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 11 January 2023.

Tabled update for item 2.2 added 12.01.2023

Tabled update for item 2.3 added 12.01.2023

Tabled update for item 3.3 added 12.01.2023

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Oliver Eakin.

A Ward Member who also sat on the Planning Committee spoke in support of the application.

Resolved: That application 22/504876/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report.

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application as set out in the report and referred to the tabled update, which included a requirement for additional conditions.

Sarah Varley, an objector, spoke against the application.

Alister Hume, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         Happy to see that the proposal would enhance the listed building;

·         wanted to know why on page 147, the Environment Agency (EA) said that the site fell outside of their remit? and

·         thought that the KCC contributions were small compared to other applications.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following amendment: That Condition (21) in the report included the appropriate native species and encouraging biodiversity conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

In response, the Major Projects Officer said that the EA had been consulted but it was their decision whether or not to engage and provide a response. He added that the additional amended conditions could be added to the report as follows:

‘(i) to ensure that a scheme of hard and soft landscaping is submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and (ii) that the approved landscaping is implemented before the development is first occupied.’

The Senior Lawyer (Planning) responded to the question with regards to the KCC contributions and said that as KCC were the statutory authority it was up to them to conduct the calculations for Section 106 contributions and that the figures on this application were standard contributions for the size of the proposal.

Resolved: That application 22/500601/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (38) in the report and the amendment as minuted and the signing of a suitably-worded Section 106 agreement, with delegated authority to amend the wording of the legal agreement and conditions as may reasonably be required.

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application as set out in the report and referred to the tabled update for this item.

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

Resolved: That application 22/500602/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report.

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

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 Councillor Ben J Martin.

Resolved: That application 22/5172/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

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

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

Resolved: That application 22/504622/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report and referred to the tabled update for this item.

Parish Councillor Malcolm Newell, representing Eastchurch Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Hannah Garlinge, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member, spoke against the application.

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

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         It was clear that the former building was approved as a holiday chalet and not for residential use;

·         concerned that if the application was approved then it could set a precedent for other holiday accommodation to be converted;

·         recognised that the Isle of Sheppey suffered with unlawful residency within holiday accommodation;

·         there was no evidence that the applicant had registered for a self-build; and

·         what would happen to the current construction which was on the land if the application was refused?

The Area Planning Officer responded to say that the building which had been erected to-date would be unlawful if the Committee decided to refuse the application and that the Council would consider options for taking enforcement action. 

Resolved: That application 22/504256/FULL be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.   

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report. He referred Members to an update from the applicant which stated that there were 50 containers stationed on the lawful part of the site, and not 45 containers as set out in paragraph 9.6 of the report.

James Tumber, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Eric Przyjemski, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member 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.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         Thought that it was a useful storage space in a good location for businesses in the Borough;

·         recognised the effect of removing the storage containers could have on businesses;

·         the applicant should have known to apply for planning permission for the additional containers;

·         the Council should be supporting economic development in Swale and these storage units would encourage businesses to the Borough;

·         thought that although the applicant had not followed the correct process the site was in good condition;

·         there were no objections in ten years;

·         mindful that the committee had recently refused storage facilities in a nearby area;

·         the application was a simple extension of storage containers that were already on a well run site; and

·         needed to consider that if the applicant had followed the correct procedure if Members would have approved the application for additional containers?

On being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion: That the application be approved giving delegated authority to officers to provide the standard conditions to the planning application. This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

Members debated the motion and the following points for approval were raised:

·         This was an acceptable use;

·         the location of the site was in a suitable area;

·         the economic benefit outweighed the reasons for refusal; and

·         planning conditions should be used to control the use to storage units only, the maximum number of containers permitted, restrictions on stacking containers, external colour and lightning, and requirements to carry out landscaping and biodiversity improvements.

Resolved: That application 22/504818/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to suitable conditions.

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application as set out in the report and referred to the tabled update for this item.

Both Ward Members spoke against the application.

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

Members considered the application and points raised included:

• Was disappointing to see this application come to the committee for non-determination;
• wanted to know what Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) response was to any consultation request?
• the nearby dry chalk valley was an important asset for the Sittingbourne area;
• the nearby highway junctions were a significant issue and safety concerns had to be addressed to ensure they were made safe for pedestrians;
• sustainability and accessibility into the town centre needed to be considered on this application;
• the GP surgery was already at full capacity and extra homes would only worsen the situation;
• suggested a footpath needed be provided on Highsted Road;
• the final paragraph of page 237 adequately summed up the reasons for refusal;
• the land was of high-grade value in terms of agricultural land classification and in terms of landscape value; and
• thought that the percentage of affordable housing was low as the site was technically outside the built-up area and the developer should be providing at least 40% affordable housing.

The Major Projects officer said that the site was not adjacent to the boundary of Kent Downs AONB and was on the other side of the motorway from the AONB itself. He also clarified with Members that the second reason for possible refusal for water drainage issues was no longer proposed to be taken forward as a reason for refusal as the technical consultee, KCC, had very recently confirmed that based on the information the appellants had provided, they would no longer recommend refusal of the application.

The Senior Lawyer (Planning) summarised that the application was currently a live appeal. She said that the two remaining reasons set out for Members in the report for possible grounds of refusal and the resolution of the Committee would form the Council’s case for the defence of the appeal and were broadly the landscape-based issues including agricultural land as set out in the report, and secondly the absence of a completed Section 106 agreement. She informed Members that discussions were taking place with regards to the Section 106, but nothing had to been agreed yet. Members needed to be mindful that at the time of the appeal being heard, if the terms of the Section 106 had been agreed, the Council would be highly likely to remove that reason for refusal from its case at the appeal. However, until the Section 106 was in place, the reason should remain to safeguard the Council’s position.

Resolved: That application 21/505498/OUT would have been refused if the application came to Planning Committee and that delegation be given to officers to finalise the specific wording of the putative reasons as set out in the committee report and incorporating matters considered through the Committee debate in respect of the loss of agricultural land.

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

·                Item 5.1 – Broadoak Farm, Broadoak Road, Milstead ME9 0RS

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member was disappointed with the decision.  

·                Item 5.2 – Land adjoining The Sherries, Church Road, Eastchurch

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED RESFUSAL

·                Item 5.3 – 22 Chapel Street Minster

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.4 – Westfields Park Diary Swanton Street Bredgar

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.5 – 40 Willement Road Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.6 – The Shipyard Upper Brents Ind Est Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL