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 9 October 2019.

Please note the following items have been withdrawn from the agenda due in both cases to the Parish Council withdrawing their objections/support.

2.2 – Land adjacent to Cromas, Callaways Lane, Newington

3.1 – 6 The Broadway, Minster.

Tabled Paper added 10 October 2019.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Colin McGuire, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked for more information on the zinc roofing.  The Conservation and Design Manager explained that it would be sheet zinc roofing and would emulate outbuildings in the area.  He considered the change of roofing to be reasonable.  Weathered zinc would be used which would add to the aesthetics of the design, and the net effect on the Conservation Area would be neutral.

A Member asked if there was a condition for the materials being used and the Planner confirmed that this was covered by condition (3) in the report.

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

There was no debate.

Resolved:  That application 19/503518/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and reported that the applicant had submitted a letter outlining the historic use of the site for parking for many years, and the demand for parking in the town centre.  In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that Council records showed that it was unlikely that the site had a lawful use as a car park over the last 10 years.

Antony Brown, an objector, spoke against  the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked what changes would be made to the surface of the site?  The Area Planning Officer explained that there were no proposals to re-surface the site, and permission was not needed for that in any case.

A Member asked if there could be a condition requiring signs asking users of the car park to turn off engines whilst stationary.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed that a condition could be added.

A Member asked for details of the layout of the car park, especially in relation to the nearby church.  The Area Planning Officer referred the Member to page 137 of the report and explained that KCC Highways and Transportation had not specified anything for this application as they had taken the view that it was a private car park.  He added that the car park was laid out informally at the moment, but advised that delegated authority could be given to officers to approve a formal layout, in consultation with the Ward Member.

A Member asked about the use of the site and the Area Planning Officer explained that the back of the site had been informally used for parking for many years, and in terms of parking on the main part of the site in the past, this had been ancillary to the previous existing buildings.

A Member asked how much the car parking cost per day.  The Area Planning Officer said that it was £3 per day, but that this was not a planning matter.

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

The Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

·         There were uneven surfaces on the site, which needed to be fit for purpose;

·         It would have a negative impact on the neighbouring church;

·         the site was unsightly and near to a listed building;

·         there was a dangerous access point;

·         highway safety issues crossing the A2 from the site;

·         part of the site was within a Conservation Area;

·         harm to residential amenity;

·         there were car parks already in the Conservation Area; and

·         there were improvements that could be made to the site, such as proper tarmac, lined bays; signage etc.

Councillor James Hunt moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred so that the applicant made the site more presentable.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

The Area Planning Officer suggested conditions could be added to the application in relation to re-surfacing; layout; and a number of small signs with regard to responsible behaviour.

Members made comments which included:

·         Needed to consider nearby businesses/activities that could be effected by this use;

·         would like to see a landscaping condition;

·         issues of traffic coming out of the entrance and turning sharp left;

·         the site was near a listed building and conservation area;

·         there should be EV charge points in the car park;

·         the site was in a hideous condition; and

·         lack of design.

The Area Planning Officer explained that as the permission was temporary, for 5 years, it was unlikely that a landscaping condition would be considered appropriate.

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

Councillor Simon Clark moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds of its impact on the high street, the Conservation Area, the residential amenity of the occupiers of High Street apartments, highway safety, its poor or lacking design and the impact on the nearby church.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

The Area Planning Officer advised Members on the strength of the proposed reasons for refusal of the application.  The Conservation and Design Manager advised that it was difficult to make a strong case on the Conservation Area grounds and this would need to be proved.

Councillor Simon Clark moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds of harm to residential amenity, including the church, in terms of noise and disturbance; highway safety; and poor design giving rise to harm to the character and appearance of the area.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/504198/FULL berefused on the grounds of harm to residential amenity, including the church, in terms of noise and disturbance; highway safety; and poor design giving rise to harm to the character and appearance of the area. 

This application was considered by the reconvened Planning Committee on 14 October 2019.

This application was considered by the reconvened Planning Committee on 14 October 2019.

This application was considered by the reconvened Planning Committee on 14 October 2019.

This application was considered by the reconvened Planning Committee on 14 October 2019.

The Senior Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper for this item.  This included an update on affordable housing on the site, and a request from KCC that an informative in relation to broadband connection be added.  The Senior Planning Officer also reported that two further letters had been received in objection to the application which raised issues already noted in the report.

Annette Kin, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked if the un-adopted roads on site would be adopted?  The Senior Planning Officer stated that the roads would be brought up to an adoptable standard, with links from The Broadway onto the site.  The Senior Planning Solicitor advised that providing a route touched an adopted highway, under Section 37 of the Highways Act 1980, a notice would be sent to KCC to require the road to be adopted.

A Member asked whether there were any planning constraints as the application site was within flood zones two and three.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Environment Agency had been consulted and had recommended a condition to mitigate this, and referred the Member to condition (5) in the report.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

·         Had the appropriate ecology surveys been undertaken?;

·         character of the area was a mix, so this would fit in;

·         the 2.5 storey design would effect visual amenity and residential amenity;

·         this was not the best design;

·         large gardens on The Broadway reduced the issue of overlooking;

·         concern with the distance of the open space in relation to the application site, and the need to cross a public highway to reach it, and a crossing should be provided; and

·         there should be a site visit; and

·         design should be amended to provide open space on site.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred so that a better design could be achieved, and a crossing point to the open space be provided.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer.  There was some discussions on the motion and the detail of what Members wanted to include.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/506417/FULL be deferred so that officers discuss with the developer potential amendments to the storey heights and how they related to surrounding dwellings, including the possibility of bungalows replacing some of the proposed houses, a crossing point to be provided to allow easier access to open space and to explore whether open space could be provided within the development site.

This application was considered by the reconvened Planning Committee on 14 October 2019.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

PART 5

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

This item was considered by the reconvened Planning Committee on 14 October 2019.