To consider the attached report (Parts 2 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 12 September 2018.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended.

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to an error on page 102, paragraph 2.04 of the Committee report, which referred to there being four rooflights in the roof of the garage.  He stated that this was incorrect as there were no rooflights proposed.  The Area Planning Officer reported that a letter of objection had been received from the occupiers of the neighbouring property, which he summarised for Members.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, Upchurch Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Brian Evans, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included: concerned about the materials to be used and suggest a condition ensuring that the colour of the materials to be used matched those of the existing dwelling house; concerns about the amount of roof space; concerns about the height of the proposed building in a rural location; the building materials should be in-keeping with the rural location; would prefer to see wooden doors; should defer application until both the applicants and the Parish Council were happy with the proposals; it was a shame that the proposed development was only 50cm from neighbouring boundary fence as it would always cause problems between the two neighbours; the current structure was dangerous and should be demolished; the roof space had already been reduced; condition (2) could specify that the roof space was not allowed to be converted; and unreasonable to suggest using kent peg tiles; and cement roofing was not a bad choice but needed to ensure it was the right colour which could be achieved with the right conditions.

Following comments from the registered speaker about a previous application at the site, the Area Planning Officer referred to the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17 August 2017 which stated: The Area Planning Officer stated that he understood that at the site meeting Members queried whether the planning permission for an outbuilding in a similar position had been implemented.  He advised that the applicant had provided further details in the form of materials and builder’s receipts.  He advised members that it appeared likely to him that the permission has been implemented.’  The Area Planning Officer stated that the situation had not changed and that the minutes of that meeting had been agreed by Members.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion: that the application be referred back to the applicant in order that the space in the roof be reduced to 1500mm, and negotiate with officers to reduce the overall height of the building.  This was not seconded.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Planning Officer advised that the roof from eaves to ridge was 2.5 metres.  The PVC cladding was on the gable end and the roofing materials would be rendered in concrete.  The applicant had no plans for her disabled brother to use the roof for living accommodation.  The structure of the building in terms of stability was not a planning issue and was dealt with under separate legislation.

With regard to additional conditions, the Area Planning Officer stated that materials could be imposed requiring either better cladding, or no cladding at all, and also a condition to lower the ridge height, he suggested Members delegate authority to approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.  He stated that with regard to the roof space, they could request a condition to reduce the ridge height due to its impact on the character of the area, but not because of what the roof space may or may not be used for.

The Chairman stated that if this was not achieved, then the application would be referred back to Committee.

Resolved:  That application 18/503348/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to a reduction in height of the roofspace to 1.5 metres, to conditions (1) to (4) in the report and the imposition of suitable conditions to ensure suitable materials, including appropriate colour of materials were used.  If this was not achieved the application would be referred back to Committee.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – 1 Mill Cottages, Hartlip

APPEAL ALLOWED

Delegated Refusal

• Item 5.2 –Stone Stile Oast, Shottenden Lane, Selling

APPEAL DISMISSED

Delegated Refusal

• Item 5.3 – Gleneagles, Maidstone Road, Borden

APPEAL DISMISSED

Delegated Refusal

• Item 5.4 – Sheerness Holiday Park, Halfway Road, Sheerness

ENFORCEMENT AND PLANNING APPEALS DISMISSED

Committee Refusal

Members congratulated officers.  A Member raised concern about the damage to the Scheduled Monument and that this needed to be rectified by the owners of the holiday park.

• Item 5.5 – 8 Oak Road, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

Delegated Refusal