To consider the attached report (Sections 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 4 November 2015.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reported that amended drawings had been received on 29 October 2015 showing a lower roof pitch on the porch.

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

Resolved:  That application 15/505765/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report and changes to the roof pitch on the porch as per the amended drawings.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the applicant had advised that there were no redundant dishes on the mast.  The Area Planning Officer advised that the County Archaeological Officer had suggested an amendment to condition (3) relating to an access watching brief to allow access to the site for the County Archaeologist before commencement of works.

Parish Councillor Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Ms Bye, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Ward Members spoke against the application and raised the following points: need to ensure further bracing was added so do not lose the intrinsic nature of the mast; when will enough-be-enough this is a listed building and adjacent to a Scheduled Ancient Monument and should be protected.

In response to queries, the Area Planning Officer clarified that the dishes would not be on the mast but at ground level.  The Area Planning Officer stated that he understood concerns about increase in size of the mast and that a structural survey had been commissioned and that the strengthening of the mast by bracing on existing diagonal cross-members between 60 to 69 metres above ground level was proposed as a result.

Members raised the following points: if the mast was not strengthened it will be lost, this application will ensure that it was maintained; minded to support but only because if we do not allow this we will just get a further request to place it somewhere else; disappointed that no Section 106 contributions were requested; and consider this is the best way to preserve the mast.

Resolved:  That application 14/500285/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report and the amendments requested by the County Archaeologist to condition (3) relating to an access watching brief to allow access for the County Archaeologist before commencement of works.

This application was considered in conjunction with application 14/500285/FULL above.

Resolved:  That application 14/500286//FULL be approved subject to condition (1) in the report.

In response to queries about the location of the site the Area Planning Officer advised that the postal address for the site was Doddington, but it fell within the parish of Norton and that both Norton and Newnham Parish Council had been consulted.

The Area Planning Officer reported that he had been handed a letter which he assumed had been sent to most, if not all, Committee Members from a number of local residents.  He explained that despite working closely with most of the signatories of the letter over recent years on local planning concerns, and as the officer mainly responsible for this report and who was now being heavily criticised in the letter, no-one had had the courtesy of letting him have a copy direct, which he felt was an unattractive and regrettable turn of events.

The Area Planning Officer stated that the letter raised a number of issues which he felt ought not to be left uncontested and he outlined them for Members:  there was a clear suggestion that the existing use rights on the site had been abandoned, but there was no clear evidence for this suggestion; demonstration of abandonment in planning law was a high test to prove; it was not at all clear to him that the relevant four established legal tests had been applied here to reach this conclusion; there was no suggestion of any intention to abandon the use, and recent clearance of the site by the current owners was part of a clear intention to continue the historic use of the site, not the reverse; the fact that the site held evidence of occupation until it was cleared, and that it still showed some evidence, would make any claim of abandonment hard to prove; lack of occupation was not a sign of abandonment; there had been no intervening use and it was possible to find cases where vacancy for periods of up to 40 years did not result in findings of abandonment; planning permission was not required for felling trees on the site or for removing the small buildings that were on the site; as far as the site being a woodland was concerned, it should be remembered that this site was the remnant of a former orchard after the M2 was built and had been occupied residentially for the majority of the last 50 years and it was not undeveloped woodland; there was no suggestion that the site would be encircled by high fencing, but if people were to live on the site it is clearly better for the Council to secure some form of noise mitigation on the motorway boundary; and national advice regarding gypsy and traveller sites had been quoted but this had no part to play in the recommendation for approval.

Parish Councillor Colin Woods, representing Newnham Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Price, an objector, spoke against the application.

Members raised the following points: how can the existing right for one family be bought and sold; Kent County Council (KCC) had made a poor decision some years ago, but we were stuck with it; do not think the application would cause any harm and bunding and fencing was to be provided; agreed with concerns of Newnham Parish Council and needed to consider the safety of persons at the site and the risks of vehicles leaving the motorway and ending up on the site; and acoustic fencing would be noticeable from the motorway.

In response to queries, the Area Planning Officer stated that the suggestion that the existing use was personal to the applicant was incorrect.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion: That the application be refused as it was not a suitable gypsy and traveller site.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.

A Member felt that the Members should withdraw the reason for refusal as he considered the site was acceptable as a gypsy and traveller site and ample size for the caravans requested as part of the application.  He considered the risks from vehicles leaving the motorway was unlikely and could not refuse the application for the reason stated.

Councillor James Hunt moved the following amendment to the motion to refuse: the proposed barrier and acoustic fence would be detrimental to the rural area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

Some members felt that the application should be deferred to allow for further detail on the proposed bunding and acoustic fencing.  It was also suggested that the applicant considered reducing the number of caravans applied for.

In response to queries, the KCC Highways Officer stated that he did not have details available regarding vehicle accidents or loss of control along this stretch of the M2 motorway, this was something that Highways England would be able to advise on.

The motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion:  that the application be deferred to allow officers to liaise with the applicants about the suitability of the proposed bunding and acoustic fencing and on whether the number of caravans proposed could be lowered.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/503580/FULL be deferred to allow officers to liaise with the applicants about the suitability of the proposed bunding and acoustic fencing and on whether the number of caravans proposed could be lowered.

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

Some Members spoke against the application and raised the following points: was an over-development of the site; the tree line adjacent to Scocles Road would be lost; similar applications had been refused due to the road layout; needed to ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place; this was not an appropriate location; and lack of infrastructure to support more dwellings.

In response to queries, the Planning Officer advised that a previous application for a bungalow which had been allowed on appeal in 1985 had not been built and that permission had now lapsed.  The Council’s Tree Consultant raised no objection, subject to conditions relating to the retention of the existing trees.

Resolved:  That application 15/501087/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (14) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the history of the site and concerns about noise for residents at the site from the noisy dual carriageway of the Thanet Way and the 6 metre fence proposed for the front boundary of the site.

The Area Planning Officer reported that he had attended a meeting that week with the applicant’s noise consultant and the Council’s Environmental Protection Team Leader and looked at a significant number of ways to alter the layout or design treatment to allow the fence to be reduced, but none made any significant difference to the need for the fence.  There was also discussion about the potential for landscaping of the fence, including clarifying the scope and nature of potential planting.

The Area Planning Officer advised that following that meeting, amended drawings had been received setting the acoustic fence back into the site by at least 2 metres (and up to 6.8 metres in some parts – 90% of the frontage would have a depth of over 2 metres) to allow more room for planting.  However the 6 metre fence was still required, but space would be available to plant inside the fence.

Mr Reveley, an objector, spoke against the application.

Ms Bianca Valido Leach, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Ward Members raised the following points: fantastic design but it was in the wrong location; the application was premature; entrance to the site was not safe; the acoustic fence was not in keeping with the rural area; visually intrusive; and the access roads to the site were already dangerous and there were many accidents there.

Councillor Bobbin moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Members raised the following points: accept the junction was sub-standard but the garden centre and hotel use would have generated more vehicle movements than the proposed housing would; have some difficulty with the acoustic fence but with trees inside and outside the fence it may be manageable; was a brownfield site; is a sustainable site; welcomed the environmentally friendly ‘Passivhaus’; suggest deferring the application to allow officers time to look at how the landscaping and fencing could be improved; could KCC Highways seek improvements to the access road to allay residents concerns?; unsustainable site as it had no bus service, local school or shops; despite the speed limits, motorists speed at this junction; and the hotel had to make alterations to the access to gain planning permission.

A Ward Member asked that the application be deferred to allow KCC Highways and the applicants to discuss the deceleration lane and corner access to the site.

The KCC Highways Officer advised that improvements to the Thanet Way slip road had been required for the previously approved hotel use but that would have generated far more traffic than this proposal would.  He explained that the fourteen houses now proposed would be expected to generate around 60 vehicle movements per day with half of those movements being arrivals into the site and roughly split 50/50 in the direction they were travelling from e.g. Faversham/London or Whitstable/Thanet.  Therefore, there would only be around 15 vehicle movements per day using the slip road, and this was not considered significant enough to justify requesting the improvements again.  The officer added that the slip road did not show up as a cluster on the crash statistics, so the site would not be considered a priority for highway improvements.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved an amendment to the proposal to approve the application: that the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to discussions to improve the landscaping in consultation with the Chairman of Planning Committee and the two Ward Members.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.

Resolved:  That application 15/505190/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (24) in the report improvements to the proposed landscaping, the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement, and that landscaping details should be subject to in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee and the two Ward Members.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Parish Councillor Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Drury, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  He stated that the Dunkirk Parish Plan had identified that there was a need for housing for elderly residents and this application would free-up three bedroom houses for families.  The Ward Member noted that no objections had been received.

Councillor Prescott moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: was a way to support the housing need in rural areas; should ask that nomination rights to ensure people from Dunkirk were given preference to the properties be provided; such applications help to maintain the vitality of villages; site cannot be seen from the road; no letters of objection only four letters of support received; could not be compared to the holiday homes on the Isle of Sheppey; needed to be consistent and have refused similar applications; site was in a sustainable location; Parish Council supported and needed to consider their views that there is a clear demand for this type of development in Dunkirk; some of the reasons for refusal do not stand-up; the adjacent site which had been refused permission was different from this proposal.

In response to a query, a Member confirmed that the application was for persons aged fifty-plus.  Some Members were not supportive of the age limit but were supportive of ensuring that nomination rights for local people was included.  A Ward Member suggested that this could be included as a condition.

The Locum Solicitor advised that you could not include parish nomination rights as a condition, but as part of a Section 106 Agreement.

The motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Ben Stokes moved a motion to approve the application and this was seconded. 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum to the motion: That the Section 106 Agreement be amended to include Dunkirk Parish nomination rights and that the fifty-plus age limit was removed.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

Resolved:  That application 15/507497/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to a Section 106 Agreement to include Dunkirk Parish Council nomination rights and the imposition of suitable conditions.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – 8 Wadham Place, Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

• Item 5.2 – 90 Bell Road, Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

• Item 5.3 – 16 Gayhurst Drive, Sititngbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.4 – Bayford Court, Crown Quay Lane, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member requested that when an application had been refused by officers and the subsequent appeal was allowed, this should be included in the officers’ reports in future.