Agenda and draft minutes

Members are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Code of Conduct regarding disclosable pecuniary and other interests.

Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary or other disclosable interest

 Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done within 28 days

Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item where appropriate.  If the interest is non-pecuniary you may be able to stay in the room, take part and vote.

For further advice please contact Stuart Caundle, Monitoring Officer, in advance of the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee (previously circulated) as a correct record.

To consider any items of business which the Chair has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.  The reason for the urgency shall be specified in the minutes.

Erect 50 No. dwellings. (Reserved matters application to determine access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale; following grant of Outline Planning Permission No. 2/2016/0149/OUT).

The Area Manager (Eastern) presented the report showing all relevant plans and drawings.

She advised that 3 further letters of objection had been received raising similar concerns to those in the report.

The Area Manager advised that the secured 25% affordable housing was policy compliant, however, the applicant would be applying for grant funding to enable the applicant to provide 100% affordable housing on the site.

The Area Manager advised that the proposed development complied with the policies set out in the Gillingham Neighbourhood Plan.

The Area Manager outlined that the main planning considerations in this case related to layout and density, scale, appearance, landscaping, access, Bay and safeguarding character, amenity, biodiversity and drainage.

Mr Savage, DCC Highways, advised that the proposed road layout of the site conformed with the criteria set out in the Manual for Streets and provided a suitable number of car parking spaces, both on and off road.  The road would be suitable for adoption.  Therefore, the Highway department had no objection to the application subject to conditions.

Oral representations objecting to the applications were received from Mrs Hicks, Mr Chase, Mrs Graham, Mr Coldham, Mr Kelliher, Mr Kidner, Mr Faulkner and Mrs Kidner who raised the following concerns:

• The proposed development would be overdevelopment of the site;
• Loss of amenity caused by overlooking and loss of natural light as the site was 1m higher that surrounding area;
• Loss of valuable local green space;
• Increase in traffic would be a road safety issue;
• Poor surface water drainage, the current drainage ditch needed to be maintained, if the site was developed this
• No buffer zone at the southern side of the site;
• The affordable housing should be integrated in the site;
• The proposed development contravenes policies within the Neighbourhood Plan
• The proposed development was out of character with the surrounding area, it was considered that bungalows on the southern boundary would be a better option.

Oral representation in support of the application was received from Mr Ingram, agent.  He considered that the site was extremely well located in respect of existing transportation links and everyday facilities. There were a wide range of local services and facilities that residents were likely to use on a day to day basis within an acceptable walking and cycling distance. These services included a range of schools, shops, employment areas, health facilities and sports and leisure facilities.

Mr Ingram added that the proposal was to create a new development that integrated within the surrounding environment and meet the future housing needs, including affordable housing and family homes to provide a balanced, sustainable community.

Ward Member

Cllr Chase considered that a single access for 50 dwellings in a residential area was not safe or sustainable as there was already a problem with on street parking in Bayfields which would cause problems accessing this site.  He considered the density of the proposed development to be too great and out of character with the surrounding area. 

He requested that the material used be mixed, rather  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Develop land by the erection of 13 No. dwellings, form vehicular access, parking, additional parking for the village hall and provide public footpath links. (Outline application to determine access).

The Area Lead (Major Applications) Eastern presented the report showing all relevant plans and drawings.

He advised that the Hazelbury Bryan Neighbourhood Plan was at an advanced stage and this application was contrary to the emerging neighbourhood plan.

Mr Savage, DCC Highways, advised that the proposed visibility splays satisfied the criteria set out in the manual for streets and the proposed car parking spaces met the required standard.  He added that the moderate increase in traffic was not deemed severe.  Therefore, the Highway department had no objection to the application subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Mr Wilson, Clerk to the Parish Council advised that the Parish Council objected to the application as the application was contrary to polices in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and approval would effectively undermine the Neighbourhood Plan and the preferred brown-field sites included within it.

He added that there was no local need for these dwellings, following recent approvals for developments in the village.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Smith, Mr Sargeant, Mr Ellis and Ms Chitty.  They raised the following concerns:

·         The site had scored poorly in the neighbourhood plan site assessment and was neither infill nor ribbon development;

·         The site was not sustainable;

·         Affordable housing aimed at young families should be developed in towns, as they were more sustainable;

• The proposed access was dangerous as it was immediately next to an existing driveway and borders the village hall with no pavements or lighting.   It is also on a downhill bend of a reduced width road with limited visibility;
• The proposed development was out of character with the village which was currently characterised by linear growth along the main routes;

·         The site would be visible from 4 well used footpaths and have a negative impact on the amenity value of the landscape to residents and visitors;

·         The proposed development would impact on 3 of the 4 boundary ancient hedges and would cause disturbance to local wildlife; and

·         The benefits of a car park for the village hall were outweighed by the loss of on street parking.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Tapscott and Mr Spiller, agents for the applicant.  They advised that there had been no statutory objections to the application and that the proposed development would contribute to the local infrastructure.

They considered that the 10 new parking spaces for the village hall and the footpath link were of significant benefit to the village.  In relation to the Neighbourhood Plan, Mr Spiller felt that this should not be given too much weight as it was not yet “made”.

Members’ questions and debate

Members considered the application and felt that the site was in an unsustainable location and out of character with the area.  

Cllr Williams felt  that the ‘stunning’ landscape should be protected.

Members considered that the Neighbourhood Plan, which was due to go the referendum in February 2019, should be given significant weight and felt to do otherwise would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Erect replacement studio (demolish existing) (retrospective).

The Area Manager (Eastern) presented the report showing all relevant plans and drawings. She advised that the building would only be partially visible form the street as the long front gardens of the property are well screened and secluded. In view of this, the Area Manager advised that there would not be an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Public Participation

Oral representation in support of the application was received from Mr Graeser, agent.  He advised that the building had a minimal impact on neighbouring properties and was built with practical materials.  The proposed landscaping screening would help to alleviate overlooking of neighbouring properties.

Ward Member

Cllr Croney advised that the Parish Council were concerned with the materials used for the building, they considered that a timber construction would be a better option.

Members’ questions and debate

Members were concerned that sheet metal had been used for the building. However, they considered that the proposed planting scheme would safeguard the amenity to neighbouring properties. The

It was proposed by Cllr Lacey-Clarke and seconded by Cllr Dowden

Decision

To approve the application subject to conditions set out in appendix 1 to these minutes.

To note the report (attached) of Head of Planning Development Management and Building Control on Planning Appeals.

The Committee noted the report of the Head of Service for the period between 25 October 2018 and 223 November 2018.