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 Chairman outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 April 2025 (Minute Nos. 789 - 796) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 April 2025 (Minute Nos. 789 – 796) 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, 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 Mike Baldock declared an interest with respect to Item 1.1 23/502210/FULL Land on Either Side of Vigo Lane and Wrens Road, Borden.  He said that whilst he sat on Borden Parish Council, he had not taken part in any discussions regarding this item.

The Chairman changed the order of business as minuted.

Update published 22 May 2025.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  He drew attention to the tabled update which set out amendments to conditions (8), (11) and (21) of the application.  It was also agreed to alter the trigger point of conditions (12), (13), (17) and (19) to ‘prior to any further development being carried out’, rather than prior to the commencement of development.

Parish Councillor Jean Gray, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Sarah Moakes, an objector, spoke against the application.

Charlie Brown, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Angela Harrison.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

At this point and following a request by the Chairman, the Senior Planning Officer provided more details on the key points of the application for Members.

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

·         Knew the area well and the site had a ‘long-standing’ use for sale of refreshments;

·         there had previously been a Travelodge on the site with traffic in and out so this would be no different;

·         this was a brownfield site;

·         could see no lawful planning reason to refuse the application;

·         the application went against the Boughton Under Blean Neighbourhood Plan;

·         the use might lead to increased crime and litter in the area;

·         the Kent Woodland Trust, Kent Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had not been consulted;

·         needed to protect the Site of Special Scientific Interest opposite the application site;

·         local residents did not support the application;

·         it would be difficult for any rubbish from the premises along the A2 to be collected safely;

·         would prefer to see just a restaurant rather than a drive-thru;

·         the application could not be refused simply because of who the applicant was; and

·         any litter from the premises would be caused by customers and not the applicant.

In response to questions from Members, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the Railton report had not been submitted or viewed by officers.  The Chairman confirmed that as the Railton report referred to by a speaker had not been viewed by officers it could not be considered by Members.  He referred to pages 83, 84 and 85 of the report which set-out all of those who had been consulted on the application.

Resolved:  That application 23/504375/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report and the amendments to conditions (8), (11) and (21) and the alterations to the trigger point of conditions (12), (13), (17) and (19) to ‘prior  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Tabled Update published 22 May 2025.

The Planning Manager introduced the application as set out in the report.  He drew attention to the tabled update which reported that the Ward Member who had called-in the application had withdrawn their objection and was of the view that Newington Parish Council would be minded to do the same.  The update also reported that an additional representation had been received raising a comment which would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.

Leah Needham, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Angela Harrison.

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

·         Concerned that if the application was approved it would set a precedent to build on agricultural land;

·         concerned that the ‘retention of a large area of the site as open space and a considered landscaping scheme, retention of best views’ might be lost at the reserved matters stage;

·         would it be possible for condition (15) to include wording requiring that the results of the archaeological survey be agreed and ‘signed-off’ prior to the reserved matters application?; and

·         the land was previously used for horses to graze but not for agriculture.

In response, the Planning Manager confirmed that condition (15) could be amended to require that A) and B) of that condition be undertaken prior to submission of the reserved matters application.  This was agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 23/505365/OUT be granted as per the recommendation in the report and the amendment to condition (15) as minuted.

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

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

A Member said the signpost would be a welcome addition to the community.

Resolved:  That application 25/500154/ADV be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

The Chairman reminded Members that they were looking at the plans as a ‘fresh’ proposal. 

Parish Councillor Nicola Butlin, representing Borden Parish Council, spoke against the item.

Parish Councillor Brian Clarke, representing Bredgar Parish Council, spoke against the item.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to provide a steer on the item, this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

The Planning Manager introduced the item as set out in the report.  He explained that the application was currently at appeal and amended plans had been submitted.  A steer was sought from members on whether they considered the amendments addressed the previous concerns of the Council.

The Chairman invited Members to make comments whilst reminding them that their views could have an impact on the appeal.  Comments included:

·         The applicant had demonstrated ‘vision’ and had listened to the concerns of the Council;

·         it was unfair on officers not knowing which plan the Planning Inspector would consider;

·         did not consider the original reasons for refusing the application had been addressed;

·         would still result in the loss of best and most fertile land;

·         it was not within the remit of the Committee to force a landowner to use land for agricultural land; and

·         considered the amended plans were better than the previous plans; and

·         considered the applicant had made ‘substantial’ changes to the application.

In response to a question from a Member regarding landscaping the Planning Manager reported that hedgerows would be planted along the public footpath.

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Booth, Brawn, Cavanagh, S Clark, Golding, Hunt, Marchington, B Martin, C Martin and Winckless.  Total equals 10.

Against: Councillors Baldock, Chapman, P Stephen and Thompson. Total equals 4.

Abstain: None. Total equals 0.

The Planning Manager reported that officers would liaise with the applicant and the inspectorate about how to proceed.

Resolved:  That it can be concluded that the amendments to the proposal are sufficient to make the proposal acceptable.

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 - Cherry Tree Farm, Grove Road, Selling, Kent ME13 9RN

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

PINS Decision: Appeal Allowed. Costs application refused.

Item 5.2 - 1 Broomhill Cottages, Hansletts Lane, Ospringe, Kent ME13 0RS

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed.

Item 5.3 - 8 Anatase Close, Sittingbourne, KENT ME10 5AN

PINS Decision: Appeal Allowed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

A Member was disappointed with the decision and considered it would have a detrimental impact on a neighbouring property.

Item 5.4 - Woodgate Oast, Woodgate Lane, Borden, Kent ME9 8JX

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.5 - Land to the rear of 21 Middletune Avenue, Sittingbourne, ME10 2HX

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.6 - Playtime, The Promenade, Leysdown-On-Sea, Kent ME12 4QB

PINS Decision: Appeal Allowed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

A Ward Member agreed with the decision.

Item 5.7 - School Lane Farm, School Lane, Iwade, Kent ME9 8SG

PINS Decision: Appeal Allowed – Costs Awarded Against SBC

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

In response to a question from a Member, the Head of Place confirmed that the Council no longer required the 50% emission rate reduction condition due to having no policy basis within the Local Plan.

Item 5.8 - 38A High Street, ME10 4PB

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.9 - 60 Shortlands Road, ME10 3JT

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.10 - 4 Church View Cottages, Boxted Lane, Newington, Kent ME9 7LD

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed. Costs Application Refused.

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.11 - Land at A2 Food Stores, 25 Canterbury Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4SG

PINS Decision: DISMISSED

Enforcement Notice Appeal