Councillor Elliott Jayes (Vice-Chair) took the chair for this meeting and would be referred to as ‘Chair’ for the remainder of these minutes.

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 6 February 2025 (Minute Nos. 629 – 640) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 February 2025 (Minute Nos. 629 – 640) 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.

Tabled Papers added 6 March 2025

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report.  He drew attention to the four tabled papers which comprised of:  representations from a local resident; representation from consultants acting on behalf of Tesco Stores Limited; response from consultants, acting on behalf of Lidl Great Britain Ltd, to Tesco’s comments; and a statement from Queenborough Town Council.  The Chair adjourned the meeting at this point to allow Members time to read the tabled papers.

Adam Forsdick, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

A visiting Ward Member spoke in support of the application.

A visiting 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 Councillor Tony Winckless.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Considered this to be well-designed project which would enhance the site;

·         had safety concerns with traffic turning right out of the site and suggested a condition be added so that it was ‘turn left only’;

·         welcomed the addition of improved footways for pedestrian access;

·         this was the right scheme for this site;

·         referring to page 10 of the report, concerned as to whether the reasoning set out was sound and the application really could go ahead as proposed;

·         referring to comments from Queenborough Town Council, it was factually incorrect that KCC axed bus routes;

·         considered the application offered both residents and visitors more choice on where they shopped; and

·         welcome the job opportunities from the scheme.

In response to the comments relating to the access, the Chair reminded Members that Kent County Council (KCC) Highways & Transportation had reviewed the application and had no objections to it.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) confirmed that the report had been reviewed with external legal input and officers were satisfied that it was sound.

Resolved:  That application 22/504598/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

Tabled Paper added 6 March 2025

The Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.  He drew attention to the tabled paper which reported that four additional representations had been received since the report was published.  They all raised noise objections to the application.  The Planning Officer referred to the report which addressed this issue (paragraph 7.6.7).

Town Councillor Trevor Martin, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

Antony Hook, an objector, spoke against the application.

Jackie Ford, the Agent, 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 Councillor Terry Thompson.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         Acknowledged that the proposal would enable a wider provision of EV charging points, but recognised the potential negative impacts of the charging points and the additional traffic it would bring, with associated noise and the impact on residential amenity;

·         suggested canopies be added (they had been removed by the applicant) as they could reduce the impacts of light and noise pollution;

·         clarification sought on the charge feeds of the rapid chargers;

·         it was good to have some EV competition at this location;

·         concerned with light pollution;

·         there would be an impact on the A2 as additional vehicles visited this location to charge their vehicles, and slow moving traffic would increase emissions from petrol and diesel traffic on the route;

·         considered the proposal would have an impact on the quality of life of the residents who lived near the petrol station; and

·         trees were good sound barriers to mitigate the associated noise from those using the chargers.

In response, the Planning Officer explained that the style of the canopies that had been proposed originally were not likely to address any noise issues.  They had been removed as the Conservation Officer had considered they were too visible.  The Planning Officer referred to the noise assessment report and said that if all the charge units were being used at the same time, the maximum noise level would be 42 decibels, whereas the average background noise was 44 decibels.  He explained that the charging time was 15 – 30 minutes.  In response to light pollution concerns, the Planning Officer said the applicant had submitted a light report and he confirmed that the lighting would be down-lit and would not extend beyond the boundary of the site.

Resolved:  That application 23/505043/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

The Planning Manager (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report.  He said a letter had been received from the Faversham Community Land Trust who had suggested an alternative housing mix, with a preference for more affordable homes.  He said whilst the dwelling size mix had changed, the total remained the same, but now there were more 3-bedroom properties and less 4-bedroom properties.

Town Councillor Trevor Martin, representing Faversham Town Council, spoke against the application.

Jo Hanslip, the Agent, 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 Councillor Hayden Brawn.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·         The affordable housing mix should be more in line with the Faversham Neighbourhood Plan which was more up-to-date than the Local Plan;

·         disappointed that only 11 registered providers had been contacted;

·         considered a mix with 1/2 bedroom properties would be better;

·         the developer appeared to be going back on what they had agreed;

·         the developers were still offering quite a lot on this development; and

·         suggested the application be deferred;

Councillor Tony Winckless moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to enable the developer to seek more registered providers.  This was seconded by Councillor Ben J Martin.

Members spoke on the motion to defer the application, and the following comments were made:

·         Suggested all registered suppliers in Faversham and the east of the Borough be contacted; and

·         clarification sought on the timeline if the application was deferred and any implications of this.

In response, the Planning Manager said that following any talks with the developer and registered providers, the application could return to the Planning Committee quickly, but that there was a risk of non-determination.  The Planning Manager explained that the mix of housing was a reflection of talks between the developer and officers, and he considered the resulting mix to be a very good compromise which officers supported.

The Senior Lawyer (Planning) gave advice to the Planning Committee.  He said that an application could be deferred for further information, but not to get the applicant to do something else, and so other reasons were needed for the deferment.

Further comments included:

·         Concerned that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 734.

The Team Leader (Planning Applications) introduced the application as set out in the report.

Parish Councillor Moakes, representing Boughton under Blean Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Cherry Baillie, the Agent, 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 Councillor Hayden Brawn.

Resolved:  That application 24/503858/FULL be granted as per the recommendation in the report.

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 – 31 Brecon Chase, Minster on Sea ME12 2HX

Committee or Officer Decision: DELEGATED REFUSAL

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Item 5.2 – Digswell, Lower Hartlip Road, Hartlip, Kent ME9 7SX

Committee or Officer Decision: DELEGATED REFUSAL

PINS Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED

Members welcomed the results and congratulated officers.

The meeting was adjourned from 7.07 pm until 7.17 pm and from 8.11 pm until 8.18 pm.