To consider the attached report (Parts 2 and 5).

 

The Council operates a scheme of public speaking at meetings of the Planning Committee.  All applications on which the public has registered to speak will be taken first.  Requests to speak at the meeting must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 11 May 2022.

 

Items 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 & 2.13 published 5 May 2022.

 

Tabled officer updates for items 2.5, 2.6, 2.12, 2.8, 2.9 and 2.13 published 12 May 2022.

 

 

PART 2

 

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

                                                                                                                                                    

 

2.1       REFERENCE NO 21/503749/REM
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Approval of Reserved Matters for Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale pursuant of 19/503810/OUT (allowed on appeal) for - Outline application for the erection of 17 dwellings with new access road, associated parking and landscaping. (Access being sought, all other matters reserved for future consideration).
ADDRESS Land on the South East side of Bartletts Close, Halfway, Kent, ME12 3EG
WARD Queenborough & Halfway	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL	APPLICANT Mr R Theobald AGENT Synergy

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and outlined the application which sought approval for reserved matters: appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.  She showed Members the plans and images which indicated what the site would look like.

 

Mr Theobald, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

Ward Members, both members of the Planning Committee, raised concerns which included:

 

·         The applicants had made no attempt to negotiate with local residents about their concerns in respect of access to the site;

·         the report stated that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had raised no objection, but that was misleading as they had actually said that as the road would not be adopted, they had no jurisdiction so could not give a view one way or the other;

·         with reference to a sketch which had been tabled for Members, considered the land on the site was an area of fertile soil being formed from clay hill erosion, volcanic ash and decayed plant life,  so it was good quality ground;

·         concerned that with water run-off from Bartletts Close, Halfway and the clay line the plan for vast drain areas on the soil could exacerbate flooding issues;

·         both KCC Flood and Water Management and the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board (LMIDB) had raised concern about attenuation of the surface water to infiltration into the ground and there was not enough information provided about how the attenuation would be dealt with so the application should be deferred on that basis;

·         had to respect that the principle of development and access had been approved;

·         concerned about the design layout of plots one and two as they sat forward of the current building line which would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of residents at No. 10;

·         welcomed bungalows on plots 16 and 17; and

·         did not consider that the proposed town houses were in-keeping with the area.

 

Councillor Cameron Beart moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Darby.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

 

Councillor Beart asked that the plots be marked out on the site at the site meeting.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/503749/REM be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meeting on site.  

 

2.2       REFERENCE NO – 19/502484/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL The proposed conversion of existing outbuilding Block 4 to Commercial units for use Class E (Commercial, Business and Service) a, b, c(ii),c(iii),e, f, g(iii) and the replacement of outbuilding Block 5 with a two storey building to form 6 no commercial units for use Class E a, b, c(ii),c(iii),e, f, g(iii)  on the ground floor and Use Class E g(i) and Use Class F (Local Community) 2(b) on the first floor. The erection of a covered walkway and lean to extension to Block 1 and associated car parking provision. As AMENDED BY DRAWINGS RECEIVED ON 5th August 2019 and 1st and 9th March 2021 and updated Design and Access statement.
ADDRESS Willow Farm Hnsletts Lane, Ospringe, Faversham, Kent, ME13 0RS
WARD East Downs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Ospringe	APPLICANT Mr K Childs AGENT  Urban & Rural Ltd

 

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Monday 16 May 2022.

 

2.3       REFERENCE NO – 22/501431/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Siting of 1no. additional mobile home at existing traveller's site (retrospective).
ADDRESS Graces Place, Homestall Road, Doddington, Kent, ME9 0HF
WARD East Downs	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Doddington	APPLICANT Mr Smith AGENT Target Carbon Management

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application.

 

Parish Councillor Kevin Attwood, representing Doddington Parish Council, raised no objection to the application.

 

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

 

The Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee asked what assurances there were that the site would be cleared after July 2023?  The Area Planning Officer explained that if the site was not vacated at the end of the temporary planning permission the applicant could submit a further application or the Council could take out enforcement action which the applicant could appeal against.  He said that the appropriate form of response by the Council might largely depend on the Local Plan position.

 

Resolved:  That application 22/501431/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (5) in the report.

 

2.4       REFERENCE NO – 22/501556/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2no. five-bedroom dwellings with associated parking and private amenity space (Resubmission of 21/504571/FULL).
ADDRESS Greystone, Bannister Hill, Borden, Kent, ME9 8HU
WARD Borden and Grove Park	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Borden	APPLICANT Ashbyrne Homes Ltd AGENT Kent Design Partnership

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report and referred to the tabled update which had previously been emailed to Members.  He noted the neighbours’ concerns regarding privacy but considered that the applicants had addressed both overlooking and highways issues and that the application should be approved.

 

Cameron McEwan, an objector, spoke against the application.

 

James Batson, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Ward Members 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 raised points which included:

 

·         Encouraged that the applicant had listened to local concerns;

·         would have preferred to see bungalows rather than houses;

·         the height of the proposed dwellings had been lowered so should now approve;

·         would not be able to support any refusal at appeal and there would be the risk that residents could end up with the original design;

·         the application would not be harmful to the area;

·         could not see any material planning conditions to refuse;

·         concerned about the residential amenity of Wykeham due to the close proximity of the proposed properties; and

·         concerned that Plot 4 was at a higher level and too close to adjacent chalet bungalows and the impact on the residential amenity.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Area Planning Officer clarified that the distance from the side of Plot 4 to the rear of Wykeham was 13.186 metres which was acceptable and well within the building industry standard.  He confirmed that the height of the new dwellings would be 7.2 metres. 

 

Resolved:  That application 22/501556/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report.

 

2.5       REFERENCE NO – 21/505769/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of 7 no. detached dwellings comprising of 5 no. four bedroom dwellings, 1 no. three bedroom bungalow, 1 no. two bedroom bungalow and 4 no. garages and 2 no. car ports, as well as access, parking and infrastructure.
ADDRESS Land South Of Chequers Road, Minster-on-sea, Kent ME12 3SH
WARDSheppey Central	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Minster-On-Sea	APPLICANT Richard Alderson AGENT DHA Planning

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and drew attention to the tabled update which had previously been emailed to members of the Committee.  The update advised Members of a small procedural amendment to the application; and recommended a further condition to remove permitted development rights to enlarge the roofs of the proposed bungalows.

 

Parish Councillor Dolley White, representing Minster Parish Council, spoke against the application.

 

John Collins, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee, spoke against the application.  He noted it was outside the built-up area of Minster and considered it was an over-intensive development.  He raised concern that the Isle of Sheppey already suffered with road closures, gridlocks and the infrastructure was failing, he could not see how the development enhanced the biodiversity of the site.  He said that the Council should have a condition that unless more doctors’ surgeries were to be provided to match the national average, no more homes should be built. 

 

Members considered the application and raised points including:

 

·         Needed to ensure that the height of the bungalow roof could not be converted later on;

·         This was a small cul-de-sac, could we be assured that there was enough turning for refuse lorries and would conditions be imposed to ensure that it was not blocked by residents or visitors as it was private land?;

·         concerned that Plot 7 seemed a bit cramped;

·         the applicants had listened to residents’ concerns; and

·         would not be able to defend refusal at any subsequent appeal.

 

In response, the Area Planning Officer referred to the additional condition outlined in the tabled update which removed permitted development rights to enlarge the roof of the proposed bungalows, so if a future owner wanted to install rooflights or dormer windows they would need to apply for permission.   He referred to KCC Highways and Transportation’s comments in paragraph 6.2 on page 118 of the report which stated that tracking for a 11.4 metre refuse vehicle had been provided and was acceptable.  He added that if the road was not adopted the Council could impose a condition as part of the hard landscaping details to require the turning areas to be marked but that  would be difficult to enforce.

 

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following addendum:  That officers be given delegated authority to impose an appropriately worded condition as part of the hard landscaping details to require the turning areas to be marked.  She added that as a responsible planning authority the Council needed to consider this type of issue.

 

The Senior Lawyer (Planning) requested that the Council’s parking team be asked whether it would be enforceable to prevent parking as it was private land.

 

The Area Planning Officer referred Members to the site layout plan and stated that parking was generous within the site.  He said with regard to the proposed condition the Council could require a Parking Management Strategy and the concerns around refuse collection vehicles could be dealt with in more detail.

 

Councillor Monique Bonney asked that substantial native tree planting be included as part of the soft landscaping condition.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/505769/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (27) in the report, the additional condition in the Tabled Update and conditions as per the minutes.

 

2.6       REFERENCE NO – 21/506750/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Erection of 2 no. 3 bedroom detached houses with associated parking.
ADDRESS Land Adjacent To Eastchurch Village Hall Warden Road Eastchurch Kent ME12 4EJ
WARDSheppey East	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Eastchurch	APPLICANT KJN Developments Ltd AGENT Woodstock Associates

 

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Monday 16 May 2022.

 

2.7       REFERENCE NO – 22/500724/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Removal of existing conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension.
ADDRESS 17 Court Tree Drive Eastchurch Sheerness Kent ME12 4TR
WARDSheppey East	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Eastchurch	APPLICANT Mr Paul Whitehead AGENT W&M Architects LLP

 

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Monday 16 May 2022.

 

2.8       REFERENCE NO – 16/508602/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline application for erection of up to 250 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access
ADDRESS Land At Preston Fields Salters Lane Faversham Kent ME13 8YD
WARD Watling	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT Redrow Homes Limited AGENT Avison Young

 

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application.  He drew attention to the tabled paper for this item, which had previously been emailed to Members, and provided a further update to paragraph 9.64 on page 221 of the report.  He explained that the applicants had confirmed, following clarification from KCC, that they would now pay the full amount towards the secondary education contribution.  The Major Projects Officer said that the application benefited from a resolution to approve in 2018 and that resolution weighed heavily in favour of Members approving the application.  The amount of development, namely 250 dwellings, remained unchanged but there had been some change to the total area of open space.  As a consequence of the development proposed under item 2.9 of the agenda the total area of open space provided across the local plan allocation had reduced since 2018, and the Major Projects Officer referred to paragraph 3 on page 194 of the report.  However, 2.5 hectares of open space would still be provided, and this was referred to in condition (6), and was acceptable.  Noting the various conditions recommended in the report officers were of the view that the development would allow a high-quality development in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework and relevant local plan policies.  The Major Projects Officer showed Members the layout plan for the schem as envisaged in 2018 and that this had changed following receipt of the development set-out at item 2.9 of the agenda for up to 70 dwellings.  He explained that the Section 106 Agreement would cover this application and the application at item 2.9 and the development now looked to set aside land for a link road, but planning permission was not sought for such a link road at this time.

 

Joseph Smith, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee, said that local residents objected to the application being built on agricultural land.  He said that as it was allocated in Swale’s Local Plan the Council should approve the application.

 

Members considered the application and points raised included:

 

·         The provision of the car park for adjacent residents mentioned in paragraph 2.9 on page 175 of the report would be a great improvement and also improve the air quality in the area by improving traffic flow along the A2;

·         was allocated in the Local Plan so should approve;

·         the application should have been approved in 2018 but did not consider the application now should be approved and there was no policy reason for having a Link Road that effectively went nowhere and open space would be lost because of it;

·         drew attention to the concept plan on page 167 of the report where there was “buffer woodland planting to provide a transition to the informal open space”, and the land now part of item 2.9 was “land retained as accessible natural green space to maintain rural character” and to now suggest putting in a Link Road and more housing was wrong;

·         considered that the Section 106 Agreement should require that if details of the road did not come forward within five years, then the area should be planted with buffer woodland;

·         needed to ensure that as part of the Section 278 Agreement landscaping along the pavement and footpath areas was to a suitable standard and adequately funded;

·         needed to ensure suitable provision for enforcement of parking restrictions and the applicants should provide a car parking management plan for Members to consider; and

·         when would the applicants come forward with the details for energy efficiency as building control standards were changing?

 

In response to comments the Major Projects Officer considered an amendment to require the buffer woodland was appropriate.  He referred to condition (4) in the report which gave officers a good level of control in respect of suitable landscaping and also gave flexibility to agree a package of sustainability/carbon reduction emissions and was flexible if standards changed.  

 

Councillor James Hunt moved the following addendum:  That officers be given delegated authority for a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement to ensure that if details of the road did not come forward then the area be planted with buffer woodland or be provided as additional open space.   This was agreed by Members.

 

In response to a query from a Member, about inclusion of the car park for adjacent residents, the Major Projects Officer confirmed that it would happen as set-out in the second bullet point on page 175 of the report, developer contributions. 

 

At this point the Senior Lawyer (Planning) clarified for Members that the application did not have planning permission, it had a resolution from the Committee to grant but permission would not be issued until the Section 106 Agreement was signed and completed.  She was aware that the terms of the Section 106 Agreement were being progressed.

 

Resolved:  That application 16/508602/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (41) in the report and the amendments to conditions (4), (7) and (32) as set-out in the officer update, the signing of a suitable-worded Section 106 Agreement to cover the points set out in the report and the tabled officer update and to ensure that if details of the Link Road did not come forward then the area be planted with buffer woodland or be provided as open space.  Authority to amend condition wording and Section 106 clauses as may reasonably be required.

 

2.9       REFERENCE NO – 21/500766/OUT
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Outline application for the erection of up to 70 dwellings (all matters reserved) and land reserved for a link road connecting the A251 with Salters Lane.
ADDRESS Land at Preston Fields (South) Salters Lane Faversham Kent ME13 8YD
WARD Watling	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Faversham Town	APPLICANT Preston Field Land Trustees AGENT Avison Young

 

At this point, a Member queried whether the applicant was the Preston Field Land Trustees or Redrow Homes?  The Major Projects Officer clarified that the applicant was Redrow Homes and apologised for the error in the report.  

 

The Major Projects Officer introduced the report and drew attention to the tabled update which had previously been emailed to Members, and said that the applicants had confirmed, following clarification from KCC, that they would now pay the full amount towards the secondary education contribution.  The Major Projects Officer considered that the development would be an efficient use of land providing 70 dwellings in a sustainable location and that Members would be aware that the Council currently had no 5-year housing supply and as such there was an assumption in favour of sustainable development.

 

Joseph Smith, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee said that with regard to the land for the Link Road there were many reasons why it may be required in the future and the Council had to think about what might be needed to help the Council meet its housing needs. The Member said that whilst he understood concerns regarding biodiversity and the loss of agricultural land, the scheme offered 35% affordable housing and should be approved.

 

Members considered the application and comments raised included:

 

·         Considered that it would be a sensible use of the land and could see the reasons for future-proofing such a corridor through the site;

·         concerned about the impact the suggested access road could have on the high-pressure gas main;

·         concerned about the impact of additional traffic from the suggested access on existing properties at the junction onto the A251;

·         the open space should be retained to keep the rural character;

·         where was the secondary access? and

·         concerned about the cumulative effect of an extra 70 dwellings on both access points.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Major Projects Officer showed the access plan which he explained was for illustrative purposes and that the access ultimately built might not be exactly as shown.  He confirmed that there would be two access points to the proposed Preston Fields estate, one from Ashford Road (A251) and the other Canterbury Road (A2).  The Major Projects Officer drew attention to condition (32) of the report which dealt with the access points.  He advised that KCC Highways and Transportation were satisfied that the extra 70 dwellings could be accommodated and that some of the Section 106 Agreement included provision of a pedestrian/cycle pathway.

 

Councillor James Hunt moved the following addendum:  That officers be given delegated authority for a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement to ensure that if details of the road did not come forward then the area be planted with buffer woodland of additional open space.   This was agreed by Members.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/500766/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (39) in the report and the amendment to condition (4) as outlined in the tabled update, the signing of a suitably-worded Section 106 Agreement to cover the points set-out in the report and with the amendments outlined in the tabled update to ensure that if details of the Link Road did not come forward then the area be planted with buffer woodland or be provided as open space.  Authority to amend condition wording and Section 106 clauses as might reasonably be required.

 

2.10    REFERENCE NO – 22/500641/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Construction of one additional storey to the existing building to provide 9no. residential units, the replacement of all existing windows at first and second floor level and the repair/repainting of rendering.
ADDRESS Bank House Broadway Sheerness Kent ME12 1TW
WARD Sheerness	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Sheerness Town Council	APPLICANT Grantley Property Investments Limited AGENT Edwards Planning Consultancy

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the report.  He referred Members to condition (4) which required the new windows to be constructed in timber, and reported that the Council’s Conservation team had now requested that the windows be constructed in metal frames and the applicant had agreed to this amendment.  In addition, he asked that condition (3) also referred to render details and colour and sought delegated authority to include these amendments.  The Area Planning Officer outlined the application.

 

Town Councillor Dolley White, representing Sheerness Town Council spoke against the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member stated that parking was a problem in the area but noted that the site was close to the train station.  He asked that an adequate cycle store be provided.  The Member did not consider the application would have a detrimental impact in terms of height and that it would be an improvement.  He considered that the bin store was not located in the best place.

 

The Area Planning Officer confirmed that there would be a secure covered cycle storage area.  He considered that adequate bin storage was provided in the alleyway. 

 

Members considered the application and points which included:

 

·         Would provide much needed housing in the area;

·         did the building have a lift and if not did that go against any policies?;

·         could a condition be imposed require a communal bin area?;

·         was there any provision for Electric Vehicle (EV) charging?;

·         sedum roof for the bin store?;

·         was a good design;

·         parking was already an issue and welcomed anything that could be done to improve this;

·         where would the refuse lorry park?;

·         not aware that there had ever been an issue emptying bins in the area;

·         the building was previously used as offices and there was no issue then in respect of parking;

·         this was an improvement on what was currently there;

·         there was a public car park nearby which was offered free parking after 6 pm; and

·         should approve the development and should be possible to live without a car.

 

In response to questions from Members the Area Planning Officer confirmed there were two entrances to the flats: one onto The Broadway; and the other onto the internal car park.  He advised that there were no lifts proposed in this particular development. As there was no car parking provided the Council could not request EV charging points.  The Area Planning Officer said that he understood concerns regarding parking but the site was within a sustainable location.  The Area Planning Officer advised that the refuse lorry could either carry out waste collections from within the parking courtyard or on The Broadway via a gated access.  He advised that a condition could be imposed requiring the applicant to provide further details on the bin storage area including facilities for communal bins.

 

Resolved:  That application 22/500641/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (12) in the report and the amendments to conditions (3) and (4) as minuted, and further details relating to bin storage.

 

2.11    REFERENCE NO – 21/500204/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing public house and erection of a mixed-use building providing a micro pub (54 square metres) and 7 no. flats with associated parking, amenity space and cycle storage.
ADDRESS Old House At Home 158-162 High Street Sheerness Kent ME12 1UQ
WARD Sheerness	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Sheerness Town Council	APPLICANT Mr M McAllister AGENT Kent Design Partnership

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a brief outline of the history of the building which he advised was not within the Conservation Area or a listed building.  He reported that the Council’s Conservation and Design team considered the building to be of some heritage value but that overall this was of low significance.  The Area Planning Officer considered that it was an acceptable and well-designed proposal.

 

Town Councillor Dolley White, representing Sheerness Town Council, spoke against the application.

 

James Batson, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

A Ward Member, also a member of the Planning Committee, said that the design of the building was important given its location at the entrance to Sheerness High Street and considered the design of the building was ‘boring’.  Whilst he considered the proposed closing time of 23:00 hours to be satisfactory, he raised concern about potential noise from deliveries of glass and rubbish collections and asked whether a condition could be imposed restricting deliveries to the premises to after 9 am? 

 

The Area Planning Officer said that a condition restricting times of deliveries could be imposed but considered 7 am would be more appropriate.  He said that as the ground floor unit was for a small micropub, noise from deliveries was less likely to be an issue.

 

A Member raised concern about the railings at the front of the building which she considered were quite oppressive.  She also considered the design was “cheap and very bland”.  Concern was also raised about the lack of a traditional roof.

 

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow officers and applicants to work on improving the design.  This was seconded by Councillor Oliver Eakin.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/500204/FULL be deferred to allow officers and applicants to work on improving the design.

 

2.12    REFERENCE NO – 22/500843/FULL
APPLICATION PROPOSAL Replacement of 10 existing chalets with 8 modern chalets.
ADDRESS Isle Of Sheppey Holiday Village Warden Bay Road Leysdown Sheerness Kent ME12 4LX
WARDSheppey East	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Leysdown	APPLICANT Isle of Sheppey Holiday Village AGENT Carter Jonas

 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and drew attention to the officer update which had previously been emailed to Members which clarified that the Environment Agency had submitted comments (as reported in paragraph 5.5 of the report) but had not made specific comments or raised objection on flooding grounds.

 

Max Goode, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

A Member said that Leysdown Parish Council had not provided any material planning reasons why they objected to the application so why was it not being considered under officers delegated powers?  The Area Planning Officer explained that the Parish Council had raised concern about the occupation of the units which was a material planning consideration. 

 

Members raised the following points:

 

·         Would be unreasonable not to approve the application; and

·         this would be an improvement.

 

Resolved:  That application 22/500843/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

 

2.13    REFERENCE NO – 21/505461/PSINF
APPLICATION PROPOSAL The construction of two houseblocks to provide criminal justice accommodation for 120 prisoners, along with a proposed record store, library, office and extension to the existing visitor car park (40 spaces).
ADDRESS HMP Standford Hill, Church Road, Eastchurch ME12 4AA
WARDSheppey East	PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Eastchurch	APPLICANT MOJ AGENT Cushman & Wakefield

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and drew attention to the tabled update which had previously been emailed to Members.  The tabled update advised:  that the applicant had responded to KCC Highways comments; KCC Highways had provided further consultation comments (this was also tabled); further information regarding staff shift pattern forecast vehicular trips;  a revised Travel Plan had been submitted and KCC Highways and Transportation had advised that an additional condition seeking details of a travel plan would be required as condition (33); KCC Highways and Transportation considered that due to the negligible highways impact, traffic calming mitigation would not be required; clarified that prison accommodation was not included in the housing land supply; and amended wording for the recommendation at section 10 of the report.

 

Katharine Morgan, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

 

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

 

A Member raised concern about the highway impacts of the application on Church Road, Eastchurch.

 

Councillor Cameron Beart moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow officers to liaise with KCC Highways and Transportation about the highway impacts and that the Council request independent highway consultants to look at the impact of the application on the local road network.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

 

Resolved:  That application 21/505461/PSINF be deferred to allow officers to liaise with KCC Highways and Transportation about the highway impacts and the Council requested independent traffic consultants to look at the impact of the application on the local road network.

 

PART 5

 

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

                                                                                                                                                    

 

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Monday 16 May 2022.

 

·                Item 5.1 – Land Lying South of Dunlin Walk Iwade

 

APPEAL ALLOWED & COSTS REFUSED

 

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

 

·                Item 5.2 – Plough Leisure Caravan Park Plough Road Minster

 

APPEAL DISMISSED

 

DELEGATED REFUSAL