To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25 March 2019 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider the following applications:

2.5 18/505929/FULL Land rear of 54-76 Oak Road, Sittingbourne, ME10 3PF

2.3 19/500219/FULL 20 Hustlings Drive, Eastchurch, Sheerness, ME12 4JX

Tabled Papers added 9 April 2019.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 25 March 2019 (Minute Nos. 582 – 585) were taken as read approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

2.5 18/505929/FULL Land rear of 54 – 76 Oak Road, Sittingbourne, ME10 3PF

The Senior Planner referred Members to the tabled update which provided a response to land ownership issues raised by a neighbouring resident at the site meeting.  The Senior Planner advised that the entire site was owned by the Council.  The resident did not own part of the site, but the freeholder of No. 54 (Optivo) had a right to park on the land.  However, that right was being surrendered, with the Council compensating both the freeholder and the resident.

The Senior Planner also reported that a tiny slither of land to the south-eastern side of the site was not owned by the Council, and so the application site had been amended to reflect this.  As a consequence, the footpath along the access had been made level and converted to a shared surface, rather than a raised footpath.  The Senior Planner explained that since the tabled paper had been written, there was a further update in that all the parking would remain as set-out originally.  Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had no objection to the above amendment.  The Senior Planner confirmed that the entrance to the site would be 4.3 metres, narrowing to 3.9 metres at the pinch point.  He considered there was sufficient space to pass, with clear visibility, and it would not result in any waiting on the highway.

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.

A Ward Member asked why the scheme had not been put out to tender.  He was advised that this was not a planning consideration.

A Member asked why, as there had been so many changes to the application, that the application had not been put-out for fresh consultation.  The Senior Planner explained that the changes had been too minor, and on this basis there was no legal requirement to warrant further consultation.

A Member sought clarity on whether the Ward Member had objected to the application as noted in the original report.  The Ward Member explained that he had called it in, but not objected to it.

A Member asked why access to the site could not be from the north side as he considered this to be a better angle for visibility and egress.  The Senior Planner explained that this option had been considered in the early stages of the application, but was rejected because the access would come out onto the bus lane, and so the southern access was the preferred option.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He explained that Oak Lane was a bus route, with bus stops close to the application site; there were access issues, with potential for congestion on the busy road; social housing had not been considered; a medical centre/pub/school had been promised; the community were happy to plant-up the site; pollution issues to health from toxic fumes; the development would increase traffic issues; and this should be a community amenity site instead and an open space.

The Committee debated the proposal to approve the application and raised the following points:

·         Unfortunate that the Council had to pay compensation money;

·         if there was to be housing here, it should be social housing;

·         hard to believe that two vehicles could pass each other on the access road;

·         there would be chaos entering and leaving the site;

·         reversing out of the site would cause problems;

·         this was not an appropriate access road;

·         re-consultation should be carried out;

·         happy that vehicle tracking had been carried out, and a fire engine could access the site;

·         happy with the width of the access;

·         issue with sight-lines, with parked cars, especially if reversing;

·         cars should park further away from the application site to mitigate visibility issues; and

·         KCC Highways and Transportation were happy with this, so we could not refuse on highway grounds.

The Senior Planner re-iterated that the width for the first half of the access was wide enough so there was no need for vehicles to reverse.

Resolved:  That application 18/505929/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (13) in the report.

2.3 19/500219/FULL 20 Hustlings Drive, Eastchurch, Sheerness, ME12 4JX

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application on behalf of local residents.  He explained that they had not understood why another garage was being built, why four garages were needed, and that an upstairs dwelling was not appropriate for a disabled person.  The Ward Member said there was a covenant on all the properties which stated that no additional dwellings were to be built.  He added that this was a new footprint and would set a dangerous precedent, and could effect the whole ethos of the estate.  The Ward Member suggested, that if the application was approved, a condition be added to ensure that the garage remained ancillary to the host dwelling.

In response, the Senior Planner explained that covenants, ‘needs’, and the consideration of the upstairs accommodation for a disabled person were not planning issues.  The covenant was a private matter, not a planning restriction.  Setting a precedent could not be taken into account as each planning application was considered on its own merits.  He also explained that condition (5) in the report dealt with the issue raised with the garage being ancillary to the main dwelling.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member was concerned that the family circumstances were not a planning consideration as he thought they had been in other applications.  The Senior Planner explained that personal circumstances could be a planning consideration, but in this case, as the applicant had chosen their accommodation to be upstairs and the potential occupier happened to be disabled, it was not.

A Member asked whether the new building would be used as a workshop or a garage?  The Senior Planner understood that it was going to be used as a workshop, but could be used as a garage as well.

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 the following points:

·         There were a number of issues that were not planning considerations, but were problems none the less;

·         ancillary buildings did not usually allow a kitchen, this had a kitchen and a bathroom, so could be a separate dwelling;

·         it would be difficult to enforce condition (5);

·         there were large gaps between all the houses on the estate, this was not-in-keeping with the street scene;

·         this would in-fill the gap and appear like a separate building;

·         potential for problem with parking;

·         happy that the dwelling had its own facilities in the circumstances;

·         concerned that this was separate, and not an extension of the main house; and

·         garages at both ends of the house was contrary to the street scene and out-of-place.

In response to a further question, the Senior Planner advised that the applicant owned the grass area to the front of the property.

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

There was some discussion on the reasons for refusal which included:  not-in-keeping with the street scene; visual appearance; this encroached on large amenity space; it was ‘shoe-horned’ in; and it was detrimental to visual amenity and the character of the area.

The Senior Planner referred Members to the report from the meeting on 7 March 2019, page 114, which had set-out some possible reasons for refusal which included scale and location, poor design; and issues of the potential for a self-contained building/new dwelling.

Members were happy to delegate the final wording of the refusal to officers.  The Senior Planner suggested:  harmful to the street scene because of the scale and position; in-fill of a visual gap; harmful to visual amenity, and harmful as it represented a separate self-contained new dwelling.  Members agreed to this wording.

Resolved:  That application 19/500219/FULL be refused and the reasons be delegated to officers, but to include harmful to the street scene because of the scale and position; in-fill of a visual gap; harmful to visual amenity, and harmful as it would result in a separate self-contained new dwelling.