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 11 September 2019.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reported that a revised parking layout plan had been received, indicating two parking spaces and a lawned area.  However the lawned area had now been replaced with shingle.  He recommended that condition (2) in the report be amended to require the removal of the shingle and it be replaced with lawn.

Mr Keith Woolward, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Anthony Faseha, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked whether there was a definition for elderly people, and whether ‘elderly people’ could be added to condition (5) in the report.  The Area Planning Officer advised that there was no planning definition of elderly, but if Members were concerned of any harmful impact of a general care home, then there was a possibility that a condition could be added.

A Member asked if there needed to be a minimum room size?  The Area Planning Officer explained that this would come under the remit of the Care Quality Commission, and was not a planning consideration.

A Member asked whether it was legal to add an age condition?  The Senior Planning Solicitor advised that it was legal to do this.

A Member asked about the modifications to the property in terms of accessibility and the Area Planning Officer advised that this was under the remit of Building Regulations.  He confirmed that there was no lift in the property.

A Member asked about the design and layout and the Area Planning Officer explained that internal works did not require planning permission. 

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

Members raised the following points:

·         Understood the concept, but the location was wrong;

·         concerned  about the size of the property for the intended use;

·         in another location it would be more sustainable;

·         impact on traffic;

·         no turning facility on the property;

·         visits from multiple agencies would impact on the location;

·         the properties were too close for this use; and

·         this was inappropriate for the location.

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

Discussion ensued on the reasons for refusal and the following points were made:

·         Residential amenity;

·         traffic movements in a cul-de-sac; and

·         consideration of residents in the property itself.

Councillor Mike Dendor moved a motion to refuse the application on the following grounds:  That the application caused harm to the residential amenity, by virtue of noise and disturbance and lack of parking, giving rise to on-street parking, and harm to the users of the highway.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/503080/FULL be refused on the grounds that it caused harm to the residential amenity, by virtue of noise and disturbance and lack of parking, giving rise to on-street parking, and harm to the users of the highway. 

The Major Projects Officer reported that part of the site (approximately 4.8 hectares) was in Swale and of this, 4.1 hectares would be covered by polytunnels.  Conditions (11) and (15) in the report covered the same ground, with condition (15) containing more detail and so he recommended that condition (11) be deleted.  The Principal Archaeological Officer had responded to the application and suggested that instead of asking for an Archaelogical Watching Brief, a programme of archaeological works condition should be imposed instead.  The Major Projects Officer sought delegated authority to replace condition (18) with the above condition.

Mr Peter Judge, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

In response to questions, the Major Projects Officer explained that the site was not within a Conservation Area, and with regard to heating on the site, he explained that a condition could be imposed with details of this, prior to the commencement of construction.

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

Councillor Tim Valentine moved the following amendment:  That prior to the commencement of construction, details of the heating methods be submitted by the Applicant.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

Further information on the heating was subsequently received and it was confirmed that the existing system would generate power on the site.  As such, Councillor Tim Valentine withdrew his amendment.

Resolved: That application 19/501640/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (18) in the report, and to replace condition (18) with a condition so that a programme of archaeological works be imposed and condition (11) be deleted, as this was covered in more detail in condition (15).

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reported that three letters of support had been received from the immediate neighbours.  One had considered the extension would enhance the property and look pleasing to the surrounding area.  The Applicant had also emailed to say that he had worked with the planning department and altered the plans to suit the surrounding area and adhere to the planning officers’ suggestions.

The Area Planning Officer explained that he did not think the Applicant had changed the plans sufficiently enough.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

In response to questions, the Area Planning Officer showed Members the before, and after plans, and the streetscene.  He also explained that there would be no change in ridge height, but the eaves height would increase from 2.5 metres to 5 metres.

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

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

·         This was an improvement, the existing property was old and run-down;

·         welcomed the proposed installation of solar panels;

·         this could be an improvement, but not where it was located, the bulk and mass of the roof were too large; and

·         this did not cause serious harm.

On being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.

Councillor Elliott Jayes moved the following motion:  That the application be approved with the appropriate conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney and on being put to the vote, the motion was won.

Resolved:  That application 19/502228/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to the appropriate conditions.

PART 5

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

·         Item 5.1 –  17 Musgrave Road, Sittingbourne

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL  DISMISSED / COSTS REFUSED

·         Item 5.2 – Land at Swanton Farm, Bicknor

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL ALLOWED

·         Item 5.3 – Barn Adjacent Bracondale and Newlands, Dargate

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED