To consider the attached report (Parts 1, 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 14 October 2020.

Update for item 2.1 Ellen’s Court, Lady Margaret Road, Doddington published 14.10.20.

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

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to amend the resolution passed at a previous meeting in order to make an effective case at appeal and this was seconded by Councillor Eddie Thomas.

Resolved:  That the resolution passed at a previous meeting of the Planning Committee in respect of application 20/500400/OUT be amended in order to make an effective case at appeal.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled update which provided an update from the Climate Change Officer who raised no objection; amendments to condition (9) to reflect that the development was for C2 use as opposed to C3; an additional condition in respect of finished floor levels; and the views of an objector.  The update had been previously sent to Members and published on the Council’s website.  In response to claims from some local residents, the Major Projects Officer stated that he had checked and local residents had been consulted by post or email depending on whether or not email addresses had been provided, as was normal practice.

Parish Councillor Steve Coates, representing Doddington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Lee Davison, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Elliott Jayes.

The Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered that the benefits of the application did not outweigh the damage that would be caused in terms of increased traffic along narrow rural lanes and to the character of the rural area. 

Councillor David Simmons moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/504562/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.   

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report.  He advised that Ospringe Parish Council had noted the amendments to the scheme but still had concerns in respect of additional traffic.  They also had concerns in respect of flood risk which they considered required further investigation. 

Parish Councillor Andrew Keel, representing Ospringe Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Simon Milliken, the Agent, was unable to attend the meeting.  His statement in support of the application was read-out by the Democratic Services Officer.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Eddie Thomas.

Ward Members raised the following concerns: aware that there was an issue with Japanese knotweed on the site and suggested that if approved a condition be imposed to ensure that it was removed before development commenced; and concerned about potential traffic congestion.

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

·         Welcomed the application and it was good that the barns would be brought back into use;

·         it was a shame that the Grade II* listed building was going to be divided-up;

·         it was sad that the barns had been left to deteriorate but welcomed the proposal to convert into dwellings;

·         stressed the importance of ensuring the barns were preserved and good quality building materials used;

·         concerned that the proposal would increase traffic issues and that similar applications should not be considered within Ospringe until there was an Ospringe by-pass;

·         this would also increase air pollution and there was already an Air Quality Management Area nearby;

·         welcomed the amended scheme which would preserve the historic appearance of the area; and

·         pleased that native plant species would be used.

Resolved:  That application 19/505888/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (17) in the report and securing of the appropriate SAMMS contributions.

Resolved:  That application 19/505890/LBC be approved subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report.  He stated that the parking spaces adjacent to the two semi-detached houses were only 2.5 metres wide which was contrary to the Council's recently adopted parking standards.  He considered the proposal would only generate a small increase in traffic and was within the built-up area of Faversham.  The Area Planning Officer requested delegation to officers to approve the application subject to securing the SAMMS tariff payment and discussions with the applicant to amend the relevant parking spaces width to 2.7 metres in width.

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

Mr Kingsley Hughes, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Elliott Jayes.

A Ward Member raised the following points: concerned that the application would increase traffic and sympathised with the Town and Parish Council concerns.

In response to concerns from a Ward Member, the Conservation and Design Manager explained that the building line along Water Lane was not consistent and there were lots of different building styles.  He considered the application worked well, and the effect was advantageous.

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

·         Agreed that it was important to protect the streetscene;

·         welcomed the application for additional housing given that the Council did not have a five-year housing plan;

·         was a shame to lose a bungalow which was much needed in the area;

·         would impact on the listed building;

·         had concerns about traffic and parking;

·         the proposed tandem parking was a concern;

·         there was a lot of local objection;

·         not keen on the design;

·         there was already a lot of on-street parking in the area;

·         the road was too narrow and would exacerbate current parking problems;

·         should defer the application and request an improved design and layout; and

·         the proposal fitted in well.

Resolved:  That application 20/500844/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report and securing of the appropriate SAMMS contributions and discussions with the applicant to amend the relevant parking spaces width to 2.7 metres in width.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report.

Mrs Jenny Tarrant, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Eddie Thomas.

The Member who had called-in the application said the applicant was unable to meet the 50% carbon reduction condition, and he considered the applicant had not explored all options.  He suggested the applicant fitted solar panels to the garage roof.  

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

·         It was unfair to pressurise people into accepting a 50% reduction, especially for small applications such as this, people did not have an endless supply of money;

·         agreed that the Council needed to push major developers for the 50% carbon reduction, but not small-scale applications;

·         the Council should commend and support such applications;

·         the Council would not be able to win on any subsequent appeal;

·         Faversham Town Council raised no objection; and

·         felt it was ‘extreme’ that the Member called-in the application for the reason given in the report.

Following a comment made by the speaker a Member raised concern that the Member who had called-in the application and was a member of the Committee had seemingly recommended companies to the applicant.  The Member in question clarified that he had only offered advice in relation to fitting the air source and in no way had recommended builders.

A Member asked whether the application could be approved subject to providing solar panels on the garages.  The Legal Planning Team Leader stated that a condition could be imposed requiring this, however Members had to consider whether that would be reasonable in the circumstances.

Resolved:  That application 19/503351/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report and securing the appropriate SAMMS contributions.

The Area Planning officer introduced the report.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Eddie Thomas.

A Ward Member supported the application.

A Member congratulated officers on the application being sympathetic with the surrounding area, which he fully supported.

Resolved:  That application 20/502514/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report which he considered should be delegated to officers to approve subject to securing the appropriate SAMMS contributions and Section 106 Agreement to require advertising of events at the site via Brogdale Road.

Parish Councillor Andrew Keel, representing Ospringe Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Richard Baron, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Councillor Elliott Jayes.

The Ward Member spoke against the application and raised the following points:  if approved a condition should be added stating that access to the holiday cottage would not be via the track; the equestrian use already existed and this would be a substantial increase in use of the site; visitors would use narrow local lanes such as the A251 and Painters Forstal; and the Section 106 Agreement would not be any help in restricting traffic use.

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

·         Could request an informative for signs to direct customers and enter discussions with Kent County Council to achieve this;

·         did not consider that the holiday lets would generate much more traffic;

·         the proposed sand school was an issue; and

·         needed to consider the comments from the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Unit.

Councillor David Simmons moved the following amendment to the motion to approve the application:  that it be subject to imposing a suitable informative or condition to ensure appropriate signage to the farm, and that access to the holiday lets be via the main farm entrance only.  This was seconded by the Chairman.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/502483/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (18) in the report a suitable informative to ensure appropriate signage to Willow Farm, and a further condition requiring that access to the holiday lets be via the main farm entrance only.  The securing of the appropriate SAMMS contributions and signing of a Section 106 Agreement to require advertising of events at the site to request visitors to the site arrive and depart via Brogdale Road.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Eddie Thomas.

A Member supported the application which he stated would not be seen from the road.

Resolved:  That application 20/503553/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (14) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Eddie Thomas.

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

·         It was very annoying that modern estates had covenants which were not worth the paper they were written on, difficult to refuse as a precedent had been set;

·         disappointed that Eastchurch Parish Council were not present to explain their reasons for refusing the application; and

·         no local residents had objected to the application so should support.

In response to a request from a member, the Chairman advised that the Head of Planning Services had recently written to all Parish Councils to reinforce the importance of attending the Planning Committee meetings to explain their reasons for supporting or refusing applications.

Resolved:  That application 20/503740/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

PART 5

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

·                     Item 5.1 – Land Adj Stanbourne House Church Road Eastchurch

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

                        A Member commented that this was a “baffling” decision.

·                     Item 5.2 – Little Place Farm Yaugher Lane Hartlip

APPEAL ALLOWED

APPEAL AGAINST NON DETERMINATION

·                     Item 5.3 – Rose Lodge Chestnut Street Borden

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                     Item 5.4 – 18 London Road Favershama

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member welcomed the decision.

·                     Item 5.5 – Land adj Hurst Cottage Hickmans Green Boughton

APPEAL DISMISSED

ENFORCEMENT APPEAL