To approve the Minutes of the Meetings held on 6 January 2020 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider the following applications:

19/500866/OUT, Land at Swale Way, Great Easthall, Sittingbourne, ME10 3TF.

19/504412/FULL, Oyster Bay House, Chambers Wharf, Faversham, ME13 7BT 

Tabled Paper added 9 January 2020.

The Minutes of the Meetings held on 6 January 2020 (Minute Nos. 407 – 408 and 409 - 410) were taken as read, approved and signed by Chairman as a correct record.

19/500866/OUT, Land at Swale Way, Great Easthall, Sittingbourne, ME10 3TF

The Area Planning Officer said that he had reviewed the conditions in the original committee report, and advised that a further condition was required relating to the submission of a noise assessment and detailed mitigation measures at the point of the reserved matters application.

In response to a question raised at the Planning Working Group visit on 6 January 2020, regarding whether the haul road would be removed, the Area Planning Officer explained that the haul road came under permitted development whilst construction was ongoing.  He explained that part of it crossed a play area, required by the original permission.  The Green Spaces Officer had advised that the trigger point for provision had passed some time ago, and he had advised that the Council had taken the pragmatic approach that the wider estate had the benefit of two play areas and a recreation ground.  With the removal of the haul road resulting in construction traffic being routed through residential areas, provision of the play area and removal of the haul road were not being insisted upon.  The Green Spaces Officer envisaged the play area being provided towards the completion of the entire development, and he was mindful that discussions were ongoing regarding alternative uses of this site.

The Area Planning Officer also reported that since the site meeting, the Applicant had appealed against non-determination of the application.  He explained that they had requested a public inquiry, and that the Council had 24 hours to advise which appeal procedure would be appropriate and why.  The Area Planning Officer advised that determination of this application now fell to the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Committee were required to advise how it would have determined the application had the appeal not been submitted.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked that if the application was approved this evening, would the Applicant withdraw the appeal?  The Area Planning Officer explained the appeal process and advised that the Planning Inspectorate had seven days to validate the application, so if it was approved, the appeal could be withdrawn.  He said that if Members were minded to approve the application, the Planning Inspectorate would be advised, along with submission of the minutes and list of conditions, and then it would be down to the Planning Inspectorate to make the final decision. 

A Member asked about the noise and pollution on the application site due to its position in the vicinity of a large industrial site and the nearby community hall.  The Area Planning Officer explained that a noise assessment had been submitted, and as noted in the Committee report, the Environmental Health Manager was happy with the assessment and confident that the noise levels fell within an acceptable level.  The layout of the development at the reserved matters stage would require a further acoustic report to be submitted.

A Member asked about the status of the barrier to the community hall, potential parking issues and further clarification on the dip of the site and whether there were any flood mitigation measures?  The Area Planning Officer explained that surface water mitigation would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.  He said that the barrier would have to be removed to allow access to the site. It could be re-located, but that could effect the amount of car parking spaces at the community hall.

A Member asked how the site could be improved as it was the entrance to the whole development?  The Area Planning Officer said that the reserved matters stage of the application would enable high quality design and good layout to be achieved.

A Member asked about the dip of the land and how this would accommodate the new dwellings?  The Area Planning Officer explained that this would also be dealt with under reserved matters.

In response to questions about the original intended use of the land, the Area Planning Officer explained that it had been allocated for a health centre.  The developer had offered the land to the NHS twice, but the NHS had not taken up the offer.  The developer’s obligations had been met, and the land was not reserved for any particular development, nor allocated for any development in the Local Plan.  He said it was undeveloped land within the built-up area of Sittingbourne. 

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised concern with the lack of facilities on the development, and considered a health centre was required on the site, instead of housing.  He said that acoustic measures to mitigate noise from the community hall funnelled the noise onto the application site, and he considered this to have grave consequences on the longevity of the community hall.  The Ward Member said the application was detrimental to the amenity of the area.

Members were invited to debate the application and raised points which included:

·         The application site dipped down and concerns with potential flooding issues;

·         this was not an appropriate use for the entrance to a major development;

·         sympathetic to the lack of facilities on the Great Easthall Estate, but there were no material planning considerations to refuse the application;

·         the site was scrubland at the moment, this needed to change;

·         if there was not going to be a health centre, there should be another community facility instead, rather than housing; and

·         was the Environmental Health Manager aware of the noise being funnelled from the Community Hall onto the application site?

At this point, Councillor Tim Valentine moved the following motion:

That, should the application be approved, the following energy efficiency condition be added:

“The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed and tested to achieve the following measures:

At least a 50% reduction in Dwelling Emission Rate compared to the target fabric energy efficiency rates as required under Part L1A of the Building Regulations 2013 (as amended);

A reduction in carbon emissions of at least 50% compared to the target emission rate as required under Part L of the Building Regulations.

Prior to the construction of any dwelling, details of the measures to be undertaken to secure compliance with this condition shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.”

This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Members continued to debate the substantive motion and raised the following points:

·         Disappointed the site was not being used for a community use;

·         inclined to support shops on ground floor, with flats above, rather than large scale housing; and

·         any noise limiter on the community hall could be detrimental to hiring the hall out.

On being put to the vote the substantive motion was lost.

There was some discussion on the reasons for refusing the application, and Members suggested the following reasons:

·         Loss of amenity to the larger site;

·         the ‘tilted balance’ was not tilted far enough regarding the housing because of the loss of amenities for the wider estate;

·         disturbance from the community hall which was not considered by the Environmental Health Manager;

·         flooding issues;

·         detrimental to amenity;

·         over-development;

·         last bit of open space on Great Easthall Estate;

·         shared access to the community hall resulted in parking issues and loss of amenity for residents, and conflict with the community hall;

·         site should demonstrate greater amenity use, through mixed use;

·         impact on community hall and entrance;

·         noise issues from the community hall;

·         reference to paragraph 92 of the NPPF; and

·         if residents could not park at the community hall, they would park outside the new houses instead.

In response to the suggested reasons for refusal, the Area Planning Officer made the following comments:  the site was not reserved or allocated for any particular type of development; it was undeveloped land in the built-up area, so any reason for refusal based on the desirability of an alternative use of the land would not be defendable on appeal; the land was not in a flood risk area, and the application proposed drainage mitigations in any case; and Members would need to demonstrate any harm to amenity, and any over-development.

Councillor Benjamin Martin moved a motion to refuse the application on the following grounds:  That it had not been demonstrated that noise and general disturbance from the adjacent community hall would not give rise to harm to the amenities of residents in the proposed development; the loss of a community facility; overdevelopment giving rise to a cramped appearance with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the area; parking/overspill issues and harm to highway convenience and amenity due to the combined access of the community hall and the application site.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the motion to refuse the application and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Monique Bonney, Roger Clark, James Hall, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, Benjamin Martin, Paul Stephen, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.  Total equals 9.

Against:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Mike Dendor and James Hunt.  Total equals 3.

Abstain:  Councillors Ken Rowles, Tim Gibson, David Simmons and Eddie Thomas.  Total equals 4.

The motion to refuse the application was won.

Resolved:  That application 19/500866/OUT be refused on the grounds that it had not been demonstrated that noise and general disturbance from the adjacent community hall would not give rise to harm to the amenities of residents in the proposed development; the loss of a community facility; overdevelopment giving rise to a cramped appearance with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the area; parking/overspill issues, and harm to highway convenience and amenity due to the combined access of the community hall and the application site.

19/504412/FULL, Oyster Bay House, Chambers Wharf, Faversham, ME13 7BT

The Area Planning Officer referred to the tabled paper for this item, which he summarised for Members:  the Applicant had stated that the height of the proposed building could not be decreased as it needed to see over nearby trees and lighting; the diameter of the dome could be reduced from 4 metres to 3 metres; the building would be completely separate from the existing garage; the windows facing nearby houses could be deleted; and the proposed building would be considerably reduced in bulk.  The Area Planning Officer referred to the Conservation Officer’s comments on the application.  She acknowledged the changes to the application, but still considered the building, and the solar panels, to be intrusive.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked for confirmation of what the overall height of the proposed building was, in comparison to the Oyster Bay House, and whether it was intrusive?  The Area Planning Officer explained that the height of the proposed building was 11.6 metres, and the Oyster Bay House was 16 metres high.  He said that the Oyster Bay House was an inherent part of Faversham’s nautical history, whereas this scheme was the Applicant’s personal project.  The Member asked about the solar panels which he thought the Council promoted, and what would happen to the building if the Oyster Bay House was sold on.  The Area Planning Officer agreed that the Council supported the use of solar panels, but explained that there were other ways they could be installed, such as on the ground, or as tiles on the roof.  He said it would be unusual to tie the scheme to the Applicant, and the building be demolished, as it was a permanent structure.

The Conservation and Design Manager explained that the solar panels on this application were retrofit, onto an existing slate roof.  He reminded Members that the application site was adjacent to a Listed Building, and within a Conservation Area.  He said there was a better way of installing the solar panels, such as replacing the existing slate tiles with solar panels, or panels which sat more flush to the roof.  He added that the site was very visible from the public footpath.

A Member asked whether the idea that the dome be painted green to blend in with the surroundings, could be a condition on the application?  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that this was possible.

A Member asked if detail of the solar panels could be added to the conditions?  The Area Planning Officer explained that a condition could be added to state they be flush to the roof.

Councillor Mike Dendor moved the following motion: That the application be deferred to enable officers to pursue a final design of the proposed building.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

Members were invited to debate the application and raised points which included:

·         Considered the original design to be better than the amended one;

·         the original design was ‘quirky’ and more suited for a maritime setting, and was a similar structure to a building on the opposite site of the creek;

·         the solar panels should be added as roof tiles;

·         the height was not too much of an issue in comparison to the Oyster Bay House;

·         the staircase was too bulky, the new design had a lighter connection with the garage;

·         the materials should be natural and soft and sensitive to the surroundings;

·         welcomed the new design, having the staircase underneath was a better option;

·         preferred the option of solar tiles on the roof;

·         should consider copper or zinc for the dome;

·         needed to consider whether the structure would be there in perpetuity; and

·         defer the application and Members speak to officers on their preferred design options.

There was some discussion on whether to delegate to officers or defer the application.

Resolved:  That application 19/504412/FULL be deferred to enable officers to pursue a final design of the proposed building.