To consider the following application:

16/508709/FULL – Former Oil Depot, Abbey Wharf, Standard Quay, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7BS.

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 5 December 2018.

Tabled updated published 10.12.18.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled update, which outlined additional representations received from: local residents some in objection and some in support; the Faversham Society and Faversham Footpath Group. The update also included details of amended wording to conditions (13) and (16) on page 10 of the report; inclusion of a Section 106 Agreement; Special Protection Area mitigation and an additional condition requiring retractable bollards.

The Major Projects Officer reported that in addition, and with specific respect to works to the Creek Wall, authority was sought to impose an additional condition requiring that the development be implemented in full accordance with the details approved under planning permission 16/505907/FULL and GES drawing ‘Ecologically Enhanced Vertical Shore Side Wall’ (Revision A).  The condition would also require that precise details of the ecological measures for the Creek Wall be approved before the development was commenced and that the measures were then fully implemented.

The Major Projects Officer stated that delegation was sought to approve the application subject to the refinement of conditions (13) and (16) to make appropriate reference to the Creekside Walkway, the suggested additional conditions, the other conditions in the report, and the signing of a suitably-worded Section 106 Agreement.  Authority was also sought to refine the wording of the conditions as set-out in the Committee report, if this proved to be necessary.

Cathy McNab, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.  A Member raised concern that the application still did not accord with guidance within the Faversham Creek Neighbourhood Plan (FCNP) and believed that the FCNP had stated that the footpath should be four metres wide, but the applicants had stated it would be three metres wide.  He also queried why affordable housing was not to be included.  The Member raised concern that the proposed moorings would not be public and stated that pages 26 – 37 paragraphs 6.21 and 6.22 of the FCNP were detailed and clear that these should be for visitors to the area.

The Major Projects Officer stated that with regard to affordable housing, recent government guidance stated that this only applied to developments of 11 or more properties.  He did not consider that the FCNP stated that moorings had to be public, and if they were public it would imply they would have to be adopted by a public body.  He considered private was more reasonable.  The Major Projects Officer considered that CLR2 of the FCNP referring to slipways and moorings had been complied with and assessed in a “rounded” way, and provision of the walkway would be of benefit to the public.  With regard to CLR5 of the FCNP community involvement, the application had been to Planning Committee twice with Faversham Town Council, Faversham Society and members of the public being given the chance to comment twice on the application, which he considered had helped to improve the quality of the final application.  Foul surface water was dealt with under condition (8) of the Committee report.  The Major Projects Officer confirmed that Marine Management had not commented on the application.

A Member queried whether the landowner had leased the land where the walkway was being put?  The Major Projects Officer agreed to check ownership, and confirmed that a Certificate A had been completed by the applicant.

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled paper which referred to imposing a condition for retractable bollards.  He considered this sensible as without it there was a risk the area would be used as a ‘cut-through’.  With regard to possible contamination, he advised that details of the remediation strategy would be available at the appropriate time, and put on the planning website for the public to look at.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

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

·        public moorings were key;

·        increase in large vessels using the creek had caused silting-up;

·        the FCNP made reference to improving tourism in the area and public moorings would help with this;

·        the point of the FCNP was to create creek wide policies to restore the attributes of the area, including improving public access to the Creekside;

·        needed to increase the proposed Special Protection Area payment.

·        officers should give more attention to providing public moorings;

·        concerned that the developer had had to be pushed to make improvements;

·        officers needed to ensure that conditions were “water-tight”;

·        considered some Members were getting “tied-up” on private/public moorings and unsure how this could be conditioned;

·        considered that the applicants had made an effort to improve the application;

·        moorings were similar in some ways to allocated parking spaces; and

·        delegate to negotiate with the applicant for the walkway to be 4 metres wide.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following amendments: “That the balconies be of a bespoke design; payment for areas close to SPA, officers should ensure these were “watertight” and that payment was made before development commenced on-site and that 50% mooring space be made available to visitors.”  This was seconded by the Chairman.  On being put to the vote the amendment was approved.

The Major Projects Officer reported that he could not find reference in the FCNP that the pathway should be four metres wide.  He considered that 50% mooring space for visitors was a good suggestion which officers could negotiate via the Section 106 Agreement rather than by condition.

Resolved:  That application 16/508709/FULL be approved subject to:

(a)  conditions (1) to (28) in the report, refinement of conditions (13) and (16) to make appropriate reference to the Creekside Walkway, the suggested additional conditions relating to retractable bollards (including arrangements to ensure that they are kept raised except in specialised instances) and works to the Creek Wall; 

(b)  the signing of a suitably-worded Section 106 Agreement and refinement of the wording of the conditions set out in the Committee report, if necessary;

(c)   that officers negotiate with the applicants a bespoke design for the balconies and amend the wording of condition (11) to secure this;

(d)  ensure that the payment for mitigation of impacts on the SPA is made before development on site commences;

(e)  that 50% of the moorings be made available to visitors via the Section 106 Agreement; and 

(f)    that the Section 106 Agreements should also ensure that public access to the walkway is safeguarded in perpetuity.