To consider the attached report (Sections 1, 2 and 4).

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 20 May 2015.

SCHEDULE OF DECISIONS

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

The Senior Planner drew Members’ attention to the revised conditions which were tabled.  She explained that the applicant was agreeable to the conditions, as amended.  The conditions allowed for a larger range of goods, longer opening hours and also lighting at  the site.

Mrs Rush-Ryan, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval, with amended conditions, and this was seconded.

Resolved:  That application 14/504232/FULL be approved subject to the amended conditions (1) to (6), as tabled at the meeting.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Major Projects Officer reported that amended plans had been received which had corrected earlier discrepancies.  Following receipt of the plans, the Major Projects Officer explained that a further condition was required so that the windows on the rear elevation had a cill height of at least 1.65 metres above floor level.  He explained that further to paragraph 9.15 on page 86 of the report, the wheelie bin contribution was £2,612.22 and the 5% monitoring fee was £949.89.

The Major Projects Officer reported that he understood the property was last operated as a public house in April 2012, and was then an Indian restaurant until April 2013.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to add an additional condition as above and for the fine tuning of other conditions as required.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

A Ward Member welcomed and supported the proposal.

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer confirmed that the addition of a gate at the side of the property could be looked into further, and amended plans showing the gate would be sought.

Resolved:  That application 14/502848/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (27) in the report, an additional condition in relation to the height of the window cills, fine tuning of other conditions as required, the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement, and amendment to include a gate to the access road to the side of the building.

The Area Planning Officer explained that there was an error in the report.  Paragraph 8.09, on page 96, should read ‘Plot 1’ not ‘Plot 2’.  He reported that the Environmental Health Officer had no objections, subject to a condition in relation to hours of construction and the Area Planning Officer confirmed that this was set out in condition (16) in the report.

Mr Nyberg, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered the area, with long gardens, provided a green ‘wedge’ within the built-up area.  He considered it would set a precedent, there was a danger of continuous ribbon development and it was over-intensive development.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the dimensions on this application could not be compared with the development refused on appeal; this was a new scheme.

Members raised concern with the size of the proposed garage.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Discussion ensued on the reasons for refusal.  Members considered the principle impact on visual amenity was the garage.  They agreed that the application should be deferred to allow officers to discuss a more appropriate garage design with the applicant.

Resolved:  That application 15/501604/FULL be deferred to allow officers to discuss a more appropriate garage design with the applicant.

The Senior Planner reported that an amended plan had been received which showed one roof light removed from each side of the roof and the remaining two were to be of a conservation area type.

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

Resolved:  That application 15/500608/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

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

A Ward Member acknowledged the need for redevelopment of the site, but considered this needed to be carried out sympathetically.  He raised concern with only one car parking space being provided for each property and the parking issues generally in the area.  The Ward Member suggested the proposed landscaping for the properties be used as additional car parking spaces instead.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved the following amendment:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to the addition of one car parking space per property, instead of soft landscaping.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.  On being put to the vote the amended motion was agreed.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer reported that the views of the Environmental Heath Officer had not yet been provided.  He sought delegated authority to approve, subject to any appropriate conditions requested by the Environmental Health Officer.  If the Environmental Health Officer objected to the application, it would be brought back to the Planning Committee.

Resolved:  That application 14/505762/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to the addition of one car parking space per property, instead of soft landscaping, and to any appropriate conditions requested by the Environmental Health Officer (if the Officer objected to the application, it would be brought back to the Planning Committee) and to conditions (1) to (17) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer explained that there was an error in the report. Section 2.02, page 119, should read ‘…..ground floor level will project by 5.5 metres to the rear…..’.

Mr Clive Johnson, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That the application be refused because of the unacceptable harm to residential and visual amenity.

Discussion ensued on the reasons for refusal.

A Member considered the size and distance from neighbouring properties to be in excess of Swale Borough Council guidelines.  The Area Planning Officer referred to paragraphs 8.02 to 8.05 in the report and explained that there was some flexibility to the guidance, subject to the spacing of the existing properties.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds that by virtue of its size and location, the development would cause harm to the residential amenities of the occupiers of nos. 88 and 92 Bell Road, and harm to visual amenity.  This was accepted by Councillor Mike Baldock and seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.   On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/501894/FULL be refused on the grounds that by virtue of its size and location, the development would cause harm to the residential amenities of the occupiers of nos. 88 and 92 Bell Road, and harm to visual amenity.

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

Resolved:  That application 14/503388/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report and no new issues being raised (closing date for representation is 2 June 2015).

Mr Barry Day, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Crossman, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

Members raised the following points:  this caused demonstrable harm to the area; this should not be approved; and it did not fit in with the surrounding area.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that covenants were not a planning issue, he further detailed why planning permission was required.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds of harm to the visual amenities of the area and to the open nature of the street scene.  This was seconded by Councillor Baldock.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 14/503145/FULL be refused on the grounds of harm to the visual amenities of the area and to the open nature of the street scene. 

PART 4

Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observation of development by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.

The Senior Planner drew Members’ attention to the tabled update to representations received for the application.  She also advised that a letter of support had also recently been received.  The Senior Planner also drew Members’ attention to the tabled email from the Ward Member, Councillor Monique Bonney.

Parish Councillor Edward Senior, representing Tunstall Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mrs Susan Senior, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation of ‘no objection’ and this was seconded.

A Member considered strong objection should be given to the application.

The motion for ‘no objection’ to the application was lost.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  That strong objection be raised for the reasons stated in Councillor Monique Bonney’s tabled email.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth. On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That strong objection be raised to the application for the following reasons:

a.    demonstrable harm to a listed building (harms the setting of a listed building);

b.    demonstrable harm to the neighbours and local residents (harms residential amenity);

c.    demonstrable harm to the amenity of children (over-intensification of the site, inadequate open space and landscaping).