To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 March 2022 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider the following applications:

·         20/505921/OUT Land at Highfield Road, Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness, ME12 3BA

·         21/502609/OUT Land to the East of Lynsted Lane, Lynsted, ME9 9QN

Tabled Paper added for the Lynsted Lane item on 10 March 2022.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 March 2022 (Minute Nos. 642 – 644) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

20/505921/OUT Land at Highfield Road, Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness, ME12 3BA

The Planning Contract Officer (Majors) displayed photographs of the street scene taken from 5 March to 9 March 2022, which had been submitted by the Agent. 

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

A Ward Member who was also a member of the Planning Committee, spoke against the application.  He raised points which included:

·           Noted that the photographs had been taken during the working day and suggested they should have been taken in the evening instead to give a more realistic picture of the parking issues along the road; 

·           the position of the proposed access to the application site was too close to the blind brow of the hill; and

·           this development meant the loss of a section of the Important Local Countryside Gap.

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·         Considered that if the Committee voted against this, the Council would lose on appeal; and

·         there were good reasons to refuse the application.

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

At this point the Head of Planning Services used his delegated powers to ‘call-in’ the application.

A Ward Member requested that an independent highways analysis be carried out and reported back to the Committee, and the Committee agreed with this.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee, with the inclusion of an independent highways analysis.

21/502609/OUT Land to the East of Lynsted Lane, Lynsted, ME9 9QN

The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the tabled update prepared following the Planning Working Group meeting held on 1 March 2022.

The visiting Ward Members spoke against the application.

A visiting Member spoke against the application.

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

Members considered the application and points raised included:

·           Pedestrian access through the working joinery to the north of the site was inappropriate and not acceptable;

·           there was a lack of visibility on Lynsted Lane towards the A2 junction;

·           the site was outside the built-up area boundary which was set in policy;

·           an application in nearby Cellar Hill, Teynham had recently been refused and was similar in many ways to this site;

·           Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had not responded to the Cellar Hill application, and the report was contradictory to this application when there were so many similarities with it;

·           access was poor from/to the A2/Lynsted Lane, Teynham;

·           the lane was too narrow to sustain bus routes if the proposed highway works were implemented;

·           advice from KCC Highways and Transportation was ‘ludicrous’;

·           there were already congestion issues on Lynsted Lane and the A2;

·           this site was inappropriate for development;

·           the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) was for 50 houses at this location, suggesting a possibility of further development if this application was approved, but this application was for up to 10 dwellings, which was just below the threshold for affordable housing;

·           did not agree with the views of KCC Highways and Transportation that the proposed mitigation measures would improve the highway situation on Lynsted Lane;

·           this would not be approved if there was not a lack of a five-year housing land supply;

·           the difference with the Cellar Hill application was that the site was nearer and had more impact on a conservation area and listed buildings than this application had;

·           there were issues with supplying keys to residents to lock the gate to the joinery site, with the chance that it might not be re-locked-up each time the gate was opened; and

·           more than three compensatory vehicle spaces were needed for the residents of Lynsted Lane.

In response, the Development Manager reminded Members that they needed to consider the merits of this application, rather than the Cellar Hill application.  He explained that KCC Highways and Transportation had not commented on the Cellar Hill application as it did not meet the threshold, on account of the number of dwellings proposed, required for them to do so.

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

At this point the Head of Planning Services used his delegated powers to ‘call-in’ the application.

The Committee agreed that an independent highway analysis be carried out, including the implications of the proposed development for the existing bus route along Lynsted Lane, and that the results be reported back to the Committee in due course.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee, with independent highway advice and bus route information also to be included and the results reported back to the Committee.