Audio Recording

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 were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on  15 August 2019 (Minute Nos. 182 - 185) and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 29 August 2019 (Minute Nos. ??) as correct records.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 August 2019 (Minute Nos. 182 – 185) and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 29 August 2019 (Minute Nos. 186 – 189) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as correct records.

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.

Councillor David Simmons declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 2.2, 19/501640/FULL, Land North of Highstreet Road, Hernhill.  Councillor Simmons spoke but did not vote on this item.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on Thursday 5 September 2019 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider application 16/503950/FULL,Orchard View, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, nr Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 8QR.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 September 2019 (Minute Nos. 196 - 197) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

16/503950/FULL,Orchard View, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Nr Sittingbourne,  ME8 8QR

The Area Planning Officer responded to some questions that had been raised by Members at the site meeting.  He explained that the Agent had provided evidence of the applicant’s gypsy and traveller status, but had declined to provide any further information, and had referred to the residents of the existing caravans already benefitting from planning permission.  The Area Planning Officer added that the application was for the provision of two additional caravans, and not to determine the status of the existing residents.  In response to a further question raised at the site meeting, the Area Planning Officer explained that there was a requirement for the caravans to be six metres away from the utility building, particularly any part of it that was flammable.  In this case, there was some panelling, and this would need to be removed or replaced by brickwork.  Touring caravans needed to be at least one metre apart if they were being stored, and if occupied at least six metres apart.   The Area Planning Officer referred to Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS), paragraph 13.8, raised at the site meeting, and which set out the aim to promote co-existence between the settled and travelling community.  He explained that allegations raised at the site meeting were not planning considerations.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member acknowledged the distance of 6 metres between caravans, but questioned whether they were six metres away from caravans in the site next door.  The Area Planning Officer explained that this was a licensing matter, and if Members were concerned that a suitable layout could not be achieved, the application could be bought back to the Committee.  He added that condition (4) in the Committee report (15 August 2019) restricted the layout of the site.  He re-iterated that in terms of the relationship with the caravans on the adjacent site, this was a licensing requirement, not a Planning regulation.

A Member asked how many vehicles were permitted on the site?  The Area Planning Officer explained that there was no upper limit on numbers, but there was a restriction on the size of the vehicle, as referred to in condition (3) of the report, and the limit was 3.5 tonnes.  The Member asked whether the number of vehicles could be restricted as it was a narrow site.  The Area Planning Officer explained that it was unusual to restrict the number of vehicles on a site and this would be difficult to enforce in any case.  If there was a material change in the number of vehicles and therefore a change of use, then enforcement action would be taken.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 225.

To consider the following applications:

Deferred Item 1 – 18/502735/FULL – Land at Perry Court, Ashford Road, Faversham

Tabled Paper added 12 September 2019.

Second tabled paper added 16 September 2019.

Deferred Item 2 – 19/501378/FULL – Annex James House, Kent View Drive, Eastchurch

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

Requests to speak on these items must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 11 September 2019.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Senior Planner referred to the two tabled updates for this item and reminded Members that this application had been deferred at the meeting on 30 May 2019.  He outlined changes in the design of the buildings which included reduced areas of rendered wall; and more clarity and detail on external materials.  The exact detail of the external materials would be subject to planning conditions.  The Senior Planner explained that there would be substantial new planting, and the number of trees to be planted had increased from 53 to 79, and the landscaping scheme would be based on the local landscape character, including additional tree planting in the car park as well.  He showed Members the plans first submitted with the application, and how the current design had evolved and improved from these.

Mr John Irwin, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Scott Davidson, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member questioned the absence of a Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation Officer at the meeting and that he was very disappointed in this.  The Development Manager explained that KCC officers had been invited, and reminded the Member that they were not employees of this Council.  He referred to the tabled paper where KCC officers had responded to some questions raised by Members.

A Member asked whether the effects from the change from a convenience store to a 9 x larger supermarket was negligible as noted in paragraph 3.03 of the report.  The Senior Planner explained that these were comments made by the Environmental Protection Team Leader.  He acknowledged that it was a significant change to the outline permission, but that the Applicant could submit a new application for a larger scheme for consideration if they wished to.  The Senior Planner explained that this was a stand alone application for the supermarket and hotel scheme.  The Member referred to paragraph 3.04 and the £20,000 contribution towards off-site electric vehicle (EV) charge points, and asked what the costs were for the charge points, to get some perspective?  The Senior Planner said that a recent Council scheme cost £8,500 per charge point.  The Member asked what the effects of signalisation at the A2/A251 junction would have on air quality?  The Environmental Protection Team Leader explained that signalisation could result in the slow flow of traffic, with the potential to increase air pollution.  The Member asked what a refrigerant heat recovery system was as referred to in paragraph 4.03?  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

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 11 September 2019.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Area Planning Officer reported that a revised parking layout plan had been received, indicating two parking spaces and a lawned area.  However the lawned area had now been replaced with shingle.  He recommended that condition (2) in the report be amended to require the removal of the shingle and it be replaced with lawn.

Mr Keith Woolward, an objector, spoke against the application.

Mr Anthony Faseha, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked whether there was a definition for elderly people, and whether ‘elderly people’ could be added to condition (5) in the report.  The Area Planning Officer advised that there was no planning definition of elderly, but if Members were concerned of any harmful impact of a general care home, then there was a possibility that a condition could be added.

A Member asked if there needed to be a minimum room size?  The Area Planning Officer explained that this would come under the remit of the Care Quality Commission, and was not a planning consideration.

A Member asked whether it was legal to add an age condition?  The Senior Planning Solicitor advised that it was legal to do this.

A Member asked about the modifications to the property in terms of accessibility and the Area Planning Officer advised that this was under the remit of Building Regulations.  He confirmed that there was no lift in the property.

A Member asked about the design and layout and the Area Planning Officer explained that internal works did not require planning permission. 

Councillor Tony Winckless moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Peter Marchington.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Members raised the following points:

·         Understood the concept, but the location was wrong;

·         concerned  about the size of the property for the intended use;

·         in another location it would be more sustainable;

·         impact on traffic;

·         no turning facility on the property;

·         visits from multiple agencies would impact on the location;

·         the properties were too close for this use; and

·         this was inappropriate for the location.

On being put to the vote the substantive motion was lost.

Discussion ensued on the reasons for refusal and the following points were made:

·         Residential amenity;

·         traffic movements in a cul-de-sac; and

·         consideration of residents in the property itself.

Councillor Mike Dendor moved a motion to refuse the application on the following grounds:  That the application caused harm to the residential amenity, by virtue of noise and disturbance and lack of parking, giving rise to on-street parking, and harm to the users of the highway.  This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 227.

The Meeting was adjourned from 9.20pm to 9.28pm.

At 10pm and 10.30pm Members agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders in order that the Committee could complete its business.