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 21 June 2023.

Tabled update for item 3.2 added 21 June 2023.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

Steve Waterman, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

Resolved:  That application 22/504625/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report and the receipt of a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy payment.

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

Parish Councillor Tony Trim, representing Norton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

The Chair invited Members to make comments and these included the following points:

·         Clarification sought on the refusal of a similar application (19/504418/FULL) set out on page 22 of the report;

·         clarification sought on the doors and windows on the building;

·         concerned the building could become a residential use, a condition was needed to ensure the use was only for holiday let;

·         condition (3) restricted the use to holiday lets;

·         had a business case assessment been carried out?; and

·         considered it was difficult to enforce condition (3) in the report.

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained the following:  the refusal of application 19/504418/FULL was because it was a new dwelling in the countryside, whereas this application was for the conversion of a commercial building to a holiday let; planning policy supported the conversion of rural buildings to holiday accommodation, and this application was very different to unrestricted residential use in the countryside; the windows and doors were the same as those on the existing building located on the site and gave the building a residential appearance, and this was restricted by conditions; there were permitted development rights in respect of the lawful commercial use of the building and the minor changes to the windows and doors would come under this in any case; a business case assessment was only needed on a new build holiday let, not a conversion; if there was a complaint regarding the use of the building, officers could request to see the booking schedule; and he considered condition (3) was enforceable.

There was some discussion on the second part of condition (3) ‘….and the accommodation shall not be occupied by any person or group of persons for more than four weeks in any calendar year.’

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following amendment:  That condition (3) be amended to include the word ‘consecutive’ and that a record of bookings be kept for three years.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson and on being put to the vote, the amendment was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 23/500162/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report, and the second part of condition (3) be amended to read: ‘….and the accommodation shall not be occupied by any person or group of persons for more than four consecutive weeks in any calendar year, and that a record of bookings be kept for three years’ and the receipt of a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy payment.

Councillor Monique Bonney left the chamber whilst this item was discussed.

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 Tony Winckless.

Resolved:  That application 23/501317/ADV be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

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

Mrs Marion Miller, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included the following points:

·         This could be an improvement to what was on the site; and

·         supported the officers’ recommendation.

Resolved:  That application 22/505870/FULL be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report and referred to the tabled paper.  He explained that the Council’s supplementary planning guidance recommended that extensions should not extend beyond three metres when they were on shared boundaries.  Officers had advised the Applicant to reduce the depth to three metres, rather than four metres.

Clive Piper, the Applicant, 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 Andy Booth.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included the following points:

·         Some sympathy with the Applicant; and

·         clarification sought on the orientation of the property and the increased impact of an additional one metre of development.

In response, the Area Planning Officer referred Members to paragraph 7.5 in the report where it set out the Supplementary Planning Guidance advice that rear extensions on or close to a boundary should have a maximum projection of three metres.  He explained that the issue was not so much overshadowing, but a loss of daylight and an enclosing effect, brought about by the proposed size, and depth of the extension.

Councillor Simon Clark moved a motion for a site visit, and this was seconded by the Chair.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Members made further comments:

·         Noted that there were no objections from the Parish Council or neighbouring residents;

·         not permitting one more metre than the allowed three metres seemed trivial; and

·         four metre depth would be a more usable space.

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

The Chair moved the following motion:  That the application be approved as the light issues were not significant enough to refuse the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Paul Stephen.  On being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 23/501726/FULL be approved as the light issues were not significant enough to refuse the application, and subject to the imposition of suitable conditions.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  He confirmed that under the relevant planning history, on page 53 of the report, the decision date for application 22/502148/FULL should be 10.08.22.

Dan Page, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

John McGee, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included the following points:

·         Clarification sought on the marketing of the property;

·         noted the policies in paragraph 4 of the report, particularly DM12, and the Applicant’s 26-year breach of its agricultural occupancy condition;

·         agreed with the officer recommendation; and

·         the dwelling should remain as a farm dwelling in agricultural occupancy.

In response, the Area Planning Officer clarified that no marketing had taken place, nor had any valuation been provided with the application, as set out in paragraph 8.4 of the report.

Resolved:  That application 22/506000/FULL be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

PART 5

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

·                Item 5.1 – Greet Cottage Lady Margaret Manor Road Doddington

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.2 – Land Off Swanstree Avenue Sittingbourne 

NON-DETERMINATION

APPEAL ALLOWED

A Member considered this was a very disappointing outcome.

·                Item 5.3 – Land North of Warden Road Eastchurch

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.4 – 2 Bells Forstal Cottages Throwley Road Faversham

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED