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 April 2023.

Item 2.1 22/502692/FULL has been withdrawn from the agenda. 13.04.2023

Tabled update for Item 2.3 added 11.04.2023.

Tabled update for Item 2.3 added 13.04.2023

Tabled update for Item 3.1 added 13.04.2023.

Part 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

This Item was withdrawn from the agenda.

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

Parish Councillor Andrew Bowles, representing Selling Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and points raised included:

·         The site was located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) with a number of listed buildings in close proximity to the site;

·         thought that the design of the proposal should be more traditional, similar to the buildings nearby;

·         congratulated officers on their work to mitigate the impact of the proposal;

·         the proposed link between the two buildings was 23 metres away from the adjacent property, so the impact of the lighting would be minimal;

·         what was the proposed difference in height between the original roof and the proposed roof?;

·         thought that the proposed sloped roof was a good design;

·         glad to see that the proposed roofing would be a ‘green roof’ to minimise the impact; and

·         thought that the design was poor and that a pitched roof would have blended in better with the surrounding buildings.

The Area Team Leader responded to say that the height of the pitch of the existing roof would be in line with the same part of the proposed monopitch roof and confirmed with Members that the link was 23 metres away from the nearest bedroom of the adjacent property, which officers felt was far enough away to not cause any lighting issues.

The Conservation & Design Manager commented on the designs issues and said that he felt that the applicant had done enough to mitigate the impact of the proposed linked extension on the setting of the adjacent listed building. He commented that the application property displayed some contemporary design features and that the applicant was proposing to use similar materials to those already seen on the setting of the site, but he advised it would be a neutral one given that the proposed extension would sit comfortably in its context with Owens Court Cottage.

Resolved: That application 22/505535/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report. He drew attention to the tabled update which included; the applicant’s response to the Faversham Society’s latest comments, a minor correction to the Affordable Housing mix in the report. He gave a verbal update on additional Section 106 contributions, including a monitoring fee.

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

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and points raised included:

·         The previous applications on this site promised sports pitches and new traffic lights to control traffic, but these had not been completed;

·         the applicant constantly refused to carry out promises;

·         Faversham Town Council made good points and raised good concerns;

·         the Council was short of the five-year housing supply so developments like this one needed to be approved;

·         there was nothing that could be done with the application as it had already gone to appeal and it was up to the Planning Inspector to make a decision;

·         the site was allocated housing in the Local Plan, so Members could not refuse it;

·         who was the care home provider? and;

·         what happened if the care home provider decided against a care home.

In response the Planning Consultant said the developer, Fernham Homes, were dealing with the care home provider directly and that the application was for outline permission only. He said that it was expected that with the detail the Council required for outline permission, officers would see a care home proposal come forward from the developer.

The Planning Consultant advised that an identical application was also before the Council (23/500857/HYBRID) and was currently not the subject of any appeal. He explained that there might be scope to delay the appeal and avoid unnecessary costs if the second application could be determined, now that the Committee had given a view on this application. Therefore, he sought delegated authority from the Committee to determine this newer application with the addition of conditions and a Section 106 agreement in terms that accorded with the appeal application.

Resolved: That application 21/506465/HYBRID would have been approved subject to conditions (1) to (45) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Team Leader introduced the application as set out in the report. He said the tabled update which was circulated to Members was no longer valid as the Council had received the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Scheme (SAMMS) payment from the applicant.

Professor Sam Gilbert, 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.

The Chair invited Members to make comments and points raised included:

·         The design could have been better, but thought it was the preferred option to the fallback design;

·         it was hard to see encroachment into the countryside as it was near a recently approved new development site;

·         what was the fallback position for the applicant?;

·         if the application was to be refused would the applicant be able to automatically proceed with their fallback option?;

·         the development was using an already small building on large piece of land so could not see it having any impact on the local area;

·         the dwelling only had one bedroom and would have minimal impact on the land; and

·         the design was unusual but if Members were minded to approve then conditions could be imposed to improve the design.

The Area Team Leader responded to Members points and explained that the fallback position of the applicant related to the Prior Approval under Class Q which was referenced in the report. He added that the Prior Approval allowed the applicant to convert buildings, but not to increase its size and that the sustainability of the development in location terms was not something that was taken into consideration when dealing with Class Q applications.

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

Councillor Ben J Martin moved the following motion: that the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to the imposition of suitable conditions. This was seconded by Councillor David Simmons. Officers suggested conditions might be included in respect of materials palettes to be provided and the removal of any future residential permitted development rights. On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Members asked officers to include a condition requiring the design of the house to be up to the Passivehaus requirements. The Area Team Leader responded to say that this was something that could be included in the conditions.

Given the simple character and modest scale of the existing agricultural building, the Interim Head of Planning Services advised that it would be appropriate to consider removing permitted development rights through the use of an appropriately worded planning condition. The Conservation & Design Manager reiterated that this would be appropriate in his view and that there was a parallel application for conversion of the agricultural building which did not involve any material alteration to the roof, except for replacement of the existing concrete roof tiles with clay tiles.

Resolved: That application 22/502692/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to the imposition of suitable conditions.

PART 5

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

·                Item 5.1 – Land at Central Car Park, Leslie Smith Drive, Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

Members were pleased and said that the site was not suitable for a telephone mast.

·                Item 5.2 – 8 Park Road, Faversham

APPEAL ALLOWED

AGAINST OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

·                Item 5.3 – Horseshoe Farm, Elverland Lane, Ospringe

APPEAL DISMISSED

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

A Member thanked officers for their work on the appeal and said it was a good decision.

·                Item 5.4 – Land off Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.5 – My Retreat, Norman Road, Eastchurch 

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL