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 9 January 2019.

 

Tabled Papers added 14 January 2019.

PART 2

 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

 

2.1 REFERENCE NO -  18/505761/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a detached 2 bed dwelling with associated access, parking and dropped kerb.
ADDRESS47 Brier Road, Borden, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 1YJ
WARD Borden And Grove Park	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILBorden	APPLICANT Mr Paul Muehlthaler AGENT

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised concern with the windows on the side elevation, with potential overlooking issues as the site was elevated.  A second Ward Member also spoke against the application and stated that the turning circle would be impeded.

 

The Planner explained that the side windows met planning requirements, and the rear distances were 22 metres to Maylam Gardens, and 15 metres to Grove Park which were within minimum limits.

 

Resolved: That application 18/505761/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (8) in the report and securing mitigation payments in respect of the Swale Special Protection Area.

 

2.2  REFERENCE NO - 18/505315/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of 5 no. detached houses with associated access and parking including detached carport to Plot 2.
ADDRESSLand At The Tracies Newington Kent ME9 7TQ
WARD Hartlip, Newington And Upchurch	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILNewington	APPLICANT Mr D King AGENT Shaw Design Services Ltd.

 

The Area Planning Officer reported that he considered none of the trees within the site were worth retaining, and as such condition (9) should be deleted.  He sought additional delegated authority to approve the application, subject to the deletion of this condition.

 

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

John Pike, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.  In response to a comment made by the Parish Councillor, a Member asked whether further discussions could be had with the applicant to change the position of one of the houses?  The Area Planning Officer explained that the application had to be considered on its merits.  Any access through the site to potentially more development land could be addressed by amending the layout of the site, but this would require amended plans, and the Area Planning Officer suggested delegated authority could be given to do this.

 

A Member sought clarification on the trees/conditions that were going to be removed at the same time considering bats on the site, and the opportunity to establish good landscaping.  The Area Planning Officer stated that condition (8) could be more strongly worded if Members thought there should be more trees on the site.

 

Another Member raised some issues with the footpath route and the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the layout could be amended to accommodate a diverted footpath.  He also responded to a question on the housing numbers on the site and explained that at the time of a previous application, the Local Plan had not been adopted

 

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

 

One of the Ward Members spoke in support of the application and welcomed a condition in relation to the footpath diversion.

 

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

 

·         Conditions (6), (8), (9) and (11) did not resolve the position of the trees/landscaping on the site;

·         condition (9) should not be removed;

·         the conditions needed to meet the requirements under paragraph 9.9 in the report;

·         there needed to be a condition where bats were identified, and needed to maximise the number of trees retained;

·         there should be a landscaping plan;

·         conditions (6) and condition (8) needed to be strengthened;

·         the principle of development on the site was agreed, this application was not unreasonable; and

·         this site was not suitable for five dwellings, it was over-development, and some of the houses were too large.

 

In response, the Area Planning Officer stated that his recollection was that bats foraged at the site, and that delegation could be sought to approve the application subject to a landscaping scheme being submitted prior to determination, with discussion with Councillor Mike Henderson and Ward Members.

 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved an amendment:  that conditions (6) and (8) be strengthened, and conditions be amended in-line with paragraph 9.9 in the report.  This was seconded by the Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair.  The Member also said that condition (6) should be amended to state that if there were bats present, the trees should be retained.  In response to further comments, the Area Planning Officer explained that there was already permission for four houses on the site, and so the applicant could clear the site in any case.

 

Resolved: That application 18/505315/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report, and that conditions (6) and (8) be strengthened, and conditions be amended in-line with paragraph 9.9 in the report. 

 

2.3  REFERENCE NO - 18/502095/FULL & 18/502096/LBC
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Conversion of existing barn to residential use, including revised internal layout, minor changes to external windows and doors (Wagon window/door and single door) and erection of a new outbuilding; as amended by drawing 000-22 Revision R7 received 10 September 2018.
ADDRESSGreen Farm Barn Stalisfield Road Stalisfield Faversham Kent ME13 0HY
WARD East Downs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILStalisfield	APPLICANT Mr Jon Hutchings AGENT Guy Hollaway Architects

 

The Development Manager reported that there was a small typo on page 122 of the report, on condition (3).  The words on line four ‘….for the that’ should be replaced by ‘and which’.  This also needed to be replicated for the listed building consent application on page 124 of the report.

 

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

 

Jon Hutchings, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

A Member considered it was an excellent, well-designed development.

 

Resolved: That application 18/502095/FULLbe approved subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report, and to the small change to condition (3) as noted above.

 

Resolved: That application 18/502096/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (8) in the report, and to the small change to condition (3) as noted above.

 

2.4  REFERENCE NO - 17/502604/REM
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Reserved Matters application, pursuant to application 14/502729/OUT, for the construction of 127 dwellings, public open space, landscape planting, pedestrian, cycling and vehicular links; and associated infrastructure. Related only to the northern section of the site as shown on drawing number BOVI150305 LP.01 C (Location Plan).The discharge of Condition 1 (Reserved Matters) pursuant to application 14/502729/OUT. (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale being sought).
ADDRESSOspringe Brickworks Sumpter Way Faversham Kent ME13 7NT
WARD Watling	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILFaversham Town	APPLICANT Bovis Homes Limited AGENT Boyer Planning

 

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled updates.  He sought delegated authority to approve the application subject to the addition of the standard water conservation condition, which had the intention of limiting water consumption to 110 litres per person per day.

 

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.  A Member asked why KCC Highways and Transportation had not objected to the application, considering there were already major problems on the A251 and A2.  The Principal Transport and Development Planner (KCC) explained that this was the reserved matters stage, and traffic flow implications had been fully considered at the outline stage.  Another Member referred to paragraph 8.16 of the report and wanted to know what the Conservation and Design Manager thought of the application.  The Conservation and Design Manager stated that he was confident the scheme was of a high standard, although there was an initial view that a contemporary design should have been sought.  Details of materials to be used were included in the conditions, and he hoped this would be a good scheme.

 

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer explained that the comments made by Kent Wildlife Trust, objecting to the application, were addressed in the tabled papers.  He added that KCC Ecology had not objected and had been in touch with Kent Wildlife Trust, and he was confident that overall ecologically, the scheme was worthy of support.  The Major Projects Officer also explained that the comments in paragraph 6.10 were a generic response because there was not an existing UK Power sub-station close to the site boundary.

 

 

 

 

Town Councillor Geoff Wade, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

 

Jonathan Lieberman, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair 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, which centred on the following:

 

·         This was an acceptable development, although the housing could have been of a better design, the design should reflect the site’s industrial significance; and the conditions should specify a better designed scheme.

 

Councillor Mike Henderson moved a motion:  that the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to the addition of a condition to continue to seek design improvements, with regard to the built environment and landscaping.  In response, the Major Projects Officer explained that a condition could not be set out to do that.  He suggested that it be delegated to officers to approve, subject to officers meeting with the developer to negotiate improvements to the design.

 

Resolved: That application 17/502604/REM be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (21) in the report, the addition of the water conservation condition, condition (1) being amended to refer to the amended/additional plans, and officers meeting with the developer to improve the design.

 

2.5  REFERENCE NO - 18/501863/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a new single storey special educational needs primary school with formation of a new access onto Vellum Drive and associated car parking and drop-off area, pedestrian access, drainage, areas for formal and informal outdoor play, and landscaping works.
ADDRESSLand East Of Vellum Drive Sittingbourne Kent ME10 5BE
WARD The Meads	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILBobbing		APPLICANT Education & Skills Funding Agency AGENT DHA Planning Ltd
DECISION DUE DATE 04/07/18		PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE 18/05/18

 

The Major Projects Officer referred to condition (27) on page 213 of the report and explained the Agent had confirmed that covered cycle parking facilities would be provided for 10 bicycles.  Delegated authority was sought to amend the condition to reflect this.  He reported that in terms of surface water drainage and comments made by the KCC Flood and Water Management Team, a further response had been provided in light of extra information provided by the Applicant, and KCC had advised that the wording of condition (5) needed to be refined, and that condition (6) could be omitted.  The Major Projects Officer also reported that the existing Section 106 Agreement tied to the original planning permission for The Meads (reference SW/96/0717), needed to be varied as it currently required SBC to plant the site out as a community woodland.  This variation would need to be negotiated prior to the issuing of the decision notice.

 

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to approve the application subject to making the amendments to the conditions, as above, and to the signing of a Deed of Variation.

 

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.  A Member asked whether parking restrictions on Vellum Drive, Sittingbourne, had been considered?  The Major Projects Officer explained that KCC Highways and Transportation had not considered this at the moment, and a condition could not be added regarding this, in case the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was not successful.  However, he added that he could speak to officers about the possibility of a TRO being imposed.  The Major Projects Officer also confirmed that the community woodland would remain.

 

Ceranne Litton, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Ward Member spoke in support of the application. He made the following points: the design of the school could have been better; loss of open amenity space; road issues, there needed to be restrictions on Vellum Drive before the school opened; concerned that contractors had already started work on the site; important that local residents were kept informed; and welcomed the Code of Construction Practice, as outlined in condition (3) of the report.

 

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair 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, which centred on the following themes:

 

·         Disappointed that the school did not include solar panels on its flat-roof;

·         this was a good proposal;

·         the design could have been better;

·         provision of SEN was important;

·         on-going, monthly, dialogue with local residents was important;

·         solar panels should be installed;

·         concerned that there might still be archaeological artifacts on the site, a field examination should be carried out; and

·         not happy that there was a loss of woodland area enjoyed by residents.

In response to comments, the Major Projects Officer referred to condition (3) in the report, regarding community engagement, and considered the application was highly conditioned, and if neighbours had concerns, they should speak to Councillors or officers in the normal way.

 

Further comments included:

 

·         Supported this whole-heartedly;

·         paragraph 7.20 stated that archaeologists had already looked at the site, so concerns raised above had been addressed;

·         happy for parking restrictions along Vellum Drive to be considered;

·         there needed to be some screening between the school and some of the nearby houses; and

·         the parking on site was very well thought out, so hopefully there would not be too much of an impact on Vellum Drive.

 

Resolved: That application 18/501863/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (32) in the report, amendments to the conditions, as above, and to the signing of a Deed of Variation.  Officers also to raise the possibility of a TRO for parking restrictions on Vellum Drive, Sittingbourne, with the relevant colleagues.

 

2.6  REFERENCE NO - 17/506603/REM
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Approval of reserved matters relating to scale, layout, appearance and landscaping for the erection of 310 dwellings, pursuant to conditions 1, 4, 10 and 24 of outline planning permission 15/504264/OUT. Approval sought for residential part of outline scheme only.
ADDRESSLand At Perry Court London Road Faversham Kent ME13 8YA
WARD Watling	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILOspringe		APPLICANT BDW Kent AGENT
DECISION DUE DATE 26/04/18		PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE 27/11/18

 

The Senior Planner confirmed that the application site was within the boundary of both Faversham Town Council and Ospringe Parish Council.  He referred to the tabled paper and sought delegated authority to approve the application, subject to no objections being raised by the Council’s Tree Consultant or Greenspaces Manager, to the amendments submitted.  He added that with reference to paragraph 6.11 in the report, Kent Police had requested further crime prevention details, and he requested that the standard condition relating to this also be included.

 

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.  A Member asked if there were going to be any alterations to the roundabout on the A251 as there were issues with HGVs driving over it?  The Member also suggested that the road through the application site linked Brogdale Road with the Western Link and that be utilised to take traffic away from the A2.  The Principal Transport and Development Planner stated that he was aware of the problems on the roundabout and this would be covered with a Section 278 Agreement, and so there would be further alterations to the roundabout.  He acknowledged the route through the application site could be used as a through-route, avoiding the A2, but it was designed as a residential zone with low speeds.

 

Another Member asked if there were two lanes on the exit route from the application site onto the roundabout, and the Principal Transport and Development Planner (KCC) explained that it was a single lane.  In response to other questions, the Senior Planner explained that there were separate applications now for the care home and supermarket as they were larger than those submitted at the outline application stage.  He explained that access was also agreed at the outline stage, but could be considered again with the supermarket application, as there would likely be additional traffic.  The Senior Planner explained that the gypsy and traveller sites were part of the outline application, but the Local Plan Policy was amended during the Local Plan Examination, and there was no longer a requirement for them to be provided.

 

Town Councillor Geoff Wade, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke in support of the application.

 

Karen Dunn, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair 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, which centred on the following themes:

 

·         Access issues needed to be addressed, especially when the supermarket was built;

·         note that Faversham Town Council and Ospringe Parish Council both supported the application;

·         disappointed that the whole application was not being considered together, as in the outline application, there should be a masterplan;

·         concerned that the employment area might not be developed; and

·         detailed landscaping for the whole site should be provided at this stage.

 

The Senior Planner referred to a separate condition (32) of the outline application for a strategic landscaping scheme, and said that detailed landscaping was being considered for the residential area at this stage, and both combined to provide landscaping overall.

 

Resolved: That application 17/506603/REM be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (16) in the report, to no objections being raised by the Council’s Tree Consultant or Greenspaces Manager to the amendments submitted, and a standard condition relating to crime prevention.

 

PART 3

 

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

 

3.1 REFERENCE NO - 18/505513/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Reconstruction of bay window to front extending to first floor. Insertion of side window, replacement balustrade, along with internal alterations.
ADDRESS54 The Leas, Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness, Kent ME12 2NL
WARD Minster Cliffs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILMinster-On-Sea		APPLICANT Mr Andrew Hill AGENT
DECISION DUE DATE 24/12/18		PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE 27/11/18

 

Mrs Terrena Hill, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application and this was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

 

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

 

·         The Leas had an unique outlook, and every house was different, this was a very sympathetic application;

·         the frontage looked tired; this would enhance the building;

·         the neighbours did not object to the application;

·         there would be a loss of some parking provision to the front; and

·         agreed with the issue of the first floor window.

 

The Area Planning Officer suggested that if Members were content with the front extension, the application could be delegated to officers to go back to the applicant and amend the plans relating to the flank window.

 

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

 

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair moved a motion: that the application be delegated to officers to permit subject to the submission of amended plans addressing the harm from the side window or to refuse if this was not resolved.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

 

Resolved: That application 18/505513/FULL be delegated toofficers to permit subject to the submission of amended plans addressing the harm from the side window or to refuse if this was not resolved. 

 

3.2       REFERENCE NO - 18/505689/FULL & 18/505690/LBC
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Partial demolition of existing rear extension and erection of single storey rear extension with roof lights. Replacement timber sash windows to front and rear elevation.
ADDRESS12 Abbey Street Faversham Kent ME13 7BE
WARD Abbey	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILFaversham Town		APPLICANT Mr M Williamson AGENT Peter Jackson Architects
DECISION DUE DATE 02/01/19		PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE 07/12/18

 

Town Councillor Peter Flower, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application and this was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

 

The Committee debated the proposal to refuse the application, and a Member considered that looking at the overall ‘big picture’, the application was acceptable.

 

The Conservation and Design Manager outlined the harm the development would have in relation to public benefit, and stated that as this was within the Faversham Conservation Area and a listed building, the application was not acceptable in heritage terms, and that the open space to the rear of the property should remain and not be built upon. 

 

Resolved: That application 18/505689/FULL be delegated to officers to refuse subject to the rewording of reason (2) in the report.

 

Resolved: That application 18/505690/LBC be delegated to officers to refuse subject to the rewording of reason (1) in the report.

 

PART 5

 

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

 

·         Item 5.1 - Chalet No. 7 Hazeldene Chalet Park, Fourth Avenue, Eastchurch

 

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

A Member was happy with this outcome.

 

·         Item 5.2 – 2 Arthur Street, Sittingbourne

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·         Item 5.3 – Vicarage Cottage, The Street , Hartlip

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·         Item 5.4 – 141 Ufton Lane, Sittingbourne

 

AGAINST OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

A Member expressed disappointment with this outcome.

 

·         Item 5.5 – Bobbing Kennels, Quinton Road, Sittingbourne

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·         Item 5.6 – Pond, Perrywood Place (Grove Road), Selling

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·         Item 5.7 – Jack Russell Place, Lower Halstow 

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·         Item 5.8 – 36 The Glen, Minster 

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

A Member expressed disappointment with this outcome.

 

·         Item 5.9 – 26 Forbes Road, Favesham 

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·         Item 5.10 – 2 Little Kennaways, Ospringe

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL ALLOWED

 

A Member expressed disappointment with this outcome.

 

·         Item 5.11– Building at Keycol Farm, Bobbing 

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

·         Item 5.12– Tranquillity, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch 

 

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED