This meeting will consider the following outstanding items from the Planning Committee which was adjourned on Thursday 20 June 2019:

Part 1 - 1.1 and 1.3

Part 2 - 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5

Part 5 - 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4

Link to agenda for the Planning Committee meeting on 20 June 2019.

PART 1

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

The Chairman reported that if Members had any queries on the report to contact the Council’s Section 106 Monitoring Officer direct.

Resolved:  That the reported be noted.

This item was considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on 20 June 2019.

The Conservation and Design Manager (Planning) introduced the report.  He drew attention to some numbering errors in the appendices.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

In response to a query from a Member about why some information in the report had been redacted, the Conservation and Design Manager (Planning) explained that following legal advice that information had been redacted to comply with Data Protection legislation.

The Lawyer (Planning) clarified that it was standard practice to redact any information that could identify someone.

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

Resolved:  That the content of the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and associated management strategies be noted.

Resolved:  That the Boughton Street, Boughton Church and South Street areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance, be re-designated as conservation areas in accordance with Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.

Resolved:  That the boundaries to the conservation areas be as proposed on Map No. BSCA05 (Boughton Street), Map No. BCCA03 Rev. A (Boughton Church) and Map No. SSCA03 (South Street), set out at Appendices 3, 4A and 5 respectively.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

There were no questions from Members.

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

Resolved:  That application 19/501555/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

Resolved:  That application 19/501556/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report and referral of the application to the National Planning Casework Service.

The Senior Planner reported that the agent had submitted an amended drawing omitting the balcony from the proposed extension, to overcome concerns raised by a neighbour and the Parish Council regarding potential overlooking.  He explained that the scale of the extension remained the same as originally proposed, and that delegated approval was sought subject to the imposition of an additional condition listing the approved drawing numbers.

There were no questions from Members.

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

Resolved:  That application 19/501881/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report and an additional condition listing the amended drawing numbers.

This item was withdrawn by the applicant.

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

The Area Planning Officer reported that further concerns from Boughton Under Blean Parish Council had been received, raising the following further concerns: the application was not comparable to the application in Newington which was allowed on appeal; the applicants were a property company; and neighbours objected as there were issues with the cesspit.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Ward Member queried how the Council would be able to enforce that the annexe was only being used as an ancillary annexe and not a separate dwelling.  The Area Planning Officer stated that if complaints were received the Council’s enforcement team would be able to investigate. 

In response to further queries, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the previous application 17/502723/FULL was for a free-standing dwelling so was a change of use, the current application was for alterations.  He was unsure how far the annexe would have to be from the house to still be considered an annexe and whether Brenley Lane was classified as a ‘rural’ lane under policy DM26 of the Local Plan.

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

A Ward Member, also a Member of the Planning Committee, spoke against the application.  He was surprised the applicant had been given permission for a four-car garage which he considered was extremely high for its purpose.  The Member also raised concern that if it became a separate dwelling it would lead to parking problems.  The Member supported the Parish Council reasons for objecting to the application.

Members debated the proposal and raised the following points: concerned that the applicants were using the application as a means to eventually gain permission to convert to a property; needed to make it clear that would not support an application for conversion to a separate dwelling; and could only consider the application on its merits and not what may happen.

There was some discussion about a similar application at Eastchurch, which the Council refused but was allowed on appeal.  The Senior Planner explained that the Inspector considered that the application site at Eastchurch was in a sustainable location.  This application was within a rural location.

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

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion to refuse the application:  The proposed development, situated as it is within a remote area with clear views of adjacent open countryside would, by virtue of its unsustainable position within a rural area outside of any built-up area boundary, cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

Councillor Beart confirmed that this was the same reason for refusing the previous application 17/502723/FULL.

On being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/501731/FULL be refused as the proposed development, situated as it is within a remote area with clear views of adjacent open countryside would, by virtue of its unsustainable position within a rural area outside of any built-up area boundary, cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.

This item was considered at the meeting held on Thursday 20 June 2019.

This item was considered at the meeting held on Thursday 20 June 2019.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – Shurland Farm, Shurland Cottage, High Street, Eastchurch

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member stated that he was very disappointed with the Inspector’s decision to allow another garage conversion in Eastchurch.

• Item 5.2 – 64 School Lane, Lower Halstow

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.3 –  Broadoak Farm, Broadoak Road, Milstead

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.4 – Uplees Fruit Farm, Uplees Road, Oare

APPEAL DISMISSED

APPEAL AGAINST NON-DETERMINATION