10am – (2.10) 18/503259/FULL Land at Old Billet Lane, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, ME12 4JJ.

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair welcomed the applicants, representative of Eastchurch Parish Council, two Ward Members and members of the public to the meeting.

The Senior Planner introduced the application which sought planning permission for a material change of use of land, from a garden to a residential caravan site for stationing of caravans with residential occupation and associated development (hardstanding, utility building and cesspit) on land at Old Billet Lane, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent. 

The Senior Planner explained the application site measured 35 metres x 12 metres and was formerly part of a detached garden.  In 1979 permission was granted for the erection of a stable block and garage.  The Senior Planner advised that the stable block would be moved to the rear of the site, and three parking spaces would be provided at the front of the site.  The proposed utility room would measure 3 metres x 4 metres x 3.5 metres high, with a pitched roof.

The Senior Planner reported that six letters of objection from local residents had been received, and that Eastchurch Parish Council had raised objections to the application.  The site was approximately one mile from the village of Eastchurch.  The application was supported by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance.

Mr Ivor Gough, representing Eastchurch Parish Council, referred to the Parish Council’s objections, as outlined in the Planning Committee report.

In response to a query from a Member, the Senior Planner confirmed that currently there was no planning permission for the static caravan.

Local residents raised the following points: the application was impracticable; had been assured when first moved to the area that the site would not be built on; the site was too small for the proposal; no infrastructure; residents had been informed that the applicants had a sick child, how would an ambulance be able to access the site?; concerned that the applicant would not use their cesspit when built; local footpath would be lost; would the stables be bigger or smaller?; letter from the applicants had implied that all three families would be living there at the same time; the address had incorrectly been given on the Council’s website as “Brambles”, which was further down the lane, this had given the impression that the application was just an addition to that site; 4 Coastguard Cottages, were as stated in the officer’s committee report “small”, the size of the static caravan would dominate the area, this was against the Council’s policy; overlooking of gardens; there were no parking areas; had not raised concerns about ground water problems, but potential smells if the cesspit was not built; there were no pathways or street lighting at the site; Plough Road was a busy, fast road and the national speed limit applied; the current drainage system was inadequate and sometimes led to flooding and odour outside Coastguard Cottages; concern that the applicants would throw waste into adjoining gardens; local residents maintained the track to the site; access along the track was not wide enough; and note that only two families would be on the site at any one time, but who would enforce this?

In response to a query, the Senior Planner reported that the footpath to the rear of the site was a private access and not a designated public right of way.

Mrs Brown, the applicant, stated that she was not aware of any sick child that would be living on-site.  She stated that they were not the sort of people to throw waste into neighbour’s gardens.

Mr Brown, the applicant, stated that they would be building a new stable block, but no horses would be living or grazing on-site, the stable block would be for storage.  He assured residents that they would be putting in a cess pit and a new fence.  They would also be happy to help maintain the track from their access up-to the road, and there would only be two extra vehicles.  Mr Brown advised that he was also aware of how busy Plough Road was, particularly with people using the holiday park in the summer months.  He confirmed that there would not be more than two families on the site at any one time.

A Member asked for clarification on the following: who was responsible for the maintenance of the track; details of whether the stable block was capable of being repositioned; and what the application was for?. 

Local residents stated that the track was an unadopted road.  In response to a query from a local resident, the Senior Planner confirmed that the application would not enable the applicants to run a business from the site.

Members toured the site with the applicants and officers.