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 Chairman 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 (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 room 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.

No interests were declared.

10am – (2.4) Orchard View, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Nr Sittingbourne, Kent, ME8 8QR.

The Chairman welcomed Members, the applicant and members of the public to the meeting.

The Senior Planner introduced the application which sought to vary condition (2) of planning permission SW/13/0706 to allow a total of four residential mobile homes and four touring caravans on the site.  He explained that the application site was an existing authorised gypsy site measuring approximately 92m deep by 15m wide, and that the proposed front unit would be set back 22m from the access gate. 

The Senior Planner advised that there had been 7 letters of objection from local residents and one from Upchurch Parish Council, and their comments were outlined in the report.  He added that Kent County Council Highways and Transportation had raised no highway safety issues.

Gary Rosewell, Upchurch Parish Council, raised safety concerns and described a fire on the site at which a fire engine had been unable to access the site due to caravans being positioned too closely together.  He also raised concern that there were already regularly more caravans on site than the current permission allowed.

Local residents raised other objections including:

·        Disruption to and affect on trade at the adjoining public house;

·        food and other detritus discarded over boundary fence;

·        loose dogs on the site and running in the road;

·        lack of space within the site for parking;

·        travellers trespassing into public house to use toilet facilities;

·        lack of social cohesion due to frequent change in residents on site; and

·        anti-social behaviour issues.

In response, the applicant said that residents of the site had their own bins to dispose of rubbish, there were toilet facilities in the caravans and he disputed that there were loose dogs or a breach of the number of caravans allowed on the site.  He added that travellers had tried to integrate by using the public house and his son played football for the village team.

A Ward Member sought clarification on the gypsy status of residents at the site.  The Senior Planner explained that officers had long-term experience of the family and advised that the Agent had provided a statement of evidence which could be circulated to Members.

In response to another Ward Member, the landlord of the public house clarified that travellers were not banned from the public house, but any visitor that was disruptive would be excluded.

Members viewed the application site with officers.