To consider the following applications:

22/502834/EIOUT Land West of Church Road, Bapchild/Tonge

22/503418/OUT Land at Tonge Road, Sittingbourne

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 Friday 2 June 2023.

Tabled update added on 05.06.2023

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

The Area Team Leader introduced the report as set out in the report and referred to an error at the end of paragraph 2.1 which read 168 dwellings, but should read 212 dwellings.

Parish Councillor Gill Beer, representing Tonge Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Paul Townson, representing Teynham and Lynsted Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Glynn Middleton, an objector, spoke against the application.

Roland Brass, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

The Chair advised Members that there was a tabled update for Members to read but it contained confidential information and if Members wished to discuss the information on the tabled update, they would need to go into closed session. There was a short adjournment to allow Members to read the exempt item.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

Resolved:

(1)   That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 5 of schedule 12A of the Act:

5. Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings

There was further discussion in the closed session.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded Councillor Andy Booth.

Resolved: That application 22/502834/EIOUT would have been approved subject to conditions (1) to (33) as set out in the report and the completion of a section 106 agreement to include the heads of terms as set out in the reports, tabled updates and officer presentation.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and points raised included:

·           When Members visited the site, the developer explained that refuse collections would be made at the narrowest point of the road, and this was a concern for pedestrians trying to cross the road;

·           commented that the narrowing of the road was unsustainable;

·           had safety concerns regarding the crossing point as the road had a 60mph speed limit where pedestrians regularly crossed;

·           asked for clarification on the actual width of the proposed widening of the road;

·           wanted clarification as to whether a footpath was separate to the widening of the road;

·           thought that the developer needed to provide a zebra crossing to make it safe for pedestrians to cross; and

·           could not understand why Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation did not recommend lowering the speed limit and installing a zebra crossing.

The Planning Consultant responded to points raised and said that the proposed new width of the road would be 5.5 metres wide and there would also be a footpath installed. He added that KCC Highways did not feel that it was necessary to force the developer to provide a zebra crossing so it would be difficult for Members to condition the developer to install a zebra crossing. KCC Highways & Transportation had not planned a zebra crossing or a change of speed limit signage for the junction but there had been a suggestion from Swale Borough Council (SBC) for that a zebra crossing could be installed.

The Senior Lawyer (Planning) advised Members that a Section 278 was a contract between the developer and KCC Highways & Transportation that required both parties to agree with the works proposed. She said that if KCC did not feel that it was necessary for a zebra crossing to be placed on this site then it would be difficult for the contract to be agreed. This would make the potential imposition of a condition or a planning obligation difficult in respect of the relevant required tests, notably in respect of reasonableness.

Councillor James Hunt said that there were real concerns about pedestrians crossing and accessing the site and proposed that a condition should be added to require the developer to seek to install a zebra crossing. This was seconded by the Chair.

On being put to the vote the proposal to add the extra condition was agreed.

Councillor James Hunt was also concerned about the speed limit on the road of the site and proposed that condition (22) of the report be reworded to require the developer to also make an application to KCC to reduce the speed limit of the road to 40 mph.

This was seconded by the Chair and on being put to the vote the proposal for the amendment to condition (22) was agreed.

Resolved: That application 22/502834/EIOUT be approved subject to conditions (1) to (23) as set out in the report including the change of wording for condition 22 and the requirement for the developer to seek to install a zebra crossing.