To consider the following applications:

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

21/506021/FULL, 21 Chaucer Road Sittingbourne Kent ME10 1EZ

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

Requests to speak on these items must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 22 June 2022.

Additional documents which might be referred to at the meeting were added on 23 June 2022.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that two further objections had been received.  These raised concerns with lack of parking spaces, increased pollution and other points which had been previously noted in the report.  He explained that it was an outline application for the erection of 10 residential dwellings with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale being reserved matters.  Detailed consent was sought for the access to the site from Lynsted Lane. The Senior Planning Officer reminded Members that the Council did not currently have a five-year housing supply.  He said that following the Planning Committee meeting on 10 March 2022, independent highway advice had been sought and the results of this were attached to the committee report.

Parish Councillor Julien Speed, representing Lynsted-with-Kingsdown Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Jacqueline Langdon-Bassett, an objector, spoke against the application.

Sam Sykes, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member gave his apologies due to illness and was unable to speak at the meeting, but he had advised that he was against the application.  Another visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

Members considered the application and raised points which included:

·         Acknowledged the extension of double yellow lines along Lynsted Lane but still had concerns with the lack of visibility from the development to Lynsted Lane which was a narrow lane;

·         road safety issues;

·         did not consider the ‘tilted balance’ approach should be applied on this application;

·         the site was not sustainable;

·         there was a lack of school places, doctors and bus services in Teynham;

·         the site was close to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and this scheme would be detrimental to the air quality;

·         the application needed to show that there were measures in place to reduce the impact on air quality;

·         the application was deferred for more highway information, and Members did not seem happy with the independent highway advice, but could not use highways as a reason for refusal as the Council would lose on appeal;

·         the independent highway advice did not consider the junction of Lynsted Lane with the A2 which was often gridlocked; and

·         concerned with visibility issues for vehicles travelling north on Lynsted Lane.

In response, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the priority shuttle scheme was included within the updated highway advice, which he outlined and advised that priority was given to south-bound traffic.  He said the junction had been assessed by Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation and they had raised no objection.  The Major Projects Officer drew Members’ attention to the independent highway advice summary on page 52 of the report where they had concluded that the scheme was considered compliant with relevant national and local highway policies, and had concluded that the application was acceptable.

Further comments from Members included:

·         It was difficult to accept that the A2 could sustain any more traffic;

·         if the Planning Committee was minded to refuse the application, good planning reasons were needed;

·         more clarification sought on what the highway consultees were asked to look at, and whether this included the junction with the A2?;

·         if the new advice did include the A2 it would be difficult to refuse on those grounds;

·         concerned with the pedestrian access to the site: the proposed footpath along Lynsted Lane and the private access through the adjacent joinery business premises and whether these options were acceptable;

·         the proposed development was adjacent to a rural lane, with the loss of native hedgerows;

·         there was traffic congestion along Lynsted Lane whenever there were roadworks on the A2;

·         there was no affordable housing within the scheme;

·         detrimental impact on residential amenity;

·         would like to see a condition so the access through the joinery yard was not used, but that would undermine the sustainability of the application;

·         concerned that the Council was making a decision prior to the results of the bus consultation;

·         the path along Lynsted Lane was very narrow;

·         the changes to Lynsted Lane would completely change the landscape;

·         the application could not be refused on highway grounds due to the advice from the independent highway consultants and KCC Highways and Transportation;

·         the Council did not have a five-year housing supply, this development would help;

·         this site had come forward in the Local Plan Review as available for housing;

·         considered that if the application was approved, that condition (1) be ‘tightened-up’ in terms of the footpath;

·         loss of residential amenity;

·         did not understand how the replacement of a field with dwellings could result in a net gain in biodiversity; and

·         did not consider the proposed parking for the development was sufficient.

In response, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the remit for the independent advice had included pedestrian access to the site and this was deemed to be acceptable and compliant.  He referred to paragraph 2.11 in the report and said there was an option to amend condition (1) to refer to the need to deter new residents from using that route.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that a section of the hedgerow would be removed to allow for visibility splays and there would be replacement landscaping.  This had been assessed by, amongst others, KCC Ecology and they had advised that a net biodiversity gain across the whole site could be achieved, and a related condition was recommended.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that condition (27) could be not amended as the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was outside of the planning process.

The Conservation & Design Manager advised Members that whilst heritage impact was a material planning consideration with a number of listed buildings close to the site, the nature of those listed buildings and the fact that the proposed development was intended to be set back from the road with a strong green frontage would mean that the heritage impact would be low and as such, a heritage related reason for refusal would likely be difficult to sustain in the event of an appeal.

Councillor Ben J Martin moved the following amendment:  That condition (1) be amended to require the reserved matters to demonstrate how use of the joinery yard route would be deterred for future residents.This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson and on being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was lost.

There was some discussion on the reasons for refusal and one Member raised visibility issues and another Member suggested that a new, more adequate highway report, was required.  At this point, the Planning Lawyer reminded Members that the statutory consultees advice had stated that the scheme met national and local policies, and the new report had been commissioned by the Council and had addressed points raised by the Planning Committee.  If there was a further report, the Applicant could appeal and would likely be successful.  She highlighted that two separate consultees had concluded that there were no highway concerns with the application.  On developments of 10 or less dwellings, there was no requirement for the developer to include affordable housing.  The Planning Lawyer referred to the tilted balance where if the harm did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit, the application should be approved.

A Member suggested that the site not being sustainably located be used as a reason for refusal. The Major Projects Officer explained that as a new pavement was proposed, that would not be a good reason for refusal.  Another Member suggested loss of residential amenity to residents on Lynsted Lane, with loss of parking, hedgerows and countryside; and also inadequate amenity for residents in the proposed dwellings.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds of the detrimental impact on the current residential amenity and that the amenities of the new dwellings were inadequate.  This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

At this point the meeting was adjourned for planning officers to seek advice from the Head of Planning Services and the Planning Lawyer.

The Senior Planning Officer summarised the reasons for refusing the application that had been discussed by the Committee and which officers had assisted in formulating into a proposed Reason for Refusal for the Committee to ratify.   The proposer and seconder agreed to withdraw the current motion.

Councillor Ben J Martin moved the following motion:  That the application be refused on the grounds that the lack of and reduction of services in Teynham since the adoption of the Local Plan resulted in the development being unsustainable, meaning reliance on the private car to access services and facilities in higher order settlements would be required which was contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in terms of moving to a low carbon future.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 21/502609/OUT be refused on the grounds that the lack of and reduction of services in Teynham since the adoption of the Local Plan resulted in the development being unsustainable, meaning reliance on the private car to access services and facilities in higher order settlements would be required which was contrary to the aims of the NPPF in terms of moving to a low carbon future. 

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and reminded Members that it had previously been considered at the Planning Committee meeting on 10 March 2022 where it had been deferred due to a request for investigation to be carried out over concerns that the storage room was being used as sleeping accommodation.  This had now ceased.  The Area Planning Officer explained that the requested opening times sought were to 10 pm, seven days a week.  Following consultation with the Environmental Health team, officers had recommended that the opening hours should remain at 9 pm on Monday to Thursday and be extended to 10 pm on Fridays and Saturdays and on Sunday until 8 pm.  The Area Planning Officer considered this to be the right balance to meet operational needs and consider residential amenity.

In the absence of Mr Thamsett, the Agent, the Democratic Services Officer read out his statement, in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following motion:  That the application be granted on a temporary basis for one year and then reviewed.  This was seconded by Councillor Carole Jackson and on being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Members voted on the substantive motion which was agreed.

Resolved:  That the recommendation in relation to the variation in opening hours for application 21/506021/FULL remains unchanged and is in accordance with the recommended condition presented to the Planning Committee on 10 March 2022: Monday-Thursday - 11.30 am-9 pm; Friday to Saturday - 11.30 am-10 pm; Sundays 4.30 pm-8 pm.