To consider the following application:

16/506946/FULL Bell House, Bell Road, Sittingbourne

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that this application will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 12 September 2018.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting.

The Planning drew attention to the tabled update, which had previously been emailed to Members, and noted that the Council’s Strategic Housing and Health Manager was happy to accept all 12 units as affordable and considered the tenure split to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr Tim Gibson, objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Jason Chandler, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised points which included: the height of the proposed buildings was ‘hideous’ and unacceptable; the offer of 7% affordable housing was very disappointing; the medical centre proposed made no sense; the proposed development would overlook gardens and properties in Trotts Hall Gardens, this was not fair; just building was not regeneration; was out-of-keeping with the area and buildings including St Michaels Church and the cinema building; would have a detrimental impact on the local area and make adjacent properties including Swale House less desirable to sell; did want the site to be improved but with a sensible proposal; and concerns about lack of parking.

Members considered the application and raised comments and queries which included; thanked officers for the report; how detrimental to the scheme was it if the medical centre was not provided?; what parking allocation was there for the medical centre?; needed to explain the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) objection to scheme?; bizarre comments from Natural England (NE); what would be the implications on UK Power Network if the application was approved?; concerns about the closeness of the development to a Conservation Area and the impact it would have on it; disagreed with the comment in page 8.19 of the Committee report that it would have a ‘less than substantial’ impact on the designated heritage asset, as this would be substantial; could not support with so few parking spaces; considered it a good thing that the medical centre had been provided, as often we heard complaints that there were not enough medical centres provided with large developments; the height of the buildings proposed was not much more than that already at the site; would not have a major impact on the area; sheer height was unacceptable; parking unacceptable; overlooking into Trotts Hall Gardens unacceptable; medical centre was not viable; height and mass too great for the area; not our fault if the medical centre was not viable; a five storey building would be acceptable and much more manageable; more parking spaces could be provided if the 165 cycle spaces were not all required, and the number of refuse and recycling bins was reduced; Members needed to consider whether they wanted building over Grade 1 farmland or higher density building in urban areas; did not think we would be able to support refusal on appeal; overlooking would be a strong material reason to refuse the application; the developer would find a tenant for the medical centre if the right reasons for them to come in were offered; query the viability of the developer; the site needed to be developed; scheme was acceptable and would offer a varied mix of buildings in the area; shame no parking could be provided under the buildings; and the site offered good access to the town centre and transport links.

The Planner drew attention to paragraph 5.12 on page 6 of the Committee report which stated that the use of the unit as a medical centre was acceptable, and the application could not be refused on the grounds that no end user had yet been secured.  He also commented that as the NHS would not be taking on this facility it would not prejudice existing residents needing to access NHS facilities if it did not come forward.  With regard to parking provision for the medical centre, the Planning Officer reported that bays for Bell House, vacant bays for the development, on-street parking and existing car parks in the area, would provide parking.

In response to queries, the Planner advised that the height of Block 2 was 21 metres to the top of the seventh floor.  The distance from Bell House to the closest gardens of Trotts Hall Gardens was 13 metres.  The closest  elevation of Block 2 was 43 metres from the ear of the properties in Trotts Hall Gardens facing this elevation; the concerns from the MOJ were in relation to sensitivity in respect of their probation services and overlooking issues which already occurred at the site.  The comments from NE were mitigated by the SAMMS payment.  The UK Power Networks comments were not a material planning consideration.  In response to queries the Planner referred to landscaped areas within the site and that the Design Panel Review had taken place at the pre-application stage.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the motion to approve the application as follows:

For: Councillors Cameron Beart, Andy Booth, Mike Dendor, Nicholas Hampshire, James Hunt, Bowles, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern and Roger Clark (9).

Against: Councillors Mike Baldock, Bobbin, Richard Darby, James Hall, Roger Truelove, Mike Henderson and Ghlin Whelan (7).

Abstain: 0.

Resolved:  That application 16/506946/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (34) in the report, and the signing of an appropriately worded Section 106 Agreement.