To consider the following applications:

1.    15/500303/COUNTY – Land at Cryalls Lane, Sittingbourne

2.    14/506623/OUT – 109 Staplehurst Road, Sittingbourne

3.    15/500955/FULL – Land rear of Seager Road, Sittingbourne

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 20 May 2015.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

Mr Stephen Baker, an objector, spoke against the application.

A Ward Member made the following comments: was there evidence the work was required?; unsure how much silt was going to be deposited on the site; some of the existing pipework was exposed/damaged; it was not clear how much damage there was to the existing pipework; the report was generic, it did not contain enough evidence; and the application should be deferred until KCC had reported back on the gas leak into the local water supply, and quantify it.  Another Ward Member, also a member of KCC Planning Committee did not comment on the application, but considered KCC should have responded to the questions that had been raised, and stated that a clear message should be sent to KCC to ask them for the information required to prove a need for the works.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion to raise objection to the application, and withdraw the objection as and when the following had been resolved: 

1.    How much damage there was to the existing pipework?

2.    How much soil would be brought to the site, and what would it consist of?

3.    What evidence was there to demonstrate why the proposed works were necessary?

4.    Was there a badger sett at the site, and if there was, what measures were KCC going to adopt?

5.    Raise objection if hedge cutting to take place during the bird nesting season unless it was necessary for safety reasons.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Bryan Mulhern.  A Homewood Ward Member welcomed objection to the application.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That  objection be raised to application 15/500303/COUNTY and objection withdrawn as and when the following had been resolved: 

1.    How much damage there was to the existing pipework?

2.    How much soil would be brought to the site, and what would it consist of?

3.    What evidence was there to demonstrate why the proposed works were necessary?

4.    Was there a badger sett at the site, and if there was, what measures were KCC going to adopt?

5.    Raise objection if hedge cutting to take place during the bird nesting season unless it was necessary for safety reasons.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to impose conditions as requested by KCC Highways, and as referred to on page 34 of the agenda, and as introduced at the meeting on 23 April 2015.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

A Ward Member drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 on page 15 of the report and sought clarification on which paragraph was correct.  The KCC Highways Officer explained the nature of the off-site highway works proposed. He advised that highway restrictions addressed the issue of access by HGVs to the commercial use opposite and the turning facilities.  He further stated that it was not the responsibility of the developer to stop HGVs going through this area, and that weight restrictions were in place for HGVs using Hythe Road and Staplehurst Road.

Resolved:  That application 14/506623/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to additional conditions as requested by KCC Highways and to conditions (1) to (24) in the report.

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper from Southern Water, which approved the applicant’s application for connection to the public sewerage system.  One further letter had been received objecting to the overbearing impact of the development and stating that the height of the dwellings should be reduced and any windows facing existing properties should be obscure glazed.

Mr Smith, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr John Escott, the Consultant,  representing the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application and stated that approving it would set a harmful precedent.

Members made the following comments:  this development was ‘morally wrong’; welcomed affordable housing; the development was overbearing; and the additional 1.5 metres in height when compared to the development approved under SW/10/0050 made the scheme unacceptable.

Councillor Mark Ellen moved the following motion:  That the application be refused as it had an overbearing and overshadowing impact on residential amenity and was detrimental to quality of life.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved an amendment: That the reasons for refusal should use the wording in paragraph 2.08 on page 48 of the report, as follows:  The development, by virtue of the close relationship between the houses in blocks B and C of the development and nos. 15, 17 and 19 Seager Road, in combination with the height of the houses in blocks B and C, would have a significant and demonstrable overbearing impact on the neighbouring properties to the detriment of their residential amenities.  This would be contrary to policies E1 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.  The proposer and seconder agreed to the amendment.  On being put to the vote the substantive motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/500955/FULL be refused on the grounds that the development, by virtue of the close relationship between the houses in blocks B and C of the development and nos. 15, 17 and 19 Seager Road, in combination with the height of the houses in blocks B and C, would have a significant and demonstrable overbearing impact on the neighbouring properties to the detriment of their residential amenities.  This would be contrary to policies E1 and E24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008.