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 20 July 2016.

Tabled paper for Item 2.10 15/510589OUT Land north of Swale Way, Sittingbourne uploaded Monday 25 July 2016.

Tabled paper for Item 2.9 15/505213/FULL land adjacent to Thanet Way, Highstreet Road, Hernhill, ME13 9EN uploaded Friday 30 September 2016.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

A Member queried why the application had been brought to Committee when Ospringe Parish Council had raised concern but not formally objected to the application.  The Area Planning Officer felt that technically they had raised objection following their concerns about how it would affect the neighbouring property.

Resolved:  That application 16/503730/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

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

In response to a query from a Ward Member, the Area Planning Officer reported that he was unsure why Faversham Town Council had objected to the proposal given that it was smaller than the previous application which they had not objected to.

Resolved:  That application 16/501964/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that amended drawings were sought from the applicant to ensure that the rear corner of the extension did not overhang the boundary.

Cassandra Crayford, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

In response to a query from a Ward Member, the Area Planning Officer advised that whilst the scheme was slightly altered from the previously approved scheme reference SW/11/1037, it was still consistent with the Council’s Conservation Area policies.  He stated that a condition requiring obscure glazing in the bathroom could be added if requested by Members.  The Area Planning Officer noted that no objections had been received from residents in Chart Close, Faversham and that this was not a large extension.

A Member noted that the Ward Member who had called-in the application was not present and had sent no observations on the application.  It was reported that the Member was at another meeting and had called-in the application in order for local residents to speak to the Committee. 

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer stated that there would be approximately a 35% increase in floorspace.

Members considered the application, and raised points which included: even with obscure glazed windows the overlooking would still be unacceptable; what was the point of having Conservation Areas if we are not going to maintain them?; the streetscene would be significantly altered; should refuse as does not comply with the 21 metre rule and therefore does not meet our standards; obscure glazed windows can be opened; unacceptable development; and suggested adding conditions to require that both the bathroom and landing windows were obscure glazed.

The Design and Conservation Manager reported that overlooking concerns could be addressed by obscure glazing.  He noted that whilst the property was in a Conservation Area, it was not listed and the main part of the extension was to the rear of the property so would not have a detrimental impact on the streetscene.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the 21 metre rule did not apply to bathrooms and it was important to consider the style of this modern building. 

A Ward Member stated that Faversham Town Council’s views were made following advice from their planning consultants.

Resolved:  That application 16/502779/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report and the receipt of amended drawings to ensure that the rear corner of the extension does not overhang the boundary.

The Planning Officer reported that Ospringe Parish Council had confirmed that although the scheme had been amended, their original comments still stand.

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

Mrs Bridge, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

Resolved:  That application 16/503948/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Area Planning Officer reported that a plan had been received in respect of the proposed boundary treatment.  There would be a 6ft fence and a one metre high wall at the front of the house, and these would be level with the existing building line.

Resolved:  That application 16/501475/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report and as per the amended plan relating to the proposed boundary treatment.

The Area Planning Officer reported that three further objections had been received raising the following points: only noise from the extractor fan had been assessed by Environmental Health (although comments were made regarding the opening hours and a condition imposed accordingly); customers, deliveries, music and communication could also raise noise concerns; noise and smells would be unacceptable; anti-social behaviour and litter; use would cause an increase in vehicles/parking problems; and local plan policies from Woking Borough Council relating to takeways.

In response to these concerns, the Area Planning Officer stated that this was a town centre location and the premises had an extant use as a drinking establishment.  He considered that the proposal would not generate noise concerns over and above the extant use and was acceptable in this regard.  A relevant condition was recommended in relation to opening hours which would, mitigate against any unacceptable impacts.  Anti-Social behaviour was dealt with in the Committee Report, and he did not consider the use would generate more anti-social behaviour than a public house.  There were litter bins within close proximity and also a condition relating to on-site refuse storage.

The Area Planning Officer stated that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had been consulted and they considered that the use was unlikely to generate additional traffic movements, especially when compared against the site’s extant use.  There were also on-street parking spaces with restrictions.  Woking Borough Council’s local plan policies were clearly not relevant here.

The Area Planning Officer reported that he had sought clarification from Environmental Health regarding the extraction system proposed, as he had concerns regarding its height and location, relative to the adjacent flat.  Having reconsidered the proposal, they had advised that the height of the flue was not acceptable and commented as follows: “Whilst it looks like the applicants have considered the noise element of nuisance from the extraction system, the potential of odour has not been adequately addressed, the flue terminates at a low level and is likely to impact on the neighbouring residential flats and the residential accommodation above the proposed takeaway.  We would recommend that they consider a system where the flue terminates higher and/or they include equipment designed to mitigate any odour issues’.

The Area Planning Officer stated that as he had only, that day, received these comments, he had not had the opportunity to raise it with the applicants or their agent.  The Area Planning Officer was of the opinion that there should be an acceptable alternative to that shown on the drawings, and sought delegation to approve the application, subject to the receipt of suitably amended drawings, no objection from Environmental Health, and to further public consultation, and no fresh issues being raised.

Mr Paul Fox, an objector, spoke against the application.

Michelle Allison, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member noted the prominent location of the property in Sheerness High Street and welcomed it being brought back into use but was unsure that a take-away was the correct use.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: the building was an eyesore; not for other business owners to suggest conditions for another business; welcome the property being brought back into use; Albion car park was close by; not happy with the wording used in paragraph 6.03 of the Committee report; concern that if the flue was raised it could bring odours closer to adjacent bedrooms; need to consider the health implications another take-away would have on the local community, particularly as Sheerness was the most deprived area in Swale; proposed use was preferable over the current boarded-up building; there was technology available to reduce noise and odours; the Council should ensure that it had a policy within its Local Plan restricting the number of take-aways in a particular area on health grounds; and the odour issue needs to be properly addressed.

In response to queries from Members, the Area Planning Officer reported that he understood concerns with regard to health, but as the Council did not currently have a policy restricting A5 use within its Local Plan, it would not be possible to support refusal on those grounds at appeal.  He further advised that conditions could not be imposed requiring the business to remain open.  The Area Planning Officer reported that the issue of litter was addressed in the Committee report but Members could require a condition be imposed requiring an additional litter bin or a contribution for one.  However, it would not be possible to ask for a contribution for street cleaning.  With regard to marketing the property as a Public House, the Area Planning Officer drew attention to paragraph 8.01 on page 27 of the Committee report.  He stated that officers had not investigated this further as they considered the loss of the public house would not cause significant harm to the local community. 

Councillor Baldock requested that the proposed alterations to the flue be delegated to officers to approve in conjunction with the Ward Members and neighbour.  The Area Planning Officer advised that whilst they could delegate to the Ward Members, it would not be possible to delegate authority to the neighbour as he had a significant interest in the application, however they would be consulted on any amended extraction details. The Area Planning Officer reported that officers would ensure that appropriate conditions were imposed to ensure suitable ducting and extraction was provided and maintained and retained as per any approved specifications.

Resolved:  That application 15/503652/FULL be delegated to officers in conjunction with Ward Members to approve subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report, the receipt of suitably amended drawings, no objection from Environmental Health, and to further public consultation, with no fresh issues being raised, and to an appropriate condition relating to construction, maintenance and retention of any approved system.

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

A Ward Member stated that he had called-in the application as he had concerns about some of the previous planning applications at the site.  He questioned the need for and siting of the application which was visible in the Conservation Area.  The Member requested that condition (1) be approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Ward Members.  He considered that condition (4) needed to be worded so that it was clear that local residents and Borden Parish Council would be consulted on the proposed lighting details.

The Area Planning Officer stated that the wording for condition (4) could be amended to make it clear that no artificial lighting was to be provided at the manege.  The Ward Member agreed to this amendment.

There was some discussion about the reasons for the application being called-in by the Ward Member.  The Chairman reported that a letter would be sent to all Members advising that they were required to provide reasons for calling-in a planning application. 

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer advised that condition (2) could be amended to include that any hedging be planted between November and March.

Resolved:  That application 15/502646/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report, and that conditions (1), (2) and (4) be amended as minuted.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the Environmental Protection Team Leader raised no objection subject to the amendment of condition (3) in order to ensure that it was effective in minimising noise and vibration from plant needed in association with the development.

The Major Projects Officer further reported that the KCC Public Rights of Way Officer had now commented and raised no objection, noting that ‘There was unlikely to be a significant impact on the path and therefore I raise no objections to the application’.

The Major Projects Officer advised that one further letter of objection had been received which he outlined for Members. 

The Major Projects Officer stated that delegation was sought to approve the application, subject to conditions as set out in the report, the amendment to condition (2) to include colour of materials to be used, the amendment to condition (3) as requested by Environmental Protection, and the implementation of a Construction Management Plan.

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

Ward Members spoke in support of the application.

Some Members felt that the chilling and storage of fruit should be limited to that grown at the farm, not the County of Kent as per condition (14).  The Major Projects Officer stated that this was a standard condition and allowed the applicant some flexibility.

Councillor Mike Henderson proposed an amendment to condition (10) to include the standard wording in respect of native species.  This was agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 16/501300/FULL be delegated to officers approve subject to conditions (1) to (14) in the report, the amendment to condition (2) to include details of the colour of the materials to be used, amendment to condition (3) as requested by Environmental Protection Team Leader, amendment to condition (10) to include the standard wording in respect of native species, and an extra condition to require the implementation of a Construction Management Plan.

At the start of the meeting the Chairman proposed that this item be deferred to allow officers to prepare a new report incorporating the considerable officer update that had been tabled.  This was seconded and agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 15/505213/FULL be deferred to allow officers to prepare a new report for a later meeting to incorporate the information in the extensive officer update. 

The Major Projects Officer outlined the application and drew attention to his tabled update.  He apologised for the lateness of this information.  The update included information from: KCC Highways and Transportation; the Conservation Officer; Economy and Community Services Manager; and details of an amended recommendation.

Mr Richard Lewis, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included: many people use the area for dog walking; paragraph 7.4 on page 76 of the report states ‘it will ultimately be part of a through road’, there are no guarantees that the through road (Northern Relief Road (NRR)) will happen, so premature to consider application; would be detrimental to residents; the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) comments on page 72 of the Committee report are not expressed in plain English; there is no route for the NRR and KCC have not earmarked any funding for it; employment essential part of the Council’s Local Plan since 2012 and jobs are needed in Sittingbourne to ensure a balanced community; should not be preferred route of HGVs so NRR irrelevant in this case; and application may help the Council to get funding for NNR.

The Major Projects Officer stated that under the previous application, approximately 700 – 1000 jobs would be created.  This application proposed a further 8% increase in floorspace so even more jobs could be created.  He also advised that HSE raised no objection to the application.

Resolved:  That application 15/510589/FULL be delegated to the Head of Planning to approve subject to the completion of the Deed of Variation of the Section 106 Agreement and such amendments to the conditions as may be required to address the above and to make any other amendments that may be necessary.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the application and the progress made since the February 2016 meeting in particular the traffic lights at the Swanstree Avenue junction and access to the A2 Fox Hill, Bapchild.

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

The Ward Member raised points which included: thought the review of affordable housing was agreed as 3 years; welcomed the update in respect of Swanstree Avenue; the badgers were a long-term issue and concerned that these may have to be moved to another area; important to have reasonable access to a school; and countryside gap must be protected as this cannot be re-located. 

The Area Planning Officer advised that the review of affordable housing, would be after three years as stated in bullet point one of the Section 106 Agreement on page 89 of the Committee report. The Area Planning Officer reported that with regard to the badger setts, condition (11) b) in the Committee report allowed for the badger sett to be built around ensuring that if they do not have to be moved then they will not be.  He stated that the applicants had been in considerable negotiations with the school. 

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to bullet point 11 of the Section 106 Agreement set out on page 89 of the Committee report.  He stated that he had changed the wording to ‘… school parking area is not implemented’, rather than ‘approved’ as in the minutes from the February 2016 meeting.  Members welcomed this amendment.

Members considered the application and raised comments which included: the sequence of lights at Swanstree Avenue, Sittingbourne worked ok until they were modified; welcome implementation of layby; no shopping facilities should mean no houses as this has been an issue at other developments such as Thistle Hilll, Minster; and congratulate officers on the report which was a good example of Councillors and officers working together.

Resolved:  That application 14/501588/OUT be approved subject to conditions (1) to (31) in the report, and the inclusion of an obligation to fund an appropriate traffic order to the Section 106 Agreement as already authorised.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Mr Agley, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  He raised points which included: supported by local residents and Upchurch Parish Council; has been market tested and is not viable for business use; office block in Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch had been redundant for fourteen years; other industrial sites in the area have been given permission for houses; to reduce overlooking could require fixed and obscure glazed windows; there were no bats or owls at the site but if there were conditions could be imposed; and suggested two parking spaces for each property.

The Area Planning Officer reported that bat surveys could not be conditioned and had to be dealt with prior to the determination of the application.  

Members considered the application and raised points which included: there were already a number of industrial units in the area so should approve; Otterham Quay Lane was a unique feature in the area; delegate bats and owls survey; the existing windows on the boundary was a genuine reason for refusal; could not have fixed windows this would be a health and safety issue; four valid reasons have been given for refusing the application; no over-riding reason to refuse; application should be delegated to officers to approve subject to a Phase 1 Ecological Survey being undertaken; and should look kindly on such applications as it was close to residential amenities.

In response to queries, the Area Planning Officer reported that the Ecological Survey was not specific to bats.  Reason for refusal (1) was the principal reason for refusal and reasons (2), (3) and (4) could be addressed prior to the application being determined, should Members resolve to approve the scheme. 

Resolved:  That application 15/510589/OUT be refused for the reasons outlined in the Committee report.

PART 5

• Item 5.1 – Hop Pickers Cottages East, Hogbens Hil, Selling

APPEAL DISMISSED AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD

• Item 5.2 – Chapel Plantation, Dargate Road, Dargate

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.3 – 129 Grovehurst Road, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.4 – Woodsend Farm, South Street, Boughton

APPEAL ALLOWED