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 6 April 2022.

Tabled Paper added to item 2.5 on 6 April 2022.

Tabled Paper added to item 2.4 on 7 April 2022.

Additional information which might be referred to added 7 April 2022.

Please note that Item 2.3 22/500853/FULL Clocktower Barn Norton Lane Norton Kent ME9 9JU has been withdrawn and will not be considered at this committee.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that the application was on a brownfield site, in a rural location, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Permission was granted in 2015 to build five houses and four were well on the way to being built.  The application was for an alternative design and orientation of the remaining dwelling.  This resulted in a 20% turn, facing south-east with the rear windows facing further away from the garden of Barn House.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

A Member noted that there were no objections to the application and could not see a reason to refuse it.

Resolved:  That application 22/500014/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (16) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and displayed drawings of the proposed signs which would be positioned within the proposed development.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee spoke with some concern on the signs and flags.  He acknowledged that the signs needed to be installed and spoke on changing the name of the development and that they should be fixed well into the ground.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

Resolved:  That application 21/506308/ADV be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Councillor Monique Bonney left the Council Chamber during consideration of this item.

The Area Planning officer introduced the application and displayed drawings of the proposed new railings.  He drew Members’ attention to the tabled update for this item which set-out a heritage condition that requested more detailed section drawings.

The Senior Conservation and Design Officer outlined the new condition which would ensure proper refurbishment of the wall and railings.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

Resolved:  That application 22/500563/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report, the additional heritage condition, and new drawings.

The Senior Planner introduced the outline application which was for the redevelopment of the site for up to 16 residential units.  She referred to the tabled paper which set-out updates to the recommendation and to the affordable housing provision.  The Senior Planner explained that the site was within the open countryside, and she displayed an artist’s impression of indicative images of the proposed dwellings and she also reported that there was a grade II listed building to the south of the site.

Peter Court, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

In response to a point raised by the Ward Member, the Senior Planner advised that the application site was not within the Important Local Countryside Gap.

A visiting Member spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         This was an excellent use of a brownfield site;

·         acknowledged the concerns of Bobbing Parish Council in terms of the potential closing of the gap between Iwade and Bobbing;

·         welcomed the reduction of the number of proposed dwellings from 26 to 16;

·         the artist’s impression gave a rural feel to the development;

·         the development fitted-in well with the surrounding area;

·         it was important to make sure that the Countryside Gap did not disappear by building on greenfield sites;

·         the site as it was now was a blight on the landscape and the new development would be an improvement;

·         if this was refused, the Council was likely to lose on appeal;

·         needed to consider the nearby listed building;

·         the layout looked acceptable, with a good area of green space to the front of the development and this also provided good visibility at the entrance;

·         the Committee needed to consider the application on its merits, not on whether future housing would encroach on the Countryside Gap;

·         clarification sought on the closure report, as set-out in condition (22);

·         welcomed the steps taken in the conditions to mitigate any contamination issues; and

·         the site offered a good mix of diverse housing.

In response, the Senior Planner referred to the conditions in the report and explained that a number of them set-out work that needed to be carried out in relation to the contamination on the site due to its previous use.  The closure report was to confirm that all remediation work had been carried out properly to the satisfaction of the Council and the EA.  Conditions (19) to (22) set out the process of assessment, verification, necessity to stop work and the closure report.

Resolved:  That application 20/502715/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (33) in the report, with amendments to the wording of the Section 106 Agreement and to conditions if necessary.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which sought to vary condition (6) on the application so that the takeaway could operate for an additional two hours each day, up to 11 pm.  He referred Members to the Council’s Environmental Health Manager’s comments set-out in paragraphs 6.3 to 6.5 in the report, with the recommendation that odour mitigation measures be undertaken.  The Area Planning Officer highlighted that the site was within a residential area and an increase in hours, as requested, had not been granted previously by the Council on a site like this in a residential area.  He referred to the appeal decisions at paragraphs 8.6 and 8.7 in the report where the Planning Inspector had recommended a closing time of 9 pm, and reference made in the appeal to potential noise disturbance from this type of business. The Area Planning Officer considered the Planning Inspector’s decision to still be valid.

Mustafa Jabarheil, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Derek Carnell.

A Member from an adjoining ward spoke in support of the application and considered it was not detrimental to the surrounding area.  She said customers would appreciate the longer opening hours.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         A similar application had been approved recently in Sittingbourne;

·         this could be frustrating to local residents if the hours were extended;

·         the increase in opening hours was not appropriate to the area;

·         this could set a precedence;

·         this was a residential area and the noises associated with a takeaway were unacceptable in a residential area;

·         it seemed that the supermarket next door was open until 10 pm; and

·         supported opening until 10 pm.

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained the differences between this application and the one that had recently been approved.  This one was a single premises, split into two within a residential area, whilst the other application was within a parade of shops, in a semi-commercial area.  He explained that although the shop next door stayed open longer, the noises associated with a supermarket were likely to be less than with a takeaway.

On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion:  That the application be approved, with the opening hours that the Applicant had applied for.  This was seconded by Councillor Carole Jackson.  Councillor Peter Marchington suggested there be a condition to require that a silencer be installed on the extractor fan(s).  This was accepted by the proposer and seconder.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 21/505806/FULL be approved subject to a condition to require that a silencer be installed on the extractor fan(s).

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and displayed plans of the application site.  He explained that various extensions had been carried out to the property over the years, some without planning permission and with some being immune from enforcement action as they had been in place for more than four years.  The current application included balconies to the rear of the property.  The Area Planning Officer explained that these, due to the gradual slope of the land and proximity to the next-door dwelling, resulted in overlooking and invasion of privacy.

In the absence of Parish Councillor Dolley White, representing Minster Parish Council, the Democratic Services Officer read out her statement in support of the application.

Peter Lay, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         The application would cause overlooking and set a precedence;

·         more information sought on the percentage increase of the chalet bungalow and whether that was a material planning consideration;

·         were there any objections to the application?;

·         this application with an increase of 240% floor space significantly exceeded the guidance of 60% increase in floor space;

·         concerned with the balconies and overlooking; and

·         a privacy screen could be installed.                            

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that percentage increase was a material consideration.  The Local Plan recommended increases of no more than 60% of the original size.  However, he did acknowledge that the original size of this dwelling was very small.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the next-door neighbour had not objected to the application. 

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the Council had applied the 60% increase in floor space fairly consistently over the years and said that different extensions had different impacts on the surrounding area.

Resolved:  That application 21/505951/FULL be refused for the reasons set-out in the report.

PART 5

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

·                Item 5.1 – The Annexe 168A Queenborough Road Halfway

DELEGATED DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member raised concern that the appeal was dismissed only because of the lack of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMMS) payments.  The Area Planning Officer explained that a SAMMS payment would not have been requested as the application had been recommended for refusal.

·                Item 5.2 – Pebble Court Farm Woodgate Lane Borden

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.3 – Uplees House Uplees Road Oare

DELEGATED DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.4 – The Coach House 87B South Road Faversham

DELEGATED DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.5 – Halfway House Halfway Road Minster

DELEGATED DECISION

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.6 – 32 Linden Drive & 67 Queensway Sheerness

APPEAL AGAINST NON-DETERMINATION

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.7 – Building at Rushett Stables Rushett Lane Norton

ENFORCEMENT AND DELEGATED DECISION

APPEALS DISMISSED AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE CONFIRMED