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 3 April 2019.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Senior Planner explained that this was the same scheme as was presented to the Planning Committee in November 2018.  The reason it had come back to Committee was, although additional conditions had been noted in the minutes of that meeting, they had not been included in the resolution.

Mr Doug Brown, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman explained that the decision was being made on whether to accept the four conditions requested by the Environment Agency, and to delegate to officers to approve, subject to the addition of these conditions.

The Planning Lawyer clarified the position and explained that the final resolution at the November 2018 meeting had not included these conditions, and officers were unable to add them without the application coming back to Committee. On this basis, the decision notice could therefore not be issued.  However, she added that the resolution from the meeting in November 2018 was a strong material consideration.

A Member asked why it had taken so long to bring this back to Committee to resolve the issue?  The Senior Planner explained that whilst waiting to secure the SAMMS payment, the omission of the conditions had been flagged-up.

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:

·         This was an inappropriate use of space;

·         it was detrimental to the High Street;

·         the additional conditions did not address my concerns;

·         further down the High Street would be better;

·         this was right next to the Spirit of Sittingbourne development, an important part of the High Street;

·         no problem with this development;

·         very dangerous ground to think of reasons to turn down when had previously approved the application;

·         it was unreasonable to change the decision now; and

·         there were already enough businesses like this in the High Street.

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

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred because it was contrary to what had already been agreed.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.

At this point the Development Manager used his delegated powers to call-in the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.

Members were invited to ask questions.

A Member asked the distance from the garage to the road.  The Senior Planner advised that it was 8.8 metres which was acceptable and meant that two cars could park on the driveway.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was not seconded.

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

·         This was a very prominent part of the village and close to the Conservation Area;

·         cars did not fit in the garages in any case, this was an improvement; and

·         this did not affect the amenity of anyone else.

It was noted that neither Ward Member had raised objection to the application.

Resolved:  That application 19/500485/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Senior Planner reported that one further representation had been received from the Swale Footpath Group who had raised no objection, subject to the footpath not being diverted or obstructed and that crime prevention methods must be addressed.  The Senior Planner confirmed that the footpath route would not be altered.  The KCC Public Rights of Way Officer had no objection to the application.  The Senior Planner stated that condition (20) in the report would ensure that the development met the principles of ‘Secure by Design’.

Parish Councillor Tom Owens, representing Boughton Parish Council, spoke against the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked specifically how many trees would be lost and how many would be planted?  He considered there should be 100% replacement.  The Senior Planner advised that 41 trees would be cut down, and according to the tree report these were in a poor condition in any case.  At the moment there was an indicative landscape drawing which showed a line of planting.  The Senior Planner referred Members to condition (4) in the report in relation to landscape works, and he said that officers would be mindful of the removed trees, with the aim of providing to visual and bio-diversity enhancements.  He confirmed that the large trees which were close to, but outside of the site, would remain.

A Member requested photos of the land to help visualise what was there.  The Senior Planner showed the overall view of the site, existing housing, existing access onto Bull Lane, the nearby Oast houses, and the power lines which would be diverted, or put underground.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered it was too large for the site, the access too narrow, and that the entrance would be better if it was in Bull Lane.  The Ward Member requested, if the application was approved, that the lane not be used before and after school opening hours.  The Senior Planner stated that condition (22) in the report addressed this issue, with work vehicles on and off the site not being permitted during school drop off/pick-up times of between 8am-9am and 2.30pm-4pm.  Construction could take place during these times, but no movements to and from the site.

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

·         Narrow access road issues;

·         wanted details of the trees;

·         this would have a huge impact on the surrounding area;

·         accepted it was in the Local Plan, was it exactly as in the Local Plan?;

·         this was over-development, and not in a suitable place;

·         needed to come back to the Committee if there was a problem with the supply of the affordable housing on the site; and

·         welcomed the affordable housing.

In response, the Senior Planner explained that the landscaping condition was a very important part of the application, which could be improved if necessary.  He added that the site was allocated in the Local Plan for a minimum of 16 units, and 16 units were proposed.

The Chairman moved the following amendment:  That the application be delegated to officers subject to the agreement of the landscaping condition with a requirement of at least 41 trees being planted, tree-for-tree, but not necessarily species-for-species, and to return to the Planning Committee if this was not achieved.  Members agreed with this.

Resolved:  That application 18/501428/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (30) in the report, and subject to the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement, and subject to the agreement of the landscaping condition with a requirement of at least 41 trees being planted, tree-for-tree, but not necessarily species-for-species, and to return to the Planning Committee if this was not achieved. 

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Senior Planner reported that Bredgar Parish Council had emailed in supporting the application, as noted in the report.

There were no questions.

A Visiting Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  She considered there was a variety of different extensions in the vicinity.

The Chairman moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.  The Committee appeared to be minded to not refuse the application.  The Chairman withdrew his motion and Councillor Baldock agreed.

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

·         This could improve what was there, and no problem with the porch;

·         the gap between some properties and their boundaries was a waste of useful space; and

·         the existing layout was a mess.

The Senior Planner drew Members’ attention to the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) as outlined on page 149 of the report, and if Members were minded to approve the application, a clear steer would be needed as to why this application was an exception to the SPG.

The Chairman again moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was lost, with the Chairman using his casting vote.

Members discussed reasons for approving the application and raised the following points:  to follow existing precedents of not going to the boundary would be worse than what was proposed and would create unusable space; and the depth of the extension was not detrimental to the neighbouring property.

The Planning Lawyer advised that good reasons were needed in case someone challenged the decision to approve the application.  The Senior Planner advised that the loss of the kitchen window was not given as much protection in the deliberations.  A Member said there would still need to be space at the side for guttering.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved a motion to approve the application on the following grounds:  That to follow existing precedents of not going to the boundary would be worse than what was proposed and would create unusable space; and the depth of the extension was not detrimental to the neighbouring property, and the loss of the kitchen window did not cause harm.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson and on being put the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/506627/FULL be approved subject to the usual conditions and noting that to follow existing precedents of not going to the boundary would be worse than what was proposed and create unusable space; and the depth of the extension was not detrimental to the neighbouring property and the loss of the kitchen window did not cause harm. 

PART 5

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

·         Item 5.1 – Former Doubleday Lodge, Glebe Lane, Sittingbourne

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

APPEALS ALLOWED / AWARD OF COSTS REFUSED

A Member noted that the Planning Inspector had considered the Council had not behaved unreasonably.