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 9 March 2016.

PART 1

 

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

 

 

1.1       REFERENCE NO - 14/505440/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Proposed mixed use development - on six parcels of land - of 215 residential apartments (use class C3), 3158 sq m of retail space (use class A1), A 308 space multi storey car park, 1713 sq.m cinema (use class D2), 2320 sq.m ground floor restaurant units (use class A3), first floor D2 use and the re-alignment of St Michael's road with amendments to the road network and the creation of a new public square in Sittingbourne Town Centre, in front of the railway station.
ADDRESS Spirit Of Sittingbourne Regeneration Site Identified On Site Location Plan (drg Number: 14.35.100 Revision PO) Sittingbourne Kent ME10 3DU
WARD St Michaels	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL	APPLICANT The Spirit of Sittingbourne LLP AGENT Mr Alastair Cracknell

 

The Head of Planning Services reported that a further representation had been received in support of the planning application from Sittingbourne Retail Park Ltd stating that it would bring much needed fresh investment into Sittingbourne and help raise its profile in competing with other centres in this part of Kent.

 

The Head of Planning Services further reported that an additional letter had been received expressing the following: concerns about the proposal to remove the drop-off area for the rail station; do not believe the cinema would be providing an affordable service to local residents; and other issues raised which had already been considered by the committee or raise issues about general regeneration within the town centre.

 

The Head of Planning Services advised that amended plans had very recently been received which revised the scheme demonstrating how the public realm area would be handled.  He sought delegation to either supplement existing conditions or introduce new conditions to require samples and Local Authority agreement to the materials to be used within the public realm and any details regarding features including public art/sculptural features and any associated highway amendments.

 

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

 

A Ward Member raised concern that such important issues were being delegated to officers, particularly those outlined in paragraph 3.18 of the committee report, which he considered lacked clarity. 

 

Members raised the following points: was important that Members kept control and concerned about the degree of officer delegation recommended; concern that there was still no clear resolution on public realm; agree should not pass-over this degree of details to planning officers; if we do not agree to extend the cinema opening time would the company pull out of the project?; if we don’t delegate to officers would delay the project even further; this was not the time for ‘political jousting’, officers were professionals and we should entrust them with the delegation; Members can speak to Planning Officers at any time about any aspect of the application they are concerned about; and concern about the inadequate parking proposed which will put people off visiting the town centre.

 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  That the proposed delegations set out in paragraphs 3.09, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.20 of the Committee report be not delegated to officers, as this was not seconded, the Chairman then suggested that those items be delegated to officers in conjunction with the Chairman of Planning Committee and Ward Member.  This was agreed by Members.

 

Resolved:  That application 14/505440/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to signing of Section 106 Agreement, to either supplement existing conditions or introduce new conditions to require samples and Local Authority agreement to the materials to be used within the public realm and any details regarding features including public art/sculptural features and any associated highway amendments.  That paragraphs 3.09, 3.16, 3.17 and 3.18 of the Committee report be delegated to officers to approve in consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman and Ward Member.

 

 

PART 2

 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

                                                                                                                                                     

 

2.1       REFERENCE NO - 15/507023/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Retention of chicken sheds, associated outbuildings, storage and toilet/kitchenette facility. Ancillary to personal agricultural/leisure use.
ADDRESS Dukes Shaw, Bexon Lane, Bredgar, Kent, ME9 8HG
WARD West Downs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Bredgar	APPLICANT Mr Peter Eastland AGENT

 

Mr Eastland, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.

 

On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/507023/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site. 

 

 

 

2.2       REFERENCE NO - 15/510505/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Construction of a new community centre with adjoining changing room facilities and associated landscaping works
ADDRESS   Land North East Of Barley House Great Easthall Way Sittingbourne Kent ME10 3TF
WARD Murston	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL	APPLICANT Swale Borough Council AGENT  BBM Sustainable Design

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that he had requested details from the agent of the reptile survey which were as follows: “We have instructed Green Space Ecology to carry out the reptile survey for the site.  The survey will be carried out over a period of weeks from March onwards as the reptiles need to be active, for the survey to be completed.  Based on this information I would be grateful if these works could be conditioned as a pre-construction commencement condition, due to the nature of the survey work, no construction work would be able to commence until the survey is complete’. 

 

The Area Planning Officer explained that he had passed this on to KCC Ecology who responded as follows:  “Our advice is that all surveys should be carried out prior to determination to ensure that SBC can consider all material considerations when determining the planning application.

 

However Paragraph 99 of Government Circular (ODPM 06/2005) also states that surveys can be conditioned in exceptional circumstances.”

 

The Area Planning Officer stated that in this case there were no exceptional circumstances and as such, as per the report, he was seeking delegation to approve subject to ecology issues being resolved and any conditions required.  He further stated that he had yet to receive a response from Southern Water (expiry date 14 March 2016) and sought delegation to approve subject to no objection from Southern Water and any condition required by them.

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that one objection had been received relating to noise from the proposed use, impact on privacy, impact on visual amenity, loss of light, parking and disturbance during construction, all of which are covered within the committee report.  The writer also commented that works had begun on site.  The Planning Officer reported that he had visited the site and this was not the case and initial works with regards to the reptile survey had taken place.

 

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

 

A Member considered March was the wrong time of the year to undertake a reptile survey. 

 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum:  That the reptile survey be undertaken during the months of May and June.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock. 

 

The Area Planning Officer suggested that the reptile survey be undertaken in-line with Natural England best practice.  This was agreed by Members.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/510505/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report, the receipt of the reptile survey, the KCC ecologists comments on it and any appropriate additional conditions they requested, and to the comments of Southern Water and any additional conditions they requested, and that the reptile survey be undertaken in-line with Natural England best practice.

 

2.3       REFERENCE NO - 16/501079/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Replace front door and front windows, repaint front elevation and window sills.
ADDRESS 17 Orchard Place Faversham Kent ME13 8AP
WARD Abbey	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT Mr Ross McCardle

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that Faversham Town Council raised no objection.  He recommended that the application be approved subject to no fresh material planning issues being raised in any representations received prior to the closing date of 11 March 2016.

 

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

 

Resolved:  That application 16/501079/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report and to no fresh material planning issues being raised in any representations received prior to the closing date of 11 March 2016.

 

2.4       REFERENCE NO - 16/500288/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Conversion of existing integral garage to dining room
ADDRESS  Aylesbury Cottage  41A Horselees Road Boughton Under Blean Kent ME13 9TE
WARD Boughton & Courtenay	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Dunkirk	APPLICANT Mr G Blandford & Miss E Ward AGENT Jason Davies Architectural Services

 

Parish Councillor John Peto, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member was concerned that the proposal would exacerbate existing parking problems which were already dangerous.

 

Members considered the application and raised the following points: could set a precedent; and residents were already unable to use their garages so do not see how it would increase parking problems.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/500288/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

 

2.5       REFERENCE NO – 15/506115/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL
One new 4 bedroom detached dwelling to replace existing 3 bedroom dwelling
ADDRESS The Chimes Beach Approach Warden Kent ME12 4NJ
WARDLeysdown & Warden	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Warden	APPLICANT Mr N Armstrong AGENT Oakwell Design Ltd

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that a further objection had been received from a neighbour who had intended to speak at the meeting but had been taken ill.  In summary, he was very concerned regarding the impact on the outlook from his dwelling, loss of light, loss of privacy and regarding the location of his chimney relative to the proposed dwelling he was concerned that smoke from his chimney would cause issues for the occupiers of the proposed property particularly in their bedrooms.  The Area Planning Officer reported that he had sought the further comments of the Council’s Environmental Health team on this matter, and they commented that they had considered the location of the adjacent bungalow, The Beeches, and specifically the position of its chimney stack relative to the proposed dwelling. Environmental Health were of the opinion that there should be no adverse impact on the amenity of either the new dwelling or adjacent bungalow as a result of combustion emissions from the bungalow’s chimney stack.

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that concern had been raised about the impact on nesting birds and suggested the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to a further condition relating to nesting birds.

 

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

 

A Ward Member stated that she could not think of a planning reason to refuse the application.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/506115/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (13) in the report and the imposition of a further condition relating to nesting birds.

 

2.6       REFERENCE NO – 15/503652/FULL, 15/503656/LBC and 15/503659/ADV
APPLICATION PROPOSAL
Change of use from A1 to A1, A3 and B1. Alterations to shopfront. Internal alterations, creation of new staircase and removal of existing, one window to rear to be removed. Advertisement consent for 1x fascia sign to front of shop.
ADDRESS 5 Market Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7AH
WARD Abbey	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT Mr Oc Yan

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered that the site was within the core shopping area of Faversham Town Centre.

 

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councilllor Mike Henderson.

 

Resolved:  That applications 15/503652/FULL, 15/503656/LBC and 15/503659/ADV be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

 

2.7       REFERENCE NO – 15/510564/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL
Demolition of garage/workshop;  Construction of two-storey side and single-storey rear extensions, front porch and alterations to front fenestration
ADDRESS 6 Meadow Rise Iwade Kent ME9 8SB
WARD Bobbing, Iwade & Lower Halstow	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Iwade	APPLICANT Mr P Seitz AGENT John Childs and Associates

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that with regard to the requested amended plans showing a 2 metre space between the first floor flank elevation and the side boundary, the agent was currently away on holiday, and he had not therefore received amended plans for Members to view.  He explained that he had discussed the issue with the applicant who considered that the scheme was acceptable as submitted but was willing to amend the plans should Members agree the recommendation outlined in the report.  The officer sought delegation to approve the application subject to receipt of amended plans.

 

Mr Seitz, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

Councillor Ben Stokes moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred pending receipt of amended drawings.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

 

There was some discussion about deferring the application and the following points were made: do not see the point of deferring, the planning officer had suggested a sensible way forward; deferring the application was a ‘common sense’ approach; and need to consider the costs involved with deferring the application. 

 

Resolved:  That application 15/510564/FULL be deferred for the receipt of amended drawings, or refused if amended drawings were not submitted.

 

 

2.8       REFERENCE NO – SW/14/0530
APPLICATION PROPOSAL
Siting of two mobile homes with associated utility blocks, with parking for cars and two touring caravans for gypsy family and erection of stables.
ADDRESS The Barn Yard, Land Adjoining Blackthorne Lodge, Greyhound Road, Minster, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3SP
WARD Sheppey Central	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Minster-on-Sea	APPLICANT Mrs Patience Brazil AGENT Mr Martin Foad

 

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

 

PART 3

 

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

 

 

3.1       REFERENCE NO – 15/509814/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL
Erection of one detached dwelling
ADDRESS 19 South Road Faversham Kent ME13 7LR
WARD St Ann’s	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT Mrs L C Guthrie AGENT Redsquare Architects Ltd

 

Mr Daniel Waller, an objector, spoke against the application.

 

Mr Simon Timms, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application. 

 

A Member raised concern about the pre-application advice given to the applicant and that this should be looked into.

 

In response to a query from a Member, the Chairman explained that he had requested that the item be considered by the Planning Committee and not delegated to officers.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/509814/FULL be refused for the reasons outlined in the committee report.

 

PART 5

 

 

• Item 5.1 – 24 Admirals Walk, Minster

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

Observations

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL:

 

            Full support for the Council’s decision.

 

• Item 5.2 – 11 Range Road, Eastchurch

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

Observations

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL:

 

A disappointing decision, but one that provides clear direction that the Council’s five-year housing supply shortfall must be afforded great weight towards approving residential development in the countryside.

 

• Item 5.3 – Howt Green Farm, Sheppey Way, Bobbing

 

APPEAL ALLOWED PLUS COSTS AWARDED AGAINST THE COUNCIL

 

Observations

 

AGAINST OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:

 

A decision that fully endorses the appellant’s case against the refusal of planning permission.

 

• Item 5.4 – Moth’s Field, Denstroude Lane, Dunkirk

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

Observations

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL:

 

Full support for the Council’s decision.

 

• Item 5.5 – The Ponderosa, 48 Keycol Hill, Bobbing

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

Observations

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL:

 

      Full support for the Council’s decision.

 

• Item 5.6 – Land at Cedar Lodge, Whybornes Chase, Minster

SW/14/0516              APPEAL DISMISSED

14/506851                 APPEAL ALLOWED

 

 

Observations

 

COMMITTEE REFUSALS AGAINST OFFICERS’ RECOMMENDATION

 

Clear decisions in which the Inspector supported Member’s view that semi-detached dwellings would be out of character with the area; but however that a single detached dwelling would cause no harm to local amenity.

 

• Item 5.7 – The Old Bindery, Butcher’s Field, Throwley

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

Observations

 

APPEAL AGAINST CONDITION OF DELEGATED DECISION:

 

This site now has a very complex planning history. Despite the Inspector making it quite clear that the Council’s decision to grant a very carefully worded permission was entirely consistent with that of three previous Inspectors, and a permission which he has essentially supported; he has removed the requirement to re-position the largest caravan on the site, which was one of the main controls on the permission that a previous Inspector felt necessary to enable the previous temporary permission to be granted. In fact, he has removed any controls over where caravans can be parked, which is very disappointing given the very obvious sensitivity of the site.

 

• Item 5.8 – 2 Greenacres, Holywell Lane, Upchurch

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

Observations

 

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL:

 

      A good decision, and full support for the Council.

 

• Item 5.9 – Land at Vicarage Lane, Ospringe

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

Observations

 

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL:

 

Very clear support for the Council’s action, with the Inspector making only minor changes to the enforcement notice despite the appellant appealing on numerous grounds.