To consider the attached report (Parts 1, 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 25 April 2018.

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

At the meeting on 29 March 2018, these applications were approved, but the resolution had included reference to the inclusion of the 90:10 split of affordable housing.  The Development Manager explained that these applications had been referred back to the Planning Committee, so that Members could reach a resolution which did not refer to the provision of affordable housing, as there was no affordable housing provided by the applications, in line with Local Plan policy.

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

Resolved:  That application 16/506181/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (37) in the report, and the signing of a legal agreement to secure the financial contributions as set out in Paragraph 1.04 of the report to Planning Committee on 29 March 2018.

Resolved:  That application 16/506182/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Rebecca Cuthbertson, an objector, spoke against the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application and explained that there was local opposition, and the application was similar to the previous one which had been refused.  He considered ‘back garden’ development to be a sensitive issue and that the development would look out of place, and have an adverse effect on the environment, and he also raised issues with access to the development.

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

Members raised points which included:  this was an intrusion on the surrounding properties; due to the access to the rear, the annex could be converted into a separate dwelling; it was harmful to residential amenity; it was not in-keeping with the area; this seemed larger than the garage already there; this was ‘garden-grabbing’; it was out-of-character; harmful to visual amenity; the changes to this application were not significant; this was excessive development and looked bigger than the main property.

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that the footprint of the house was 7.5metres x 6.7metres, and the annex was 6.8metres x 10.4metres.  He explained that the access was already there, to the garages, and he considered condition (4) in the report prevented the proposed property being used as a separate dwelling to the main house.

A Member considered it was the depth and height of the proposed annex, in comparison to the garage already there that was the issue, not the width.  In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that the height of the garage was 3.4 metres, and the height of the proposed annex was 3.9 metres.

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

Councillor Cameron Beart moved a motion to refuse the application on the grounds that it was undesirable (backland development), prominent and out-of-character.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum: that the development would damage the visual amenity of nearby properties.  The proposer was happy with the addendum.  Following further discussion, the resolution below was agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 18/500656/FULL be refused on the grounds that its location, combined with its scale, harms the character and visual amenity of the area.

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to the tabled paper from an objector.

Parish Councillor William Harbour, representing Sheldwich, Badlesmere and Leaveland Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

Mr Roger Scutt, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Mrs Alison Thompson, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

Both Ward Members supported the application which provided a small rural development of achievable, affordable housing and they welcomed the collaboration between the parishes and the relevant organisations.

Other Members raised points which included:  affordable housing was needed in villages for both the young and old; welcomed the addition of the proposed bungalows; fits well into the plot of land; concerned that Leaveland was not a village setting, and was not sustainable; it was on the A251, on a dangerous bend; and some residents had not been consulted.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the Section 106 agreement would ensure that the dwellings would be occupied by local people.  He referred to the development plans and explained that objections to the scheme had not come from the closest houses to the scheme.  He explained that the parish councils had researched various sites, and the site was on a bus route.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the tenure was on a rental basis, not shared ownership.

Resolved:  That application 17/506151/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report.

Julie Wratton, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Area Planning Officer reported that amended plans had been received showing the development as built, including the correctly shown dormer windows and rooflights, and the height of the two storey extension, built as 9.2 metres, rather than the 8.6 metres noted on page 155 of the report.  Two additional representations had been received and had raised points which included:  impact of the front and rear rooflights on privacy; boundary trees had been cut down; the property’s white walls ‘lit’ the property up; use of the verandah would increase noise issues; there was a shortage of smaller houses, and these could become out of reach for buyers.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the closing date for comments was in two weeks time, and suggested Members might want to visit the site, as much of the development had already been built.

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

A Ward Member explained that what had been built was different to the original plans, and the property continued to be modified.  He considered the development  to be extensive and over-intrusive.

Councillor Derek Conway moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.  A Member requested that the original plans be made available at the site meeting.

Resolved:  That application 17/504618/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Parish Councillor Matt Gale, representing Iwade Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Steven Naylor, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Keith Adams, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to the tabled appeal decision.

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

Members raised points which included:  agreed with the appeal decision as the property was in a prominent position on the curve of the road; this was better than having cars parked on the pavement; parking was an issue, saw no reason not to allow this; soft landscaping was an important part of this housing development; some landscaping remained and it was nicely laid out, and it looked like an ideal solution; and this was tandem parking originally, so there was already enough parking.

Councillor James Hall moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.  On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

Further comments from Members included:  with reference to the appeal decision in 2011, others had extended their driveways, so the streetscene had changed in any case; the hedgerow remained in place; and soft landscaping helped to soak-up rainwater, and reduced flooding.

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair reminded Members that this application had been refused by officers, the appeal authority upheld the officers’ decision and the Planning Committee had supported enforcement action to be undertaken. He also reminded the Committee of being consistent with their consideration and ultimate decision, and to demonstrate this clearly to anyone outside of the Planning Committee. 

On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was lost.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion to approve the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Ghlin Whelan.

Discussion ensued on reasons for approval.  Points that were made included:  there was not enough parking when the development was built; this was a change to the street scene; the Committee was going against its own policies; needed to deal with evolving situations; there should be a condition to ensure the planting that was there, remained; this did not cause demonstrable harm; the enforcement action on this was only last year; and needed consistency in decision-making.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion to approve the application on the grounds that it no longer had a detrimental effect, and it increased residential amenity because it provided more parking spaces.  This was seconded by Councillor Ghlin Whelan and on being put to the vote the motion was won.

Resolved:  That application 18/501027/FULL be approved, with a condition requiring landscaping to be retained permanently, and on the grounds that it no longer had a detrimental effect and it increased residential amenity because it provided more parking spaces. 

Rachel Dickson, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member supported the officer recommendation.

Resolved:  That application 18/500779/FULL be refused for the reason stated in the report.

PART 5

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

·                     Item 5.1 – Gate House, Uplees Road, Oare

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

Members welcomed the decision.