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 29 March 2017.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

There was a tabled paper for this item which included amendments to the report and this had previously been emailed to Members.

The Senior Planner reported that KCC Highways and Transportation had requested that the developer contributed towards improvements to the Lower Road/Barton Hill Drive junction.  Three developments had so far contributed to the delivery of junction improvements, so it had been requested that this development contributed as well.  The sum of £1,006 per dwelling was therefore requested from the developer.  She advised that some land, proposed to be a new footway, belonged to the KCC Highways and Transportation and that a grampian-style condition would be imposed to ensure that the footway was provided prior to commencement of the development, rather than an obligation within a Section 106 Agreement.  KCC Highways and Transportation had advised that the plans needed to be amended to reflect the existing junction changes to the bell-mouth junction at Harps Avenue, and they had suggested that a 30mph speed limit be introduced before the junction with Elm Lane.  KCC Highways and Transportation also advised that access for drives onto Scocles Road would need to be considered at  the reserved matters stage, with vehicles exiting the drives in forward gear.  These accesses were not part of the outline submission.

The Senior Planner reported that the results of a recent traffic survey had been received on 30 March 2017, and this would be used to determine the visibility splays required for the proposed southern access.  KCC Highways and Transportation had identified a potential pinch-point on Scocles Road, because of a telegraph pole, so the road would need to be widened

Delegation was sought to approve the application, subject to ensuring that all outstanding highway matters were addressed in consultation with KCC Highways and Transportation, with any additional conditions or obligations recommended by them.

Parish Councillor Peter Macdonald, representing Minster Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mrs Julie Bird was not present at the meeting.

Mr Mick Drury, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Ward Members raised points which included:  concerned with the pinch-point on Scocles Lane; there was no parking facility for plot 47; this site was in an important Countryside Gap; 62 dwellings was over-intensive for the site; it would have a cumulative adverse effect on the landscape and the infrastructure; development of Minster was a sprawling mass of houses which had decreased the quality of life; traffic congestion issues; the indicative layout showed a lack of space for the housing, and parking at the rear was not ideal, with on-street parking causing obstruction; there were no safe cycle routes in Minster; access roads were not well designed; land to east of Scocles Road would be vulnerable to development; and there was no need for this development as there were un-developed sites nearby.

Members considered the application and made the following comments:  happy to see KCC Highways and Transportation had insisted that Scocles Road be widened; the 30mph sign needed to be re-located; thought that funding for the junction had already been fully resourced; turning left out of Elm Road onto Scocles Road was a risk; KCC measures did not go far enough to make Scocles Road safe; hoped that there would be more than one parking space for the 4/5 bedroom properties; 10% less than 62 dwellings would help to solve parking and traffic problems; self-build option was good; question how officers can ensure that each existing tree location and reference number could be retained?; would like the majority of trees to remain and that this becomes a condition/part of a Section 106 Agreement; not convinced that this was in the best interests of local residents; housing was needed, this was just an outline application, lots could be changed; this was premature to the adoption of the emerging Local Plan; there was a potential of 110,000 travel movements from the proposed development, on infrastructure that was stretched to breaking point; this would present demonstrable harm to the view and to the Countryside Gap; and deeply concerned with the offer of £1,006 per dwelling for the roundabout, considered this was misleading and wrong.

The Senior Planner responded to the concern that the application was premature and drew Members’ attention to Paragraph 9.10 on page 33 of the report which outlined the fact that the site was included as a draft allocation in the emerging Local Plan.  She acknowledged the concern that local residents might have regarding the Countryside Gap, but reiterated that the site was not identified as such under the Local Plan.  Some of the funding of the Lower Road improvements had been secured already, but the additional funding (£1,006 per dwelling) was considered to be fair by KCC Highways and Transportation.

The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer confirmed that the 30mph zone would commence south of the Elm Lane junction.  He further advised that it was a fair decision that the developer contributed to the highway improvements, as other developers had done so, and this provided flexibility on the design and detail of the improvement scheme.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5) a recorded vote was taken on the motion and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors James Hunt, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern and Ghlin Whelan.  Total equals four.

Against:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, George Bobbin, Andy Booth, Roger Clark, Richard Darby, Mike Dendor, James Hall, Ken Ingleton, Samuel Koffie-Williams and Peter Marchington.  Total equals 11.

Abstain:  Councillors Nigel Kay and Prescott.  Total equals two.

At this point the Head of Planning Services used his delegated powers to ‘call-in’ the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

There were tabled papers for this item.  One outlined information of the High Court’s decision to allow the appellant for the Pond Farm appeals to proceed with a Judicial Review, and the other contained additional comments from Newington Parish Council.  These papers had previously been emailed to Members.

The Senior Planner reported that further comments from the Campaign for Rural England (CPRE) had been received.  They had compared the application with the Pond Farm proposals which had been dismissed on appeal.  CPRE had drawn attention to the lack of clear evidence of the effectiveness of air quality mitigation measures.  CPRE also considered the development was likely to extend the time taken to meet air quality objectives in the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

The Senior Planner also reported that the MP for Gillingham and Rainham had objected to the application and considered the development would pose a significant threat to the air quality of the Rainham AQMA, as well as the health of people living and working in the area.  The MP was also disappointed that the recommendation was for approval, despite the significant effect on human health.

Parish Councillor Richard Palmer, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Richard Knox-Johnson, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Mick Drury, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Lawyer provided a legal update to Members.  He outlined that the Pond Farm appeal was to be judicially reviewed as to whether the Planning Inspector had been correct and acted fairly in his decision in respect of air quality.  There was a Watching Brief in respect of the Council’s position on these matters.

The Senior Lawyer explained that the evidence in support of the application was not the same as that for Pond Farm.  Mitigation measures had been improved.  Air quality remained an important consideration, but there was no technical evidence from the CPRE to support their concerns on air quality.  If the decision on the Pond Farm judicial review favours the appellant, there would be little weight to the original appeal decision.  However, the Senior Lawyer advised that officers and Members needed to assume that the decision letter concerning Pond Farm was correct.  Members needed to consider that if they refused the application on the grounds of air quality, they must have technical evidence to support this.

The Environmental Protection Team Leader provided information on the air quality measures that were in place in Newington.  He advised that there was one continuous measure, plus nine diffusion tubes.  He explained that the continuous monitoring station had never exceeded Government guidelines, but some of the nine tubes had.  Of the readings that were gathered monthly, three exceeded the Government guideline.  The Environmental Protection Team Leader further advised that the tubes were inherently inaccurate, and not real-time results as the continuous monitoring station was.  This meant that the continuous data could be interrogated, but not the tube data.  He considered the applicant had looked at the air quality issues and the Team Leader did not consider air quality to be a reason to refuse the application.  Modelling had proved that the impact on Newington was negligible, and slight to moderate in the Rainham/Medway AQMA.

Ward Members raised points which included:  support the concerns of local residents; if the AQMA and highway concerns were not answered, the application should be refused; the report had said that there was some harm to health on the High Street in Newington; and the air quality in Newington would get worse if the development went ahead.

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

Members considered the application and raised the following points:  the A2 was already grid-locked; concerned about the supply of water to the development; this application was premature given the current status of the emerging Local Plan; AQMA issues had not been addressed; ghost right-hand lane would not improve the traffic flow; appeal decision stated that landscapes needed to be protected; this went against SBC’s policies; every development harmed air quality; happy with the advice from the Legal and Environmental Protection officers; needed to consider the style (layout and architectural treatment) of the development as it was close to a conservation area; air quality technical information was needed so that a decision could be made; and welcomed the 40% affordable housing that was proposed.

The Environmental Protection Team Leader further advised that the Government maximum guideline for nitrogen oxide was 40micrograms/cubic metre, and a rolling mean figure was used.  Further information could be found at www.kentair.org.uk.  Newington AQMA had never exceeded the maximum figure.

The Senior Planner advised that Southern Water were providing a foul water pumping station on site to address the additional housing.

The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer reported that the road into the proposed development was appropriately wide enough and the ghost lane would assist the flow of traffic, and although the footpath does narrow, this was only for a short distance.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(5) a recorded vote was taken on the motion and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors James Hunt, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Ghlin Whelan.  Total equals five.

Against:  Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, George Bobbin, Andy Booth, Richard Darby, James Hall, Ken Ingleton, Samuel Koffie-Williams and Peter Marchington.  Total equals 9.

Abstain:  Councillors Roger Clark, Mike Dendor and Nigel Kay.  Total equals three.

At this point the Head of Planning Services used his delegated powers to ‘call-in’ the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

PART 3

Applications for which REFUSAL is recommended

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

A Ward Member supported the officer’s recommendation.

Resolved:  That application 16/508250/FULL be refused for the reasons stated in the report.

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

·         Item 5.1 – Funton Brickworks, Raspberry Hill Lane / Sheerness Rd, Lower Halstow

APPEAL DISMISSED

·         Item 5.2 – 155 Westerham Road, Sittingbourne

APPEAL ALLOWED

·         Item 5.3 – 11 St Ann’s Road, Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED

·         Item 5.4 – 11 Leet Close, Eastchurch

APPEAL ALLOWED

·         Item 5.5 – The Hawthorns, Greyhound Road, Minster

APPEAL ALLOWED

Members were disappointed with the outcome.

·         Item 5.6 – Blackthorn Lodge, Greyhound Road, Minster

APPEAL ALLOWED

Members were disappointed with the outcome.

·         Item 5.7 – The Peartree, Greyhound Road, Minster

APPEAL ALLOWED

Members were disappointed with the outcome.

·         Item 5.8 – Land and buildings at Parsonage Farm, Painters Forstal

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

·         Item 5.9 – Land east of St Marys View, Newington

APPEAL DISMISSED

·         Item 5.10 – Land south-east side of Faversham Road, Ospringe

APPEAL ALLOWED