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 9 November 2023 (Minute Nos. 393 – 405) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 November 2023 (Minute Nos. 393 – 405) 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.

Councillor Kieran Golding Declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest with respect to Item 3.1 and 3.2, War Memorial, Stone Street, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8PZ as he was a member of the Faversham Society. Councillor Golding explained that he had not taken part in any discussions in relation to those items and that we was not predetermined. 

Councillor Mike Baldock Declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest with respect to item 2.2, Land at Wises Lane, Borden, Kent, ME10 1GD as he was a member of Borden Parish Council. He explained that he had not been present at the meeting when the Parish Council had considered the item and that he was not predetermined. 

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

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

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

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

·           It was good to see that the applicant had listened to the Committees previous concerns and had addressed the issues;

·           still struggled to understand why the field needed high fencing; and

·           it was good to have the fence set further back so it was less prominent.

Resolved: That application 23/502598/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (8) 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 Councillor Andy Booth.

Resolved: That application 23/503435/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report. 

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

Oonagh Kerrigan, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

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

·      The flags made a lot of noise for the residents who lived near the development;

·      some of the advertisement boards were misleading;

·      the amount of flags that were located in the same location made the site look cluttered;

·      could the officer clarify whether or not condition (7) could be removed as per the Agent’s request?;

·      if the number of flags was reduced it would make the site more appealing; and

·      thought the signs were typical signage of a new development but the amount of signs in the area was excessive.

The Area Planning Team Leader responded to the query regarding the removal of condition (7), and said that the reason for the condition was to prevent any visual harm caused by the signage being placed in open countryside, prior to the construction of the link road. If advert consent was granted and then subsequently lapsed prior to the link road being completed, then the applicant would have to reapply for advert consent for the signage.

The Area Planning Team Leader referred Members to paragraph 7.2 in the report and said that the content of the signage was not something the Council could control, but when determining applications for advertisement consent, unlike with other planning applications, Members could determine some adverts to be suitable, but refuse others within the same application.

Councillor James Hunt proposed that the three flags at site one be refused due to them leading to an over proliferation of adverts which would create a cluttered appearance and give rise to harm to the visual amenities of the area. This was seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved: That application 23/503582/ADV be approved subject to conditions (1) to (7) in the report, aside from the three flags at site one which were to be refused due to an over proliferation of adverts, giving rise to a cluttered appearance and harm to visual amenity.

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 Councillor Andy Booth.

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

·         It was a shame that the developer had not gone through with the footpath plans as this was needed next to a busy road junction;

·         Preferred the previous design with the ‘hipped’ roofing style;

·         had the Design & Conservation Manager discussed the roof designs with the developers?; and

·         considered that new homes were something that was needed in the area.

The Area Planning Team Leader responded to say that officers had discussed the roof designs with the applicant and the Design and Conservation Manager.

Resolved: That the application 23/501452/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (13) in the report.

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

Jane Clay, an objector, spoke against the application.

A Ward Member and representative of Bobbing Parish Council spoke against the application.

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

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

·           This site was located on a very narrow path and questioned how construction traffic would be able to gain access to the site?;

·           this was near to a school and concerned with children passing the construction site;

·           the parking in the local area was already poor so a larger house would make it worse;

·           thought that extending to the side of the original house would negatively impact other residential houses nearby;

·           concerned with overlooking onto other properties;

·           this was a clear example of overdevelopment; and

·           was it necessary to extend the size of this house when it has already had a loft conversion?

The Chair moved a motion for a site meeting, this was seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved: That application 23/500616/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.  

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

Ann Smith, an objector, spoke against the application.

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

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

·      This site currently had an enforcement case against it and questioned why the applicaiton had been presented to committee?;

·      Ward Members had requested a site visit to address the concerns residents had with this site and that had not been arranged;

·      the application was called in three years ago but due to a change of contractors on the development there had been a delay;

·      if this was a new application for planning permission, would the development need to meet the new current policy standards?;

·      would the housing be based on building control standards of 1997 or updated to modern standards?; and

·      could the committee propose more stringent conditions?

The Area Planning Team Leader responded to Members’ comments and said that as this was a S73 application and related to an amendment to a reserved matters approval, Members were limited on what they could consider and control. He noted that planning applications and enforcement proceedings were separate processes.

Councillor Simon Clark moved a motion for a site meeting. This was seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved: That application 20/501573/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.  

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 Councillor Andy Booth.

Resolved: That the application 22/505369/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (25) in the report.

The Area Planning Team Leader introduced the application as set out in the report. He advised that the War Memorial Trust had subsequently objected to the planning application for the same reasons as they objected to the application for listed building consent. He said that two further objections had been received on grounds which had already been set out in the report. The Area Planning Team Leader also explained that officers had given the applicant a chance to withdraw the application, but the applicant had appealed against non-determination.

Town Councillor Rob Crayford, a representative of Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

Jonathan Carey, an objector, spoke against the application.

A 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 and points raised included:

·      Could the officer clarify who owned the land?;

·      in 2016 a presentation was made to Faversham residents on moving this war memorial and residents were against the move then and were still against it;

·      the Faversham Society were concerned that the war memorial would be damaged if moved;

·      there was an issue over who owned the land and thought that the applicant did not have the right to change land that was not theirs; and

·      the memorial was used by many of the Faversham residents on Remembrance Day.

The Area Planning Team Leader responded and said that matters related to who had the right to carry out the works was not a material planning consideration.

Resolved: That had an appeal against non-determination not been made that the Council would have refused application 23/502500/FULL for the reason set out in the report.

This application was considered with the one above.

The Area Planning Team Leader introduced the application as set out in the report. He said the Council had given the applicant a chance to withdraw the application, but the applicant had appealed against non-determination.

Town Councillor Rob Crayford, a representative of Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

Jonathan Carey, an objector, spoke against the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

Resolved: That had an appeal against non-determination not been made that the Council would have refused application 23/502054/LBC 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 West of Church Road, Tonge, Sittingbourne  

APPEAL ALLOWED

NON-DETERMINATION

·         Item 5.2 – Warren Farm, Warden Road, Eastchurch

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·         Item 5.3 – Land South of The Mounted Rifleman, Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

The meeting was adjourned from 8.48 pm until 8.56 pm.