To approve the Minutes of the Meetings held on 26 October 2015 (Minute Nos. to follow).

SW/15/505910/REM – Land adj. Coleshall Farm, Ferry Road, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8QY

15/506335/FULL – 30 Woodside Gardens, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1SG

15/505114/FULL – Land adjacent to and forming part of 2 Swedish Houses, Throwley Road, Throwley, Kent, ME13 0PF

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 October 2015 (Minute Nos. 297 – 300) were take as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

15/505910/REM Land adj. Coleshall Farm, Ferry Road, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8QY

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

The Planning Officer reported that as noted at the site meeting further amended drawings had been received showing: units 236 and 237 moved away from the existing units (minimum 21 metres); units 236 to 244 changed from 2.5 storey to 2 storey, and the 2.5 storey units placed within the centre of the site; a 1.8 metre fence and hedgerow along the northern boundary with the existing properties on Mansfield Drive and Monins Road; the fence and hedgerow extending towards the stream to prevent access through to Mansifled Drive; and a knee rail running alongside the stream to the front of units 228 to 234 to obstruct access.

The Planning Officer reported that one further letter had been received from a neighbouring resident, requesting that unit 248 be reduced to 2 storey instead of 2.5 storeys.  The Planning Officer noted, however, that the intervening distance was a minimum of 25 metres, and that the proposed dwelling had already been turned through 90 degrees and moved further away from the common boundary at the neighbour’s request.  He considered the current layout was acceptable.

The Planning Officer advised that a letter on behalf of the residents of 36-46 Mansfield Drive had also been received, requesting the following: the northern boundary fence be constructed using concrete kick-boards and concrete fence posts; the fence posts to be 2.1 metres above ground level; the existing rear boundary fences to be removed and disposed of by the contractor; the new fence to be erected on existing garden boundary line; the contractors to have access to existing gardens via the development site; and the fence to extend to meet the knee rail by the stream.

The Planning Officer asked Members to note that the use of concrete posts and kickboards could be secured by condition, but that the other items amounted to private legal matters that should be agreed between residents and the developer, outside of the planning process.  The agent for the application had, however, confirmed that the developer was happy to work with local residents to meet all of these requests.

The Planning Officer requested that the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to an additional condition to secure concrete fence posts and kick-boards, and minor corrections to the conditions noted in the report to reflect the amended drawings and fencing as outlined above.

A Member congratulated the applicant, agent and officers for considering the concerns raised by residents at the site meeting and the amendments to the scheme proposed.

RESOLVED:  That application 15/505910/REM be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (6) in report, an additional condition to secure concrete fence posts and kick-boards, and minor corrections to the conditions noted in the report to reflect the amended drawings and fencing.

15/505554/FULL 30 Woodside Gardens, Sittingbourne, ME10 1SG

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

The Planning Officer reported that the reference number given on the agenda was incorrect and should read 15/505554/FULL.

Members raised the following concerns: the scale of the proposal would cause overlooking; would cause harm to the visual amenity of the streetscene; would have an adverse impact on the gardens to neighbouring properties; loss of parking; would have a detrimental impact to the whole cul-de-sac; would have an overbearing impact on neighbours; there were a lot extensions built upwards in the cul-de-sac but not sideways; would impact on the properties to the rear of the site; and amended plans do not address the impact the proposal would have on neighbouring properties.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion: That application 15/505554/FULL be refused on the grounds that it would be overbearing for the neighbours to the side and rear, and would cause demonstrable harm to the visual amenities of the area.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

RESOLVED:  That application 15/505554/FULL be refused on the grounds that it would be overbearing for the neighbours to the side and rear and would cause demonstrable harm to the visual amenities of the area.

15/505114/FULL Land adjacent to and forming part of 2 Swedish House, Throwley Road, Throwley, ME13 0PF

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to the pre-application advice provided in 2014 which was tabled for Members and had previously been sent to Committee Members by email.

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

The Ward Member reported that Throwley Parish Council had responded and supported the application.

Some Members spoke in support of the application and raised the following points: disagree with officers and consider the alternative would have a huge impact on the adjacent church; was a sensible location for stables; the officers had requested different tiling but this would require the roof pitch to be higher, meaning that the building could be seen more; did not consider the proposal would have an adverse impact on the local area; and the building was a good quality.

The motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved the following motion: that application 15/505114/FULLbe approved subject to the imposition of suitable conditions.   This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

RESOLVED:  That application 15/505114/FULL be approved with the officers being given delegated authority to impose appropriate and necessary conditions.