Audio Recording

The Chairman explained that the meeting would be conducted in accordance with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panel (Coronavirus) Flexibility of Local Authority Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 No. 392.

In welcoming all Members and members of the public, the Chairman explained which Swale Borough Council officers were in attendance.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 20 August 2020 (Minute Nos. 44 - 46) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 20 August 2020 (Minute Nos. 44 – 46) 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 meeting 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 Monique Bonney declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.1 20/503138/FULL Units 4 and 5 Bourne Place, St Michaels Road, Sittingbourne as she was the Cabinet Member for Economy and Property.  Councillor Bonney left the meeting during consideration of this item.

Councillor David Simmons declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.2 19/503077/FULL Land at Woodhill, Stalisfield Road, Ospringe as his wife was a member of Ospringe Parish Council.

Councillor Roger Clark declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 18/506328/OUT Land lying to the South of Dunlin Walk, Iwade (Planning Working Group item) as he had been in discussions with local residents about the application.  Councillor Clark stated that he had not pre-determined the application.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 September 2020 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider the following applications:

·      Seaview Holiday Camp, Warden Bay Road, Leysdown, Sheerness ME12 4NB (20/500490/FULL)

·      Land South Of Chequers Road, Minster-on-Sea, ME12 3SH (20/500400/OUT)

·      Danedale Stables, Chequers Road, Minster-on-Sea, ME12 3SJ (19/505353/FULL)

·      Land Lying To The South Of Dunlin Walk, Iwade ME9 8TG (18/506328/OUT)

·      Land Fronting Painters Forstal Road, Ospringe, ME13 0EG (19/506038/REM)

Additional information has been added to these items which might be referred to at the meeting.

Tabled updates added 17.09.20.

Responses to Member questions received in relation to item Land South Of Chequers Road, Minster-on-Sea, ME12 3SH (20/500400/OUT) published 16.09.20:

1.       The application for 20/500400/OUT is for access only with all other matters reserved and we have been told that Kent Highways raise no objections - yet on 19/505353/FULL, we were repeatedly told by the applicant that they had specially moved their site entrance which was directly adjacent to the access to the other site as the existing entrance was considered unsafe. Could clarity therefore be sought as to why one would be considered safe but the other not?

Response from KCC Highways and Transportation: The application at Danedale Stables (ref. 19/505353/FULL) does not refer to the existing access as being unsafe. No highway assessment has been undertaken for the existing access position to consider whether it was unsafe or not, as the application proposals for 19/505353 did not propose to retain it. Consequently, only the application details as submitted were assessed, and this concluded that there was no objection to the design and location of the access as now proposed. With regard to the second application, 20/500400/OUT, the access achieves the necessary sightlines as noted in Highways formal consultation response. This response provides further reasoning on the acceptability of the access, including acknowledging the historic use of it, and the number of movements expected from the proposed development.

2.       I would also like clarity on the safety considerations of the uncontrolled crossing(s) proposed. The Kent Highways response says that extending the footpath currently proposed to end at the entrance to 20/500400/OUT to continue to the entrance of 19/505353/FULL would not be possible due to tree roots. They instead propose an uncontrolled crossing to "link into the existing footway provision on Chequers Road and Danedale Avenue beyond?" - there is no existing footway provision on the northern side of Chequers Road and only a small piece proposed to be built. Assuming residents may wish to walk to the local shop which is the nearest convenience, are they proposing that residents from this site cross Chequers Road, then cross Danedale Avenue, then cross Chequers Road again to continue down to Elm Lane where they would once again have to cross Chequers Road for a third time before crossing Oak Lane to finally reach the shop? 

Response from KCC Highways and Transportation : Whilst not the most convenient route, the proposed footway and crossing points do provide pedestrians with an  ...  view the full agenda text for item 110.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 September 2020 (Minute Nos. 59 – 64) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

20/500490/FULL Seaview Holiday Camp, Warden Bay Road, Leysdown

In response to queries raised at the site meeting the Area Planning Officer reported that the replacement chalets would have a footprint of 5.5 metres x 10 metres whilst the existing chalets had a footprint of 5.2 metres x 7.4 metres.  He explained that although not shown on the elevations or floorplans, decking was proposed to the front and side of each replacement chalet, highlighted by the hatched area on the proposed block plan.  The Agent had requested a condition be imposed if necessary, to secure details of the decking.  Each chalet would have one parking space. 

The Area Planning Officer stated that at the site meeting a Member had queried whether the developer contributions would be required as five of the chalets (which would have 12-month occupancy) were replacing caravans which only had 10-month occupancy.  The Area Planning Officer advised that there were less than 10 new permanent dwellings proposed, and as such developer contributions were not triggered.

The Area Planning Officer further reported that the Agent did not agree with the suggestion by Members to impose the 50% sustainability condition, and stated that the replacement chalets would be significantly more efficient than the existing ones, being fully insulated, with a high quality metal sheeting used for the roofing, the windows were double glazed and central heating was installed.  The chalets were also erected on concrete slabs with damp proof membrane. The Agent considered that to comply with a 50% reduction in Dwelling Emission Rate this would have a significant impact upon viability. The added cost of further improving sustainability over and above the measures set-out above, would significantly increase construction costs. The Area Planning Officer reported that the Agent would accept a condition to reflect the best possible (and viable) carbon reduction that could be achieved by the replacement chalets. The Agent had suggested an amendment to the standard condition now used, deleting reference to a 50% improvement over the building regulations and instead simply requiring a dwelling emission rate better than that required by the building regulations.

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

Members were invited to debate the application and the following points were made:

·         The existing chalets were dilapidated and the new chalets would enhance the site;

·         these would be permanent dwellings and developer contributions should be  provided;

·         disappointed that the 50% sustainability condition could not be imposed; and

·         should refuse the application as they could not accommodate the 50% sustainability, and also the piece-meal nature of the application which was deliberate to avoid developer contributions.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Mike Dendor moved the following motion to refuse the application:  That the application be refused as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

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 16 September 2020.

Additional information has been added to these items which might be referred to at the meeting.

Tabled updates added 17.09.20.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Major Projects Officer introduced the report.

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

A Ward Member supported the application.

In response to a query from a Ward Member, the Major Projects Officer stated that he was unsure how much shorter the bowling lanes would be than standard ones and showed Members drawings of the scaling and the proposed internal layout.  He also advised that this was not a material planning consideration.

Members were invited to debate the application and the following points were raised:

·         Welcomed the application which would help to support the night-time economy of Sittingbourne; and

·         concerned that the Applicant had already commenced work inside the building before permission had been granted.

Resolved:  That application 20/503138/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

Mr Thijs Bax, the Agent, was unable to attend the meeting.  His statement in support of the application was read-out by the Democratic Services Officer.

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

A Ward Member noted that the applicant had worked to reduce the impact of the proposal.  However he was concerned about the impact on the local highway network in particular on Brogdale Road.

Resolved:  That application 19/503077/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report and securing of the appropriate Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) contributions.   

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

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

Members were invited to debate the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

The Meeting was adjourned from 9.07pm to 9.10pm.

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