PRESENT:  Councillors Cameron Beart (Chairman), Richard Darby, James Hall, James Hunt, Nigel Kay and Peter Marchington.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:  Councillors Tina Booth and Lynd Taylor.

OFFICERS PRESENT:   Philippa Davies and Megan Harris.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Andy Booth, Ken Ingleton, Bryan Mulhern and Prescott.

The Chairman welcomed the Applicant, members of the public, a representative from Eastchurch Parish Council and a Visiting Ward Member to the Meeting.

The Planner introduced the application which sought permission for the erection of a detached double garage, west of the main dwelling. The application site was within the built-up area of Eastchurch.  The building would be 6.4metres wide and 7metres long, with the eaves height 3.8metres high, and the ridge height being 6.2metres.  The materials would match the main house.  The Planner explained that upstairs would be for use by a disabled relative, and the application was a re-submission of a previous application which had been refused.  This application was of a smaller footprint and improved design, and had more appropriate fenestration.  The rear window on the first floor would be obscure-glazed and was a significant distance from the nearest property.  The annex’s habitable floor space had been reduced from 38.9m² in the previous application to 23.9m².  The annex was dependent on the main house, and was not a separate dwelling.

The Planner advised that there had been 10 objections to the application, as noted in the report.  She explained that Eastchurch Parish Council had also objected.

The Applicant gave an overview of the application and the reasons that he wanted the additional accommodation.  He explained the addition of the double garage would allow him to park his vehicles off the road, as they did not fit in the garage currently on the site.

A Visiting Member who was also a representative of Eastchurch Parish Council spoke against the application and considered it to be not-in-keeping with the streetscene.  She questioned the practicalities of having upstairs accommodation for someone who was disabled.  The Applicant confirmed that a stair lift would be installed.

A Visiting Ward Member spoke against the application and understood there was a covenant on the original dwelling preventing a second dwelling on the site.

Local residents raised the following points:

·         This looked like it would be a separate dwelling, and could be rented out independently in the future;

·         this would be an eyesore;

·         it would set a precedent, with the gaps in the spacious housing being filled;

·         loss of character of the estate;

·         more vehicles;

·         concerns on how the disabled person would evacuate if there was a fire;

·         the covenant on the house seemed to have been ignored;

·         overlooking; and

·         loss of winter sunshine to nearby property.

In response, the Planner explained that covenants were not taken into account in the planning process; and a condition would be added to the permission to state that the new building would be ancillary to the main dwelling.  She re-iterated that this was not a separate dwelling, and it would be a planning breach if it became separate from the main building.

The Planner responded to Members’ questions and explained that garages were not taken into account when considering parking standards, and the parking standards for this property were as they would be for this size of dwelling, i.e. parking for two cars.

Members toured the application site with the officer.