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 17 August 2022.

 

Item 3.2 application 22/502340/OUT Land adjacent Westfield Cottages, Breach Lane, Lower Halstow has been withdrawn from the agenda.

 

Item 2.3 application 22/50000 Sheerness Bus Station, Bridge Road, Sheerness has been withdrawn from the agenda.

 

Tabled update for item 2.1 application 21/502545/FULL Railway Depot, Station Road, Faversham published 17.08.22.

 

Tabled update for item 2.6 application 21/506787/PSINF HMP Elmley, Church Road, Eastchurch published 17.08.22.

PART 2

 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

                                                                                                                                                    

 

2.1       REFERENCE NO 21/502545/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Residential and commercial development comprising of 32no. residential units and 246 sqm of commercial space (Class E Use), with associated parking and amenity areas.
ADDRESSRailway Depot, Station Road, Faversham, ME13 8GE
WARD Abbey	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT George Wilson Developments AGENT Hobbs Parker Property Consultants

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and outlined the details of the application site for Members.  She drew attention to the tabled updates, the first of which included updates on: developer contributions; access to Jubilee Way; and comments from the Council’s Open Space Manager and had previously been circulated to Members.  The second tabled update which had been received just prior to the meeting, was a letter from Network Rail objecting to the application.

 

Town Councillor Julian Saunders, representing Faversham Town Council (FTC), spoke against the application.

 

Josh Wilson, 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 Ward Member, also a Member of the Planning Committee, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

·         Good design and environmental aspects welcome;

·         considered it was a good proposal;

·         good use of a brownfield site;

·         it was an accessible site;

·         appreciated the comments of FTC, however a simple access could be provided;

·         there was a pedestrian and cycle route to the recreation ground;

·         the site was included in the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan;

·         it would be a vast improvement on what was currently there;

·         welcomed provision of a medical practice;

·         if refused the Council would not be able to win any subsequent appeal;

·         welcomed the application and hoped that an additional pedestrian access to Jubilee Way, Faversham would come forward;

·         asked officers to ensure that the residential amenity of the residents of Preston Malthouse was protected given the topography of the land which meant some windows were below street level;

·         welcomed the affordable housing and design;

·         had potential complaints from the noise of the railway been considered?;

·         suggested that via a Section 106 Agreement a ramp be provided to allow cycle access to Jubilee Way;

·         needed to provide light mitigation measures; and

·         Network Rail had not objected to other developments closer to the railway line.

 

In response the Senior Planning Officer drew attention to condition (28) of the report which requested details of all noise mitigation measures to be submitted.   She said that residents should be able to mitigate against any light pollution.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/502545/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (43) in the report and the amended developer contributions as set-out in the tabled update.   

 

2.2       REFERENCE NO – 21/505544/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Revision to extant planning permission SW/96/0620 for the demolition of 1 bungalow and garage and the erection of 6 no. houses, garages and parking. Widening of Washley Hill, provision of a pedestrian footpath from Hearts Delight Road, closure of existing vehicular access and provision of new, relocated access, along with wildlife enhancements AS AMENDED BY DRAWINGS RECEIVED ON 9TH FEB 2022 and 10TH MARCH 2022.
ADDRESSHillyfield Hearts Delight Borden Sittingbourne Kent ME9 8HX
WARD Borden and Grove Park	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Borden	APPLICANT Hillyfield Development Ltd AGENT  Alpha Design Studio Limited

 

The Faversham Area Team Leader introduced the application and outlined the details of the application site for Members.  He reported that there were no objections from the statutory consultees and referred Members to page 245 of the report, which set-out the comments of the Council’s Design and Conservation Manager who raised no objection.  The Faversham Area Team Leader also drew attention to page 237 of the report, which set-out the sustainable measures incorporated within the site which would not have been included within the original planning approval granted in 1996.

 

Clive Jenkins, an objector, spoke against the application.

 

Klaire Lander, 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 raised the following concerns: 

 

·         Poor design;

·         out-of-keeping with the rural area;

·         the Design and Conservation Officer stated that it would not have a significant impact but that view was subjective;

·         would have a detrimental impact on Hearts Delight Road;

·         the site was often used by dog walkers who would be forced out onto the road;

·         would not affect the Council’s 5-year housing supply;

·         would have a negative impact on the approach to the village; and

·         the footpath was on the wrong side.

 

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

 

·         Many villages developed over hundreds of years, and this was a developing scene;

·         supported the application and liked the design; and

·         this was a good addition to the area.

 

In response the Design and Conservation Manager said there was a variation of architectural designs in Hearts Delight Road, Borden.  He noted that more landscaping was planned as part of the application and considered the development would have limited visibility to the Hearts Delight Conservation Area.  He appreciated the Ward Member’s preference for a more traditional design but said it would be difficult to use that as a reason to refuse the application at any subsequent appeal.

 

Resolved:  That application 19/502484/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (22) in the report.

 

2.3       REFERENCE NO – 22/500007/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Change of use of former bus depot (Sui Generis) to vehicle servicing and repair business (Class B2) and construction of additional workshop unit.
ADDRESS Sheerness Bus Station, Bridge Road, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1RH
WARD Sheerness	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Sheerness Town Council	APPLICANT WP Commercials Ltd AGENT Kevin Wise Town Planning

 

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

 

 

2.4       REFERENCE NO – 22/502863/FULL & 22/502864/LBC
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Alterations to entrance gates to enable easier and safer vehicular access to the parking area, including the addition of a pedestrian gate for day to day use. Reinstatement of wood burner and flue to main dwelling.
ADDRESSThe Stables Sweepstakes Farm Lower Hartlip Road Hartlip Sittingbourne Kent ME9 7TU
WARDHartlip, Newington and Upchurch	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Hartlip	APPLICANT Mr Gary Payne AGENT

 

The Development Manager introduced the application and outlined the details of the application for Members. 

 

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

 

A Member did not consider the proposal would be harmful to the area.

 

Resolved:  That application 22/502863/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

 

Resolved:  That application 22/502864/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

 

2.5       REFERENCE NO – 22/502679/ADV
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Advertisement Consent for 1no. non-illuminated hoarding signage board.
ADDRESS Manor Farm, Key Street, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1YU
WARD Borden and Grove Park	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Borden	APPLICANT Miss Teresa Rolfe AGENT

 

The Development Manager introduced the application for Members.  He considered that the sign was well screened by existing vegetation and was within the built-up area of Sittingbourne.  He drew Members attention to condition (6) on page 286 of the report, which allowed consent for six months only.

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered it was a premature and an unnecessary sign in the open countryside and went against 4.1 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). 

 

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

 

·         Had viewed the site and the sign was not obtrusive and screened by trees;

·         the sign was unnecessary;

·         not sure this should be allowed because it was not obtrusive there had to be a need for the sign and there was not; and

·         the Council had approved much larger signs so did not have a problem with the application.

 

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

 

The Development Manager explained that under the Advertisement Regulations there were certain issues that could not be considered reasons for refusal.  He advised Members that they needed to focus on amenity and highway safety when considering their potential reasons for refusal.  He advised that Members might wish to include something regarding impact on the existing streetscene.  The Interim Head of Planning Services clarified that advert consent could not be refused on grounds of need or the content of the proposed sign.

 

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That the application be refused due to its visual impact on the existing streetscene and it was against 4.1 of the Council’s SPG.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless. 

 

At this point, and to assist Members in formulating a reason for refusal, the Senior Lawyer (Planning) drew attention to paragraph three of the appeal decision for item 5.9 on page 397 of the report in respect of an advertisement. 

 

Councillor Mike Baldock advised that he would like to include “the impact on the general characteristics of the locality”.  This was agreed by the seconder of the motion to refuse.

 

On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 22/502679/ADV be refused due to its visual impact on the existing streetscene, the impact on the general characteristics of the locality and it was against 4.1 of the Council’s SPG.

 

2.6       REFERENCE NO – 21/506750/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Construction of a 4 storey (Category B) houseblock for up to 247 prisoners, a new workshop, a staff administration building, extension to existing property store, extension to existing sports store, new 7-a-side sports pitch, new 3G MUGA pitch, extension to the existing car park (80 spaces) and realignment of existing containment fencing at HMP Elmley Category B/C Prison.
ADDRESS HMP Elmley, Church Road, Eastchurch, ME12 4DZ
WARDSheppey East	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Eastchurch	APPLICANT Ministry of Justice AGENT Cushman & Wakefield

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and outlined the details of the application site for Members.  She referred to the tabled update which had previously been circulated to Members and set-out the further comments of KCC Highways and the Council’s independent traffic consult who both raised no objection.  The update also included further conditions requested by KCC Highways & Transportation.

 

Parish Councillor Kathleen Carter, representing Eastchurch Parish Council had left the meeting at this point so was unable to speak on the item.

 

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.

 

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

 

·         Agreed in principal to the application;

·         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.

·         Sports England were often not flexible on their policy position and usually objected to this type of application;

·         introduction of the 3g pitch was a welcomed and sensible solution;

·         the design was in-keeping with the streetscene; and

·         disagreed with KCC Highways and the Council’s traffic consultant about Church Road.

 

Resolved:  (Subject to Secretary of State Approval) That application 21/506750/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (26) in the report and the additional conditions and comments as set-out in the tabled update, and with authority to amend conditions as may reasonably be required.

 

PART 3

 

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

                                                                                                                                                           

 

3.1       REFERENCE NO – 22/502498/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing utility and annexe and erection of a two-storey pitched roof rear extension including annexe, a single storey flat roof rear orangery, a single storey side entrance extension with covered refuse and seating area, and a single storey bay window to front. Refurbishment including installation of thermally efficient roof coverings, replacement of external wall cladding and structure with thermally efficient detailed face brick facade, and replacement of windows, doors and ground floor fabric.
ADDRESS 5 The Wineycock, Newnham, Kent, ME9 0NB
WARD East Downs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Newnham	APPLICANT Mr Colin Hulott AGENT Abstrkt-Dsign

 

The Development Manager introduced the application for Members.  He reported that the two-storey rear extension was 6.7 metres in depth and officers were concerned about the impact it would have on the neighbouring semi-detached property, and would be prominent from Seed Road, Newnham.  The Development Manager referred to the Council’s adopted SPG on extensions which stated that “for first floor rear extensions should be no more than a projection of 1.8 metres along a common boundary”.  He added that officers raised no objection to the proposed single storey rear and side extensions.

 

Colin Hulott, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

The Ward Member, also a Member of the Planning Committee, spoke in support of the application.  He acknowledged that the extension was larger than what was permitted but explained it was a unique site at the end of Wineycock.  He noted that Newnham Parish Council raised no objection and considered it an improvement, and there were no objections from local residents.

 

The Chair invited Members to debate the application:

 

·         The proposal did not comply with the guidelines of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Management Plan, namely it did not conserve or enhance the special quality and distinctive character of the AONB;

·         the recommendation to refuse the application was correct;

·         would be overbearing to the adjacent property; and

·         if approved would it set a precedent?; and

·         could Policy DM24 be included as an additional reason to refuse?

 

In response the Interim Head of Planning Services said that planning permission did not set a precedence and each application was considered on its own merits.  Policy DM24 could be included but considered that the suggested reason for refusing was strong.

 

Resolved:  That application 22/502498/FULL be refused for the reason outlined in the report.

 

 

 

 

3.2       REFERENCE NO – 22/502340/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline application (all matters reserved except access) for the erection of a single detached self-build dwellinghouse and carport/garage.
ADDRESSLand Adjacent Westfield Cottages Breach Lane Lower Halstow Kent ME9 7AA
WARD Bobbing, Iwade and Lower Halstow	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Lower Halstow	APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Keith Tress AGENT TaD Planning Ltd

 

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

 

PART 5

 

Decisions by the County Council and Secretary of State reported for information.

                                                                                                                                                    

 

A Member congratulated officers in respect of items 5.1, 5.5 and 5.7 which were all delegated decisions.  He also congratulated Andrew Byrne (Area Planning Officer) for his work in defending the Council’s position at the Appeal for item 5.2 despite the disappointing decision.

 

·                Item 5.1 – 310 Minster Road Minster

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.2 – Land west of Greyhound Road Minster

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.3 – 15 Horsham Lane Upchurch

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.4 – 1 Woodland Cottages Highsted Road Sittingbourne

 

          APPEAL ALLOWED

 

          DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.5 – 118 High Street Eastchurch

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

          DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.6 – 33 The Willows Newington

 

          APPEAL ALLOWED

 

          DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.7 – 2 The Myrtles Summerville Avenue Minster

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

          DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.8 – 1 Donemowe Drive Sittingbourne

         

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

          DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.9 – Aldi Foodstore Tetternhall Way Faversham

         

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

          DELEGATED REFUSAL