To consider the following applications:

·         Deferred Item 1 21/505461/PSINF HMP Standford Hill, Church Road, Eastchurch;

·         Deferred Item 2 22/501315/FULL St Mawes, The Street, Borden; and

·         Deferred Item 3 21/500204/FULL Old House at Home, High Street, Sheerness

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the applications will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on these items must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 17 August 2022.

Tabled update for Deferred Item 1 application 21/505461/PSINF HMP Standford Hill, Church Road, Eastchurch published 17.08.22.

Tabled update for Deferred Item 3 application 21/500204/FULL Old House at Home, High Street, Sheerness published 17.08.22.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting.

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application and drew attention to the tabled update which included: further comments from Eastchurch Parish Council objecting due to highway safety concerns; further comments from KCC Highways and the Council’s Independent Highway Consultant raising no objection.  The Major Projects Officer drew attention to condition (33) of the report which required a Travel Plan and officers concluded that the application should be approved subject to conditions as set-out in the report.   

Parish Councillor Kathleen Carter, representing Eastchurch Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Katharine Morgan, 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.

A Ward Member, also a Member of the Planning Committee, spoke against the application.  He said it would have an adverse impact on the local road network and health provision in the area.  He asked whether improvements to the already stretched local healthcare could be sought via a Section 106 Agreement, and whether the Swale Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) had been consulted?

The Major Projects Officer said that he was not aware that improvements for local healthcare had been sought for any other applications at the prisons, and it was not something that could be imposed. 

The Chair invited Members to debate the application.  Members raised points which included:

·         Agreed in principle to the application; and

·         concerned about the highway impact of the application particularly in Church Road, Eastchurch but the Council’s independent consultant agreed with KCC’s comments so had to support the application.

In response to a query about why prisoners were not included in the Council’s housing numbers when care home residents were, The Interim Head of Planning Services stated there was a fundamental difference between care homes and prisons as prisoners did not have a choice.  A Member warned that if prisoners were included in the housing numbers, they would then qualify for housing in the Borough after their release.

Resolved:  That application 21/505461/PSINF be approved subject to conditions (1) to (33) in the report.   

The Development Manager introduced the application and outlined details of the application site.  He explained that following discussions with the applicant, black was considered the most appropriate colour for the weatherboarding and would be in-keeping with the area.

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

A Ward Member, also a Member of the Planning Committee, read out the resolution from the meeting on 23 June 2022, as set-out on page 121 of the report, when it was agreed to defer the application.  He said that despite it being agreed that Ward Members be approached to “determine an improved design” that did not happen.  He raised concern that a resolution of the Planning Committee had not been acted upon.  He recommended that the application should be refused as it was not in-keeping with the streetscene.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow 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 Ken Rowles.

The Design and Conservation Manager said that following the deferral, officers had liaised with the applicant about concerns regarding the design, however the applicant was unwilling to make changes hence why the same proposal was before Members.  The Design and Conservation Manager considered that it was a finely balanced application, but it would be difficult to defend refusal of the application, at any subsequent appeal.

A Member suggested that if the applicant was unwilling to make changes the recommendation should be refusal.  The Ward Member said he would support referral or refusal.

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 Planner introduced the application and outlined the details of the application site for Members.  She reminded them that the application had been deferred at the May 2022 meeting to allow the applicant to improve the design of the proposed building.  The applicant had amended the design of the building and submitted an amended site plan which she showed the Committee.  The Planner drew attention to the tabled update, previously circulated to Members which provided consultee responses from: Kent Police who requested an additional condition; KCC Highways raised no objection; KCC Flood and Water Management Team raised no further comments; the Environment Agency raised no objection; Swale Borough Council’s (SBC) Environmental Health Team raised no objection subject to conditions; Natural England raised no objection; and SBC’s Conservation Officer raised no objection subject to a minor amendment to condition (19).  The Planner reported that Southern Water (SW) had commented late on the application, and this was tabled for Members.  SW had provided some advisories related to drainage and they would be included as informatives to the application.

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

A Ward Member welcomed the amended design and noted that Sheerness Town Council, who had previously objected, now raised no comment. 

The Chair invited Members to debate the application, and points raised included:

·         Congratulated the applicants on the amended design which he considered was far more suitable and in-keeping with the Conservation Area;

·         congratulated officers in achieving an improved design.

A Member moved the following addendum:  That on condition (24) in respect of the architectural work, the wording “and where possible retained” be added to the end of the reason.   This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson. 

Discussion ensued and the Design and Conservation Manager advised that it was usual for archaeological items of interests to be photographed, but it would be possible to delegate to officers for suitable wording of the condition.  The Interim Head of Planning Services added that the amended wording would need to clearly indicate who would be the depositary for such items.

A Member suggested including the wording “offer to historic societies”.  The was agreed by the proposer and seconder of the addendum.  On being put to the vote the addendum was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 21/500204/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (28) in the report, the additional conditions, amended conditions and informatives as set-out in the tabled updates and the reason for condition (24) be amended to include the words and where possible retained and offered to historic societies.