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 5 December 2018.

3.1 tabled paper published 10.12.18.

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 6 DECEMBER 2018                                                        PART 2

Report of the Head of Planning

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Parish Councillor Jeff Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions, during which the Area Planning Officer explained that with regard to the 67% increase in floorspace, there was no upper limit on what you could extend to in built-up areas.  The Area Planning Officer agreed that each application should be considered on its merits, however the Planning Committee had considered and approved an almost identical application in May 2018 at the property next door, so needed to be consistent.  He referred to paragraph 8.03 on page 43 of the committee report which referred to the removal of the sleeper wall which should reduce the likelihood of cars overhanging the pavement.

Resolved:  That application 18/505342/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Chairman moved a motion for a site meeting, and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Mr John Croall, an objector, and Mr Andrew Street, the Agent were advised that they could still speak now, and at the Planning Working Group meeting, but not at the meeting afterwards.  Mr Croall and Mr Street chose not to speak at this meeting.

A Member requested that an officer from Kent Highways and Transportation attend the site meeting.

Resolved:  That application 18/504307/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Chairman moved a motion for a site meeting, and this was seconded by Councillor Nicholas Hampshire.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

A Member asked that the proposed plot be marked out on the site at the meeting.

Resolved:  That application 18/503678/FULLbe deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

Councillor Ghlin Whelan moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councilllor Nicholas Hampshire.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Mrs Weatherall, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Kapoor, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

In response to queries from a Member, the Area Planning Officer showed Members photographs of the existing property and drawings which showed the proposed windows which he considered were of a standard size.

Resolved:  That application 18/504824/FULLbe deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

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

Resolved:  That application 17/504283/FULLbe approved subject to condition (1) in the report.

Mrs Beerstecher, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Michael Tamsett, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Area Planning Officer clarified that the site already had planning permission for overnight use of a caravan/mobile home for four nights per week, in association with the livery use.  This application was to increase this to seven nights per week.

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

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions, during which the Area Planning Officer advised that blocking of a footpath was not a material planning consideration, but the responsibility of the Public Rights of Way Officer at Kent County Council (KCC).  A similar application had been refused in 2014, but the applicant had since then proven that it was successful business and the Council’s rural planning consultant supported the application. Condition (1) of the committee report tied the use of the caravan for persons using the livery only.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that the objection from Upchurch Parish Council was a material planning consideration.  It would not be possible to impose a condition restricting vehicle movements to and from the site during peak travel times as this was not enforceable.

A Member stated that the livery use was a countryside activity and should be supported.

Resolved:  That application 18/503080/FULLbe delegated to officers to approve subject to condition (1) in the report and receipt of appropriate Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy payment.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to the factual note from the applicant’s agent which was tabled.  The Area Planning Officer advised Members that reference in the report to the temporary permission for extra hours on a Friday having expired was incorrect.  It could still be implemented and would last for four years.  Bearing this in mind, Members needed to consider whether the addition of Saturday as a potential evening for racing was acceptable.  The Area Planning Officer stated that, in his view, the application remained unacceptable for the reason set-out in the report.

Michelle Rolfe, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Roger Cearn, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Environmental Protection Team Leader reported that he was aware of the history of the site, and the large number of complaints received about noise pollution emanating from the site.  He considered that noise from the site was intrusive to local residents, but noted that atmospheric conditions played a part in how intrusive it could be.  The Environmental Protection Team Leader considered that there was some acceptance amongst local residents about the situation, and that officers were unlikely to progress such complaints, due to lack of frequency and that they could not be considered a nuisance.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions, during which the Environmental Protection Team Leader confirmed that they did have recorded evidence from 2013, which proved that noise from the site was intrusive.  In his opinion, the acoustic barrier was not adequate protection.

The Area Planning Officer stated that neither officers from the Council’s Environmental Protection Team or Planning Services had ever considered that the acoustic barrier would mitigate sound from the site.  In response to a question from a Member, the Area Planning Officer reported that if granted on a temporary basis, a revocation of the Friday use was possible, but he was unsure of the means by which this could be imposed.  The yearly racing fixtures would be advertised in the local press before the start of the season.

A Member raised concern that the applicant had not been made aware that residents had complained about noise from their site.  The Area Planning Officer stated that from a planning point of view, they were not aware of any breach of planning control at the site.

The Committee then debated the motion to refuse the application and raised comments which included:

·        concerned that local residents concerns were not being listened to;

·        considered the application was premature;

·        the acoustic fence did not comply with what the Council had requested; and

·        environmental Health officers had been clear that noise levels were noticeable and had an adverse impact on local residents.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He asked Members to support local residents and refuse the application.

At this point the Area Planning Officer drew attention to an error in the reason for refusal and that it should refer to 8.30pm on a Saturday.

Resolved:  That application 18/504830/FULL be refused for the reason set out in the Committee report as amended.

Mr Robert Ware-Lane, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Following a request from the Chairman, the Area Planning Officer advised that the Ward Members had not commented on the application.

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

A Member spoke in support of the application.  He stated that he had called-in the application as he considered that it was similar to the application at 6 Sheerstone, Iwade, a few doors down from the application site, which the Committee had refused but had been granted permission on appeal.  The Committee had refused that application due to the terracing effect and harm to the loss of openness, however the Planning Inspector had not agreed and allowed the development. 

Members debated the proposal and raised comments which included:

·        did not consider that there was an established housing style along Ferry Road, Iwade;

·        considered the Council would have difficulty supporting on appeal; and

·        application would not result in a terracing impact or adverse impact on the streetscene.

The Area Planning Officer stated that the Council’s policy on terracing in its supplementary planning guidance 1993 had helped the Council to win many appeals, and that it was specifically applicable to 1^st floor side extension, rather than to ground floor level extensions. 

Following the vote to refuse the application, the Chairman announced that the vote was tied, and used his casting vote to refuse the application.

Resolved:  That application 18/505113/FULLbe refused for the reason set out in the Committee report.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – 17 Kent Avenue, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

Delegated Refusal

• Item 5.2 –27 Volante Drive, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

Delegated Refusal

• Item 5.3 – 1 Hales Road, Sittingbourne

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee decision

Observations

            Full support for the Council’s action.

• Item 5.4 – 43 Hugh Price Close, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

ENFORCEMENT

• Item 5.5 – 66 All Saints Road, Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

Delegated Refusal

• Item 5.6 – Cromas, Callaways Lane, Newington

APPEAL DISMISSED

Delegated Refusal