To consider the following application:

17/505711/HYBRID, Land at Wises Lane, Borden

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

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 19 June 2019.

Tabled update published 20 June 2019.

Tabled letters published 3 July 2019.

The Senior Planner introduced the application and referred to the tabled paper which provided updates on: the rugby facility; highways matters and details of amendments following local Members meeting with Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation.  The Senior Planner stated that a further four representations had been received, one from the applicant and three objections from local residents, these were tabled for Members.

The Senior Planner reported that there was a requirement for off-site skylark mitigation measures to be included in the Section 106 Agreement and explained that KCC’s Ecology Officer required adjacent farmland to be maintained as appropriate habitat for skylarks and this would be triggered on commencement of the development.  The Planner then outlined the general terms of the proposal for Members including details of the proposed spine road which would link Borden Lane to Chestnut Street including a slip road onto the A249 southbound.

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

Roger Down, a Supporter spoke in support of the application.

Nicola Butlin, an Objector spoke against the application.

Kate Row, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

At this point, following a request from a Member, the Chairman adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes to allow Members to read the tabled papers.

A Member raised concern that there were a lot of tabled papers.  He asked the Chairman and Cabinet Member for Planning to review this and see if a deadline for updates could be imposed.  The Chairman agreed to look into the issue for the Member.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

In response to queries from a Member, the Senior Planner clarified that with regard to the Section 106 Agreement, the contribution to the Police was not required as it did not meet the requirements of the Community Infrastructure Levy test.   The National Health Service (NHS)  had advised that they would not require an on-site facility and had requested a financial contribution be allocated off-site.  He confirmed that the NHS did not have to provide a reason for this.

A Member raised queries in respect of the proposed spine and slip roads and the location of the commuter parking and bus stops.  The Senior Planner drew attention to paragraph 3 on page 4 of the Committee report.  He stated that previously, construction of the spine road between Chestnut Street and Wises Lane would be following the occupation of dwelling 199, however local Ward Members had requested that this be prior to the occupation of property 120.   He advised that the Applicant had stated that due to timings and costs it would not be possible to achieve that and had offered from the occupation of the 160^th property.  The Senior Planner stated that in order to assist the applicant in bringing this forward, the trigger for improvements to the Wises Lane/London Road junction be delivered prior to the 200^th occupation rather than the 39^th.  The Senior Planner explained that delaying that work would allow KCC Highways and Transportation time to establish whether the traffic lights were required.

The Senior Planner stated that KCC had originally proposed some layby parking would be retained in that part of Chestnut Street for commuter parking, however Members had requested that this be provided on the spine road.  He advised that details of that scheme and parking would be provided at the reserved matters stage.

A Member queried the proposed width restrictions and raised concern about where the commuter pick-up points would be located.  The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer explained that two local bus-stops would be provided on Wises Lane, one northbound and the other southbound, with two on the spine road, the exact locations were unknown at this stage.  The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer explained that there would need to be discussions with Kingsferry Coaches to establish whether they would be happy to use Wises Lane for picking-up commuters.

A Member drew attention to paragraph (5) of page 5 of the Committee report, and asked for clarification about how the rugby club would be operated and shared as a community facility.  The Planner stated that the detailed layout would be subject to consultation and considered at a latre stage.  The Section 106 Agreement required that the applicant entered into a Community User Agreement which would allow the club to be hired out for other uses when not being used by the Rugby Club.

In response to a comment, the Senior Planner advised that condition (38) relating to landscaping could be re-worded to refer to ‘entirely’ native species.  A Member requested that condition (9) relating to sustainable construction should be a pre-commencement condition, as the construction of floor slabs could impact sustainability of a building.

In response to a question, the Senior Planner explained that with regard to the land requested by the Parish Council, that he was advised that this land had never been offered by the developer. 

Following further questions about the details of the Section 106 and provision of schools from a Member, the Senior Planner stated that education was KCC’s responsibility, and  that it was in KCC’s interests to use the correct pupil forecasting and trigger points for delivery of schools.  

A Member asked what was meant by ‘passive provision’ of electric vehicle parking.  The Senior Planner explained that passive provision was providing the infrastructure for 10% car charging to be provided.  The kit to operate the system would be provided separately. 

In response to further queries, the Senior Planner confirmed there had been no discussion on heating provision for the proposed flats.  The Senior Planner outlined details of the SAMMS policy and Special Protection Area payment.  The Senior Planner advised that with regard to the south bound on-slip contribution and Chestnut Street Connection Works, set out on page 20 of the Committee report, Highways England had requested the proposed 150 housing occupation triggers.

The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer confirmed that the 300 occupation trigger had also been requested by Highways England.

The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer responded to queries from a Member, and explained that considerable walking and cycling provision would be provided throughout the scheme.  With regard to car charging, he explained that this was ‘ever-changing’, and provision of cabling was in ‘passive’ form, to allow fluidity in what charging levels could be provided. 

A Member queried what the proposed route was for HGVs servicing the commercial units, as they would not be able to negotiate the width restrictions.  He drew attention to page 10 of the Committee report, and queried why the £75,000 was been giving to the rugby club and not to provide play areas within the development.  He also drew attention to paragraph 10 on page 28 of the Committee report, and queried how the comment in respect of water consumption would be achieved.

The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer stated that the A2 would still be available for HGVs and that Members had requested the weight restriction, but this could be reviewed if Members now had concerns.   The Senior Planner stated that the off-site sport provision had been negotiated with Sports England and the Council’s Green Spaces Manager for wider sports provision within the Borough.  Three play areas were being provided within the development.  The water consumption rates would be controlled under Building Regulations and the developer would need to demonstrate how that would be achieved through water saving measures.

In response to a query about provision of funding for the Sittingbourne hub, the Planner explained that it related to the Central Avenue area of Sittingbourne.  He confirmed that if the hub did not materialise the Section 106 Agreement could specify that the money be used on other related projects in the local area.

The KCC Highways and Transportation Officer confirmed that the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid may be unsuccessful.  He confirmed that with regard to provision of the slip road would be from the occupation of the 300^th  property.  He confirmed that none of the existing roadwork would be lost and that Chestnut Street would be widened to allow access for HGVs, and confirmed that this would be achieved by closing the existing on-slip so Chestnut Street had a wider boundary. 

The Head of Planning Services confirmed that if the HIF bid was unsuccessful the money from the developer for the slip road would still be secured and re-circulated for use elsewhere.

The Chairman invited visiting Members to comment on the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

A visiting Member representing Homewood Ward, spoke against the application.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

A Ward Member, also a Member of the Planning Committee, spoke against the application.  He raised concerns which included:  air quality issues had not been mitigated under the Section 106 Agreement; the Swale Clinical Commissioning Group should push for the provision of a doctor’s surgery; would also have an adverse impact on the ward of West Downs; had requested a pond be included but the developers had dismissed out-of-hand; did not consider the developer could be trusted; and traffic issues had not been addressed.

Members debated the application and raised points which included:

·         Proposed mitigation for air quality control was inadequate;

·         Needed to be more imaginative in mitigating air quality issues;

·         Concerned that £1.5 million of the Section 106 might not be provided;

·         Developer had not listened to concerns of the Ward Members;

·         Did not see how HGV access at Key Street would work;

·         More on-site employment was required;

·         40% affordable housing should be provided;

·         The adjoining ward Members should have been consulted;

·         No air quality or traffic impact studies had been undertaken;

·         Concern with regard to no provision for primary or secondary schools;

·         Would impact on traffic safety at Fulston Manor School and Sittingbourne Community College;

·         The scheme had not been thought out;

·         Air Quality study needed to be undertaken in Homewood Ward;

·         Would have an adverse impact on the ward of Homewood in terms of increased traffic;

·         Disappointed no medical centre being provided;

·         Local people would not be able to afford the proposed houses;

·         A marketing strategy and building of the retail unit needed to be provided before commencement of the development;

·         The maximum affordable housing level should be provided;

·         Should be more emphasis on design and future-proofing the proposed properties;

·         Commuter parking was a significant issue already in the area and needed proper design plan on how to deal with the issue;

·         Concern that residential streets could be used for commuter parking;

·         Major concern relating to environmental measures proposed;

·         Concern that Members were being miss-lead and that report referred to south west Sittingbourne, but it was the village of Borden;

·         Increased traffic from the proposed scheme would also impact on other areas including Newington along the A2 which was already an Air Quality Management Zone;

·         Local Ward Members had a duty to protect local residents from the harm caused by poor air quality;

·         Would adversely impact on the air quality in other areas including: Newington; Chalkwell; Homewood; and Rainham;

·         The developer needed to work with the Parish Council on local housing needs;

·         The Council could not allow developers to ignore the Council’s Local Plan in terms of affordable housing provision; and

·         Officers had done well to negotiate the Section 106 Agreement to be better than reported in January 2019 and should be approved.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the motion to approve the application and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors: Cameron Beart and James Hunt.  Total equals 2.

Against:  Councillors Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Tim Gibson, James Hall, Nicholas Hampshire, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington, Benjamin Martin, Richard Palmer, Ben Martin, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless. Total equals 13.

Abstain:  Councillor David Simmons.  Total equals 1.

The motion to approve the application was lost.

At this point the Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow officers to receive advice from legal.

Councillor Nicholas Hampshire moved the following motion:  That the entire  application be brought back to the Planning Committee for consideration.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the motion that the whole application be brought back to the Committee and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors: Monique Bonney, Simon Clark, Tim Gibson, James Hall, Nicholas Hampshire, Carole Jackson, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington, Benjamin Martin, Richard Palmer, Ben Martin, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless.   Total equals 13.

Against:  Councillors Cameron Beart, James Hunt and David Simmons. Total equals 3.

Abstain:  Total equals 0.

The motion for the entire application to be brought back to Committee was agreed.

Members requested that the application be considered at an Extraordinary meeting of the Planning Committee.

Resolved:  That application 17/505711/HYBRID be brought back to Committee for consideration at an Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting, date to be confirmed.