To consider the following applications:

20/505921/OUT Land at Highfield Road Minster-On-Sea Kent

19/503511/FULL Cripps Farm Plough Road Minster-On-Sea Sheerness Kent ME12 4JH

*Tabled update for Cripps Farm added 21.07.2022

21/503749/REM Land on the South East Side of Barletts Close Halfway Kent ME12 3EG

*Tabled update for all items published 21.07.22.

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 ‘date’ ‘month’ 2017.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and reminded Members that it had previously been considered at the Planning Committee on 10 March 2022 where it had been deferred for an independent assessment of traffic and highways considerations despite Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation comments advising that they had no concerns with the development.

Simon Braysher, an objector, spoke against the application.

Michelle Bolger, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included:

·         It was important that ‘green lanes’ for wildlife were maintained;

·         concerned that this development would lead to further development into the Important Local Countryside Gap;

·         noted the independent highways advice;

·         understood that the Council needed to supply sufficient housing to meet the 5-year supply, but this site was not sustainable due to the road network around the site;

·         the road and proposed access was unsuitable;

·         Minster needed more greenspaces, rather than housing;

·         the development would bring an increase in the amount of traffic on the narrow road;

·         due to some recent planned roadworks being refused by the Swale Joint Transportation Board, this road would be used as a ‘rat run’ and become very dangerous;

·         the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing supply, and the titled balance was engaged, resulting in less weight on restrictive policies including on the Important Local Countryside Gap;

·         dwellings should be located behind the slope, with soft landscaping (ideally native species) and a community orchard; and

·         this was a well-designed scheme with limited harm. 

The Legal officer reminded Members that where the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing and/or had failed the Housing Delivery Test the ‘titled balance’ set-out in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applied. If the committee were minded to go against the officer recommendation to approve they would need to explain how, in their judgement, the harm significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the proposed development.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.18(2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Gibson, Hall, Hunt, Jackson, Martin, Perkin, Rowles, Simmons, Valentine, Winckless. Total = 10.

Against: Beart, Darby, Eakin, Jayes, Marchington and P Stephen. Total = 6.

Abstain: Total = 0.

Resolved: That application 20/505921/OUT be approved subject to the signing of a suitably worded Section 106 agreement and conditions (1) to (36) in the report, and with delegated authority to amend the wording of the Section 106 agreement and of conditions as might reasonably be required.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and reminded Members that it had previously been considered at the Planning Committee on 28 May 2020 and had been recommended for refusal. Members had resolved to defer the application to enable clarification of matters related to land ownership to the front of the wall and whether sufficient space was available to provide landscaping to the front and side of the wall to soften its appearance. The Area Planning Officer referred to the tabled update which provided comments from the Council’s Tree Officer who confirmed that the area would not be able to grow meaningful landscaping to soften the wall’s appearance. The Area Planning Officer presented some current pictures of the site.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

A Member considered the current level of landscaping was now sufficient enough to hide the wall when travelling down the road and that it was acceptable to keep the wall.

Resolved: That application 19/503511/FULL be refused for the reason set out in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and reminded Members that it had been previously considered by the Planning Committee on 12 May 2022 where Members resolved to hold a site visit. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that since the site visit the applicant had made changes to the proposals for plots one and two, to provide one single storey four-bedroom bungalow as opposed to the previous scheme which showed two 2-storey houses. As a result, only 16 dwellings would be provided rather than 17. The officer reminded Members that the site fell within the Important Local Countryside Gap and the Council did not currently have a five-year housing supply.

Philip Healy, an objector, was unable to join the remote meeting. His statement (against the development) was read out by the Democratic Services Officer.

Mr Bashir, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members considered the application and raised points which included:

·         Barletts Close, Halfway was a busy road and was single lane only;

·         road and drainage were key issues;

·         concerned with the scale of the development, and the area was made up of bungalows and this development included two storey houses;

·         impressed with the changes the applicant had made since the site visit;

·         there were no affordable units proposed on the site; and

·         could an extra condition be placed for biodiversity to reduce the impacts of the development?.

The Senior Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the outline consent which included nature and landscape designs. She added that KCC were happy with the biodiversity conditions in the outline consent.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.18(2), a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

For: Eakin, Gibson, Hall, Hunt, Jackson, Martin, Perkin, Rowles, Simmons and P Stephen. Total = 10.

Against: Beart, Darby, Jayes, Marchington. Total = 4.

Abstain: Valentine, Winckless. Total = 2. 

Resolved: That application 21/503749/REM be approved subject to conditions (1) to (9) in the report.