10 am – Item 2.2 20/505921/OUT Land at Highfield Road, Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness, ME12 3BA

11.45 am – Item 2.5 21/502609/OUT Land to the East of Lynsted Lane, Lynsted, ME9 9QN

PRESENT:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Simon Clark, Tim Gibson (Chairman), James Hall, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, David Simmons, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.

OFFICERS PRESENT:  Billy Attaway, James Freeman, Elizabeth Jump and Alun Millard.

APOLOGIES: Councillors Monique Bonney, Mike Dendor, Oliver Eakin, James Hunt, Peter Marchington and Paul Stephen.

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

The Planning Officer introduced the application which sought planning permission, all matters reserved aside from access,  for 16 residential dwellings and a scheme to include approximately 0.7 hectares of open space and community orchard. She stated that the application was outside of the settlement boundary and fell within an Important Countryside Gap, and that the site was within a sustainable location within walking distance of local amenities and transport links. She referred to the appeal decision for a similar decision at Bartletts Close, Halfway where the Planning Inspector had approved the application and considered that whilst the site was outside the settlement boundary and within an Important Countryside Gap it was acceptable.

Members of the public raised the following issues:

·                     If the development went ahead there would be hardly anywhere for the wildlife on the Isle of Sheppey;

·                     the development would cause harm to wildlife;

·                     the land used to be grazing land and hoped to see it returned to grazing land;

·                     this ‘countryside gap’ was essential in maintaining countryside on the Isle of Sheppey;

·                     feared that the land next to the proposed development would be used in the future to build even more homes on a small site;

·                     a reservoir nearby was causing leaks to neighbouring properties and this development would make it worse;

·                     concerned with service and construction vehicles getting to the site as the access road and surrounding roads were not wide enough;

·                     there were too many blind spots down Highfield Road and it was too small for large vehicles to turn around;

·                     concerned that Highfield Road would be used as a ‘rat run’ for vehicles avoiding the main road;

·                     did the traffic assessment plan take residents parked vehicles into consideration?; and

·                     Highfield Road was a residential road not a road suitable for construction traffic and extra housing.

The Applicant’s Agent made the following points:

·                     A community orchard and open space would be built to help encourage biodiversity and wildlife to the site;

·                     transport consultants had undertaken a transport assessment based on 19 dwellings and helped the applicant design access to the site in line with the transport assessment;

·                     the development would provide enough parking facilities on-site;

·                     the number of construction vehicles being used on the site was very small and would have little impact on the surrounding roads; and

·                     landscaping designs had been made to mitigate the impact of landscaping views on the surrounding areas.  

A Ward Member thanked the members of public for coming along to the meeting and hoped that Members had taken into consideration the local residents’ concerns.

A Member sought clarification from the Applicant’s agent on the location of the proposed sites and the Applicant’s agent showed the Member the proposed parameter plan of the site. 

Members viewed the application site with officers.