Tabled Update published 30.10.25

Parish Councillor Lee Small, representing Borden Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Gaynor Aspin, representing Borden Wildlife Group, spoke against the application.

Oonagh Kerrigan, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Hayden Brawn.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  She reported that since the report had been published, a response had been received from Kent Police advising they had no further comments.  She referred to the tabled update and apologised that the incorrect location plan had been published.  A corrected location plan was tabled for Members, however that was slightly incorrect and she included the correct location plan within her presentation of the application to Members.

The Chairman sought clarification from officers to points raised by the public speakers in respect of: this could increase fly-tipping; condition (37); light pollution; and badgers.

The Planning Consultant reported that whilst she was aware that there had been issues with fly-tipping in the area, this was not a matter for the Planning Department to get involved with.  She considered that the application followed good urban design principles which could help deter fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour.  Condition (37) referred to highway details which the applicant would need to provide before construction commenced.  The Council’s Environmental Protection Team and Kent County Council (KCC) Ecology and KCC Highways and Transportation had raised no objection to the proposed lighting, and would be consulted further, once an application to discharge the condition had been submitted, to ensure that the levels of lighting were appropriate.  With regard to badgers, the Planning Consultant advised that KCC Ecology had at the hybrid stage acknowledged that badgers would be displaced because of the development, but were satisfied with the conditions imposed to protect badgers.  She referred to condition (59) which required that the applicant submitted an updated badger survey prior to commencing each phase of the development.

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

·         Frustrated by KCC Ecology’s ‘desktop’ approach by not visiting sites;

·         the applicant could provide buffers to protect the nature reserve;

·         concerned regarding Southern Water’s comments in respect of insufficient water drainage information;

·         how would the conditions proposed to protect wildlife be enforced?;

·         Cryalls Lane, Sittingbourne was a rural lane so why was the Council’s Policy on Rural Lanes not referred to within the report?;

·         made no sense to remove a road that provided direct access to the nature reserve, but instead directed visitors through the estate and back out again.  Suggested the application be tweaked so that Cryalls Lane be maintained as a rural lane;

·         concerned that the proposed dwellings would be close to the nature reserve;

·         concerned regarding the proposed housing mix and the lack of affordable housing provision;

·         the foul drainage system needed to be assessed and a strategy provided;

·         concerned about the lack of one-bedroom dwellings;

·         pleased that 12% affordable housing was being provided, when they were only required to provided 10%;

·         noted that most of the consultees had no issue with the application;

·         this application had been agreed four years ago by the Planning Inspector, and the Council was limited on how they could amend the application;

·         the flooding and foul sewage drainage provision was essential as part of the application;

·         Cryalls Land should remain open;

·         drew attention to an error on paragraph 5.10 on page 18 of the report, and that 19 affordable units were proposed not 9 as stated;

·         there had been issues with securing Registered Providers (RP) with developments, could an advisory condition be imposed requiring that should the applicant be unable to secure a partner RP that they utilised the Homes England (HE) Section 106 Affordable Housing Clearing Service to secure a partner?;

·         morally disappointed about how the developer had functioned and that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was a failure;

·         Cryalls Lane was not a rural lane, and the area had changed; and

·         considered the hybrid plan was worse than this application.

In response, the Planning Consultant considered that the applicant had taken account of all of the impacts of the development, and officers were happy with the design and layout.  With regard to skylarks, she was aware that the local government ombudsman was happy with the protection measures provided.  The Planning Consultant advised that the closing off of Cryalls Lane had been considered and agreed as part of the hybrid application.  With regard to affordable housing, a specific housing mix had not been agreed and secured under the hybrid application, and the mix specified within the report was borough-wide.  She confirmed that drainage and flooding had been considered and agreed with suitable conditions at the hybrid stage.  The applicants had been successful in securing RPs, however an informative could be imposed requiring developers utilised the HE Section 106 Clearing Service to secure a RP if they had not been able to do so. 

In response, to questions regarding Southern Water’s (SW) concerns regarding lack of information in respect of foul drainage and flooding, the Planning Manager (Planning Applications) referred to condition (10) of the hybrid permission.  He said SW were not a statutory authority for a reserved matters application.

Resolved:  That application 25/501437/REM be granted as per the recommendation in the report.