To consider the attached report (Parts 2 and 4).

The Council operates a scheme of public speaking at meetings of the Planning Committee.  All applications on which the public has registered to speak will be taken first.  Requests to speak at the meeting must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call 01795 417328) by noon on Friday 24 January 2020.

Tabled Paper (Item 2.4) added 23 January 2020.

Tabled Paper (Item 2.3) added 24 January 2020.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

There were no questions.

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

A Member was disappointed that there was not a representative from Eastchurch Parish Council at the meeting.

Resolved:  That application 19/503100/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

The Senior Planner reported that the Agent had responded to comments raised by Iwade Parish Council, noted in paragraph 8.6 in the report.  The Agent had advised that ventilation would be provided by roof lights and mechanical ventilation in the hall and classrooms.

There were no questions.

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

Members were invited to debate the application and raised points which included:

·         Agreed with the Parish Council’s comments, but acknowledged that this was a building regulations matter;

·         there was a lack of windows on the side of the building;

·         this was too much in a small space;

·         concerned with fire safety issues; and

·         suggested an informative be added to recommend a heat recovery system as part of the mechanical ventilation to improve the energy performance of the building.

The Senior Planner advised that an informative could be added and Members were happy with this approach.

Resolved:  That application 19/505108/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report, and an informative to recommend a heat recovery system as part of the mechanical ventilation to improve the energy performance of the building.

The Major Projects Officer referred to the tabled paper for this item.  He also reported that an amended plan had been received indicating access to the site, and advised that an additional condition would be required to ensure that the access was provided, in accordance with the submitted plan before the occupation of the first dwelling.

Caroline Barkway, an objector, spoke against the application.

Peter Cooper, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member questioned how up-to-date some of the information was in the report, in terms of viability issues and in relation to available services and bus routes.  The Major Projects Officer apologised for any inaccuracies, but did not consider the points raised would affect the officer recommendation.  The Member asked about the cumulative impact of this site, plus the adjacent site on the road network, especially bearing in mind that the roads were unmade.  The Major Projects Officer explained that KCC Highways and Transportation had commented on the adjoining, Belgrave Road site, and as such were aware of the potential combined traffic impact on the local road network.  He explained that the Belgrave Road site was allocated within the Local Plan for 153 dwellings, and this site, being only 17 dwellings was a much smaller development.  With the improvements proposed under the Belgrave Road application, KCC Highways and Transportation felt there was capacity for both schemes to come forward.

A Member spoke on the condition of the unmade road, which would get worse if the development went ahead and asked who would be expected to maintain the road.  The Major Projects Officer referred to paragraph 9.24 on page 74 of the report and said that this had been assessed by KCC Highways and Transportation and they had not requested that the site and link roads be made-up to adoptable standards.  He explained that maintenance of the road was a civil matter, and there was not a policy in the Local Plan to allow the Council to insist that roads were made-up to adoptable standard between the application site and the nearest adopted road.

A Member asked about how enforceable the ecology conditions could be as some of the site had already been cleared?  The Major Projects Officer acknowledged the situation and stated that from now on, a bio-diversity net gain could be achieved on the site due to the attached conditions.  He added that although the site might previously have been scrubland, and so with the use of best possible landscaping and trees, the site could be an asset.  The Member requested the developer be asked for some mitigation measures for the road.  The Senior Planning Lawyer advised that KCC Highways and Transportation had their own system in place to request that private roads were made-up to a necessary standard, but this was not within the remit of the Planning Committee.  He further confirmed that if the Committee decided that the making up and adoption of the roads was required in planning terms,  KCC would be obliged to take this forward, but that the works would be carried out by the Developer.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He said the site was not allocated for housing in the Local Plan and it was outside the built-up area.  He stated that sites outside the Local Plan allocation should not be considered whilst waiting for appeal results.  The Ward Member said that this was a small amount of housing, but it came with problems and the development was contrary to policy, and there was already enough development in the area.  The other two Ward Members agreed with his comments.  The Head of Planning Services reminded Members that the Council did not have a five-year housing supply.  He said that the development was contrary to policy, but that the tilted balance was applied in this case.

Councillor Tim Valentine moved the following amendment:  That the development not commence until a Section 38 Agreement (to require the road between the application site and the nearest adopted road be adopted by KCC Highways and Transportation) be agreed with KCC.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

There was some discussion on who would be required to make-up the road and how much it would cost to do that.

Councillor Tim Valentine withdrew his motion.

Councillor James Hunt moved the following amendment:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to a Section 38 Agreement being agreed with the Ward Members and officers, with the full cost going to the applicant and if not, the application be brought back to the Planning Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the substantive motion and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Roger Clark, Ghlin Whelan, Tim Gibson, Carole Jackson, Benjamin Martin, Eddie Thomas and Tim Valentine.  Total equals 7.

Against:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Lee McCall, James Hall, Mike Dendor, James Hunt, Sarah Stephen, Peter Marchington, Simon Fowle, Paul Stephen and Tony Winckless.  Total equals 10.

Abstain: 0 

The motion to approve the application was lost.

The meeting was adjourned from 8.19pm to 8.27pm.

The Head of Planning Services called-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 a future meeting of the Committee.

The Major Projects Officer referred to the tabled update for this item.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member queried the estimated vehicle movements, and the Major Projects Officer explained that the key factor was the vehicle movements at peak times.  These were 12 in the morning peak hour and 10 in the evening peak hour.  He considered these to be relatively low figures.  The Member felt the vehicle movement numbers were underestimated and would be higher.  In response the Major Projects Officer explained that KCC used a national data base for their modelling, and they had advised that the development would not give rise to unacceptable impact.  He added that an evidence base would be needed in order to justify the argument that KCC’s assessment was incorrect and that, as such, there would be an adverse impact.

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

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He said that it was not possible to get proof of the harm, prior to the development being built.  He advised that a lot of the residents were not against the development per se but were concerned with the blind junction at Bramblefield Lane and Grovehurst Road.

Councillor Mike Dendor moved a motion for a site meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.  On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Members were invited to debate the application and raised points which included:

·         Problems with speeding vehicles at this location;

·         the speed limit needed to be enforced; and

·         issues with parked cars on both sides of the road on Bramblefield Lane.

In response to the comments, the Major Projects Officer suggested that a requirement for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for double yellow lines to cover the junction with Grovehurst Road and both sides of the access into the new development from Bramblefield Lane, and for the developer to cover the cost of the double yellow lines could be added to the requirements for the Section 106 Agreement that would be needed for the development.  The Major Projects Officer advised that if a TRO was requested, there was no guarantee on what the outcome would be as it was a separate regime determined by another Committee.

Councillor James Hunt moved the following amendment:  That a requirement for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for double yellow lines to cover the junction with Grovehurst Road and both sides of the access into the new development from Bramblefield Lane, and for the developer to pay all costs, including the cost of the double yellow lines be added to the Section 106 Agreement.  This was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor and on being to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Councillor Tim Valentine moved the following amendment:  That, should the application be approved, the following energy efficiency condition be added:

Prior to the construction of any dwelling, a scheme of sustainable design and construction measures for the dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall demonstrate –

a)      A reduction in carbon emissions of at least 50% compared to the target emission rate as required under Part L of the Building Regulations 2013 (as amended) for all dwellings within the development.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

This was seconded by Councillor Benjamin Martin. On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/501845/OUT be approved subject to conditions (1) to (25) in the report, that the heads of terms for the Section 106 Agreement be extended to include a requirement for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for double yellow lines to cover the junction with Grovehurst Road and both sides of the access into the new development on Bramblefield Lane, and for the developer to pay all costs, including the cost of the double yellow lines, and the inclusion of an energy efficiency condition (to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions of at least 50% compared to the target emission rate as required under Part L of the Building Regulations 2013).

PART 4

Swale Borough Council’s own development; observation on County Council’s development; observation of development by Statutory Undertakers and by Government Departments; and recommendations to the County Council on ‘County Matter’ applications.

The Senior Planner advised Members that this application was a consultation request from KCC and not an application for planning permission.  KCC would be the determining authority, and would base their decision on the comments received from consultees.

There were no questions.

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

A Ward Member supported the application.

Members were invited to debate the application and raised points which included:

·         Concerned with the comments from Iwade Parish Council; and

·         would like a caveat that all processes undertaken during the amendments were carried out ‘by the book’.

In response, the Senior Planner advised that if the Committee’s decision was no objection, it would be subject to comments from statutory consultees.

Resolved:  That no objection be made to application 19/504918/COUNTY subject to condition (1) in the report.