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 11 November 2021 (Minute Nos. 425 - 430) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 November 2021 (Minute Nos. 425 – 430) 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 Interests (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 meeting 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 Ken Rowles declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 3.1 21/500173/FULL, Land east of Hawes Woods, High Oak Hill, Iwade Road, Newington.  Councillor Rowles remained in the Council Chamber with an open mind and intended to debate and vote on the item.

Councillor Mike Baldock declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 3.1 21/500173/FULL, Land east of Hawes Woods, High Oak Hill, Iwade Road, Newington.  Councillor Baldock remained in the Council Chamber with an open mind and intended to debate and vote on the item.

Councillor James Hunt declared a Disclosable Non-Pecuniary Interest in respect of item 3.1 21/500173/FULL, Land east of Hawes Woods, High Oak Hill, Iwade Road, Newington, and had previously made comments on the application.  Councillor Hunt left the Council Chamber during the discussion and as such did not debate or vote on the item.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 November 2021 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider application 21/504571/FULL - Greystone, Bannister Hill, Borden, ME9 8HU.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 29 November 2021 (Minute Nos. 448 – 449) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

21/504571/FULL GREYSTONE, BANNISTER HILL, BORDEN, ME9 8HU

The Area Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled update for this application, which included comments from Borden Parish Council, an update on highway matters and comments from local residents.  Borden Parish Council had considered that there were badgers on the site, however the applicant said there was no evidence of badgers and had asked an ecologist to investigate.  The ecologist had also said there was no evidence of badger setts or activity on the site.  Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation had no objection on highway grounds.

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

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee spoke against the application.  He raised concern with the impact of the development on existing neighbours.  The Ward Member considered the principle of development to be acceptable at this location, but suggested a bungalow be built, rather than a house.  He said it was over-development, there were issues of increased traffic and it would have a significant impact on the Conservation Area.

In the debate that followed, Members raised the following points:

·         Concerned with the access road in terms of visibility;

·         Plot 4 was very close in proximity to the neighbouring properties;

·         a bungalow would be a better option;

·         acknowledged that the development would have an impact, but the distance from neighbouring properties was over the minimum distance required;

·         whilst some trees had been removed, this had added more light to the site;

·         highway issues were an existing problem;

·         this was not within the conservation area;

·         a single-storey building would not alter any highway issues;

·         this was over-development; and

·         impact on the conservation area.

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

There was some discussion on the possible reasons for refusal which included: overdevelopment; the impact on neighbouring properties; impact on the conservation area; and highway visibility.

In response, the Conservation & Design Manager explained that the degree of harm to the setting of the conservation area was quite low as the properties were set back on the site, and with some trees on the site it was questionable as to whether this reason would stand-up at any appeal.  The Area Planning Officer advised that over-development was not a good reason as the site was large and it was not a dense development.

Some Members noted that comments from KCC Highways & Transportation and the Consultant had concluded that highway issues were not an issue on this development.

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds of over-development in terms of the over-bearing impact on neighbouring properties and the detrimental impact on the setting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 500.

To consider the following applications:

Def Item 1 – 21/504571/FULL Greystone, Bannister Hill, Borden

Tabled Papers added 8 December 2021.

Additional Information which might be referred to added 8 December 2021.

Def Item 2 – 21/501740/FULL Hill Farm, Rook Lane, Keycol Hill, Bobbing

Additional Information which might be referred to added 8 December 2021.

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 8 December 2021.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

This item was withdrawn from the agenda and the above application was considered under the Planning Working Group.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application which had previously been considered by the Planning Committee in October 2021.  She explained that it was an enabling development to fund Demelza House hospice facilities.  The current application included revised developer contributions, with greater Section 106 contributions, additional housing and significant highway improvements.  The Senior Planning Officer referred to paragraphs 3.22 to 3.27 of the report which outlined the benefits for the hospice.

Mr Andrew Wilford, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

In the debate that followed, Members raised the following points:

·         Welcomed the work carried out by the developer and officers which resulted in increased Section 106 Agreement contributions;

·         disappointed with the lack of affordable housing on the site;

·         this was over-intensive development and did not consider the site was large enough for 30 dwellings;

·         the design of the housing was poor;

·         concerned that the 2018 permission had commenced, despite viability arguments;

·         three of the nurse units could be considered as affordable housing as key worker accommodation;

·         welcomed the junction improvements;

·         the air quality issues had now been addressed;

·         the enabling aspect of the application outweighed the lack of affordable housing;

·         the viability assessment indicated that affordable housing would not have been delivered; and

·         the design was much better now.

A Member sought clarification on the 5-year housing supply and the Head of Planning Services advised that it was not currently possible to give a precise figure, but it was hoped this could be given before Christmas this year.

On being put to the vote, Councillor Mike Baldock requested that it be recorded that he voted against the application.

Resolved:  That application 21/501740/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (44) in the report and the completion of a suitably-worded Section 106 legal agreement, and with authority to amend the wording of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 501.

PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

1.1    Land at Spade Lane, Hartlip

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report and said that an Article 4 Direction was served at the site in August 2021, removing permitted development rights for temporary uses of land.  This remained in force for six months and was due to expire on 12 February 2022 unless confirmed.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

Resolved: That the Article 4 Direction made on 12 August 2021 be confirmed and delegated authority be given to officers to undertake, in consultation with Mid-Kent Legal Services, the preparation of any necessary documentation including site and press notices and that officers carry out any required notification to interested parties and the Secretary of State.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application.  He drew attention to paragraph 2.3 of the report which set-out the dwelling mix for the development, where the figure for two-bedroom dwellings was incorrect.  It should be 34 such units as set-out in paragraph 8.6 on page 172 of the report.  The Senior Planning Officer reminded Members that this was a reserved matters application with 171 dwellings, built in a traditional style, including features such as front-facing gables and bay windows, among other architectural features.

Parish Councillor John Stanford, representing Minster Parish Council spoke against the application.

Matthew Blythin, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Committee, spoke against the application.  He spoke on the adjacent 60mph road, lack of footpath, lack of infrastructure and dangerous position of the emergency access.

The Chairman moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site. This was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.

There was some discussion on the merits of a site meeting and what would be achieved.  The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to paragraph 8.22 on page 174 of the report in relation to the footpath and explained that as this was a reserved matters application this did not give the scope to provide any additional off-site footpath at this stage.  He explained that this application did provide for footpath linkages into Scocles Road, and details were also shown of a nearby development which benefitted from planning permission and which, under the terms of that permission, secured footpaths along Scocles Road.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 502.

The Meeting was adjourned from 8.32 pm until 8.38 pm and from 10.06 pm until 10.16 pm.

At 10 pm, 10.30 pm and 11 pm Members agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders in order that the Committee could complete its business.