Item 3.1 has been withdrawn from the agenda.

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 10 October 2018.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer summarised the application, referring to the previously approved application on the site, and explained that the size, location and external appearance of the application was the same as what had been approved, save for the addition of two roof lights.

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions, during which the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the application was for three bedrooms.  A Member referred to the proposed condition (3) and asked that consideration was given to native species and improvements to biodiversity.

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

The Committee debated the proposal to approve the application, which centred on the following themes:

·         The intention of the applicant and whether the building would be changed to a four bedroom property in the future;

·         The design in terms of whether it looked like a bungalow;

·         The roof height was the same as the application previously agreed by the Committee, the only change was the addition of two roof lights.

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

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion to refuse the application, which was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

At this point the Head of Planning Services used his delegated powers to ‘call-in’ the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Chairman advised that this application had been withdrawn.

The Area Planning Officer referred to paragraph 8.08 on page 76 of the report and advised that a further copy of the letter had been received but this did not change the officer recommendation.  In respect of paragraph 8.22 on page 79, he advised that a further survey had been undertaken in June 2018 which recommended that temporary bat boxes and a bat loft should be installed if the application was approved, and therefore ground (3) of the proposed reasons for refusal was no longer required.

Parish Councillor Roger Clark, representing Throwley Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

Mathew Hopkins, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Members were then given an opportunity to ask questions, during which the Area Planning Officer showed photographs of the site and explained the location of the track and proposed pathway/road; clarified that the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was not a statutory consultee; drew attention to paragraph 20 on page 84 and reiterated that there had been no evidence provided to demonstrate that the site had been marketed.  Members also referred to the Council’s Tourism Strategy.

The Chairman moved a motion for a site meeting, and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.  Debate ensued where some Members questioned whether a site meeting was needed, given that there had been a recent site meeting close-by.

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

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

Debate ensued on the motion to refuse the application, which centred on the following themes:

·         The location of the pathway/track and whether it would be possible to alter the proposed design if the Committee decided to approve the application;

·         The need for bed and breakfast accommodation in the countryside;

·         The need to preserve the barn, which was unlikely if the application was not approved;

·         The need for diversification but the need to be consistent in approach, and for viability to be demonstrated;

·         An opportunity to encourage tourism and that there was a shortage of holiday lets in the area;

·         The changes in farming and the need for diversification.

The Head of Planning Services drew attention to paragraph 4.02 on page 74 of the report, in particular policy DM3, and reiterated that no evidence had been provided.

The motion to refuse the application was put to the vote, but was lost.

Councillor Nicholas Hampshire moved a motion:  That the application be approved with the standard conditions and a condition regarding the provision of a bat box.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock, who also suggested that officers look at the location of the path/road and also a condition regarding use as a bed and breakfast.

The Head of Planning Services advised that he did not wish to use his delegated powers to ‘call-in’ the application.  The motion to approve the application was then put to the vote and agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/503875/FULL be approved subject to standard conditions, conditions relating to bat mitigation and holiday let use and the Head of Planning Services agreeing a revised path/road layout. 

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the application was for a three bedroom house.

Paul Marsh, a Supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Ian Grant, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Dr Victoria Clayton, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions, during which the Area Planning Officer advised that the site was not on the brownfield register; referred to paragraph 4.04 on page 90 of the report which set-out the definition of ‘previously developed land’ and showed photographs of the site; he assumed that the design of the house was to high environmental standards; that the application said it would be to Passivhaus Standard, but a condition could be included regarding that. In response to further questions, the Area Planning Officer further explained the definition of ‘previously developed land’.

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

One of the Ward Members spoke in support of approving the application.

The Committee then debated the motion to refuse the application, during which comments were made on the following themes:

·         As a building had previously been located on the site, that the application should be approved;

·         That the design of the house should be of exceptional quality and design and therefore the design should be improved.

During the debate, Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion for a site meeting, which was seconded by Councillor Nigel Kay.  On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

The motion to refuse the application was then put to the vote and agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/503385/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 – Land Rear Of 31 The Leas, Minster-on-Sea

Delegated Refusal

APPEAL ALLOWED

Members expressed disappointment on this outcome.

·         Item 5.2 – Land Between 90 And 92 Barton Hill Drive, Minster-on-Sea

Delegated Refusal

APPEAL ALLOWED

            Members expressed disappointment on this outcome.

·         Item 5.3 – 83 Chatsworth Drive, Sittingbourne

Enforcement and Delegated Refusal

SPLIT DECISION & COSTS APPELLANT’S CLAIM FOR REFUSED

·         Item 5.4 – 11 Hustlings Drive, Eastchurch

Enforcement and Delegated Refusal

ENFORCEMENT AND PLANNING APPEALS DISMISSED

Members expressed congratulations on this outcome.