PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report and advised that there were no further updates to the information already in the report.

Mark Pearce, 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 read out a brief statement from one of the Ward Members who had sent his apologies and who had called the application in for the Planning Committee to determine.  The Ward Member explained that a resident had contacted him with concerns about the potential fire risk at the site and also loss of commercial land.  The Chair said it was disappointing that the other Ward Member was unable to attend the meeting.

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

·         This was a good location for this type of use, being on scrubland and close to Swale Way for access;

·         clarification sought on the new footpath; and

·         concerned with flooding that sometimes occurred on the site.

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following addendum:  That the units on the site be painted green so they blended in with the landscape.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.  In response, the Planning Consultant drew Members’ attention to paragraph 4.4 in the report where the Council’s Urban Design officer had recommended that the units be painted green, and Condition (21) secured details of the paint finish.  As such, the proposer and seconder withdrew the addendum.

The Planning Consultant explained that the footpath would be secured through a Section 106 agreement.

Further comments included:

·         Minded to support the application, although did had some concerns with fire risk, but noted that Kent Fire & Rescue raised no objection;

·         further clarification sought on the potential use of the land for other businesses, and evidence of why there had been a failure to secure employment opportunities at the site;

·         concerned that this site was in close proximity to other developments, rather than being in a rural setting;

·         clarification sought on the life span of the proposed use;

·         was there a battery safety management plan for the site?;

·         this was a well-written report;

·         considered the application could have been dealt with via delegated powers to officers;

·         some residents wished this decision to be made by elected Members;

·         there were no planning reasons to turn this application down; and

·         welcomed the wording in condition 15 (archaeological programme of works).

In response, the Planning Consultant said the Economic Development Officer did raise concern with the land not being used for employment space, and he acknowledged that the reasons for this not going forward was anecdotal, rather than evidence based.  He added that the lifespan for the development was at least 25 years and a battery safety management plan would be secured by condition and would be subject to consultation with Kent Fire & Rescue.

Councillor Andy Booth moved the following amendment:  That part of condition (11) (low frequency noise) be amended to read:  The assessment will be a measurement or a calculation to demonstrate internal levels.  This was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Resolved:  That application23/505752/FULL be approved as per the recommendation in the report with an amendment to condition (11) to read: The assessment will be a measurement to demonstrate internal levels.