To consider the attached report (Parts 2, 3, 4 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 1 July 2015.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Chairman acknowledged the correspondence and update, including a letter of objection from a neighbour, the applicant’s response and a letter from his arboriculturist which had been emailed to members of the Planning Committee.

Mr Robert Holyoake, 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, in particular, the affect of the extension on the trees/hedges on the boundary.

In response to a question, the Development Manager explained that a tree expert had advised that the extension would not impact on the root system of the boundary landscaping, and that this was in fact a private matter between the applicant and the neighbours.  He explained the impact on nos. 6 and 7 Rooks View was outlined in the report.

Resolved:  That application 15/502978/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

Mr Przyjemski, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application and considered it would ‘tidy’ the area up; he preferred four, rather than five dwellings on the site and requested that rural broadband be included.

A Member requested that condition (6) be amended to delete the words ‘where possible’.  This was agreed by Members.

Members made the following comments:  agreed with this use of a brownfield site; were the representations on page 47 of the report still valid after the amendments to the buildings?; welcomed removal of permitted development rights; and this was sympathetic to the surrounding area.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the representations were submitted in response to the original application.  He explained that two of the houses had been reduced in size and condition (17) in the report addressed the right to alter or enlarge the dwellings.

In response to a further question, the Area Planning Officer explained that there was only one way into the development, so he did not consider there would be an issue of alternative routes into the development/future expansion.

Resolved:  That application 15/501089/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (18) in the report, including an amendment to condition (6), and the decision to be issued upon receipt of a Unilateral Undertaking from the applicant to extinguish existing commercial use rights and maintain adjoining land in agricultural use.

The Development Manager explained that, further to the report, the deadline for comments was the 25 June 2015.  Five additional representations had been received in  response to the gypsy status information, which he outlined as follows:  local residents’ objections were not reported in full in the report; concerned that KCC Highways had withdrawn their objection; warning signs were needed on the A2; there needed to be control on any future development; and a site meeting should be held.

The Development Manager reported that condition (7) in the report was a repeat of condition (5) and he sought delegated authority to remove condition (5).

Councillor Richard Palmer, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Rebecca Palmer, 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 site to have poor access; the visibility splays were poor; there was a lack of passing spaces; there was scope for conflict between the gypsy and travellers and settled community; this did not follow guidance of the National Planning Policy Framework or Planning Policy Statements; there was no maintenance agreement; waste collection was not organised, where would the bins be placed?; who had right of way entering/leaving the site;  KCC Highways were wrong; traffic movement would increase; this was too large for a single family, it should be reduced in size; lack of transport infrastructure; an archaeological study was needed; this did not protect or enhance the area and a site meeting should take place.

Councillor Ben Stokes moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/500330/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

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

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  He considered it would not harm the street scene, and was sympathetic with the surrounding area.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that whilst there was no objection to the proposed size, he considered the design could be improved so that it did not look such a mismatch of roof types and heights.

The Development Manager explained that the streetscene was a mixture, but there were concerns with the design and he suggested the application be reviewed.

The motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow officers to negotiate an improved design in line with Swale Borough Council policies, to the satisfaction of the applicant and officers, and then the application be returned for determination by the Planning Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Bryan Mulhern.

Resolved:  That application 15/501721/FULL be deferred to allow officers to negotiate an improved design in line with Swale Borough Council policies, to the satisfaction of the applicant and officers, and then the application be returned for determination by  the Planning Committee. 

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 Area Planning Officer explained, with reference to the awaited clarification on the office building as outlined on page 80 of the report, that this had not been received yet.  He stated that the building was a minor building, and he considered the height would not be significant.  The Area Planning Officer advised that officers had requested a landscaping bund along Barge Way.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for no objection raised, subject to improved landscaping to Barge Way, receipt of outstanding consultation responses and conditions, and this was seconded.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that it was not an incinerator and referred to page 80 of the report which outlined the concept in more detail.  He also explained that the Environmental Health Manager had no objection to the application.

Councillor James Hunt reported that Iwade Parish Council had objected to the application in respect of lorry movements and the roundabouts, and residents of Kemsley were concerned with noise issues.

Resolved:  That no objection be raised, subject to improved landscaping to Barge Way, receipt of outstanding consultation responses and conditions.

PART 5

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

·        Item 5.1 – 109 Ashford Road, Faversham

APPEAL ALLOWED

·        Item 5.2 – 2 Gosmere Farm Barns, Sheldwich

APPEAL ALLOWED AND COSTS AWARDED TO APPELLANTS

·        Item 5.3 – The Firs, Dunkirk Road South, Dunkirk

APPEAL ALLOWED

·        Item 5.4 – 31/33 Cowper Road, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

·        Item 5.5 – Brogdale Road/Brogdale Place, Faversham

APPEAL ALLOWED