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 11 September 2025 (Minute Nos. 302 – 311) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 September 2025 (Minute Nos. 302 – 311) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman 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 Ann Cavanagh clarified that item 2.1 25/501437/REM Phases 3 & 4 Wises Lane, Sittingbourne was in her Ward, however as it was adequately represented, she would be considering the item as a Member of the Council where she represented the whole of Swale. 

Councillor Mike Baldock declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 2.1 25/501437/REM Phases 3 & 4 Wises Lane, Sittingbourne as he was a member of Borden Parish Council, but he had not taken part in discussions when the Parish Council had considered the application.

Tabled Update published 30.10.25

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

Gaynor Aspin, representing Borden Wildlife Group, spoke against the application.

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

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

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  She reported that since the report had been published, a response had been received from Kent Police advising they had no further comments.  She referred to the tabled update and apologised that the incorrect location plan had been published.  A corrected location plan was tabled for Members, however that was slightly incorrect and she included the correct location plan within her presentation of the application to Members.

The Chairman sought clarification from officers to points raised by the public speakers in respect of: this could increase fly-tipping; condition (37); light pollution; and badgers.

The Planning Consultant reported that whilst she was aware that there had been issues with fly-tipping in the area, this was not a matter for the Planning Department to get involved with.  She considered that the application followed good urban design principles which could help deter fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour.  Condition (37) referred to highway details which the applicant would need to provide before construction commenced.  The Council’s Environmental Protection Team and Kent County Council (KCC) Ecology and KCC Highways and Transportation had raised no objection to the proposed lighting, and would be consulted further, once an application to discharge the condition had been submitted, to ensure that the levels of lighting were appropriate.  With regard to badgers, the Planning Consultant advised that KCC Ecology had at the hybrid stage acknowledged that badgers would be displaced because of the development, but were satisfied with the conditions imposed to protect badgers.  She referred to condition (59) which required that the applicant submitted an updated badger survey prior to commencing each phase of the development.

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

·         Frustrated by KCC Ecology’s ‘desktop’ approach by not visiting sites;

·         the applicant could provide buffers to protect the nature reserve;

·         concerned regarding Southern Water’s comments in respect of insufficient water drainage information;

·         how would the conditions proposed to protect wildlife be enforced?;

·         Cryalls Lane, Sittingbourne was a rural lane so why was the Council’s Policy on Rural Lanes not referred to within the report?;

·         made no sense to remove a road that provided direct access to the nature reserve, but instead directed visitors through the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 443.

Parish Councillor Julia Bailey, representing Eastling Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Stuart Wharf, an Objector, spoke against the application.

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

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

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

·         This was not within a sustainable location;

·         this could set a precedent for similar applications;

·         this was not the sort of housing which would enable local residents to remain within the village;

·         this would be detrimental to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) now known as National Landscapes;

·         needed to build more properties suitable for the elderly in villages;

·         this was within the built-up area boundary of Eastling;

·         the design was in-keeping with the AONB;

·         this would not set a precedent;

·         the application for a family home would help to keep numbers up at the local school;

·         this was just infilling and should be approved;

·         there were no reasons to refuse this;

·         the Council needed to ensure that future built-up area boundaries applications should not include gardens; and

·         noted the report did not refer to the application as ‘finely balanced’.

Resolved:  That application 25/500935/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

Tabled update published 4 November 2025

Tabled update (2) published 5 November 2025

Keith Tress, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  She referred to the two tabled updates which included:  the Strategic Access management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) contribution update; details of a numbering error to paragraphs 7.10.7 and 7.10.9; and one letter of support.  Following the update regarding the SAMMS payment, the second reason for refusal as set out in paragraph 7.13 of the report had been removed.  She reported that officers considered the application was not self-build as it did not fit the definition.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Brawn.

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

·         The Council would not be able to support any subsequent appeal by the applicant;

·         this would enhance the area and be an improvement on what currently existed;

·         it was ‘deceptive’ to say this was self-build;

·         this would not be harmful to the area;

·         if approved it could set a precedent for the rest of the site;

·         considered it to be infill on a brownfield site and there were no substantial grounds to refuse;

·         could defer the application and look at in the outline stage;

·         would be offset from the main road;

·         this was not out-of-keeping with other dwellings in the area;

·         what was the difference between custom build and self-build?; and

·         this should have been an outline planning application.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) advised that the NPPF did not separate out the definition of custom build and self-build.  The Planning Consultant confirmed that Lower Halstow Parish Council had not commented on the application.

The Chairman said that Members could not pre-determine whether the applicant would appeal if the application was refused.

Resolved:  That application 25/500821/FULL be refused as per the recommendation in the report.

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

Item 5.1 Land on either side of Vigo Lane and Wrens Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 8LA

PINS Decision: APPEAL ALLOWED

Item 5.2 Land at Hill Top Farm, Elverland Lane, Ospringe, Faversham, Kent ME13 0SP

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member welcomed the decision.

Item 5.3 Land at The Yard, Beckenham Park Industrial Estate, Otterham Quay Lane, Sittingbourne ME8 7UX

PINS Decision: Appeal A: APP/V2255/C/25/3366417 NOTICE QUASHED Appeal B : APP/V2255/W/25/3366416 APPEAL ALLOWED Costs Application REFUSED

5.4 91 Chaffes Lane, Upchurch, Kent ME9 7BG

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Item 5.5 The Lodge, Hawks Hill Lane, Bredgar, Kent ME9 8HE

PINS Decision: APPEAL ALLOWED

5.6 Land rear of 6 Coastguard Cottages, Plough Road, Eastchurch, Sheerness, Kent ME12 4JH

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member said it was a ‘perfect’ result.

Item 5.7 2 Parsonage Chase, Minster-on-Sea, Kent ME12 3JL

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member said it was a ‘perfect’ result.

Item 5.8 Pear Tree House, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Kent ME8 8QW

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member congratulated officers and said it was a good decision.

The meeting was adjourned from 8.38 pm until 8.40 pm.