To consider the attached report (Parts 1, 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 11 November 2020.

 

Tabled Papers added 9 November and 13 November 2020.

 

Q&As added 10 November 2020.

 

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

 

1.1       REFERENCE NO - 19/505353/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of 5no. four bedroom detached dwellings with associated garages, parking spaces and private amenity space.
ADDRESSDanedale Stables Chequers Road Minster-on-sea Sheerness Kent ME12 3SJ
WARDSheppey Central	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILMinster-On-Sea	APPLICANT MrSted-Smith AGENT Kent Design Partnership

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report and referred to the questions raised by a Member which had been added to the website, in respect of the proposed pedestrian footways.  He reminded Members that the issue of the location of the proposed footpath was set-out as the second reason for refusal.  The Area Planning Officer considered the issues had been addressed by the additional footway now proposed, as indicated on the amended plans.

 

Councillor James Hunt moved the following motion:  That the first reason for refusal be amended to delete reference to the Important Countryside Gap and the second reason be removed.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.  The Chairman announced that the vote was tied.  He used his casting vote and the motion was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That the resolution passed at the 17 September 2020 meeting for application 19/505353/FULL be amended to remove reference to the Important Countryside Gap from reason one for refusal, and to also remove the entire reason two for refusal.

 

PART 2

 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

 

2.1       REFERENCE NO -  20/500887/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing rear extension to no. 226. Erection of single storey side extensions and two storey rear extensions to both, alterations to windows and erection of boundary fence and gates. Erection of 2no. semi-detached properties at rear with associated access, parking, pedestrian footpath, landscaping and private amenity spaces.
ADDRESS224-226 Minster Road Minster-on-sea Sheerness Kent ME12 3LL
WARDSheppey Central	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILMinster-On-Sea	APPLICANT Mr Dan Fillingham AGENT Mr Lewis Bailie

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report.  He advised that the location plan had been amended to show access to the proposed dwellings being sited to the front of the adjacent dwelling.  Condition (14) on page 110 of the report needed to be updated to refer to the amended plan.  The Area Planning Officer reported that there had been a further recent application, for extensions to the existing dwellings only.  An objection had been received for this but had referred to issues in relation to the two new proposed dwellings to the rear of 224-226 Minster Road.  The Area Planning Officer said that Optivo, who managed properties in Porter Close, had stated that they would not give permission to the applicant to access the proposed development via Porter Close, due to flooding and drainage issues.  Members were reminded that this was a private legal matter and was not a material planning consideration.

 

Lewis Bailie, 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.

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered it to be garden grabbing.

 

A Member raised issues with access over the private road to the development and the implications of this.  The Area Planning Officer explained that Porter Close was seemingly owned by Optivo and they were unlikely to allow access.  He repeated that this was not a planning matter, but one that needed to be considered by the agent, developer and Optivo.  He added that if access was refused, the development was unlikely to be built.

 

Councillor Cameron Beart moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.

 

There was some discussion on how the site meeting would take place due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  Members made the following comments:  a video of the site could be presented to the Committee; the public needed to be able to speak at a site meeting; an actual site meeting could be held, once the current lockdown restrictions had been lifted in early December 2020; and the video could be played at a separate virtual meeting and the public could dial-in to speak.  The Head of Planning Services suggested that a video could be submitted to the next Planning Committee, unless circumstances changed and an actual meeting could take place.  He added that he was seeking legal advice on this matter.  The Planning Team Leader (Mid-Kent Legal) confirmed that the site meeting should go ahead, either by video or by an actual meeting, subject to further legal advice.  Members were happy with this approach and on being put to the vote the motion for a site meeting was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 20/500887/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to either meet on site or have a video of the site submitted to the next Planning Committee, pending further legal advice.

 

2.2       REFERENCE NO - 20/502880/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 2no. dwellings including access, landscaping and associated works.
ADDRESSQueenborough Rowing Club North Road Queenborough Kent ME11 5EN
WARD Queenborough And Halfway	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILQueenborough	APPLICANT Mr Parker AGENT DHA Planning

 

Councillor Monique Bonney left the meeting whilst this item was being considered.

 

Marco Devereux, an objector, spoke against the application.

 

Alexander Payne, 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.

 

A Ward Member spoke with sympathy with the points raised by the objector especially with regard to the size of the proposed properties and the lack of parking.  He spoke about development that had taken place nearby and considered a precedent had been set, and that there were no grounds to refuse the application.

 

A Member asked for clarification on drainage and sewerage in the vicinity and the Area Planning Officer explained that this was a matter for the developer to investigate.

 

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

 

·         Supported the application;

·         this was a good use of the site, and an improvement on what was currently there;

·         understood the concerns with parking; and

·         Swale Borough Council (SBC) had its own adopted Vehicle Parking Standards, as reported in paragraph 8.11 of the report, but it was questionable as to whether this was a town centre location.

 

In response, the Area Planning Officer advised that as the site was in close proximity to the train station, it had good transport links and there was free parking nearby, it should not matter if the location was considered town centre or not as the site was, in his view, clearly in a sustainable location.

 

Resolved:  That application 20/502880/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (14) in the report.

 

2.3       REFERENCE NO -  20/503571/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL The replacement of four existing chalet units at plots 51, 51A, 53 and 60.
ADDRESSSeaview Holiday Camp Warden Bay Road Leysdown Sheerness Kent ME12 4NB
WARDSheppey East	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILLeysdown	APPLICANT Wickland (Holdings) Ltd AGENT Forward Planning And Development Ltd

 

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Monday 16 November 2020.

 

2.4       REFERENCE NO -  16/507689/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline Application (with all matters reserved other than access into the site) for mixed use development including up to 300 dwellings; employment area (Use Classes B1(a), B1(b) and B1(c) (offices, research and development, and light industrial) (up to 26,840sqm); sports ground (including pavilion/changing rooms); open space (including allotments and community orchard); access, including new link road and roundabout on A2; other vehicular/pedestrian / cycle accesses (including alterations to Frognal Lane); reserve site for health centre; and associated parking and servicing areas, landscaping, wildlife areas, swales and other drainage / surface water storage areas, and related development
ADDRESSLand Between Frognal Lane And Orchard View Lower Road Teynham Kent ME9 9TU
WARD Teynham And Lynsted	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILTeynham	APPLICANT The Trenport Teynham Partnership AGENT Vincent And Gorbing

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report.   He reminded Members that this application had been approved in June 2017 when it was agreed that the developer would provide 40% affordable housing.  The developer had since sought to reduce this figure to 18.33%, as 40% was not viable for them.  The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to paragraph 4.3 on page 141 of the report which set-out the reasoning for the target figures, and the consideration that Teynham should be considered more urban and be more in line with the affordable housing figure targets for Sittingbourne (where the Local Plan required 10% affordable housing provision).  The Area Planning Officer also drew attention to paragraph 6.7, which set-out the 18.3% agreed by the applicant.

 

The statement from the Agent, 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 the Vice-Chairman.

 

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

 

A Member sought clarification on how a viability review would take place.  The Area Planning Officer explained that it would take place prior to the completion of 200 dwellings when a review of profitability would be carried out, and he added that this was a normal and legitimate process.  The applicant had committed to 18% affordable housing and he explained that negotiations with housing agencies were separate and they were not able to access grant money if affordable housing was required by a Section 106 Agreement.

 

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

 

·         Disappointed with the reduction of affordable housing on the development;

·         hoped that there was some more affordable housing when viability improved;

·         concerned with industrial units in a rural location;

·         off-road parking needed to be provided, possibly near to the site allocated for the medical centre which would enable vehicles that were parked on the A2 to park there and this would improve traffic flow;

·         concerned that the medical centre might not be delivered;

·         welcomed the employment opportunities of the commercial units; and

·         suggested the site where the medical centre was proposed be ring-fenced as open space, rather than more housing.

 

The Area Planning Officer explained that part of the Section 106 Agreement included a lay-by and improvements to London Road, to improve traffic flow and air quality.  The Major Projects Officer referred Members to paragraph 7.23 in appendix 1 of this item where it set-out that there was no mention of a firm proposal of a medical centre on the site.  The Section 106 Agreement would secure developer contributions which could be spent locally to improve primary care provision.

 

The Area Planning Officer explained that west of Frognal Lane was dedicated open space and the site for the medical centre would not end up being more housing.  Members’ attention was drawn to condition (9) in the report which explained that the housing and employment areas were restricted to the corresponding areas on the Development Parameters plan.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/507689/OUT be approved subject to conditions (1) to (43) in the report with the deletion of  condition (15) and to a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement including an 18.33% affordable housing contribution, a viability review mechanism and indexation of developer contributions from the original dates.

 

2.5       REFERENCE NO - 20/501601/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Full planning permission for the erection of a new coffee shop (Use Class A1/A3) including drive-thru facility with associated car parking, cycle parking, motorcycle parking, landscaping and associated works. As amended by drawings received on 14TH SEPTEMBER 2020
ADDRESSGate Service Station London Road Dunkirk Faversham Kent ME13 9LN
WARDBoughton And Courtenay	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILDunkirk	APPLICANT Motor Fuel Ltd AGENT JMS Planning & Development Ltd

 

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

 

Jackie Ford, 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.

 

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

 

·         Considered any noise would be low level;

·         the two-way system near the petrol pumps could be dangerous;

·         this was an improvement on the present use; and

·         it was a good use of the site and the perfect location.

 

Resolved:  That application 20/501601/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (15) in the report.

 

2.6       REFERENCE NO - 19/500113/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a commercial unit for existing plant hire business (use class B8), creation of separate LPG cylinder and welding gas storage areas and construction of 2.4 metre high perimeter fence and crushed stone hardstanding area with associated staff and visitor car parking and landscaping.
ADDRESSAbbeyfields 39 Abbeyfields Faversham Kent ME13 8HS
WARD Abbey	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILFaversham Town	APPLICANT Mr Keith Fuller AGENT MS Town Planning Consultancy Services

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report.  He advised that the County Archaeological Officer had commented on the application and raised no objection, subject to an additional condition in relation to the implementation of a programme of archaeological work.

 

Town Councillor Chris Williams, 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 visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

 

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

 

·         Understood the objections, but the application would make the site tidier;

·         concerned with the road access, this was an unmade road and the application would make it worse; and

·         concerned with the amount of LPG cylinders on the site.

 

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that Abbeyfields was not an unmade road, it was an unadopted road, maintained by residents.  The road was a cul-de-sac with no access from Abbey Street, and he considered the increase in traffic was negligible.  He added that the site already had a lawful development certificate for use as open storage, and the Member was advised that the number of cylinders etc. was a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

 

Resolved:  That application 19/500113/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (16) in the report and to an additional condition in relation to the implementation of a programme of archaeological work.

 

 

2.7       REFERENCE NO - 20/501936/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a retail terrace (Classes A1, A2, A3, A5 and D1).
ADDRESSLand At Perry Court Local Centre (Plot 4) Tettenhall Way Faversham Kent ME13 8XN
WARD Watling	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILFaversham Town	APPLICANT HDD (Faversham) Limited AGENT Pegasus Planning Group

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report.  He indicated on plans the Aldi store under construction to the south of the application site and explained that the scheme consisted of three terraced commercial units, for a range of uses, including retail, restaurant, and take-away use.  The application was speculative as there were no end users at the moment.  He explained that the units were between 78 square metres and 140 square metres in size, and of a modern design.  The car park would be shared by Aldi and the occupants of the three units.  The Senior Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled update which had also been added to the website.  The update set-out further representation from the planning consultants, and minor amendments to condition (18).

 

Steve Lewis-Roberts, 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.

 

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He considered large delivery vehicles would access the site, and with no dedicated service access, this was not amenable to the current use as a car park.  He reminded Members that the site had originally been allocated as green space, and that there was a potential for anti-social behavior once Aldi switched the lights off in the car park at 9pm.  The Ward Member also thought the application would have a detrimental impact on the nearby care home, and the residents of Ashford Road.

 

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

 

·         This was a beneficial addition to the site;

·         it was a shame to lose the green space;

·         this was in-keeping with the nearby commercial use;

·         this was an opportunity for local people to set-up businesses;

·         the application helped towards trying to get people to use their cars less;

·         the chimney on the plans looked a bit out of place;

·         the outline application had changed from a local convenience store with green space to a larger footprint, with no green space;

·         concerned with the delivery access, right next to the entrance to Aldi;

·         issue with where the drop-off point would be and with frequent deliveries;

·         allocated parking and large lorries did not go together;

·         this was a welcome facility for the residents of the nearby housing estate and further afield in Faversham;

·         welcomed the employment opportunities;

·         concerned with the presence of delivery vehicles in this area;

·         the five car parking spaces adjacent to the proposed building should be made into a permanent delivery area for the three units;

·         there should be no 7.5 tonne vehicles on the site;

·         concerned with the impact of the application on the vitality of Faversham Town Centre; and

·         the green space should remain green space.

 

In response to points raised, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the applicant had a right to use the area of the car park to the south for deliveries as part of a legal agreement with Aldi.  He explained that more detail was required for delivery arrangements, i.e. condition (18) to minimise the impact on the wider car park, and to reduce blocking and queuing.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the applicant had carried out vehicle tracking to show the delivery vehicle manoeuvres and Kent County Council Highways and Transportation were happy with the findings.  In response to the suggestion of defining the delivery area and limiting the size of the lorries allowed on the site, the Senior Planning Officer explained that this would need to be reviewed with the applicant.

 

A Member suggested the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to reviewing the measures to manage deliveries and the conversion of some of the parking spaces to a dedicated delivery area, plus a weight limit on the vehicles that would be delivering to the proposed units.

 

There was some discussion on whether a condition could be included for a limit on the weight of the vehicles visiting the site, and whether this was unreasonable.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the two issues would need to be reviewed together, and he reminded Members that a swept path analysis had been carried out taking into account the siting of the five car parking spaces.  If the spaces became a dedicated delivery area it could be difficult to reasonably request a 7.5 tonne weight limit.  In response to a question, he advised that each space was 2.5 metres wide and 5 metres in length.  Councillor Simon Clark considered this was not long enough for a large lorry.

 

Councillor Monique Bonnie moved the following amendment to the motion to approve the application:  That delegated authority be given to officers to approve the application following consultation with the Chairman and Councillor Simon Clark and subject to the conversion of the five car parking spaces to a delivery area and a review of the weight of vehicle that could access the site and manoeuvre within it, and the application to come back to the Planning Committee if this was not resolved.  This was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 20/501936/FULL be delegated to officers to approve following consultation with the Chairman and Councillor Simon Clark and subject to the conversion of the five car parking spaces to a delivery area and a review of the weight of vehicle that could access the site and manoeuvre within it, and the application to come back to the Planning Committee if this was not resolved and to conditions (1) to (19) in the report, and minor amendments to condition (18).

 

 

2.8       REFERENCE NO -  19/502969/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of a new foodstore with associated parking, servicing, landscaping and new vehicular access
ADDRESSLand To The East Of Queenborough Road Queenborough Kent ME12 3RH
WARD Queenborough And Halfway	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILQueenborough	APPLICANT ALDI Stores Ltd AGENT Planning Potential Ltd

 

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Monday 16 November 2020.

 

2.9       REFERENCE NO -  19/503278/REM
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Approval of Reserved Matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale being sought) for the erection of 26no. dwellings and a building comprising of 9no. flats.
ADDRESSLand To The East Of Ham Road Faversham Kent ME13 7ER
WARD Priory	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILFaversham Town	APPLICANT Penenden Heath Developments AGENT GDM Architects

 

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Monday 16 November 2020.

 

2.10    REFERENCE NO -  19/505038/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline application for the demolition of former Public House and erection of a block of 15 flats (All Matters Reserved).
ADDRESSThe Lion  2 Church Street Milton Regis Sittingbourne ME10 2JY
WARDChalkwell	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL	APPLICANT Bespoke Development Solutions Ltd AGENT Clay Architecture Ltd

 

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

 

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  He welcomed the comments in paragraphs 9.6 and 9.9 of the appendix to this item, and the provision of affordable housing.

 

Resolved:  That application 19/505038/OUT be approved subject to conditions (1) to (26) in the report and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement, and officers be given delegated authority to make amendments to the Agreement wording as might reasonably be necessary.

 

PART 3

 

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

 

3.1       REFERENCE NO - 20/503596/FULL & 20/503597/LBC
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Installation of a 6.8kW in-roof mounted PV array on the garage roof at Pheasant Barn
ADDRESSPheasant Barn Church Road Oare Faversham Kent ME13 0QB
WARD Teynham And Lynsted	PARISH/TOWN COUNCILOare	APPLICANT Susan and Paul Vaight AGENT Invicta Clean Energy Ltd

 

Parish Councillor Janet Hill, representing Oare Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

 

The statement from the Applicant, in support of the application, was read-out by the Democratic Services Officer.

 

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

 

The Member who had called-in the application said that a coherent approach was needed, especially as members of the public had been encouraged to install solar panels on their homes.  He welcomed the applicants’ initiative and considered the black solar panels would blend in with the colour of the roof of the property.  The Member did not consider the roof was particularly visible from Oare Road, and that it would not harm the setting of the nearby church.  He explained that the footpath was about a quarter of a mile away from the property, and the panels would not be on the side directly facing the footpath.  The Member added that the scheme was reversible.

 

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

 

·         It was a good property, and the use of solar power was welcomed, but also needed to considered the points raised in paragraphs 7.8 to 7.11 in the report;

·         the owners should be commended for this application;

·         roof panels were a better option than placing the solar panels on the ground;

·         the footpath views would not be adversely affected; and

·         there were no objections from local residents.

 

The Conservation and Design Manager was invited to speak.  He advised that thermal slate was the most discreet option for a roof.  There was an obligation to try and mitigate any harm to the property and this option would do that.  There would be less public benefit, but overall less impact on the character of the property and how it was enjoyed from various views.  The officer said that it was important to respect the character and special interest of the building.  The Conservation and Design Manager also said that the solar panels would be quite visible and detract from the listed building and nearby church, especially once the leaves had fallen from the trees.  He summarised and said there were alternative solutions that were more sensitive and respectful to listed buildings, and reminded Members that the Council had adopted a Heritage Strategy, and he acknowledged that it was a difficult balancing act.

 

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

 

Councillor Simon Clark moved the following motion:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve with a three year commencement condition and clear details of how the solar panels would be installed and fitted, and any damage repaired sympathetically and the precise wording to be finalised by officers.  This was seconded by Councillor Tim Valentine.  On being put to the vote, the motion was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That applications 20/503596/FULL & 20/503597/LBC be delegated to officers to approve with conditions requiring a three year commencement period, and clear details of how the solar panels would be installed and fitted, and any making good works to be done sympathetically with the precise wording being finalised by officers. 

 

 

The following items were considered at the reconvened meeting on Monday 16 November 2020.

 

PART 5

 

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

                                                                                                                                                    

 

• Item 5.1 – Pebble Court Farm Woodgate Lane Borden - 19/506446/PNPA

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

 

• Item 5.2 – Pebble Court Farm Woodgate Lane Borden - 19/505970/FULL

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

           

 

• Item 5.3 – Land on the south east side of Bartletts Close, Halfway

 

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

 

APPEAL ALLOWED & COSTS AWARDED

 

• Item 5.4 – 78 Preston Street Faversham

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEALS DISMISSED

 

• Item 5.5 – 69 Church Road Eastchurch

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

• Item 5.6 – Bourne Place Stockers Hill Rodmersham

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

 

APPEAL DISMISSED