To consider the attached report (Parts 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 3 February 2021.

UPDATE TO AGENDA 28 JANUARY 2021

Item 2.2 20/505845/FULL 92 Lower Road, Faversham – WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA WITH AGREEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Updated site plan added to item 2.1 on 1 February 2021.

Questions and Responses for items 2.1 and 2.4 added 3 February 2021.

Additional information added 4 February 2021.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and drew attention to the amended site plan which had previously been emailed to Members and added to the Council’s website.   The original plan had shown the site boundary to have overlapped into the neighbouring property, and the new amended plan resolved this issue.  The Area Planning Officer drew attention to paragraph 6.1 on page 11 of the report which set-out Doddington Parish Council’s previous objections.  They had since emailed and said that they had noted the discrepancies with the earlier site plan and had no further comments to make. 

Questions and responses on this application had been added to the website.

Oliver Mustoe-Playfair, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

A Ward Member, who was also a member of the Planning Committee spoke briefly on the update, but had no further comments.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Planning Officer indicated through plans and photographs, the work that had been completed and the distance from the nearby listed building.  He also showed the rough driveway on the western boundary which had been used for many years.  He did not foresee a great amount of traffic resulting from the development using the driveway, as it was a single property, not a commercial, use.  He reminded Members that access was a private matter for the residents to resolve, and not a planning matter.  The Area Planning Officer advised that there was nothing within the application to make improvements to the surface of the access.

Resolved:  That application 20/504677/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

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.

A Member considered it would look odd with the low fence remaining in place.  In response to questions from Members, the Area Planning Officer explained that planning permission was required for fencing over one metre tall if it was sited adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic.  He explained that the new fencing would be 1.84 metres high and set 1.5 metres back from the highway.  The application would allow the residents to use more of their garden, rather than it being an isolated strip to the side of the house.

The Chairman had connectivity issues part way through consideration of this application and the Vice-Chairman took the Chair for the remainder of the item.

Resolved:  That application 20/505732/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

Questions and responses on this application had been added to the website.

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

The Ward Member, who was also a member of the Planning Committee referred to the responses to the questions he had submitted and raised no objection to the application.

Resolved:  That application 20/505438/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (2) 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.

In response to a Ward Member’s question, the Area Planning Officer confirmed that both Scarborough Drive and Princes Avenue were unmade roads.

Resolved:  That application 20/504067/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.  He explained that this was a re-submission of a scheme which had been dismissed on appeal.  The Inspector had thought all aspects of the application had been acceptable, except there had been no Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) payment.  This payment had now been made, and so there was no reason to refuse the application.  The Area Planning Officer said that Eastchurch Parish Council had submitted further comments, but due to IT issues on their part, these could not be identified.

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

In response to a Member’s question, the Area Planning Officer stated that it was likely that the residents would be required to take their refuse bins to the main road as access to the property was narrow. He added that this issue would not give enough weight for refusal of the application.

Resolved:  That application 20/505084/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (13) in the report.

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – Faversham Laundry 29 Ashford Road Faversham

DELEGATED REFUSAL

A Member stated that this had in fact been a Committee decision for refusal, not delegated to officers.  This was confirmed by the Development Manager.

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.2 – Jack Russell Place Halstow Lane Upchurch

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.3 – Alpaca Farm Yaugher Lane Hartlip

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member congratulated officers on all three decisions.  He noted that each of the applications had been called-in by a Parish Council but they had not attended the Planning Committee when the application was considered.