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 27 May 2020.

Tabled update for item 2.2 added 27 May 2020.

Additional information has been added to these items which might be referred to at this evening’s meeting.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Julian Moat, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Ward Member said that it was useful to see where the connections would be located, as a substantial upgrade to the sewerage network would be required.

Resolved:  That application 19/500990/SUB be approved and condition (9) pursuant to application 14/501588/FULL (and as amended by 19/502967/NMAMD) be discharged.

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

A Member requested that the Section 106 Agreement included a local labour clause.  The Major Projects Officer welcomed the suggestion and added that the standard condition also included apprenticeships.

Members were invited to debate the application and comments included:

·         This was a good development, with a good mix of housing including bungalows;

·         concerned with the 20mph road signs being quite close to the junction;

·         the entrance to the development appeared to be too close to the roundabout;

·         concerned with how refuse collection would work;

·         would like to see more bungalows;

·         this was open green space at the moment, and concurred with the Parish Council’s comments; and

·         enhanced planting was needed at the front of the development to minimise the visual impact

The Major Projects Officer explained that KCC Highways and Transportation had been closely involved with the application and were satisfied with the location of the entrance and the position of the road signs, from a highway safety point of view.  He indicated where the bin collection points were on the plan and said that it was a relatively small development and refuse collectors could walk to collect some of the bins.  The Major Projects Officer explained that the detail of landscaping on the plans was illustrative, and drew attention to condition (7) on page 110 of the report.  He suggested the southern boundary be made up of hedges and trees and the western and northern boundaries be a thicker buffer of hedges and trees.  He added that this was a well-designed scheme which would not detract from the entrance to Eastchurch.

Resolved:  That application 19/500887/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (31) in the report, the signing of a suitably-worded Section 106 Agreement to incorporate the items as summarised in the Committee report and with additional clauses in respect of the use of local labour and apprenticeships.

The Area Planning Officer referred to the ‘Proposal’ paragraph on page 120 of the report and said the dimensions for the 4-bedroom detached dwelling had been omitted.  These were 7.8metres wide, maximum of 10.8metres deep, 5.2metres to the eaves, and 8.4metres to the ridge.  He stated that another condition was required to ensure access, including the footway, was completed before occupancy of the first dwelling.   In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that the house next to the access road was no. 93 Church Road, not no. 97.                                                       

Matthew East, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

In response to questions from a Ward Member, the Area Planning Officer referred him to condition (9) in the report in respect of potential contamination; he confirmed that Sports England was not a statutory consultee, and had therefore not been consulted.  The Ward Member was advised that any covenant on the land was a private matter.

The Ward Member also raised the following points: the building extension to the club had not been indicated on the plans; concerned with the loss of the wall with its protection from the traffic; the loss of pavement on the access road; and safety issues.  The Area Planning Officer advised that KCC Highways and Transportation had raised no objection to the application.

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

·         The wall which was to be removed was a sound barrier to noise and disturbance;

·         the lack of boundary/landscaping, plus the road at the top of the development opened up the possibility to further development;

·         concerned with how refuse carriers would navigate the estate road;

·         the road could come from the other side of the sports club, rather than where it was proposed;

·         a boundary treatment plan was needed, and then installation of an acoustic fence considered; and

·         parking restrictions were needed opposite the parking spaces so a refuse freighter could turn around.

In response, the Area Planning Officer said that the Environmental Health Officer had not advised that there would be a significant impact from the removal of the wall, and he advised that the application needed to be taken on its own merits, and not look at what might happen in the future.  He said the applicant had considered an access road from the northern boundary, but it was a complicated route and awkward to do.  He reminded Members that KCC Highways and Transportation had not objected to the current proposed access.

Councillor James Hunt moved the following amendment to the motion to approve the application:  That a boundary treatment plan be submitted and parking restrictions be implemented at the turning point, and an acoustic barrier be installed behind the landscaping.  This was seconded by Councillor Benjamin Martin.

In response, the Area Planning Officer referred Members to condition (4) on page 125 of the report, which outlined details of enclosures and he suggested this could be further enhanced.  He said that in terms of the loss of the wall, this could be dealt with separately with Environmental Health Officers, by mitigation measures if necessary.  The Proposer and Seconder were happy with this approach.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following amendment:  That the width of the access road be reviewed to ensure it was wide enough for larger vehicles.  The amendment was not seconded.  The Area Planning Officer advised that KCC Highways and Transportation were satisfied with the details in the report, including the swept path analysis.

On being put to the vote, Councillor Hunt’s amendment, that officers be given delegated authority to implement parking restrictions at the turning point, was agreed.

Councillor Nicholas Hampshire moved the following amendment:  That the application be deferred until there had been discussion with Ward Members, officers and the developer, over sports provision and Sports England be consulted.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hall.

Members considered the motion to defer the application.  The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that Sports England was not a statutory consultee for this type of application, and that facilities at the club were a private matter for the club.  The cricket nets were going to be re-located, and he had been advised that the tennis courts had not been used for a long time.

A Member suggested that double yellow lines be installed on both sides of the road to keep the road clear.  Councillor James Hunt said that this would come within the delegated authority given to officers in his amendment.

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

The substantive motion with the amendment was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/503530/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (16) in the report, and delegated authority given to officers to consider parking restrictions at the turning point and along both sides of the road, discussions with Environmental Health Officers regarding the loss of the wall, and the imposition of any appropriate mitigation measures, and a further condition requiring the works to the access to be completed prior to the first use of any of the dwellings.

The Area Planning Officer recommended imposing an additional condition in relation to sustainable construction, however he advised that seeking sustainable gains in dwelling emission rates in this instance would seriously affect the viability of the scheme.  He therefore suggested that the standard condition, previously added to planning applications in respect of submission of details of sustainable construction be imposed instead.  He referred to the question and answer in respect of this application, which had been added to the website.  The Area Planning Officer said that one of the Ward Members had requested a site meeting.  He indicated what was proposed in the application and said there was not much difference in terms of the positioning and closeness of the chalets to each other, and said that on this type of development, being a holiday site, that normal distances between units were not expected in relation to issues of overlooking and amenity.

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

A Visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

Members were invited to debate the application and comments included:

·         Clarification was needed on the wording of the condition that would be imposed on dwelling carbon emission rates;

·         concerned that permissions for park homes did not meet carbon reduction targets;

·         clarification sought on whether the application site was in Flood Zone 1 or 2;

·         replacing like-for-like was a positive gain, but concerned with the removal of caravans and replacing them with chalets, and going from 10 months to 12 month occupancy was making the units residential;

·         this site could end up with all units being chalets, and the site being completely residential, with no Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Scheme (SAMMS) payments or Section 106 Agreement;

·         concerned with how flood proof the units would be;

·         if they were permanent buildings, they needed to be built to the same standard as any other permanent building; and

·         the condition of some of the chalets was poor.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Elliott Jayes.

There was some discussion on the practicality of holding a site visit due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  Councillor Bonney withdrew her motion for a site meeting and moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred and this was seconded by Councillor Elliott Jayes.

In response, the Area Planning Officer said that the condition did not need to require a percentage gain, but simply details of sustainable construction as used on previous applications, prior to the use of the new conditions.  He reminded Members that these were not park homes, but were permanent structures, covered by building regulations.  The Area Planning Officer confirmed, that in terms of the SAMMS payments, caravans and chalets were treated the same as dwellings, so as this was like-for-like, there was no requirement for SAMMS payments.  He said that Members could add an additional condition in relation to flood risk.  In terms of a Section 106 Agreement, the replacement was like-for-like, and there would not normally be a Section 106 Agreement on this type of dwelling.  He added that SBC depicted the local flood zone in more detail than the Environment Agency

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

The Area Planning Officer explained that an updated report would be written, with updated schedule of conditions and officers could look at the 50% reduction in dwelling emission rate.

The Senior Planning Solicitor advised that the Covid-19 regulations, as they presently stood, meant that a site visit was not possible.  He advised that he would provide further advice to the Chairman in due course regarding this matter.

Resolved:  That application 20/500490/FULL be deferred until such time that a site meeting could be held, subject to the advice from the Senior Planning Solicitor and for officers to confirm which flood zone the application site was in.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Martyn Ingleton, an objector, spoke against the application.

David Buckley, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Visiting Member spoke in support of the application.

The Member who called-in the application spoke in support of the application.  He considered the wall did not stand out, that it was in-keeping and once there was more vegetation it would fit into the surroundings more.

A Member asked whether planting vegetation would affect the sight lines? The Area Planning Officer said that would be checked, but also highlighted that there was very limited scope to add vegetation as there was a very narrow strip of land and it was doubtful if anything substantial could grow there.  The Area Planning Officer added that in terms of the visibility splays, there was a possibility that vegetation could interfere, and a requirement could be added to keep any vegetation to a specific height near the visibility splays.

Members were invited to debate the application and comments included:

·         KCC Highways and Transportation raised no objection, as noted in paragraph 9.9 in the report;

·         vegetation could be put at the end of the wall, away from the sight lines and the entrance;

·         the brick wall suited the property;

·         supported the application; and

·         vegetation could be added near the corner of the wall where the wall was highest.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the area to the corner of the wall was outside the application area so landscaping could not be added there by the Applicant, and he was unsure of the ownership to the front of the wall and how wide that strip of land was.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow clarification of the issues raised, including land ownership to the front of the wall and landscaping to the front and side.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.   The Area Planning Officer said that the Council could not grant planning permission on land outside the ownership of the Applicant.

There was some discussion on the land ownership.

Resolved:  That application 19/503511/FULL be deferred to enable officers to determine land ownership.

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

A Ward Member asked what would be acceptable to officers in terms of the design?  The Area Planning Officer said that if the application complied with the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) then it would be acceptable.  He advised that the SPG advised against this type of development and said the Council would look more favourably on pitched roof dormer windows with vertical emphasis on the existing roof slope.

Members were invited to debate the application and comments included:

·         The property was not visible from the road;

·         most of the houses in this row had pitched dormers;

·         this was not harmful to the character of the streetscene; and

·         improved design was needed.

In response to a question, the Area Planning Officer explained that the proposal had the appearance of a box dormer which the SPG advised against, and it was a very poor design.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow discussion with the officers and the Applicant to seek improvement of the design and then go back to the Planning Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

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

Resolved:  That application 20/501605/FULL be refused for the reason stated in the report.

PART 5

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

·                     Item 5.1 – My Retreat Norman Road Warden

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member said that this was a good result and he congratulated officers.