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 7 December 2016.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

The Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised the following concerns: highway safety; dispute paragraph 8.02 of the Committee report which stated the roundabout has clear visibility, it did not because of the vegetation on the roundabout; the roundabout was already dangerous and this will further impact on highway safety; the roundabout was not on a main road; and if approved should be on a temporary three year basis to enable highway safety to be monitored after that time.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: the Council should have a policy approach on this type of application; unacceptable to add to the ‘visual clutter’ on the roundabout; will make it more difficult for pedestrians to cross safely at this point; should refuse on highway safety grounds; should consider the concerns of local residents; did not seem sensible to have adverts on a roundabout; adverts make a roundabout look untidy; signs were so small how would motorists be able to view the signs in any case?; these signs were a distraction to drivers; and note that the sign will be lower than the foliage but consider the foliage to be a danger as it also obscured motorists’ view.

In response to concerns from a Member, the Planning Officer stated that KCC Highways and Transportation had not provided any evidence to support suggestions that the roundabout was dangerous. 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following amendment:  That the application be approved on a temporary three year basis and that highway safety at the site was reviewed after that time.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

On being put to the vote, the amended motion was carried.

Resolved:  That application 16/507069/ADV be delegated to officers to approve on a temporary three year basis to allow highway safety to be reviewed after that time and to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

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

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following amendment:  That the application be approved on a temporary three year basis and that highway safety at the site is reviewed after that time.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

There was some discussion about whether Borden Parish Council had been consulted and the Development Manager stated that for the avoidance of doubt the application could be approved subject to receipt of the views of Borden Parish Council. 

On being put to the vote, the amended motion was carried.

Councillor Mike Baldock requested that his vote against the application be noted.

Resolved:  That application 16/507097/ADV be delegated to officers to approve on a temporary three year basis to allow highway safety to be reviewed after that time and to conditions (1) to (6) in the report and the receipt of the views of Borden Parish Council.

The Planner reported that the drawings received were inaccurate, showing the building to have been ‘flipped’.  He stated that he had not yet received amended drawings, so would be seeking delegation to approve the application, subject to the receipt of corrected drawings.

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

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion: That the application be deferred pending receipt of amended drawings.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott. 

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

Resolved:  That application 16/507183/FULL be deferred pending receipt of amended drawings.

Mr Trevor Grain, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Chris Hall, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Members were given time to read the tabled statement from the applicant’s agent. 

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

The Senior Planner confirmed that the applicant had offered a further £20,000 contingency fund against the costs of setting-up a community shop, and this would be specified separately within the S106 Agreement.  He explained that the fund would provide a contingency for construction and related fees, and fit-out costs for the building.

Ward Members spoke against the application and raised points which included: land had been set-aside by the developer to provide a medical centre, public house, school but had not been provided; the local community must come first; strong objections to the proposal by local residents; lack of community cohesion; lack of facilities; and would add to current congestion and access problems.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: important for the local community to have a convenience store; should add a condition that a shop be provided within one year; should be no more development on the Great East Hall estate until the Northern Relief Road (NRR) was completed; local residents should have confidence that the Local Planning Authority ensured developers deliver what they have promised; the Council should have requested that the developer provide shops after so many houses had been built; need to look at the Eurolink V development and the impact it would have on the viability of a community centre; cannot build 700 properties and not have shops; should not accept the application without substantial changes; concern that the developer mis-led people when they were purchasing properties at the site; do not consider that residents should have to operate the shop; two or three shops would be a better proposal; the developer needs to consider the future viability of the site; as the estate increases there would  be a need for shops to be provided; the developer needs to ensure they leave space for retail; and should refuse as premature application and provision of a shop will become viable in the future.

In response to queries from Members about the development of Eurolink V and its impact on the viability of a neighbourhood centre, the Senior Planner drew attention to paragraph 9.06 of the Committee report which clarified the position.  He advised that the additional money that the developer was offering would not be available until the development commenced.

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

At this point the Head of Planning Services used his delegated powers listed under Part 3 (Responsibility for Council Functions) of the Council’s Constitution for the Planning Committee to ‘call-in’ the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

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

A Member considered that it was an inappropriate location for the proposal.

On being put to the vote, the motion to approve was carried.

Resolved:  That application 16/506068/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (17) in the report.

Mr Baker, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Peter Cook, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Planner clarified that officers were seeking delegation to approve the application, subject to outstanding representations to be received by 15 December 2016.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: consider that the proposed dwellings were ‘ugly’ and not-in-keeping with the area; needed to consider 21^st century building design and considered this was a ‘sound development’; concern about the loss of employment space; flat roofs were prone to leaking; good that a building that may have asbestos would be cleared from the site; and technology had improved the quality of flat roofs so they did not leak.

In response to a query from a Member about the loss of employment space, the Planner reported that he had spoken informally to the Council’s Economic Development Unit and they were happy with the proposal as it was not a major employment site and was within a predominantly residential area. 

In response to a query from a Member, the Planner was unable to confirm whether there was asbestos at the site.  He referred to condition (21) of the Committee report which included measures for the safe dismantling of asbestos.

On being put to the vote, the motion to approve was carried.

Resolved:  That application 16/505956/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (23) in the report and any outstanding representations (closing date 15 December 2016).

The Senior Planner reported that the applicant had provided further information to support their case that the scheme cannot comply with Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) standards, on the basis of the additional costs that would be incurred and the effect this would have on the viability of the scheme, and that it would also require renegotiation of contracts with the occupiers of the units, with risks of further delay and uncertainty.  The Senior Planner stated that on that basis, officers had taken the view that it would not be appropriate to impose a BREEAM condition on the development.

The Senior Planner reported that KCC Highways and Transportation had now confirmed formally that they were satisfied with the revised layout.  This included improvements to the route of the drive-thru facility and pedestrian routes within the site, as reported in paragraph 9.38 of the main report.

The Senior Planner drew Members’ attention to paragraph 9.32 of the Committee report.  He advised Members that the applicant had not made any further design changes to the scheme.

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

Members considered the application and raised the following points: needed to listen to the advice of the Council’s retail advisor who had stated that the development would have an impact on trading in the town centre; did not accord with Policy DM2 of the emerging “Bearing Fruits” Local Plan (with Proposed Main Modifications); the site will no longer be a retail park but a food outlet, should refuse the application; ‘appalled’ that the Scrutiny Committee had not been given the opportunity to consider the application; unhappy that the BREEAM standards would not be met;  good scheme which was wanted by local residents; Ward Members raised no objection; poor highway layout, and the left-turn only out of the site would cause problems suggest that a right-turn be included; officers should have delegated powers to discuss the design and layout issues outlined in paragraphs 9.32 and 9.34 of the Committee report; considered that the Council was being ‘press-ganged’ into approving the application; and the regeneration should be inspiring.

The Senior Planner advised Members that the further design changes sought by officers were limited to elevational treatment of the building, and not substantive layout and scale changes.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following amendment:  That officers be given delegated authority to discuss with the applicant the design of the scheme.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.  This was agreed by Members.

On being put to the vote, the amended motion was carried.

Resolved:  That application 16/505982/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (35) in the report and officers to discuss the design of the scheme with the applicant, and to completion of a legal agreement.

The Senior Planner reported that a consultation response had been received from the KCC Sustainable Drainage Team.  They raised no objection to the proposal subject to a planning condition requiring a sustainable surface water drainage scheme to be submitted and approved.  The Senior Planner stated that a sustainable drainage condition was recommended under condition (5) of the Committee report.

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

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

Resolved:  That application 16/506081/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (28) in the report and a legal agreement.

Mrs Nicola Woods-Thomas, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Development Manager reported that Minster Parish Council stated that it had been approached by several local residents concerned that access was a reserved matter.  He advised that the parish Council itself was disappointed that the application was reserved as it considered access an integral part of determining the application.

The Development Manager further reported that one letter of objection had been received from a local resident which was summarised as follows: it was hoped committee would take note of the large amount of objections received to the various applications on the site; proposal was out-of-keeping with the residential area; planning permission would increase the value of the land and the owner could then sell it; Care Quality Commission had only just upgraded the homes record which required improvement to good; wondered how well they would cope with 50 extra residents?; it was hoped Committee refuse permission and bring an end to the flood of applications made by the owners over recent years.

The Development Manager stated that this was an outline application with appearance, layout and scale to be considered now as noted in paragraph 2.01 of the Committee report and also that KCC Highways and Transportation raised no objection to the proposal on highway safety and convenience grounds, and under the previous almost identical application which included access as a matter to be determined, KCC Highways and Transportation raised no objection therefore it was apparent to officers that it was appropriate to deal with access as a subsequent reserved matter and not require details at outline stage. 

The Development Manager advised that in the emerging Local Plan, although the site fell outside the built-up area boundary, it was not designated as either ‘Proposed Local Green Space’ DM18, or ‘Coastal change Management Area’ DM23 and the red line was also inconsistent in that it included only half the existing car park. 

The Development Manager further advised that an additional condition be added to restrict the use of the development to that of Use Class C2.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: local residents raised good points but difficult to find reasons to refuse the application; Care Quality was not a planning consideration; this application was essentially approved three years ago so should approve again; the points that Minster Parish Council raised were not relevant; how can the application be approved without the access being considered; the layout did not give a lot of opportunity to access the previous site; and this type of accommodation was urgently needed in the area.

A Ward Member considered the application was overbearing and out-of-character with the area.

In response to a query from a Member, the Development Manager stated that emergency vehicles would be able to access the Council owned car park at the rear of the site to gain access to the application site.

Resolved:  That application 16/504551/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (17) in the report and to the imposition of a further condition restricting the use to Class C2.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

A Ward Member welcomed refusal of the application.

In response to queries from a Member, the Planning Officer reported that the Committee report clearly stated that the ‘benefits of the proposal are considered to be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harm caused.  He stated that the potential use of the site was not for discussion but it could be used as a garage or as a garden.

On being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was carried.

Resolved:  That application 16/504551/OUT be refused for the reason outlined in the report.

Mr Warner, an Objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: not-in-keeping; over-intensive; would have an over-bearing impact; and the site would be better suited to having bungalows; and Minster Parish Council have offered no reasons why they supported the application.

On being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was carried.

Resolved:  That application 16/506592/FULL be refused for the reason outlined in the report.

PART 5

• Item 5.1 – 43 Canute Road, Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.2 – Alpaca Farm, Yaugher Lane, Hartlip 

APPEAL DISMISSED