Audio Recording

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 6 February 2020 (Minute Nos. 498 - 505) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 February 2020 (Minute Nos. 498 – 505) 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 Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

Councillor Mike Baldock declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.2, 19/504059/FULL, Wentworth House, Wentworth Drive, Sittingbourne, as he had called it in.  Councillor Baldock confirmed that he had an open mind on the application.

Councillor Roger Clark declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.1, 18/506328/FULL, Land lying to the south of Dunlin Walk, Iwade, as he was pre-determined.  On item 2.1, Councillor Clark, spoke as Ward Member and then left the chamber.

Councillor David Simmons declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.3, 19/506038/REM, Land fronting Painters Forstal Road, Ospringe, as his wife was a member of Ospringe Parish Council.

Councillors Mike Baldock, Monique Bonney and Ben J Martin declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.3, 19/506038/REM, Land fronting Painters Forstal Road, Ospringe, as they had previously discussed the matter at Cabinet.

To consider the following application:

19/503810/OUT, Land on the south east side of Bartletts Close, Halfway.

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 4 March 2020.

Table Papers added 5 March 2020.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application and reminded Members that it was an outline application, with all matters other than access, reserved for future consideration.  He referred Members to the tabled update and to the responses to questions submitted by Members to officers prior to the meeting.

Mrs Caroline Barkway, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Peter Cooper, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member sought clarification between this application and the one for nine dwellings which was refused in 2004.  The Major Projects Officer explained that the 2004 application had been refused for four reasons, which he outlined for Members.  He explained that the main difference between that application and the current one was that although the site was outside the built-up area, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been introduced due to the need to increase delivery of housing sites.  The Major Projects Officer reminded Members that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing sites.  The site was considered to be sustainable, and any adverse impact of the development did not outweigh the identified benefits of the scheme.  The Ward Member sought further clarification on the issue of freshwater run-off on Uplands Way which resulted in gardens being flooded, and asked what surface water drainage measures would be taken to ensure this problem would not get worse with the new development.  He asked that Ward Members be consulted on this matter.  The Major Projects Officer explained that normally a technical assessment would be carried out and officers would liaise with the relevant agencies.  He said that Members could be included in the process, but advised that the matter would need to be assessed purely on technical merit.  The Ward Member said that residents shared an existing foul water sewer pipe and had lined it at their own cost, and raised concern that this pipe would also be used for the new development, and suggested the arrangements for this should be in place prior to the development going ahead.

Another Ward Member spoke against the application and raised the following points:  the condition of the road was awful, as indicated by photographs which had been displayed; the site was not allocated for housing; it was outside the built-up area; there was poor access to the site, no footpaths, and only one streetlight; there were no sustainable options of getting to the site and cars would be used;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 617.

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 4 March 2020.

Tabled Papers added 5 March 2020.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

There were tabled papers for this item.

Mr Scott Finch, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee spoke against the application. He raised the following points: the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to residents and local school children; there was a lack of parking in the area; loss of a footpath and recreation area; the local roads and infrastructure were at breaking point; Sandling Way was a dangerous access point; this was infill development and it was over-intensive.

A Ward Member who was not a member of the Planning Committee spoke against the application.

Members were invited to debate the application and made points which included:

·         Needed a clear analysis of the traffic implications of the Barton Hill Drive application;

·         this site was not allocated for housing;

·         the site was difficult to get to and was not in a suitable location;

·         it was a quiet walk, and the development would completely change the aspect for local people;

·         it was over-development;

·         this was unnecessary and unsuitable; and

·         not happy with the ecological mitigation measures.

In response, the Major Projects Officer suggested a condition could be added to the application to state that none of the dwellings be occupied before M2 Junction 5 was either commenced or finished.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/506328/OUT be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Area Planning Officer explained that there was an error on page 66 of the report and the dimensions should read: 3.3 metre width; 1.4 metre depth and 1.8 metre height.

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

Councillor Mike Baldock, who called-in the application, explained that the bin stores had appeared, without planning permission.  He said they should be located in a more suitable location as they stuck out into the street view.  He also considered they would be used by passers-by.

Members were invited to debate the application and made points which included:

·         These were an eyesore;

·         the bins themselves could be placed in this position  ...  view the full minutes text for item 618.

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

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 5 and 7.

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

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 item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 5 and 7.

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

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

19/500866/OUT – Land at Swale Way, Great Easthall Way, Sittingbourne

The Area Planning Officer gave an overview of this application which was considered by the Planning Committee on 9 January 2020, where Members had given four reasons to refuse the application, had the appeal not been submitted for non-determination.  The Area Planning Officer referred to the noise survey the appellant had carried out, and also the views of the Council’s Environmental Health Manager following the survey. It was concluded that, with appropriate mitigation, there would not be significant harm to residential amenity.

Resolved:  That the second reason for refusal (that it had not been demonstrated that noise and disturbance from the community hall would not give rise to harm to the amenities of residents of the proposed development) be dropped from the reasons for refusal, with the remaining three to continue.

The Meeting was adjourned from 8.10pm to 8.15pm and 10.03pm to 10.10pm.

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