To consider the attached report (Sections 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 1 April  2015.

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

The Major Projects Officer explained that this application had been referred back to the Planning Committee after being considered at the meeting on 12 March 2015, because an objection had been received, but had not been drawn to Members’ attention on 12 March.  The Major Projects Officer provided clarification from the applicant’s agent in response to the objection and he stated that the applicant was happy to rebuild the wall along the line of the existing in brickwork to match the new development.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegation to approve subject to a further condition to secure details of the finished floor levels and to the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 agreement.

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

Mr Kenneth Evans, an objector, spoke against the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He spoke on the impact on local residents; the loss of view; increase in traffic, especially during construction; insufficient parking; pleased the wall would be re-constructed; would like condition (13) (contamination) to be tightened if approved.

The Major Projects Officer considered the amount of development to be of an appropriate level, with fairly standard sized houses.  He added that condition (11) also covered contamination and as such he considered contamination issues were satisfactorily addressed.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Sue Gent.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 14/502582/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer sought delegation to approve the application subject to no fresh issues being received on or before the 8 April 2015 consultation deadline.

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

Resolved:  That application 15/501231/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to no fresh issues being received on or before the 8 April 2015 consultation deadline  and to conditions (1) and (2) in the report

The Planning Officer sought delegation to approve the application subject to comments from KCC Highways.

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

Resolved:  That application 15/501326/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to comments from KCC Highways and to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

Mr Rodney Muir, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

Councillor Prescott moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Bryan Mulhern.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 14/505395/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Major Projects Officer reported that seven additional letters of objection had been received; the comments were similar to those already noted in the report.  He clarified why there had appeared to be differing numbers of representations received and explained that some had been duplicates, or from the same household which had resulted in the total numbers being received reported differently to that on the website.  He confirmed that all representations had been reported to the Planning Committee, some verbally, following the report being published.

The Major Projects Officer reported that KCC Highways had no objection to the application, subject to the imposition of conditions to prevent mud on the public highway, loading/turning/parking of construction vehicles, covered cycle parking, and provision of access/footways and carriageways before any building was first occupied.  Southern Water had clarified that their previous comments on insufficient sewage capacity had been superseded.  The applicant had confirmed that they had agreed with Southern Water to contribute to an upgrade to the pumps within the pumping station to improve capacity.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the developer had installed two culverts.  He stated that the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board (LMIDB) had advised that consent was required by them for the culverts to be installed.  A formal notice had been issued to the applicant   The Major Projects Officer reported that the approved surface water drainage (SuDS) scheme under the 2010 application had not yet been implemented.  The LMIDB objected to the current application and had requested further details of the surface water drainage strategy.

The Major Projects Officer reported that following one of the culvert pipes being blocked, this had now been unblocked and the applicant had provided drainage drawings.  The culverts would be removed and the ditches re-instated, and a response from the LMIDB was awaited.  The Major Projects Officer recommended an additional condition to require the final details of the foul and surface water drainage to be submitted prior to the occupation of the units.  He explained that, in lieu of the footpath link to Beckley Road,  the applicant could not confirm that the gates for Southern Water access to the pumping station would be left unlocked.  The Major Projects Officer explained that he had encouraged the applicant to negotiate with Southern Water on this matter, although he did not consider that the loss of the footpath to amount to a reason for refusal.  He further explained that no comments had been received from KCC Education in regard to the Section 106 contributions.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to approve the application subject to the imposition of the additional conditions requested by KCC Highways, and in respect of drainage on the site, and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 agreement.

The Chairman moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.

Mr Geoff Smith, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Laurence Mineham, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Member requested a Stop Notice be issued.  The Locum Senior Planning Lawyer advised that this matter should be discussed in closed session.

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

Resolved:  That application 15/500955/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Major Projects Officer explained that there was an error on page 56 of the report.  There should only be the first reason listed as reason for refusal of the application.  He reported that KCC Highways had no problem with the principle of development of the site, but had submitted eight detailed concerns which included issues with the proposed parking; and the highway layout, including provision for cycle and footpaths.  The Major Projects Officer considered that these would lead to two further reasons for refusal.  He advised that the applicant had provided a response to the KCC Ecology comments in the report, and comments were awaited from KCC Ecology on the additional information.  The Agent had advised that he would amend the plans to address the KCC Highways concerns and was willing to provide one gypsy and traveller pitch.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegation to refuse the application for the reason stated in the report, and two further highway reasons as described and a further ecological reason, if KCC Ecology considered it necessary.

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

Mr Trimm, representing Norton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered there was a lack of services, including buses, shops, doctors and schools, to support the proposed development.  He explained that there would be an increase in car movements on the A2, it was not sustainable and not good for the environment.

Members raised the following points:  this was not an isolated site, Faversham was nearby; there was a bus stop nearby; other remote developments had been approved previously elsewhere, e.g. Conyer Creek; retail would generate more traffic than the proposed housing;  more housing was needed; it was sustainable; it would be an isolated, insular village; local residents would not like a retail development at this location; and it was contrary to the current and emerging Local Plan.

The Major Projects Officer reminded Members that this application needed to be considered on its own merits and not simply compared to other broadly similar sites.  He advised that it was an unsustainable location.

The Chairman, another Ward Member spoke in support of the officer’s recommendation for refusal and made the following comments: this area had been allocated as retail in the Local Plan; the road had a number of accidents near the site; and acknowledge that more housing was needed but not at the cost of other residents’ amenity.

Resolved:  That application 14/505933/FULL be delegated to officers to refuse for the reasons outlined in the report and two further highway reasons as above and a further ecological reason, if KCC Ecology considered it necessary.

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

·        Item 5.1 – Former RAF Mast, Courtenay Road, Dunkirk

APPEAL DISMISSED