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.

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.

Councillor Andy Booth declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest with respect to Item 3.1, Beverly Camp, Warden Road, Eastchurch, Sheerness, Kent ME12 4ES as he used to be to a member of Eastchurch Parish Council. Councillor Booth explained that he was not predetermined and he took part in the debate.

Councillor Mike Baldock declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest with respect to Item 2.5, Land at Wises Lane, Borden, Kent, ME10 1GD as he was the Ward Member and had previously expressed his opinions against the site. Councillor Baldock stepped down as Chair for this item and spoke as a Ward Member.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2024 (Minute Nos. 746 – 752) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 March 2024 (Minute Nos. 746 – 752) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

23/502365/FULL 77-83 and 87 London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1NL

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report which had been considered at the Planning Committee on 8 February 2024.

Councillor Shelley Cheesman spoke as a Ward Member against the application.

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

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

·           It was a shame that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation were not in attendance at the site visit;

·           concerned that the developer was dealing with several different schemes and this development could take 12-18 months before it commenced;

·           there were issues with flooding across Borden Lane, Sittingbourne and hoped the developer would make the necessary adjustments to ensure the development did not the flooding worse;

·           KCC Highways did not have any objections against the application so it would be difficult to refuse the application; and

·           was there a condition that could be placed to keep the Victorian brick-built outbuilding on the site?

The Planning Consultant responded to the point made about the outbuilding and advised that it was necessary to remove the building so that refuse lorries could get in and out of the site, so was not something that Members could condition.

Resolved: That application 23/502365/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (35) in the report.

20/501573/FULL Nichols Transport Lydbrook Close Sittingbourne Kent ME10 1NW

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report which had been considered at the Planning Committee on 7 December 2023. He advised that since the Planning Working Group meeting on 20 December 2023, revised plans had been submitted showing the correct relationship between plots 3-5 and, 23 and 25 Lydbrook Close. An area of land adjacent to Plot 3 had been amended to provide further landscaping to the site, and fencing lowered by the site entrance to provide better visibility.

Ann Smith, an objector, spoke against the application.

Councillor Shelley Cheesman spoke as a Ward Member against the application.

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

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

·           Appalled that the Planning Committee was given incorrect plans when the application was originally presented to the committee;

·           the developer was trying to justify a development that was not suitable for the area by resubmitting the plans to suit;

·           paragraph 4.8 of the report referred to the measurements not always being accurate, so how could Members believe they were considering a true reflection of the site;

·           the banks of the houses down Borden Lane had been cut back too far and were dangerous to the new developments at Lydbrook Close;

·           due to the height difference between Borden Lane and this development, the properties overlooked directly into the neighbouring properties

·           the developer had submitted incorrect plans for another application and had not always complied with planning permission;

·           there was no obvious condition to ensure that the dangerous banks would be made stable;

·           1.8 metres and 1.5 metres did not sound much of a height difference, but when Members went to visit the site it was obvious how much the development overlooked neighbouring properties;

·           the cutting back of the banks at Borden Lane to fit more housing on the site was not right and proved it was not the right location for this size of development;

·           the planning application that was originally submitted and the way that the developer had gone about the build was not right;

·           the constant late changes and inaccuracies in the application were a concern; and

·           these were not minor amendments, these changes were significant changes.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) reminded Members that they needed to consider the application on its own planning merits and whether the proposal was a minor material amendment.

The Chair moved to the vote and the proposal to approve the application was lost. The Chair deferred the meeting so that officers could discuss  ...  view the full minutes text for item 821.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report.

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

Resolved: That application 23/505480/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (14) in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.

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

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

·      Concerned that the hours of operation were too long and thought that it should be reduced to 9.00 am until 5 pm Monday – Friday and one Saturday a month;

·      noted that at the moment the applicant was able to operate when they wished to, but if approved enforcement action could be taken if they breached the hours proposed in the officer’s report;

·      the clinic often had its doors open when it was hot weather, and the conversations could be heard by nearby residents;

·      would it be possible to add a condition so that the applicants had to ensure the door remained closed?; and

·      the health clinic could not be seen from the street so did not think there was much impact to the street scene.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) responded to the points raised about the door of the clinic staying open during periods of hot weather and advised that the condition would not meet the relevant test, particularly in relation to enforceability. He said that officers could include a related informative and ask the applicant to make the clients aware that conversations could be heard by neighbours when the doors were open.

Councillor Simon Clark moved the following motion: That to prevent noise disruption during the weekends, the proposed times be altered to 9.00 am until 1.00 pm on Saturdays. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Stephen and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following motion: That the hours of operation during Monday – Friday be changed to 9.00 am until 6.00 pm to prevent disturbance to the neighbours in the early hours of the mornings. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Stephen and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved: That application 23/503055/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report and the change of operating hours to 9.00 am – 6.00 pm Monday to Friday and 9.00 am – 1.00 pm Saturdays.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.

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

Resolved: That application 22/504543/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report.

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

A Member raised a point regarding the impact of the development on the conservation area. The Team Leader (Planning Applications) referred to the report and set out why it was considered that the scheme preserved the character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with relevant policy.

Resolved: That application 23/504657/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

Councillor Derek Carnell took the chair for this application and would be referred to as Chair for the remainder of this item.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.

Oonagh Kerrigan, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Mike Baldock spoke as Ward Member against the application. He did not take part in the debate or vote on this item.

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

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

·      Thought it was important that the school had enough green space area for the children to use;

·      concerned that KCC did not address this issue when the development was originally proposed;

·      thought that KCC could have adapted the site in a better way to ensure the hedgeways on the land were not touched; and

·      having to move the footpath was more hard work than moving the school field so thought that it made more sense to move the school field.

On being put to the vote the motion was agreed, with the Chair using his casting vote.

Resolved: That application 23/505421/NMAMD be approved subject to condition (1) in the report.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.

James Bancroft, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Tara Noe spoke as Ward Member in support of the application.

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

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

·      Recognised that it was a difficult decision to move people from their homes for two months of the year but page 185 of the report showed that there were 15 different policies that the application contravened so could not see how Members could approve the application;

·      the Council’s policy was clear that holiday homes could only be occupied for 10 months each year;

·      the site was not suitably located for permanent housing to be built so it was not suitably located for permanent occupancy of the caravans on the site;

·      there were other nearby caravan sites with the same 10-month residency rule and if this application was approved it could set a precedent;

·      it was a shame that the owners of the caravans were mis-sold the homes through being misled into believing they could be occupied year-round;

·      officers had to follow the policy set by the Council, but it was in the Planning Committee’s power to go against policy if they thought there were real planning reasons to do so;

·      if the residents were paying Council Tax, did that entitle them to planning permission?;

·      noted that this site was not contributing to section 106 monies so there was no funding for local services and facilities; and

·      it was not fair to force people out of their homes if they were mis-sold the homes on the basis of year-round occupancy and the council should honour the promise the residents were given.

The Planning Consultant responded to the points raised and said that he had sympathy with the residents that were mis-sold the homes on the basis of year-round occupation but reminded Members that it was not a material land use planning consideration.

The Legal Officer responded to the Council Tax points raised and clarified the fact that Council tax was not a material planning consideration. He advised Members to consider the application against the planning considerations as set out in the officer’s report.

Resolved: That application 22/505778/FULL be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

The Chair asked if Members wished to put forward a motion that enforcement action be authorised but there was no response.

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

PART 5

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

·           Item 5.1 – Security Gatehouse Guillat Ave Kent Science Park Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·           Item 5.2 – Land Adj to Cat-C-Vu Preston Hall Gardens Warden

·           Item 5.3 – Cliff End Mobile Home Preston Hall Gardens Warden

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·           Item 5.4 – Bounds Farm Land to rear of 142 – 146 The Street

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·           Item 5.5 – School Lane Farm School Lane Iwade

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

The meeting was adjourned from 8.21 pm until 8.50 pm and from 9.43 pm until 9.51 pm.

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