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.  Nobody must leave the assembly point until everybody can be accounted for and nobody must return to the building until the Chairman has informed them that it is safe to do so; 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 at the meeting were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 August 2018 (Minute Nos. 179 - 183) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 August 2018 (Minute Nos. 162 – 170) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:

Minute No. 183 Item 2.4 18/500283/FULL Land adjacent to Sheppey Academy East, Admirals Walk, Halfway:

The fifth paragraph should read ‘A Ward Member raised concerns….’ Not ‘A Member raised concerns’ as stated.

The sixth paragraph to read “That Councillor Cameron Beart moved a motion for a site visit” not the Chairman as stated.

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.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

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

No interests were declared.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 September 2018 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider applications:

(2.4) 18/500283/FULL Land adjacent to Sheppey Academy East, Admirals Walk, Halfway, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3JQ

(3.1) 18/502643/FULL – 3 Chetney View, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8SQ

Tabled papers for item 2.4 uploaded 17 September 2018.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 September 2018 (Minute Nos. 184 – 187) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

18/500283/FULL Land Adjacent to Sheppey Academy East, Admirals Walk, Halfway, ME12 3JQ

The Planner drew attention to the tabled papers, which had previously been emailed to Members and included: a response about boundary treatments from the applicant’s agent; responses to various issues and queries raised; and an update from Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation.

The Planner stated that delegated authority was sought to approve the application subject to no objection from KCC Ecology, condition (2) being amended to refer to the new landscaping drawing, amending condition (12) to the standard foul and surface water drainage condition, and further conditions as set out in the report and the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement. 

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

Ward Members spoke against the application and raised points which included: disappointment that only four Members had attended the site meeting which had been heavily attended by local residents; concerns about the distance between the development and properties in Admirals Walk had not been addressed; KCC Highways and Transportation mentioned an established access on the site, but that did not mean it was to a standard that was suitable for further houses to be built; KCC Highways and Transportation referred to gritter lorries being able to use the road, but the minutes from a Swale Joint Transportation Board meeting stated that that route had been removed, so it was not a gritting route; accept trees on the site might not be to a standard to warrant tree preservation orders but as pointed out at the site meeting, come winter they would have no leaves which would lead to overlooking; the houses would be seen from Minster Road; concerns about the reduction in Section 106 monies, and consider that if the developers could not afford this money perhaps they should not be considering developing the site at all; disagreed with KCC Highways and Transportation, as the Barton’s Hill roundabout would not be able to ease all of the congestion in the area; and the proposed properties were tightly spaced.

Members considered the application and raised the following points: the site visit was very useful as the map did not convey the impact the proposal would have; one proposed property was particularly close to existing properties and would cause serious overlooking; bungalows would be much better suited to the area; the road in Admirals Walk needed to be repaired and updated to a higher standard before any development could be considered; concerned that allowing the developer to reduce Section 106 monies would set a precedent; there was not enough space for vehicles to turn in Admirals Walk; and did not agree that overlooking and distance between houses was an issue as distances proposed were well above what they needed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 210.

To consider the following application:

16/506946/FULL Bell House, Bell Road, Sittingbourne

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that this 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 12 September 2018.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting.

The Planning drew attention to the tabled update, which had previously been emailed to Members, and noted that the Council’s Strategic Housing and Health Manager was happy to accept all 12 units as affordable and considered the tenure split to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr Tim Gibson, objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Jason Chandler, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application and raised points which included: the height of the proposed buildings was ‘hideous’ and unacceptable; the offer of 7% affordable housing was very disappointing; the medical centre proposed made no sense; the proposed development would overlook gardens and properties in Trotts Hall Gardens, this was not fair; just building was not regeneration; was out-of-keeping with the area and buildings including St Michaels Church and the cinema building; would have a detrimental impact on the local area and make adjacent properties including Swale House less desirable to sell; did want the site to be improved but with a sensible proposal; and concerns about lack of parking.

Members considered the application and raised comments and queries which included; thanked officers for the report; how detrimental to the scheme was it if the medical centre was not provided?; what parking allocation was there for the medical centre?; needed to explain the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) objection to scheme?; bizarre comments from Natural England (NE); what would be the implications on UK Power Network if the application was approved?; concerns about the closeness of the development to a Conservation Area and the impact it would have on it; disagreed with the comment in page 8.19 of the Committee report that it would have a ‘less than substantial’ impact on the designated heritage asset, as this would be substantial; could not support with so few parking spaces; considered it a good thing that the medical centre had been provided, as often we heard complaints that there were not enough medical centres provided with large developments; the height of the buildings proposed was not much more than that already at the site; would not have a major impact on the area; sheer height was unacceptable; parking unacceptable; overlooking into Trotts Hall Gardens unacceptable; medical centre was not viable; height and mass too great for the area; not our fault if the medical centre was not viable; a five storey building would be acceptable and much more manageable; more parking spaces could be provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 211.

To consider the attached report (Parts 2 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 12 September 2018.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended.

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to an error on page 102, paragraph 2.04 of the Committee report, which referred to there being four rooflights in the roof of the garage.  He stated that this was incorrect as there were no rooflights proposed.  The Area Planning Officer reported that a letter of objection had been received from the occupiers of the neighbouring property, which he summarised for Members.

Parish Councillor Gary Rosewell, Upchurch Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Brian Evans, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included: concerned about the materials to be used and suggest a condition ensuring that the colour of the materials to be used matched those of the existing dwelling house; concerns about the amount of roof space; concerns about the height of the proposed building in a rural location; the building materials should be in-keeping with the rural location; would prefer to see wooden doors; should defer application until both the applicants and the Parish Council were happy with the proposals; it was a shame that the proposed development was only 50cm from neighbouring boundary fence as it would always cause problems between the two neighbours; the current structure was dangerous and should be demolished; the roof space had already been reduced; condition (2) could specify that the roof space was not allowed to be converted; and unreasonable to suggest using kent peg tiles; and cement roofing was not a bad choice but needed to ensure it was the right colour which could be achieved with the right conditions.

Following comments from the registered speaker about a previous application at the site, the Area Planning Officer referred to the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17 August 2017 which stated: The Area Planning Officer stated that he understood that at the site meeting Members queried whether the planning permission for an outbuilding in a similar position had been implemented.  He advised that the applicant had provided further details in the form of materials and builder’s receipts.  He advised members that it appeared likely to him that the permission has been implemented.’  The Area Planning Officer stated that the situation had not changed and that the minutes of that meeting had been agreed by Members.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following motion: that the application be referred back to the applicant in order that the space in the roof be reduced to 1500mm, and negotiate with officers to reduce the overall height of the building.  This was not seconded.

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.