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 22 July 2015.

Tabled paper uploaded 28.07.15.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer clarified the application for Members.

MrLamoon, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Conservation Officer stated that, without exception, officers would always recommend wooden sash windows on a property that was within the Article 4(2) part of Faversham conservation area.  However, Swale Borough Council is also bound by Government Guidance and SBC’s own policy to improve and enhance the character of the conservation area and he considered the proposed windows would be an improvement.

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

Members considered the application and raised the following points: concern that exceptions kept being made to the Article 4(2) Direction; did not consider this to be an improvement; other residents had gone to a lot of trouble to install timber so why should this be allowed; have to listen to officers and raise no objection when improvements were trying to be made in a conservation area; and would be more appropriate if any colour other than white was to be used.

Resolved:  That application 15/503737/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Vice-Chairman took the chair for this item.

The Vice-Chairman in the chair moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

Members welcomed the application and raised the following points: micro-pubs generally did not have problems with anti-social behavior; and people tend to walk to this type of establishment, so parking would not be an issue.

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer clarified the procedure that would be taken in respect of condition (2) sound insulation.

Resolved:  That application 15/501851/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

The Conservation Officer introduced  the application and did not consider the minor improvements proposed would  have an adverse impact on the church, whilst allowing them to meet their disabled access objectives.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Historic England raised no objection.

Reverend Rowlands, the Applicant, 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.

Resolved:  That 15/504308/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

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

The Ward Member raised objection and considered that the proposed garage was too large.

Councillor Prescott moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Bryan Mulhern.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved: That application 14/503484/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Major Projects Officer reported that comments had been received from Natural England (NE), who noted that the site was three kilometres south of the Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area, Ramsar site, and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).  NE raised no objection based on designated nature conservation sites.  Subject of a financial contribution to strategic mitigation the proposal was unlikely to have a significant effect on these sites and could be screened out from any requirement for further assessment.  The Major Projects Officer further reported that NE considered that a contribution should be made to the Thames, Medway and Swale Estuaries Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy and mitigation – consisting of £223.58 per dwelling or £2,682.96 in total and should be in place before the dwellings were occupied.

The Major Projects Officer reported that further to paragraph 9.14, on page 30, of the report KCC Developer Contributions had withdrawn their request for a contribution for Secondary School places.

The Major Projects Officer stated that he was also awaiting comments from the KCC Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) drainage team with regard to surface water drainage.

The Major Projects Officer advised that further to paragraph 2.03, on page 20 of the report, the Code for Sustainable Homes had been formally cancelled by the Government.  As such, condition (17), on page 34, would need to be re-drafted to refer to the submission and approval of a package of sustainable design and construction measures, rather than to the Code for Sustainable Homes.

The Major Projects Officer reported that delegated authority was sought to approve the application, subject to the Environment Agency lifting their objection, clarification in respect of whether to retain the tree covered by a Tree Preservation Order in the rear garden of plot 2, the views of KCC SUDS Team, the re-drafting of condition (17) to refer to the submission and approval of a package of sustainable design and construction measures, rather than the Code for Sustainable Homes, conditions as set out in the report, and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

Parish Councillor Randall, representing Bobbing Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and considered the site should be kept as a hospital.

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

Members considered the application and raised the following points: highway safety concerns in respect of the access onto the A2; was an isolated site; would impact on a rural landscape; would have an adverse impact on the views of local residents; and request that any Section 106 monies were spent locally; note that the site is enclosed on two sides, and note the existing play area on the adjacent housing development.

Resolved:  That application 14/501647/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (28) in the report, the Environment Agency lifting their objection, clarification in respect of whether to retain the tree covered by a Tree Preservation Order in the rear garden of plot 2, the views of KCC SUDS Team, the re-drafting of condition (17) to refer to the submission and approval of a package of sustainable design and construction measures, and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.

The Senior Planner stated that the applicant’s agent had provided a report on the healthcare needs of the applicant, which detailed the significant healthcare concerns of Mr Curtis and therefore the need to have access to on-going and consistent healthcare.

The Senior Planner reported that Hartlip Parish Council had written to reiterate their previous objections.  They queried whether there was any evidence that the applicant was a gypsy and whether there had been any further information in respect of their healthcare needs.  Whilst they accepted that it was important for a family to have a stable place to live to access healthcare, they considered that this contradicted the nomadic way of life of gypsies.  The Parish Council reiterated that it was not in a sustainable location and disagreed with planning officers in respect of the impact on residential and visual amenities, highway safety and the character of the countryside and landscape.  The Senior Planner stated that the Parish Council considered that the site would be prominent from a number of view points, including Hartlip Conservation Area, particularly in the winter months.  They also did not consider that the site had sufficient room to meet good practice guidance for gypsy plots and requested that Members visited the site.

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

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

Members raised the following points: does not meet the accessibility to facilities criteria as set out in the site assessment; have to accept as we do not have five year supply; will have an adverse impact on Queendown Warren;  and was not an environmentally friendly site.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Darby.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Resolved: That application 14/503384/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled addendum report, which supported and clarified aspects of the main report.

The Major Projects Officer reported that with regard to air quality, the Environmental Protection Team Leader had provided further comments to clarify the position in respect of the implications of the development for air quality: he continues to object to the development on the basis that it would have a cumulative adverse impact – along with other large-scale housing developments on air quality on all four of the Borough’s Air Quality Management Areas, namely Newington, the two in Sittingbourne, and Ospringe Street in Ospringe.

The Major Projects Officer reported that further to the third party comments as summarised in the report, on pages 67 and 68 in the report, two further letters had been received.  The new comments were largely as summarised in the report and as follows: appalled that the Council did not determine the application in the 13-week period; this was incompetent and officers should be disciplined. 

The Major Projects Officer stated that as this was a substantial planning application (supported by a number of technical reports) and officers (within the Council and at other organisations) needed to ensure that it was assessed thoroughly which was why it had taken longer to process.

The Major Projects Officer reported that Highways England, who managed the strategic road, had now commented on the proposals.  They noted that it would impact upon their network, which included the A249 and M2, and considered that further information should have been provided to allow a proper assessment of the highway impacts.

The Major Projects Officer recommended that in conclusion, and as set out in the tabled addendum report, Members resolved that had an appeal not been lodged against non-determination, the application would have been refused for the reason set out in the tabled report.

Parish Councillor Jordan, representing Rodmersham Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

Ward Members raised strong objection to the application and raised the following points: would have a major damaging impact on the surrounding landscape; had received a large volume of complaints about the application from local residents; and  new primary school would be required to support 580 new properties. 

A Ward Member then read out various concerns from local residents which included: would have an adverse impact on the local community; should not be building on prime agricultural land, but brownfield sites; would exacerbate parking problems in Swanstree Avenue and Brenchley Road which would make the current road network unsafe; local schools were already over-subscribed; would exacerbate parking problems at Sittingbourne Memorial Hospital; picturesque countryside views would be destroyed; was an important archaeological area where Roman remains had already been uncovered; there were badger setts on the land; Kent Police say the application was not sound; inadequate infrastructure; and not allocated in the Local Plan.

Members spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points: was an insidious application which Members would never have approved; would create in-filling from Sittingbourne to Rodmersham; very disappointed that Officers had not determined the application within the permitted timescales; officers needed to seek outside assessments which will go forward to support refusal at appeal; welcome Highways England comments that the application would impact on the road networks of the A249 and M2; support the supplementary report in relation to Special Protected Areas, as it was clear that major development did have an impact upon them; and it was clear that the development would have a clear and adverse impact on local schools, doctors surgeries, and the local road networks.  

Resolved:  That if an appeal had not been submitted to Planning Inspectorate (PINS) then the application 14/506248/OUT would have been refused.

Parish Councillor Randall, Bobbing Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Ashby, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

In response to a query from a Member, the Major Projects Officer stated that planning enforcement officers had inspected the site on several occasions but had found no reason to take enforcement action. 

Resolved:  That application 14/500144/FULL be refused.

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 Major Projects Officer stated that contrary to recommendation, on page 108 of the report, the comments of KCC Highways had been received, as set out in paragraph 6.06, on page 113 of the report.  They raised no objection.

The Major Projects Officer reported that disappointingly KCC had approved the application last week.  He stated that they should have considered SBC’s comments before making a decision. 

Mr Hayes, an objector, spoke against the application.

A Ward Member welcomed the application.

In response to a query from a Member, the Major Projects Officer stated that if an application for housing at the site was submitted, the Borough Council would be responsible for determining that application, not KCC.

Discussion ensued about why the decision on the application had already been made by KCC.  The Major Projects Officer agreed to look into the matter.

Resolved:  That no objection be raised to application 15/503584/COUNTY.

PART 5

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

·               Item 5.1 – Scotts Hill, Old House Lane, Lower Hartlip

Appeal Allowed.

·               Item 5.2 – Focus, West Street, Sittingbourne

Appeal Allowed.

·               Item 5.3 – 62 Park Drive, Sittingbourne 

Appeal Dismissed.

·               Item 5.4 – Roseann, Saxon Avenue, Minster 

Appeal Dismissed.

·                Item 5.5 – 77 High Street, Milton Regis

Appeal Dismissed.