To consider the following application:

17/500727/OUT – Manor Farm, Key Street, Sittingbourne, ME10 1YU 

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 January 2019.

Tabled Papers added 14 January 2019.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Major Projects Officer drew attention to the tabled update, and explained that since that had been written, four further objections had been received from local residents which included the following comments:

·         Why did the independently commissioned review not refer to the Swale Air Quality Report, which showed that air pollution levels were above EU objectives?;

·         the report omitted a summary of the comments raised since the August 2017 Planning Committee (note: these were appended with the agenda);

·         there were no published air quality monitoring results since August 2018;

·         the application should not be decided before the Swale Air Quality Action Plan is completed and published, with all data independently analysed;

·         there was a conflict of interest as Phlorum had a business relationship with Swale Borough Council (SBC);

·         the applicant needed to remember that this was not just a development of 50 houses, it must also include the 700 houses proposed for the Wises Lane, SW Sittingbourne, development;

·         the design of the slip road leading to the site was yet to be finalised by Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation, and this would create further traffic problems; and

·         the biased air quality reports could not seriously be considered, and an independent review should be carried out across multiple points around the A249 and A2/M2 junctions, especially at pinch points, for a 12 month period to get a comprehensive set of data.

The Major Projects Officer reported that KCC Ecology raised no objection to the application.  He added that an additional contribution was required to provide waste bins for each property: £101 per house and £945 per five flats.

He sought delegation to approve the application, subject to the addition of a further condition for off-site highway works under a Section 278 Agreement to be carried out.

The Major Projects Officer also referred to the tabled update which included a report from the University of Kent, which responded to the independent air quality report, produced by Phlorum, and commissioned by the Council.

Nigel Jenkins from Phlorum was invited to speak in response to the University of Kent’s report.

Mr Jenkins explained that verification of the air quality data did follow official Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) standard guidanceand looked at all information available in 2016.  In response to the report, produced by Entran in support of the SW Sittingbourne planning application, Mr Jenkins confirmed that the most up-to-date data was used.  He also noted the short timescales used by the University of Kent, in their air quality work for Borden Parish Council, and explained that this undermined their results.  He also stated that the data used by the Council was more accurate.

Parish Councillor Clive Sims, representing Borden Parish Council, spoke against the application.

John Waters, an objector, spoke against the application.

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair invited Members to ask questions, which included the following themes:  the affordable housing allocation should be 40%, not 10%, as the development was in the countryside; who would benefit from the contribution to the National Health Service? And clarification was needed on the reliance on the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) in order for the Key Street highway improvements to go ahead.

In response, the Major Projects Officer explained that this development came under the Sittingbourne built-up area, as detailed in the Local Plan, as an extension of the town, and as such only 10% affordable housing was required in accordance with Policy DM8 of the Local Plan; that officers would liaise, in preparing the Section 106 Agreement, with the Clinical Commissioning Group to clarify what the NHS requirements were in the vicinity of the development; that the Key Street highway works were not a requirement for the 50 houses at Manor Farm, Sittingbourne, only access onto Chestnut Street, via developer contributions, and the HIF funding could be put towards the Key Street roundabout.  The Principal Transport and Development Planner (KCC), added that in terms of reliance on HIF, there was no reliance, as the monies would be secured within the Section 106 Agreement.

In response to a procedural question, the Head of Planning Services explained that the procedure set-out in the Council’s Constitution on whether a matter could be brought back to the Committee less than six months after it was last debated, did not apply in this case.  Officers were aware that the Applicants could appeal against non-determination.  The Planning Lawyer referred the Member to Part 4 of the Constitution, paragraph 20.2, and where paragraph 33 stated that the rules involving motions did not apply to Committees, i.e. Planning Committee.

There were further questions on the following themes:  there was a shortfall on funding for junction 5 of the M2, so could money be sought from this development? How secure and reliable was the proposal for Key Street roundabout?  In response, the Major Projects Officer advised that no contribution had been sought by Highways England (HE) for junction 5.  The Principal Transport and Development Planner (KCC), explained that HE’s concern was safety at the Key Street junction, where traffic was backing-up on the northbound carriageway.  The development was providing a contribution to signalise that arm of the junction to alleviate the concern.  He added that HIF funding had been applied for to improve the Key Street junction.

A Member asked whether the Wises Lane development air quality data included this development as well, and how reliable the 2015 base air quality data was, bearing in mind that there had been considerable development since then?  Mr Jenkins explained that in terms of Wises Lane, there was an undertaking to look at other developments as well and this would have been done and added to the air quality data.  He explained that historic base data was used, then scaled forward.  In response to further questions on air quality levels around Key Street, the relevance to this application and being above the legal limit, and whether this was correct, Mr Jenkins explained that there could be fluctuation in air quality and the Major Projects Officer added that Key Street’s inclusion was as part of the ‘bigger picture’.

A Member considered there was conflicting information regarding air quality, and how Members could make a judgement based on that, and with the views of different consultants, which one could be relied upon?  The Major Projects Officer explained that there were three main consultants:  Entran, Wises Lane air quality assessment; Borden Parish Council had commissioned the University of Kent’s response to Phlorum’s review; and Phlorum, independent consultants for SBC.  He added that SBC had commissioned independent consultants and they had come to the conclusion that there was not a robust air quality issue to justify the refusal of the application.

A Member asked whether Phlorum had an indication of accuracy of future years predictions of air quality.  Mr Jenkins outlined the data that was used to assess future trends using modelling and met data, information provided by Government, and then the information projected forward.

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

The Committee debated the proposal to approve the application, and raised the following points:

·         This application was deferred for 12 months in August 2018; disappointed it was back;

·         there was a lot of reliance on future development to deliver the highway infrastructure;

·         there was a lack of funding for highway improvements;

·         entrance and exit to the development was dangerous, with problem of HGVs parking on the road in the vicinity;

·         should reject or defer for 12 months;

·         if approved there should be funding for junction 5 of the M2, single storeys on the Cherry Fields side, and screening around the boundary;

·         nothing had changed since August 2018;

·         real air quality data was needed;

·         questioned the independence of the consultants commissioned by SBC;

·         the evidence needed to be balanced;

·         needed to consider badgers on the site, plus mitigation measures;

·         the air quality at this location was not as bad as parts of the A2 elsewhere in Swale;

·         Members should trust officers to get the expertise/consultants as necessary;

·         a judgement was needed on this, we could not refuse on air quality grounds;

·         the development, if approved, needed to be well-designed;

·         hedges around the site needed to be protected and widened;

·         landscaping and design was very important, particularly to the right hand corner where the site rose; and

·         dormice and badgers, if found to be present at the site, needed to be protected.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following addendum:  that the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to ensuring that there was the highest quality of landscaping, both visually and for wildlife ecology. 

Members made further comments which included:  nothing had changed since August 2018; there was no reason to defer, the application should be approved; the T-junction would be a catastrophe; it had been decided to defer for 12 months, the application should not have come back yet; and the Committee should be thinking about health, not the potential costs to the Council for non-determination.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the motion to approve the application, plus addendum, and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Andy Booth, Mike Dendor, Mike Henderson, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay and Gerry Lewin.  Total equals eight.

Against:  Councillors Mike Baldock, George Bobbin, Richard Darby, James Hall, Nicholas Hampshire, Harrison, Peter Marchington and Ghlin Whelan .  Total equals eight.

Abstain:  Total equals nil.

The Vice-Chairman in the Chair announced that the vote was tied and he used his casting vote to approve the application.

Resolved:  That application 17/500727/OUT be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (30) in the report, an additional condition in respect of water conservation, the amendment of condition (18) (ecology) as set out in the tabled update, a suitably worded Section 106 Agreement and to ensure that there was the highest quality of landscaping, both visually and for ecology.