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 16 January 2025 (Minute Nos. to-follow) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 January 2025 (Minute 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.

Councillor Charles Gibson declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 2.1 22/503389/FULL Western Works, Front Brents, Faversham as he had spoken and voted on the item when it was considered by Faversham Town Council.  Councillor Gibson did not speak or vote on this item.

To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 January 2025 (Minute Nos. 528 - 530) and Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 January 2025 (Minute Nos. 531 – 533).

The Minutes of the Meetings held on 7 January 2025 (Minute Nos. 528 – 530) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record, subject to the inclusion of Councillor Tony Winckless as being in attendance for the 20/505877/OUTBrogdale Farm, Brogdale Road, Ospringe application.

The Minutes of the Meetings held on 10 January 2025 (Minute Nos. 531  533) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record, subject to the inclusion of apologies from Councillor Karen Watson for the 23/505678/FULL Land West of Warden Road, Eastchurch application.

Tabled updates from Ospringe Parish Council published 6 February 2025.

The Planning Consultant referred to two points raised at the site meeting.  The first point related to an application for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for the two trees either side of the existing entrance.  The Planning Consultant reported that the Council’s Tree Officer was of the view that the trees were prominent, healthy and worthy of protection, but as they would not be affected by the application so not under imminent threat, the TPO would be cautionary and not a high priority.  The second point related to the history of noise complaints regarding existing businesses at Brogdale Farm, Faversham.  The Planning Consultant reported that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that no recent complaints had been received for this site.  There were two historical noise complaints from 2009 and 2015 in relation to the Butchers at Brogdale Farm, however they had both been resolved, and no statutory notices were served in relation to noise nuisance.  Planning enforcement records showed that several enforcement cases were opened between 2009 and 2018 mostly relating to noise and lighting, including some associated with the butchers.  However, no enforcement notices were served, and no new investigations had been opened since.

The Planning Consultant stated that the application would be subject to separate planning conditions to control its hours of use and lighting.  The proposed workshop units would be restricted to Use Classes Eg(ii) and Eg (iii) which were uses that could be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area.

The Planning Consultant drew attention to the additional traffic data provided by Ospringe Parish Council which was tabled for Members. 

At this point the Chair adjourned the meeting to allow Members time to read the tabled papers.

The Planning Consultant summarised the additional traffic data from Ospringe Parish Council which included data from two separate speed watch sessions on 7 January 2025 and 4 February 2025 for a one-hour period in each session.  The results indicated the number of vehicles recorded passing the survey position and those that were travelling above 35 mph, along with the top speed recorded.  However, no methodology of this process had been provided or evidence of the qualifications of those carrying out the survey.  There were no details of the type or quality of the equipment used, therefore officers could not verify that the data provided was accurate and would advise against relying on the data over that provided in the Transport Statement.  Section 3.5 of the Transport Statement set out that two automatic transport  ...  view the full minutes text for item 633.

The Senior Planner introduced the application as set out in the report.  Following a request for clarification on the siting of the development, the Senior Planner showed Members the site plan for the original permission prior to demolition, the site plan for application 20/500367/FULL and the proposed site plan.  He said that in his opinion the development was on the original site.

The Chair noted there were some ‘indents’ on the lines of the diagram on the south side of the current site plan, which the Senior Planner confirmed were present.  The Chair raised concern that this might allow the applicant to build a larger development and asked that Members considered that when making a decision.

Shazli Hafeez, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

The Chair invited comments from Members and points raised included:

·         Raised concern that the proposed development and guttering was too close to the adjoining property, Pine Lodge Care Home;

·         noted at the site meeting that the original ground level had not been ‘built-up’.  It should have been ‘dug-down’ but had not been resulting in the building being higher than the original demolished building;

·         understood concerns that the new building overhung the neighbouring Pine Lodge, however Members had to consider the submitted site plan, the boundary issues were a private matter between the landowners;

·         what was the correct site boundary outline?

·         if Members considered the height of the building was ‘imposing’, Members could refuse the application;

·         aware that Pine Lodge had extended their property very close to the application site, and that any potential boundary overhang and should have been dealt with at that time.  Therefore the overhang was not necessarily the fault of the applicants;

·         considered that concerns raised about the boundary lines on the site plans were simply due to their scale, if made larger the lines would appear straighter;

·         the additional metre in height of the building was quite imposing when viewed from the gardens in Cherryfields; and

·         the correction in height should have been picked-up by Building Control.

In response, the Team Leader (Planning Applications) said that as this was a Section 73 application the boundary was fixed by the ‘parent’ planning permission.  He confirmed that boundary disputes were a private matter.

Resolved:  That application 24/502378/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

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

Shazli Hafeez, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

The Chair invited comments from Members, and points raised included:

·         The development was not being built to the correct building regulation standards;

·         noted at the site meeting that the insulation was inadequate and the dispensation to reduce the 50% Dwelling Emission Rate would be beneficial on a dwelling that would not comply as it was;

·         the Council had refused similar applications and lost on appeal; and

·         the applicant should consider the installation of a cloud server point to provide hot water and heating to the property.  Suggested this also be considered by officers for future applications.

Resolved:  That application 24/502460/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

The Planning Consultant introduced the application as set out in the report.  He reported that when the application had been considered by the Committee at their meeting on 5 December 2024, some of the images of materials to be used had inaccurately represented some of the colours, and the applicant had submitted some revised imagery which he displayed for Members.

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

Parish Councillor Mike Brown, representing Eastchurch Parish Council, spoke against the application.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

The Chair invited Members to raise points, and comments included:

·         Noted that the 30-mph speed limit would be extended and red markings installed to slow traffic down;

·         supported the application and the affordable housing it would provide;

·         the site did not lie within open countryside as there was already housing on the other side of the road;

·         there were no grounds to refuse the application;

·         sought clarification that the proposed 30-mph sign would be conditioned;

·         noted that the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) had commented that the affordable housing could not be guaranteed;

·         considered Plough Road was a busy road but a safe road;

·         Plough Road was used like a racetrack during weekends in the Summer;

·         Eastchurch was a historical village, and the proposed flats were not in-keeping;

·         there were no footpaths, and it was not in a sustainable location;

·         the design and orientation of the dwellings was poor in terms of opportunities to install solar panels;

·         KCC Highways & Transportation raised no objection to the application;

·         affordable housing was required across the borough;

·         there was a clear need for affordable housing on the Isle of Sheppey;

·         the Council had declared an affordable housing emergency, which lent support to the application;

·         considered biodiversity was very ‘loose’ and asked that Moat Homes provided several swift boxes on each dwelling rather than one per dwelling;

·         there were no planning grounds to refuse the application;

·         most properties were built on an area which was previously ‘open space’;

·         what was meant by two and a half storey?; and

·         referred to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) contribution set out under paragraph 7.111 on page 142 of the report and said it should be solely for facilities on the Isle of Sheppey, not in ‘Swale District’ as stated.

In response, the Planning Consultant reported that with regard to the 30-mph sign, a condition would be imposed requiring the applicant to seek a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for an extended speed restriction on Warden Road with KCC Highways & Transportation.  As the Homes England grant was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 636.

Tabled update published 6 February 2025.

PART 2

Applications for which PERMISSION is recommended

The Chair allowed Members time to read the tabled update which included the additional comments of the Faversham Community Land Trust and the officer response.  It also suggested the addition of a Conservation Management condition.  The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  

Steve Atkins from The Faversham Community Land Trust, an Objector, spoke against the application.

Town Councillor Charles Gibson, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

The Chair asked what the position was in relation to the adopted Faversham Neighbourhood Plan (NP), December 2024 against planning applications yet to be determined?  The Team Leader (Planning Applications) explained that whilst this application had been submitted in 2022, officers had still carefully assessed it against the policies contained within the adopted Faversham NP and made a balanced view on the benefits and disbenefits. 

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to grant planning permission as per the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Tony Winckless.

The Chair invited comments from Members, and points raised included:

·         Safety concerns in respect of visibility onto Front Brents due to the sharp bend in the road;

·         referred to paragraph 5.2 and 5.3 on page 180 of the report and concerns regarding surface water near the creek;

·         requested clarification that it was a minor development;

·         referred to paragraph 7.5.5 on page 190 of the report and KCC Highways & Transportation confirmed the proposed nine dwellings would generate less vehicle movements than the existing use;

·         poor design;

·         as this had been identified as a residential site under the adopted Faversham NP, was this underutilisation of a resource?;

·         the application was contrary to the spirit and to Policies Fav 3, Fav 7, Fav 8, Fav 11, Fav 10 and Fav 23 of the adopted Faversham NP; and

·         made more sense to have development for the whole site.

In response the Senior Planning Officer clarified that the site area fell below the one- hectare requirement for affordable housing contributions.  The national definition was 1 hectare or 0.5 hectares and the number of dwellings proposed was unknown.  This application proposed nine dwellings which did not meet the trigger for affordable housing contributions.

With regard to whether it was an underutilisation of a resource, the Team Leader (Planning Applications) said officers had considered the historic sensitivity of the site.  They had taken into account the comments from the Council’s Heritage Officer about reducing the density and had responded sufficiently  more sympathetically to the context.

In response to a question from a Member, about why it had taken so long for the application to be considered, the Planning Manager (Planning Applications) explained there had been several  ...  view the full minutes text for item 637.

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 – Land north of Lower Road, Eastchurch ME12 4DE

PINS Decision: APPEAL ALLOWED

Committee or Officer Decision : COMMITTEE REFUSAL

Item 5.2 – Land to the North of Lower Road, Teynham, Kent ME9 9EQ

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

Item 5.3 – Pear Tree House, Otterham Quay Lane, Upchurch, Kent ME8 8QW

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

Item 5.4 – Thompson Hall, St Michaels Road, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 3DN

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Item 5.5 – Cherrymere, Keycol Hill, Bobbing, Kent ME9 7LG

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Committee or Officer Decision : DELEGATED REFUSAL

The meeting was adjourned from 8.20 pm until 8.30 pm, from 9.20 pm until 9.22 pm and from 10.04 pm until 10.17 pm.

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