Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2023 (Minute Nos. 352 – 355) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 October 2023 (Minute Nos. 353 – 355) 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, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

Tabled update added 09.11.2023

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

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.

Roger Down, President of Sittingbourne Rugby Club, spoke in support of the application.

Gaynor Aspin, a member of Borden Residents Against Development (BRAD), spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor James Hunt. 

The Chair invited Members to make comments and points raised included:

·           The widening of Cryalls Lane, Sittingbourne, was still a concern and asked for an update;

·           the Environmental Health Officers (EHO) had not visited the site in person to consider the impact of the lighting on the nature reserve;

·           asked if the floodlights in the car park were covered on this application?;

·           did not understand why Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation considered that Cryalls Lane, Sittingbourne was appropriate for the site entrance and not Wises Lane, Sittingbourne;

·           the coach and lorry turning point in the car park was too tight;

·           noted that there was only one coach parking space;

·           could a no-right turn be installed at the exit of the site to prevent vehicles from going down narrow rural lanes?;

·           pleased that the original concerns had been addressed;

·           good to see the amount of proposed biodiversity;

·           was the widening of the road happening before or after the works on the site began?;

·           could an extra condition be imposed to prevent the lightening from facing the nature reserve?; and

·           concerned about the impact this development could have on the nature reserve as it was very close.

The Planning Consultant responded to points members raised and explained that the current application was only proposing the widening of Cryalls Lane from the entrance to the site and Wises Lane. He added that proposals in future phases of the Wises Lane development would propose further widening of Cryalls Lane, but that would be for Committee to consider at future committee meetings. The Planning Consultant responded to the flood lights in the car park and explained to Members that an External Lighting Strategy only included the car parking areas and it was KCC Ecology’s opinion that the light impact would be minimal on the nature reserve. He added that the external lights on site could not be installed until a full assessment had taken place which would ensure that the external lighting scheme would not face or impact on the nature reserve.

In response to the no-right turn condition, the Development Manager said that members needed to consider that this was just an application for reserved matters, and the section 106 agreement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 396.

The Interim Major Team Lead introduced the application as set out in the report.

Parish Councillor Peter MacDonald, representing Minster Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Jo Kemp, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting ward member spoke against the application. 

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.

The Chair invited members to make comments which included:

·      Pleased that the developer had listened to the committee concerns and worked with officers to improve the design;

·      it was good to see that the design included materials that matched the surrounding area;

·      the size was a concern but a nursing home was needed in the area;

·      the location of the site made it easy for relatives to visit family members in the care home; and

·      the committee and officers had worked hard on designing a good development for the area.

Resolved:

(1)   That application 23/501017/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report.

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended.

The Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.

Parish Councillor Peter MacDonald, representing Minster Parish Council, spoke against the application.

John Collins, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting ward member spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

The Chair invited Members to make comments which included:

·           That there were different sized properties in Scarborough Drive, Minster;

·           the borough needed more affordable bungalows for the elderly; and

·           the development was a good use of the site.

Resolved: That application 23/502301/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (14) in the report.

The Area Planning Team Leader introduced the application as set out in the report.

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

Resolved: That application 23/503705/ADV be approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.

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

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

Resolved: That application 23/502412/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report.

The Area Planning Team Leader introduced the application as set out in the report. The Area Planning Team Leader referred to the planning history of the site. He referred to the three staged approach outlined in conditions (18), (19), and (20) of the application in relation to noise.

Parish Councillor Jeff Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

A visiting ward member spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, which included:

·      Thought that having a permanent building rather than a portacabin looked better;

·      it was not right that after completing the building that it could remain dormant for a number of months until it was noise compliant;

·      the conditions that officers had proposed were very tight; and

·      the applicant could do more to create a more sustainable build such as, solar panels and battery powered generators.

The Area Planning Team Leader responded to say that condition (25) had already met policy requirements for this sized development in terms of sustainable construction. If members felt that additional requirements were needed, they would need to be specific as to what the applicant would need to install. In response to the battery generator, the Area Planning Team Leader said that this was something that could be added to condition (18).

Councillor Terry Thompson proposed that condition (18) be amended to include a battery operated back-up generator in case the site lost power and that the provision of solar panels was added to condition (25). This was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark and on being put to the vote agreed by members.

Resolved: That application 22/505369/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (25) in the report and the amended wording to conditions (18) and (25) as minuted.

Tabled Update added 09.11.2023

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.

Kate Coventry, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting ward member spoke against the application.

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

The Chair invited members to make comments, which included:

·      The officers had not considered all the mitigating factors for refusal;

·      the proposed two new roundabouts were being installed at junctions that were already at capacity;

·      the access to the site was dangerous as it was close to three schools;

·      parking in the area was a problem because of the schools traffic;

·      there were no bus services in the area;

·      lack of healthcare provision to accommodate more housing;

·      there would be a social impact on the residents who had an allotment, who would have to travel further to get to their allotments if Riddles Road, Sittingbourne was closed;

·      would be asking residents to drive further which would negatively impact the environment;

·      the developer had not engaged with local Councillors and Parish Councils; and

·      could the social impact of the closure of Riddles Road, Sittingbourne be added as a reason for refusal?

The Development Manager responded to the social impact of the closure of Riddles Road and said that this would be a difficult condition to evidence as KCC Highways and Transportation had no objections to the closure of the road. She added that it would be difficult to defend the application on those grounds at any subsequent appeal.

The Vice-Chair proposed that delegated authority be given to the officers to find the relevant National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph, in consultation with ward members, and the appropriate wording for the social impact the development would have on residents as an extra reason for refusal. This was seconded by the Chair but on being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Resolved: That application 22/505646/OUT be refused for the reason set out in the report.

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information.

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information.

·         Item 5.1 – Land at School Lane Newington

APPEAL ALLOWED

AGAINST OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

A member was disappointed of the outcome.

·         Item 5.2 – Land Adj Checkmate New Road Sheerness

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.3 – Telegraph Pole Lower Road Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.4 – Land to east of Lynsted Land Lynsted

APPEAL ALLOWED

AGAINST OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

A member commented that this was a poor decision from the inspector and that they had not properly considered the highways report or the impact it would have on the local area. The member added that this application conflicted with the Councils policies in the local plan.

·         Item 5.5 – Land Adj The Coach House Chalkwell Road Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGARED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.6 – Oast View Track to Kingsdown Church Kingsdown

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.7 – 4 The Retreat The Street Doddington

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

The meeting was adjourned from 7.41 pm until 7.45 pm and 8.40 pm until 8.50 pm.

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