To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 August 2022 (Minute Nos. to follow).

To consider application 21/503124/OUT Land to the North of Elm Lane, Minster-on-Sea, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 3RZ.

Tabled update for this item was published on 18 August 2022.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 August 2022 (Minute Nos. 230 – 231) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

21/503124/OUT Land North of Elm Lane, Minster-on-Sea

The Council’s Planning Consultant referred to the tabled update which set out responses to questions raised by a Ward Member and which had previously been emailed to Members. 

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

A Ward Member, who was also a member of the Planning Committee, thanked Members who had attended the site meeting.  He spoke against the application and was disappointed that Kent County Council (KCC) had not responded to some of the questions he had raised.  The Member referred to the last paragraph of page three of the update and considered that the report was littered with errors and that the application should be refused. 

A Member explained that one of the ward members, Councillor Pete Neal, had hoped to attend the meeting but was unable to.

The Chair invited Members to comment on the application.  Members raised points which included:

·         Referred to a letter on the planning portal from KCC Flood and Water Management received on 19 July 2022 which pointed out a number of ambiguities in the report from HSP Consulting which the Member also noted was missing a number of appendices.  Would that be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage?;

·         the update was inaccurate as only one bus service on the Isle of Sheppey was subsidised and that service was currently proposed for withdrawal;

·         concerned about the location of the proposed access road, which would result in numbers 65 and 69 Drake Avenue having to endure traffic noise and pollution;

·         the development would cross a countryside gap;

·         concerned that land used as paddocks was classed as brownfield and that left a lot of land south of the A2 very vulnerable to development;

·         it was a shame that the Sheppey Light Railway had been lost;

·         had National Highways (NH) been consulted on the impacts to junction 5 of the M2? NH had imposed a Grampian condition prohibiting development that would impact on the A249 Grovehurst Road, Sittingbourne and Stockbury roundabout, until improvements there had been completed;

·         outlined the benefits of the application; and

·         there were no justified planning reasons to refuse the application.

In response, the Planning Consultant confirmed that a final Flood Risk Assessment could be requested at the Reserved Matters stage.  There were legal requirements to consult NH and they had no duty to comment on this development as it did not affect the trunk road network.  The Grampian conditions would be lifted by 2024-25 due to the various improvements to Trunk roads and roundabouts.

A Ward Member, who was also a Member of the Planning Committee, referred to the Planning Inspector’s decision for a site at Jubilee Fields, Upchurch refused on appeal where the Inspector had commented that the Council’s lack of 5-year housing supply was a concern but not “acute”.   He added that the site was not in a sustainable location.  The Planning Consultant stated that particular appeal needed to be read as a whole and had other landscaping issues that this application did not.  Each case needed to be considered on its own merits and the decision did not disapply the tiled balance test.

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

For: Gibson, Henderson, Martin, Rowles and Simmons.  Total = 5.

Against: Baldock, Beart, Knights, Darby, Eakin, Hall, Dendor, Jayes, Marchington and Winckless.  Total = 10.

Abstain: Jackson and Valentine.  Total = 2.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

At this point the Senior Lawyer (Planning) reminded Members that the tilted balance always applied when there was less than a 5-year supply of housing.  She clarified that Planning Inspector’s reports were not case law or binding, only persuasive.  She asked Members to consider when formulating any reason to refuse the application that the Committee’s function was to consider the planning benefits, merits and the planning harms.  The Committee needed to evidence any harms of the application which outweighed the benefits significantly and demonstrably as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The following reasons for refusal were put forward by Members:

·         The access road would affect existing properties at 65 and 69 Drake Avenue in terms of noise and air pollution; and

·         impact on the local amenity of residents; and

·         loss of open countryside.

In the discussion that followed the Planning Consultant suggested the following reason for refusal:  In applying the tilted balance the harm to loss of countryside, and loss of amenity from the construction of the access outweighed the planning benefits.

In response to a question from a Member, the Senior Lawyer (Planning) confirmed that the land was brownfield land as it was within equestrian use and as such, having undergone a change of use, was considered Previously Developed Land.

Councillor Ben Martin moved the following motion to refuse the application:  In applying the tilted balance the harm to loss of countryside, and loss of amenity from the use of the access outweighs the planning benefits.

This was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.

The Design and Conservation Manager suggested a slight amendment to the motion, that the word “and use” be included after the word “construction”.  This was agreed by the proposer and seconder of the original motion.

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

For: Baldock, Beart, Darby, Dendor, Eakin, Hall, Henderson, Jackson, Jaynes, Knights, Marchington, Rowles, Winckless.  Total = 13.

Against: Gibson, Martin and Simmons.  Total = 3.

Abstain: Valentine.  Total = 1.

Resolved:  That application 21/503124/OUT be refused on the grounds that in applying the tilted balance the harm to loss of countryside, and loss of amenity from the construction and use of the access outweighed the planning benefits.