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 8 January 2020.

Item 2.3 - The Vicarage, Church Lane, Newington – this has been withdrawn from the agenda

 PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reported that two additional letters and an email had been received from two neighbouring residents.  They had raised the following concerns:  potential anti-social behaviour from future occupants; the site was not sustainable, with limited opening times at local shops and a difficult walk to Eastchurch; and a further temporary permission should be issued to deal with any future anti-social behaviour (ASB) from future residents.  The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that planning permission went with the land, not the occupant, and that ASB from residents was not a material planning consideration.

Mrs J Hursey, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked whether the Applicant was in breach of the original planning application.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that she was, and also that she did not meet the Government definition of a gypsy and traveller.

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

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

·         No reason to support this, except to meet the 5 year supply of deliverable sites, but this was only one pitch in any case; and

·         considered this would not be detrimental to the site.

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

There was some discussion on the reasons for refusing the application which included that the overall need for accommodation for gypsy and travellers was out-weighed by the unsustainability of the site.

The Area Planning Officer responded and stated that there was already a 5-year supply.  It was better to refer to the fact that it was in an unsustainable location, and whether it was an acceptable site for a gypsy and traveller site.

Councillor Cameron Beart moved a motion to refuse the application on the following grounds:  That the site was unsustainable as it was remote, and away from local amenities.  This was seconded by Councillor Benjamin Martin and on being put to the vote the motion was won, with the Chairman using his casting vote.

Resolved:  That application 17/500921/FULL be refused on the grounds that the site was unsustainable as it was remote, and away from local amenities. 

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer acknowledged that there were already similar sites in the area, but said that that each application had to be considered on its own merits.  He stated that the site was generally acceptable.

A Member asked if there were touring or static caravans on the site.  The Area Planning Officer referred the Member to condition (4) on page 30 of the Committee report, which stated one static and one touring caravan on the site.

A Member asked about the appeal history of the sites in the vicinity.  The Area Planning Officer explained that following an appeal in 2015/16, the Planning Inspectorate had stated that due to the location of the Thistle Hill development, sites in this vicinity were sustainable.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that none of the trees on the site were protected trees, and the site was not within a Conservation Area.

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

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

·         This site was sustainable;

·         the Council now had its 5-year supply of gypsy and traveller sites, where did we draw the line?

·         additional sites caused upset for the settled community;

·         this would set a precedent for vacant plots to be filled between this site and other sites;

·         lots of trees had been removed, making the site very visible; and

·         there would be an impact on the settled community.

In response to the points raised, the Area Planning Officer said that government guidance stated that gypsy and traveller sites should not overwhelm the settled community.  He said that in this location, the number of gypsy and traveller sites exceeded settled community sites in the street, but that there was no definition as to what constituted the settled community in the vicinity of the site.  Members needed to decide whether the site was acceptable.  The Area Planning Officer added, in response to a further question, that the site was outside the built-up area, and a house would not be allowed to be built on the site as the policy for gypsy and traveller sites was different to the settled community.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

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 refused on the grounds of its negative impact on visual amenity, due to its design and layout, on the local area; cumulative impact on the settled community; and over-intensity of gypsy and traveller sites in the vicinity.  This was seconded by Councillor Elliott Jayes.

Member debated the motion and made the following comments:

·         The number of sites on Greyhound Road, Minster was now dominating the settled community; and

·         impact on the streetscene, this was not tucked away.

Resolved:  That application 19/502204/FULL be refused on the groundsof its negative impact on visual amenity, due to its design and layout; and the cumulative impact on the settled community due to an over-intensity of gypsy and traveller sites in the vicinity.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

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

Resolved:  That application 17/505657/FULL be approved subject  to condition (1) in the report.

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

Resolved:  That application 19/505850/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reported that Hernhill Parish Council had written in, supporting the revised proposal, including the external stairwell, and they supported the change of use.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the Applicant had got in touch to discuss design changes, but any changes to reduce the eaves height would have compromised the function of the application.  As a result there were no changes and reason 2 on page 63 of the report still stood.

William Shenow-Brady, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Michael Pearce, an objector, spoke against the application.

Paul Marsh, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked to view the plans, how the height compared with that of the cart lodge and whether the proposed building was visible from the road?  The Area Planning Officer explained that the different heights were difficult to assess because of the slope on the site, and he advised that the building was not visible from the road.

A Member sought clarification on the policy relating to this type of development as other developments similar to this had been approved.  The Area Planning Officer explained that this application sought to erect a brand new building as a holiday let, rather than using an existing building.

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

Councillor Tony Winckless moved a motion for a site meeting which was seconded by Councillor Ken Rowles.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

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

·         Holiday lets were good to have, but needed to balance with the impact on everything else;

·         this was not acceptable in a Conservation Area;

·         the building was not visible from the road, so there was no visible amenity issues;

·         planning permission had already been given to improve the building;

·         did not accept that one single let was unsustainable;

·         this would be a useful addition, and not too far from the local public house;

·         the setting of the listed building needed to be protected; and

·         the appearance of the building would change and it would be visible from a public footpath.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered the change of use to be a critical issue.

Resolved:  That application 19/504625/FULL be refused for the reasons stated in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that a further letter of support had been received from a resident of Upchurch, which raised the following points: the site was unobtrusive; the views to it were screened; the site had less of an impact than other sites that had been given permission; more suitable landscaping could be planted, via condition; the family had integrated well into the community; the site was tidy; there were no ASB issues; and what else would the land be used for?

The Area Planning Officer said that the report set-out details of the impact of the site, and ASB issues were not a material planning consideration.  He explained that the condition which granted temporary permission on the site had lapsed, and the land should return to grazing land.

Joseph P Jones, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Joseph G Jones, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked if the site was within a flood zone?  The Area Planning Officer advised that it was at risk and that the caravans were on stilts, which made them more prominent, although some were masked by landscaping.

A Member asked if the permission could be tied to the family?  The Area Planning Officer explained this this was only usually done when there were extenuating circumstances and he was not aware of any in this case.

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

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

·         The site was difficult to find, and not visible;

·         it was kept clean;

·         the residents were part of the community;

·         did not see the harm of this application;

·         they needed to stay where they were;

·         needed to consider the family’s circumstances;

·         the family was established here, the decision was between policy or morals; and

·         many sites had been given temporary permissions because of the shortfall in a 5-year supply of sites, now that there was a 5-year year supply, the Council needed to follow the officer recommendation, otherwise the ‘floodgates’ would open.

In response to the comments, the Area Planning Officer acknowledged the sentimental aspect of the application, but stated that the harm, as outlined in the report, out-weighed the personal circumstances of the Applicant.

Councillor Roger Clark moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

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

Councillor James Hunt moved the following motion:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve on a personal basis.  To also include relevant conditions, including a landscaping condition for planting to enhance the area, and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) payments, and for officers to impose, if necessary, conditions restricting the use of touring caravans within the site.  This was seconded by Councillor Benjamin Martin.

Resolved:  That application 17/505019/FULL bedelegated to officers to approve as a personal permission.  To also include relevant conditions, including a landscaping condition for planting to enhance the area, and SAMMS payments and for officers to impose, if necessary, conditions restricting the use of touring caravans within the site.

The Area Planning Officer referred Members to paragraph 5.3 on page 88 of the Committee report.  Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had requested amended drawings showing sight lines.  The amendments resulted in the sight lines going beyond the application boundary and so they could not be secured by a planning condition.  The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the reason for refusal outlined on page 93 of the report and noted that the site was on a rural lane, was remote and unsustainable and safe access was difficult to achieve without significant adverse impact on the amenities of the rural lane.

Mrs Vanessa Leak, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Felix Krish, an objector, spoke against the application.

Ryan Leak, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

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

·         There was a need for local housing;

·         could not see how this could be approved in its current form;

·         more self-builds like this were needed;

·         taking the hedgerow out on the rural lane to form sight lines would change the area too much; and

·         add a condition so that the housing remained with local families.

A Ward Member was sympathetic to the scheme, but considered this would open the ‘floodgates’ and thought the scheme would change the character of the area.  He said the scheme should be instigated through the English Rural Scheme instead.

In response to comments made, the Area Planning Officer explained that there were options to develop affordable rural housing through established housing procedures.  He said this was not the right location, it needed to be accessible, and to be affordable in the long-term, rather than for an individual.

Resolved:  That application 19/504833/FULL be refused for the reason stated in the report.

At this point the meeting was adjourned from 9.50pm to 10pm for a comfort break.

PART 5

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

·                     Item 5.1 –  Sheerness Holiday Park, Halfway Road, Minster

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member welcomed the decision.

·                     Item 5.2 –  Land situated at Goldstone, Augustine Road, Minster

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member welcomed the decision.

·                     Item 5.3 –  8 Salmon Crescent, Minster

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL ALLOWED