To consider the attached report (Parts 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 9 December 2020.

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

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Vice-Chairman took the chair for this application.

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

Members were invited to debate the application and comments included:

·         Did not consider that the proposal would be detrimental to the setting of St Michaels church;

·         the proposal would fit in well with the existing terraced houses;

·         would not cause any overlooking issues to neighbouring properties;

·         agreed with officers that as it was so accessible into the high street parking would not be an issue;

·         visitors could park in the car park nearby;

·         could see no material reasons to refuse the application; and

·         was in accordance with the Council’s recently adopted parking standards and was in a sustainable location.

The Conservation & Design Manager reported that from a conservation area point of view he would have preferred for the area to remain green, but considered the impact on the conservation area would be minimal.  He suggested the conditions in the report be tightened-up slightly, so they were inline with application 17/503011/FULL which had been approved in 2017 at the site, and the removal of permitted development rights.  The Area Planning Officer suggested the following addendum to the motion to approve the application: to impose a condition seeking removal of normal domestic permitted development rights.

A Member raised concern that the occupiers of the proposed dwelling might be affected by noise from delivery vehicles to adjacent shops, he asked whether a condition requiring triple glazing to the rear windows could be imposed?  The Area Planning Officer advised that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had raised no objection in respect of noise, however such a condition could be imposed if Members felt it would be an issue. 

Councillor Simon Clark moved the following addendum:  that an additional condition be imposed requiring that the rear windows had triple glazing.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  A Member said that she did not think that noise was likely to be a problem as any occupiers would be mindful that it was close to the town centre.

On being put to the vote the additional conditions were agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 20/502524/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report and two additional conditions, one seeking removal of domestic permitted development rights and the other requiring that the rear windows were triple glazed.

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Ross Webb, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

In response to points raised by the public speakers, the Area Planning Officer reminded Members that the advertising board was a separate issue and not material to the application.

Members were invited to debate the application and points raised included:

·         This was on the edge of the built-up boundary and could see no reason why a house could not be built;

·         concerned that the photograph being shown did not seem to correspond with the block plan with regard to parking and turning areas;

·         concerned about where the occupants would collect their bins;

·         had visited the site and did not think it was detrimental to the area;

·         the current footprint would not change so could not see any material considerations for refusing the application;

·         what landscaping was planned?;

·         the frontage needed to be replaced with hardstanding so it was more in-keeping with the area; and

·         a soft and hard landscaping condition was needed.

In response to questions raised by Members, the Area Planning Officer stated that there appeared to be adequate parking and turning for vehicles.  With regard to bin collection, he explained that this would be a private matter for the occupants of no. 37.  The Area Planning Officer stated that advertisements were dealt with under separate advertisement legislation and confirmed that the Council’s planning enforcement team were investigating the issue.

There was some discussion about the frontage of the proposed dwelling and the Area Planning Officer stated that landscaping could be explored with the applicant and the standard landscaping condition could be imposed, ensuring that any landscaping did not interfere with turning within the site. The Area Planning Officer considered it would be prudent to impose a condition regarding provision and maintenance of adequate visibility splays.

The Area Planning Officer agreed to amend his recommendation to approve the application as follows:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to the imposition of standard landscaping conditions and a condition requiring the provision and maintenance of visibility splays.  This was supported by Members.

Resolved:  That application 20/500169/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report, the imposition of standard landscaping conditions and a condition requiring the provision and maintenance of visibility splays.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

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

Members were invited to debate the application and points raised included:

·         Access straight onto a main road was inappropriate;

·         would be out-of-keeping with the streetscene;

·         there were double yellow lines opposite the site so cars parking both sides was not an issue; and

·         there was no turning circle so allowing the dropped kerb would require the applicant to either reverse in or out of the drive which was not safe.

Resolved:  That application 20/504000/FULL be refused for the reasons outlined in the report.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – Churchfields The Street Eastling

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.2 – 17 Neames Forstal Selling

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.3 – Land at 20 Hustlings Drive Eastchurch

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member referred to a meeting of the Planning Working Group at the site previously, and that Members had noted the total disregard for the open character of the estate.  He totally supported the officers and appeal inspector in refusing the application. 

• Item 5.4 – 2 Millers Cottages Belvedere Road Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

• Item 5.5 – Noreview Warden Road Eastchurch

APPEAL WITHDRAWN – COSTS DECISION – COSTS AWARDED AGAINST THE COUNCIL

NON-DETERMINATION

            A Member said it was confusing and disappointing that costs were awarded given the Inspector’s comments that it could have easily been dealt with.