Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary Interests (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)           Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the meeting while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

10 am – Greystone, Bannister Hill, Borden, ME9 8HU  

The Chairman welcomed Members, the Agent, the Applicant, a representative from Borden Parish Council and members of the public to the meeting.

The Area Planning Officer gave an overview of the application and explained that the site was approximately one quarter of a hectare in size and was sited within the built-up area of Borden as defined within the Local Plan.  The application was for the demolition of the existing property and the erection of two five-bedroom dwellings.  The site was just outside the boundary of the Harman’s Corner Conservation Area.  The Area Planning Officer explained that Borden Parish Council and Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation had not commented on the application.  Revised drawings had been received and these had also been consulted upon.

The Area Planning Officer outlined the comments received on the application, as noted in the report which was submitted to the Planning Committee on 11 November 2021.  He said the application was in-line with planning policies, it was not considered to be a high density scheme, there was adequate parking, and was not harmful to the setting of the Conservation Area.  A consultant was carrying out a detailed highway assessment in terms of the turning circles and visibility splays and more information about the findings would be submitted to the Planning Committee meeting on 9 December 2021.

A representative from Borden Parish Council sought confirmation on there being no comments from KCC Highway’s & Transportation, and on the visibility splays. He stressed their importance on this section of the road as there were many instances of speeding vehicles.

In response, the Area Planning Officer explained that KCC Highways & Transportation chose not to comment on a low-level application, such as this one as it was below their threshold. He added that they did not usually comment on an increased use of an existing access. The Area Planning Officer explained that 20 metre sight lines on the left hand side of the access and 30 metres to the right hand side might not be achievable, and this would be confirmed at Planning Committee on 9 December 2021.

Local residents were invited to speak and the following comments were made:

·         There were regular traffic accidents on this section of the road;

·         one of the proposed dwellings was very close to the neighbouring properties;

·         the site was elevated and this caused overshadowing;

·         loss of light, especially the loss of afternoon sun to the neighbouring properties;

·         these two new properties were ‘crammed’ onto this unsuitable site;

·         the development was harmful to local amenity;

·         this cluster of houses did not match the neighbouring area;

·         problem of overlooking;

·         this was a dangerous road, often used by large vehicles;

·         this was over-development;

·         the proposed development did not suit the location and it was too high density;

·         the bank aligning the road often collapsed - the trees that had been removed had helped stabilise the land;

·         problem with water run-off and drains incapable of collecting any more water;

·         debris frequently blocked the drains;

·         it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 449.