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 Monday 16 December 2019.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

A Member sought clarification on the number of bedrooms and parking spaces at the property.

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

There was no debate.

Resolved:  That application 19/505039/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

There were no questions.

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

A Member commented that he understood the Parish Council’s concerns but there was sufficient land to extend the property.

Resolved:  That application 19/505077FULLbe approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to the required Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Scheme (SAMMS) payment and the response to Faversham Town Council’s objection at paragraph 7.5, page 15 of the report.

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

There was no debate.

Resolved: That application 19/504192/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report, and the receipt of a SAMMS contribution of £245.56.

Paul Fowler (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

In response to a Member’s request to add an energy efficiency condition, the Area Planning Officer said there were sometimes viability issues in smaller schemes.  The Area Planning Officer clarified that planning permission had already been granted for 5 units, KCC Highways and Transportation did not consider footway improvements to be necessary, and a delivery vehicle space was not achievable within the site.

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

In the debate that followed, the Area Planning Officer highlighted the wide junction and in response to a question on Public Rights of Way explained he had no further details. 

A Member raised concern about visitor parking.

Councillor Tim Valentine proposed and Councillor Monique Bonney seconded an amendment to include an energy efficiency condition, subject to discussion between Councillor Tim Valentine and the Head of Planning Services.  On being put to the vote Members agreed.

Resolved: That application 19/502283/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (16) securing a SAMMS contribution of £491.12 and the possible inclusion of an energy efficient condition (with officers given delegated authority to amend in consultation with the Cabinet Member for the Environment and the Head of Planning Services).

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to the tabled paper.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

In response to a Member’s question on the use of the public house car park for visitors to the proposed shop, the Area Planning Officer explained that the opening hours for each were largely different.  He later added that the building was small, many visitors would visit by appointment only and there were no parking restrictions on the adjoining highway.

A Member sought clarification on Use Classes and the Area Planning Officer confirmed that A1 Shop use did not restrict the use of the type of goods sold.

A Member sought clarification on the security of the building.  The Area Planning Officer explained that this referred to the fire arms stored inside the building, not the building itself. 

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

A Member raised safety concerns. Another Member said that security was a Police issue.

Resolved:  That application 19/504399/FULL  be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer said that, further to consultation with the applicant, the proposal had been amended to ‘Reconstruction and reposition of existing Coach House….’ Instead of ‘Demolition of existing Coach House….’  He added that there were also some minor changes to drawings. 

Dr Stuart Aaron (supporter) spoke in support of the application.

The Area Planning Officer advised that Lynsted Parish Council were unable to attend the meeting and their views were contained within the report.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member sought clarification on the position of the Coach House.

A Member asked for the comments of the Conservation Officer.  The Conservation Officer said it was disappointing that Historic England had not awarded listed status to the Mount House and that this was due to it being altered and the interior lime plaster finishes and other interior elements having been removed, prior to the listing assessment inspection.  He said that the building was nevertheless still of local architectural interest and would be a worthy candidate for a future Local List. With reference to the proposal, he said that it displayed a good elevational design that respected the setting and in overall terms represented a good scheme.  He clarified the position and height of the roof to Mount House in relation to the roof of the proposed new pair of semi-detached houses.

A Member expressed disappointment that the two Ward Members were not in attendance.

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

A Member praised officers for their work in achieving a more acceptable scheme as outlined in paragraph 9.1 of the report.

A Member highlighted that the proposal would bring a significant change in the street scene.

Councillor Tim Valentine proposed and Councillor Monique Bonney seconded the addition of an energy efficiency condition, subject to discussion with the applicant.  On being put to the vote, Members agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/503590 be approved subject to conditions (1) to (22) in the report, the possible addition of an energy efficiency condition and the securing of a SAMMS contribution (with officers given delegated authority to amend in consultation with the Cabinet Member for the Environment and the Head of Planning Services).

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to a typing error at paragraph 6.4 on page 66 of the report and clarified that the Environmental Health Manager had no objection to the application, subject to a planning condition relating to construction hours to protect residential amenity in the locality.

There were no questions.

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

In the debate that followed, it was noted that Minster Parish Council, who had supported approval of the application, were not in attendance at the meeting.

The Area Planning Officer explained the process for consulting the Parish Council on any updates.

Resolved:  That application 19/502821/FULL be refused for the reasons stated in the report.

The Area Planning Officer explained in detail the location of the proposal in relation to Oyster Bay House.

There were no questions.

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:

·         Oyster Bay House was the most photographed building in Faversham;

·         the proposal was interesting and unique;

·         could work well with the right design; and

·         more details were needed.

Councillor James Hunt moved a motion for a site meeting and this was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/504412/FULL be deferred to allow the planning working group to meet on site.

This items was withdrawn from the Agenda

PART 5

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

·         Item 5.1 – Land to the rear of Hales Cottage Tunstall Road Tunstall

            DELEGATED REFUSAL

            APPEAL ALLOWED

·         Item 5.2 – Land West of Brown Jug 76 Horsham Lane Upchurch

            DELEGATED REFUSAL

            APPEAL DISMISSED

·         Item 5.3 – 4 Haysel Sittingbourne

            DELEGATED REFUSAL

            APPEAL DISMISSED

·         Item 5.4 – 77 Queenborough Road Halfway

            DELEGATED REFUSAL

            APPEAL DISMISSED

            A Member was pleased with the decision and gave thanks and praise to the           Planning Enforcement team.

·         Item 5.5 – Land at A2 London Rd/Western Link Faversham

            DELEGATED REFUSAL

            APPEAL DISMISSED

·         Item 5.6 – Land situated at 32 First Avenue Queenborough

            ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DISMISSED

·         Item 5.7– Land at Brotherhood Wood Yard Gate Hill Dunkirk

            ENFORCEMENT APPEAL APPELLANT’S COSTS CLAIM REFUSED

·         Item 5.8 – Murre Conyer Quay Conyer

            ENFORCEMENT APPEAL DISMISSED