To consider the attached report (Parts 2 and 5).

The Council operates a scheme of public speaking at meetings of the Planning Committee.  All applications on which the public has registered to speak will be taken first.  Requests to speak at the meeting must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 19 July 2023.

Tabled paper added for item 2.1 on 17 July 2023.

Tabled paper added for item 2.2 on 20 July 2023.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report and reminded Members that the principle of development on the site had been approved at the outline application stage. She drew attention to the tabled paper which set out some points of clarification and the Council’s Tree Officer’s comments on the application.  She suggested condition (4) be amended to require landscape details to be of native species and condition (7) to refer to the need for gaps in boundary treatment for reptiles and small mammals.

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

The Chair invited Members to make comments and these included the following points:

·         The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was clear on the need for developments to be sustainable, but the Isle of Sheppey was at ‘breaking point’ in terms of its infrastructure;

·         this would add significant delays to existing residents with an additional 225 vehicle movements per day from the development;

·         considered it would be difficult to find reasons to refuse the application, bearing in mind it had been approved at outline stage;

·         the design of the layout of the access road looked difficult for refuse and delivery vehicles to manoeuvre within the site;

·         native species needed to be included in the conditions as well as enhancements to biodiversity;

·         acknowledged that developers were not required to supply affordable housing on the Isle of Sheppey, but considered they should be approached to seek a modest affordable housing provision;

·         confirmation sought on the rate of affording housing set out in the NPPF;

·         properties in Yarrow Drive (with parking managed by a management company) might be compromised by the additional parking requirements as a result of the development;

·         clarification sought on the status of the roads within the development;

·         there might be some conflict if the access road was operated by a management company; and

·         it was important to consider sustainable building materials and the climate emergency when new developments were being built.

In response, the Development Manager advised that affordable housing should be negotiated at outline stage, so could not be secured as part of this application.  The Planning Consultant advised that the application should not impact residents in terms of parking on Yarrow Drive, with the parking within this development following the Council’s parking standards, and as such she did not see that there would be an issue between the two developments.  She advised that the main legislation for building standards, including sustainability, was through building regulations.

There was further discussion on the status of the roads within the development and Members agreed that more information be sought as to whether Yarrow Drive was adopted.

Resolved:  That application 22/503236/REM be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (10) in the report, with amendments to wording as might reasonably be required and clarification be sought on the status of the roads, and if there were any issues, the application be brought back to the Planning Committee.

The Interim Major Team Leader introduced the application as set out in the report.  He drew attention to the tabled paper which included comments from Kent County Council (KCC) Ecology; plus additional representations similar to those already noted in the report.  The Interim Major Team Leader also drew Members’ attention to paragraph 4 on the tabled paper which noteda resolution by Cabinet in 2019 that proposed a locally set threshold of 500sqm for a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA).Planning officers were not aware of this lower threshold to the NPPF (paragraph 6.4 refers) when the report was completed. Notwithstanding this, an RIA was submitted by the application to support the proposal and reviewed as summarised in the report under paragraphs 6.3 to 6.8. Therefore, the recommendation remained unchanged.

Town Councillor Dolley Wooster, representing Sheerness Town Council, spoke against the application.

Holly Masterson, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Chair invited Members to make comments and these included the following points:

·         This was a well designed scheme and it would bring employment to the area;

·         there should be no highway issues at this location;

·         consideration should be given to Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) access to the loading bays;

·         welcomed this application;

·         Members had received numerous emails from local residents in support of the application;

·         the site was more suitable for a supermarket, rather than hotel use which it was allocated to within the Local Plan;

·         it was important to set the percentage for self-power generation of the building, as considered the building could generate most of the power it required;

·         suggested the car park had solar canopies;

·         welcomed the scheme’s biodiversity, but it was not sustainable biodiversity; and

·         super rapid Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points were needed.

In response, the Interim Major Team Leader referred to condition (16) where it referred to EV charging points, but acknowledged that the condition did not stipulate ‘rapid’ in the wording and suggested this could be added.

Councillor Terry Thompson moved the following amendment:  That condition (16) be amended so that it included the wording ‘super-rapid’ charging points, with 150-350 kW/unit, with a minimum of five units with this facility.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote the amendment was won.

Further comments included:

·         Suggested a free bus service be provided from Sheerness as pedestrian access to the site was not ideal;

·         needed to consider that a free bus service from Sheerness could impact on the vitality of Sheerness town centre, which had already been raised and noted in the report as a reason to object to the development;

·         acknowledged the Local Plan’s allocated use for the site, but it had been well evidenced that there was no need for a hotel in this location;

·         this was a good location for this type of development, with good access;

·         the new housing nearby would be within walking and cycling distance;

·         it was important to get a ‘very good’ BREEAM rating for this development;

·         welcomed the use of solar panels on the roof;

·         the location was good for this type of use; and

·         welcomed the employment opportunities that would come from the development.

Resolved:  That application 22/504598/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (33) in the report, with an amendment to condition (16) to include the wording ‘super-rapid’ charging points, with 150-350 kW/unit, and with a minimum of five units with this facility. 

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

·                Item 5.1 – Golden Leas Holiday Park Bell Farm Lane Minster

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

·                Item 5.2 – Estuary View Caravan Park Bell Farm Lane Minster 

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

Members welcomed the decisions.