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 15 August 2018.

Tabled Papers for the Deferred Item and Items 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 were published on Friday 10 August 2018.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Senior Planner advised that Hartlip Parish Council were unable to send a speaker but maintained their objection to the scheme.  He added that the stables were 15m east and the manure stable east, not north as stated in the report at 2.02 on page 45 of the Agenda. 

The Senior Planner drew Members’ attention that the new brick walls and gates that had recently been erected at the site were not part of this application, were unacceptable and negotiations for their removal were on-going.

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

A Member requested that the planning history stated on reports be in date order, most recent first.  In response to a question from a Member on the use of the car park for a private livery, the Senior Planner highlighted condition (6) and advised an amended drawing would be sought.

Resolved:  That application 17/500807/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report and amended drawings restricting the car park to a private livery use only.

Mr Aaron Holmes, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Senior Planner advised Members that the applicant had offered to convert the rest of his garden to provide parking.  A Member requested that this suggestion be included in the decision notice.

Resolved:  That application 18/502420/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (2) in the report.

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

Resolved:  That Prior Approval 18/501918/AGRREQ be granted.

Richard Higgins, an objector, spoke against the application.

John Collins, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Major Projects Officer referred to the tabled update.  He then highlighted condition (12) in the report and stated that Southern Water had advised that additional infrastructure was not required, so the planning condition would be amended to a standard condition in respect of foul and surface water drainage.

A Member raised concerns of parking obstruction and flooding in the area, and said that drains were unable to cope with the current capacity.  He also said that highway improvements were necessary, and suggested a site visit was needed.  Another Member said that issues could be overcome and it was a good scheme.

The Chairman moved a motion for a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Darby.

On being put to the vote the motion for a site meeting was won.

Resolved:  That application 18/50283/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

Parish Councillor Graham Herbert, representing Bobbing Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Lavinia Jarrett, the agent, spoke in support of the application

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

The Major Projects Officer referred to the tabled update and said that KCC Highways had no objection to the installation of a footpath on one side of the road.  He added that the Greenspaces Officer had no objection, and accepted that a developer contribution would not be secured in this instance.

A visiting Member, who sat on Bobbing Parish Council, spoke against the application, in his capacity as Ward Member.  He gave his support of Demelza Hospice Care and highlighted the site’s tranquillity, but said that the proposal would have a negative impact. The visiting Member said that there was no economic benefit to the area, had concerns for additional, future development on the site and urged Members not to ignore the Local Plan.

The Major Projects Officer advised that it was unusual to deviate from the Local Plan, but the application made a specific and detailed case and approval of the application would not undermine it.  He added that additional housing in the future would not be appropriate on the site, whilst noting that every planning application was assessed on its particular merits.

In the debate that followed, Members made comments which included the following:

·         The layout of the development was good and the properties were of a high standard and good design, incorporating the Building for Life standard;

·         the development was well-planned with properties situated in lower parts of the site;

·         could not refuse on Highway grounds as KCC Highways and Transportation had not objected;

·         concerns that approving the development would set a precedent and encourage other developers to apply on sites not allocated in the Local Plan;

·         there was no good reason to go against the Local Plan;

·         critical of developers using Demelza for their own profit;

·         the highway improvements were a big benefit;

·         windfall sites should be considered; and

·         the improvements balanced the negative aspects of the proposal.

In response to a question from a Member, the Principal Transport and Development Planner said there were significant improvements to the highway as part of the proposal.

Resolved:  That application 18/500258/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (22) in the report, and the signing of a suitably-worded Section 106 Agreement.

The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to Appendix A, which was tabled.  He explained the history of the site, clarified the site plan and explained that the current application was made by a different applicant.  The Area Planning Officer advised that the Unilateral Undertaking had not been finalised.

Parish Councillor Jeff Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Karen Banks, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

In response to a question on the management of the land ‘in perpetuity’, the Area Planning officer explained that the wording in the Unilateral Undertaking was exactly the same as that already approved, but negotiations were still on-going with Legal Services to tighten up the wording further for more commitment.  The Lawyer (Planning) confirmed that there were a few concerns, but the wording in the Unilateral Undertaking would be strengthened further.

Members made points including:

·         This scheme was a vast improvement on the previous scheme;

·         the delineation for gardens should be included in the plan;

·         why had the application been brought back to Planning Committee again? and

·         concerns over lack of control, so welcomed further strengthening of the Unilateral Undertaking.

A Member highlighted a typing error at paragraph 4.2.7 which should have read…. consent not be unreasonably withheld…. 

The Lawyer (Planning) advised there was a lot of ongoing work on the Unilateral Undertaking and reminded Members that the Head of Legal Services had delegated authority.

The Area Planning Officer advised Members that the restoration scheme now covered approximately 98% of the site and that Swale Borough Council had never been offered the freehold of the site.

The Chairman advised that the application had been brought back to the Planning Committee for consideration as it was called in by Dunkirk Parish Council.

Resolved:  That application 18/502208/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (20) in the report and the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking to secure cessation of all future quarrying, restoration of the site and long-term management of adjacent woodland.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Eve Fitchett, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planner advised that a letter of support had been received from a local estate agent.  He referred to the photograph of a similar property but explained that, unlike this application, the fence was behind a mature hedge.

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

A visiting Member spoke in support of the application and advised that the applicants would plant trees and shrubs in front of the wall and move it back from the boundary as other properties had.  He added that Iwade Parish Council had no objection.

In response to a question, the Principal Transport and Development Planner advised that he was not familiar with the site and KCC Highways and Transportation had not commented on the application as the development was non-protocol.  The Senior Planner reminded Members that the reason for refusal was on visual amenity, not highway grounds.

In the discussion that followed, the Chairman moved a motion for a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

On being put to the vote the motion for a site meeting was won.

Resolved:  That application 18/50643/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

Mark Raggett, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Member advised that Minster Parish Council had withdrawn their support of the application.

In response to a question from a Member on whether any issues could be overcome, the Senior Planner advised that the proposed dwelling would cause overlooking issues due to the constrained site layout and distance between properties.

Resolved:  That application 18/502184/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 At The Tracies, Newington

            COMMITTEE REFUSAL

            APPEAL ALLOWED – COSTS REFUSED

·         Item 5.2 – Graces Place, Homestall Road, Doddington

            COMMITTEE REFUSAL

            ENFORCEMENT AND PLANNING APPEALS ALLOWED

·         Item 5.3 – 84 Scarborough Drive, Minster

            AGAINST OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

            APPEAL ALLOWED – COSTS REFUSED