning Officers had said that it had good transport links, it was in a very rural location that was hard to get to.

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

Members raised the following points:

·             Could not see why it could not be a residential dwelling;

·             the evidence from the applicant was not enough to prove that this property was suitable for a residential dwelling;

·             the applicant needed to do more marketing to prove to officers that this was not a suitable holiday let; and

·             the holiday let was overpriced for the location.

In response the Area Planning Officer directed Members to paragraph 6.1 of the report and explained that simply listing a property in the way the Applicant had, was not considered a sufficient way of marketing a holiday let for the purposes of the policy requirements.

Resolved: That application 21/502302/FULL be refused for the reasons set out in the tabled update.

PART 5

Decisions by the County Council and Secretary of State reported for information.

·         Item 5.1 – 30 Grove Park Avenue Borden

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.2 – 68 London Road Faversham

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.3 – St James Court 11 Minster Road Minster

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member was pleased with the result and thanked officers for their hard work.

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.4 – 9- 10 Range Road Eastchurch

APPEAL ALLOWED / COSTS REFUSED

A Member was disappointed with the decision but happy costs were not awarded.

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.5 – land South-West Sittingbourne / Wises Lane Sittingbourne

The item had been deferred to the next meeting due to the Head of Planning’s request to further review the response to the planning appeal decision and revise the information provided.