The Chair 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 Chair 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 Chair 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 Chair 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 Chair 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 Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 June 2022 (Minute Nos. 138 - 145) as correct records. 

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 June 2022 (Minute Nos. 138 – 145) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair 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 Chair 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 Ben J Martin declared a Disclosable Interest in respect of item 2.2 22/501594/FULL 8 Park Road Faversham as he was a substitute at the Faversham Town Council Planning meeting which decided to bring this application to Planning Committee. He spoke on behalf of Faversham Town Council and then left the meeting during consideration of the item.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 July 2022 (Minute Nos. 186 - 187).

21/506474/FULL Burntwick, The Street, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7EU.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 July 2022 (Minute Nos. 186 – 187) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to a change in the apologies for absence. Councillor Ben J Martin had given his apologies for the meeting.

21/506474/FULL Burntwick, The Street, Upchurch, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7EU

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and outlined the details of the application site, which was close to the centre of Upchurch, but in the countryside. The site was adjacent to the Upchurch Conservation Area boundary and close to St Mary’s Church which was a Grade 1 listed building. Following the comments made at the site visit, the Area Planning Officer provided information on the common daylight assessment which officers used to determine the impacts a development had on neighbouring properties. He showed the Committee drawings which indicated the impact this proposed development would have on neighbouring properties and how it would comply with guidelines for daylight and sunlight. He added that as the Council was not able to demonstrate a five-year housing supply, the titled balance applied to this application despite the location beyond the built-up confines.

A Ward Member, spoke against the application.

The Chair proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

Members considered the application and raised points which included:

·         The site visit was very helpful to understand the concerns of overshadowing from neighbouring properties;

·         even though the site was in the countryside, it was in a sustainable location near to shops and bus stops;

·         upon visiting the site only two properties would be impacted from overshadowing but the impact was minimal;

·         it was good to see residents of Upchurch supporting organic growth of the village to keep younger people in small villages; and

·         villages needed housing for younger families to move into and this proposed development gave them the opportunity to.

Resolved:

(1)  That application 21/506474/FULL be approved subject to payment of the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMMS) contribution and conditions (1) to (21) in the report and tabled update.

To consider the following applications:

20/505921/OUT Land at Highfield Road Minster-On-Sea Kent

19/503511/FULL Cripps Farm Plough Road Minster-On-Sea Sheerness Kent ME12 4JH

*Tabled update for Cripps Farm added 21.07.2022

21/503749/REM Land on the South East Side of Barletts Close Halfway Kent ME12 3EG

*Tabled update for all items published 21.07.22.

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 ‘date’ ‘month’ 2017.

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

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and reminded Members that it had previously been considered at the Planning Committee on 10 March 2022 where it had been deferred for an independent assessment of traffic and highways considerations despite Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation comments advising that they had no concerns with the development.

Simon Braysher, an objector, spoke against the application.

Michelle Bolger, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included:

·         It was important that ‘green lanes’ for wildlife were maintained;

·         concerned that this development would lead to further development into the Important Local Countryside Gap;

·         noted the independent highways advice;

·         understood that the Council needed to supply sufficient housing to meet the 5-year supply, but this site was not sustainable due to the road network around the site;

·         the road and proposed access was unsuitable;

·         Minster needed more greenspaces, rather than housing;

·         the development would bring an increase in the amount of traffic on the narrow road;

·         due to some recent planned roadworks being refused by the Swale Joint Transportation Board, this road would be used as a ‘rat run’ and become very dangerous;

·         the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing supply, and the titled balance was engaged, resulting in less weight on restrictive policies including on the Important Local Countryside Gap;

·         dwellings should be located behind the slope, with soft landscaping (ideally native species) and a community orchard; and

·         this was a well-designed scheme with limited harm. 

The Legal officer reminded Members that where the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing and/or had failed the Housing Delivery Test the ‘titled balance’ set-out in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applied. If the committee were minded to go against the officer recommendation to approve they would need to explain how, in their judgement, the harm significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the proposed development.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.18(2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Gibson, Hall, Hunt, Jackson, Martin, Perkin, Rowles, Simmons, Valentine, Winckless. Total = 10.

Against: Beart, Darby, Eakin, Jayes, Marchington and P Stephen. Total = 6.

Abstain: Total = 0.

Resolved: That application 20/505921/OUT be approved subject to the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 agreement and conditions (1) to (36) in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 205.

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 20 July 2022.

*Tabled updates for Items 2.4 and 3.2 added 21.07.2022

** Item 3.1 has been withdrawn from the agenda.

Part 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Planning Consultant introduced the report which was for a proposed development of up to 44 dwellings on the north of Elm Lane, Minster-on-Sea. The Planning Consultant advised that the site was situated on the edge of the Minster urban area and under the Local Plan Policy ST3, Minster had been designated as an urban area and was one of the areas to provide the potential focus on housing growth within the Borough.

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

Ken Mackness, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Peter Rickard, an objector, spoke against the application.

Andrew Street the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Visiting Ward Members spoke against the application. 

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

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         Kent had the worst patient-to-doctor ratio in the country and the Isle of Sheppey had recently had another General Practice shut down, so how were the additional residents going to see a doctor?;

·         there were only four buses throughout the day in this area which meant residents of the development would be reliant on a car;

·         the report did not provide any comments from the Greenspaces Officer;

·         there was no mention of Historical England’s comments given the impact of the historical railway; and

·         there were not enough measures to improve air quality.

Councillor Elliott Jayes moved a motion for a site meeting. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Darby. On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.18(2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Beart, Darby, Eakin, Gibson, Hall, Jackson, Jayes, Marchington, Perkin, Rowles, P Stephen and Winckless. Total = 12.

Against: Hunt, Martin, Simmons, Valentine. Total = 4.

Abstain: Total = 0.

Resolved: That application 21/503124/OUTbe deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.   

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application which sought retrospective planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension. The proposed extension was 2.2m wide, 2.8m high and 3.05m deep. The Area Planning Officer explained that the extension had been constructed with unrendered breeze blocks and encroached onto the neighbouring property. He advised that the rear of the application could be seen from the conservation area, but the Design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.

The meeting was adjourned from 7.05 pm until 7.15 pm and 9.03 pm until 9.11 pm.

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