Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2024 (Minute Nos. 616 – 623) and the Minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 28 February 2024 (Minute Nos. to be confirmed) as correct records.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 8 February 2024 (Minute Nos. 616 – 623) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 28 February 2024 (Minute Nos. 696 – 701) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

Minute No. 698 Declarations of Interest, Councillor Andy Booth was a ‘current’ Board Member of Kent Fire and Rescue Service, not ‘previous’ as stated. 

Councillor Booth asked that the following be minuted and referred to the statement made in the first bullet point on page 477 ‘HSE had the technical ability to respond to the application, it was negligent of them not to do so and it would have been beneficial to have had their guidance’.  Councillor Booth considered this statement would come back to ‘haunt’ the Council. .

The Chair clarified that the minutes were a record of what was said rather than factual accuracy.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 February 2024 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider application 23/502365/FULL 77 – 83 and 87 London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1NL.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 February 2024 (Minute Nos. 682 – 683) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.  The application would be considered at a future meeting of the Planning Committee.

A Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee said it was disappointing that only six members of the Committee had attended the site meeting.

The Planning Consultant introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.

The Chair invited Members to make comments and points raised included:

·         Welcomed the changes made by the developer and considered the development was now more in-keeping with the area;

·         this was a good example of how the Planning Committees input could improve applications;

·         it would be better if solar panels could be provided; and

·         pleased the developer had listened to Members concerns and made the relevant modifications.

In response the Planning Consultant said that Members could impose a condition requiring details of revised energy proposals as part of the Revised Energy Strategy.

Councillor Terry Thompson moved the following amendment:  That a condition be imposed requiring that solar panels be provided to the south elevation of the dwellings.  This was seconded by Councillor Karen Watson.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed by Members.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

Resolved:  That application 23/500878/REM be approved subject to conditions (1) to (8) in the report and the imposition of an additional condition requiring solar panels be provided to the south elevation of the dwellings.   

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the agenda papers.  He reported that two letters supporting the application had been received since the publication of the agenda pack, both from businesses showing an interest in the site if the application was approved.  The letters highlighted benefits which included: demand for this type of commercial floorspace; the site was close to the motorway; and sustainable location.  The Planning Consultant further reported that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had reiterated that they had no objections to the application, subject to the conditions they had requested as set-out in the report.

Mr Josh Wilson, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Planning Consultant confirmed that the footpath and bus stop would be secured via the Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The Chair invited Members to make comments and points raised included:

·         Supported the application and applauded the comments of the speaker who added weight to the application;

·         welcomed the application which would provide much needed employment in the area;

·         disappointed that the application would result in the loss of open green space;

·         considered the orientation of the proposed development was poor;

·         could not support the application and considered more could be done to improve biodiversity on the site;

·         had concerns regarding the access to and from the site onto the A299;

·         noted the applicants would provide a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) “Very Good” standard but considered that was effectively just an average standing.  The Council should push the developer to provide a higher standard;

·         vehicles exiting the site could be travelling 60 mph onto the busy A299, could we propose a Traffic Regulation Order be required to lower the speed limit in the interests of safety;

·         both Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and National Highways (NH) raised no objection to the application;

·         considered that KCC Highways and NH need to look again at vehicles exiting the site and considered it was a ‘recipe for disaster’; and

·         could waiting restrictions be imposed alongside the petrol station to allow better access from the site.

In response the Planning Consultant said that with regard to Plot 4 KCC Highways had restricted that to B8 use which meant that any fast-food outlet application would require planning permission.  The KCC Highways traffic modelling had shown that most traffic would be accessing the site via the A229 Thanet Way and was safe.  Improvements had been made to the sightlines at the entrance of the site and KCC Highways  ...  view the full minutes text for item 751.

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

Part 5 Index added 05.03.2024

PART 5

Decisions by the County Council and Secretary of State reported for information.

·                Item 5.1 – Temple Lodge, Frangbury, Doddington

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL