To consider the following applications:

Deferred Item 1 18/504562/FULL Ellens Court, Lady Margaret Manor Road, Doddington, Kent, ME9 0NT

Deferred Item 2 20/500490/FULL Seaview Holiday Camp, Warden Bay Road, Leysdown, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4NB

Deferred Item 3 20/503571/FULL Seaview Holiday Camp, Warden Bay Road, Leysdown, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4NB

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the applications will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on these items must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 9 December 2020.

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

DEFERRED ITEMS

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application.  He reminded Members that at the meeting on 15 October 2020 they had deferred the application to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on-site.  However, due to the current health and safety risks involved with a physical site meeting, officers recommended that video footage of the site be presented to Members, Ward Members, residents/objectors and the applicant/agent at a remote meeting of the Planning Working Group.  The minutes from that meeting would then be considered at the Planning Committee meeting on Thursday 7 January 2021.

Lee Davison, an objector, spoke against the proposal to hold the Planning Working Group meeting remotely.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation for a meeting of the Planning Working Group to be held remotely and this was seconded by Councillor Roger Clark.

The Ward Member appreciated that holding a physical site meeting was not feasible during the current Covid-19 pandemic but considered it was a unique remote site with a narrow access and was not suitable for the development proposed.

In response to a query from a Member, the Major Projects Officer stated that the application was already over the 13-week determination target and the applicants could take the application to appeal on non determination grounds if they were minded to. 

Members were invited to consider the proposal for a remote Planning Working Group meeting and raised comments which included:

·         Understood residents concerns but Members would still be able to view the site by video so could see no harm in holding a remote meeting;

·         suggested that dash-cam footage showing the narrow access to the site could also be shown at the virtual meeting;

·         important to consider whether it was reasonable under the current Covid-19 pandemic restrictions to delay having a virtual meeting when nobody knew how long the restrictions would be for;

·         Members could always visit the site individually; and

·         supported the proposed remote meeting but would like dash-cam footage to be made available at the meeting. 

In response to a query from a Member, the Democratic Services Officer stated that the meeting could be held at 10am on Monday 21 December 2020.

Resolved:  That due to the current health and safety risks involved for the Planning Working Group to meet on site, video footage of the site including dash-cam footage for application 18/504562/FULL be presented to a remote Planning Working Group meeting.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.  He reported that the agent had emailed further comments responding to comments and concerns raised by Members which he summarised as follows: with regard to overlooking and density concerns there was no material change to the density and pattern of the units in the area, there was no difference to the degree of privacy that the neighbouring units currently enjoyed; in fact the units replacing the caravans were now further away from the chalets opposite them; the density for this application was reduced by one unit (10%); there were typically no closed-off spaces around the each chalet, they were designed for central grounds maintenance; as noted by planning officers; the replacement chalets were of an appropriate scale and design; orientation and increase in unit size, the change in orientation of some of the units took them further away from the units opposite than they currently were; the chalets were approximately 25% bigger than their predecessors, the majority of that increase was in the length of the unit increasing from 7.4m to 10m and only 0.3m added to the width; parking - generally there were no parking issues on the site, earlier this year 27 additional parking spaces were added to the site; with this application they had included an additional six new parking spaces and removed one unit; there was parking available generally around the site, there were no dedicated parking spaces; it was a private site, the site owners had a vested interest in the occupiers of the site so parking concerns were always addressed as it would be counterproductive for them not to do so; sustainability - they had looked carefully at sustainability and concluded that the increased level would be very difficult to achieve without making the unit size bigger and the cost would be disproportionate to the aim of these low cost units; however, they respected the thinking of Members on this, and worked with the officers and the local authority building control department to make changes to provide an improvement of 35% as set-out in the report; increase in people living in the area - there would be a mix of purchasers buying the units; it should be noted that these were replacement units, not new ones, so there was no increase in use or occupancy.  The Area Planning Officer further advised that with regard to proximity concerns in respect of chalet 49 to an existing chalet, the agent had offered to either amend the layout or delete chalet 49 entirely should Members so wish.

Faye Wright, 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 raised comments which included:

·         Considered the replacement chalets were better than what was currently on the site;

·         could not insist that the applicant reduced the size of the decking;

·         should approve the application as it stood; 

·         concerns about the applicant replacing the 10-month occupancy caravans with chalets for 12 month occupancy on a piecemeal basis;

·         these were chalets not park homes;

·         could not see any material considerations to refuse the application other than the proximity of chalet 49;

·         would be happier to support the application if chalet 49 was removed; and

·         concerned about the loss of green space due to construction of decking which could set a precedent for the whole site.

In response the Area Planning Officer said that if Members still had concerns about the proximity of chalet 49 they could explore an amendment to either the layout or removing chalet 49 as part of the scheme to replace further chalets on that row.  He stated that officers also had concerns about the loss of caravans on the site, however they had lost an appeal to replace caravans with chalets on the park and would not be able support that as a reason for refusal at any subsequent appeal.   He added that there were no occupancy restrictions on the chalets at the site.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following addendum: That plot 49 be removed from the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

The Area Planning Officer suggested the following wording be added to the addendum:  to delegate authority to officers to approve the application subject to deletion of the proposed replacement chalet on plot 49 and amending the spacing between the remaining 3 chalets.

The Lawyer (Planning) suggested that any delegation included amendments to relevant conditions. 

The original proposer and seconder agreed to include these comments in the addendum.  On being put to the vote the addendum was lost.

Resolved:  That application 20/500490/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

The Area Planning officer introduced the application.

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

Resolved:  That application 20/503571/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.