To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 March 2015 (Minute Nos. to follow).

1. 14/505542/FULL – 1A Saxon Road, Faversham, ME13 8QA

2. 14/505472/FULL – 66 Park Drive, Sittingbourne, ME10 1RD

3. 14/505351/FULL – Dane Works, Crown Quay Lane, Sittingbourne, ME10 3HU

4. 14/502557/FULL – Moordean, Oak Lane, Minster-on-Sea, ME12 3QP

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 March 2015 (Minute Nos. 579 – 583) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

14/505542/FULL – 1a Saxon Road, Faversham

The Planner reported that the agent had advised that the owner of the site had access towards the back of Stone Street.

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

Resolved:  That application 14/505542/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report.

14/505472/FULL – 66 Park Drive, Sittingbourne

The Area Planning Officer reported that following concerns, with surface water flooding due to inadequate drains in the vicinity raised by residents at the site meeting, he confirmed that Southern Water had no objection to the application.  He further reported that the Environmental Health Manager raised no objection, subject to a condition with regard to hours of construction.

The Area Planning Officer sought delegation to approve the application, subject to an hours of construction condition and amendment to the wording of conditions (5) and (7) in the report to refer to approval in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

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

A Member spoke on behalf of the Ward Members and raised the following points:  the proposed dwelling was too large for the site and not in keeping with surrounding properties; access problems; the residents of Roseleigh Road would be affected by the proposal; it was a quiet road, with large gardens with elderly residents; this would set a precedent; and it was overbearing and out of scale.

Members made the following comments:  dwelling was too large for the site; it goes to the extremes of the boundary, so there was no access from front to back; overbearing on neighbouring properties; existing garden length of property where dwelling was being constructed would be shortened; concerns with manoeuvrability of vehicles parking at the property; a mature tree would be felled; out of scale with the site; this was being ‘shoe-horned’ into the site; this was unreasonable and unrealistic; and the loss of the tree was a loss to the local amenity.

On being put  to the vote, the motion for approval was lost.

Councillor Sylvia Bennett moved a motion for refusal on the grounds of it being out of scale, out of character and appearance and the adverse affect on residential amenity.  This was seconded by Councillor Ghlin Whelan.

In response to a question, the Kent County Council (KCC) Highways Officer advised that as the road was not a classified road, it was acceptable to reverse off the property.

The Area Planning Officer showed Members photographs of surrounding properties with similar bulk and scale to the proposed dwelling, so he considered out of character not to be valid reason for refusal.  He advised that the tree was not protected, and could be felled at any time without permission; and it was not likely that the tree would be of the quality to be protected by a tree preservation order.

Discussion ensued and the proposer and seconder agreed the amended motion which on being put to the vote was approved.

Resolved:  That application 14/505472/FULL be refused on the grounds that the development was too large for the plot, and caused harm to the  appearance of the street scene; other plots were more spacious.

14/505351/FULL – Dane Works, Crown Quay Lane, Sittingbourne

The Area Planning Officer sought delegation to approve subject to the addition of an informative in relation to the developer consulting with Network Rail’s Asset Protection to assess the operational risks during construction and an additional condition relating to plan numbers.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application, she considered it to be too intrusive.

Members raised the following points:  the area was generally commercial, this was not a huge extension; and there was a reasonable gap between it and the neighbouring property.

Resolved:  That application 14/505351/FULLbe delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report and the addition of an informative in relation to the developer consulting with Network Rail’s Asset Protection to assess the operational risks during construction and an additional condition relating to plan numbers.

14/502557/FULL – Moordean, Oak Lane, Minster-on-Sea

The Area Planning Officer advised that there was an error on condition (1) on page 99 of the report; it should read: ‘…must be begun not later than….’.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised the following points: the road was a busy, predominantly single track route;  the application site was close to immediate neighbours, with demonstrable harm to their life because of the acoustics; the day room may be occupied 24/7, this was a tranquil part of the island and noise from the development could cause demonstrable harm to the quality of life to the immediate neighbours.

Members made the following comments:  wrong to change garage to its proposed use; it was right on the boundary of the adjacent property; it should remain as a garage; there was adequate parking within the site so no additional cars would be parked on the road; the dayroom would not be used 24/7; considered use as a washing/drying room was not a problem; it was not a commercial business; this provided good facilities for mental health within the Borough; the arguments against the application were exaggerated; and traffic would increase.

Discussion ensued on the noise levels that this type of use of a property could create.

Resolved:  That application 14/502557/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report, with an amendment to condition (1) on page 99 of the report to read: ‘…must be begun not later than….’.