Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 8 February 2024 (Minute Nos. 550 - 558) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 January 2024 (Minutes Nos. 550 – 558) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Chair drew attention to the comments from Rodmersham Parish Council raising objection to the application, which were tabled for Members as the scheduled Parish Council speaker was unfortunately unable to attend.  The Chair adjourned the meeting for three minutes to allow Members to read the comments.

The Area Planning Team Leader introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.  In response to the tabled comments from the Parish Council, he reminded Members that their concerns in respect of fire safety were not a planning matter in this case and referred to paragraph 6.11 of the report.  Concerns regarding visual amenity and impact on the streetscene were covered under paragraphs 6.6 to 6.8 of the report. 

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

In response to a point raised by the Ward Member, the Area Planning Team Leader said that he had checked the website prior to the meeting, and the letter from Building Control was publicly available on the planning portal and referred to building regulations on oil tanks and where they should be sited for fire safety reasons.

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

The Chair invited Members to comment on the application and points raised included:

·         Had sympathy with the application as many households in Kent needed this type of fuel to heat their homes;

·         being retrospective was not grounds to refuse the application;

·         considered it was a ‘reasonable’ application;

·         concerned that fencing would lead to the tank being vandalised, and considered a hedge would look better;

·         the neighbouring properties raised no objection; and

·         was not a prominent structure.

In response to points raised the Area Planning Team Leader said they could impose a further condition requiring a scheme of supplementary landscaping being provided to screen the oil tank.  They could also add an informative setting out that the tank be encased with a non-combustible material.  These amendments were agreed by Members.

Resolved:  That application 23/503984/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) and (2) in the report and the imposition of an additional condition requiring a scheme of supplementary landscaping to screen the oil tank and an additional informative setting out that the oil tank be encased with a non-combustible material.   

The Planner introduced the application as set out in the report.

Parish Councillor Jeff Tutt, representing Dunkirk Parish Council, spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth. 

The Chair invited Members to make comments and points raised included:

·         Whilst it was a retrospective application, that was not grounds to refuse it;

·         familiar with the area and there was a lot of on-street parking and did not consider lack of parking was an issue;

·         supported the application; and

·         there were no grounds to refuse the application;

·         concerned that given the layout of current parking at Manor House any visitors to the overnight holiday let would need to park on the street.

In response to a question form the Chair, the Area Planning Team Leader said there was no evidence to support whether the cul-de-sac was an adopted road. 

Resolved:  That application 23/503564/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (6) in the report.

The Planning Consultant introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.

Christine Dadswell, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

The ward Members, also Members of the Planning Committee spoke against the application and raised points which included:

·         Concerned that existing residents would be displaced;

·         the site had been derelict for over a decade and concerned the current proposal would see demolition of houses (with associated displacement of residents) and still remain undeveloped;

·         the area was susceptible to flooding and the proposal would worsen the situation;

·         the application would exacerbate existing foul water drainage issues in the area;

·         the additional traffic from the development would worsen congestion in the area;

·         27 more dwellings in the area would exacerbate issues in general;

·         the access and egress from the site was unsafe; and

·         considered that given the complexities of the site members should view it before making a decision on the application.

Councillor Simon Clark moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.  This was seconded by the Chair.

Members considered the motion for a site meeting and points raised included:

·         The site visit would allow Members to view the level changes;

·         As Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation raised no objection could not support a site meeting on highway grounds;

·         given the size of the site a more sustainable build could be provided and supported a site meeting;

·         clear it was a complex site and the site meeting may help to resolve some of the issues raised; and

·         supported the site meeting and the opportunity to view the site and considered not enough parking spaces were being provided.

On being put to the vote the motion was approved.

A Ward Member asked that an officer from KCC Highways and Transportation be invited to attend the site meeting.

Resolved:  That application 23/502365/FULL be deferred to allow the Planning Working Group to meet on site.

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

PART 5

Decisions by the County Council and Secretary of State reported for information.

·                Item 5.1 – 201 Queenborough Road Halfway

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.2 – 32 Linden Drive and 67 Queens Way Sheerness

APPEAL DISMISSED

NON-DETERMINATION

·                Item 5.3 – St Saviours Church Whitstable Road Faversham

APPEAL ALLOWED

APPEAL AGAINST CONDITION

·                Item 5.4 – Hole Street Farm Kingsdown Road Lynsted

APPEAL ALLOWED

·                Item 5.5 – 124 East Street Sittingbourne

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.6 – Land South of Lees Court Rd Stocks Paddock Sheldwich

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.7 – Co-Op Sports & Social Club St George’s Ave Sheerness

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

·                Item 5.8 – Land To The North Of Elm Lane Minster

APPEAL ALLOWED AND COSTS AWARDED AGAINST THE COUNCIL

NON-DETERMINATION

A Member encouraged new Members to read the Inspector’s commentary on the decision for training purposes.  Another Member said Members would find the terminology used by the Inspector helpful when providing reasons for refusing applications.

The meeting was adjourned at 8.06 pm until 8.09 pm.