To consider the attached report (Parts 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 18 August 2021.

Item 2.4 20/505156/FULL & 20/505157/LBC Former Adult Education Centre, College Road, Sheerness has been withdrawn from the agenda.

Additional information that may be referred to at the meeting published 18.08.21 and 19.08.21.

Tabled officer update for items 2.2 (14 Woodpecker Drive, Iwade) and 3.1 (Land at 32 Linden Drive and 67 Queens Way, Sheerness) published 19.08.21.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced and outlined the application for Members.  He considered that the traffic implications of the application were the most important for Members to consider, and these were set-out in detail in paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 on pages 27 to 28 of the report. 

Parish Councillor Vivien Rich, representing Tunstall Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Jonathan Lee, the Agent, was unable to attend the meeting remotely and his statement in support of the application was read-out by the Democratic Services Officer.

The Ward Member spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Lee McCall.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer. 

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

A Member raised concern about pedestrian safety when using the local footpaths.

Councillor James Hunt moved the following addendum: “Before the use is commenced, or the premises occupied, details of signage warning of pedestrians, and the location of those signs, be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The agreed scheme shall then be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed implementation programme, in the interest of highway safety and amenity.” This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.  On being put to the vote the addendum was agreed.

In response to a question from a Member about the agents’ claim that they had applied for Saturday working, the Area Planning Officer stated that the hours recommended for approval were those applied for by the applicant.  For clarification he showed Members the applicants’ completed application form which clearly requested Monday to Friday working hours. 

Members were invited to debate the application and comments raised included:

·         Concerned that the applicants were already requesting a change of use for the barn only granted permission in 2019;

·         considered the location was unsuitable for the storage of agricultural chemicals;

·         concerns about over-night parking;

·         concerned about the increase in the number of vehicle movements in the area; and

·         if not approved what alternative use could be barn be used for?

Councillor Richard Palmer moved the following addendum: “That a condition be imposed restricting parking on-site to 0700 hours to 1700 hours.”  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

The Area Planning Officer raised concern that imposing such a condition would surely increase road traffic movement to and from the site. 

Members considered the addendum and raised the following points:

·         If overnight parking was not allowed it would only result in overnight parking in inappropriate locations; and

·         would be contradictory to condition (5) of the report which related to vehicle parking areas to provide safety.

On being put to the vote the addendum was lost.

Resolved:  That application 21/500222/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report and the additional condition in respect of signage as minuted.   

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and drew attention to an error in the second sentence of paragraph 8.9 on page 43 of the report and that it should read “This would extend approx. 1.83 metres beyond the rear elevation of no 12….” Not 2 metres as stated.  He outlined the main changes from the previous application 20/505333/FULL which had been refused, and explained that the applicant had submitted amended plans further reducing the scale of the development.  He drew attention to the tabled update which advised that Iwade Parish Council had considered the amendments to the application but still raised objection.  The Area Planning Officer explained that given the staggered nature of the properties he did not consider that overshadowing would significantly impact No. 16 Woodpecker Drive.

Parish Councillor Barrie Smith, representing Iwade Parish Council, was not in attendance and 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 Councillor Lee McCall.

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee raised no objection.

Members considered the application and raised the following points:

·         Welcomed the amendments made to the application and considered that the loss of light to the neighbouring property was not significant enough to refuse the application;

·         concerned about the loss of light to the neighbouring property; and

·         no material planning reason to refuse.

Resolved:  That application 21/501945/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that it was retrospective and that officers were recommending a split decision to approve signs B, C, D, E and F and refuse sign A the illuminated totem pole as they considered it was harmful to the rural amenity of the area.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer.

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee supported the officer recommendation.

In response to a question from a Member, the Area Planning Officer stated that the previous totem sign had gaps i.e. was not a solid mass, it was not illuminated, and also did not appear have advertisement consent.

Split Decision:

Resolved:  That application 21/503136/ADV in respect of signs B, C, D, E and F be approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report.

Resolved:  That application 21/503136/ADV in respect of sign A be refused for the reason stated in the report, and that delegated authority be granted to officers to take enforcement action to remove the totem sign from the site.

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and reported that in accordance with Policy DM 19 (Sustainable Construction) of the Swale Borough Council (SBC)Local Plan, conversion of the outbuildings to workshops should be designed to a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) ‘Good’ standard.  The Area Planning Officer requested delegated authority to obtain written agreement for this from the applicant to be included as a condition, prior to commencement of development.

The Area Planning Officer stated that it was an attractive building located within the Sheerness Mile Town Conservation Area and was considered a ‘non-designated local heritage asset’.  He explained that the windows in the original building would be replaced with timber ones, and the windows in the later flat roof extension would be replaced with aluminium ones and also have solar panels added which would not be visible from the road.  The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer raised no objection subject to conditions.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Lee McCall.

Members were invited to debate the application and raised the following points:

·         Supported the officer recommendation;

·         would prefer the whole site to have wooden replacement windows to give a uniform look;

·         concerned about parking at the site;

·         there is no mention of our parking standards within the report; and

·         a swept path analysis should be carried out in respect of collection of bins etc.

The Area Planning Officer explained that officers considered the application could be supported without any on-site parking given its sustainable town centre location.  He stated that it was not unusual for commercial developments in town centres to be approved without parking.  The Area Planning Officer showed Members the proposed site plan and explained that there was no space inside the rear of the site for vehicles to turn but there was sufficient space in the surrounding public car park and access area for any manoeuvring by vehicles away from the public highway ensuring no harm to highway safety. 

Resolved:  That application 21/502661/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report and written confirmation from the applicant to an additional condition in respect of BREEAM ‘good’ standards.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to the tabled update which advised that the applicant had appealed against non-determination of the application.  This meant that the Council could no longer make a formal decision, but that Members should still consider whether they would have refused the application, and this would form the Council’s case in the appeal.  He introduced the application and stated that the main issues were the scale and extent of built form on a small site, the Environment Agency objection due to flood risk concerns, and that no Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) contribution had been paid.

Mr John Keeley, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation that the application would have been refused and this was seconded by Councillor Lee McCall.

A Ward Member who was a member of the Planning Committee spoke against the application.  He raised concern about flooding and considered it would be an overdevelopment of the site.

Members were invited to debate the application and raised points which included:

·         Supported the officer recommendation to refuse given the flooding issues at the site;

·         officers had been diligent and provided a sound reason to refuse the application;

·         strange to refuse on ground of non-payment of SAMMS when the applicant was prepared to pay it; and

·         assumed that Sheerness Town Council’s reasons for supporting the application were not based on material planning consideration given that they had not registered to speak at the meeting.  Their comments in paragraph 5.0 on page 105 of the report were “incoherent” and “pointless”.

The Lawyer (Planning) explained that within the appeal system it was possible for the applicant to make or commit to the SAMMS payment via a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking from the applicant as an additional appeal document, and the Council would in that instance be likely not to defend non-payment as a reason for refusal.

Resolved:  That had an appeal against non-determination not been made that the Council would have refused application 21/500413/OUT for the reason set out in the report.

PART 5

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

·                Item 5.1 – Dawsons Row Water Lane Ospringe

PART ALLOWED / PART REFUSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member welcomed the decision in respect of the garage as he considered it was a substantial increase.

·                Item 5.2 – Black Oast Godfreys Grave Hernhill

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.3 – Land south-west Sittingbourne / Wises Lane Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED AND PART COSTS AWARDED

APPEAL AGAINST NON-DETERMINATION

          Members considered the decision and comments raised included:

·      Thanked officers for the report and stated that all Members needed to consider all points made by the Inspector;

·      disappointed that the Secretary of State overruled both the Council and the Inspector in respect of proposed climate change conditions (the Inspector had been minded to support the Council’s stance); and

·      what were the costs awarded against the Council?

The Development Manager reported that costs were still being negotiated.