The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  He reported that when the application had been considered by the Committee at their meeting on 5 December 2024, some of the images of materials to be used had inaccurately represented some of the colours, and the applicant had submitted some revised imagery which he displayed for Members.

Julian Moat, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Parish Councillor Mike Brown, representing Eastchurch Parish Council, spoke against 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 the Vice-Chair.

The Chair invited Members to raise points, and comments included:

·         Noted that the 30-mph speed limit would be extended and red markings installed to slow traffic down;

·         supported the application and the affordable housing it would provide;

·         the site did not lie within open countryside as there was already housing on the other side of the road;

·         there were no grounds to refuse the application;

·         sought clarification that the proposed 30-mph sign would be conditioned;

·         noted that the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) had commented that the affordable housing could not be guaranteed;

·         considered Plough Road was a busy road but a safe road;

·         Plough Road was used like a racetrack during weekends in the Summer;

·         Eastchurch was a historical village, and the proposed flats were not in-keeping;

·         there were no footpaths, and it was not in a sustainable location;

·         the design and orientation of the dwellings was poor in terms of opportunities to install solar panels;

·         KCC Highways & Transportation raised no objection to the application;

·         affordable housing was required across the borough;

·         there was a clear need for affordable housing on the Isle of Sheppey;

·         the Council had declared an affordable housing emergency, which lent support to the application;

·         considered biodiversity was very ‘loose’ and asked that Moat Homes provided several swift boxes on each dwelling rather than one per dwelling;

·         there were no planning grounds to refuse the application;

·         most properties were built on an area which was previously ‘open space’;

·         what was meant by two and a half storey?; and

·         referred to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) contribution set out under paragraph 7.111 on page 142 of the report and said it should be solely for facilities on the Isle of Sheppey, not in ‘Swale District’ as stated.

In response, the Planning Consultant reported that with regard to the 30-mph sign, a condition would be imposed requiring the applicant to seek a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for an extended speed restriction on Warden Road with KCC Highways & Transportation.  As the Homes England grant was dependent upon Moat Homes providing the affordable housing and as they were also a registered housing provider, it would not be in their interest not to deliver the affordable housing, including from a reputational point of view.  The Planning Consultant agreed to amend the relevant condition to require the submission of further details of biodiversity enhancements.  Two and a half storeys referred to dwellings that provided accommodation within the roof space i.e. dormer windows, so not a full height storey.

The Chair asked whether, if granted, the permission could require that it ‘not be transferable to private homes’, in order that the applicant could not provide private homes instead of affordable homes?  The Planning Manager reported that such a requirement could not be added as it would not meet all the requirements of the NPPF as being reasonable and necessary.  It could also be transferred from one housing provider to another if Moat were not able to deliver. 

Resolved:  That application 23/505678/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report and that the relevant condition be amended to require the submission of further details of biodiversity enhancement.