The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Chairman ensured that those present were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 January 2016 (Minute Nos. 426 - 434) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 January 2016 (Minutes Nos. 426 – 434) 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.

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 Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

Councillor Tina Booth declared an interest in respect of application 15/506728/FULL 11 Leet Close, Eastchurch (Planning Working Group) and application 15/506140/FULL 1 Warden Way, Eastchurch.  Councillor Booth did not vote on these items.

Councillor Cameron Beart declared an interest in respect of application 14/506623/OUT 109 Staplehurst Road, Sittingbourne.  Councillor Beart did not vote on this item.

Councillor James Hunt declared an interest in respect of application 15/510316/LBC Iwade Barn, 20 All Saints Close, Iwade as the application was in his name.  Councillor Hunt left the Chamber during consideration of this item.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 February 2016 (Minute Nos. 465 - 467) as a correct record.

1. 15/508479/FULL 75 Cliff Gardens, Minster-on-Sea, ME12 3QZ

2. 15/506728/FULL 11 Leet Close, Eastchurch, ME12 4EE

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 February 2016 (Minute Nos. 465 – 467) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to recording Councillor Peter Marchington’s attendance at both locations and Councillors Mike Henderson and Lesley Ingham not being in attendance at the first location.

15/508479/FULL – 75 Cliff Gardens, Minster-on-Sea

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

Resolved:  That application 15/508479/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

15/506728/FULL – 11 Leet Close, Eastchurch

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and its effect on the neighbouring property.

Members spoke on the impact of the proposed front extension on the neighbouring property but considered the rear extension would not have such an impact.

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

Councillor Lesley Ingham moved the following motion: That the application be refused as it was not-in-keeping with the streetscene and caused detrimental harm to the neighbouring property.  This was seconded by Councillor Prescott.

There was some discussion on the reasons for refusal and Members were minded to refuse the extension to the front only.  The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that they could not make a split decision, and suggested officers be given delegated authority to approve, subject to the front element of the application being deleted.

The proposer added that there would be loss of privacy and light to the neighbouring property and that her proposal stood for both elements of the application, to the front and the rear.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved an amendment to the proposal:  That the application be deferred for consideration of the rear extension, subject to removal of the front part of the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Mark Ellen.

The Area Planning Officer advised that the overlooking reason for refusal would not stand up on appeal for the front part of the application.

The Chairman clarified that the amendment should read:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to the deletion of the front element of the application and to refuse if it was not.  The reason for refusal being harm to residential amenity by virtue of loss of light and outlook.  This was accepted by the proposers and seconders of the above motions and amendments.

Resolved:  That application 15/506728/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to the deletion of the front element of the application or to refuse if it was not.

To consider the following application:

15/507706/FULL – 8 Colson Drive, Iwade

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the application will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 10 February 2016.

The Area Planning Officer reported that the applicant had provided additional comments which included that he would use his off-road parking area for deliveries and for site vehicles during construction; he acknowledged the parking concerns and advised that No.6 Colson Drive no longer objected following the re-consultation.

Iwade Parish Council had raised the following concerns:  the height of the property dominated the opposite property and the streetscene; the property sat forward of No. 6 and would dominate it; potential for overlooking; car parking issues; and access issues for the contractors.

The Area Planning Officer explained that there were properties of this height in the vicinity with similar roof conversions, and that the dormer windows were not directly opposite the properties on the other side of the road.  He further explained that there was sufficient off-street parking.

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

The Ward Member considered there were overlooking issues, and explained that with the ridge height of the roof being raised, there would be a detrimental impact on No. 6.

Resolved:  That application 15/507706/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (3) in the report.

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 10 February 2016.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

Mr Graeme Humphrey, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

In response to a question, the Major Projects Officer confirmed that the application was for an extension of time for the completion of the retail development by 1 January 2018, as noted in condition (2) of the report.

A Ward Member spoke against the application and considered there had been inappropriate management by the developers.

A Member considered the developer had been put in a difficult position as it was not known whether Asda would be opening a new premises in the area.  In response, the Major Projects Officer explained that Asda had submitted an application mid-2015 and this was being processed, with a decision due to be made in the next few months.

Members considered the application and made the following comments:  residents were expecting shop units to be installed; more homes should not be built until the retail units had been built; there had been too much delay, enough was enough; what was the excuse for such a long delay, the supermarket chain had not always been on the scene; and the time extension should be one year, not two.

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

Councillor Mike Dendor moved the following motion:  That the time extension be reduced to one year.  This was seconded by Councillor Sue Gent.

There was some discussion on the motion and some Members considered that the developers had had long enough already; and considered that the developer would continually apply to extend the time-scale for completion.

The Head of Planning Services advised that the condition required the developer to build a unit, not that it would be occupied, so the unit could end up being empty.

On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That no extension of time be given.  This was seconded by Councillor Tina Booth.

Members made the following comments on the new motion:  the proposal would show that this was detrimental to the amenities; the developers were not compelled to ensure retailers occupied the units; if they were built, they could end up being boarded up if not occupied; and would prefer to reduce the time extension, rather than force the developer to build.

The Major Projects Officer suggested the application could be deferred until the Asda application had been determined, i.e. possibly remove the need for the units  ...  view the full minutes text for item 497.

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