To consider the following application:

21/505722/OUT 128 High Street Newington Sittingbourne Kent ME9 7JH

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that this application 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 11 January 2023.

Tabled update added on 11.01.2023.

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

The Major Projects Officer introduced the application and reminded Members that had been considered by the Planning Committee on 10 November 2022 and Members had resolved to defer it to allow an independent highways assessment of the application to be undertaken. He added that the independent highway advice had been included at Appendix 1.

Parish Councillor Stephen Harvey, representing Newington Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mr Wilford, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Melvyn Harris, an objector, spoke against the application.

Both visiting Ward Members spoke against the application.

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

A Member said that he had concerns with the location of the site being so close to the A2, which was a busy road and could cause potential safety issues for residents crossing the road. Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following motion: That Members attended a site visit to understand how busy the junction was, and this was seconded by Councillor Peter Marchington.

Members considered the motion and points raised included:

·         Recognised that the A2 was a busy road and coming out of the proposed development would be difficult;

·         the proposed entrance to the site was too close to an existing Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation traffic calming measure;

·         the traffic was at its worse during peak commuting hours; and

·         members did not have the relevant traffic knowledge to assess the traffic situation at the site, so a site visit would not help to decide the application.

On being put to the vote, the motion to have a site visit was lost.

The Chair invited Members to consider the application and points raised included:

·         Wanted to know why the independent traffic consultant recommended that the visibility splays should be reassessed once the planning application had been approved and not before?

·         Members needed to consider the opinions of the highways experts;

·         thought that the proposed scheme was a good proposal; and

·         the Borough needed homes and thought that this proposal was a sensible one.

In response, the Major Projects Officer said that it was the opinion of the independent traffic consultant that an additional condition was appropriate in respect of the visibility splays, rather than them considering that the matter needed to be considered further before the application was determined. He also reiterated that KCC Highways and Transportation officers had accepted this condition.

Resolved: That application 21/505722/OUT be approved subject to conditions (1) to (39) in the report and the signing of a suitably-worded Section 106 agreement, with delegated authority to amend the wording of the legal agreement or conditions as may reasonably be required.