To consider the following applications:

Deferred Item (1) 19/501789/FULL Land east of 11 Southsea Avenue, Minster, Kent, ME12 2JX

Deferred Item (2) 19/501921/FULL Land at Belgrave Road, Halfway, Kent, ME12 3EE

Tabled Paper for Deferred Item (2) added 6 February 2020.

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 5 February 2020.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Area Planning Officer reported that the approved dwellings to either side had changed slightly, to the west they had moved forward by just over a metre and to the east, again by just over a metre.  These changes had not made a material difference to the acceptability of the proposal.

There were no questions.

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

Resolved:  That application 19/501789/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (11) in the report, and to a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) payment.

The Senior Planner referred to the tabled update for this item.

Philip Healy, an objector, spoke against the application.

Thijs Bax, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member sought clarification on whether Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation were accepting funds from two developments for one highway scheme.  The Senior Planner explained that this was not a contribution for the Halfway traffic lights junction but it was the requirement for the works to be carried out for a junction improvement scheme.  He referred the Member to condition (9) in the Committee report which outlined this requirement.  The Member asked about the £20,000 agreed previously, and the Senior Planner advised that this was for highway mitigation for the Barton Hill Drive scheme, but was unrelated to the Belgrave Road proposal.  The Major Projects Officer confirmed that the £20,000 was to discourage use of the local side roads as a rat-run, but this was solely related to the scheme at Barton Hill Drive.

A Member referred to paragraph 2.2 on page 21 of the report and sought clarification on whether the £100 contribution from the developer was for each occupier, or each dwelling.  The Senior Planner advised that on reading the Agent’s comments in paragraph 2.2, it would appear that the £100 contribution was for each occupant.  The Major Projects Officer said he believed it was per dwelling.  The Senior Planning Lawyer commented that he believed the sentence could be read either way.

A Member sought further details on the funding of the junction and referred to the Barton Hill Drive contribution of a fixed sum of £20,000.  She sought clarification on the Grampian condition, and she asked which developer was doing what at that junction and who was paying.  The Senior Planner advised that the fixed sum was for other highway improvements relating to the Barton Hill Drive scheme and not this development.  The Halfway Traffic Lights junction improvements were the same works for both the Barton Hill Drive and Belgrave Road scheme and had been modelled on the basis of the impact from both developments.  The Member asked what would happen if one of the schemes did not move forward.  The Senior Planner explained that if only one application was approved, then that developer would need to deliver the scheme.  The Member then asked what would happen if both schemes got approved, and the Senior Planner explained that whichever scheme got to the trigger point in the development that they needed to comply with that condition, then they would be required to do the works.  The Member referred to the £100 voucher for bus travel/cycle equipment and asked how that figure was arrived at.  The Senior Planner explained that without the £100 contribution, mitigation measures for the scheme were considered acceptable, so anything above that was an additional benefit.

A Member asked for details of the Travel Plan referred to in paragraph 2.2 and the Senior Planner explained that the detail would be in the Section 106 Agreement.  The Member asked for details of a generic travel plan and where the evidence base in relation to these mitigating measures came from and how successful they were.  The Senior Planner referred the Member to paragraph 2.4 in the report and explained that KCC Highways and Transportation commented that schemes like this were used nationwide.

A Member asked whether the off-site works outlined in condition (9) could be implemented prior to the occupation of the 10^th dwelling, rather than the 50^th as noted in the report.  The Senior Planner advised that this trigger point was reached as a result of KCC Highways and Transportation’s technical analysis, however, there was potential for this trigger to be amended if Members considered this appropriate.

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

A Ward Member spoke on the junction with Queenborough Road and did not agree with KCC Highways and Transportation’s comments, and considered the proposed measures would increase highway danger.  Another Ward Member referred to condition (9) in the report and KCC Highways and Transportation’s modelling, and said the junction was already over capacity even if nothing was done.

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

·         Welcomed the scheme’s 10% affordable housing; and

·         the £100 for each dwelling was a welcome initiative.

Councillor Ben J Martin moved the following amendment:  That £100 be given to each occupant, calculated as £100 per bedroom, rather than each dwelling.  This was seconded by Councillor Tim Valentine and upon being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Councillor Ben J Martin moved the following further amendment:  That condition (9) be amended to state that agreed off-site highway works be implemented prior to the occupation of the 2^nd dwelling.  This was seconded by Councillor Elliott Jayes. 

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following amendment:  That condition (9) be amended to state that agreed off-site highway works be implemented prior to the occupation of the 1st dwelling.  This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Councillor Monique Bonney moved the following further amendment:  That subject to agreement with the applicant, a Travel Plan be included in a Section 106 Agreement.  This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

The Senior Planner clarified that if the application was approved then it would be done so on the basis that it was subject to the amendments as agreed.

Further comments included:

·         Concerned with the tandem parking, and the layout, on the development;

·         residents needed to be aware of how they could access the £100 voucher scheme; and

·         since amendments following the last meeting, everything was now according to Policy and the application should be approved.

In response, the Senior Planner advised that there were 172 tandem spaces on the proposed development, and at the request of KCC Highways and Transportation, visitor parking had been added to offset any parking issues.  He added that KCC Highways and Transportation had given detailed formal advice on the layout.  The Senior Planning Lawyer advised that KCC Highways and Transportation had responsibility for the layout of roads whether they were adopted or not.

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

For:  Councillors Roger Clark, Simon Clark, Mike Dendor, Tim Gibson, James Hunt, Carole Jackson, Benjamin A Martin, Ben J Martin, David Simmons, Tim Valentine and Tony Winckless .  Total equals 11.

Against:  Councillors Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney, James Hall, Elliott Jayes, Peter Marchington and Paul Stephen.  Total equals 6.

Abstain: 0.

The motion to approve the application was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/501921/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (35) in the report, £100 voucher for bus travel/cycle equipment to be given to each occupant (calculated as £100 per bedroom), condition (9) amended to state that agreed off-site highway works be implemented prior to the occupation of the 1st dwelling, and a Travel Plan to be included in a Section 106 Agreement.