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 September 2024 (Minute Nos. 234 - 242) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 September 2024 (Minute Nos.234 - 242) 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.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report and advised that the applicant had submitted further details about the levelling of the land. The Planning Consultant explained that the provision of open space was a requirement of the s106 attached to the hybrid planning permission.

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

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

Resolved: That application 24/500856/REM be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 4 September 2024 (Minute Nos. 193 - 194).

To consider application 24/500508/FULL, Camwa Ash, Bull Lane, Boughton Under Blean, Faversham, ME13 9AH.  

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 4 September 2024 (Minute Nos. 193 – 194) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

24/500508/FULL Camwa Ash, Bull Lane, Boughton-Under-Blean, Faversham, ME13 9AH.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report and advised there were no further updates.

Parish Councillor Sarah Moakes, representing Boughton-Under-Blean Parish Council, spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

Councillor Tony Winckless proposed adding an additional condition that required the hedge to remain on the site permanently. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer and on being put to the vote, agreed.

Resolved: That application 24/500508/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report, with the additional condition that the hedge on the site remained permanently.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

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

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·      Sought clarity on how many units would be allocated as social housing?;

·      the height of the building was a concern but understood that due to the location of the site, the impact would be minimal;

·      could officers ensure that the extension be made with the same materials as the existing building?;

·      thought it was good to see the third floor set back from the high street;

·      concerned that only four car parking spaces were being proposed and that it would be unnecessary pressure on the town centre car parks;

·      could officers ask the developer to fit wastewater heat recovery kits for the showers?

·      the development was the right place to introduce a car sharing scheme;

·      why had the proposal not included a green roof rather than solar panels?; and

·      were the four car parking spaces Electric Vehicle (EV) charging parking spaces?

The Planning Consultant responded to points raised and said that there were only three units that were allocated as first homes, which meant the price would be capped at 30% below market value/£250,000.

Regarding the car parking spaces the officer said that the location of the site was in a highly sustainable area that did not require the residents to own a car. The four car parking spaces had EV chargers and an informative could be added to make the developer aware of the wastewater heat recovery kits that could be fitted on the showers in each unit.

The Planning Consultant confirmed that the design of the extension would be the same as the existing building and that the developer had agreed to replace all windows of the existing building. The green roof design had been proposed to slow down the wastewater run-off from the site into the sewers, the green vegetation would aid this with the collection of water before it reached the sewerage of the high street.

Councillor Angela Harrison proposed that two extra words be added to the mitigation table for the NHS contributions on page 49, paragraph 5.5 of the report, and it be amended to read: Towards refurbishment, facilities, equipment, reconfiguration and/or extension of existing general practice and other healthcare premises covering the area of development or new premises for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 334.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report.

Councillor Sue Henderson, representing Selling Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Robin Gardiner, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·      What was the number of containers that the original permission in 2019 allowed for?;

·      the proposal was not much bigger than what had already been approved;

·      what was the purpose of the containers?;

·      what was the Area of Natural Outstanding Bodies (AONB) position on the proposal?;

·      concerned that if Members were to approve this, they would be rewarding bad behaviour;

·      the 2019 condition did not include the storage of pallets on the site, what was the position of the pallets?;

·      what was the increase in the height and length of the site?; and

·      thought that this was not a suitable location for the storage of containers or pallets.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) responded to points raised and said that there was no specific number of containers which the relevant condition on the 2019 planning permission allowed, rather it was the dimensions of the building that allowed an assessment of this to be made. He added that the storage of pallets was a matter that the Planning Investigations team were currently dealing with.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) said that the additional height of this proposal was 1.1 metres, giving it a total height of 4.9 metres and the building would be 32 metres in length. He added that the Kent Downs AONB Unit (now Kent Downs National Landscape) was not consulted on for this application as they were not a statutory consultee and because the site had an extant planning permission.

The Chair proposed that the application be deferred for a site visit, that the Kent Downs National Landscape Unit be consulted and the possibility of biodiversity enhancements on the building be explored. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless and on being put to the vote, agreed.

Resolved: That application 22/502692/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site visit. That the Kent Downs National Landscape Unit be consulted and for biodiversity enhancements on the building to be explored.

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

Councillor Jill Stimson, representing Minster-on-Sea Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Simon Kight, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Alan Doughty, an objector, spoke against the application.

Richard Walters, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member, spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

-     Paragraph 4.4 of the report mentioned a Multi-use Community Hub, but this was not secured in the outline application;

-     had no confidence that the developer would deliver on the medical hub;

-     concerned with the highway works and the issues it would cause across the Isle of Sheppey;

-     the footpath at Scocles Road, Minster, was not wide enough for cyclists and there were no proposals to widen it;

-     often large coaches would use the Scocles Road junction to get to schools and this made it dangerous for pedestrians to use Scocles Road;

-     if there was further development at Scocles Road then an additional roundabout needed to be considered;

-     the cycle and footpaths would need to be lit so that they could be used in the evenings;

-     there was no mention of youth clubs by Kent County Council (KCC);

-     full Travel Plan should be secured at outline stage;

-     development would harm the Grade II listed Scocles Court;

-     the Kent County Council (KCC) Highways Team said that they would be happy for 300 homes to be built before the Lower Road footpath works commenced but this should be lowered to 100 homes;

-     it was not clear when the funding would be made available for key services and amenities such as a bus service;

-     the Public Rights of Way Officer (PROW) had commented that the development would have a negative effect on the landscape;

-     open spaces, green spaces, play space, sports pitches and allotments should be secured;

-     the location of the care homes was too close to the community areas of the development;

-     the road network was not adequate to accommodate for the development on the Isle of Sheppey;

-     the developer should have done better with the design and communication with parish and ward councillors;

-     it was not clear what level of funding was expected from the development as KCC had provided two different letters that conflicted each other;

-     all funding should be allocated to infrastructure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 336.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Tabled Update for item 3.1 published 8 October 2024.

The Chair referred to the tabled update that had been submitted since the publication of the agenda. On the basis that the scheme complied with all the conditions and requirements, Planning Officers were now recommending that prior approval was not required. Members agreed that in withdrawing the agenda item, they agreed with the officer’s recommendation.

Resolved:

(1)   That application 24/503608/PNQCLA be withdrawn.

The Meeting was adjourned at 8.18 pm until 8.36 pm.

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