To consider the following applications:

15/503580/FULL – Land North of Homestall Road, Doddington, Kent, ME9 0LB

15/508025/REM – Former HBC Engineering Site Power Station Road, Minster-on-Sea, Kent, ME12 3AB

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the applications will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on these items must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 9 March 2016.

The Area Planning Officer drew attention to his update which was tabled for Members.  He reported that delegation was sought to issue a refusal of planning permission subject to no fresh representations raising fresh issues being received on or before 15 March 2016.

Parish Councillor Colin Woods, representing Newnham Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Mrs Jean Price, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application and this was seconded.

Ward Members spoke against the application and raised points which included: praise local residents for their work and clear arguments to refuse the application; dispute the applicant’s gypsy and traveller status, they do not lead a nomadic life; there are sufficient gypsy and traveller sites available; no amenities at the site; drainage from the motorway goes into an ‘open’ pond at the site and closeness to the M2 would have an adverse impact on the health and wellbeing of the applicant; within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); the proposed acoustic fence unacceptable in an AONB; the site would be visible from Straight Hill; the number of gypsy and traveller sites in the area would mean that the settled community were outnumbered by the gypsy and traveller community; does not comply with Council policies; and was the wrong location.

Members considered the application and raised the following comments: concerned that the planning history may legally mean the application could be approved on appeal as set out in paragraph 9.1 of the committee report; this was not a suitable site for anybody to live; and if the applicant believes he can survive on the site that is his responsibility, we should not refuse on lack of amenity grounds.

Resolved:  That application 15/503580/FULL be delegated to officers to refuse for the reason outlined in the report, subject to no fresh representations raising fresh issues being received on or before 15 March 2016.

The Area Planning Officer reported that, as set out in the report, additional details relating to the issue of adoption of the road and public landscaped areas had been received.  The landscape proposals were tabled for Members.

Mrs Victoria Swift, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He raised the following points: wrong location; infrastructure issues; and would exacerbate the current traffic congestion on this part of the Isle of Sheppey.

A Member welcomed the landscape proposals but asked that entirely native planting be used and that the applicant provide the English names for officers not the Latin names.

The Area Planning Officer stated that this could be delegated to officers.

Some Members raised concern about drainage at the site and that the roads were not to be adopted by Kent County Council (KCC).  The following points were made: these issues need to be addressed now or they will be a problem for residents in the future; Southern Water Services are regularly pumping out sewage in this area; and is the perfect site but unviable.

The Area Planning Officer reminded Members that outline planning permission had been granted for the application and sewage, traffic issues and matters relating to the non-adoption of highways or landscaping were not items to be considered under Reserved Matters.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

There was some discussion about refusing the application.  Councillor Prescott moved a motion to defer the application.  This was not seconded.

At this point the Head of Planning Services used his delegated powers to ‘call-in’ the application.

Resolved:  That as the Planning Committee was minded to make a decision that would be contrary to officer recommendation and contrary to planning policy and/or guidance, determination of the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

Post Meeting Note:  This item will be considered at the Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday 30 March 2016.