To consider the attached report (Parts 2 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 16 August 2023.

Tabled update for item 2.2 application 23/500263/REM Land at Wises lane, Borden.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

The registered speaker withdrew from speaking.

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

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

·         There were no planning grounds to refuse the application;

·         there was a lack of bungalows in Swale;

·         bungalows were single storey and did not have dormer windows;

·         considered that adding further height to the bungalow would be out-of-scale with the area;

·         historically the Council had always imposed conditions on similar applications prohibiting the installation of dormer windows;

·         did not consider the proposal would be out-of-keeping as there were already a lot of similar conversions in the locality; and

·         the Council should in the future work with builders and provide strategies to encourage them to build more bungalows when building housing developments.

In response to questions, the Area Planning Officer said there was no specific policy to prevent bungalows being extended into two-storey buildings.  It was dependent on whether the proposal was acceptable in terms of impact on the local environment.  The Area Planning Officer reported that the increase in height was 1.4 metres, which was still lower than some of the surrounding two storey properties.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the case officer had considered the impact on the neighbouring property to the north to be acceptable, and that no objections had been received from this property.

Resolved:  That application 23/500942/FULLbe approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.   

The Principal Planning Consultant introduced the application as set-out in the report.  He drew attention to the tabled update which had previously been emailed to the Committee and provided the following updates:   details of two further representations and the officer response; and proposed minor amendments to conditions (7) and (8) following requests from the applicant to be confined to the rugby pitches only.

Gaynor Aspin, representing Borden Residents Against Development (BRAD), spoke against the application.

Philip Whymark, a Supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor George Cole, representing Borden Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

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

·         There was not enough information to enable Members to make a decision and the application should be deferred;

·         Swale was in desperate need of sports facilities;

·         the proposed 65 parking spaces was not sufficient;

·         concerned about the impact any floodlighting would have on local residents;

·         serious concerns in respect of proposals to widen Cryalls Lane by 5.5 metres;

·         disappointed that the developer had not engaged with Borden Parish Council and local residents on the design of the proposed building;

·         considered the design of the building was “hideous”;

·         only three toilets were proposed, that would not be enough;

·         some external lighting would be required to enable the site to be used safely during the autumn/winter period.  Details of this should have been included in the report;

·         concerned about the proposed access;

·         welcomed the application which would support the physical and mental wellbeing of residents;

·         noted that 35 comments in support had been received and only 17 comments in objection;

·         disappointed that there was no one from the Council’s legal team in attendance to respond to legal queries;

·         bitterly disappointed that the continued lack of attendance by Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation had jeopardised progress on the application;

·         there was not enough information in the report to make an informed decision;

·         the Secretary of State had requested that the applicant consult with local residents and the Parish Council, disappointed they had not;

·         referred to page 32, paragraph 7.13.3 of the report the Community Uses Agreement (CUA), and not sure how having an officer on that group would work?;

·         did not consider Cryalls Lane would be able to support the extra traffic generated by the proposal; and

·         the recommendation should include “in consultation with Ward Members and the Parish Council”.

In response, the Principal Planning Consultant said the applicant had confirmed that under this application, Cryalls Lane would be widened by 5.5 metres from the proposed entrance of the Rugby Club to Wises Lane.  However, further clarification from KCC Highways and Transportation was required to establish whether under the Masterplan, the whole of Cryalls Lane would be widened once the eastern link was constructed.  

With regard to concerns about the CUA, the Interim Head of Planning Services said that if the application was approved a variation to the Section 106 Agreement would be sought to remove the officer from that group and to recommend that the second Ward Councillor be installed.  The Area Planning Officer said that all interested parties who had signed the original agreement would need to agree to this minor change.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Planning Officer explained that there was a condition on the outline application that no floodlighting could be installed to the rugby pitches.  If the applicant wanted to add floodlighting in the future, they would need to submit a separate application for the Council to consider.

Councillor Andy Booth asked for it to be minuted, that whilst he had requested that the application be deferred, he was not in favour or against the application.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow responses to questions and concerns raised with regard to the following: proposed parking spaces; adequate coach turning and suitable modifications to Cryalls Lane; external lighting; the proposed number of toilets; improvements to the design of the building so it was more in-keeping with the local area; and disabled parking.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

In response to points raised, the Area Planning Officer clarified that the condition restricting use of floodlighting had been imposed at the outline application stage and could not be reconsidered under this application.  He considered that it included any temporary floodlighting, but this would be further clarified when the application was reported back to the committee.  He said that conditions had been imposed under the outline application to deal with sustainability and Electric Vehicle charging.  The development would need to achieve a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) “very good” rating in respect of sustainability.  Lighting in terms of impact on nature would be a matter for KCC Ecology, not the Council’s Environmental Health Team.

Resolved:  That application 23/500263/REM be deferred to allow responses to questions and concerns raised with regard to the following: proposed parking spaces; adequate coach turning and suitable modifications to Cryalls Lane; external lighting; the proposed number of toilets; improvements to the design of the building so it was more in-keeping with the local area; and disabled parking. 

PART 5

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

·                Item 5.1 – 22 East Street Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.2 – Land at Murston Playing Fields Church Road Murston 

APPEAL DISMISSED

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

·                Item 5.3 – Car Park adj to Church Road Sittingbourne 

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.4 – Land adj to 241 Leysdown Road Leysdown

APPEAL DISMISSED

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

·                Item 5.5 – Pandora and land north of Nelson Avenue Minster 

APPEAL DISMISSED

NON-DETERMINATION

·                Item 5.6 – Garage rear of Riverbank House Ash Lane Minster

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.7 – 53 Millfield Sittingbourne 

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL