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 22 June 2022.

Tabled paper for item 2.3 added 22 June 2022.

Item 2.1 has been withdrawn from the agenda as the description of the development needs to be changed and re-consulted upon.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report and explained that further comments had been received from the Environmental Health Officer requiring a condition to install acoustic protection measures to mitigate impacts arising from the proximity to the railway line.  He explained that the dwellings were constructed in 2006, but later demolished as they were deemed un-fit for purpose.  This application was to erect dwellings of a very similar design and scale to those previous. The only difference on this application was the addition of a small lean-to added to the rear of the properties.  The Area Planning Officer said Queenborough Town Council had raised concern with flooding and sewerage issues, and he advised that the applicant had submitted a new flood risk assessment and that both the Environment Agency and Southern Water (SW) had raised no objection.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

The Ward Members who were also members of the Planning Committee spoke on the site’s sewerage issues, which included an inadequate sewerage pumping system.

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred and SW be requested to review the sewerage drains in the vicinity to ensure they were fit for purpose.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 21/505936/FULL be deferred and Southern Water be requested to review the sewerage drains in the vicinity to ensure they were fit for purpose. 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and drew Members’ attention to the tabled update for this item which set-out details of the small degree of harm to heritage assets identified by the Conservation & Design Manager, since the report was written.  This also included proposed amendments to the planning conditions.  The Area Planning Officer outlined the details of the application site, which was close to the centre of Upchurch, but technically in the countryside.  The site was adjacent to the Upchurch Conservation Area boundary and close to St Mary’s church which was a Grade I listed building.  He considered the development to be fairly discreet, in a backland location.  The Area Planning Officer indicated the proposed access to the site which was shared by the village hall and the pub.  He acknowledged the low-level heritage impact, but said that officers believed the site, surrounded by other buildings,  could accommodate development of this scale and form.  The Area Planning Officer said the site was outside of the defined boundary of the village, but as the Council was not able to demonstrate a five-year housing supply, the tilted balance applied to this application.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, representing Upchurch Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Peter Rippengale, an objector, spoke against the application.

Steven Smith, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Ward Members spoke against the application.  At this point, Councillor Richard Palmer left the meeting whilst the application was discussed.

A visiting Member spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

A Member acknowledged the contemporary design of the dwellings but did not consider it was in-keeping due to the proximity of the conservation area and the listed building, and the differing ground levels.

Councillor James Hunt moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.  Councillor Hunt requested that officers spoke with the Applicant to change the design to one that was more in-keeping with the local area, with more traditional elevations and windows to reflect those buildings within the conservation area.

A Member requested that a cross-section with the heights of the neighbouring properties, with the church included, be made available at the site meeting.

Resolved:  That application 21/506474/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which was to enlarge and re-model an existing bungalow located in the built-up area boundary of Borden.  The proposals would increase the main ridgeline of the bungalow by 0.7 metres, and there would be a 4-metre extension to the rear.  He considered it to be a significant improvement on the existing dwelling, that it was well designed and would sit comfortably in its surroundings and enhance the conservation area.

Mrs Wendy Esler, an objector, spoke against the application.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

The Conservation & Design Manager was invited to speak on the application and explained that the current bungalow had a neutral impact on the conservation area.  He acknowledged the concerns raised but said the test was whether the development would preserve or enhance the appearance of the conservation area.  The Conservation & Design Manager said that it was neither a change for the better or for the worse, but that it broadly preserved the character and appearance of the conservation area.  There was a wide variety of building materials used in the local area, and the weather boarding was not out of character.  He summarised by saying the overall impact was a neutral one.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         The black cladding did not fit in with the streetscene and did not contribute to the conservation area;

·         this needed to be a good design; and

·         the proposed changes did not suit the neighbouring property.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the gap between this property and the neighbouring one was 6.7 metres in total, with the proposed dwelling being 4.5 metres from the boundary fence.

Other points raised included:

·         The distances between the dwellings were acceptable in planning terms, but needed to consider what rooms would be overshadowed; and

·         the design was good, but did not suit the streetscene.

The Area Planning Officer advised that this property was on the northern side of the neighbour to the south, so the potential for loss of light was limited.

Councillor James Hunt moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow for further discussion with Ward Members to determine an improved design and look at any potential loss of light issues with the neighbouring properties.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  On being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 22/501315/FULL be deferred to allow for further discussion with Ward Members to determine an improved design and look at any potential loss of light issues with the neighbouring properties. 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the item and explained that KCC Highways and Transportation raised no objection to the application and noted that it would mean the removal of a parked car from the road.  Graveney-with-Goodnestone  Parish Council raised objection on the grounds that a vehicle would be reverse exiting from the property onto a busy road.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

A Member raised concern with a vehicle having to reverse out onto a busy road and the Area Planning Officer explained that it was a classified road, with good visibility and reversal onto the road could be carried out safely with caution.

Resolved:  That application 22/501387/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of a permanent agricultural dwelling which would replace the existing mobile home.  He explained that the farming business was well established and there was a need for on-site presence.  The main consideration had been the scale and visual impact of the proposed dwelling.  The scale had now been reduced and the applicants had advised that part of the dwelling would be used for the operation of their business which included an office and boot room.  The Area Planning Officer referred Members to paragraph 8.8 in the report which set-out that the current NPPF was less explicit in terms of the scale of the dwelling in relation to the size of the business than was the case with former advice in Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7).  He explained that the proposed building would be 212 square metres, but out of that, 168 square metres would be used as the living area.  The Area Planning Officer added that the site was not visible from nearby footpaths or from the church because of the topography of the area and screening and as such he considered the proposal to be acceptable.

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Andrew Street, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  At this point, Councillor Richard Palmer left the meeting whilst the application was discussed.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         Initially concerned with the scale of the dwelling;

·         it would have an impact on an area of high landscape value;

·         this could end up being a purely residential dwelling with no link to the land;

·         the immediate setting was rural and the proposed dwelling did not enhance it;

·         sympathetic to the need for accommodation on the site, and the continued use of the mobile home was not acceptable;

·         there needed to be on-site presence; and

·         this was more like a family home than farm accommodation.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following amendment:  That a condition be added to control the use of external lighting.  This was seconded by Councillor David Simmons.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Members made additional comments which included:

·         Welcomed conditions (18) and (19) which were very important;

·         the application, for the size of the farm, was not out-of-keeping and was for the use of the farmer and his family; and

·         the proposed dwelling was a standard size for a working farm.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that condition (17) in the report required the existing mobile home to be removed from the site within three months of the new dwelling being occupied.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following amendment:  That a Section 106 Agreement be secured to tie the agricultural use of the dwelling to the land.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed. 

Resolved:  That application 21/504388/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report, an additional condition to control any external lighting and a Section 106 Agreement to tie the agricultural use of the dwelling to the land.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that the garage had not been built where it should have been and was slightly larger than what had been granted.  He explained that the garage had not been built within the residential curtilage and it encroached into the open countryside and as such was not supported by policy.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         This was outside the built-up boundary;

·         enforcement action should be taken;

·         disappointed that it was a retrospective application and not built where agreed; and

·         the new site of the garage was in fact in a better position for the neighbouring resident, and it was less visible from the road.

Resolved:  That application 22/501078/FULL be refused for the reason given in the report.

PART 5

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

·                Item 5.1 – 11 Challenger Close, Sittingbourne

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.2 – Iris Cottage, Elmley Road, Minster

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.3 – Kemsdale Stud Farm, Kemsdale Road, Hernhill, Faversham

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.4 – New Acres Spade Lane Hartlip

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL A ALLOWED

APPEAL B DISMISSED AND COSTS REFUSED

Members welcomed the results.