To consider the following applications:

Deferred Item 1 – 18/502735/FULL – Land at Perry Court, Ashford Road, Faversham

Tabled Paper added 12 September 2019.

Second tabled paper added 16 September 2019.

Deferred Item 2 – 19/501378/FULL – Annex James House, Kent View Drive, Eastchurch

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the applications will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on these items must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 11 September 2019.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Senior Planner referred to the two tabled updates for this item and reminded Members that this application had been deferred at the meeting on 30 May 2019.  He outlined changes in the design of the buildings which included reduced areas of rendered wall; and more clarity and detail on external materials.  The exact detail of the external materials would be subject to planning conditions.  The Senior Planner explained that there would be substantial new planting, and the number of trees to be planted had increased from 53 to 79, and the landscaping scheme would be based on the local landscape character, including additional tree planting in the car park as well.  He showed Members the plans first submitted with the application, and how the current design had evolved and improved from these.

Mr John Irwin, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member questioned the absence of a Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation Officer at the meeting and that he was very disappointed in this.  The Development Manager explained that KCC officers had been invited, and reminded the Member that they were not employees of this Council.  He referred to the tabled paper where KCC officers had responded to some questions raised by Members.

A Member asked whether the effects from the change from a convenience store to a 9 x larger supermarket was negligible as noted in paragraph 3.03 of the report.  The Senior Planner explained that these were comments made by the Environmental Protection Team Leader.  He acknowledged that it was a significant change to the outline permission, but that the Applicant could submit a new application for a larger scheme for consideration if they wished to.  The Senior Planner explained that this was a stand alone application for the supermarket and hotel scheme.  The Member referred to paragraph 3.04 and the £20,000 contribution towards off-site electric vehicle (EV) charge points, and asked what the costs were for the charge points, to get some perspective?  The Senior Planner said that a recent Council scheme cost £8,500 per charge point.  The Member asked what the effects of signalisation at the A2/A251 junction would have on air quality?  The Environmental Protection Team Leader explained that signalisation could result in the slow flow of traffic, with the potential to increase air pollution.  The Member asked what a refrigerant heat recovery system was as referred to in paragraph 4.03?  The Senior Planner explained that this was in relation to the food store and was a system whereby heat generated from freezers was used in a beneficial way elsewhere.  The Member asked for the definition of an edge of centre location and the Senior Planner explained that this was positioned on the edge of town, but still well connected and likely to be up to 300 metres from the shopping centre boundary.  The Member asked for clarification on the current application for a variation to the housing application.  The Senior Planner explained that this was specific to the offsite works at the Brogdale Road/A2 junction, rather than to the A2/A251 junction.  He further clarified that the highways contribution of £300,000 was for the A2/A251 junction.

A Ward Member who was also a Planning Committee Member asked for some current data for the traffic at standstill, due to traffic lights, in Faversham.  The Environmental Protection Team Leader explained that a positive side to traffic lights was that on an existing road, they broke up the flow of traffic, as well as slowing it down.  He explained that there was air quality monitoring data along Ospringe Street, and that the increase in traffic from the development was insignificant at this point.  The Member considered that some of the figures at the Ospringe Air Quality Management Area were in breach of World Health Organisation limits, and so any increase would not be negligible?  The Environmental Protection Team Leader explained that there were hotspots where the levels did exceed the limit, but that the levels of NO₂ died away further from the A2.  In response to a further question, the Senior Planner advised that the total area of the hotel was 3,000 square metres.

A Member asked why there was limited network capacity on the site and considered this should be increased as it was a greenfield site.  The Senior Planner advised that the Applicant had discussed the site capacity with the energy supplier, but would also contribute £20,000 towards off-site EV charge points in Faversham.  Consultation had been carried out with the Climate Change Officer, Environmental Health Team and KCC Highways and Transportation and they considered the EV strategy to be acceptable.  The Member highlighted that 20KWh on page 4 of the report should actually be 20KWp.  The Senior Planner acknowledged the error. He considered that the proposed planning conditions and the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating had incorporated the appropriate sustainability measures into the scheme.  The Major Projects Officer stated that the BREEAM rating on this site was more than what was required in the Local Plan.  The Member noted that the hotel was larger than in the outline planning application.  The Senior Planner explained that there were some differences from the outline application to the present application.  The parameter plans for the outline scheme had shown the hotel to be 11 metres in height; it was now 11.1 metres.  The parameter plans had also indicated that the hotel would be two storey, and it was now three storey.  The Major Projects Officer also said that the number of rooms had changed from a maximum of 100 to 84.

A Member sought clarification on the Section 106 Agreement.  The Senior Planner explained that this was a full planning application, and generated a requirement for Section 106 payments.  Whereas an outline scheme could not re-visit the Section 106 payments under reserved matters, it was possible to do that on this application.  As it included the proposed supermarket, with more traffic, Highways England and KCC Highways and Transportation were seeking more contributions, specific to the movements created by the supermarket.  The Member asked for details of the policy designation for hotel and retail.  The Senior Planner drew the Member’s attention to page 21 of the report which set out Policy MU7 in full, which showed that the allocation of the land was essentially for a mixed use development.

A Member asked if the supermarket would provide a bus service to local areas?  The Major Projects Officer explained that this was not proposed here.  The outline application had already been granted for the wider site, and Section 106 payments from that permission could be used to subsidise public transport provision.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

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

·         Thanks to officers for their work in getting an improved scheme, the agent had pretty much taken on-board everything previously raised by Members;

·         welcomed the additional EV charging points;

·         there were a lot of improvements in terms of landscaping;

·         concerned with certain parts of the design of the hotel and supermarket;

·         the design of the hotel was unimaginative, it was just a brick box;

·         the design needed to be more in-keeping;

·         significant improvements but design of hotel was not good;

·         impact on AQMA as residents travelled by car to the supermarket;

·         orientation of the hotel was wrong relative to nearby existing houses;

·         the hotel was out-of-keeping with the well designed houses on the other side of the Ashford Road; and

·         appreciated the sustainability measures.

In response to a Councillor’s comment, the Major Projects Officer advised that having a view, or the impact of development on it, was not a material consideration.  He invited the Principle Urban and Landscape Design Officer to comment on the design.  She explained that good quality materials would be used on the two buildings, she considered the design of the supermarket to have articulation, and was 3-d in appearance and not just a box.  There had been an effort to improve the landscape and to respond to the local environment, with different types of habitat, and a vast amount of the planting would be native species.  There would also be trees in the car park to provide shade and mitigate the heat from the tarmac areas.

Members made further points including:

·         No problem with the design;

·         acknowledged large change from convenience store to supermarket, but there were going to be 310 dwellings on site;

·         traffic movements would be larger without the supermarket;

·         other consultees, not just KCC Highways and Transportation, did not attend Planning Committee;

·         there was no reason to refuse;

·         grateful for the improvements;

·         inadequate design;

·         supermarket design falls short of other supermarkets in Faversham;

·         this was a vast departure from the outline application;

·         there should be a pitched roof on the buildings;

·         the design should have regard for local vernacular, there was no connection to existing or new buildings;

·         the supermarket would have significant impact on the landscape;

·         it was a bulky goods store, so people would drive there regardless;

·         there would have been even more opposition to the original planning application if there had been a large supermarket on it;

·         any major development would have an adverse impact on air quality;

·         adverse economic impact on town centre;

·         impact on residential amenity of those who lived on Ashford Road;

·         welcomed landscape improvements, but there had been a loss of hedgerow to the front of the site;

·         topography of site meant that ground floor of hotel was in-line with upstairs rooms along Ashford Road;

·         could not support this;

·         the design was in-keeping;

·         air quality issues;

·         Ashford Road was the ‘entrance’ to Faversham, the development was not in-keeping with Ashford Road;

·         impact on the setting of the listed building;

·         generally impressed with the improvements to the overall quantity of EV charge points;

·         this was a very strategic site for EV charging, there should be a minimum of two 100KW rapid charge points in the hotel car park;

·         the buildings needed to be capable of being carbon neutral by 2030;

·         we can ask for better and get better;

·         justifying more vehicle movements was difficult, however many;

·         not confident that there would be signalisation in 18 months;

·         impact on town centre shops; and

·         needed a supermarket design that was distinctive to the local area.

At this point, Councillor Tim Valentine moved the following amendment:  That if approved, the application be delegated to officers to negotiate with the Applicant and Cabinet Member for Environment for the provision of two 100KW rapid charge points on site in the hotel car park.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt, and on being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

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

For:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Mike Dendor, James Hunt, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington and Tony Winckless.  Total equals 7.

Against:  Councillors Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Tim Gibson, Ben J Martin, David Simmons, Paul Stephen, Eddie Thomas and Tim Valentine.  Total equals 8.

Abstain:  Councillor James Hall.  Total equals 1.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Ben J Martin moved a motion to defer the application and this was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

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

·         Issues with design and the presence of the building;

·         the hotel felt like a square box, it was not grounded to its setting;

·         clarification needed on the timing of the A2/A251 junction upgrade, suggested a condition of no house to be occupied until the upgrade was completed;

·         a pitched roof was needed;

·         vernacular of buildings on the other side of Ashford Road needed to be considered;

·         some architectural style was needed;

·         improved design would not change air quality issues or the impact of the development on the town centre;

·         needed to be mindful of what we might loose in order to get these suggested alternatives;

·         the design officer had said that the design was suitable;

·         impact of possible non-determination; and

·         the change in design would not take long.

At this point the Development Manager acknowledged the time taken so far in discussing the application, and stated that there could be a case for non-determination.  He questioned how much more could be achieved in terms of improved design, but this could be discussed with the developer.  The Major Projects Officer added that the developer could take their investment away altogether.

Councillor Ben J Martin withdrew his motion for deferral and proposed that the application be refused instead.  This was seconded by Councillor David Simmons.

The Senior Planning Solicitor reminded Members that at the outline application, the principle of development for the hotel and A1 store had been agreed.  He explained that Members needed to consider that, other than the principle, what were the different factors that made the application unacceptable in planning terms, and weigh up the mitigation measures, in order to determine the reasons for refusal.

There was some discussion on the reasons for refusal.  Members made the following suggestions:

·         Not in-keeping with the area;

·         impact on visual amenity of residents;

·         anticipated impact on air quality;

·         effect on the setting of a listed building;

·         harm to the economic vitality of the town centre by introducing an out-of-town supermarket;

·         adverse effect on the town centre;

·         this was over-development of the area;

·         impact of additional traffic from the supermarket, rather than a convenience store;

·         the design should be distinctive and positively identify the sense of place, and rooting it into the current location; and

·         the retail unit was too large.

The Planning Officers and Senior Planning Solicitor adjourned for eight minutes.

In response to the suggested reasons for refusal, the Senior Planner made the following comments:

Impact on Faversham Town Centre

The Council had taken expert retail advice from two consultants who had both concluded there was no significant impact on the town centre.

Impact on Air Quality

The Environmental Protection Team Leader had no significant concerns.

Impact on highways

KCC Highways and Transportation and Highways England had not objected to the scheme.  It was risky to refuse given the lack of objection from these experts.

Effect on setting of listed building

The listed building was in excess of 500-600 metres from the application site.  There was the residential site in between this application site and the listed building, and the residential buildings reached a height of 9.5 metres.  It would be difficult to substantiate a refusal on these grounds.

Residential Amenity

The site was 55-60 metres from the houses along Ashford Road, and there was a busy road and landscaping in between.  Members could not refuse on the grounds of loss of view.  Loss of outlook would be difficult to demonstrate given these distances.

Design Elements

Officers considered the scheme to be acceptable.  However, design was subjective, and was a lower risk than those reasons above.

Members made further comments:

·         The retail unit was demonstrably larger than before;

·         the context of the convenience store versus the very large supermarket;

·         this was a sea-change compared to the outline application;

·         traffic impact, there was no certainty on the upgrade of the A2/A251 junction;

·         the outline application with the convenience store was sustainable, this was an out-of-town supermarket; and

·         98 additional vehicles were not negligible.

In response, the Senior Planner explained that large, did not necessarily mean harm; that there was a lack of objection from KCC Highways and Transportation, and the temporary delay of the junction improvements had not raised concern with KCC.

The Senior Planning Solicitor advised that attempting to argue against statutory consultees at appeal was difficult.

At this point the Development Manager used his delegated powers to ‘call-in’ the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.

The Area Planning Officer reported that additional comments had been received from Eastchurch Parish Council.  They considered there had been no change to the previous application and continued to object to it.  The Parish Council raised concern over the status of the proposed amenity area adjacent to the property as not being within the property curtilage.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the garden area had been enlarged, and that it was entirely within the garden of the main dwelling.  He sought delegated authority to amend condition (4) in the report to require erection of the fence with details to be submitted and approved.  Plus also preventing any other fencing on the site.

Patricia Bath, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

There were no questions.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

A Member thanked the Case Officer for regular updates.  He considered the outlook had been improved, but raised concern with the whole process of this application.

Resolved:  That application 19/501378/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report, with the amendment of condition (4) to require erection of the fence with details to be submitted and approved and preventing any other fencing on the site.