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 15 September 2016 (Minute Nos. 879  - 885) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 September 2016 (Minute Nos. 879 – 885) 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.

Councillor Tina Booth declared an interest in respect of item 2.10, Norwood Cottage, Eastchurch.  Councillor Booth left the Chamber during consideration of this item.

To consider the following application:

16/504266/FULL Land at Lavender Avenue, 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 these items must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 12 October 2016.

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

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper which set out updates, and clarification on the conditions relating  to the application.  He reported that one further letter of objection had been received which had raised overlooking issues onto a neighbouring garden.

Members raised the following points:  as this was part of a larger application, it was important that we saw the ‘whole picture’ before a decision was made; would be happier if more detail on the west of the site had been agreed, so that the impact of the nine additional houses could be decided upon; detail was needed of the whole site so that a decision could be made on whether these new houses would fit in; acknowledged that this was the normal procedure and that we were now being asked to approve this small area of the site; approval of these houses would mean that more funding would be allotted to the upgrading of the Lower Road/Barton Hill junction roundabout scheme; the infrastructure was not in place to support the additional housing; and we cannot go against Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation as we would lose on appeal on these grounds.

A Ward Member did not support the application and considered the infrastructure was not in place to support additional housing, and this would add to the pressure already there.

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer explained that permission to develop land to the south and east of this application site had already been agreed, and to the north was outline permission, with the access approved.  He further explained that this was the normal two-stage process, and detailed matters would go through consultation and appraisal by officers.  In response to a further question, the Major Projects Officer explained that the Section 106 agreement, agreed in August 2016, for the remaining 431 houses, still stood.  He further advised that the funding for the roundabout would come from other sources, as well as from developer contributions for each house built.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the motion to approve the application as follows:

For:  Councillors Bobbin, Roger Clark, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern and Ghlin Whelan. Total equals eight.

Against:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Andy Booth, Richard Darby, Tina Booth, James Hall, Samuel Koffie-Williams and Peter Marchington.  Total equals eight.

Abstain:  Councillor Present.

The Chairman used his casting vote and the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 16/504266/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (21) in the report, to include the tabled amendments and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 941.

To consider the attached report (Parts 2, 3 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 12 October 2016.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reported that Sheldwich Parish Council had originally objected to the application, but following the submission of amended drawings, the Parish Council had withdrawn their objection.  He reported that there had been some discussion from the applicant in response to objections from both the Parish Council and the neighbour.  The Parish Council had had a Special Meeting to discuss the application and had highlighted some inaccuracies to some of the objections from the neighbour, as follows: there were already two windows in the applicant’s lounge that faced towards the neighbour at a 25metre distance; there would not be a great deal of overlooking from the new dormer windows as the neighbours lounge windows were largely concealed behind 2 metre high hedgerow planting; the affected window was a guest bedroom, with the master bedroom further way and at a different angle; the distance between the proposed annexe and the neighbour was approximately 45 to 50 metres, and the dormers would be lower in height than existing first floor windows minimising any overlooking issue; there would not be light disturbance because of the separation distance involved; and only one or two lower boughs of the silver birch tree would need to be removed, which would not significantly affect the overall appearance of the tree.

The neighbour had welcomed the decrease in size of the dormer windows, but considered it still looked like a two-storey extension.  They considered it was not-in-keeping with the surrounding area and it was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Mr David Morgan, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke and acknowledged the difficulty and complexity of the issues raised throughout the application process.

Councillor Bobbin (Ward Member) moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.

Members were shown photographs of the setting and considered the distance from neighbouring properties to the application site did not raise an issue of overlooking.

On being put to the vote, the motion for a site meeting was lost.

Resolved:  That application 16/505980/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following items:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

1.    Information relating to any individual.

2.    Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

3.    Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). See note below.

4.    Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and any employees of, or office holders under, the authority.

5.    Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

6.    Information which reveals that the authority proposes

(a)  To give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or

(b)  To make an order or direction under any enactment.

7.    Information relation to any action in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

Resolved:

(1) That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:

1. Information relating to any individual.

2. Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

4.  Information relating to any consultation or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and any employees of, or office holders under, the authority.

5.  Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

6. Information which reveals that the authority proposes:

(a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or

(b) to make an order or direction under any enactment.

7.  Information relating to any action taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

To consider the attached report (Part 6).

6.1    Application 16/504266/FULL– land at Lavender Avenue, Minster-On-Sea, Kent ME12 3RB

Resolved:  That no further action be taken.

6.2   Ref SW/13/1269 – Land adj. to The Old Vicarage, Lynsted

Resolved: That if the developer submits a suitable non-material amendment (NMA) application within two weeks and this is approved, and the works are carried out in accordance with the NMA approval within two months, no prosecution proceedings will be taken, and the enforcement notice can be withdrawn to prevent future occupiers being affected by its potential consequences.

The meeting was adjourned at 9.05pm and reconvened at 9.10pm.

At 10pm and 10.30pm, Members agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders in order that the Committee could complete its business.