sw/09/0260 (2.13) – hengist field, pond farm lane, borden

PRESENT: Councillor Booth (elected Chairman for this meeting), Councillors Bobbin, Clark, Derek Conway, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove and Ghlin Whelan.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie, Alun Millard and James Wilson.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Quinn and Mr Evans (Applicants), Mr Baldock and Mrs Harrison (Borden Parish Council), Mrs Osmotherly (Nellsar Ltd), Mr Elliott (Agent), Mr and Mrs Aspin, Mr Clarke, Mr Gilmartin, Mr Goldfinch, Mr Hardisty, Mrs Kelly, Mr Preswick, Mr and Mrs Standish and Mr Wright (Local Residents).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott, Mark Ellen, David Garside, Elvina Lowe, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Alan Willicombe.

sw/09/0358 (3.2) – the burrows, swanley farm, warden road, eastchurch

PRESENT: Councillor Booth (elected Chairman for this meeting), Councillors Bobbin, Clark, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mike Henderson, Pat Sandle, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove and Ghlin Whelan.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Claire Dethier, Kellie Mackenzie and Graham Thomas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor John Morris (Ward Member), representative of Eastchurch Parish Council and David King and Emma Smith (Applicants).

APOLOGIES: Councillors Barnicott, Mark Ellen, Derek Conway, David Garside, Elvina Lowe, Bryan Mulhern, Prescott and Alan Willicombe.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

sw/09/0260 (2.13) – hengist field, pond farm lane, borden

The Major Projects Officer explained that the application was for development of a care home and an office building on a half hectare site at Hengist Field, Pond Farm Lane, Borden. The proposal consisted of a two-storey building measuring a total of 3,453 square metres and a second building measuring 476 square metres. The proposal would provide approximately 115 jobs, 90 in the care home and 25 in the office. 41 parking spaces were proposed.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the views of the Campaign to Protect Rural England had been received raising objection to the application. They considered that the site was not intended for residential use and would set a precedent if approved. They also considered it would add significantly to traffic flows in a rural location. A letter had also been received from East Kent Adult Social Services stating that the proposal went against their policy which favoured elderly people staying in their own homes to be cared for, not going into institutions. They also raised concern that they had not been consulted on the need for such a development in the area.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the applicant would be willing to enter into a legal agreement for a mini-bus service to be provided at the site.

The Major Projects Officer reported that a total of 15 letters of objection had been received and the Parish Council also raised concerns. Three letters of support had also been received.

The Major Projects Officer reported that the development accorded with the Development Plan and considered that the application would not result in adverse implications for highway safety, residential amenity or visual amenity.

Mr Elliott, the Agent, advised that TRICS data for the site had been analysed, which predicted that the approved office development would generate a peak of 47 vehicle movements between 8am - 9am and 41 between 5pm and 6pm. The TRICS analysis suggested that the care home use would provide a 50 per cent reduction in vehicle movements, compared with office use. In addition, the normal peak times of the proposed care home would be between 2pm to 3pm so it fell outside normal peak times. Mr Elliott advised that a mini bus could be provided for staff and local people and considered the appearance of the proposed development was sympathetic to the surrounding area.

Mrs Osmotherly (Nellsar Ltd), advised that Nellsar Homes currently operated 500 beds in Kent and the nearest site in Swale was at Woodstock Road, Sittingbourne. Mrs Osmotherly explained that the incidence of dementia would increase over the next 30 years and good care homes were therefore needed. She explained that the centre at Woodstock needed to be extended and that there were currently 90 people on the waiting list and there was therefore demand in the area for such a facility. Mrs Osmotherly confirmed that residents of the care home would be accompanied at all times. In response to a query from a resident, she advised that the care home would not provide care for mentally ill patients or those dependent on drugs, it would purely be for old age dementia.

Mr Quinn, the applicant, advised that the site already had outline permission for office development and the care home proposed would generate less traffic.

Mr Baldock (Borden Parish Council) raised concerns in relation to the double junction and blind corner close to the entrance of the site and asked that Members ensure they viewed the area.

Local residents raised the following concerns: insufficient parking on the site; question the creditability of the agents given the number of amendments to the applications put forward; no significant planning reasons for the application had been provided; loss of local amenity; traffic would increase, impacting on an already busy and dangerous junction; large agricultural vehicles and HGV's use the narrow local roads, this would have an adverse impact on any emergency vehicles needing to access the care home; the mixed use proposed would spread traffic flows throughout the day not just at peak times; could lead to further development at the site; unnecessary environmental impact on the site; inclement weather could result in residents at the care home being stranded; office use should never have been granted at the site; report did not adequately address the concerns of local residents; countryside being eroded and vehicles at weekend would compound the issue of traffic congestion.

A local resident advised that she had, prior to the meeting, counted 89 vehicles in 15 minutes passing the application site.

In response to concerns from an adjoining business owner, concerned about security at the site as dementia sufferers could sometimes be violent, Mr Elliott explained that Kent Police had viewed the drawings and were happy with the security measures proposed, and confirmed that the premises would be gated and secure at all times.

The Major Projects Officer clarified the B1 use intended for the site and drew attention to condition 13 in the report which limited its use to office. In response to concerns that local views had not been addressed he considered that the report had been clear and balanced, and that the various concerns raised had been evaluated.

Mr Millard (KHS) advised that it was his professional view that the care home would generate approximately half the traffic that offices would and they could not raise objection against the care home as this represented a reduction from the permitted office development.

A Member requested that the applicants provide the following information for the meeting on 18th June 2009: evidence to back-up their claims that 90 beds within a five mile radius were required; provide details of the jobs to be provided at the site and staff predicted arrival times to the site.

Members then toured the site and asked the Major Projects Officer and KHS Officer questions which they answered.

sw/09/0358 (3.2) – the burrows, swanley farm, warden road, eastchurch

The Area Planning Officer explained that the application sought permission for the erection of a bungalow and a single-storey double garage following the removal of a residential mobile home at The Burrows, Swanley Farm, Warden Road, Eastchurch. The Area Planning Officer reported that in terms of floor area, the applicants proposed a 75 per cent increase in the current floor space in a rural area. The Parish Council supported the application. Six letters of support had been received.

Mr King, the applicant, explained that the existing mobile home was now inadequate for his family and the children's rooms were now badly affected by damp. He advised that both he and his wife were active members of the local community and stated that they had no intention of selling the site to gypsies.

The Ward Member spoke in support of the application. He stated that Eastchurch already had three gypsy families and queried the need for more. He also queried the sensitive nature of the site as there were several large developments in the area. He explained that the applicants were a value to the local community and it was important that they be allowed to stay in the area where they were born.

The Parish Council representative stated that the application should be considered on its merits and Members should not predict what might happen to the site in the future in relation to gypsies.

In response to a query from a Member, the Area Planning Officer explained that the area was remote and isolated and a brick built premises would increase the intensity of development in the countryside. The Area Planning Officer advised that a further condition to ensure no caravans were stationed on the site could be included.

In response to a request by a Member, the applicant advised that they had already reduced the floorspace of the scheme and would be reluctant to reduce it further.

Officers clarified the percentages given in relation to floor space and advised that they had been provided by the applicant's agent.

Members then toured the site and asked the Area Planning Officer and Planning Officer questions which they answered.