To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 November 2018 (Minute Nos. 351 - 352).

To consider application SW/18/503259/FULL – Land at Old Billet Lane, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4JJ.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 November 2018 (Minute Nos. 351 – 352) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

18/503259/FULL – Land at Old Billet Lane, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4JJ

The Area Planning Officer provided updates to queries raised by Members at the site meeting relating to: ownership and maintenance of the road; was the stable block to be repositioned or replaced and; how would a static caravan be moved onto/off the site.  The Area Planning Officer stated that it was a private road, and maintenance was therefore the responsibility of residents.  The applicant had indicated at the site meeting that they would be happy to help maintain the section from their access to the junction.  The Area Planning Officer clarified that damage to an unadopted road was not a material planning consideration on which the application could be determined, nor did the applicant’s offer to maintain it carry any weight.  Notwithstanding that, the road was in private ownership, and any maintenance would need to be the subject of agreement between the applicant and the owner of the road.  The applicant had advised that the existing stables could be repositioned with the insertion of some replacement bracing timbers. 

The Area Planning Officer reported that, with regard to delivery of the static caravan, it  would be delivered by low loader, off-loaded on Plough Road, Eastchurch in sections, and transported onto the site by 4x4.  The Area Planning Officer stated that Members should be clear that this was not a material planning consideration that could be taken into account.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the applicant had confirmed during the site visit that there were no specific health issues for their grandchildren that they were putting forward as a material consideration.  He explained that reference to this within the report had arisen from a misunderstanding between the agent and the case officer.

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

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application. 

In response to a point raised by the Ward Member, the Area Planning Officer stated that a lack of local connection was not a material planning reason to refuse an application.

Members were then given an opportunity to ask questions, during which the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the stables would be moved to the rear of the site where the mobile home was.  Planning permission could be granted whether the applicants had access to the site or not, as this was for them to agree with the landowner.  There were numerous gypsy and traveller sites on the Isle of Sheppey and it had never been argued that they would set a precedent for year-round occupation of holiday sites.

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer stated that he had not walked from the site to Eastchurch Primary School and he was not aware that the case officer had either.

The Committee debated the proposal to approve the application, and raised points which included:

·        Issues around the cesspit would be dealt with under building regulations;

·        most of the objections raised were not material planning considerations;

·        considered the arguments regarding sustainable site had been “over-stretched”;

·        was akin to garden grabbing and not an appropriate site;

·        not ideal site but there were plenty of similar examples around the Borough;

·        inaccuracies in the original application;

·        over-intensive development of a small site; and.

·        would cause harm to adjoining residents.

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed the following motion:  “That a condition be imposed stating that no equestrian use on the site be allowed”.  This was not seconded. 

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

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion to refuse the application:  “That the application be refused as: it would lead to an over-development of the site; inappropriate use of the space; was not in a sustainable location in relation to safe passage for children to the local school; would cause demonstrable harm to the historic amenity of the area; and lack of residential amenity.”  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

Councillor Mike Baldock proposed the following amendment to the motion to refuse the application: “would have an adverse impact to the residential amenity of neighbouring gardens.”  Councillor Cameron Beart proposed the following amendments: “Harm to visual amenity and the character and appearance of the countryside.” 

The Area Planning Officer sought clarification on the reasons to refuse the application.  He suggested: over-development in terms of lack of amenity space; sustainability in relation to no safe route to nearby settlements rather than the local school; and adverse impact on residential amenity by virtue of overlooking to private gardens of adjoining residents.  These amendments were agreed by both the proposer and seconder of the original motion.

On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application as amended was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/503259/FULL be refused as it would lead to an overdevelopment of the site giving rise to a lack of amenity space, was not sustainable in terms of access to local settlements, and would have an adverse impact on residential amenity and harm to visual amenity and the character and appearance of the countryside.