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 20 July 2022.

*Tabled updates for Items 2.4 and 3.2 added 21.07.2022

** Item 3.1 has been withdrawn from the agenda.

Part 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Planning Consultant introduced the report which was for a proposed development of up to 44 dwellings on the north of Elm Lane, Minster-on-Sea. The Planning Consultant advised that the site was situated on the edge of the Minster urban area and under the Local Plan Policy ST3, Minster had been designated as an urban area and was one of the areas to provide the potential focus on housing growth within the Borough.

Parish Councillor John Standford, representing Minster Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Ken Mackness, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Peter Rickard, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

Visiting Ward Members spoke against 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:

·         Kent had the worst patient-to-doctor ratio in the country and the Isle of Sheppey had recently had another General Practice shut down, so how were the additional residents going to see a doctor?;

·         there were only four buses throughout the day in this area which meant residents of the development would be reliant on a car;

·         the report did not provide any comments from the Greenspaces Officer;

·         there was no mention of Historical England’s comments given the impact of the historical railway; and

·         there were not enough measures to improve air quality.

Councillor Elliott Jayes moved a motion for a site meeting. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Darby. On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.18(2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Beart, Darby, Eakin, Gibson, Hall, Jackson, Jayes, Marchington, Perkin, Rowles, P Stephen and Winckless. Total = 12.

Against: Hunt, Martin, Simmons, Valentine. Total = 4.

Abstain: Total = 0.

Resolved: That application 21/503124/OUTbe deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.   

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which sought retrospective planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension. The proposed extension was 2.2m wide, 2.8m high and 3.05m deep. The Area Planning Officer explained that the extension had been constructed with unrendered breeze blocks and encroached onto the neighbouring property. He advised that the rear of the application could be seen from the conservation area, but the Design and Conservation Manager advised that the street scene was not affected by this single storey rear extension. 

Town Councillor Ben J Martin, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application and left the meeting whilst the item was being considered.

Kate Holland, 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 made included:

·         The extension had been built 3 years ago when the applicant applied for permission and it had been refused, but the applicant decided to go ahead and build the extension anyway;

·         what were the reasons for refusal 3 years ago when the committee last debated this application?; and

·         could not see any real harm to the conservation area and considered the Committee should work with planning officers to improve the design of the extension.

On being put to the vote, the motion to approve the application was lost.

There was some discussion on the possible reasons for refusal which included: loss of amenity for residents at no.9 Park Road, including loss of light due to the canyoning affect of the development; inappropriate materials in the conservation area and the poor quality of the design of the development.

In response, the Design and Conservation Manager explained that the harm to the conservation area for this development was low as the use of inappropriate materials could be mitigated by requiring the wall to be rendered by the use of a planning condition to improve the look of the extension.

Councillor David Simmons moved the following motion: That the application be refused on the grounds that the retrospective development had led to a loss of residential amenity for the neighbours at no. 9 Park Road, including loss of light due to the canyoning affect of the development, and the poor quality of the design of the development. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

Resolved: That application 22/501594/FULL be refused on the grounds that the retrospective development had led to a loss of residential amenity for the neighbours at no. 9 Park Road, including loss of light due to the canyoning affect of the development, and the poor quality of the design of the development.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the application which sought partial retrospective planning permission for the change of use of part of the approved tractor shed to a domestic garage and the change of agricultural land to a residential garden. He added that, the site was located within the Hartlip Conservation Area and in the open countryside and the residential garden would extend to the northwest of the site and it had an approximate area of 13m by 33m.

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

Resolved: That application 21/506797/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

The Senior Planner introduced the application which sought approval for 35 new-build small industrial units with associated parking and landscaping. He reminded Members that planning permission had already been granted for 34 small industrial units on this site at Planning Committee on 20 May 2019, and this application proposed one extra unit with the same size and design as those already approved. 

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

Members considered the application and points made included:

·         The view of the industrial buildings was not nice and seemed very large when driving past;

·         would have liked to see a larger gap between the site and the road; and

·         wanted to see more landscaping on the site to soften it.

The Senior Planner referred to paragraph 2.08 of the report which set-out the landscaping scheme to increase wildlife and soften the view of the site.

Resolved: That application 21/504972/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (22) in the report.

Part 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

This item was withdrawn from the agenda in advance of the meeting.

The Senior Planner introduced the report for an outline scheme for 100 houses (with 35% affordable housing) with all matters reserved aside from access. He advised that the application had now been appealed on the grounds of non-determination by the Council and so the determination would now be by the appointed Planning Inspector for the appeal, rather than the Council. The views of the Committee as to what it would have agreed were it to determine the application were being sought. The Senior Planner referred to the tabled update which re-worded the proposed putative reasons for refusal on the effect the development had on the landscape of the area, and removed the refusal reason related to air quality implications. He explained that the site was outside the urban boundary of Minster-on-Sea and would result in permanent adverse effects to visual amenity for users of the local roads and footpaths.

Parish Councillor Dolley White, representing Minster Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Lee Jarmain an objector, spoke against the application

Visiting Ward Members spoke against the application.

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

A Member commented on the application and said he was surprised KCC Highways & Transport had no concerns with the rural location of the site and the access onto the site.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.18(2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Beart, Darby, Eakin, Gibson, Hall, Hunt, Jackson, Jayes, Marchington, Martin, Perkin, Rowles, Simmons, P Stephen, Valentine and Winckless. Total = 16.

Against: Total = 0.

Abstain: Total = 0.

Resolved:

(1)  That application 20/504408/OUTwould have been refused for the reasons set-out in the report as amended by the tabled update.

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reporting for information.

            ________________________________________________________

·                     Item 5.1 – 31 Forbes Road Faversham

Delegated Refusal

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                     Item 5.2 Brookside Park First Avenue Eastchurch

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED AND COSTS REFUSED