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 7 December 2022.

Tabled paper for item 2.1 added 7 December 2022.

Tabled papers for item 3.1 added 7 December 2022.

Responses to questions on item 3.1 added 7 December 2022.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report and referred to the tabled update for this item.

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

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee spoke in support of the application.

Resolved:  That application 21/503842/FULLbe approved subject to conditions (1) to (24) in the report.   

Resolved:  That application 22/500556/LBCbe approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report.   

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  He advised that an additional condition should be added to the application if it was approved, to remove Permitted Development Rights (PDR) in relation to boundary treatment. 

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

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

A Member agreed with the views of Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation in terms of the application site’s previous use, with its similar impacts on the highway.

Resolved:  That application 22/503623/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report, and an additional condition to remove Permitted Development Rights in relation to boundary treatment. 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report. 

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

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         Welcomed the improvement to the windows;

·         noted there was no representation from Faversham Town Council at the meeting;

·         would have preferred it if the windows had smaller panes to match with what had been there originally; and

·         considered this would enhance the conservation area.

Resolved:  That application 22/502712/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.   

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report. 

Stephen Peeling, an objector, spoke against the application.

Roy Trute, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         Disappointed that the Parish Council had not registered to speak on the application;

·         welcomed the improvements that had been carried out to the plans during the course of the application;

·         this was a good design which fitted in with nearby dwellings;

·         concerned with the height of the extension;

·         considered there would be no overlooking;

·         there could be a perception that it was close to neighbouring properties, but there was still adequate distance between them; and

·         had previously had concerns with the estate being developed further, but a precedent had been set.

In response to some questions, the Area Planning Officer explained that there were windows in the rear elevation of the infill extension and he referred to condition (3) in the report which controlled height levels of the three rooflights to prevent overlooking.  He also confirmed that the garage doors would remain and would not be replaced with a glazed frontage.

Resolved:  That application 22/502600/FULLbe approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.   

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Principal Planner introduced the application and referred to the three tabled papers for this item.  He explained that the reasons for refusing the application had been amended, with the withdrawal of the second reason in terms of the impact to the local heritage assets.  The Principal Planner said there had been much support from local residents to the application and he advised that Locate in Kent supported the scheme in respect of the job creation that it would bring.

The Independent Consultant was invited to speak.  She outlined the Retail Appraisal as set out in Appendix I of the report.  She concluded by saying that on balance they recommended that planning permission be refused on the basis that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable and significantly adverse impact on Sheerness Town Centre.

Graham Sargent, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Sam Sheppard, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         The application had a lot of public support, but the Committee needed to consider the Council’s planning policies;

·         the independent appraisal indicated a severe impact on the town centre, but it was up to the Planning Committee to apply the planning balance and weigh-up the advice given against any wider impacts;

·         the new location of the retail unit could attract shoppers from other areas and that would reduce the impact in traffic congestion from shoppers using the current retail unit;

·         on balance agreed with the officer recommendation;

·         welcomed the creation of jobs from the scheme;

·         this was finely balanced;

·         concerned with the impact in Sheerness town centre, it was important that the town centre vitality was assured;

·         the retail unit within Sheerness no longer worked on that site;

·         an alternative retailer in that position would help the High Street in Sheerness;

·         the Isle of Sheppey deserved investment;

·         the report overstated the potential impact on Sheerness High Street;

·         the new site was still within walking distance of the town centre;

·         there was a diverse selection of retailers on Sheerness High Street which were not impacted by the in-town store at the moment;

·         the customers wanted an improved store in terms of its size; and

·         it was likely that whatever decision was made on the application, this would be reviewed.

At this stage, the Interim Head of Planning Services advised that if Members were minded to overturn the application, they needed to be very clear on the reasons why.   The Senior Lawyer (Planning) reminded Members that in accordance with the Council’s Local Plan, the application site was not allocated for retail use, but for a different class of employment use, and so it was technically contrary to the Local Plan.  She acknowledged that the National Planning Policy Framework encouraged growth, but it also set out guidelines on the impact of schemes on town centres.  The Senior Lawyer said the reasons for approval would need to be reasonable, rational and lawful and Members needed to be aware that there might be a review of the decision in the future, and she stressed the importance of valid reasons.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2) a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Monique Bonney, David Simmons.  Total equals 2.

Against: Cameron Beart, Lee McCall, Oliver Eakin, Tim Gibson, James Hall, James Hunt, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington, Ben J Martin, Ken Rowles, Paul Stephen, Tim Valentine, Tony Winckless.  Total equals 13.

Abstain: Richard Darby.  Total equals 1.

Absent from Meeting: Mike Henderson.  Total equals 1.

The motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (35) as set out in the report for application 19/502969/FULL, this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

Members spoke on the recommendation for approval and made the following comments:

·         Needed to recognise the benefits of the application, such as a new diverse store in town to replace the current one, with an increase in retail choices and the creation of jobs;

·         the traffic impact was positive;

·         there were also wider benefits including the creation of footpaths and cycleways to create active travel; and

·         considered the new out-of-town retail unit would not have a negative impact on the vitality of Sheerness High Street.

The Area Planning Officer advised that weight could not be given to the new retailer who planned to take-up the in-town retail unit, so Members should focus on the job creation.  The Senior Lawyer (Planning) explained that there was no policy which required the new retailer to move into the vacant in-town unit.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2) a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For:  Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney, Lee McCall, Oliver Eakin, Tim Gibson, James Hall, James Hunt, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington, Ben J Martin, Ken Rowles, Paul Stephen, Tim Valentine, Tony Winckless.  Total equals 14.

Against: David Simmons.  Total equals 1.

Abstain: Richard Darby.  Total equals 1.

Absent from Meeting: Mike Henderson.  Total equals 1.

The motion to approve the application was won.

Resolved:  That application 19/502969/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to suitable conditions aligned to conditions (1) to (35) as set out in the previous report and amended as necessary.  

PART 5

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

·                Item 5.1 – Meadow View Park Irwin Road Minster

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

COSTS REFUSED

A Member welcomed the result but considered that this indicated that the Council’s Park Homes Policy was not working.

·                Item 5.2 – Unit A Howt Green Sheppey Way Bobbing

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED