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 12 October 2022.

Tabled Item for noting 5.2 added 11.10.22.

Tabled updates for item 2.2 added 12.10.22.

Item 3.2 20/503636/FULL The Former Kemsley Arms has been withdrawn from the agenda.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report. 

The Conversation & Design Manager considered the gate was an improvement on the existing one and would cause limited harm to views of Tonge mill pond.  He said it would be difficult to refuse on heritage grounds.

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included:

·         Surprised that the Council were supporting this design within a Conservation Area;

·         grass verges needed protecting so did not support hardstanding;

·         could a condition be imposed that the gate be painted black?;

·         the informative should be imposed as a condition; and

·         the applicant was hoping to improve the site.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion for a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

The Area Planning Officer said that additional wording could be added to condition (3) that the gates were painted black within six months of being installed, and that a further condition could be added to require a gap between the hard surface and the listed building.  This was agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 22/501799/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report, with an additional condition to maintain a gap between the hardsurface and the listed building, and that condition (3) be amended to include “..and the gates to be painted black within six months of being erected.”   

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  She drew attention to the tabled paper which had previously been circulated to Members, and had provided updates on: details of the notification to appeal on non-determination; hedgerow removal; road name clarification; the economic benefits; a suggested amendment to condition (33); Newington Parish Council objections, set-out at Appendix 1 of the update; planning balance; neighbour comments; and an amendment to paragraph 2.6 of the report which indicated the incorrect housing mix.  

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Council’s Green Spaces Manager had confirmed the contribution amount as set-out in paragraph 8.221 on page 111 of the report.  She further reported that the applicant had provided a response to a letter provided on behalf of the Parish Council from Railton about achieving a reduction in car use. 

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Christopher Simmons, an objector, spoke against the application.

Chris Loughead, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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:

·         Concerned that the tenant farmer had removed the hedgerow;

·         this was outside the built-up area of Newington;

·         this was a considerable development that would alter Newington;

·         could not think of a worse location for this type of development in Newington;

·         all of the proposed units should have solar panels fitted;

·         considered more 4-bed affordable units should be provided;

·         concerned that no evidence had been submitted to support the claim that the land was not of the highest agricultural value;

·         it would cause moderate harm to the Grade I listed church;

·         more one and two-bed affordable units were needed in Swale not four-bed units;

·         consultees’ comments made it difficult to defend refusal at any subsequent appeal;

·         clear from the report that balance was in favour of approving the application;

·         welcomed the additional school car parking;

·         noted the development was outside of the built-up area of Newington, however that had to be balanced against the need for housing;

·         the proposed residential units were of a high design;

·         the proposal would have a negative impact on the area but the Council was not in a strong enough position in terms of it’s Local Plan to refuse the application;

·         concerned about the impact the proposal would have on the rural area;

·         it would have an adverse impact on the character of the rural lanes;

·         did not agree with the comments from Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation; and

·         the benefits of the application did not outweigh the harm it would cause.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a portion of hedgerow had been removed by the tenant farmer, however if the application was approved the proposed landscaping condition would ensure the replacement of the hedgerow.

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

In response to a suggested reason for refusal from a Member, the Conservation & Design Manager said that whilst there was a heritage impact related to the setting of the church views from the adjacent footpaths the development would be well screened.  He said it would be difficult to support heritage harm at any subsequent appeal.

At this point, the Chair agreed to a short recess to allow officers to provide suitable wording for the Committee’s stated reasons for refusing the application.

The Senior Planning Officer read out two suggested reasons to refuse the application that had been formulated from the Committee’s discussions.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion to refuse the application for the reasons outlined by the Senior Planning Officer.  This was seconded by Councillor Elliott Jayes.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 21/504028/FULL be refused for the following reasons (subject to minor amendments to the wording as deemed necessary by the Interim Head of Planning Services):

(1)    The proposed development would represent unjustified and unnecessary residential development within the countryside resulting in an urbanising impact, outside of the defined built-up area boundary, in a manner which is significantly and demonstrably harmful to the character, appearance, and intrinsic amenity value of the countryside.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies ST1, ST3, ST5, CP4, DM14, DM24, and DM26 of Bearing Fruits 2031 - The Swale Borough Local Plan 2017; and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(2)     In the absence of a completed S106 agreement to secure relevant contributions and obligations, the development fails to mitigate the impacts of the additional residential units on local services and infrastructure,  fails to secure the provision of affordable housing, and fails to mitigate ecological impacts on the Swale and Medway Estuary Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites, contrary to policies DM6, DM8, CP5, CP6, CP7, DM17  and DM28 of "Bearing Fruits" - The Swale Borough Local Plan 2017. Such contributions being required towards the following infrastructure - Highways, Air Quality, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Special Education Needs, Community Learning, Youth Services, Library Bookstock, Social Care, Waste, refuse bin provision, healthcare (NHS), Swale SPA and Ramsar Sites, open space and off site sport and recreation.  

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Faversham Area Team Leader introduced the application.

James Wilson, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member, who had called-in the application spoke on the application.

A Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee spoke against the application.  He said it was a very large extension in a sensitive location.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         The personal circumstances of the applicant made it difficult to refuse, but considered officers were correct to recommend refusal in this instance;

·         noted that the Parish Council and local residents supported the application;

·         the applicant already had permission for an extension; and

·         it was important to maintain smaller properties in rural areas.

Resolved:  That application 22/503662/FULL be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application. 

Nathan Tress, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Keith Tress, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

The Democratic Services Officer read out the statement from a Ward Member who was in support of the application.

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

In response to a question from the Chair, the Interim Head of Planning Services confirmed that village local plans and strategies were not adopted by the local authority.  The Design & Conservation Manager said that Westfield Cottages were originally brickmakers cottages which was why they were located in isolation from the main village and that they had some limited heritage significance. 

In response to a question from a Member, the Area Planning Officer stated that unless restricted by condition about the location of the dwelling on the site, the dwelling could be shown under a subsequent reserved matters application to be erected anywhere within the red line.  The entire land within the red line would benefit from being in residential use.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 22/502340/OUT be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

PART 5

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

·                Item 5.1 – land rear of 25-29 Station Street Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

In response to a question from a Member that the Planning Inspector had not agreed to the inclusion of a condition requiring 50% reduction in dwelling emission rates, the Area Planning Officer explained that the Council had received other appeal decisions, some of which had included such a condition and others where the Inspector had not deemed the condition to be necessary/reasonable against existing national and local policy.

·                Tabled Item 5.2 – Land West of Elm Lane Minster on Sea (ref: 20/504408/OUT)

APPEAL DISMISSED

APPEAL AGAINST NON-DETERMINATION

Members welcomed the decision and thanked officers for their work on the Appeal.