The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park.  Nobody must leave the assembly point until everybody can be accounted for and nobody must return to the building until the Chairman has informed them that it is safe to do so; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Chairman ensured that those present were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 August 2016 (Minute Nos. 829 - 837) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 August 2016 (Minute Nos. 829 – 837) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 September 2016 (Minute Nos. to follow).

16/504494/FULL Owens Court Farm, Owens Court Road, Selling, ME13 9QN

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 September 2016 (Minute Nos. 850 – 851) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

16/504494/FULL Owens Court Farm, Owens Court Road, Selling

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

Ward Members spoke against the application and raised the following points: Owens Court Road was very narrow and there were only two or three passing spots; the Council had refused permission at the site for similar applications; local residents have raised fair and constructive points in particular the possibility of moving the access to Selling Road which was achievable; and the applicant should move the track so that local residents were not affected by noise.

Members raised points which included: thankful for the site meeting which was very useful to Members; the previous Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation report described Owens Court Road as narrow and unsuitable for HGVs, ‘strange’ that they had now changed that view; unsuitable location; the applicant could have liaised with local residents to ensure that there was less impact on them; disappointed that the applicant’s agent was not prepared to discuss re-orientation of the barn, this was an unhelpful approach; concrete block on Grade 1 agricultural land was unacceptable; local residents would be left to ‘police’ the amount of HGVs accessing the site; there were other buildings on the site which could be utilised; HGVs were already using the road; was a road over the site the best thing surely this would have more of an impact on the grade 1 agricultural land; applicant could have a portable cooling unit on site which he would not need permission for; and did not believe this would increase traffic in the area.

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

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That the application be refused as it would cause harm to the amenities of the area and harm to the character of the local countryside and the need for the proposal had not been proven.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 16/504494/FULL be refused as it would cause harm to the amenities of the area and harm to the character of the local countryside and the need for the proposal had not been proven.

To consider the following application:

15/510527/FULL, Scocles Court, Scocles Road, Minster

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the application will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 14 September 2016.

15/510527/FULL Scocles Court, Scocles Road, Minster

The Planning Officer reported that further to paragraph 2.07 of the Committee report an amended site layout had now been received, which showed a footpath running through the site, around the pond, and back out to the road, thus providing a route for pedestrians.

The Planning Officer further reported that the agent had advised that the applicant had contacted the Parish Council to explain the position regarding design amendments and the provision of a footpath (as detailed within the report).  He had also provided a copy of an email, noting that the Parish Council were now satisfied with the proposals, although the Planning Officer had not received anything further from the Parish themselves.

The Planning Officer stated that the agent had also submitted additional bat emergence surveys as requested by KCC, which showed that no bats were present in the existing stable building.  The Planning Officer reported that he had asked the County Ecologist for further comments and requested that Members give officers delegation to amend or remove condition (3) as necessary, dependent upon KCC’s response. 

The Planning Officer stated that there needed to be a minor amendment to condition (22) relating to commencement of use; and a minor amendment to condition (24) to refer to gates, walls and fences and in advance of any wall fronting onto a highway, rather than restricting fences in totality, and asked Members to delegate to officers to do this.  There also needed to be an amendment to condition (26) to refer to the footpath being through the site rather than along the frontage. 

The Planning Officer requested that Members give officers delegation to approve the application subject to these minor changes, and subject to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement as detailed in the report.

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

Mr Abhaey Singh, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member advised that Minster Parish Council were now happy with the application. 

Members raised points which included: disappointed that KCC Highways and Transportation were still not present at the meeting; glad that the applicant had listened to Members’ concerns; applaud the applicant for his direction and positivity; condition to include reduction of Volatile Organic Compound (VOCs) and Passivhaus sustainable standard could be a standard condition for other developments; and an internal footpath was a great deal safer than an external one.

Resolved:  That application 15/510527/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (26) in the report, as per the amended site layout, to remove condition (3) subject to the views of the County Ecologist, minor amendments to conditions (22), (24) and (26) as minuted and to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement as detailed in the report.

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 14 September 2016.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reported that following discussions with the applicant’s agent the application description would be amended to include: ‘…and to re-configure the design and form of the Memorial Garden’.

Mr Tom Gates, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Ms Victoria Dickenson, an objector, spoke against the application.

Reverend Simon Rowlands, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Ward Members spoke in support of the application and raised points which included: Historic England raised no objection; the Faversham Branch of the Royal British Legion supported the proposal; the Council’s Community Services Manager supported the scheme; no strong objections on planning grounds had been given; and following the wide consultation to the proposals, significant changes to the proposals had been made.

Councillor David Simmons, Cabinet Member for Environment and Rural Affairs, spoke in support of the proposal.  He stated that re-locating the memorial would be a good opportunity to clean it.  Councillor Simmons stated that the memorial garden was an important local green space and disabled access would be improved.  Councillor Simmons spoke about the importance of ensuring that the names of people from Faversham were recorded at the memorial.

Some Members spoke in support of the application and raised the following points: the proposed concrete around the base would help to enhance the memorial; the Memorial Garden needed refurbishing and it would be the perfect place for loved ones to reflect on their loss; should not forget those who had given their lives for us; rare for a memorial not to list the names of those fallen; and would not cause demonstrable harm, but enhance the memorial.

Some Members spoke against the application and raised the following points: when the memorial was erected in its current location it would have been done with a lot of respect and care and for us to just move it seemed wrong; unconvinced of the need to move the memorial; if it was located in the memorial garden would put the memorial in a different context; note that 74 letters and emails objecting to the proposal had been received whilst only two letters and one email in support received; noted the War Memorials Trust’s (WMT) objections to the application; had not heard from officers that it would not lead to demonstrable harm to the character of the listed structure and conservation area; believed the applicants had lost sight of what the local community would like to see; recording of names very important, but unsure that granite was the best way to do this; the memorial could be refurbished without being moved; would support improving access to the memorial garden but we  ...  view the full minutes text for item 884.

The meeting was adjourned at 9.14pm and reconvened at 9.17pm.