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 13 September 2023.

 

Item 2.2 has been withdrawn from the agenda – updated 11 September 2023.

 

Tabled papers for item 2.6 added 13 September 2023.

 

Tabled paper for item 2.6 added 14 September 2023.

 

PART 2

 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

 

2.1       REFERENCE NO – 23/502492/FULL
PROPOSAL Erection of a replacement dwellinghouse with associated landscaping and parking.
SITE LOCATION 170 Southsea Avenue, Private Street, Minster-on-sea, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 2LU
WARD Minster Cliffs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILMinster-On-Sea	APPLICANT Mr + Mrs Yvonne and Julian Olver AGENT Jdrm

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  He explained that Minster Parish Council had objected to the window on the side elevation, but he said the existing bungalow already had a window on that side, and so there would be no increased overlooking.

 

George Gunton, the Agent, spoke in support of 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:

 

·         The street scene was made up of different types of properties, with varying heights and this was an improvement to the existing bungalow;

·         considered that as Minster Parish Council had not responded to clarification from officers in relation to the side-facing window not being obscure glazed, that the application should not have come to the Planning Committee;

·         bungalows were needed on the Isle of Sheppey;

·         concerned with the scale and size of the new development; and

·         clarification sought as to whether an air source heat pump would be installed.

 

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that the applicant had not included an air source heat pump within their application.  There was a condition which required at least a 50% reduction in emissions, and he was confident that the scheme would be energy efficient.  In response to a question, he explained that condition (3) could be amended to include the provision of an air source heat pump, subject to mitigation measures due to the noise impact from the pump.  In response to a further question, the Area Planning Officer explained that an air source heat pump could be added later by the resident under Permitted Development Rights.

 

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following amendment:  That condition (3) be amended to include the installation of an air source heat pump, subject to mitigation in relation to any noise impact, and the precise wording be delegated to officers.  This was seconded by Councillor Lloyd Bowen.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 23/502492/FULLbe delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report, with an amendment tocondition (3) to include the installation of an air source heat pump, subject to mitigation in relation to any noise impact.

 

Item 2.2 was withdrawn from the agenda.

 

2.3       REFERENCE NO – 23/502980/FULL
PROPOSAL Replacement of 9no. chalets at plots 1,2,3,15,16,17,18,19 and 30.
SITE LOCATION Seaview Holiday Camp, Warden Bay Road, Leysdown, Kent, ME12 4NB
WARD Sheppey East	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILLeysdown	APPLICANT Mr David Collins AGENT Forward Planning And Development

 

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 Andy Booth.

 

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

 

·         Welcomed the improvements;

·         the qualification of 10/12 month occupancy was very tenuous on the Isle of Sheppey;

·         sought clarification as to whether the replacement was like-for-like, i.e. chalet for chalet and caravan for caravan; and

·         this was frustrating and should be quite a simple thing to do, the chalets needed replacing, and so this should be carried out, without the need to come to the Planning Committee.

 

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the standard to be achieved was 32% higher than that required by Building Regulations (2013) and would be consistent with current Building Regulations standards. He also confirmed that the replacements would be like-for-like.

 

Resolved:  That application 23/502980/FULLbe approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report.   

 

 

 

 

2.4       REFERENCE NO - 23/501777/FULL
PROPOSAL Erection of annex ancillary to main dwelling, incorporating log store and garage.
SITE LOCATION Crockham Farmhouse Crockham Lane Hernhill Faversham Kent ME13 9LB
WARD Boughton And Courtenay	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILHernhill	APPLICANT Ms S Killick AGENT Miriam Layton Architectural Design

 

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

 

Kelsey Roffey, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

 

Roger Joyce, representing the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

Resolved:  That application 23/501777/FULLbe approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report.   

 

2.5       REFERENCE NO – 23/501167/REM
PROPOSAL Approval of reserved matters (scale, design, layout, and landscaping being sought) for the erection of 231 dwellings (houses and apartments, C3 Use Class) with landscaping, associated highway works, including car parking and open space, pursuant to 16/508602/OUT for - Outline application for erection of up to 250 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.
SITE LOCATION Site A, Land at Preston Fields, Salters Lane, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8YD
WARD Watling	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT Redrow Homes Ltd AGENT Urbanissta Ltd

 

The Interim Major Team Leader 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 Andy Booth.

 

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

 

·         Against large developments, but this had already been approved at the outline stage;

·         this looked like a well-designed scheme;

·         did not consider it was a good design, it looked crowded;

·         suggested access to the east of the site needed to be improved with a short connector route, rather than having to drive all the way round the site to exit the development;

·         clarification sought on construction access to the site and whether the entrance was suitable for large vehicles?;

·         the dwellings for disabled people were furthest from Faversham town centre and any bus stops;

·         disappointed that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation were not in attendance at this meeting to answer questions;

·         there would be a large number of vehicle movements from the site as a result of this development;

·         concerned with the suggested speed restraint features as set out on page 64 of the report as there had been complaints in relation to these on other developments;

·         considered the Traffic Regulation Order plan would be difficult to enforce;

·         noted that there were no footpaths near the pumping station, with only grass verges, where people were likely to park, and suggested bollards be installed to stop this;

·         there was a lack of infrastructure within Faversham to sustain the development;

·         there seemed to be a lot of hardstanding on the development, there needed to be more permeable areas;

·         clarification sought on the measures that Southern Water were taking in terms of the discharge of foul sewerage;

·         noted that there were no comments from UK Power Networks and was concerned that there might not be an adequate electricity supply for the new development; and

·         needed to consider the impact of the neighbouring Household Waste and Recycling Centre (HWRC) and appropriate mitigation measures.

 

In response, the Interim Major Team Leader explained that access onto the site, and within it, was considered at the outline stage of the application, and was deemed to be acceptable by (KCC) Highways & Transportation.  Vehicle swept path analysis had been carried out to ensure manoeuvrability of large vehicles and conditions at the outline stage would be discharged in terms of the measures that construction vehicles would be required to follow.  He explained that the mix of housing had been agreed by the Council’s housing officer at the outline stage of the application.

 

The Planning Development Manager explained that in terms of foul sewerage, the applicant would need to make an application to Southern Water to connect to the main network.  She explained that as the site was allocated for housing within the Local Plan, UK Power Networks would have been consulted on the power network required for the site as part of the Local Plan.  The Planning Development Manager explained that matters concerning the neighbouring HWRC were considered at the outline planning stage.

 

Resolved:  That application 23/501167/REMbe approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report, and to include an additional condition to deal with the identified matter relating to the servicing of the pumping station.    

 

2.6       REFERENCE NO: 23/501017/FULL
PROPOSAL Erection of a three storey 66no. bed care home for older people (Use Class C2) with associated access, parking and landscaping and ancillary facilities.
SITE LOCATION Land West of Barton Hill Drive, Minster-on-sea, Kent, ME12 3LZ
WARD Queenborough & Halfway	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Minster-On-Sea	APPLICANT LNT Care Developments AGENT LNT Construction

 

The Interim Major Team Leader introduced the application as set out in the report. He referred to the tabled papers in relation to Natural England and the NHS.

 

Luke Thorpe, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee, spoke in support of the application and said that an old people’s home was needed and this was in a good position, with good views.

 

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

 

·         Did not object to the application in principle;

·         was concerned with the lack of parking;

·         there was insufficient public transport to the site;

·         there was a lack of amenities near the site;

·         the site was located near a busy road and roundabout;

·         this could be an improvement to the derelict and neglected site;

·         this was not a good design, there was too much brickwork at the front;

·         this did not fit in with the landscape, it needed to be incorporated within existing housing;

·         the NHS should be encouraged to provide infrastructure provision as the development would generate doctor visits and phone calls;

·         the views from the site would be obscured by housing and roads; and

·         the scale and design were wrong, it looked like a prison.

 

In response, the Interim Major Team Leader drew attention to paragraphs 4.16 to 4.19 in the report which set out KCC Highways and Transportation’s supporting statement and that they raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions relating to parking provision, cycle parking and Electric Vehicle (EV) charging.

 

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow officers to discuss improvements with the applicant in terms of improved scale and design, so that the building blended in more with the landscape; that the swept path drawings be reviewed, and a response be sought from the NHS.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.  On being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 23/501017/FULLbe deferred to allow officers to discuss improvements with the applicant in terms of improved scale and design, so that the building blended in more with the landscape; that the swept path drawings be reviewed and a response be sought from the NHS. 

 

PART 3

 

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

 

3.1       REFERENCE NO – 23/501613/FULL
PROPOSAL Erection of a 1no. three bedroom dwelling with associated landscaping, parking and access
SITE LOCATION Land To The East Of Orchard House  London Road Upchurch Kent ME8 8PT
WARD Hartlip, Newington And Upchurch	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Upchurch	APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Rowe   AGENT Urban Curve Architecture Limited

 

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

 

Nick Blunt, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

Two visiting Ward Members 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 points raised included:

 

·         Concerned with the distance from the property to the A2 in terms of refuse collections;

·         the design was good;

·         bungalows were needed in the Borough;

·         welcomed self-build projects;

·         concerned that the development would set a precedent and others would want to build in their gardens in rural areas; and

·         this was in the wrong location.

 

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that it was usual in developments with long access roads for a bin collection area to be installed close to the access point, and this could be dealt with by a condition.

 

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

 

There was some discussion on the reasons for approval and these included:  any damage to the countryside was outweighed by the benefits of the scheme; and the site should be considered as a pre-developed site.  Officers advised against the inclusion of ‘pre-developed site’ in the reasons for approval as the majority of the site was considered to have prevailing rural characteristics.

 

The Chair moved the following motion:  That the application be approved as, whilst it was accepted that the site was within the countryside, it was a well-designed self-build, which despite the balance of no five-year housing land supply, made it acceptable.  That a condition be imposed requiring biodiversity enhancements, and the provision of a bin store near the A2.  This was seconded by Councillor Alastair Gould.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.18(2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

 

For:  Golding, Hall, Martin, Miller, Stephen, Gould, Cheesman, Winckless.  Total = 8.

 

Against:  Booth, Clark, Perkin, Hunt.  Total = 4.

 

Abstain:  Baldock, Marchington, Bowen.  Total = 3.

 

Resolved:  That application 23/501613/FULLbe delegated to officers to approve as, whilst it was accepted that the site was within the countryside, it was a well-designed self-build, which despite the balance of no five-year housing land supply, made it acceptable.  That a condition be imposed requiring biodiversity enhancements, and the provision of a bin store near the A2. 

 

PART 5

 

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

                                                                                                                                                    

 

·                Item 5.1 – Copton House 8 Ashford Road, Sheldwich

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.2 – Jalna Warden Road Eastchurch

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.3 – Appleyard Barn Plough Road Eastchurch

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.4 – 43 St Helens Road Sheerness

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.5 – Hill Top Farm Elverland Lane Ospringe

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.6 – 106 - 110 Broadway Sheerness

 

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.7 – The Cottage Ashford Road Sheldwich

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.8 – London Road, Newington

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

A Member welcomed the decision.

 

·                Item 5.9 – Bells Forstal Farm Throwley Road Throwley

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.10 – 61 Playstool Road Newington

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

 

·                Item 5.11 – Land rear of 6 Orchard Grove Minster

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.12 – 1 The Kennels Rushett Lane Norton

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

A Member considered the wording in the summary left some doubt.

 

·                Item 5.13 – Fairview Lower Road Tonge

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.14 – Windmill Farm Yaugher Lane Hartlip

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

 

A Member was disappointed with the outcome.