To consider the attached report (Parts 2 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 19 August 2020.

Additional information has been added to these items which might be referred to at the meeting.

Tabled Papers added 20 August 2020.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Major Projects Officer introduced the report and referred to the tabled update for this item. 

Mr Ian Butter, the Agent, 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 Chairman explained that a Ward Member had registered to speak against the application but was unable to attend the meeting due to ill-health.  His statement was read-out by Democratic Services.

Members were invited to debate the application and the following points were made:

·         Understood residents concerns and considered the application would add extra pressure on the local road network, local Police and GP surgeries particularly during the summer season;

·         It was an unsustainable development;

·         concerned that the Council did not currently enforce the 10 month occupancy of holiday homes;

·         there were no material planning reasons to refuse the application;

·         most sites on the Isle of Sheppey had already converted to 10 months occupancy so had to allow this;

·         insulting that some Members had voted for 12-month occupancy but were against this application for 10-month occupancy; and

·         would lose on appeal.

In response to questions from a Member, the Major Projects Officer reported that the site was permitted for 120 caravans but not fully built-out (currently only 20 to 30 caravans were on the site).  He added that no objections from any of the Parish Councils had been received. 

Councillor Simon Clark moved the following motion: That the application proposal be amended to read ‘No caravan hereby permitted shall be occupied between 4 January and 1 March in any year’.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

The Major Projects Officer explained that condition (4) of the report would control the period of time when the caravans could be occupied and that effectively rendered the proposal to amend the description academic.  Discussion ensued and the proposer agreed to withdraw the motion.

Resolved:  That application 20/501751/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report, the amendment of condition (1) as set-out in the tabled update, the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement to secure Strategic Access Management and Monitoring contributions (as set-out in the tabled update) and the resolution of the ownership and certification issue.   

The Major Projects Officer introduced the report and referred to the tabled update for this item.  He explained that the applicant had moved and reduced the height of the totem sign to two metres in height and some other signs had been reduced (as set-out in the tabled update) and officers considered the proposal was acceptable.  

Town Councillor John Irwin, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

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

A Ward Member explained that he had received a lot of local objections to the application.  He welcomed the reduction and re-siting of the signs and that it was in-line with what the Applicant had done elsewhere.  He thought it might have an impact on the public artwork which was due to be installed in the area and disappointed that it was on the approach to the residential affordable housing side of the development.

Resolved:  That application 20/502489/ADV be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

The Development Manager introduced the report which he explained was adjacent to a site Members had considered at the June 2020 meeting for an outline application for five dwellings and that application was the subject of a site meeting scheduled for Wednesday 2 September 2020. 

The Development Manager drew attention to page 35 of the report and reported that he would like to amend the recommendation heading in paragraph 10 to read:  “Grant subject to the following conditions and delegation to officers to secure an appropriate SAMMS payment as set-out in paragraph 8.17 of the report, to ensure appropriate arrangements are made for securing the uncontrolled crossing as set-out in paragraph 8.14, and to secure the reimbursement to Kent County Council for the loss of the two trees as set-out in paragraph 8.16.

The Development Manager showed Members drawings detailing the site and proposed application.  He also outlined the surrounding area and proposed developments.  The Development Manager stated that whilst the site was outside of the built-up area of Minster, it did adjoin the settlement boundary of Minster and was in close proximity to existing residential properties to the west and north.  He considered it was within a sustainable location being within walking distance of some services including a shop, post office and on a bus route and it would contribute to the Council’s 5 year land supply.

A Ward Member moved a motion for a site meeting given that there was already one scheduled for the adjoining site on 2 September 2020.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/505353/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Development Manager introduced the report and drew attention to an error in paragraph 8.4 on page 44 of the report, and stated that the rear depth was 2.5 metres as set-out in paragraph 2.2 on page 43, and not 4 metres.  Therefore the development complied with the Council’s supplementary guidance on extensions.  The only reason that the application was being reported to Committee was because the applicant was an employee of the Council.

The Development Manager reported that no objections from adjoining neighbours or statutory consultees had been received.

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

A Ward Member supported the application.

Resolved:  That application 20/502848/FULL be approved.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.  There were no updates.  He showed Members some photographs of the site.

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

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

Members were invited to debate the application and the following points were made:

·         Developers were building garages too small and that needed to be addressed; and

·         the proposal seemed a sensible use of the garage space.

Resolved:  That application 20/502364/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.  There were no updates.

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

Resolved:  That application 20/502567/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.  He showed Members drawings of the proposal which he clarified was for two extensions.  It was not an application to split.

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

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

A Member considered that the application was not out-of-keeping if the plot was taken as a whole.  He noted no objections had been received and considered the proposal enhanced the cottage and his initial concerns on overlooking had been resolved.

Resolved:  That application 20/502759/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and stated that 14 parking spaces would be provided.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and considered it would exacerbate existing parking problems in the area.

Members were invited to debate the application and the following points were made:

·         Supported the application and considered it was an improvement on the existing building;

·         would we be able to add a condition to limit the number of meetings and restrict the hiring of the venue?

·         The application was an improvement and welcomed the energy efficiency improvements proposed; and

·         concerned about the ‘wedged’ way the cars would need to park.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Planning Officer reported that the car park was essentially a yard and as club members would all be attending for the same meeting the ‘wedged’ way of parking would not be an issue for them.

Councillor Benjamin Martin moved the following amendment:  That the following additional conditions be imposed:  (12) No more than 52 meetings per year restricted to 45 people in attendance at any meeting, and no meeting to begin before 6pm during weekdays Monday to Friday and no meeting to finish beyond 10pm, and (13) Biodiversity improvements to include the addition of wildlife nesting boxes for bats and birds within the building, and external lighting to prevent the disturbance of any such species.  These conditions to be delegated to officers to agree the correct wording.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

A Member asked for clarification as to whether the amendment should be delegated to officers to negotiate with the applicant.  The proposer of the motion agreed and that it also be in consultation with the Ward Member.

On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

A Member asked for clarification that the amendment was to be delegated to officers otherwise it would need to come back to Committee at a future meeting.  The proposer of the amendment confirmed that he had requested that and asked that the Ward Members could also be consulted.

Resolved:  That application 20/502127/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report and the imposition of additional conditions (the wording of which to be agreed in consultation with the officers and Ward Councillors) addressing the following: (12) No more than 52 meetings per year, (13) Each meeting to be restricted to 45 people in attendance, (14) no meeting to begin before 6pm during weekdays (Monday to Friday) and no meeting to finish beyond 10pm, (15) Biodiversity improvements to include the addition of wildlife nesting boxes for bats and birds within the building, and (16) external lighting to prevent the disturbance of any such species. 

PART 5

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

·                     Item 5.1 – Land adj Westfield House Breach

APPEAL DISMISSED

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

A Member stated that it was good to see that the lack of a 5-year housing supply did not hang over the Council “like a sword”.