PART 1

Any other reports to be considered in the public session

This application was considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday 12 November 2020.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

This application was considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday 12 November 2020.

This application was considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on 12 November 2020.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application and reported that, as set-out in the deferred item, a Ward Member had raised a number of queries.  With regard to this specific application, he also queried the lack of parking spaces for each chalet.  The Area Planning Officer advised that the existing chalets did not have their own parking spaces, with parking taking place informally adjacent to the access road, or in the communal parking area elsewhere at the site. On the basis that the proposed units here would replace existing chalets (albeit that they would be slightly larger) and as this was a private holiday site rather than a residential street, the Area Planning Officer considered it would be very difficult to justify the refusal of planning permission on highways grounds.  The chalets were a significant distance from the highway and provision of parking between the highway and the chalets meant it was most unlikely that any parking would take place on the public highway.

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 the following points were made:

·         Agreed with the officer recommendation for approval, however given that we were seeking to refuse a similar application at the same site at deferred item 1 of the agenda, did not see how we could now approve this application;

·         should refuse the application for the suggested reasons provided by Members for deferred item 1; and

·         not happy that the application had been submitted on a piece-meal basis. 

In response to a query from the Planning Team Manager (Mid-Kent Legal), the Area Planning Officer stated the applicant was not replacing the chalets like-for-like, the footprint of the new chalets was larger, but the application was supported by the Council’s Local Plan.

On being put to the vote the Chairman announced that the vote was tied, so he used his casting vote and the motion to approve the application was lost.

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 would be deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Committee when the Head of Planning Services would advise Members of the prospects of such a decision if challenged on appeal and if it becomes the subject for costs.

This application was considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday 12 November 2020.

This application was considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday 12 November 2020.

This application was considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday 12 November 2020.

This application was considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday 12 November 2020.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and drew attention to the two tabled updates which had previously been emailed to Members and added to the website.  The updates related to, off-site highway works, further objections received, and amendments to the retail conditions in the report.  The Senior Planning Officer reported that a letter had been received from the Lower Medway Internal Drainage Board (LMIDB) reiterating that they had no objections as set-out in paragraph 6.11 of the report.  The LMIDB also stated that separate to the planning application, consents were required under the Local Land Drainage Act 1991, and they recommended that the applicant sought that consent prior to determination of this application.  The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to paragraph 8.75 of the report which set-out that drainage consent was a separate process and that it was entirely the applicants decision whether they pursued the drainage consents prior to or post planning permission.  The Senior Planning Officer concluded that he did not believe the comments impacted on the proposal and reiterated the lack of objection from the drainage board.  The Senior Planning Officer sought delegation to approve the application subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the tabled update dated 12 November 2020.

Mr Alastair Close, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Ward Members spoke in support of the application and made comments which included: supported the application and welcomed the economic benefits it would bring to Queenborough; welcomed the improved design; disappointed that Aldi would be closing the Sheerness store; better designed and more in-keeping than a previous scheme; Aldi had engaged with the local community; disappointed that KCC Highways and Transportation had gone back on their decision to extend the pedestrian/cycle route from Cowstead Corner to Queenborough Corner, as access was one of Queenborough Town Council’s concerns; disappointed that no officer from KCC Highways and Transportation was in attendance; disappointed that nobody from Queenborough Town Council was present to speak; it would create better shopping facilities for people on the Isle of Sheppey; and it would create more jobs.

Members were invited to debate the application and points made included:

·         Very good design;

·         concerned that the access to the loading bay was difficult requiring a blind side reverse and urged the agent to look into this issue in respect of any future applications;

·         why had KCC Highways and Transportation gone back on their decision to provide a crossing to Neats Court?;

·         unhappy that the pedestrian and cycle access was not now being provided;

·         condition (17) in the report needed to be amended so that landscaping was provided earlier than 12 months after development;

·         not providing the pedestrian and cycle path went against the Council’s policies DM14 and DM6 and KCC needed to be pushed to ensure it was provided;

·         the nearest bus-stop was a long way from the site;

·         concerned that there was no safe pedestrian access across the A249 to the site;

·         this was a significant supermarket outside of the town centre so pedestrian access was crucial;

·         it was the developer’s responsibility to fund the pedestrian and cycle access;

·         suggested the application be deferred to allow officers to liaise with KCC Highways to address the highway issues.

·         referred to Policy DM2 sub paragraph 1 in paragraph 4.4 of the report and stated that as the development was out of centre the Council should push for a pedestrian and cycle route;

·         there should be a pedestrian link to the Neats Court development;

·         concerned that there would be no safe access across the A249;

·         aware of Government funding for provision of pedestrian and cycle footpath;

·         important not to lose sight of the economic benefits of the application; and

·         needed either a Section 278 agreement or Section 106 agreement between KCC and the developer to secure the cycle and pedestrian route which should be delegated to officers to achieve.

In response to queries from Members, the Senior Planning Officer explained that prior to the application being submitted there had been a request made for a pedestrian crossing from the Neats Court site to this site, however Highways England had said they would not support that for safety reasons.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that in respect of the pedestrian and cycle footpath, KCC Highways and Transportation had initially stated that they had costed a scheme for a route from Cowstead Corner to Queenborough Corner at a cost of approximately £132,000 which the developer agreed to fund via a Section 106 Agreement.  However, it was understood that the initial costing of £132,000 was ‘optimistic’, and the pedestrian/cycle route now proposed, which did not run the full length of Queenborough Road from Cowstead Corner to Queenborough Corner would on its own cost comfortably more than the originally stated figure.  KCC Highways and Transportation had confirmed that they would prefer the applicant to carry out the works to provide the scheme via a Section 278 Agreement. 

In response to further queries from a Member, the Senior Planning Officer reported that with regard to the pedestrian and cycle route, it was worth noting that adjacent parcels of land were also allocated for employment uses within the Development Plan.  He further reported that KCC Highways and Transportation had indicated that for any applications coming forward upon those plots, the developer would be required to provide the footpath alongside their section of land, so in time there was potential that the footpath and cycle path would be achieved.  With regard to condition (17), the Senior Planning Officer suggested amending the wording so that landscaping be commenced during the first suitable planting season if Members had concerns regarding timings. 

Councillor Elliott Jayes moved a motion to defer the application to allow officers time to discuss highway issues with KCC Highways and Transportation.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.

In response to a query from a Member, the Planning Team Leader (Mid-Kent Legal) explained the differences between a Section 278 agreement and Section 106 agreement.  He stated that Section 278 agreements related to carrying-out work to a highway and could either be carried out by the developer at their expense or KCC at the developer’s expense.  Section 106 agreements were to mitigate the impact of development by making a contribution to the costs of those works.  It was considered by some Members that a Section 278 agreement was required to provide the pedestrian/cycle route.

A Member asked that the following be included in any deferral:  look at provision of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points; installation of solar panels; and consider recycling heat from the freezers if not included as part of the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating.  A Member referred to condition (13) of the report which related to the provision of 15 EV charging points.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to paragraphs 8.77 to 8.80 on pages 299 to 300 of the report which stated that the development would be meeting the requirements of Policy DM19 of the Council’s Local Plan and achieve a BREEAM ‘very good’ rating. 

A Member requested that the applicant look at providing suitable space for HGV access onto the loading bays as part of the deferral.  A Member asked that a footpath to Neats Court also be included.

A visiting Ward Member raised concern that Members did not lose sight of the economic benefits and positive regeneration of Queenborough which the application provided.  

In response to a question from a Member, the Senior Planning Officer stated that if the application was deferred and matters between all parties agreed to condition requiring the pedestrian/cycle route could be imposed to achieve this.

The Head of Planning Services asked Members if they would be happy to delegate the application to officers in consultation with the Planning Chairman and Ward Members rather than deferring the application.  Ward Members said that they would be happy with that approach.  A Member asked that the delegation include exploring a route from the application site to the existing retail area at Neats Court.  The Head of Planning Services stated that he would be happy to include this.

The motion to defer the application was withdrawn by the proposer and seconder of that motion.

The Chairman moved the following addendum:  That the application be delegated to officers to approve subject to agreement with Ward Members and Chair of Planning Committee, regarding a footpath/cycle route from Cowstead Corner to Queenborough Corner; and a route from the application site to the existing retail area at Neats Court.  This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney.  On being put to the vote the addendum was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 19/502969/FULL be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (35) in the report as amended by the tabled update dated 12 November 2020; and subject to agreement with Ward Members and Chair of Planning Committee regarding a footpath/cycle route from Cowstead Corner to Queenborough Corner; and a route from the application site to the existing retail area at Neats Court and enter into the requisite agreement or secure an appropriate condition as necessary.

The Planner introduced the application and drew attention to the tabled update and amended financial viability appraisal from the Council’s Independent Financial consultant which had both been previously emailed to Members and published on the Council’s website.  The Planner explained that the updated financial viability appraisal concluded that the 10% uplift over the building regulation standard for energy efficiency would be achieved by condition (13) of the report.  The Planner stated that it amounted to a good outcome for the Council, given the marginal viability of the development. 

The Planner drew attention to an error in paragraph 8.07 on page 318 of the report, and stated that it should refer to Appendix II, which was the letter setting out the key financial details, not Appendix B, the applicant’s viability study which was not appended to the report.   The Planner reported that the applicant had queried the wording in condition (8) on page 320 of the report, and delegated authority was sought to replace the condition with an alternative one dealing with surface water drainage, which better reflected the requirements of KCC Drainage.  In particular delegation was sought to impose an updated version of condition (12) on page 330 of the report, but without reference to foul drainage and add reference to the 100 year plus 40% storm.

The Planner concluded that officers were of the opinion that the application should be delegated to officers to approve subject to the amendment to condition (8) as outlined above.

Mr Gavin Ernest, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

The Member who had called-in the application stated that he considered 10% energy efficiency was disappointing and would prefer that car chargers not be fitted to the houses, but that money be used to improve the fabric of the building, making them more energy efficient.  He explained that there were Government grants available if the occupiers of the dwellings wished to install their own EV charging points.  The Member welcomed the affordable housing the applicant would provide.

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

·         Welcomed the affordable housing and disappointed about the 10% energy efficiency but it was about balancing the need for affordable housing;

·         pleased to see the addition of EV charging points on affordable housing; and

·         35 affordable housing units would be greatly appreciated in the area.

Resolved:  That application19/503278/REM be delegated to officers to approve subject to conditions (1) to (18) in the report, and the amendments to conditions (8) and (12) as minuted.

PART 5

Decisions by County Council and Secretary of State, reported for information

• Item 5.1 – Pebble Court Farm Woodgate Lane Borden - 19/506446/PNPA

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.2 – Pebble Court Farm Woodgate Lane Borden - 19/505970/FULL

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

• Item 5.3 – Land on the south east side of Bartletts Close, Halfway

COMMITTEE REFUSAL

APPEAL ALLOWED & COSTS AWARDED

A Member stated that it was a disappointing decision which showed that the lack of a five year housing supply and relying on windfall sites would come “undone” in the end.

Another Member urged Members of the Committee to ensure that they gave good reasons when refusing applications.

• Item 5.4 – 78 Preston Street Faversham

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEALS DISMISSED

The Chairman welcomed the heritage based objections.

• Item 5.5 – 69 Church Road Eastchurch

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

A Member agreed with the officers observations, the decision was not logical.

• Item 5.6 – Bourne Place Stockers Hill Rodmersham

DELEGATED REFUSAL

APPEAL DISMISSED

              A Member welcomed the decision and noted it was a delegated refusal.