To consider the attached report (Parts 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 10 February 2016.

PART 2

 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

 

 

2.1  REFERENCE NO -  15/509905/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Non-compliance with condition (2) of planning permission SW/14/0109 (Variation of condition (2) of planning permission SW/12/1103 to allow a further 1 year to construct retail units (until 1st January 2016)) to permit further time.
ADDRESS Parcel 4 Thistle Hill Development Site Thistle Hill Way Minster-on-sea Kent
WARDSheppey Central	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Minster On Sea	APPLICANT Bovis Homes Ltd AGENT Bovis Homes Limited

 

Mr Graeme Humphrey, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer confirmed that the application was for an extension of time for the completion of the retail development by 1 January 2018, as noted in condition (2) of the report.

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application and considered there had been inappropriate management by the developers.

 

A Member considered the developer had been put in a difficult position as it was not known whether Asda would be opening a new premises in the area.  In response, the Major Projects Officer explained that Asda had submitted an application mid-2015 and this was being processed, with a decision due to be made in the next few months.

 

Members considered the application and made the following comments:  residents were expecting shop units to be installed; more homes should not be built until the retail units had been built; there had been too much delay, enough was enough; what was the excuse for such a long delay, the supermarket chain had not always been on the scene; and the time extension should be one year, not two.

 

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

 

Councillor Mike Dendor moved the following motion:  That the time extension be reduced to one year.  This was seconded by Councillor Sue Gent.

 

There was some discussion on the motion and some Members considered that the developers had had long enough already; and considered that the developer would continually apply to extend the time-scale for completion.

 

The Head of Planning Services advised that the condition required the developer to build a unit, not that it would be occupied, so the unit could end up being empty.

 

On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

 

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That no extension of time be given.  This was seconded by Councillor Tina Booth.

 

Members made the following comments on the new motion:  the proposal would show that this was detrimental to the amenities; the developers were not compelled to ensure retailers occupied the units; if they were built, they could end up being boarded up if not occupied; and would prefer to reduce the time extension, rather than force the developer to build.

 

The Major Projects Officer suggested the application could be deferred until the Asda application had been determined, i.e. possibly remove the need for the units to be built.  Members considered that as the condition had been there for 20 years, the units should be built, and then occupied; do not agree with deferral; the developer had no obligation to find an occupier for the units; and considered it sensible that the developer would find an occupier if the unit was built.

 

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

 

For: Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Bobbin, Tina Booth, Roger Clark, Richard Darby, Mark Ellen, James Hall, James Hunt, Lesley Ingham, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern and Ben Stokes.

 

Against:  Mike Henderson and Prescott.

 

Abstain:  Mike Dendor and Sue Gent.

 

The motion was won.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/509905/FULL be refused on the grounds that the lack of retail provision was detrimental to the residential area, and would result in an unsustainable form of development.

 

2.2  REFERENCE NO -  15/508025/REM
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Approval of Reserved Matters for residential redevelopment of 142 dwellings together with access roads, footpaths, drainage, associated car/bicycle parking provision, groundwork's, landscaping, open space and infrastructure (all matters being sought except access).
ADDRESS Former HBC Engineering Site Power Station Road Minster-on-sea Kent ME12 3AB
WARD Minster Cliffs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Minster On Sea	APPLICANT Persimmon Homes South East & TBH (Sheerness) Ltd AGENT Victoria Swift

 

The Major Projects Officer reported that the applicant had submitted a revised drainage strategy.  Southern Water had looked at the strategy and had no objection to the application; condition (2) in the report could therefore be removed.  Southern Water had stated that the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) were not in accordance with their adoptable standard; however, the agent advised that the SUDs were to be privately maintained.

 

Amended plans had been received which showed windows added to some of the flank walls.  Amended plans had also been received showing the boundary treatment which included brick walls and railings.  Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation raised no objection to the application subject to minor amendments to the parking layout for some of the plots, and also an additional condition to ensure that adequate cycle parking was provided.  The Major Projects Officer reported that an amended layout had been received following KCC Highways & Transportation’s comments.  He sought delegated authority to approve the application subject to the additional condition requested by KCC Highways & Transportation, their views on the amended layout, the deletion of condition (2) and to amend condition (1) to refer to the amended drawings.

 

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

 

A Member considered that, apart from the proposed trees, there was a lack of landscaping on the application site. 

 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved an amendment:  That there be further discussion with officers and the applicant to seek improvements to the landscape scheme, to include bushes and shrubs.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

 

Members made the following comments:  the design of the housing was bland; concerned with the unadopted roads, this could be an issue, they needed to be adopted by KCC Highways & Transportation; needed to see the amended drainage scheme before a decision could be made; history of management companies was not good; and concerned with who would maintain the landscaped areas.

 

In response to a question, the KCC Highways & Transportation Officer explained that developers were under no obligation to offer the roads up for adoption.

 

In response to questions, the Major Projects Officer reminded Members that Southern Water did not object to the application and that, as noted on page 25 of the report, the sewerage would connect to the north of the site, not the south.  He confirmed that a management company would manage the SUDs and considered the landscaping would be adequate; there was a five-year condition to ensure that landscaping was maintained/repaired during this time.

 

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

 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred and officers seek to improve landscaping details.

 

This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

 

Members spoke on the new motion.  There was concern with the scattered landscaping which would be difficult to maintain.

 

Members also requested that the applicant provide a statement on its approach to maintaining the unadopted roads and sewerage system.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/508025/REM be deferred for officers  to seek to improve landscaping details, request a statement from the applicant in respect of the roads and sewerage system not being adopted.

 

2.3  REFERENCE NO -  15/510316/LBC
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Listed Building Consent - Internal alterations to facilitate the creation of a new village hall
ADDRESS Iwade Barn 20 All Saints Close Iwade Kent ME9 8FP
WARD Bobbing, Iwade & Lower Halstow	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Iwade	APPLICANT Iwade Parish Council AGENT David Paine Architects

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that one objection had been received, the issues that were raised were not material to the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application; he considered it would be an asset to the community, and would not compete with the Village Hall as it was not as large.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/510316/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

 

 

2.4 & 2.5 REFERENCE NO -  15/509861/FULL & 15/509862/LBC
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Installation of a 200mm diameter dish antenna and a 300mm diameter dish antenna and ancillary works.
ADDRESS Radio Transmitter Courtenay Road Dunkirk Kent ME13 9LH
WARD Boughton & Courtenay	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Dunkirk	APPLICANT Arqiva Ltd AGENT Ms Jenny Bye

 

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

 

Ms Jenny Bye, the applicant, 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; he considered ‘enough was enough’.

 

Members considered the application and made the following comments:  applicant had implied there would be no more antenna added to the mast; this was for digital radio, not high quality communications infrastructure as noted in paragraph 4.02 of the report; concerned with the effect on this heritage asset, balanced against public benefit; this had no benefit to the community; supported this use of the mast; using the mast in this way, helped to preserve it; if the dishes did not go on this mast, there would be an application for a new mast; question the economic viability; and not sympathetic to these additional applications being submitted.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that this was part of a significant public digital service and he considered it was the right thing to do.

 

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

 

Councillor James Hunt moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds of its harm to the heritage asset not being outweighed by the public benefit.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/509861/FULLbe refused on the grounds of its harm to the heritage asset not being outweighed by the public benefit.

 

Application 15/509862/LBC was considered in conjunction with the above application.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/509862/LBCbe refused on the grounds of its harm to the heritage asset not being outweighed by the public benefit.

 

2.6 REFERENCE NO -  15/507671/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of the existing light industrial unit and the erection in its place of one four bedroom detached house
ADDRESS Store Adjacent 24 Plantation Road Faversham Kent ME13 8QY
WARD St Ann's	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT Karl Stevens AGENT Alex Bradshaw Design

 

Mr Karl Stevens, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

Members raised the following points:  local residents seemed to be in support of the application which would tidy up the site; concerned with parking; replacing the existing building with a house would be a marked improvement to the conservation area; and the shed’s previous use would have generated parking issues.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/507671/FULLbe approved subject to conditions (1) to (17) in the report.

 

2.7 REFERENCE NO -  14/501588/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Hybrid application (part outline, part approval of detail) consisting of: Outline application for the development of 550-600 houses and all necessary supporting infrastructure including roads, open space, play areas, neighbourhood shopping/community facilities (up to 650m2 gross) and landscaping.  All detailed matters are reserved for subsequent approval except (i) vehicular access to A2 Fox Hill; (ii) emergency access to Peel Drive; (iii) landscape buffer between housing and countryside gap and (iv) layout, planting, biodiversity enhancement and management of countryside gap.
ADDRESS  Land At Stones Farm The Street Bapchild Kent ME9 9AD
WARD West Downs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Bapchild	APPLICANT G H Dean & Co.Ltd. AGENT Mr Paul Sharpe

 

The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper which provided an update to two main issues outstanding in the recommendation on page 66 of the report, namely KCC Highways & Transportation, and Natural England, together with the applicant’s comments.  He particularly drew attention to items 10 and 12 on the tabled paper and also referred to page 66 in the report and explained that the monitoring fee was not a generic figure, but negotiated with the applicant.  The Area Planning Officer sought delegation to approve the application, subject to the resolution of issues raised in the tabled papers and a suitably worded Section 106 agreement.

 

Mr Paul Sharpe, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved seven amendments to the application, as below and these were seconded by Councillor Mark Ellen.

 

1.    30% provision of affordable housing to be strongly maintained in the Section 106 agreement.  The development proposals always accepted this figure.  The developer should not be allowed to put in a clause that viability should be subject to annual review.

2.    As suggested earlier in discussions on this development there should be insistence on a site-wide system for domestic rubbish providing a number of central points for underground storage of rubbish to avoid the requirement for 1200 or more wheelie bins.

3.    The provision of 15 hectares of open space should allow Special Protection Area mitigation payment to be reduced from the full figure of £223 per home but a contribution of at least 50% of the mitigation payment should be made.

4.    Work should continue to achieve the best possible highways solution regarding provision of the maximum flow along the A2 and an adequate entry and exit from the development site and acceptable parking provision for existing residents at Fox Hill.

5.    Must resolve the issue of footpath ZR205 to the satisfaction of KCC.

6.    The main part of the development is currently an outline application.  It should be agreed at this outline stage that there will be an overall detailed application covering the whole site even if the site is to be developed by several developers.  This is especially important in regard to domestic rubbish, car parking and garaging, housing density and housing height on the most elevated part of the site.  Strengthen condition (7) defining use of Masterplan, providing overall layout.

7.    The Section 106 agreement and the highways issues should be delegated to officers in consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman and the Ward Councillor.

 

The Ward Member spoke against the application and stated she wanted to see the best possible design and access to the site.  She raised the following points:  needed to avoid wheelie bins/food bins being positioned outside houses; garages and parking spaces to be close to properties; the use of underground refuse systems, rather than wheelie bins, as on page 98 of the report to avoid negative visual impact; there was not sufficient medical provision to serve the development; pressure on existing schools; provision of school places was needed for both primary and secondary; and specific details were required for mitigation measures for wildlife, specifically badgers.

 

Members considered the application and made the following comments:  technically this was in the countryside so affordable housing should be 40%, but satisfied with 30%; open-space mitigation payment should be at least 50%; the KCC Highways & Transportation issues needed to be resolved; bin stores did not work well; concerned with planned drop-off point within Lansdowne School; this was an opportunity to address parking issues within the development; a drop-off point within the development was necessary; Becketts Spring needed to be taken into account; concern that the countryside gap was not protected by the Local Plan; this development was an erosion of the gap between Murston and Bapchild and would kill-off village identity; not happy to delegate, especially with regard to exit/egress; and want to be kept informed stage-by-stage.

 

The Area Planning Officer advised that it was the intention that the Borough Council or Parish Council would own the countryside gap.

 

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the Northern Relief Road was not part of this development.

 

The Chairman went through the seven amendments and Members agreed, as minuted below.

 

Amendment 1:

Agreed

 

Amendment 2:

Agreed

 

Amendment 3:

Agreed

 

Amendment 4:

Not delegated to officers; these highways issues would come back to be determined by the Planning Committee.

 

Amendment 5:

Agreed

 

Amendment 6:

Agreed

 

Amendment 7:

Agreed the Section 106, but not the highways issues, re Amendment 4 above.  In addition, the Section 106 Agreement should make provision for school visitor parking within the development site should plans for parking within the school grounds not be approved.

 

The application delegated to officers to approve, subject to the above amendments, except for Amendment 4.

 

Resolved:  That application 14/501588/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to the amendments as noted above, the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 agreement and to conditions (1) to (31) in the report.

 

2.8 REFERENCE NO -  15/508927/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Retrospective erection of single storey side and rear extension with increase in flat roof pitch and roof lights
ADDRESS 8 Rooks View Bobbing Kent ME9 8GB
WARD Bobbing, Iwade & Lower Halstow	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Bobbing	APPLICANT Mr Stuart Usher AGENT

 

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

 

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion for a site visit.  This was not seconded.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/508927/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

 

2.9 REFERENCE NO -  14/500327/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline (Access not reserved) - Up to 8000m2 of Class B1 and B2 floor space and all necessary supporting infrastructure including roads, parking, open space, amenity landscaping, biodiversity enhancement and buffer to proposed extension to Milton Creek Country Park.  Detailed approval for Phase 1 including (i) vehicular and pedestrian access to Swale Way; (ii) 30 space (approximately) informal car park to serve extension to Milton Creek Country Park;  Change of use of approximately 13.31 ha of Kemsley Marshes as an extension to Milton Creek Country Park with footpath connections to the proposed informal car park
ADDRESS Land South Of Kemsley Mill, Swale Way, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2SG.
WARDKemsley	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL None.	APPLICANT Fletcher Challenge Forest Industries Ltd AGENT Paul Sharpe Associates LLP

 

The Major Projects Officer reported that the description needed to be amended to read that the Country Park extension was 14.02 hectares, an increase of 0.7 hectares.  He explained that the agent requested it be noted that the approved car park extension to the paper mill car park had been partly implemented; that the scheme included soft landscaping on the northern boundary; the sloping nature of the land contributed to the site’s unsuitability for B8 use; and the management plan for the existing Country Park had been extended to include the extension of the Park.  The Major Projects Officer reported that condition (21) in the report could be deleted as it was not required and was not enforceable.  The KCC Biodiversity Officer raised no objection to the application; KCC Highways & Transportation noted the transport statement and assessment and had no objection subject to the use of standard conditions to secure parking, cycle parking and loading/unloading space during development, covered by conditions (14) and (25) in the report.  The Major Projects Officer sought delegation to add an additional condition in respect of cycle parking and cycle shelters.  He reported that a Landscaping Strategy Plan had been received.  Delegated authority was also sought to enter into a Section 106 agreement to secure the transfer of the Country Park extension land and to fine-tune conditions including the approved plans condition to refer to ‘maximum building heights’ as set out in the report; the additional condition for cycle parking and to delete condition (21).

 

Mr Paul Sharpe, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

The Ward Members supported the application and requested that a sign be added on Swale Way to the Country Park.

 

The Locum Solicitor advised that the car park would not be passed to Swale Borough Council, but would remain with the industrial park who would manage it.

 

A Member raised concern with the capacity of Grovehurst roundabout.  The KCC Highways & Transportation Officer explained that he did not consider the impact to be so great that it would receive an objection from KCC Highways & Transportation.  The Major Projects Officer advised that Highways England had not been consulted on the application as the size of the application was not thought to be significantly large enough in relation to other schemes, and a material impact on traffic flow on their road network was not anticipated.

 

Resolved:  That application 14/500327/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to  the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement to secure the transfer of the Country Park extension land, and to ensure public access to the Country Park car park in perpetuity, the fine-tuning of conditions, including the approved plans condition to refer to ‘maximum building heights’ as set out in the report; the additional condition for cycle parking, andto conditions (1) to (25) in the report with the deletion of condition (21); and to secure the provision of a road sign directing people to the car park.

 

 

2.10  REFERENCE NO -  14/506623/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline application for proposed residential development of 18 units, with Appearance, Layout and Scale to be considered at this stage and all other matters reserved for future consideration.
ADDRESS 109 Staplehurst Road Sittingbourne Kent ME10 2NF
WARDChalkwell	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL	APPLICANT Mr Frank Balloch AGENT MSD Architects
DECISION DUE DATE 19/03/15	PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE 19/03/15	OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE N/A

 

The Major Projects Officer reported that the final report had been received from the Council’s consultants, CBRE.  They had confirmed that the scheme should make a commuted sum of £65,000, and the applicant had accepted this.

 

Delegated authority was sought to approve the application subject to the completion of a legal document to include the commuted sum for affordable housing and negotiate the developer contributions including the monitoring charge.

 

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

 

The Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

 

In response to a question, the KCC Highways & Transportation Officer explained that a Section 278 Agreement was about to be signed to deliver the agreed off-site highway works on Staplehurst Road.

 

Some Members spoke with concern on the amount of the commutable sum in relation to providing affordable housing at the site.

 

Resolved:  That application 14/506623/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to the completion of a legal document to include a commuted sum towards affordable housing and negotiation of other developer contributions including the monitoring charge and subjectto conditions (1) to (26) in the report.  The Head of Planning Services be authorised to refuse the application if the above legal agreement is not completed and the planning permission not issued by the end of 10 August 2016.

 

 

2.11 REFERENCE NO -  15/506140/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Change of use of outbuilding from boarding cattery to one-bed holiday let unit
ADDRESS 1 Warden Way Warden Road Eastchurch Kent ME12 4HA
WARDSheppey Central	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Eastchurch	APPLICANT Mrs Jacqui Bayliss AGENT Barron Planning Consultancy

 

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

 

A Ward Member supported the application but raised concern with the comments that parking was available on the road, as she considered the road to be a dangerous rat-run.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/506140/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

 

2.12 REFERENCE NO -  15/502912/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing warehouse buildings and development of 162 houses and 80 flats (including 24 flats for over 55's), with accesses off Cooks Lane and King Street, public open space (including play area), ancillary parking and landscaping.
ADDRESS Milton Pipes Gas Road Milton Regis Sittingbourne Kent ME10 2QB
WARD Milton Regis	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL	APPLICANT Biffa Waste Services Ltd AGENT SLR Consulting Ltd

 

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled update for this application.  He particularly drew attention to the paragraph in relation to KCC Highways & Transportation issues and sought delegated authority to fine-tune the layout so points of detail made by KCC Highways & Transportation could be fully incorporated into the final scheme.

 

Mr James Burlton, an objector, spoke against the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

 

In response to questions, the Major Projects Officer explained that condition (4) dealt with fencing matters, condition (10) dealt with landscaping, and condition (15) with foul and surface water drainage.

 

Members considered the application and made the following comments:  considered that 6% affordable housing on the site was ‘stingy’, not persuaded by the issues of viability; 1.3 car parking spaces per dwelling was not enough; concerned with any additional parking near Milton Court School as a result of the development; the proposed layout did not work; needed to ensure the roads within the development were properly maintained in the long term; and this was overdevelopment, with not enough parking.

 

The Major Projects Officer explained that a Traffic Regulation Order could manage the parking issues that might result from the scheme on Cooks Lane and Mill Way so that the parking pressures were contained within the development.  He added that the density of the application was appropriate to an urban development and that 313 car parking spaces was substantial.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/502912/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to fine-tuning the layout so points of detail raised by KCC Highways & Transportation could be fully incorporated into the final scheme and to conditions (1) to (30) in the report; the three additional conditions in the tabled update and to a Section 106 Agreement based on the amended heads of terms set out in the tabled update, with authority to negotiate amendments as required, and to agree amended details in respect of play equipment.

 

2.13  REFERENCE NO -  15/503342/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
ADDRESS 16 Stiles Close Minster-on-sea Kent ME12 2TQ
WARDSheppey Central	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Minster On Sea	APPLICANT Mr D Price AGENT Oast Architecture

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that Minster Parish Council re-iterated their objections regarding the lack of off-street parking, and that incomplete information had been provided for local residents.  Four additional objections had been received, with the following comments:  the amended description was misleading, the ground floor garage was not referred to, and the plans did not show the provision of the three off-street parking spaces.

 

Mr Chisholm, an objector, spoke against the application.

 

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for approval and this was seconded.

 

Councillor Tina Booth moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow re-consultation on the amended plans.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

 

Councillor James Hunt moved a motion for a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Lesley Ingham.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/503342/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

 

PART 3 – Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

 

3.1 REFERENCE NO -  15/509343/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Single storey side extension with velux windows and new rear dormer with Juliette balcony.
ADDRESS 75 The Street Newnham Kent ME9 0LW
WARD East Downs Ward	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Newnham	APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Lowe AGENT CJS Design Services

 

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

 

The Ward Member spoke against the application.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/509343/FULL be refused for the reasons stated in the Committee report.  

 

3.2  REFERENCE NO -  15/510115/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Retrospective application for garage.
ADDRESS Roseann Saxon Avenue Minster-on-sea Kent ME12 2RP
WARD Minster Cliffs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Minster On Sea	APPLICANT Mr David Gray AGENT

 

Julie Gray, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

There were discussions both in favour and against the application, including that the garage was not over-intensive and that it did have an impact on the neighbouring property’s window.

 

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that if the application was refused, the Enforcement Notice still stood.

 

Resolved:  That application 15/510115/FULL be refused for the reasons stated in the Committee report.  

 

PART 5 - Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

 

·                    Item 5.1 – 2 Ruins Barn Road, Tunstall

 

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE QUASHED AND PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED.

 

PLANNING APPEAL ALLOWED.

 

·                    Item 5.2 – 164 High Street, Milton Regis

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·                    Item 5.3 –  32 Holmside Avenue

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·                    Item 5.4 – The Laurels, New Orchard Farm, Upper Rodmersham

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

·                    Item 5.5 – 13 Briton Road, Faversham

 

APPEAL DISMISSED