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 Terry Thompson declared an interest in respect of agenda item 2.2 24/500439/HYBRID land adjacent to Halke Cottage, Faversham as he was also speaking on behalf of Ospringe Parish Council.  Councillor Thompson spoke on the item but did not take part in the discussion or vote.

The Chair agreed to a change to the order of business, as minuted.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Chair drew attention to the tabled update which clarified that the application was within the Hartlip, Newington and Upchurch Ward, not Bobbing, Iwade and Lower Halstow Ward as stated in the committee report.  The correct Ward Members and Parish Council had been consulted.

The Senior Planner introduced the application, as set out in the report.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, representing Upchurch Parish Council, said that they now withdrew their objection to the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Considered there were no grounds to refuse the application, and noted there were no residential properties within the immediate vicinity of the site; and

·         as a Ward Member agreed it was an ‘eyesore’ and a shame that a precedent had been set, but agreed there were no reasons to refuse the application.

Resolved:  That application 22/502132/ADV be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

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

Alex Bodman, the Agent, spoke in support of the application. 

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

The Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee, spoke against the application.  He was aware that Ospringe Parish Council objected on the grounds that the application was outside the settlement boundary of Ospringe, and contrary to Policy ST3 of the Local Plan.  He raised concerns which included: the development would be on best and most versatile land; there had not been enough discussion on the ‘needs’ of Ospringe in terms of housing; it was not an exceptional build in terms of solar gain; and it would result in urban sprawl.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer explained that with regard to custom-build dwellings, the final design was for future individual occupiers to consider.  The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) explained that any future occupier of each plot would submit a Reserved Matters application within the parameters of the outline application, and each plot would be considered on a case-by-case basis.  He read out the definition of Self-Build and Custom-Build as set out in the Act of 2015 and advised that an informative could be added ensuring that the properties were custom-build, however this would also be addressed as part of the Section 106 Agreement.  It was confirmed that there were currently 122 residents on the Self-Build and Custom-Build register. 

Members agreed that an informative be added to any approval that the properties be custom-build only.

Following further questions from the Chair, the Planning Manager advised that an informative could be added making it clear that the development was approved as custom-build only, however that would be covered by the Section 106 Agreement.  He explained that a condition could be imposed requiring a 2-bedroom property, however as set out in paragraph 7.2.7 of the report there was an established need for housing of all sizes.

Resolved:  That application 24/500439/HYBRID be granted as per the recommendation in the report and that an informative be imposed making it clear the properties were custom-build only.

The Senior Planner introduced the application, as set out in the report. 

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

The Chair considered that a site meeting was needed in order to allow Members to judge the impact on properties in Cherryfields, Sittingbourne.

The Chair moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.  This was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed by Members.

A Member asked if it could be made clear at the site visit what height the dwelling should be.

In response to questions from a Member, the Senior Planner advised that the applicant considered that Pine Lodge Care Home had not been built as it should have been, and there were some discrepancies on land levels at part of the site.

Resolved:  That application 24/502378/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

The Senior Planner introduced the application as set out in the report.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Hayden Brawn.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Did not ‘trust’ the developer to build to a high standard if they could not even build to the correct height; and

·         the developer could use different materials to provide the 50% reduction in emission rates.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) reminded Members that the Council did not currently have a Policy that required a 50% reduction in dwelling emission rates and Inspectors had, when specifically considering the wording of the condition, taken the view that the Council did not have a policy basis for imposing it.  He reported that the Council were waiting for an appeal decision on the 50% reduction, and it would be interesting to see the decision.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Team Leader said that deferring the application pending the appeal, for which the timescale was unknown, would leave the Council open to non-determination and costs.  

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

Councillor James Hunt moved the following motion to refuse the application:  That the application be refused on the grounds that the developer had previously agreed to providing a 50% reduction in the Dwelling Emission Rate.  This was not seconded.

Following advice from the Chief Planning Officer, the Chair suggested deferring the application pending the site meeting agreed earlier on the agenda for application 24/502378/FULL 34 Key Street, Sittingbourne.  This was agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 24/502460/FULL be deferred pending the site meeting agreed earlier on the agenda for application 24/502378/FULL 34 Key Street, Sittingbourne.

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 – 8 Edyngham Close, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

Item 5.2 – 73-75 High Street, Queenborough

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

Item 5.3 – Land Rear of 17 Station Street, Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

Item 5.4 – Land Rear of 98A Sockless Road, Minster

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

Item 5.5 – 102 Athelstan Road, Faversham

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

Item 5.6 – Faversham War Memorial

APPEALS DISMISSED

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION AND LISTED BUILDING CONSENT

NOT DETERMINED

Item 5.7 – Orchard View, Easting Road, Eastling

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL