To consider the attached report (Sections 2, 3 and 4).

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 29 October 2014.

PART 2 – Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended.

The Planning Officer reported that English Heritage (EH) had objected to the original siting of the shed, polytunnel and potting shed on the northwest corner of the site, due to the impact on the scheduled monument.  The Agent had consequently submitted amended plans which changed the siting from the north west corner to the eastern corner, alongside the road.  EH preferred the amended layout and no longer objected to the proposal.

Kent County Council (KCC) Highways raised no objection to the revised layout.

The Planning Officer sought delegation to approve subject to an amendment to condition (8) in the report to read ‘The office building shall be re-positioned to the south-eastern corner of the site within three months of this decision’.

Councillor Jeff Tutt, Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Burke, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application; he considered the proposal to be too large being next to a heritage site.

The Planning Officer reported that EH had considered the proposal would have limited impact on the scheduled monument and that they would monitor the site.

Resolved: That application SW/14/0204 be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report, to include amended wording to condition (8) to read ‘The office building shall be re-positioned to the south-eastern corner of the site within three months of this decision’.

Members made comments which included:  disappointed with the proposal in relation to the work that had been undertaken at the facility; provided no benefit to the site; ten years was a long period of time for ‘temporary’ permission; there should be permanent buildings on the site, not temporary; alter the condition so that it stated that a permanent building be provided within ten years; and not in favour of any renewal permissions that may be requested.

The Area Planning Officer advised that it was not possible to request that a permanent building was to be provided within a condition.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum: ‘That a seven-year temporary permission be approved, with the intention that this would not be renewed’.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

The Area Planning Officer suggested that a letter be written to the Applicant, stressing preference for permanent buildings on the site.  He added that any application for renewal of permission had to be treated on its own merits.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion that the proposal be delegated to officers to approve, subject to a letter being written to the Applicant as above and the temporary condition be amended to seven years.  This was accepted by the original seconder.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 14/503541 be delegated to officers to approve subject to condition (1) and (2) in the report with an amendment to condition (2) to read seven years, and a letter be written to the Applicant, stressing preference for permanent buildings on the site, and to no fresh issues being raised in any representations received, prior to 6 November 2014.

Ms Sue Cooper, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Simon Latham, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  He considered the proposal did not create any harm, it was in-keeping with the area, it was ideal for staff accommodation and the property could not be developed as a commercial let as the only access was through the building, i.e. there was no external access to the first floor.

Members made comments which included:  concern that the application for the wine bar had clearly stated that there would be no internal alterations; concern that changes had already been made elsewhere on the property; unhappy with the process; the use of the building was a beneficial asset to the quayside; and a balance needed to be taken with the current application and the outstanding enforcement issues.

In response to a question, the Planner advised that the proposed alterations did not alter the original historic structure of the building.  He reported that there were other development issues in the building which enforcement officers were aware of, and he confirmed that this proposal was separate to those issues.

Resolved:  That application 14/501476FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

Resolved:  That application 14/501477LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

The Major Projects Officer reported that Natural England (NE) had no comments on the application.  He drew Members’ attention to the tabled decision notice for SW/09/0755 which had not been included in the report.

The Major Projects Officer sought delegation to add ‘including the provision of the gates’ to the end of the wording on condition (1) in the report, and to add an additional condition requiring ‘the removal of the 80m of road and all associated builder’s paraphernalia unless this planning permission [reference 14/501315/AMRCON] is implemented in accordance with the conditions imposed within 12 months of the date of planning permission.’

Mr Oliver Doubleday, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Ward Member considered the site to be a ‘tip’ and a disgrace to the village.  He suggested the time limit be amended from 12 months to three months.

Members discussed a suitable time frame for the site to be cleared.

Councillor Ben Stokes moved the following amendment: That the removal of the 80m of road and all associated builder’s paraphernalia unless this planning permission [reference 14/501315/AMRCON] is implemented in accordance with the conditions imposed within six months of the date of planning permission.’  This was seconded by Councillor Bryan Mulhern and upon being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Resolved: That application 14/501315 be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report with the addition of ‘including the provision of the gates’ to the end of the wording on condition (1) in the report, and an additional condition requiring ‘the removal of the 80m of road and all associated builder’s paraphernalia unless this planning permission [reference 14/501315/AMRCON] is implemented in accordance with the conditions imposed within six months of the date of planning permission.’

The Area Planning Officer reported that KCC Highways raised no objection to the proposal subject to the conditions in the report.  Natural England raised no objection; they considered there would be no significant impact on the Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area and Ramsar site.  They had referred officers to their protected species advice and had recommended biodiversity enhancements at the site.

The Area Planning Officer advised that conditions (12), (13) and (15) needed slight amendments to the wording, as follows: condition (12)…….commencement of the remainder of the development…; condition (13)……prior to the first use of the access…. and condition (15) to include that details of the location of the lighting to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

The Ward Member spoke against the application and explained that local residents were against the siting of caravans in this area.

Members agreed that condition (8) be amended to include native species and species that would improve biodiversity, as previously agreed by the Planning Committee to be included in landscaping conditions.

Resolved:  That application SW/14/0608 be approved subject to conditions (1) to (18) in the report, with the following changes to wording: condition (12)…….commencement of the remainder of the development…; condition (13)……prior to the first use of the access…. and condition (15) to include that details of the location of the lighting to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and  condition (8) be amended to include native species and species that would improve biodiversity.

Mr Osbourne, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

Resolved:  That application 14/500753 be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer explained that condition (4) needed to be amended to refer to the planting of indigenous species.  He sought delegation to do this.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered the proposal, being semi-detached, was not in-keeping with the streetscene, and questioned the distance from neighbouring properties, with the potential for loss of light and demonstrable harm to their amenity.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application SW/14/0516 be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Area Planning Officer sought delegated authority to add a condition to make the permission a personal one to the families in the report.  He also advised that condition (1) was a duplication of condition (3) and as such could be removed.

Resolved:  That application SW/13/1209 be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (8) in the report, with deletion of condition (1) and an additional condition to make the permission personal to the families in the report.

The Area Planning Officer sought delegated authority to add a condition to make the permission a personal one to the families in the report.  He also advised that condition (1) was a duplication of condition (3) and as such could be removed.

Resolved:  That application SW/13/1206 be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (8) in the report, with deletion of condition (1) and an additional condition to make the permission personal to the families in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

Councillor John Peto, Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Perrin, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

In response to a question, the Planning Officer explained that the 2005 permission was for static caravans, so touring caravans would not be permitted on the site.

A Ward Member spoke in support of the officer recommendation for refusal.

Resolved:  That application SW/14/0601 be refused.

PART 4

Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observation of development by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Developments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matters’ applications.

The KCC Highways Officer explained that originally the drop-off and pick-up were proposed to be from School Lane.  This was removed from the proposal as it was not considered appropriate because there were conflicting movements on School Lane.  There was no drop-off for parents within the site.  In response to suggested inaccuracies in the report, Members were advised that paragraph 7.01 set out the changes to the proposal.

Resolved:  That no objection be raised.

.