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 Chairman outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 May 2025 (Minute Nos. 16 – 17) and the Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 May 2025 (Minute Nos. 40 – 48) as correct records.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 May 2025 (Minute Nos. 16 – 17) and the Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 May 2025 (Minute Nos. 40 – 48) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as correct records.

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 Ann Cavanagh declared an interest in respect of Item 2.3 24/502717/OUT Land West of Borden Lane, Sittingbourne.  Councillor Cavanagh had called the application in and she said she would speak on the item as a Committee Member, rather than a Ward Member.

Councillor Mike Baldock explained that he sat on Borden Parish Council where Items 2.1 24/501839/ADV Hooks Hole Farm, School Lane, Borden, 2.3 24/502717/OUT Land West of Borden Lane, Borden and 2.4 24/503677/FULL Land off Riddles Road, Sittingbourne had been discussed.  He had taken no part in the discussions on items 2.3 and 2.4, but did on item 2.1 and declared an interest on that item.  Councillor Baldock said he would speak as a Ward Member on item 2.1.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen declared an interest in respect of item 2.5 24/504519/REM Land to the east of Lynsted Lane, Lynsted as he had spoken on a previous application for this site.  He said he would consider the application with an open mind, based on the latest information.

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

Parish Councillor Clive Simms, representing Borden Parish Council spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

·         Clarification sought on how close the proposed signs were to the Conservation Area;

·         this was quite a prominent location;

·         needed to take heed of the protection of the Conservation Area and the integrity of the countryside; and

·         considered signage could demean an area.

In response, the Team Leader said the building where the signs were proposed to be attached was outside the conservation area, which had been extended in 2021.  He drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 7.7 to 7.9 in the report which considered the impact of the application on the visual amenity of the area.  The Council’s Heritage Officer had been consulted and they had no objections to the application.

Resolved: That application 24/501839/ADV be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

Please note: this item was withdrawn from the agenda on 16 July 2025.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  She said that since the report had been published, a further representation had been received from Southern Water which had included points already noted in the report.  A further representation had been received from a member of the public who considered the comments received on the application were ignored.

Parish Councillor Lee Small, representing Borden Parish Council spoke against the application.

Ian Hunter, an objector, spoke against the application.

Ryan Nicholls, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark.

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

·         There was a demand for care homes and there were vacancies in the Borden area;

·         considered care homes should be included within larger developments, not as a standalone;

·         the application was in conflict with several of the Council’s policies;

·         the site was within an Important Local Countryside Gap;

·         concerned with the impact on wildlife habitats;

·         noted that the committee was not privy to some of the wildlife data received on the site;

·         the car park on the site was right next to the nature reserve and this was detrimental to wildlife and considered this outweighed the benefits of the application;

·         the traditional orchard on the site was a priority habitat;

·         the application meant a loss of biodiversity and agricultural land;

·         considered it strange that a compensatory orchard would be established in Faversham as part of the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG);

·         understood Kent County Council (KCC) Ecology carried out desktop reviews of studies, rather than going out on site;

·         considered the Committee should be allowed to view the badger reports;

·         there was really good wildlife connectivity at this location and this would be lost;

·         the secure fencing around the care home would impact wildlife;

·         considered off-site mitigation measures for the impact for the loss of traditional orchard was not sufficient;

·         moving wildlife to another location was not always successful;

·         needed to consider the impact of the removal of the green corridor on the mental health of residents, this was the last bit of green between Sittingbourne Town and Borden Village;

·         concerned with access from the site onto a busy road;

·         referring to paragraph 5.18 on page 88 of the agenda pack, considered there should be National Health Service (NHS) contributions as the residents might need medical care outside of the care home;

·         considered the site was no longer an orchard, but an overgrown parcel of land;

·         highlighted that the nearest bus stop to the application site was 0.7 miles away;

·         the Committee should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 202.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  She reported that the applicant had submitted a new drawing to indicate solar panels on each dwelling.  The Planning Consultant said condition (12) would be amended to reflect the new drawing.  Reference to car parking on the first page of the report needed to be deleted. Also, in paragraphs 7.8.5 and 7.8.6, the word ‘not’ was missed off, so it would now read as:  LVIA was not independently assessed….  The Planning Consultant also advised that the application was assessed against the Kent minerals and waste local plan.

Parish Councillor Lee Small, representing Borden Parish Council spoke against the application.

Sarah Booker, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark.

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

·         The application would result in the loss of an Important Local Countryside Gap;

·         there would be a loss of wildlife corridors with no realistic safe way for wildlife to move around;

·         overlooking issues;

·         the access was too close to an existing property;

·         concerned with the impact on local schools and GP provision, the contributions were not enough;

·         the layout was not good, it appeared to be a long cul-de-sac, with no sense of community or focal point to it;

·         there was a loss of connectivity for wildlife;

·         the affordable housing needed to be integrated to achieve social cohesion;

·         the development did not complement the area or itself;

·         the back gardens were really small;

·         the design of the dwellings needed to be improved; and

·         smaller affordable/family homes were needed.

The Planning Consultant said the affordable housing was set out in the northern part of the development and this was because the registered providers preferred to have the affordable housing situated together for management purposes.

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

Councillor Mike Baldock moved the following motion to refuse the application and this was seconded by the Chairman:

(1)  That the proposed development, by virtue of the position of the proposed dwellings outside the built-up area boundaries of the Swale Borough would conflict with the Council's Settlement Strategy.  Moreover, the development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the locality, result in the affordable housing being segregated within the site and conflict with the purposes of the Important Local Countryside Gap.   The proposal is, therefore, unacceptable and contrary to policies ST1, ST3, CP4, DM8, DM14, DM24 and DM25 of Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Council Local Plan 2017 and the National Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 203.

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

Roy Gosling, an objector, spoke against the application.

Megan Smith, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark.

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

·         Residents of Lynsted Lane would suffer if the application was approved;

·         clarification sought on how the car parking for existing residents would be enforced;

·         loss of amenity;

·         there was obstruction along the lane on bin days;

·         there was no evidence of the 10% BNG;

·         there was no long term management scheme;

·         the conditions which the Planning Inspector had set out should be upheld;

·         the application should be refused or deferred until more information on bio-diversity and a highway plan submitted;

·         welcomed two and three bedroom houses, rather than four bedrooms;

·         lack of open space;

·         there was an opportunity to create a nice estate here, but this was back-to-back and a ‘lazy’ design;

·         the parking layout was poor;

·         the application would impact heavily on Lynsted Lane;

·         this did not enhance the local area;

·         concerned with the removal of some of the existing hedging;

·         there should be more solar panels on the development;

·         Lynsted Lane was a very narrow lane;

·         the layout was not a good design;

·         the design would be improved if there was a square in the middle of the development; and

·         this was difficult to approve if full details of the BNG was not known.

In response, the Planning Consultant explained that KCC Highways & Transportation had considered that the parking issues along Lynsted Lane were caused by illegal parking.  Condition (4) of the outline application required details of off-site works, and KCC were satisfied with the compensation car parking spaces.  She explained that about half the existing hedgerow needed to be removed to provide visibility splays.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) reminded the committee that access had already been approved and Members should now be considering internal layout, landscaping, scale and appearance.  The applicant still needed to submit details to comply with conditions of the outline planning permission where necessary.

Resolved: That application 24/504519/REM be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

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

Item 5.1 - Land at Eden Top, Sheppey Way, Bobbing, Kent, ME9 8QP

PINS Decisions:

Section 73 Application (Committee Decision) - Appeal Allowed

Enforcement Notice Appeal – Allowed

Two Applications for an Award of Costs – Refused

Item 5.2 - 89 London Road, Teynham, Kent ME9 9QL

PINS Decision: Appeal Allowed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.3 – Peternel, Elm Way, Eastchurch, Kent ME12 4JP

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

A Member welcomed the result.

Item 5.4 - Building 3, Hales Court, Paradise Farm, Lower Hartlip Road, ME9 7SU

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

A Member sought clarification on the Council’s five-year housing land supply figure.  The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) confirmed that the current figure was 3.98 years.

Item 5.5 - Land at junction of Fox Hill and Blossom Street, Bapchild,

Sittingbourne

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.6 - Central Communal Garden, Sommerville Close, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8HP

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.7 - 30 Harps Avenue, Minster-on-Sea, Kent ME12 3PH

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.8 - Land West of Salvation Place, Bell Farm Lane, Minster-on-Sea,

Sheerness, Kent, ME12 4JB

PINS Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

Item 5.9 - Land to the East of Scocles Rd, Minster-on-Sea

PINS Decision: Appeal Allowed

Appeal against Non-Determination

Item 5.10 - Land at Ham Road, Faversham, Kent ME13 7TX

PINS Decision: Appeal Allowed

Committee or Officer Decision: Delegated Decision

A Member considered this was a disappointing result.

The meeting was adjourned from 8.47 pm until 8.57 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.