Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillors Cragg and H Taylor.

Councillor Reuby attended the meeting as a substitute for Councillor Cragg.

The Council has agreed that all Committee and Council meetings at the Guildhall be recorded unless members of the Committee and Council agree otherwise.

 

TO CONSIDER and, if thought appropriate, TO RESOLVE accordingly.

The Council had agreed that all Committee and Council meetings be recorded unless members of that committee agree otherwise.

 

It was then RESOLVED - That all meetings of the Development Control Committee be  recorded.

Several members declared prejudicial or personal interests in some of the planning applications or other items for the meeting and the declarations are recorded in the relevant Minute below.

If any member of the public wishes to speak on any item / planning application for the meeting they must give notice to the Chief Executive (Democratic Services) by 12.30pm on Monday 7 February 2011.

 

It is the usual practice of the Committee to allow any public speakers to be heard immediately before the consideration of the relevant application /item.

  

Further information about public participation and the procedure at the meeting is included at the end the Agenda or from the link below

 

 

http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=128

 

The Chairman reported that the public speakers for the meeting would be heard immediately before the relevant item.

TO CONFIRM as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January 2011.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January 2011 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE any requests by Members of the Committee for particular applications reported below to be referred to the Development Control Sub-Committee for consideration.

 

The Committee will need to be satisfied as to the planning reasons before agreeing any site visits.

 

No debate will take place at the meeting on any planning applications deferred for a site inspection.

The Chairman asked the Committee Members whether any of the applications for the meeting should be referred to the Development Control Committee to allow a site inspection for the application.

(a)          A Member requested a site inspection for application No. CA/10/01293/FUL (Crab and Winkle Former Railway Line Abutments and Embankment, Teynham Road to and over Old Bridge Road, Whitstable).

 

The Committee Members were shown details about the application.

The request for a site inspection for the application was put to a vote and AGREED by the Committee.

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal for a site inspection for the application

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Linfield, McCabe, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Seath, Sonnex, Steed, Thomas and Vickers (13)

Against the proposal

Councillors Patterson and Sharp (2)

Abstained from voting on the proposal

None

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

(At the commencement of the meeting Councillors Eden-Green, Hando, Patterson, Sharp, Seath and Thomas had each declared personal interests in this application because they knew some of the public speakers for the application at the meeting. Councillor Samper had declared a personal interest in the application because she owned a property near another section of the Crab and Winkle former railway line).

(b)          A Member requested a site inspection for planning application No. CA/10/01881/FUL (129 Whitstable Road, Canterbury CT2 8EQ).

The Committee Members were shown details about the application.

The request for a site inspection for the application was put to a vote and AGREED by the Committee.

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal for a site inspection for the application

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Linfield, McCabe, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Seath,Sharp, Sonnex, Steed, Thomas and Vickers (14)

Against the proposal

Councillor Patterson (1)

Abstained from voting on the proposal

None

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1).

TO RECEIVE the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Sub-Committee held on 20 January 2011.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Sub-Committee held on 20 January 2011, as appended to these minutes, be received.

 

The Committee considered the planning applications received, the observations thereon of interested parties and the views and recommendations of the Head of Planning and Regeneration and comments made at the meeting by the persons indicated below in respect of the applications specified.

 

Prior to the consideration of each application, the Committee received a presentation about the application, which included the display of plans, drawings and photographs, as appropriate, on the overhead screens at the meeting.

 

Planning Application No. / Site                   Speakers

 

  

CA/10/01192/FUL Printing House, Simmonds Road, Canterbury  CT1 3RA

Mr A Smyth (objector) Miss S Walter (objector) Mr A Eslami (objector) Mr M Rundell (for the Wincheap Society) Mr S Sullivan (supporter) Miss P Plested (supporter) Mrs S Gray (Agent) Councillor A Perkins (a Ward Member)

 

 

CA/10/01293/FUL Crab and Winkle Former Railway Line Abutments and Embankment, Teynham Road to and over Old Bridge Road, Whitstable

1.  Mr T Ledger (objector) 2.  Reverend P Wilson (objector) 3.  Mr D Young (Agent)

 

 

CA/10/01973/FUL Land rear of 70 Mill Lane, Herne CT6 7DP

1.     Mrs Rackham (objector) 2.    Parish Councillor Blatherwick (Herne and Broomfield Parish Council)  3.    Mr D Stewart (Agent)

 

CA/10/01360/FUL 33A Borstal Hill, Whitstable CT5 4NB

1.    Miss Blackwood (objector) 2.    Mr Greenfield (Agent)

 

 

CA/10/01813/FUL Furringe, Garlinge Green Road, Petham CT4 5RP

1.    Mrs J Howard (objector) 2.    Mrs K Kinnersley (objector) 3.    Mr A Clague (Agent)

 

 

CA/10/02100/FUL 38 South Road, Herne Bay CT6 5AS

1.      Ms O’Reilly (objector) 2.     Mr T Carpenter (objector)

 

CA/10/01959/FUL Bleangate House, Braggs Lane, Herne CT6 7NP

Mr P McCabe (supporter)

 

CA/10/01473/FUL  Trenley Park Liveries, The Old Wood Yard, Stodmarsh Road,  Fordwich CT3 4AG

Mr G Castle (Clerk to Fordwich Town Council)

 

CA/10/02112/FUL Tudor Cottage, The Street, Wickhambreaux CT3 1RJ

1.    Parish Councillor Le Jeune (Wickhambreaux  Parish Council) 2.    Mr M Foad ( for the Applicant)

 

CA/10/01964/FUL The White Hart, Castle Row, Canterbury CT1 2QX

1.    Mr B Graves (objector) 2.    Mr L Cameron (on behalf of  SMACS) (objector) 3.    Mr J Butler (supporter) 4.    Mr  M Godden (for the Agent) 5.    Councillor Flanagan (a Ward Member)

 

RESOLVED - That decisions  on the applications be made as set out below:-

 

Change of use to entertainment centre (D2 Use Class) and night-club (relocation of Planet Lazer/Studio 41) and alterations and extensions to existing building including increase in height, recladding and entrance foyer.

 

Recommendation: SECTION 101 GRANT

 

Planning Officer: Steve Davies

Change of use to entertainment centre (D2 Use Class) and night-club (relocation of Planet Lazer/Studio 41) and alterations and extensions to existing building including increase in height, recladding and entrance foyer

(At the commencement of the meeting -

Councillors Eden-Green and Seath had each declared personal interests in this application because they knew some of the public speakers for the application at the meeting;

Councillor Sonnex had declared a prejudicial interest in the application because her son worked for the applicants. She left the meeting during the consideration of the application).

The Deputy Development Control Manager reported late representations from the owner of properties in the immediate vicinity of the application site and a Ward Member who had both objected to the proposed development. He explained the nature of the objections.

That planning permission be refused for the development described in the above application on the following grounds

The proposal, by virtue of late-night noise and early-morning noise, disturbance and activity generated by persons arriving at and home going from the premises would be likely to be detrimental to the amenities of residents of surrounding streets.  Furthermore the proposal would lead to an unacceptable proliferation of activity associated with such 'nightclub' uses in the surrounding area, thereby increasing the harm to amenity, in particular of the Wincheap and Castle Street  areas, introducing a use not specifically identified as appropriate within the regeneration proposals for the Wincheap Regeneration Zone; the proposal is therefore  contrary to polices BE1, TC2, TC10 and TC15 of the Canterbury District Local Plan.

 

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to refuse planning permission

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando,  Linfield, McCabe, Reuby, Seath, Steed and Vickers (9)

Against the proposal to refuse planning  permission

Councillors Patterson, Pickersgill, Samper, Sharp and Thomas (5)

Abstained from voting on the proposal

None

Absent from the meeting

Councillors *Sonnex and  H Taylor (2)

*due to her prejudicial interest

 

Installation of two bridge structures on derelict, disused land for foot and cycle use. The proposed structures span Teynham Road, The Railway Line and Old Bridge Road.

 

Recommendation: SECTION 101 GRANT

 

Planning Officer: Nicola Hughes

 

Installation of two bridge structures on derelict, disused land for foot and cycle use. The proposed structures span Teynham Road, The Railway Line and Old Bridge Road

 

The Committee had agreed earlier in the meeting to refer this application to the Development Control Committee for a site inspection and to enable to a recommendation to be made to the next meeting of the Development Control Committee to be held on 8 March 2011.

 

Retention of bungalow not built in accordance with planning permission.

 

(Appeal against non-determination) RECOMMENDATION - Had the Council been able to determine this application it would have REFUSED planning permission.

 

Planning Officer: Ruth Tittensor

 

Retention of bungalow not built in accordance with planning permission

 

That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that had the Council been able to determine the application planning permission would have been refused for the following reason:

 

1.    By virtue of its height and the siting of windows and a door in the western elevation the relationship with the adjoining dwelling, September Cottage, would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the occupiers of the adjoining property therefore reducing the amenities that can reasonably be enjoyed by the occupiers of this dwelling. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE1 of the Canterbury District Local Plan and BE1 of the South East Plan.

 

A record of the voting was taken as follows

 

For the proposal 

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Linfield, McCabe, Patterson Pickersgill, Reuby,  Samper, Sharp,  Sonnex, Steed, Thomas and Vickers (14)

Against the proposal

None

Abstained from voting on the proposal

None

Absent from the meeting

Councillors Seath and H Taylor (2)

 

Erection of detached dwelling

 

Recommendation: SECTION 101 GRANT

 

Planning Officer: Ben Young

 

Erection of detached dwelling

 

(At the commencement of the meeting Councillor Sonnex had declared a personal interest in this application because she knew one of the public speakers for the application at the meeting).

 

That the Head of Planning and Regeneration be and is hereby authorised, pursuant to Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, to grant planning permission for the development described in the above application, subject to:-

 

(a)          the payment of a development contribution towards transportation infrastructure.

 

(b)          the standard time limit condition and conditions concerning samples of materials, sustainable construction, details of landscaping, details of surface materials of the parking areas and vehicular access, details of screen walls and fences, cycle storage provision, visibility splays, removal of permitted development rights, details of refuse storage, retention of parking spaces and any other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

 

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to grant planning permission

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Linfield, McCabe, Patterson, Pickersgill, Reuby,  Samper, Seath, Sharp, Sonnex, Steed, Thomas and Vickers (15)

Against the proposal the grant planning permission

None

Abstained from voting on the proposal

None

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

 

Demolition of dwelling and erection of building incorporating three flats and one maisonette

 

Recommendation: SECTION 101 GRANT

 

Planning Officer: Nan Barton

 

Demolition of dwelling and erection of building incorporating three flats and one maisonette

 

(When the application was considered at the meeting Councillor Sharp declared a personal interest in the application because he lived near the application site).

A proposal to refuse planning permission for the development described in the above application was put to a vote and LOST.

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to refuse planning permission

Councillors M Flaherty, McCabe, Pickersgill, Sonnex and Thomas (5)

Against the proposal to refuse planning permission

Councillors Eden-Green, Hando, Linfield, Patterson, Reuby, Samper, Seath, Steed and Vickers (9)

Abstained from voting on the proposal

Councillor Sharp (1)

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

The Committee then AGREED that the Head of Planning and Regeneration be and is hereby authorised, pursuant to Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, to grant planning permission for the development described in the above application, subject to:-

 

(a)          the receipt of the required development contribution towards the cost of providing transport infrastructure or a Section 106 Obligation to pay that sum;

 

(b)          conditions relating to materials; levels; boundary treatments/landscaping; the provision and retention of adequate access and visibility splays; vehicle parking/turning; cycle and refuse storage facilities and sustainable construction. These to be supplemented by any other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

 

 A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to delegate power to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to grant planning permission for the application

Councillors Eden-Green, Hando, Linfield, Patterson, Samper, Seath, Steed and Vickers (8)

Against the proposal to delegate power to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to grant  planning permission

Councillors McCabe, Pickersgill, Reuby, Sonnex and Thomas (5)

Abstained from voting on the proposal

Councillor M Flaherty, Sharp (2)

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

 

Replacement dwelling

 

Recommendation: GRANT with conditions

 

Planning Officer: Katie Miller

 

Replacement dwelling

 

(At the commencement of the meeting Councillors McCabe and Seath  had each  declared   personal interests in this application because they knew one of the public speakers for the application at the meeting. Councillor Samper declared a personal interest in the application because the Architect had previously undertaken works for an almshouse charity for which she is its Chairman).

That planning permission be granted for the development described in the above application subject to conditions relating to materials, joinery details, tree protection measures, obscure glazing to windows at first-floor level in the west elevation and no additional windows in this elevation being provided, the development to meet level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and parking being made available for operatives and construction vehicles on site.

 

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to grant planning permission

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Linfield, McCabe, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Seath, Sharp, Sonnex, Steed, Thomas and Vickers (14)

Against the proposal to grant  planning permission

None

Abstained from voting on the proposal

Councillor Patterson (1)

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

(At this point the Chairman pointed out  that the four hour period for the meeting was about to expire. She asked the Committee Members to consider whether the time for the meeting should be extended beyond 10.30pm.

 

The Committee then RESOLVED – That the meeting be extended beyond 10.30pm for up to 30 minutes for the completion of the remaining items of business.

 

(The time for the meeting was extended accordingly).

 

Erection of a detached dwelling in the garden of the existing dwelling

 

Recommendation: SECTION 101 GRANT

 

Planning Officer: Karen Evans

 

Erection of a detached dwelling in the garden of the existing dwelling

 

The report on the application was withdrawn at the meeting and the application was not considered at the meeting.

 

Demolition of existing garage and workshop and erection of detached dwelling.(Revised scheme)

 

Recommendation: SECTION 101 GRANT

 

Planning Officer: Karen Evans

 

Demolition of existing garage and workshop and erection of detached dwelling.(Revised scheme)

 

(At the commencement of the meeting Councillor Seath had declared a personal interest in this application because she knew one of the public speakers for the application at the meeting.

When the application was considered at the meeting Councillors Samper and Thomas each declared personal interests in the application because they knew one of the public speakers for the application at the meeting).

A proposal to delegate power to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to grant planning permission for the development described in the above application was put to a vote and LOST.

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to grant planning permission

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Samper and Steed (5)

Against the proposal to grant planning permission

Councillors Linfield, McCabe, Patterson, Pickersgill, Reuby, Sharp, Sonnex, Thomas and Vickers (9)

Abstained from voting on the proposal

Councillor Seath (1)

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

The Committee then AGREED that planning permission be refused for the development described in the above application on the following grounds

The proposed development would lead to the domination of the rear elevations and garden areas of adjoining dwellings and a loss of amenity to the occupiers of those properties because of the  proximity of the development to the boundaries of the site. The application therefore conflicts with Policy BE1 of the Canterbury District Local Plan.                           

 

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to refuse planning permission

Councillors M Flaherty, Linfield, McCabe, Patterson, Pickersgill, Reuby, Sharp, Sonnex, Thomas and Vickers (10)

Against the proposal to refuse planning permission

Councillors Eden-Green, Hando and Samper (3)

Abstained from voting on the proposal

Councillors Seath and Steed (2)

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

 

Change of use from disused workshop to micro-brewery

 

Recommendation: GRANT with conditions

 

Planning Officer: Ben Young

 

Change of use from disused workshop to micro-brewery

 

That planning permission be granted for the development described in the above application subject to conditions relating to details of materials, details of a filtration/extraction system, prevention of sales or brewery tours taking place from the site, visitors to the site to be restricted to those required for the operational requirements of the business, details of trade effluent disposal, turning area to be provided and maintained at all times, no outside storage or installation of outside plant equipment, control of outside lighting, sound attenuation, restriction on delivery times, restriction of use to that specifically applied for and any other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

 

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal  to grant planning permission

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Linfield, McCabe, Patterson, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Seath, Sharp, Sonnex, Steed, Thomas and Vickers (15)

Against the proposal to grant planning permission

None

Abstained from voting on the proposal

None

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

 

Use of mobile structure as classroom (Retrospective application)

 

Recommendation: GRANT with conditions

 

Planning Officer: Karen Evans

 

Use of mobile structure as classroom (Retrospective application)

 

That planning permission be granted for the development described in the above application subject to a parking layout plan showing which areas of the site will be designated for the required 25 parking spaces and access/turning provision, a requirement to keep the classroom dark painted and restricting the classroom activities to those related to the equestrian activities of the site unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority.

 

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to delegate power to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to grant  planning permission

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Linfield, McCabe, Patterson, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Seath, Sharp, Sonnex, Steed, Thomas and Vickers (15)

Against the proposal

None

Abstained from voting on the proposal

None

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

 

Conversion of one dwelling into two with associated alterations

 

Recommendation: GRANT with conditions

 

Planning Officer: Ruth Tittensor

 

Conversion of one dwelling into two with associated alterations

 

(When the application was considered at the meeting Councillor Seath declared a personal interest in the application because she knew one of the public speakers for the application at the meeting).

That planning permission be granted for the development described in the above application subject to conditions relating to the subdivision of the rear garden and any other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

 

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to grant planning permission

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Linfield, McCabe, Patterson, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Seath, Sharp, Sonnex, Steed, Thomas and Vickers (15)

Against the proposal to grant planning permission

None

Abstained from voting on the proposal

None

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

 

Demolition of single garage with replacement double garage with games room over. (Revised scheme)

 

Recommendation: GRANT with conditions

 

Planning Officer: Ben Young

 

Demolition of single garage with replacement double garage with games room over. (Revised scheme)

 

The Committee had agreed earlier in the meeting to refer this application to the Development Control Committee for a site inspection and to enable a recommendation to be made to the next meeting of  the Development Control Committee to be held on 8 March 2011.

 

Erection of timber framed structure with glass roof in garden including acoustic willow screen, raising the height of existing boundary wall and extending existing flat roof.

 

Recommendation: SECTION 101 GRANT

 

Planning Officer: Ruth Tittensor

 

Erection of timber framed structure with glass roof in garden including acoustic willow screen, raising the height of existing boundary wall and extending existing flat roof

At the commencement of the meeting –

Councillor Eden-Green had declared a personal interest in this application because the application site was near his property and he knew some of the public speakers for the application at the meeting;

Councillor Linfield had declared a personal interest in this application because she knew some of the public speakers for the application at the meeting;

Councillor Vickers had declared a personal interest in the application because her daughter worked for the applicants;

Councillor Steed had declared a personal interest in the application because he knew the Applicant).

A proposal to defer the application for further discussion with the Agent was put to a vote and LOST.

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to defer the application

Councillors Eden-Green, M Flaherty, Hando, Linfield, Seath, Steed and Vickers (7)

Against the proposal to defer the application

Councillors McCabe, Patterson, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Sharp, Sonnex and Thomas (8)

Abstained from voting on the proposal

None

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

The Committee then AGREED that the Head of Planning and Regeneration be and is hereby authorised, pursuant to Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, to grant planning permission for the development described in the above application subject to:-

 

(a)          the submission of further details relating to the 'proprietary glazing system' proposed for the pergola roof and details of the likely acoustic reduction;

 

(b)          conditions relating to: matching materials relating to the roof extension, boundary wall materials, boundary wall construction, joinery and construction of the pergola and new external door, any additional landscaping associated with the pergola and 'Green Barrier', external lighting associated with the pergola, archaeology and the foundations of the pergola and any other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

 

A record of the voting was taken as follows

For the proposal to delegate power to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to grant planning permission

Councillors Hando, McCabe, Patterson, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Sharp, Sonnex, and Thomas (9)

Against the proposal

Councillors Eden-Green, Linfield and Vickers (3)

Abstained from voting on the proposal

Councillors M Flaherty, Seath and Steed (3)

Absent from the meeting

Councillor H Taylor (1)

 

TO CONSIDER the joint report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration and Head of Property and Engineering Services.

(At the commencement of the meeting Councillor Thomas had declared a prejudicial interest in this item because he owned property in the area. He left the meeting during the consideration of the item).

The Committee considered the joint report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration and the Head of Property and Engineering Services on the responses to the consultation on the Masterplan and the suggested responses by the Council.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration explained the background to the preparation of the Masterplan document, which was based on development principles that formed part of the Area Action Plan adopted in April 2010.

He explained that the main elements of the development proposals, which included the provision of a foodstore as a critical element.

Some Members expressed concern about the impact of the development proposals on properties at Hanover Street. They indicated that they wished to see the plans affecting Hanover Street deferred in order to allow the developer to negotiate with residents regarding the purchase of their properties.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration pointed out that the development proposals included a traffic management scheme to remove through traffic along Hanover Street which would help to address the concerns. He also mentioned that the developers were considering the purchase of 2 properties which adjoined the site, subject to terms being agreed with the owners.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration advised on the difficulty in proceeding with the development proposals if one element were suspended. He pointed out that the vast majority of the respondents had been very supportive of the ideas as the way forward for Herne Bay.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration indicated that following the approval of the Masterplan, the next stage would involve the preparation of detailed proposals and that the planning application would probably be submitted in July 2011.

The Committee supported the following recommendations in the report to the Executive and Full Council:-

(a)          That the changes outlined in Appendices 1 and 2 are agreed and the Master Plan be adopted as a material consideration for planning purposes.

 

(b)          That authority be  delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to make such minor technical and factual changes that do not materially affect the content of the Master Plan prior to printing.

 

The Committee noted the report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration about the decisions of Planning Inspectors regarding various planning appeals.