To consider the attached report (Parts 1, 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 25 May 2016.

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and considered it should remain as social housing and that it could set a precedent.

Members raised the following points:  there was nothing structurally wrong, this could be repaired and remain as social housing; it should not be sold off; this was bad management by the housing association, the property should have been boarded-up earlier; private ownership could help to ‘uplift’ the area; there was a shortage of social housing; selling it off was the easy option; support this; and the repairs were excessive.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the extensive repairs that were needed to the property.

Resolved: That application 16/500948/MOD106 be approved to modify the terms of the existing Section 106 agreement.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Mrs Turner, a supporter, spoke in favour of the application.

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

A visiting Member spoke in favour of the application.  He considered the building to have been under-used and that the proposed use would benefit tourism.  He referred to Policy B3 of the Local Plan which stated non-retail could be permitted if it enhanced the town centre and provided a service/facility to the town; he considered the application met these criteria.

Members raised the following points:  this was a major shop, and the proposal was contrary to Council policy; this was in a defined core retail use area of the town centre; if this was marketed properly, it could be retail again; not sure this would attract visitors and question whether they would then shop locally as well; there was no evidence that it would boost tourism; there were other buildings that could host this type of proposed use; the proposal was restricted by condition (2) in the report which restricts use of the ground floor to Faversham Town Council; it was a shame to see a Grade II listed building empty; good location for tourism; important to use this type of building; and finely balanced between retail potential and tourist attraction.

A Ward Member supported the application.

Resolved:  That application 16/501352/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

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

Members raised the following points:  this was outside the village envelope; see no reason not to approve the application; this was encroachment; and the appeal decision was noted, we do not have to go with the Inspector’s decision.

Resolved:  That application 15/509875/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report.

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled letter from Bredgar Parish Council.  He referred Members to paragraph 5.06 on page 89 of the report and reported that following additional information received from the applicant, KCC Highways and Transportation had no objection to the application, subject to an amendment to condition (7) to limit grain storage to crops grown on farms belonging to SW Attwood and Partners, rather than any farms throughout Kent.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, with the amendment to condition (7) and this was seconded.

Discussion ensued on the ability to enforce where the grain, that would be stored, came from.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19(5) a recorded vote was taken on the motion to approve the application, with the amendment to condition (7) and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Richard Darby, James Hall, Mike Henderson and Ghlin Whelan.

Against:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Bobbin, Andy Booth, Roger Clark, Sue Gent (substitute for Councillor Mike Dendor), James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams; Tina Booth (substitute for Councillor Peter Marchington), Bryan Mulhern and Prescott.

The motion, with the amendment to condition (7), was lost.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19(5) a recorded vote was taken on the motion to approve the substantive application and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Cameron Beart, George Bobbin, Andy Booth, Roger Clark, Richard Darby, Sue Gent (substitute for Councillor Mike Dendor), James Hall, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams; Tina Booth (substitute for Councillor Peter Marchington), Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Ghlin Whelan.

Against:  Councillors Mike Baldock and Mike Henderson.

The motion to approve the application was won.

Resolved:  That application 16/501136/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the Greenspaces Manager had advised that there was not an adopted standard specifically for caravan parks, but the current Local Plan required 10% of the land to be greenspace.  The Greenspaces Manager suggested opening up a glade or woodland edge to extend use to make up for the land that the application site would take up.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to approve the application to explore the scope of doing as the Greenspaces Manager suggested, and to impose further conditions as required.  He reported that the applicant had submitted an additional plan, similar to the previous plan and had also provided further justification on the benefits of replacing the accommodation would have in terms of tourism and sustaining local businesses.

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

Members raised the following points:  sympathy with the operators of the site; erosion was a serious concern with the loss of land/caravans; if continued to re-locate, this will encroach further inland; this was not sustainable long-term; and happy to move caravans back until run out of space.

Resolved:  That application 15/510422/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report andto full exploration of the scope of opening up a glade or woodland edge to extend active usage, and to impose further conditions as required.

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper which outlined updates to the Committee report.  He reported that a letter had been received, not included in the report, which had provided details of a traffic census that had been carried out at the junction of Church Lane/A2.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to approve the application subject to conditions in the original report, the additional conditions set out in the tabled paper and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement, including provisions for the on-going management of the Sustainable Urban Drainage System, and to make amendments to the wording of the conditions and Section 106 Agreement as required.

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Professor John Colvin, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Matthew Garvey, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised the following concerns:  this was in the wrong place; Church Lane was the biggest constraint to the application; concerned with parking and highway issues, especially during the school run, these would increase if the application was approved; the area was very picturesque, and it was close to a conservation area.

A second Ward Member spoke against the application and raised the following concerns:  it was beyond the village envelope; question the impact of ‘rounding-off’ of development on the application as documented in the Housing and Planning Bill; impact on Church Farm; Church Lane was very narrow, with single file traffic; and impact on the school.

The Major Projects Officer considered the development ‘rounded-off’ the village in a logical way.  He considered it to be a sustainable development and reminded Members of the lack of a 5-year housing supply.

Members raised the following points:  concerned with impact on local highway network; damage to air quality at junction of A2; needed to identify that Church Lane was an important access route; there was already an issue on Church Lane, question whether the additional housing would present a significant issue; fighting against need for a 5-year housing supply; and housing needed to go somewhere.

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

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion to delegate to officers to refuse the application on the grounds of effect on highways; heritage and conservation.

At this point, there was a 15 minute recess.

Councillor Mike Baldock amended his motion to: refuse on the grounds of highway safety and convenience; loss of amenity on Church Lane; landscape and visual impacts; and loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.  This was seconded by Councillor Bobbin.  On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was won.

Resolved:  That application 15/509664/OUT be refused on the grounds of highway safety and convenience; loss of amenity on Church Lane; landscape and visual impacts; and loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. 

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Tracy Dixon, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

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

Resolved:  That application 16/500627/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Planner drew Members’ attention to the scaled model of the proposed dwelling.

Mr Marcus Daley, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members raised the following points:  good design but concerned with the demolition of a Grade II* wall.

The Conservation Officer confirmed that the wall was a Grade II* which was higher status than Grade II.  He considered the design to be satisfactory, but that it was in the wrong location and was detrimental to the setting of a Grade II listed building.  In response to a question, he advised that there were no comments from Historic England as they had stated they were happy to leave comments to the Council’s Conservation and Design Team.

Resolved:  That applications 16/500546/FULL and 16/500547/LBC be refused for the reasons stated in the report.

PART 5

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

·                    Item 5.1 – 20 Amber Rise, Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

·                    Item 5.2 – 1 Connaught Road, Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

·                    Item 5.3 – 5 The Almhouses, South Road, Faversham

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER APPEAL DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.4 – 30 Preston Park, Faversham

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER APPEAL DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.5 – Norton Ash Garden Centre, London Road, Norton

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.6 – 1 Manor Cottages, Crockham Lane, Hernhill

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                    Item 5.7 – Land adjacent Chandlers Croft, fronting Swale Way, Kemsley

APPEAL DISMISSED & ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD