To consider the following application:

21/505041/OUT Land North of Lower Road, Eastchurch, Kent

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the application will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

Tabled paper added 25 May 2023.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  She drew attention to the tabled update which included an amendment to condition (16).  The Planning Consultant gave a comprehensive overview of the application, bearing in mind that there were newly elected Members on the Committee.  She summarised and referred to the tilted balance and stated that as the Council did not have a 5-year housing supply, officers recommended the application be granted, unless there were material planning considerations not to, and she said officers considered the benefits of the scheme outweighed any harm.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

Two visiting Members spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, to include the amendment to condition (16) and the Section 106 Agreement as set out on the tabled paper, and this was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.

In response to a question, the Senior Lawyer explained the process of how Section 106 monies were determined, based on details of where growth was likely to occur and where additional health and education etc. facilities were required.  This process would have taken place with this application and the monies for education had been directed to secondary schools in Sittingbourne, the nearest secondary schools to the application site, rather than the Isle of Sheppey. She added that the Academy on the Isle of Sheppey was not under the jurisdiction of Kent County Council (KCC) and was funded elsewhere, and as such the funds from the Section 106 Agreement would not be directed there.

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

·         Welcomed the inclusion of 15% affordable housing on the development;

·         concerned with the effect of the development on groundwater;

·         the development would add to congestion on Lower Road;

·         the roads were not suitable for further development;

·         the site was unsustainable, with a lack of health and education provision, and this outweighed the tilted balance;

·         the infrastructure was not sufficient now, prior to any more development;

·         acknowledged that local knowledge of the area was up against the views of the statutory consultees although there were mitigation measures through the Section 106 Agreement;

·         this would be difficult to defend on appeal if the statutory consultees had no objection to the application;

·         the development would increase delays on the Lower Road;

·         the application could not be refused unless there were very clear planning reasons to do so;

·         acknowledged the lack of infrastructure in Eastchurch and the eastern end of the Isle of Sheppey;

·         the application site was outside the defined Eastchurch boundary;

·         the development contravened some of the Council’s planning policies;

·         there would be a detrimental impact on wildlife, especially birds who used the corridor for hunting;

·         the development would increase the traffic flow each day with a significant impact on the road network;

·         this land was an important separation between established communities;

·         the view of the church would be obscured by the development;

·         this was demonstrable harm on the visual character and beauty of the countryside; and

·         this was not a sustainable development.

The Conservation & Design Manager commented on concerns raised on the impact of the development on the setting of the church.  He advised that from a distance, some of the housing could be seen, but he considered the level of harm to be very low, with the application site being in a lower position than the church.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

For: Harrison; Golding; Henderson; Hunt.  Total = 4.

Against: Baldock; Booth; C Palmer; Marchington; C Martin; Miller Speed; R Palmer; Thompson; Valls; Watson; Winckless.  Total = 12.

Abstain: Hall.  Total = 1.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

The Senior Lawyer reminded Members of paragraph 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the tilted balance to be considered if there was not a 5-year housing supply.

There was some discussion on the possible reasons for refusing the application. The following points were made:

·         This was contrary to paragraph 8b of the NPPF;

·         it would lead to urbanisation of the countryside;

·         there would be encroachment onto the countryside gap;

·         demonstrable harm to the countryside;

·         contrary to paragraphs 170; 189; 130 and DM19 of the NPPF;

·         this would result in a coalescence of Eastchurch and Kingsborough;

·         the Council should engage a planning consultant for an independent traffic survey; and

·         acknowledged that it was important to consider if the harm significantly outweighed the benefits, but the development needed to be sustainable.

Councillor Richard Palmer moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to paragraphs 8b, 130, 170 and 189 of the NPPF and it would lead to the urbanisation of the countryside.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

In response, the Planning Consultant advised that there was not a countryside ‘gap’, in this instance and that it should be referred to as solely ‘countryside’, and that the relevant policies were 174; 189 and 130, not 170.  The Development Manager urged caution on the inclusion of highway issues, as KCC Highways & Transportation had not objected to the application. 

Councillor Richard Palmer withdrew his motion.

Councillor Richard Palmer moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow an independent traffic survey to be carried out.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.  On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

Councillor Richard Palmer moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to paragraphs 8b, 130, 174, 189, DM24, DM31 and ST4 of the NPPF and it would lead to the urbanisation of the countryside, the coalescence of Eastchurch and Kingsborough, and there was a lack of infrastructure.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

There was some discussion on the term ‘infrastructure’ and the Development Manager advised that this term should not be included, as the statutory consultees had not objected to the impact of the development on infrastructure.  Members agreed that the term not be related to highways, but remained to include general infrastructure in that Eastchurch could not sustain further development.  Officers also recommended that policy DM31 not be included.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

For: Baldock; Booth; C Palmer; Marchington; C Martin; Miller Speed; R Palmer; Thompson; Valls; Watson; Winckless.  Total = 12.

Against: Harrison; Golding; Henderson; Hunt.  Total = 4.

Abstain: Hall.  Total = 1.

Resolved: That application 21/505041/OUTbe refused on the grounds that it was contrary to paragraphs 8b, 130, 174, 189, DM24 and ST4 of the NPPF and it would lead to the urbanisation of the countryside, the coalescence of Eastchurch and Kingsborough, and there was a lack of ‘general infrastructure’, not ‘highway infrastructure’.