To consider the attached report (Parts 1, 2 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 29 May 2019.

Tabled papers published Tuesday 4 June 2019.

PART 1

Reports to be considered in public session not included elsewhere on this Agenda

The Development Manager reminded Members that there had been a Tree Preservation Order on the two small parts of the site since 1974, but that a larger Tree Preservation Order area was now required.

Parish Councillor Jeff Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

Resolved:  That application TPO NO. 6 of 2018 be confirmed without modification.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Planning Officer drew attention to condition (3) of the Committee report which restricted occupancy to 8 months.  He explained that the site benefited from 10 month occupation (granted in 2012 under SW/12/0306) and requested delegation to correct the conditions to reflect that. 

The Planning Officer further reported that one additional letter of objection had been received from someone who had already commented, they raised issues already covered in the report and corrected some minor points: the access road was made-up of 2 private roads, not 1; theadjacent park was not called “Irwin Park” any more; condition (3) should be for 10 months; and noted a number of issues of maintenance and construction relating to the chalets on Parklands Village were unrelated to the application at hand.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

In response to a query from a Member, the Planning Officer confirmed that following an application agreed at Planning Committee on 14 May 2012 for the site, the ten month occupancy had been agreed.  He advised that the site was now in new ownership.

A Ward Member raised concern about planning breaches at the adjacent park and that Planning Enforcement needed to be proactive in addressing these issues.

The Head of Planning advised that enforcement officers did carry out spot checks and that Members could inform officers of any specific breaches they may be aware of.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

Resolved:  That application 18/506323/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report and an amendment to condition (3) to ten month occupancy.

The Planner reported that four additional objections had been received from local residents raising the following points: parking provision was inadequate; Tunstall Road was a commuter route; emergency vehicles would have difficulty with the access track; access for construction vehicles would be dangerous for pedestrians and dog walkers; design of the new houses was out-of-keeping, and their rooms were small; and new builds added nothing ‘innovative or novel’ to the Grade II listed school building.

The Planner further reported that the Victorian Society had initially raised concern with regard to internal works to the school, but noted there were virtually no existing historical or architectural internal features left and therefore raised no objection. 

Parish Councillor Mavis Hibben, representing Tunstall Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Gary Swift, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Tony Winckless proposed a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

Some Members spoke against the site meeting.

On being put to the vote the motion for a site meeting was agreed.

Resolved:  That applications 19/500050/FULL and 19/500051/LBC be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Planner reported that Kent County Council (KCC) Ecology had requested additional conditions; one referring to the protection of hedgehogs on site; a clause in condition (4) of the Committee report referring to details of a sensitive lighting plan to avoid impact on bats and an Informative regarding the protection of birds on-site during the nesting season.  He stated that delegation to approve the application was sought, subject to the conditions and informatives requested by KCC Ecology

Justin Tuck, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Gary Turner, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Ward Member advised that Hernhill Parish Council had now considered the amended application and still raised objection to the application.  He read out their further comments for Members.

In response to their queries, the Planner reminded Members that the applicants already had permission for a van and HGV lorry park on the site.

A Member asked whether KCC Highways and Transportation considered the rural roads surrounding the site to be dangerous.  The Highways and Transportation Officer did not consider them to be dangerous and noted that it was a low speed designated area.

A Member asked whether there was a charge for overnight parking;  how many parking spaces were there in the new scheme; and whether it would be possible to provide weight limit signs through the village to alleviate local concerns.  In response the Planner stated that there was no charge for proposed overnight parking, and the new scheme was for 14 hgv’s and 7 smaller commercial vehicle spaces.  The Highways and Transportation Officer stated that a weight limit sign could be requested via a Traffic Regulation Order.

A Member asked whether a condition could be imposed requiring weight restriction signs to be provided and delegated to officers to negotiate.  The Highways and Transportation Officer stated that this could not be imposed by condition, but could be requested as part of the Section 106 Agreement.

The Chairman moved the motion to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following addendum:  That officers be given delegated authority to negotiate with KCC Highways and Transportation suitable weight restriction signage through Dunkirk village as part of the Section 106 Agreement.  This was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark.

The Highways and Transportation Officer stated that Members needed to be clear on what type of signage they were asking for, and that this may also be difficult to enforce in a such a rural location.  He considered it may be more appropriate to allow the applicants to provide suitable directions for visitors and employees to their site. 

Members debated the proposed addendum, and the proposer of the original addendum moved the following amendment to the addendum:   That officers be given delegated authority to negotiate with KCC Highways and Transportation suitable signage restricting HGVs except for local access as part of the Section 106 Agreement.  This was agreed by the seconder of the original addendum.  On being put to the vote the amended addendum was agreed.

Members debated the proposals and some Members stated that they preferred the original lorry park scheme.

Resolved:  That application 18/506384FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report, the additional conditions required by KCC Ecology, and a Section 106 Agreement requiring the applicant to apply for a Traffic Regulation Order in respect of potential weight or height restrictions on local lanes in the vicinity of the site, to be negotiated with KCC Highways and Transportation.

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled update which had previously been emailed to the Committee and included further representations from consultants acting for Tesco and Morrisons; the Council’s Tree Officer; details of updated site plans; costings for the provision of public art; and amendments to conditions (2), (4), (14), (15), (17), (18), (20), (21), and informatives (1) and (2) of the Committee report.  He also drew attention to the further letter from Tesco which was also tabled for Members.

The Major Projects Officer reported that there was an error on condition (14) of the tabled paper, and it should refer to “charging facilities” not “changing” as stated.  The Major Projects Officer sought delegation to refine the wording to condition (20) of the tabled paper to omit “…and approved in writing by…” from the 3^rd line.

The Major Projects Officer further reported that Southern Water were happy with the foul and surface water drainage strategy and recommended removal of that condition.  Southern Water had suggested that the applicant consult with the Environment Agency regarding use of soakaways for surface water disposal.  The Major Projects Officer noted condition (25) of the Committee report, which he considered should be amended to refer to the approved details, rather than removed altogether.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to approve the application subject to the signing of a suitably-worded Section 106 Agreement, and the planning conditions as set out in the main report and as amended by the tabled paper and above update.

Town Councillor John Irwin, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Scott Davidson, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked how the proposed materials for the supermarket and hotel fitted-in with the local vernacular?  The Conservation and Design Manager – Planning said that the applicants had worked closely with officers to improve the materials and design of the scheme.  He explained that whilst the format of the proposed supermarket was a standard format, it used materials that were the same across the three sites and primarily of a traditional local brickwork and render, and added further details including to the brise-soliel and mono-pitched roof to add further design elements to the building.  He explained that officers had also negotiated substantial landscaping to the front of the supermarket building and hotel.  He considered that on balance the siting was acceptable and created a strong entrance to the site with trees leading into it.

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer confirmed that there would be a restaurant at the hotel.  A Member raised concern about deliveries as it was a residential area.  The Major Projects Officer referred to condition (30) of the Committee report which imposed delivery restrictions. 

A Member queried what was meant by phasing in condition (14) of the Committee report, in respect of details of electric charging, and asked whether this could be “tightened-up” to ensure it was clear that this would be provided at both the supermarket and hotel.  The Major Projects Officer confirmed that the supermarket and hotel would be built under two separate phases, and agreed to amend the wording in the condition as requested.

A Member asked for confirmation that under Policy DM2, any building under 2,500 square metres did not require a Retail Assessment?  He also asked officers whether they were aware of the contributions for improvements towards highway improvements to the A2/A251 junction, and at what stage of the development they would be paid?

The Major Projects Officer explained that following the publication of the Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment for Swale it had been considered necessary to carry out an independent assessment of the retail impact of the proposed development, as set out in paragraph 8.19 on page 147 of the Committee report, and this had bee carried out by White Young Green Planning Consultants.  The Major Projects Officer explained that the assessment had been received relatively recently and it was that document that Tesco considered they should have been formally consulted on.  

The KCC Highway and Transportation Officer confirmed that the highway contribution was £99,660 calculated on a movement rate of £1,020 per peak hour movement through the A2/A251 junction, as per the original planning application 15/504264.  He confirmed that the applicant had not challenged that calculation.  He explained that it would be usual for payments of that kind to be made prior to occupation of the building.

A Member queried whether the design of the A2/A251 junction improvements had been approved, and when would it be constructed in relation to the construction of the supermarket and hotel.

The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer stated that he would be taking a report outlining details of three options for improvements to the A2/A251 junction to the meeting of the Swale Joint Transportation Board on Monday 24 June 2019, and was therefore unable to provide timings in terms of this application.  

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

Councillor Nicolas Hampshire moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred until details of the A2/A251 junction improvements were known.  This was seconded by Councillor Paul Stephen. 

Councillor Benjamin Martin asked that this included a site meeting. 

On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Members debated the application and raised the following points: welcomed anything that brought employment to Faversham; the delivery times of 0600  - 2300 hours should be amended to 0700 to 2200 hours; did not like the design of the proposed supermarket and hotel; the supermarket and hotel should have pitched roofs with local Kent peg tiles; concerned that operators of the medieval market and independent shops had not been consulted on the application; the landscaping needed to include native species; needed to have a better understanding of the environmental details, such as whether solar panels were to be included; did not think it necessary to defer, as KCC Highways and Transportation had already carried out traffic modelling; had full faith in officers that this was a suitable design; disappointed with the design; challenged the need for a supermarket; considered the Sainsbury’s building was a better design; local bio-mass boilers should be provided; ground source heat pumps and solar panels should be provided; this development would have an adverse impact on air pollution; the condition relating to charging for electric vehicles should specify whether they would be rapid charge; would have an adverse impact on the viability of Faversham Town Centre; the Section 106 monies from this scheme would help to fund any improvements to the A2/A251 junction improvements; and should not consider until details of the junction improvements were known.

The Head of Planning stated that officers had worked very hard with the applicants to secure a quality scheme, particularly in respect of landscaping.  He reminded Members that the applicants were not responsible for highway decisions relating to the public road network.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred until the decision of the Swale Joint Transportation Board in relation to the proposed A2/A251 junction improvements was known.  Further details be provided of the design of the proposed buildings, the environmental impact (particularly sustainable design and construction), the potential impact on the viability of Faversham Town Centre, the implications for local air quality and native tree species be planted.  This was seconded by Councillor Benjamin Martin.

On being put to the vote the motion to defer was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/50638/FULL be deferred until the decision of the Swale Joint Transportation Board in relation to the proposed A2/A251 junction improvements was known, and further details be provided of the design of the proposed buildings, the environmental impact (particularly sustainable design and construction), the potential impact on the viability of Faversham Town Centre, the implications for local air quality and native tree species be planted.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – 30 Ferry Road, Iwade

APPEAL DISMISSED

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

• Item 5.2 – Friston, Lower Road, Eastchurch

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.3 – 10 Athelstan Road, Faversham

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.4 – Ashfield Court Farm, Newington

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.5 – 19 Victory Street, Sheerness

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member stated that this was a disappointing decision.

• Item 5.6 – Coronation Drive, Leysdown

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL