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 Tuesday 20 September 2022.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and outlined the details of the application site.

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 Chair invited members to make comments:

·           Would the new road be adopted by Kent County Council (KCC)?;

·           concerned that two parking spaces for each home was not sufficient;

·           tandem parking was not suitable for the size of the site;

·           concerned that local residents were parking on land that was not to be used as parking;

·           concerned about the protected Willow tree on the site and that the roots of the tree could become damaged from the construction of the houses; and

·           had a management plan been discussed with the developer to identify ownership of the Willow tree?

The Senior Lawyer (Planning) clarified the points about parking on the site and officers advised Members that the site was classed as a suburban are, which meant that under the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Policy, the developer only needed to provide two car parking spaces per household. The Senior Lawyer (Planning) added that although tandem parking was recognised as not being best practice it was not explicitly precluded under the policy and guidance and so was an option for parking in certain situations.

A member of the Planning Committee asked the Senior Planning Officer who would be responsible for the Willow tree? The Member asked if a condition could be placed on the application for a management plan outlining who would be responsible for the Willow tree and the cost for the maintenance of the tree, as it had a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) placed upon it.

The Senior Planning Officer asked for an adjournment of the meeting so they could discuss the possible wording of an extra condition. The Chair adjourned the meeting.

After the adjournment, the Senior Planning Officer advised that condition (19) in the report could be amended to protect the Willow tree with delegation given to amend and make the wording sufficiently precise. The Senior Planning Officer read out the draft proposed additional condition (19) which read:

“Prior to commencement of the development herby approved the development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the working methodology and tree protection measures recommended in the submitted Arboriculture and Planning Integration Report by GHA Trees (ref.GHA/DS/133460:21) and the Tree Protection Plan provided on 15.08.22. Details shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority of proposed ongoing management, maintenance and responsibility of the aforementioned management of the Willow Tree as identified on plan 2091-105C (Tree Preservation Order TP-21-2). The development shall be carried out in accord with the approved details thereon.

Reason: In the interest of further protecting the Willow Tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order.”

This was proposed by Councillor Cameron Beart and was seconded by Councillor David Simmons.

On being put to the vote, the amended draft wording to condition (19) in the report was agreed.

Resolved: That application 22/502256/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (21) in the report and that condition (19) as minuted be amended with delegation given to officers to re-word as reasonably necessary.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and outlined the details of the application. The officer explained that the applicant had moved the barn to have a minimal impact on the grade II listed building near the site. 

Sharon Muswell, 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.

Councillor Richard Darby proposed a site visit so that the Committee could see the impact the new proposed barn would have on the surrounding area, and this was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer.

The Chair invited members to comment on the proposed site visit and points raised included:

·      The applicant had already been waiting since December 2021 for a decision so could not see a problem with having a site visit;

·      the barn was too close to the grade II listed building;

·      the price of construction materials since 2021 had increased significantly so it was unreasonable to make the applicant wait longer for a decision; and

·      the location of the barn could have been placed in a better place.

The Senior Lawyer (Planning) reminded members that this application was for prior notification and that there was a time limit of 28 days for any decision on  the application. Given that the application was first received in 2021 she advised Members that a site visit would result in the Council passing the deadline and the applicant would have a deemed approval.

Upon being put to the vote the motion for a site visit was lost.

Resolved: That application 21/505047/AGRREQ be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Interim Head of Planning services introduced the application. She advised that the Parish Council had sent in a late representation supporting the application but that had not changed the officer’s decision to refuse the application. 

William Dixon, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Chair drew Members’ attention to paragraph 8.7 page 58 in the report before being invited to debate on the item.

The committee debated the item and made the following comments:

·           Understood the special circumstances of the applicant but unfortunately this was not a recognised concern when considering a planning application;

·           recognised that there was a real need for the new dwelling, but the building would be out of place in the area; and

·           felt that if the applicant worked with the councils design officers, they could design a scheme that the Committee could approve in the future.

Resolved: That application 22/501402/FULL be refused for the reason outlined in the report.

PART 5

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

A Member commented on Items 5.1 and 5.2 and said it was disappointing to see two applications in the same road which had different decisions, but the considerations for each decision were the same. 

·         Item 5.1 – 55 Parsonage Chase Minster

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.1 – Read’s Orchard Parsonage Chase Minster

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.3 – St Thomas Yard Holywell Land Upchurch

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.4 – 2 Larkfield Avenue Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL