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 6 January 2021.

Additional Information including responses to questions from Members published 07.01.21

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

Town Councillor Julian Saunders, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

Justin Croft, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised concern that work had already commenced at the site.  She also raised concern about the potential impact of noise and pollution from the proposed car parking spaces on local residents, given the compact layout of the site.   

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer stated that officers were aware that some building work had already commenced and had ordered the applicant to cease this work.  He explained that the applicant had advised that this had been due to a miscommunication between them and their builder.  

Members were invited to debate the application.

The Area Planning Officer responded to questions raised by a Member and he confirmed that an additional parking space was proposed.  He stated that the proposed rear extension was 1.4 metres from the rear elevation, and showed Members drawings of the proposed extension in relation to the rear gardens of properties in Norman Road, Faversham.

Resolved:  That application 20/504747/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report.   

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

A Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

Resolved:  That application 20/505270/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer reported that a letter had been received from a neighbour who had not been notified about the application due to an administrative error.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the neighbour raised no objection to the application but asked that the historic significance of the building be considered and the 18^th century hips on the roof be conserved and incorporated into the design.

Beth Watts, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Planner considered the conversion would not have any adverse impact on the listed building and welcomed the long-term use of the building as a dwelling.

Resolved:  That prior approval was not required for application 20/504753/PNQCLA.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and referred to the two tabled updates which had been emailed to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting.  The updates included: responses to Members’ questions; further consultee responses from Kent County Council (KCC), Natural England, Highways England; an additional condition removing permitted development rights to erect boundary enclosures to the front of dwellings; modifications to condition (15) which related to surface water drainage; completion of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement to include an agreed sum for the parish hall contribution if required; and that further advice would be required from the KCC Ecologist regarding removal of trees from within the orchard. 

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the application and showed Members the masterplan for the scheme which showed that much of the existing orchard and pond would be retained.  The Senior Planning Officer reported that there was some encroachment of the development outside the designated built confines line and within an Important Local Countryside Gap.  He explained that the encroachment was between 15 and 25 metres in depth and the reasons for this were set-out in paragraph 8.32 of the report.  The Senior Planning Officer showed a plan of existing Local Plan allocations in the area to assist Members in understanding how the application sat in relation to site allocations of the Council’s Local Plan. 

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

Tom Ashley, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Ward Members spoke against the application and raised concerns which included: pleased that the proposed block of flats had been removed from the scheme as this was out-of-character with the village; the infrastructure in Iwade was already at breaking point; the application should not be supported until improvements to the Grovehurst Road/A249 junction and M2 junction 5 had been completed; unacceptable that two hectares of the Important Local Countryside Gap would be lost; the Council was close to achieving a five-year housing supply so was the proposal necessary?; unacceptable that the carbon emissions would only be reduced by 30% rather than the 50% aspired to by the Council, could this be imposed?; other applications were refused due to encroachment into an Important Local Countryside Gap so should this one be supported?; it would cause demonstrable harm to the residents of Iwade; the Parish Council were against; and there was already traffic congestion in and out of Iwade during peak times.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the proposal would encroach onto the Important Local Countryside Gap by 0.8 hectares leaving 1.2 hectares of open space remaining. 

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

·         The site was allocated within the Council’s Local Plan for development;

·         improvements to Grovehurst Road/A249 junction and M2 junction 5 were out for consultation now because applications like this one were in the Local Plan so it would be difficult now to refuse this application on that basis;

·         the development would not encroach onto the nature park part of the Countryside Gap which would remain as open space;

·         considered that the design of the proposed dwellings was good;

·         this was a small development which would have a small impact on the highway network;

·         welcomed the proposed footpath and linkage to existing development to the west of the site;

·         pleased to see that the orchard would remain but requested that if any trees did need to be removed from that area then officers needed to consider any endangered priority species and liaise with the Peoples Trust for Endangered Species;

·         referred to an area of land set-side for the Grovehurst area upgrade and considered installing bird boxes etc. should not be carried out in that area as the trees would be removed once the upgrade commenced;

·         as the land was allocated for housing within the Council’s Local Plan it would be difficult for the Council to defend refusal at any subsequent appeal;

·         seriously concerned about the encroachment into the Countryside Gap which was unacceptable;

·         concerned about lack of parking as a result of lots of different types of development in the area;

·         requested a condition requiring no occupation of dwellings until construction work on the Grovehurst Road/A249 junction improvements and M2 junction 5 improvements commenced; and

·         the design of the proposed dwellings was “atrocious” and should ask the applicants to submit a better design.

A Member drew attention to paragraphs 8.04 and 8.05 on page 45 of the report, and asked whether there was an update of the 5-year housing supply?  The Head of Planning Services reported that recent monitoring indicated that the Council had a 5.1-year housing supply but officers were not in a position to confirm this.

In response to a question from a Member, the Senior Planning Officer explained that officers considered a 31% reduction in dwelling emission rates was acceptable.  He said that whilst officers were aware of the Council’s aspirations to meet a 50% dwelling emission rate, it was not currently included as a policy within the Council’s Local Plan and therefore the Council would not be able to defend refusal of the application in that respect at any subsequent appeal. 

With regard to a request from a Member to restrict occupation of the dwellings until commencement of the Grovehurst Road/A249 junction improvements works, the Principal Transport and Development Planner (KCC), stated that they had worked closely with Highways England on assessing vehicle movements on the highway network at the Grovehurst Road/A249 junction, Key Street junction, and the M2 junction 5 and both had agreed that the development would be permissible.   He referred to other applications that were coming forward in the area which would be subject to restrictions relating to commencement of works at Grovehurst Road/A249 junction.

Resolved:  That application 19/501332/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (36) in the report; completion of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement (including an agreed sum for the parish hall contribution if required); no objection raised by Kent Police to the revised layout and design on crime prevention grounds (including conditions if necessary); no objection raised by the KCC Ecologist to the removal of orchard trees as shown in the recently submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (including any necessary change to ecology conditions as advised by the KCC Ecologist) and minor layout changes if they would address any outstanding concerns from Kent Police or the KCC Ecologist.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and drew attention to the tabled responses to questions from a Member which had been emailed to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. 

The Area Planning Officer reported he was aware that Members had received numerous objections from a neighbouring property.  He stated that it was worth noting that the objector had accepted that the site was not subject to an agricultural tenancy and agreed that the application could now be determined by Members.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the objector had stated his intention to lock the gates to prevent visitors gaining entrance or to allow them to turn within the site.  He explained that the objector was seemingly trying to create a situation whereby vehicles trying to access the site would need to reverse 180 metres down the track onto Lower Hartlip Road, harming all uses of the highway.  He stated that this was not the basis on which to consider an application under the Planning Acts.

The Area Planning Officer reported that he had spoken to the Agent and it was evident that the existing gates would not be locked if people were living at the site.  He had checked Land Registry details which confirmed that any subsequent landowners would have an unencumbered access to the entirety of the track, and the land was in single ownership. 

John Wright, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mark Hall, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Ward Member who had called-in the application removed his objection and concluded that he considered the access issues were a neighbour dispute.

A Ward Member stated that despite what it stated in the report he had not called-in the application.  He spoke against the application and raised concern about poor highway visibility.  The Member considered that appeal decisions where highway access had been a reason for refusal were relevant to this application.

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

·         Unimpressed by the comments from KCC Highways;

·         concerned that vehicles would have to reverse out of the site which was dangerous;

·         visibility on leaving the site was a concern;

·         did not consider that the appeals referred to by the objector related to this application; and

·         could not refuse on highway grounds.

The Lawyer (Planning) reminded Members that prior approval had been granted at the site in 2017 under application 17/504563/PNQCLA for the same four points as this application and Members needed to provide clear reasons as to what had materially changed in respect of highways since that application.  The Lawyer confirmed that if not determined within the required timescale there was a deemed approval for the application.

Resolved:  That prior approval was required for application 20/505771/PNQCLA in respect of contamination risks and granted subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

Tim Ball, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

Members were invited to comment on the application and raised points which included:

·         Welcomed the design of the proposed dwelling;

·         good design and environmentally very good;

·         this would improve the area; and

·         it was a shame that Members had not been able to make the decision on the application as would have supported it.

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer reported that the eastern end of the site might be prone to flooding but not where the dwelling was proposed.

Resolved:  That application 20/500617/FULL would have been refused if the appeal for non-determination of the application had not been submitted.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

Lucy Allen, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

The Ward Member spoke in support of the application.  She noted that the Parish Council fully supported the application and considered the applicants had given a compelling reason to go against some of the policies set-out in the report.

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

·         Concerned that some Members were not being consistent in relation to developments outside the built-up area and the Council’s policies in that respect;

·         liked the design of the building;

·         nice design and would fit in well within the village;

·         should be making consistent decisions;

·         was within an AONB so should refuse;

·         bungalow would fit in well to the local area;

·         we had approved larger applications which were within the Countryside Gap; and

·         the family were dedicated to the village and the application should be supported.

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

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following motion:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

The Area Planning Officer clarified that the motion should include the imposition of conditions requiring a 50% dwelling emission rate and a programme of archaeological work as requested by the County Archaeological Officer.  The proposer and seconder of the motion to approve the application agreed that those conditions be included.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19 (2) three Members requested a recorded vote, and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Bonney, R Clark, S Clark, Rowles, Hunt, Jackson, Jayes, Marchington, Martin,  Stephen, Winckless.  Total Equals 11.

Against: Councillors Beart, Darby, Dendor, Hall, Simmons, Valentine.  Total Equals 6.

Abstain:  Total Equals 0.

Resolved:  That application 20/504048/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to the imposition of suitable conditions including a condition requiring a 50% dwelling emission rate and a programme of archaeological work as requested by the County Archaeological Officer.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – 6 Ellens Place Boyces Hill Newington

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.2 – Rhode House Service Station London Road Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.3 – Webbenditch Cottage Cold Harbour Lane Bobbing

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.4 – Rosalyn Chestnut Street Borden

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.5 – Land Off Jubilee Fields Upchurch

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL