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

Councillor Jill Stimson, representing Minster-on-Sea Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Simon Kight, a supporter, spoke in support of the application.

Alan Doughty, an objector, spoke against the application.

Richard Walters, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

A Ward Member, spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

-     Paragraph 4.4 of the report mentioned a Multi-use Community Hub, but this was not secured in the outline application;

-     had no confidence that the developer would deliver on the medical hub;

-     concerned with the highway works and the issues it would cause across the Isle of Sheppey;

-     the footpath at Scocles Road, Minster, was not wide enough for cyclists and there were no proposals to widen it;

-     often large coaches would use the Scocles Road junction to get to schools and this made it dangerous for pedestrians to use Scocles Road;

-     if there was further development at Scocles Road then an additional roundabout needed to be considered;

-     the cycle and footpaths would need to be lit so that they could be used in the evenings;

-     there was no mention of youth clubs by Kent County Council (KCC);

-     full Travel Plan should be secured at outline stage;

-     development would harm the Grade II listed Scocles Court;

-     the Kent County Council (KCC) Highways Team said that they would be happy for 300 homes to be built before the Lower Road footpath works commenced but this should be lowered to 100 homes;

-     it was not clear when the funding would be made available for key services and amenities such as a bus service;

-     the Public Rights of Way Officer (PROW) had commented that the development would have a negative effect on the landscape;

-     open spaces, green spaces, play space, sports pitches and allotments should be secured;

-     the location of the care homes was too close to the community areas of the development;

-     the road network was not adequate to accommodate for the development on the Isle of Sheppey;

-     the developer should have done better with the design and communication with parish and ward councillors;

-     it was not clear what level of funding was expected from the development as KCC had provided two different letters that conflicted each other;

-     all funding should be allocated to infrastructure on the Isle of Sheppey;

-     the section 106 requirement for best endeavours to provide pedestrian links was inadequate;

-     Library funding should be allocated to Minster;

-     not clear that EV chargers would be provided;

-     no solar panels were being proposed on the new homes;

-     the allotments were not secured by condition so the developer may not deliver them;

-     impact piling would increase heritage harm to Scocles Court;

-     condition 8 (Landscaping) should specify 10 year period for replacement of landscaping;

-     condition 24 (Highways Works) needed to be amended to read “No more than 100 dwellings…” not 300 as stated;

-     condition 25, (Provision of footway) should not include Scocles Road;

-     condition 26, (Provision of footway) should include wording to ensure it commenced from day one of the development;

-     condition 27, (Provision of shared use footway-cycleway) should include a requirement for the path to be lit;

-     the wording in condition 50 (Sports Facilities) should be “tighted-up”;

-     condition 51 (Heritage Interpretation Board) should include wording that the developer would fix any harm to Scocles Court;

-     understood that outline applications were presented to Committee so that Members could secure the relevant details but often got lots of changes from the developers when reserved matter submissions followed;

-     ward members should meet with officers, KCC, developer and other relevant parties to secure improvements to the proposal;

-     the timings of the road works and connection to the Lower Road roundabout were key and thought that further discussions were needed with KCC to identify the timing of highways works;

-     the affordable housing should be made available to Isle of Sheppey residents before it was made available to others;

-     concerned that housing was given to people that lived out of the local area, rather than residents that needed it in the borough;

-     thought the Council should have done their own Independent Traffic assessment; and

-     the funding for schooling should be allocated to schools on the Isle of Sheppey rather than grammar schools in Sittingbourne.

The Vice-Chair proposed that the application be deferred for Ward Members to meet with the developers to address concerns relating to the application. This was seconded by Councillor Simon Clark.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, which included;

-     There were too many aspects of this proposal that were not yet resolved therefore it would be hard to agree it at this stage;

-     it was important for the developer to meet with Parish Councils and the Ward Members to secure improvements to the scheme;

-     the Scocles Road proposals could be improved to better address impacts on the road network;

-     the Ward Members and Parish Councils should have been able to have input into the proposals before it was deferred to the Committee;

-     the Housing Association’s energy targets were not often that high so it would be good to see a requirement for the new homes to be given a Band B Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating;

-     an independent traffic survey was needed;

-     the provision of the bus services needed clarifying;

-     there was not enough infrastructure on the Isle of Sheppey, and it needed to be clear in the Local Plan on how developers could deliver infrastructure to support new development; and

-     the developer needed to provide further clarity with regards to the cycle pathway and youth club provisions.

On being put to the vote, the motion for deferral was agreed.

Resolved: That application 22/502086/OUT be deferred.