This meeting will consider the following outstanding items from the Planning Committee which was adjourned on Thursday 24 September 2015:

Part 2

2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.15

Part 5

5.1

The agenda for the Planning Committee meeting on 24 September 2015 can be viewed here:

http://services.swale.gov.uk/meetings/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=1569&Ver=4

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

This application was considered at the meeting on 24 September 2015.

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to an error on page 10 of the report, condition (3) should read ‘…for purposes ancillary and/or incidental to the existing dwelling’. 

The Area Planning Officer reported that a condition requiring the retention of the garage space for parking was also required.

The Area Planning Officer sought delegation to approve the application subject to the imposition of the additional condition and the amendment to condition (3).

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

Resolved:  That application 15/502969/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report and a suitably worded condition requiring the retention of the garage space for parking and the amendment to condition (3).

This application was considered at the meeting on 24 September 2015.

This application was considered at the meeting on 24 September 2015.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

Resolved:  That application 15/505662/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

Resolved:  That application 15/504681/FULL be approved subject to condition (1) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that following discussions with the agent the applicant had agreed that the description be amended as follows: ‘Variation of conditions (1) and (2) of planning permission SW/13/0743 – to remove reference to “a limited period until 10 August 2016” from condition (1); and “or on 10 August 2016” from condition (2).

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

Members made the following points: would not approve this application if a member of the settled community was the applicant; the proposal seems a sensible way forward; was not an appropriate site and should not be allowed in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In response to queries from Members the Area Planning Officer explained the reasons why officers were recommending approval of the application.  He stated that following the appeal decision Swale Borough Council (SBC) were still not able to offer the applicant alternative sites so it seemed reasonable to allow a further temporary permission until SBC were able to provide a rolling five year supply of sites as required by central government. 

The Locum Senior Lawyer advised that the emerging Bearing Fruits Swale Local Plan was about to be examined in public so the five year supply of sites for gypsies and travellers was progressing. 

Resolved:  That application 15/505252/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report and as per the amended description.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the description had been changed to refer to ‘construction of a 3-bedroom 2½ storey house with parking spaces’. 

The Area Planning Officer further reported that an additional comment had been received from the neighbour commenting on the amended plans and noting that the revisions did not address a number of issues including: the impact on the streetscene at Seaside Avenue; projection beyond the building line; overdevelopment of the site; overlooking of the side bedroom window within no. 66 Seaside Avenue; insufficient parking and; the reduction in visibility for cars and pedestrians.

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised the following points: would impact on the vision of vehicles accessing Seaside Avenue in the direction of The Leas; was an over-intensive use of the site; was not in-keeping and would cause demonstrable harm to the streescene.

The Area Planning Officer stated that in terms of highway visibility the junction of Seaside Avenue and the The Leas was not a fast road and the proposed dwelling would be sufficiently set back from the junction and in his opinion would not impact on visibility or highway safety.

Members raised the following points:  would be an over-development of the site; not in-keeping with the area; balconies would allow overlooking into the property at the rear; concern about overlooking into the neighbouring property and that the officer’s report states that the occupier of that property has the option to pull their blind, surely that in itself proves that residential amenity will be adversely affected; and there are already different styles of property along The Leas so this would not look out of place.

In response to a query the Area Planning Officer stated that the style of the balconies proposed was in-keeping with others in the area.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion: The application should be refused as it would cause demonstrable harm to residential amenity by virtue of overlooking, would, due to the position of the proposed dwelling on the site, harm the character and appearance of the streetscene, and would amount to an over-intensive development of the site, giving rise to a cramped appearance, harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

Resolved:  That application 15/503291/FULL be refused, as it would cause demonstrable harm to residential amenity by virtue of overlooking, would, due to the position of the proposed dwelling on the site, harm the character and appearance of the streetscene, and would amount to an over-intensive development of the site, giving rise to a cramped appearance, harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

This application was considered at the meeting on 24 September 2015.

This application was considered at the meeting on 24 September 2015.

These applications were considered at the meeting on 24 September 2015.

These applications were considered at the meeting on 24 September 2015.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the description had been amended to refer to one additional static caravan and front entrance lights only.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

A Member spoke against the application and raised the following points: Upchurch  already had a lot of gypsy and traveller sites and went against Policy RC7 (Rural Lanes) of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2008 saved policies.

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer clarified that the application did constitute a further pitch so if the application was approved there would be two pitches in total at the site.

Resolved:  That application 14/505230/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report and as per the amended description.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

This application was considered at the meeting on 24 September 2015.

This application was considered at the meeting on 24 September 2015.

PART 5

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

·                    Item 5.1 – Bowl Reed, Oad Street, Borden

APPEAL DISMISSED