Planning Committee 13 February 2014

SCHEDULE OF DECISIONS

Part 2 - Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

2.1 SW/13/1192 (Case 23786) Borden

Location : Oakdene, Woodgate Lane, Borden, , , ME9 7QB

Proposal : Variation of condition 1 of SW/11/1400 to allow stationing of two mobile homes.

Applicant/Agent : Miss Sally Laundon, Oakdene, Woodgate Lane, Danaway, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7QB

Mr Ferrin, an objector, spoke against the proposal.

In response to a question, the Planner explained that some trees had been removed but these were ones that were not covered by the TPO on the site. He further explained that the application had been amended to include the access driveway, as this had not been included in the original application.

Discussion ensued on the use of the additional living space and the ages of the children who would be living there. The Planner confirmed that he believed that they were aged early/mid teens. Members raised concern that, bearing in mind young people would be in one of the mobile homes, they should be sited closer together. The Planner explained that due to the levels on the site it would be difficult to site the two mobile homes close together.

Members raised concern with lack of clarity on the plans of the exact location of the mobile homes and the distance of the mobile home with young people in, from the applicant’s home. Some Members considered there was a duty to ensure the children were safe. However, Members also considered that who actually lived in the homes was not a planning matter and they could not see grounds for refusing the application. The Planner confirmed that this was not a planning matter.

On being put to the vote, the motion for approval was lost.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern moved a motion for deferral on the grounds of requesting further information on the number of children on the site and their ages; clarity on the size and scale of the submitted plans; and more visual aids to enable a true understanding of the site. This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth. On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved: That application SW/13/1192 be deferred to the next Planning Committee to allow for further information to be sought on the number of children on the site and their ages; clarity on the size and scale of the submitted plans; and more visual aids (aerial photographs) to enable a true understanding of the site.

- 457 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014

2.2 SW/13/1538 (Case 16860) Boughton

Location : Roots Kitchens Bedrooms and Bathrooms, Vine Farm, Stockers Hill, , , Kent ME13 9AB

Proposal : Two storey extension to showroom and storage building to accommodate increased storage and showroom floor area

Applicant/Agent : Mrs Kathy Root, C/O Mr Patrick Jordan, 8 Heron House, Faversham Reach, Upper Brents, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7LA

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

2.3 SW/13/1539 (Case 16860) Boughton

Location : Roots Kitchens Bedrooms and Bathrooms, Vine Farm, Stockers Hill, Boughton Under Blean, Faversham, Kent ME13 9AB

Proposal : Conversion and enlargement of existing farm building to commercial showroom and storage.

Applicant/Agent : Mrs Kathy Root, C/O Mr Patrick Jordan, Wyndham Jordan Architects, 8 Heron House, Faversham Reach, Upper Brents, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7LA

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

2.4 SW/13/1415 (Case 25059) Minster

Location : 9 Larch End, Minster on Sea, , Kent, ME12 3FJ

Proposal : Change of use of one room within dwelling to a beauty treatment room (retrospective), part-time only - to be used by family when not in use (approx 2.6m x 2.8m) - all treatments to be by appointment only

Applicant/Agent : Mr Paul Russell, 9 Larch End, Minster on Sea, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3FJ

The Senior Planning Officer reported that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways had stated that it was recognised that it would be likely that clients would park on the street as the driveway would be occupied by the occupants of the property. Only one client was likely to be at the property at any one time, so this would generate one additional vehicle and KCC Highways considered this would not have a greater impact than the general movements and on-street parking of friends/relations to the development. Cars parking on-street was an amenity issue as it meant that some residents may have to park further from their property to find an available space. The Senior Planning Officer concluded that KCC Highways did not object to the proposal on highway grounds.

Mr Russell, the Applicant, spoke in support of the proposal.

- 458 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014

A Ward Member spoke against the proposal. She raised concern with parking and did not consider the roads were wide enough for double parking, which would cause disruption in the area. The Ward Member considered the proposed opening hours set out in condition (2) of the report were too long and should be restricted to 9am to 5.30pm. She also stated there was a covenant forbidding businesses to be run from the property.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the covenant on the property was not a planning matter.

Members made the following comments: there should not be a problem as the visitors were likely to be few in number; once the builders had gone, there will be less of a traffic issue; some clients would probably walk to the property; this was sustainable development; it was a public highway so people could park there anyway; 9am – 5pm were preferred hours of opening; the business would not disturb anyone; and we should be encouraging small businesses.

Resolved: That application SW/13/1415 be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

2.5 SW/13/1522 (Case 14623) Faversham

Location : Land North of Lewis Close, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7NS

Proposal : Construction of 27 no. homes (9 no. affordable homes) and associated infrastructure provision

Applicant/Agent : Town and Country Housing Group and Kier Homes, C/O PRP Planning, Unit 10, Lindsey Street, Smithfield, London, EC1A 9HP

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

2.6 SW/13/1421 (Case 20975) Sittingbourne

Location : Land adj 47 Homewood Avenue, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1HH

Proposal : Construction of new three bedroom detached dwelling with associated parking and new crossover

Applicant/Agent : Mr Duncan Friend. C/O Mark Carter. Mark Carter Design, Design Studio , Priestfield Stadium, Redfern Avenue, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4DD

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

- 459 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014

2.7 SW/13/1406 (Case 25245) Sittingbourne

Location : Land to the rear of 246 London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1QA

Proposal : Erection of detached two bed chalet bungalow.

Applicant/Agent : Mr Gary Amschwand, C/O Mr Leslie Hutchinson, Building Design Studio, 26 Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 4AE

Mr Amschwand, the Applicant, spoke in support of the proposal.

Resolved: That application SW/13/1406 be approved subject to conditions (1) to (15) in the report.

2.8 SW/13/1243 (Case 01675) Faversham

Location : Baltic House, Standard Quay, Abbey Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7BS

Proposal : Change of use from office to wine bar on the ground floor and staff accommodation of first floor with no building works.

Applicant/Agent : Mrs Janis Osborn, C/O Mr Simon Latham, Design & Build Services, 2 Colkins Cottages, Clockhouse, Boughton under Blean, Faversham, Kent, ME13 9LU

The Planner reported that the unauthorised signage and mural to the rear of the building had been removed. He explained that a new drainage pipe had been installed on the rear of the building without consent. If the application was approved, applications for advertisement and listed building consent would also be required. The Planner referred to reports from objectors that there were inaccuracies in the report relating to the previous use of the building, leading to Officers being misled. After reviewing the new information, it was considered it did not change the nature or principle of the application. The Planner reported that one further letter of objection had been received from the Faversham Creek Trust and one email of support from a customer of the wine bar.

Councillor Shiel Campbell, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke in support of the proposal.

Mr Brian Pain, an objector, spoke against the proposal.

Mr Chris Baldock, the Agent, spoke in support of the proposal.

In response to a question, the Planner explained that the pipework at the rear of the building would need to be put underground and he would be in discussions with the applicant regarding this matter.

A Ward Member spoke in support of the proposal. He considered the building was suitable for the change of use and it added character to the area.

- 460 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014

Members raised the following points: support this, but some concerns with the residential aspect; any flooding threat should receive adequate warning; no alterations to exterior of the building so support; and the residential aspect was a serious issue.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following amendment to condition (4): ‘the first floor living accommodation hereby permitted shall be strictly ancillary to the main use of the building and occupied only by persons employed directly with the wine bar during its opening hours’. This was seconded by Councillor Barnicott.

The Planner suggested that the use of ‘during its opening hours’ could be taken in more than one way. He suggested that the application be delegated to officers subject to re-wording condition (4), after discussions with the Legal Team, to reflect Members’ wishes.

Councillor Mike Henderson accepted delegation provided his proposed wording was not ‘diluted’ and to remain as specific as his amendment intended.

Members raised the following points following the proposed amendment: this was a small operation; why have residential aspect, but it could provide security; oppose retrospective applications; who exactly would be residing in the building; it might not be the owner, and may not be the same person every night, subject to rotation of staff; property probably had residential aspect in the past; and it would be self-policing as the only access was through the bar.

In response to a request for his views on the proposal, the Conservation Officer explained that historic buildings like this needed to be used otherwise they would deteriorate. He considered the wine bar had the potential to change the nature of the quayside and explained that the building had a residential use historically and the overall change of use fitted the building reasonably well.

On being put to the vote, the amendment, with delegation, was agreed.

Resolved: That application SW/13/1243 be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report and an amendment to condition (4) to ensure the wording relating to residential occupancy of the building was robust to ensure that its use was not independent from the wine bar use.

2.9 SW/13/1451 (Case 02826 + 00468) Sheerness

Location : 22-24 High Street, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1NL

Proposal : Change of use from shop (Use Class A1), and residential flats (Use Class C3) to public house (Use Class A4), extension, external seating area, new roof top plant, new shop front and other associated works.

Applicant/Agent : J D Wetherspoon PLC, C/O Mr Julian Sutton, Signet Planning, 56 Queen Anne Street, London, W1G 8LA

The Senior Planning Officer reported that amended plans had been received which had addressed the impact of the shop-front on the conservation area, but further work was needed to take into account the historic character of the front elevation. The applicant was willing to undertake these changes and to conceal the flue pipe in a stack and additional plans were awaited for this. The Senior Planning Officer considered there would be some

- 461 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014 harm to the visual amenity of the area and conservation area as there was a flat roof; she advised the provision of a pitched roof would make the scheme unviable to the Applicant. A pitched roof could also have an impact on the residential amenity of the properties in Beach Street. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the harm caused needed to be weighed against the economic benefits of the proposal. She explained that site constraints limited the harm and there were also other flat roofs in the vicinity.

The Senior Planning Officer provided an overview of the impact to the rear gardens on Beach Street, including potential overshadowing and overbearing effect. She explained that with site levels, existing boundary walls and existing extensions, the proposed rear extension would only really have an impact on three of the properties and this would not be significant. The Applicant had agreed to reduce the height of the rear extension from 2.9 metres to 2.7 metres, which would help to reduce the impact.

The Planning Officer considered the economic benefits of the proposal outweighed the impact of the rear extension on neighbouring properties.

The Head of Service Delivery had recommended conditions to protect residential amenity of neighbouring premises which the Senior Planning Officer outlined. This included restricting access to the garden/outside seating area to 9pm, Monday to Sunday; restricted times for deliveries/waste collections; that total noise emissions generated by the roof-top plant should not exceed a level of background minus 5dB or 35dB whichever was the greatest; acoustic measures and restriction in construction hours. The Senior Planning Officer also suggested a condition be added to control the emptying and collection of bottles, and amendment to condition (4) in relation to dust suppression.

KCC Highways had no objections to the proposals. Swept path analysis had been received which showed that the premises could be serviced. They acknowledged there would be some issues of overhanging/overrunning the kerbs, but the kerbs were flush and the footway had been strengthened to address this potential issue and the delivery vehicles could manoeuvre reasonably well around the corners.

No comments had been received from .

Cathy Wallace, the Agent, spoke in favour of the proposal.

At this point Councillor Bryan Mulhern explained that he would not take part in the discussions or vote.

An adjoining Ward Member requested that the frontage be addressed sympathetically and raised concern with the hours of opening until 1am and the impact of this on local residents.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that there was no public access to the rear of the property, with the exception of the outside seating area and a condition stated that the outside area would be shut from 9pm. Any customers leaving the premises at 1am would leave via the High Street, away from residential properties. She further explained that no music would be played at the venue.

Members raised the following points: the minus 5dB reading should be the lowest ambient level and added as a condition; odour control from the kitchen was needed; and deliveries at the rear would be very tight.

- 462 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that Environmental Health would ensure that the odour issues were addressed.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved an amendment to close the bar at 11pm. This was not seconded.

The KCC Highways Officer referred to the swept path analysis that had taken place and considered the manoeuvring was achievable.

In response to a question, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the flats above the premises would not be occupied; they would be used for ancillary uses/toilets/kitchen and staff areas, and would not be residential.

Resolved: That application SW/13/1451 be delegated to Officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report, to amended plans for the shop front and additional conditions to address the issues raised by the Head of Service Delivery and a slight amendment to conditions (3) and (4) in the report to refer to recently submitted details.

2.10 SW/13/0909 (Case 18215) Minster

Location : Land Rear of 97 -101, Wards Hill Road, Minster On Sea, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 2LH

Proposal : Erection of 5 detached dwellings with garages, changes to land levels and associated infrastructure. (Amendments to approved application SW/07/0284).

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

2.11 SW/13/1398 (Case 01625 + 07377) Sittingbourne

Location : Former Focus Store, 52 West Street, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1AN

Proposal : 115m² rear extension along with changes to car park, entrance/exit and shop front

Applicant/Agent : Mr Jason Gratton, Lidl UK GmbH, 1st Floor Property Office, 33 London Road, Cowplain, Hampshire, PO8 8DF

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the KCC Archaeological Officer had stated there were no measures for them to take forward on this application.

Mandy Fulcher, an objector, spoke against the proposal.

Mr Tom Clugston, the Applicant, spoke in favour of the proposal.

Ward Members spoke against the proposal. They raised the following points: the economic impact of the development was a planning consideration; other businesses would be put at risk; there was no need for any more supermarkets; needed to retain small businesses; concern with the design and visual amenity of the development; the extension was too large;

- 463 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014 should reinforce the preservation of the High Street; and landscaping was needed to soften the building.

Members made the following comments: landscaping would address amenity issues; competition cannot be taken into account; the High Street was dying, need to support smaller businesses; there were enough supermarkets; access was not good, it would be chaotic; safety issues; parking arrangements were not suitable; competition was not a planning matter; landscaping needed to be adequate, even if it meant the loss of car parking spaces; need to get the best that we can for this site; the nearby shops/businesses did sell items that would not be sold in the new supermarket; the High Street needed to be preserved; design needed to be softened; brand names needed to be encouraged to the area, but this was too big a price; sympathy for small businesses; the type of supermarket on the site was different to the larger supermarkets in the area; and there was no substantial planning reason to refuse the application.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum: that condition (14) be amended to read that the landscaping strip along Dover Street and West Street be widened to 5.5 metres. This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth. On being put to the vote the addendum was agreed.

The KCC Highways Officer confirmed that egress to the side would be wider than it presently was.

The Development Manager reminded Members that the supermarket owned the site and the land was available for A1 use and he considered that the car park and egress proposals were an improvement. He explained that KCC Highways and the Agent had tried to improve the egress and the issues with the landscaping could still be reviewed. He acknowledged the impact of the proposal on local businesses but confirmed that this was not a planning consideration.

Resolved: That application SW/13/1398 be approved subject to conditions (1) to (17) in the report and an addendum to condition (14) to include a 5.5 metre margin of landscaping along Dover Street and West Street.

2.12 SW/13/1511 (Case 00491) Faversham

Location : Queen Elizabeth School, Abbey Place, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7BQ

Proposal : Extension comprising lecture hall, entrance lobby and stairwell to existing Sixth Form Centre

Applicant/Agent : Queen Elizabeths Grammar School, C/o Mr Nathan Anthony, Lee Evans Planning, St Johns Lane, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 2QQ

The Major Projects Officer reported that the Agent had provided additional information in respect of design and car parking and clarification.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the Head of Service Delivery raised no objection subject to the correct measures being in place with respect to condition (7) and the use of a Community Use Agreement to ensure that amenity implications were strictly controlled.

- 464 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014

The Major Projects Officer reported that the County Archaeologist raised no objection, subject to a condition to secure a programme of archaeological works. Sports raised no objection. KCC Highways raised no objections, further to their comments raised in the report which included not anticipating frequent events occurring that would generate large traffic volumes on a regular basis, beyond that already likely through existing after- school activities. Reference was made to the tabled letter from the Headmaster of the School. The Major Projects Officer sought delegation to approve subject to the conditions in the report and the additional condition for ‘archaeological works’.

Mr Neagle, an objector, spoke against the proposal.

Lyn Nunn, the Agent, spoke in favour of the proposal.

A Ward Member spoke in favour of the principle of the proposal but had sympathy with the residents of Abbey Place and Abbey Street, as he considered these streets may become more congested. He considered a condition be added so that no parking be allowed on the site in the evenings, so as to not generate any further traffic; use could be made of the municipal car parks instead.

A Member considered that further parking should be provided to the rear of the school. Parking further away would not be a good option for the elderly or infirm.

Resolved: That application SW/13/1511 be delegated to Officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report and an additional condition for archaeological works.

PART 3 - Application for which REFUSAL is recommended

3.1 SW/13/1546 (Case 03123) Minster

Location : Parklands Village, The Broadway, Minster, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 2DH

Proposal : Removal of condition (ii) of planning permission SW/87/1191 (use as a chalet park and construction of holiday chalet) to permit 12 month occupancy of chalets

Applicant/Agent : Mrs Maureen Mace, C/O Nicholas Kingsley Smith, KSLAW LLP, 81 High Street, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4EE

The Major Projects Officer reported that two further representations had been received from residents of the site and he outlined the points that had been raised: they stated that the buildings were not holiday chalets, but two bedroom bungalows; and had been signed off by Building Control; the Scrapsgate Drain should be maintained more often; the second reason for refusal was incorrect; there was an inaccuracy in the report, there were 76 chalets, not 74; and the Council had not adequately addressed the tourism needs of the Borough. The Major Projects Officer confirmed that 76 was the correct figure.

The Major Projects Officer reported that Minster Parish Council agreed to the application and had made the following comments: serious reservations with flooding in the area, but residents say they would be responsible for any future loss of life and property; and as such the Parish Council supported an application for the residents of Parkland Village to apply for - 465 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014 re-designation of the area as part of the emerging Local Plan process. The Parish Council will not support 12-month occupancy of holiday accommodation as they considered it would set a precedent, lead to a creation of sub-standard living accommodation and impact badly on the tourist trade.

The Major Projects Officer explained that further to the comments under ‘other issues’ on page 114 of the report, the applicant had commented on permitted development rights for caravans to be brought onto the site. He explained that he had received legal advice on this matter which had stated that the Applicant’s proposal was utterly contrived and wrong in law.

Mr Gary Smith, a supporter, spoke in favour of the proposal.

Mrs Maureen Mace, the Applicant, spoke in favour of the proposal.

Members made the following comments: the residents would have known about the 10- month occupancy and that they were holiday homes when they purchased the chalets; with sufficient warning, there would be time to evacuate if there was a flood; SBC had defended a very clear policy on holiday accommodation, and there was clear policy on flooding; it would set a precedent; the permission was for holiday accommodation; and enforcement issues.

Resolved: That application SW/13/1546 be refused on grounds as set out in the report.

3.2 SW/13/1582 (Case 02940) Faversham

Location : Jittermugs, 18A Preston Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8NZ

Proposal : Variation to conditions 2 and 3 of SW/11/1216 to extend permitted hours

Applicant/Agent : Mr Nicholas Green, Jittermugs Coffee Shop, 18A Preston Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8NZ

The Planner referred to the tabled paper from the Environmental Protection Team Manager reiterating reasons for recommending refusal. He also reported that three further emails had been received from supporters, which had raised points already raised in the report and had also requested that Members visited the coffee shop ‘to appreciate the experience.’ The Planner also reported that the Applicant had emailed a letter to Members in support of his proposal.

Councillor Shiel Campbell, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke in support of the proposal.

Mr Andy Culham, a supporter, spoke in favour of the proposal.

Mr David Leahy, an objector, spoke against the proposal.

Mr Nicholas Green, the Applicant, spoke in favour of the proposal.

The Environmental Protection Manager outlined the points raised in his tabled paper.

- 466 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014

A Ward Member spoke in favour of the proposal and considered it was within a bustling principal area of the town centre. He accepted that a certain amount of noise would be audible in the centre of town.

Members raised the following points: the views were very polarised; it was normal to be able to hear some noise from neighbouring properties; the Applicant had taken measures to mitigate any noise issues, the neighbours should also take some measures to address these; it would be beneficial to see full acoustic survey results; the sound proofing was inadequate, and this was causing stress to neighbouring residents; this was a prime town centre location; A1 retail use was less noisy than A3 use; the officer’s report was subjective; the Applicant was aware of the limited hours of opening when he started his business in the premises; there was general noise being generated in the High Street; and noise from the court yard would be unacceptable.

Councillor Harrison moved an amendment to defer the application so that more information could be sought, including acoustic readings. Councillor Prescott, seconder of the original motion did not accept the amendment.

On being put to the vote the original proposal was lost.

The Planner suggested that, as Members were not unanimous in either support or objection to the proposal, the granting of a temporary permission might be a solution.

Councillor Andy Booth moved a motion for a temporary permission for four years to allow any noise in the evenings to be monitored. This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.

Councillor Andy Booth moved an amendment to the motion for temporary permission from four years to two years. This was seconded by Councillor Prescott. On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Councillor Ben Stokes moved an amendment to the motion for temporary permission for one year. This was seconded by Councillor Sylvia Bennett. On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved: That application SW/13/1582 be delegated to Officers to approve with suitable conditions for a temporary permission of one year to enable the noise levels to be monitored.

Part 4 - Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observation of development by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.

4.1 SW/14/0023 (Case 25303) Sittingbourne

Location : Land North of Sittingbourne Retail Park, Mill Way, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2XD

Proposal : Creation of a public park to include: paved access route to waterfront; skate park for wheeled sports with concrete bowls, partially covered skate plaza, and beginner area; tree planting; artworks, climbing boulder; and entrance area including some natural play and a picnic area

- 467 -

Planning Committee 13 February 2014

Applicant/Agent : Mr L Mayatt, C/O Mrs C Unwin, Groundwork South, Manor Way, Swanscombe, Kent, DA10 0LL

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

PART 5 - Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, report for information

5.1 SW/13/0561 (Case 25022) – Two storey side and rear extension at no. 6 Paradise cottages, Lower Road, Hartlip, Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 7SU

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

5.2 SW/12/1370 (Case 03606) – Replacement of softwood windows with pvcu windows in church hall and vestries at The Methodist Church, High Street, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4PB

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

5.3 SW/12/1607 – Erection of detached 4 bedroom dwelling and associated drop kerb extension at Jetty Cottage, Jetty Road, Warden, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4PR

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

5.4 SW/13/0188 – To convert warehouse into 1 house of multiple occupation with associated external alterations at no. 2-4 William Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 1HR

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

5.5 SW/12/1523 & SW/12/1524 (Case 01675) – Planning permission and listed building consent for Single storey rear extension and internal alterations to grade II listed warehouse building with change of use to restaurant and art gallery/function room at Building 1, Standard Quay, Abbey Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 7BS

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

5.6 SW/13/0128 (Case 12969) – Lawful Development Certificate for temporary stationing of a static caravan/unit during building works (Proposed), Amos Field, Lane, Dunkirk CT5 9LA

This application was considered at the re-convened Planning Committee on 18 February 2014.

- 468 -