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 31 January 2018.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer sought delegated authority to amend condition (5) on page 27 of the report to read: ‘The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary or incidental to the residential use of the dwelling….’. 

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

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that an ‘ancillary use’ example was an annexe, and ‘incidental use’ examples included a home gym or a garage.  He stated that the additional wording to condition (5) allowed more flexibility for the use of the extension.

A Ward Member was disappointed that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee because Minster Parish Council objected to the officer recommendation, but there no representatives from the Parish Council at the meeting.  The Ward Member considered that although the proposed extension was quite close to the boundary, it sat quite well on the site, and would enhance it, and was an appropriate and good use of the space.  He welcomed the additional wording to condition (5).

Members raised points which included:  considered the Parish Council had asked questions about the application, rather than objected to it; concerned that condition (5) was not strong enough; not convinced that the new extension would not be used as a separate dwelling; there needed to be an internal connection; and the top window to the side of the proposed extension needed to be obscured glazing.

In response to questions, the Area Planning Officer advised that there was no internal connection between the existing and proposed building.  A further application would be required to change it to a separate dwelling and if it was used as a separate dwelling without a further application being submitted, enforcement action could be taken.   He further advised that a condition could be added to ensure the side first floor window was obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.7 metres above floor level.

Resolved:  That application 17/506378/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report, with the additional wording ‘or incidental’ being added to condition (5), as above and an additional condition to ensure the side window was obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.7 metres above floor level.

The Area Planning Officer reported that two further letters had been received from a local resident. Points that had been raised included:  the application would result in overcrowding and over-looking; disruption whilst the building work was carried out; the plot was not big enough for the proposal; access issues along Station Approach, especially for commuters; no room for scaffolding; this would deprive us of light; the proposed dwelling stood ‘too proud’; and discrepancies with the size of the plot and land ownership, particularly a small triangular section of land.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the site plan indicated did not exceed the dimension of the land registry plan, and a similar application was approved on this site in 2013.

Deborah Cook, representing Selling Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Claire Rarity-Squires, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

Councillor Bobbin, a Ward Member explained that the Sondes Arms was a community asset for Selling and the application would spoil that.  He moved a motion for a site meeting and this was seconded by Councillor Harrison.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the area outlined in red on the site plan was owned by the applicant.

Members requested that there be clear indication of where the proposed dwelling would sit on the site at the site meeting.  On being put to the vote, the motion for the site meeting was won.

Resolved:  That application 17/505865/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Simon Timms, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered it to be too large and its position in relation to the neighbouring property would have a detrimental impact.  He suggested that any development would have been better placed on the side of the existing property, rather than the rear.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that Minster Parish Council (the reason the application had been referred to Committee) had not given reasons why they supported the application.  He also clarified why one of the reasons for refusal was because of the adverse impact to the residential amenity of no. 45 Princes Avenue, and why there was a loss of amenity space to no. 47, when there was still some garden left to the side of the existing property.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the proposed extension would give rise to overshadowing and be oppressive to no. 45, and in terms of the loss of amenity space, there would not be much of a rear garden for no. 47, and with this loss of private space, there was potential for the addition of high fences or walls to the front of the property to compensate.  This would affect the visual amenity of the area.

Members raised points which included:  Minster Parish Council should have attended the meeting to state why they supported the application; not happy with the loss of the back garden, and the impact on neighbours; the pitched roof made it more overbearing; and it was a poorly designed extension.

Resolved:  That application 17/506506/FULL be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

PART 5

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

·                     Item 5.1 – 28 High Street, Queenborough

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                    Item 5.2 – 70 High Street, Bluetown

APPEAL DISMISSED

APPEAL AGAINST NON-DETERMINATION

·                    Item 5.3 –  31A St Georges Avenue, Sheerness

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                    Item 5.4 –  Land Rear of 148 High Street, Newington

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                    Item 5.5 –  Agricultural Barn, Foresters Farm, London Road, Dunkirk

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

            Members welcomed the good results of all these items.