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 6 April 2016.

Tabled Paper for item 3.1 added 14 April 2016.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Parish Councillor Tutt, 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 had some concerns with the application.  He referred to the neighbouring property where a similar application was won on appeal and stated there was not a planning reason to refuse this application.

Discussion ensued on the parking to the front of the property and the loss of the garage space to residential use.

Resolved:  That application 15/508571/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

Members were advised that the Ward above needed to be amended to read ‘Sheppey East’.

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

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

Resolved:  That application 15/501134/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.

Resolved:  That application 15/510368/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that amended plans had been received which shifted the proposed dwelling to the side, abutting no. 68 Park Drive, and this increased parking on the site.  The new plans would be consulted upon and the Area Planning Officer sought delegated authority to approve the application, subject to no fresh planning issues being raised.

Parish Councillor Lee Burgess, representing Tunstall Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr John Lawrence, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Diddams, 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 that although the size of the dwelling had been reduced, the objections raised on page 22 of the report still stood.  The Ward Member considered it had been ‘shoe-horned’ into the site and was very close to existing boundaries.  He raised road safety issues, particularly access for emergency services and suggested a Planning Working Group visited the site.

The Chairman reminded Members that the previous application had been refused because of its scale and bulk, Members had not considered there was an access issue.

Members raised the following points:  this was a large garden, the proposed dwelling was not ‘shoe-horned in’; it will not affect the cul-de-sac; the new dwelling was further to the front of the cul-de-sac so was more imposing; there was no guarantee that the family link to the main house and the new one would continue; this could set a precedent with adjoining properties wishing to do similar; one more access onto the cul-de-sac was not an issue; do not like ‘garden-grabbing’; loss of openness to gardens in Park Drive; and loss of privacy.

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that there were two parking spaces and a turning area on the site.  He stated that similar applications from adjoining properties could not be supported using the proposed access might not be acceptable but would have to be considered on their own merits.  He further advised that setting a precedent here was not a material consideration.

Resolved:  That application 15/507311/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report and to no fresh material considerations being raised following consultation on the amended plans.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered it was a repeat of a previous application that was refused.  He explained that it was an intensively developed area with terraced housing, with access and parking issues.

Members raised the following points:  even though the bulk had been reduced, there was still the same amount of bedrooms as the previous application, so the parking problems would be the same; over-intensification; out-of-keeping with the streetscene; needed to be more visually appealing; fewer properties would be better; agreed with the objections raised by local residents on page 31 of the report; this was better than the previous application and this type of housing was needed in the Borough.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the previous application had been refused on grounds of the impact on residential amenity.  He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 9.09 in the report which set out parking provision of one car park space per unit which was in accordance with Kent County Council (KCC) Highway & Transportation standards.  This meant it would be difficult to defend on appeal on grounds relating  to lack of parking provision.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the motion and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Tina Booth, Roger Clark, Sue Gent, James Hunt, Lesley Ingham, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern and Ben Stokes.

Against:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Bobbin, Richard Darby, Nicholas Hampshire, Mark Ellen, Paul Fleming, Mike Henderson and Prescott.

The motion to approve the application was won.

Resolved:  That application 15/509126/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that Natural England had no objection to the application.

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

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that KCC Highways and Transportation had commented on this application as access to the site was onto a classified road.

A Member considered the application to be over-intensification of the site.

Councillor Tina Booth moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 15/507246/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

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

The Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

Resolved:  That application 15/510273/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report.

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

The Planner reminded Members that the application sought delegation for officers to enter into a Section 106 agreement.

A Ward Member considered the planning application should have included affordable homes and suggested traffic calming measures be put in place to address speeding issues.

Another Ward Member was disappointed with the loss of the affordable homes aspect; he considered Maidstone Road not to be a quiet road with speeds up to the national limit; he was concerned that a residential scheme was proposed on this road; he suggested double yellow lines at the junction to improve visibility; and would liked to see a condition to reduce the speed limit to 40mph.

The Area Planning Officer explained that there could not be a condition to install double yellow lines on the junction or to reduce the speed limit.  He suggested that Ward Members brought this to the attention of the Swale Joint Transportation Board and Kent County Council where these could be considered.

In response to a question, the Planner confirmed that condition (18) in the report addressed both hard and soft landscaping.

Officers suggested that strong wording could be included within the Section 106 Agreement, with additional input from Ward Members to investigate the speed limit, and parking restrictions at the egress of the site.

Resolved:  That application 15/507804/FULL be delegated to officers to enter into a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement, that the provision of double yellow lines be raised with the Swale Joint Transportation Board and that the reduction in speed limit be raised with Kent County Council.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Planner drew Members’ attention to the tabled letter, against the application, from Ospringe Parish Council, and three further emails of objection from local residents.

Mrs Annie Gibbs, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

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

The Ward Member spoke against the application and stated that it should not be approved as the site was within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In response to a question, the Planning Lawyer (Locum) advised that the relevant legislation required that the interests of children were paramount.  He further advised that Members needed to consider whether their decision would be harmful to children and then to make a decision which was proportional and justified in the circumstances.

Members raised the following points:  maybe consider a temporary permission; as noted on page 78 of the report, there were many reasons for refusing the application; the site was quite prominent; corner entrance and exit was ‘lethal’; traffic drove at speed along the road; should consider the health of the child on the site; and KCC Highways and Transportation objected to the application.

In response to a question, the Planner explained that there was an appeal lodged against an Enforcement Notice on the site.  A Member suggested deferring the application until the outcome of the appeal.  The Area Planning Officer advised against this as the applicant could appeal again on the application if it was refused subsequent to the enforcement appeal being decided.

Resolved:  That application 15/510499/FULL 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 – Land adjacent to Laburnum Villa, Parsonage Chase, Minster

APPEAL ALLOWED

·                    Item 5.2 – Land adjacent to Rushett Bungalow, Rushett Lane, Norton

APPEAL ALLOWED

·                    Item 5.3 – Land adjoining slip road at Thanet Way off High Street Road, Hernhill

APPEAL DISMISSED AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD

APPLICATION FOR COSTS REFUSED

·                    Item 5.4 – 11 Hustlings Drive, Eastchurch

PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEALS ALLOWED

APPLICATION FOR COSTS REFUSED