PRESENT: Councillors Barnicott (Chairman), Sylvia Bennett, Bobbin, Mick Constable, Derek Conway, Mark Ellen, June Garrad, Mike Henderson, Prescott, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Adrian Crowther.

OFFICERS PRESENT: James Freeman, Kellie Mackenzie and Jim Wilson.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Sue Gent and Peter Marchington.

The Chairman welcomed the agent, applicant and members of the public to the meeting.

The Major Projects Officer introduced the retrospective application 15/500955/FULL which sought to regularise changes made to application SW/10/0050 for 35 dwellings comprising 27 houses and 8 flats.  He reminded Members that there had been a Planning Working Group at the site held in late 2010 to consider the original application.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the retrospective application dealt with the following differences to the approved scheme namely: the houses were 1.44 metres higher to the ridge; the flats were 2.1 metres higher to the ridge; the eaves to the houses were 1.7 metres higher; the window design had been altered; balconies had been removed; the houses were 1 sq metre smaller in footprint; the arrangement of the integral garages had been altered making them narrower; the internal layout of the ground floor had been altered to remove a toilet and utility room; and the footpath link between the site and Beckley Road had been omitted.

The Major Projects Officer stated that the mix of dwellings remained unchanged and foul water and sewage discharge would not be affected.  KCC Highways raised no objection.  Further correspondence had been received since the 2 April 2015 Planning Committee raising points including: drainage problems; timing of the site visit; breaches of planning control; public right of way implications; and in-filling of water ditches.  The Major Projects Officer stated that further correspondence from the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board was awaited.

The Major Projects Officer considered that the application should be approved subject to the conditions set out in the committee report and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

Mr Mineham, representing Ubique Architects (the agent), explained that they had submitted the application to deal with changes made to the scheme and their impacts.  He considered that of the ten or so alleged breaches the most critical were the ridge height issues but considered that the others had now been resolved.

Mr Ings-Wotton, representing Moat Housing (the applicant), stated that the development was included within Swale Borough Council’s Local Plan.  He added that Moat Housing worked closely with SBC and the local community to ensure that much needed affordable housing was provided.

Several statements raising objection were read out by local residents.   The Chairman agreed that these would be forwarded to the Planning Committee and also included with these minutes.

The following further objections were raised by local residents: private householders would have to comply with the Building Regulations, so Moat Housing should; Southern Water stated that there should be no dwellings within 15 metres of their pumping station and there were; obscure windows had not been fitted; the development had breached the Human Rights Act 1988 in respect of overlooking; would cause overlooking to properties in Barnsley Close; developer had used an illegal entrance to access the site; the in-filling of the ditch has caused flooding in Beckley Road; the reduced size of the garages would lead to parking problems in Beckley and Seager Road; disgrace that developer had been allowed to deviate from the approved plans; why had a Stop Notice not been issued as soon as it was clear that breaches were occurring?; would Planning Committee Members want this development where they lived; developer had not considered the residential amenity of local residents; properties in Barnsley Close had suffered unacceptable levels of noise and dust; some adjacent properties have experienced shaking to their property, would this affect their foundations?; should have been better collaboration between the relevant parties and local residents; the Planning Committee should look harshly at this application; can we have assurances that misted glass would be provided and not sticky back plastic; the developer had not adhered to the original plans making them invalid, as such they should not be considered; the dwellings were high fire risk as there were no fire escapes; Marine Parade was a busy road and could not cope with the development; why did Planning insist that they could not act until the ridge height had been built as it was clear once the floating rafters were erected that they were too high; the Planning department received several hundred calls from local residents and visits to their offices why did they not act; why were the planning officers still recommending approval given all the local resident complaints; and how many fire hydrants would be provided on the site?

A Member queried why a supplementary planning application had not beensubmitted before the changes were made.

Members then toured the site and viewed the site from properties in Seager Road and Barnsley Close with the officers, agent, applicant and developers.