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 Meetings held on 11 April 2024 (Minute Nos. 817 - 830) and 15 May 2024 (Minute Nos. to-follow) as correct records.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 April 2024 (Minute Nos. 817 – 830) 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.

Councillor Ben J Martin declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of item 4.1 23/503228/FULL Cockleshell Walk Car Park, Sittingbourne as he had previously sat on the Swale Rainbow Homes Board.  Councillor Martin left the meeting whilst this item was discussed.

Tabled update published 22.05.24.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  He drew attention to the tabled update from Teynham Parish Council which had been emailed to Members and added to the website.  The Planning Consultant reported that one additional objection had been received raising concerns about foul water drainage.

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

Julian Moat, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Louise Smith, an objector, spoke against the application.

Parish Councillor Paul Townson, representing Teynham Parish Council, spoke against the application.

The Ward Members spoke against the application and raised points which included:

·         Residents felt let down by the application;

·         felt the applicants were “cherry-picking” what they wanted to develop;

·         this did not comply with paragraph 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·         contrary to Policy MU4 and the S106 legal agreement in relation to phasing;

·         concerned that the employment space and health facility would not be delivered;

·         the agent was not interested in providing a GP surgery;

·         no housing should be approved until there were “concrete” plans for a GP surgery;

·         the proposed mitigation measures in respect of traffic were not adequate;

·         this would lead to an additional detrimental impact on current air quality issues;

·         this would exacerbate issues with the already poor sewerage system;

·         the proposed scale of the application was poor and over intensive for the area;

·         this would exacerbate existing on-street parking issues;

·         the application was not providing sports facilities just replacing what was already there; and

·         the site had been earmarked for development for a long time, but this application added nothing to the village and was not good for existing residents.

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

·         The provision of the GP surgery was key to sustainable development;

·         had a housing needs assessment been carried out?;

·         Would not improve air quality in the area and would be ‘storing-up’ health problems for the future;

·         where would the new residents go for health and dentistry care?;

·         where would the access to the site be if the employment area was built?

·         the proposed 25 year community asset was not adequate and should be increased;

·         the Parish Council should to establish a Neighbourhood Plan as they would benefit from a policy basis to support their views;

·         welcomed the 33% affordable housing proposed;

·         considered the design proposed was good; and

·         if refused the Council would not win at any subsequent appeal.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Consultant said that if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  He referred to the tabled update which provided further comments from Newington Parish Council and had been emailed to Members and added to the website.

Peter Court, 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. 

A Ward Member stated that whilst he acknowledged there was a need for a permanent agricultural dwelling, he considered there could be a suitable building within the farm curtilage that could be converted.  He said that the current application could impact the setting of the nearby church.

Resolved:  That application 23/504502/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (19) in the report.

Tabled update published 22.05.24.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  He referred to the tabled update which had been emailed to Members and added to the website.

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

Resolved:  That application 23/504707/HYBRID be approved subject to conditions (1) to (49) in the report.

The Chair reported that Milstead Parish Council had withdrawn their objection to the application, and Members agreed that the item be withdrawn from the agenda.

The Chair reported that Milstead Parish Council had withdrawn their objection to the application, and Members agreed that the item be withdrawn from the agenda.

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda on 16 May 2024.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda pending neighbour consultation responses.

The Area Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report. 

Kevin Vann, an Objector, spoke against the application.

In response to a question from the Chair regarding imposing a condition requiring that two staff members be on-duty at night, the Area Planning Officer stated that this would be regulated by Ofsted.

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

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

·         Disappointed that neither of the two Councillors that had called-in the application were present at the meeting to explain their concerns;

·         could solar panels be required via condition?;

·         this application was no different to families that took in foster children so would not be an issue;

·         children needed a home;

·         whoever lived at the property would require a vehicle so it would not be possible to refuse due to additional traffic concerns;

·         what was the age range of the surrounding neighbours?;

·         would the size of the garden be able to accommodate three children?;

·         the age range of neighbours was not a material planning consideration;

·         many families had small gardens; and

·         considered the fear of crime objection to be a very prejudiced view.

The Chair moved the following amendment:  That a condition be imposed requiring that two members of staff remained on the site at all times.  This was seconded by Councillor Lloyd Bowen.  On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.

Resolved:  That application 24/500940/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (4) in the report.

Tabled update published on 22 May 2024.

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 Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  He reported that one further objection had been received from a neighbouring resident raising concerns in relation to inadequate car parking, the height of the development and impacts on daylight and privacy. 

Damian Milton, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Ward Member spoke against the application.

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

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

·         Considered the design and proposed colour of the buildings were “ugly”;

·         the gap between the building and the road was small, could a barrier be erected to improve safety?;

·         the benefits of the application outweighed any harm;

·         this was a significant improvement on the previous application;

·         the lack of car parking was a concern;

·         concerned about how delivery vehicles would access the rear entrance;

·         concerned that no disabled parking bays were provided;

·         social housing was much needed in the borough; and

·         concerned that if Rainbow Homes were not a registered provider the site might not be used to provide social housing.

In response to a question, the Planning Consultant said that deliveries to the site was a management issue for the applicants and difficult to control from a planning point of view. 

The Chair moved the following amendment:  That an additional condition be imposed requiring the imposition of one disabled parking space.  This was seconded by the Vice-Chair.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 23/503228/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (36) in the report and that an additional condition be imposed requiring the imposition of one disabled parking space.

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

PART 5

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

• Item 5.1 – Hill Crest, Dully Hill, Doddington

APPEAL ALLOWED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.3 – Queens Hall Car Park Forbes Road Faversham

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.4 – 4 Oast Cottages Breach Lane Upchurch

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

• Item 5.5 – Eastfields Old House Lane Hartlip

APPEAL DISMISSED

DELEGATED REFUSAL

To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following item:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3.

3.    Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). See note below.

There was no discussion on the exempt report for item 2.2 23/504502/FULL Woodland Farm, High Oak Hill, Iwade Road, Newington, and as such it was not necessary to exclude the press and public.

There was no discussion on the exempt report.

The meeting was adjourned at 7.10 pm until 7.40 pm and at 9.10 pm until 9.20 pm.

At 10 pm Members agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders in order that the Committee could complete its business.