To consider the following applications:

17/500397/FULL – The Laurels, Darlington Drive, Minster

16/508117/OUT – The Slips, Scocles Road, Minster

16/501266/FULL – 99 High Street and land to the north of High Street, Newington

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the applications 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 19 July 2017.

Tabled papers for Deferred Item 3 99 High Street, Newington published Friday 21 July 2017.

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

A Ward Member considered that the Kent County Council (KCC) parking policy only worked if the development was within a town, as public transport was not so accessible within a village.  He considered that two reduced size parking spaces would be better than one space.

Some Members considered it not unreasonable for two parking spaces to be provided.

Resolved:  That application 17/500397/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

The Major Projects Officer reported that contrary to the recommendation on page 13 of the Committee report, the further comments from KCC Highways and Transportation had been received, as set out on page 14 of the Committee report.  They raised no objection, subject to the relevant conditions and Section 106 clauses also as set out in the Committee report.

Parish Councillor John Stanford, representing Minster Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Michael Blee, an objector, spoke against the application.

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 comments which included: the Local Plan Inspector had approved so had to concede defeat, but considered that 62 properties was too many; there were already traffic issues along Scocles Road with vehicles not being able to pass buses; and hoped that the number of properties proposed could be reduced to 50.

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following addendum: “That the further condition outlined in paragraph 3.05, on page 15 of the Committee report, be imposed.”  This is outlined below: 

The development shall be carried out in accordance with an agreed phasing plan detailing the delivery of the housing so that occupation of no more than 22 dwellings takes place prior to the Lower Road/Barton Hill Drive roundabout becoming operational.

Reason: In the interests of ensuring that the necessary highway infrastructure is in place prior to the full traffic impact of the housing development.

This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor.  On being put to the vote the addendum was agreed.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: considered the application was acceptable; concerned that if we approved the application now, we would not have grounds to reduce the number of dwellings provided at the Reserved Matters stage; inappropriate density of dwellings for the area; the proposed roundabout on Lower Road [at the junction with Barton Hill Drive] would not “free-up” traffic along Scocles Road; and further development to this already over-developed area would cause further issues for local residents.

In response to questions from a Member, the Major Projects Officer explained that when the Reserved Matters application was received, it would be sent out for consultation and subject to any objections it may need to be considered by the Planning Committee.  If Members considered 62 dwellings was too many they would need to provide substantive planning reasons to support a potential refusal of planning permission and to allow a good case to be made at a possible appeal.

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

For: Councillors Bobbin, Roger Clark, Mike Dendor, Nicholas Hampshire, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Mike Henderson, Bryan Mulhern and Ghlin Whelan.  Total equals 9.

Against: Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Andy Booth, Richard Darby, James Hall, Tina Booth and Peter Marchington.  Total equals 7.

Abstain: Councillor Prescott.  Total equals one.

The motion to approve the application was won.

Resolved:  That application 16/508117/OUT be approved subject to conditions (1) to (30) in the report, and the phasing condition set out at paragraph 3.05 of the agenda and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement.  With authority to amend condition wording and Section 106 Agreement clauses as required.

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled papers, which had previously been emailed to Members, and which included reference to an additional letter from a local resident raising concerns about the increase in traffic on local roads, and also responses from the Council’s Environmental Protection Team Leader to Professor Peckham’s and Councillor John Wright’s comments in respect of air quality. 

The Major Projects Officer reported that just prior to the meeting they had received a request from the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) to defer the application as they did not consider Members had received all the information in respect of air quality.  The Major Projects Officer stated that officers were of the view that Members had sufficient information to enable them to make a decision.  Members were asked to approve the application, subject to minor amendments to the Section 106 Agreement, as required,  and wording of the planning conditions.

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

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

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

The Environmental Protection Team Leader reiterated his response to Professor Peckham as outlined in the tabled paper. 

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised points which included: there was a lack of mitigation measures with regard to air quality for the High Street; Medway Council objected to the proposal on air pollution grounds and they considered it would have a detrimental impact on the Rainham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA); residents should be made aware to avoid the High Street during the brick earth extraction period as the Council’s Environmental Protection Team Leader was concerned air pollution levels would be elevated during that period; it had been agreed that the windows for the properties at the former Newington Men’s Club should not open out into the High Street due to air quality concerns; a suggestion had been made at the air quality meeting held in February 2017 that reducing the speed limit to 20 mph would reduce air pollution by 80%; other mitigation measures such as funding for buses should be explored; there would be some harm to human health as a consequence of this development; if Members were minded to approve the application, please put mitigation measures in to safeguard the health of local residents.  Another Ward Member considered that it was not within the “gift” of this application to deal with all of the air quality issues raised. 

In response to concerns raised by a Ward Member, the Environmental Protection Team Leader stated that whilst he sympathised with his concerns and would like to include his suggested mitigation measures in the Modified Action Plan, he had little powers with regard to proposed changes to the highway.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: the alterations proposed to the pavements (which would reduce their width) were unsatisfactory and would be unsafe for pedestrians; “reckless” to put in three lanes for vehicles as the pavement was in regular use by pedestrians; the Pond Farm application was refused at appeal on air quality concerns; we do not have full knowledge of the effect the application would have on air quality; “flabbergasted” that we are being asked to approve an application which may have some harm to human health; needed to consider whether this was an appropriate location; needed to seriously consider pollution levels; strong evidence that reducing the speed limit to 20mph would help to reduce pollution and it would not be difficult to introduce this along this section of the A2; in London numerous roads were within 20 mph zones; it was not speeding that caused pollution issues, but the “stop-start” of queuing traffic; and need to ask KCC to consider using Section 106 money from the developer to implement measures to reduce pollution.

Councillor Nicholas Hampshire moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow the Swale Joint Transportation Board to consider whether the speed limit along the High Street could be reduced to 20 mph.  This was not seconded.

Discussion ensued and it was noted that the Swale Joint Transportation Board was not a decision-making body.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion: That KCC Highways and Transportation be asked to look at whether a 20mph limit can be implemented along the High Street, Newington in order to reduce pollution.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.  This was not agreed by Members.

The Major Projects read out the informal views of the Highway Officer, KCC Highways and Transportation in relation to the 20mph limit.  In the view of the KCC officer the implementation of the 20mph limit would not be supported as signs on their own were not always effective and it would not be desirable for a principal distributor road.

In response to a comment from a Member, the Senior Planning Solicitor (Locum) stated that there was a clear distinction for allowing 20mph zones in London compared with other areas, and that they could only be imposed in residential areas that did not go anywhere.

The Head of Planning suggested that the Chairman write on behalf of the Planning Committee to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste (KCC), asking that they look into implementing a 20mph zone along this part of the A2 to reduce pollution.  This was agreed by Members.

The Chairman stated that copies of the letter would also be sent to the Leader of KCC, and the Leader of Swale Borough Council.  He agreed to send a copy of the letter to all Members of the Planning Committee.

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

For: Councillors Cameron Beart, Bobbin, Andy Booth, Roger Clark, Mike Dendor, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Tina Booth, Mike Henderson, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott, and Ghlin Whelan.  Total equals 13.

Against: Councillors Mike Baldock, Richard Darby, James Hall and Nicholas Hampshire.  Total Equals four.

Abstain:  Total equals nil.

The motion to approve the application was won.

Resolved:  That application 16/501266/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (39) in the report, minor amendments to the Section 106 Agreement as required and to the wording of the conditions as may be required.  The Chairman of the Committee to write to theCabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste (KCC), with copies to the Leader of KCC and the Leader of Swale Borough Council, in respect of possible provision of a 20 mph limit in Newington.